Helicopter parents vs sports

[SeeBass]

more examples of the death of men

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by firebug

It's not surprising, that on a website formed to follow the scores and standings of a game that we are not even playing in, most of us here find this recommendation ridiculous.

I think thats a good comment. Just look at some of the "hockey dads" on this site when the Flames lose. Of all the critics, how many here actually still play in an organized league? Competitive league? Again, I'm not saying teams shouldn't have scoreless games or standings, I just think an alternative "pickup" would be pretty advantages. I played organized soccer when I was young until I turned 14, but dropped out because people were getting too serious and it wasn't fun anymore. Honestly, the most fun I had was playing at recess, when I could be Kristen Huselius instead of Rene Bourque. I got back into it when I was 18 and still play now (at 26) and I play 2x's a week in pickup and 1x's a week in a competitive league... I honestly have more fun in pickup.

[Cowboy89]

As much as I believe this is a bunch of BS it's still light years ahead of Ottawa's youth soccer that actually encourages medocrity in effort, and it also applies to all ages.

In yet another nod to the protection of fledgling self-esteem, an Ottawa children’s soccer league has introduced a rule that says any team that wins a game by more than five points will lose by default.
The Gloucester Dragons Recreational Soccer league’s newly implemented edict is intended to dissuade a runaway game in favour of sportsmanship. The rule replaces its five-point mercy regulation, whereby any points scored beyond a five-point differential would not be registered.

Just to make a mockey of this, if I was the coach of the team down by five goals I would encourage my team to generate situations where 'own goals' are more likely occur. I'd lead my team to a first place finish regardless of talent! It would be like the baseball south park episode where the kids are trying to 'win by losing.'


http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/06...a-league-says/

[Traditional_Ale]

^ Whaaaaaaa?

[Phanuthier]

Ok now THAT is stupid

[looooob]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

I think thats a good comment. Just look at some of the "hockey dads" on this site when the Flames lose. Of all the critics, how many here actually still play in an organized league? Competitive league? Again, I'm not saying teams shouldn't have scoreless games or standings, I just think an alternative "pickup" would be pretty advantages. I played organized soccer when I was young until I turned 14, but dropped out because people were getting too serious and it wasn't fun anymore. Honestly, the most fun I had was playing at recess, when I could be Kristen Huselius instead of Rene Bourque. I got back into it when I was 18 and still play now (at 26) and I play 2x's a week in pickup and 1x's a week in a competitive league... I honestly have more fun in pickup.

I think there is room for both though, certainly by the time a kid is 10-12 years old

I can see the value in a more non-competitive league, and why some families and kids would want that. the first 3-4 years of my son playing soccer he was not competitive, never scored once in 3 years, wasn't that interested in the score and I never saw his future playing with the potential to take off and was certainly more than fine with that. I could have pictured him in a rec league forever

then one year he shows up for houseleagues and scores 100 goals (and no they didn't keep score, and yes he knew exactly how many he scored)

I asked him how he improved so much and it turns out (I kind of knew this but not to the degree) that he and his friends have played soccer twice a day every day at recess year round for the last 3 or 4 years

well now he has sort of moved past the non-competitive leagues, and although he still loves the fun that comes from pickup soccer at school he also appreciates the more structured/competitive environment of the soccer league he is in now, I would hope that they don't remove that nature of the competition

it is a bit like hockey for some kids and families grassroots hockey is the way to go, for others more of a competitive stream, I know some families who do both or whose kids bounce back and forth depending on their mindset

I don't think there is anything wrong with prolonging a child's enjoyment in a sport by having those types of leagues, but there are some kids (in my prediction) that are equally likely to drop out or move onto a different sport if the competitive element is not there

[SeoulFire]

In yet another nod to the protection of fledgling self-esteem, an Ottawa children’s soccer league has introduced a rule that says any team that wins a game by more than five points will lose by default.
The Gloucester Dragons Recreational Soccer league’s newly implemented edict is intended to dissuade a runaway game in favour of sportsmanship. The rule replaces its five-point mercy regulation, whereby any points scored beyond a five-point differential would not be registered.

Yeah it is much easier to take when a team gets four up and plays keep-away for the rest of the game. Much better.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by looooob

I think there is room for both though, certainly by the time a kid is 10-12 years old

I can see the value in a more non-competitive league, and why some families and kids would want that. the first 3-4 years of my son playing soccer he was not competitive, never scored once in 3 years, wasn't that interested in the score and I never saw his future playing with the potential to take off and was certainly more than fine with that. I could have pictured him in a rec league forever

then one year he shows up for houseleagues and scores 100 goals (and no they didn't keep score, and yes he knew exactly how many he scored)

I asked him how he improved so much and it turns out (I kind of knew this but not to the degree) that he and his friends have played soccer twice a day every day at recess year round for the last 3 or 4 years

well now he has sort of moved past the non-competitive leagues, and although he still loves the fun that comes from pickup soccer at school he also appreciates the more structured/competitive environment of the soccer league he is in now, I would hope that they don't remove that nature of the competition

it is a bit like hockey for some kids and families grassroots hockey is the way to go, for others more of a competitive stream, I know some families who do both or whose kids bounce back and forth depending on their mindset

I don't think there is anything wrong with prolonging a child's enjoyment in a sport by having those types of leagues, but there are some kids (in my prediction) that are equally likely to drop out or move onto a different sport if the competitive element is not there

Thats a good point. For me, I took a year off last year and joined my current team last fall. I finished off with 12 goals in 9 games and my team was in 3rd place (out of 6) and a losing record. We lost a key defenseman for the winter season, so I got moved into his spot and so far, my team is 9-0 but I don't have a single goal this season with 1 game left in the season. Why? Because I know what it takes to win, and its me playing simple, low percentage plays. In pickup, I score a bucket full of goals. Now, I'm not getting paid or anything in leagues, but to me, the bottom line is wins, not having fun. In pickup, its to have fun and I'll try to be Messi. I think kids should handle the ball as much as possible and work on their skills rather than be the me this season (and focus on wins), but thats not to say there shouldn't be scoreboards and standings... I just think there should be more "pickup" and "fun" games available as an alternative, and the alternative might actually overpopulate the competitive leagues.

[V]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

The reason you play sports is to win. Having fun and doing your best is fine and all, but the point is was and always should be to win.

This is such a stupid comment, and I can't help but envision the psycho hockey parents when I read your comment.

I'm a 32 year old geezer that plays soccer once a week in the bottom tier of the EDSA league. I see some people in this division with your attitude and I think it's hilarious.

I play because I enjoy the game, and I like to make some plays once in a while. I like to make sure I stay in some semblance of shape. I enjoy the camaraderie. I like the beer after the game. And I can barely remember which games we won or lost. It's so far down on the list of objectives for me.

I remember reading some comments from Gretzky talking about his minor hockey experiences, and he mentioned that his coach didn't care about winning, but was far more focused on allowing the kids to test out their creativity. He claims that this style of coaching resulted in better players with a higher opportunity to lead to the NHL. Can't remember exactly where I read this, but I thought it was an interesting point that a lot of people miss out on.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by V

This is such a stupid comment, and I can't help but envision the psycho hockey parents when I read your comment.

I'm a 32 year old geezer that plays soccer once a week in the bottom tier of the EDSA league. I see some people in this division with your attitude and I think it's hilarious.

I play because I enjoy the game, and I like to make some plays once in a while. I like to make sure I stay in some semblance of shape. I enjoy the camaraderie. I like the beer after the game. And I can barely remember which games we won or lost. It's so far down on the list of objectives for me.

I remember reading some comments from Gretzky talking about his minor hockey experiences, and he mentioned that his coach didn't care about winning, but was far more focused on allowing the kids to test out their creativity. He claims that this style of coaching resulted in better players with a higher opportunity to lead to the NHL. Can't remember exactly where I read this, but I thought it was an interesting point that a lot of people miss out on.

Hey man, despite my comment and attitude I'm most certainly not "one of those," you got to keep things in context. But plain and simple the point of playing a sport or game is to win. Without winning and losing it is no longer either of these. It is fundamental (imo) to the experience at all but the earliest levels, most especially in learning to win and lose graciously and in the spirit of good sportsmanship. By the time the kids are old enough that they're keeping score themselves, keep freaking score. If one team blows another out then stop the score board at a certain point, but keep score.

A sport is an organized, competitive, entertaining, and skillful activity requiring commitment, strategy, and fair play, in which a winner can be defined by objective means. It is governed by a set of rules or customs.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

Yeah it is much easier to take when a team gets four up and plays keep-away for the rest of the game. Much better.

Yeah, thats hell.

I think this is stupid. What are they trying to accomplish with this? They're trying to protect certain people's feelings, they're not trying to promote the development of talent or skill in any way, thats just a convenient dodge.

"Practice doesnt make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect."
- Vince Lombardi.

What he attests to with that statement is the fact that in order to develop players to be better players, they have to be training and practicing at the pace that they will see in a game.

So, playing games with no scores diminishes overall drive. Great. You'll have one kid ripping it up and giving it 110% but then little Timmy on defence is picking flowers and staring at the sky because no matter what he does he cant lose...or win, so whats the point in being there at all? For fun? For development? I dont find wasting my time in a goalless endeavour all that enjoyable.

Furher, the kid who was giving it 110% is wasting his time too. Great, he too can neither win, nor lose, but at least hes got a forum in which he can push his development with less pressure, right?

But then the lack of pressure itself hampers development. Its great that one kid is trying, but if Timmy just lets him walk on by without a challenge then one kid hasnt learned to defend and the other kid hasnt learned how to evade pressure from defenders or how to get past defenders. How is this promoting development for anyone? What skills are they learning?

Being able to do something at half pace, or with no pressure on you has absolutely no bearing on anything game related, all it does is leave you unprepared for actual in game scenarios.

[ma-skis.com]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

But plain and simple the point of playing a sport or game is to win.

Winning is one of the hardest things to coach and teach athletes IMO. The problem with teaching it too early is kids develop poor habits, skills and techniques at early levels because it works at lower levels. Skill gaps are so wide at early levels right up to the high school level when kids are really getting filtered through the systems that "winning teams" can improperly develop player skillsets.

Eric Lindros skating with his head down all time is a perfect example of a player that never learned a fundamental skill hockey players need, because he didn't need to until it was too late. Nobody cared because he was dominating at all the other levels.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by ma-skis.com

Winning is one of the hardest things to coach and teach athletes IMO. The problem with teaching it too early is kids develop poor habits, skills and techniques at early levels because it works at lower levels. Skill gaps are so wide at early levels right up to the high school level when kids are really getting filtered through the systems that "winning teams" can improperly develop player skillsets.

Eric Lindros skating with his head down all time is a perfect example of a player that never learned a fundamental skill hockey players need, because he didn't need to until it was too late. Nobody cared because he was dominating at all the other levels.

Yeah, but what % of these athletes go on to be pros? The ones that do obviously have the skills. Depriving the other 95% at their chance of "winning" to develop pro level skills that they likely will not need I think is unfair.

[ma-skis.com]

Originally Posted by Locke

"Practice doesnt make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect."
- Vince Lombardi.

What he attests to with that statement is the fact that in order to develop players to be better players, they have to be training and practicing at the pace that they will see in a game.

he's not saying that at all, he's saying if you're going to do something a million times, make sure you're doing it the right way a million times otherwise you're just perfecting how to do something wrong.

it's like going to the range and hitting a bucket of balls, nothings going to get better if you hit the whole bucket using the wrong technique. hit the bucket using proper technique until you can do it right every time.

[ma-skis.com]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Yeah, but what % of these athletes go on to be pros? The ones that do obviously have the skills. Depriving the other 95% at their chance of "winning" to develop pro level skills that they likely will not need I think is unfair.

doesn't matter about pros or not pros, kids who don't learn to skate properly, handle a ball properly, kick properly aren't going to have any success even at the junior high / high school level.

toe punting a soccer ball might work in elementary and get you goals and win a game in house leagues, but it won't get you anywhere past that when you play skilled players who can dribble / handle / pass in u14/u16/u18.

[ma-skis.com]

For the record, i don't completely agree with Calgary Soccer taking out scoring at the 12 level, that seems late, Hockey Canada starting to keep score at age 8 seems more realistic. Regardless, I definitely can understand the rationale of why they may want to try or attempt this type of scoring in some leagues.

[Isbrant]

I don't think this is necessarily a bad idea; it just depends on the execution. In contrast, the Ottawa idea is just stupid.

For background, I am in my second year of coaching Initiation hockey. My oldest son has played 3 years of soccer and my daughter is in her first year of soccer.

There have been a few comments about not keeping score means not competitive. I disagree with this statement. The kids will know the score, regardless of if it is written down or not. With my initiation kids, they typically know what the score is when they are on the ice. When they are on the bench they don't really pay attention to what is happening on the ice. They compete hard every shift, regardless of the score.

I think there are 2 ways of looking at coaching; for developing the players and for winning games/league standings. When the score is not being kept, it is easier to coach to develop the players. You can get them to try things, and it is not as critical they don't make mistakes. The start of each shift is 0 – 0 and the kids can work on developing their skill. It takes a good coach to coach to develop the kids. In a league where everyone is to get equal ice time, it is easier to do when the score is not kept.

I have found in house league soccer the coaches are not very good. There is no training and there has not been much formality yet. It is easier to coach to win games than to develop the players. Keep score also seems to be as much for the parents as for the players.

This post is getting a little long so I think I will end it here. In the end, I don’t think is a bad idea as hopefully it will force the coaches to become better coaches.

Edit
I agree with ma-skis.com. I think in hockey they can keep score earlier as the coaches are better or at least have more training available.

[SeeBass]

just cause fat little Johnny can't keep his hands off the twinkies and he can't run, others need to change...screw that

I betcha fat Johnny is the first person to tell his mother he got the high score on Mario Bros and I bet she was so proud of him for winning too.

I can't even play Wii with my 6 year old nephew cause he gets all sucky when I get a base hit even though he is winning 8-0. He plays in these puss leagues and that is what you get.

Isn't losing and all of the things that come with it just part of ones development?

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Isbrant

There have been a few comments about not keeping score means not competitive. I disagree with this statement.

Agreed. I don't know if those commenting are sitting on their couch and don't play, or maybe its because I play in adult pickup games, but there is still a lot of competition and the games are still fun. Its just that mistakes are a little more tolerated (but you still get yelled at for bad passes, mistakes et al) and there's less fighting and injuries then a game. Again, I don't know if you had a kids "pickup" game, but all my best memories of soccer was in games during recess or after school. For games, I remember maybe 3-4 special things that happened, and I've been to provincials a few times - I just remember being there, but playing a lot more "when it doubt, kick it out" soccer.

[CaptainCrunch]

Little Johnny - "All right guys next goal wins"

Little Franky - "But we're all winners, so the next goal doesn't matter"

Sounds of screams as Little Franky gets a Swirly