Along similar lines, at 10U a coach should be looking to strike a good balance between developing the kids, and fielding a competitive team...with the emphasis on developing the kids. Coaches that are focused primarily on winning tournaments at 10U/12U, in my opinion are in it more for their own ego than anything else. Seriously, what college coach in evaluating a prospect, is going to give a rat's behind that she won the ASA all-everything championship...when she was 11 years old?!?!?!?
Position tryout criteria
- Thread starter newsoftballdad
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
I agree that the focus is on building skills and getting all girls to play. But we do want to have a "go to" ten girls when we need to. We feel that the "bench" girls will still play at least 3 innings a game. But we also think that the "starters" should practice more as a unit while the other girls work on their skills to try to crack the lineup. The whole purpose of the "tryout" thoery was to give a non starter the ability to prove that she has the skills needed to play a certain position, certainly never to exclude them. As to CT's last post, as a travel team and part of a larger program we do have an obligation to try to win, however it is never at the expense of developing the girls. That would be counter productive to what we want to be as a 10U team, we want to be a feeder program to our older age groups as well as our high school, and in order to do that we need to develop the skills.
Not only do you lack a fundamental understanding of the game, you also lack a fundamental understanding of coaching a group of girls.
The single biggest problem in coaching girls is "cliques". They are poison. So, most coaches do everything they can to stop the formation of cliques. You, on the other hand, intend to create cliques on your own--the "starter group" and the "lesser group". You are going to make at least some girls miserable, and have a good chance making the entire team unhappy.
There is ZERO advantage in dividing your girls into two groups. (NEWS FLASH: None of your girls know how to properly field a ground ball, catch a pop-up, or throw the ball.)
Why don't you be honest? You are trying to find some way to keep the parents off your back because you are going neglect a few girls in favor of the "starters."
The single biggest problem in coaching girls is "cliques". They are poison. So, most coaches do everything they can to stop the formation of cliques. You, on the other hand, intend to create cliques on your own--the "starter group" and the "lesser group". You are going to make at least some girls miserable, and have a good chance making the entire team unhappy.
There is ZERO advantage in dividing your girls into two groups. (NEWS FLASH: None of your girls know how to properly field a ground ball, catch a pop-up, or throw the ball.)
Why don't you be honest? You are trying to find some way to keep the parents off your back because you are going neglect a few girls in favor of the "starters."
Well, since you think you know what I am trying to do, please explain to me how to take 13 girls and not have starters and a bench with 10 fielders, by the way we bat our entire lineup, so every girl is in every game regardless of where they play in the field. We have been working since the fall as a unit, we practice twice a week indoors all winter. We do "team building" events such as pizza nights and ice cream, all to get them to be a team. But somehow because I want to find the best 10 starters I lack understanding? We have absolutely done everything we can to avoid cliques and have a very close nit team. What I am trying to do is make it so every girl has the opportunity to play the position that she wants, based on her meeting certain criteria. We do not want arbitrary decisions to create the divide you are concerned about. As I have stated previously every girl will play at least three innings, some may play all six. Is this wrong? I am surprised by someone who does not know me or my girls criticisizing their skill, they are 9 years old and are learning every day so your "news flash" is insulting to them, and your comment about me "neglecting" any of them is insulting to me. I am sure you were a great coach and father, but you have no right trying to tell me what my intent is when you are completely wrong.
While I may have said it differently than Slugger, he has some valid points that you need to consider. I don't queston your intentions, but I think your approach is ill advised for kids this young, especially girls. As you said..these are 9 year old kids, not 16 year olds.
You are making the point yourself....they are learning and developing every day. They are nowhere near having the skill level that they will have in just 2-3 years. If you designate 10 "starters" and give them more practice time as a unit, then intentionally or not, you are neglecting the others at least to some degree. The philosophy should be that everyone is equal in practice.
The only problem I have with this statement is the word "starters". I think all of us as coaches can identify our 9 or 10 strongest players that we can rely on in critical games & situations. Those are the kids that inevitably end up on the field during elimination games, and there is really nothing wrong with that. That is what we all do...you just seem to want to carry the concept much further, and institutionalize it with "position tryouts". Big mistake in general...and definitely for 9 year old kids!
Overall I think a good approach is to try to provide roughly equal playing time & starting opportunities for all players in pool play. Then on Sundays, you focus more on putting your strongest team on the field, and the kids in the best position to win.
One final thought to consider....do your "benchers" pay lower player fees for their reduced role, and not having the opportunity to practice with the 'starters"? May sound picky, but believe me one of the parents will raise it....
All of your team building efforts will quickly be undone if you identify 10 "starters" that begin every game, and 3 "benchers" that get their three innings in "whenever" but not in critical game situations. Even if you are not explicit, it will get figured out and cause problems. That will be poison for team chemistry....and don't disregard the parent issue (I would not be very happy for my kid as a parent of a permanent "bencher"). If Suzie is gonna get her 3 innings in, then why not innings 1, 2, & 3?
For any given game, you will always have 10 starters and 3 on the bench. The point is that it should not be the same 10 & 3 every game.
You are making the point yourself....they are learning and developing every day. They are nowhere near having the skill level that they will have in just 2-3 years. If you designate 10 "starters" and give them more practice time as a unit, then intentionally or not, you are neglecting the others at least to some degree. The philosophy should be that everyone is equal in practice.
The only problem I have with this statement is the word "starters". I think all of us as coaches can identify our 9 or 10 strongest players that we can rely on in critical games & situations. Those are the kids that inevitably end up on the field during elimination games, and there is really nothing wrong with that. That is what we all do...you just seem to want to carry the concept much further, and institutionalize it with "position tryouts". Big mistake in general...and definitely for 9 year old kids!
Overall I think a good approach is to try to provide roughly equal playing time & starting opportunities for all players in pool play. Then on Sundays, you focus more on putting your strongest team on the field, and the kids in the best position to win.
One final thought to consider....do your "benchers" pay lower player fees for their reduced role, and not having the opportunity to practice with the 'starters"? May sound picky, but believe me one of the parents will raise it....
Last edited:
I feel completely frustrated and misunderstood. By starters im mean the strongest 10. They will not start everygame and if someone shows in practice they can play the position they will get more playing time. I am not telling the other three girls they will never start. Honestly and truthfiully my goal was to avoid the contreversy of "Why does Suzy play more innings at SS than my daughter"
I will re look at my approach based on the opinions I have gotten here, but I still don't feel what we are doing is much different than what you suggest. Eventually the better girls need to play more.
I will re look at my approach based on the opinions I have gotten here, but I still don't feel what we are doing is much different than what you suggest. Eventually the better girls need to play more.
Then just don't call them "starters", and don't formalize it by have "position tryouts". During practices and games, you will see who can be more or less effective at different positions.
I think I understand the parent controversy you are trying to avoid, but I don't think this is the way to avoid it. To some degree, as a coach you should expect some of the parent issues & opinions (that's why you get the big bucks ;0). My suggestion would be to be clear early on with the parents what your philosophy is regarding playing time and position preferences. Then be prepared with valid reasons when the parent questions come up...."I know Suzy wants to play more SS, but she still is afraid of the ball, and won't stay down on ground balls. If you get her a facemask and work with her on your own to improve, then we can give her more time there" or "Kate can field the ground balls, but she doesn't have the arm strenght yet to get the ball from 3B to 1B" or better yet "I know Lauren loves to play 3B...but she is a lefty...."
Again, I'm not questioning your intentions, just seems like you are over-thinking this one. You must be an analytic guy who is looking for some objective facts to support a largely subjective decision.
Theres a song out there thats pretty applicable here.....something like " Girls Just Wanna Have Fun". especially girls 9 years old, really arent interested in trying to practice hard to "crack the lineup" Sure, your 3 or 4 strongest players should probably see more innings in key positos, but thats about the extent of it at that age. there going to be plenty of years ahead for playing time dissappiontments, it doesnt need to start yet.
At this age level, you play your best players at their best positions against good opponents. If the game gets out of hand, either by you crushing the other team or by you getting crushed, you substitute in your weaker players.
Against weak opponents, you let your weaker players start and play. If the game becomes "too close for comfort", then you put your best lineup on the field. But, honestly, if *you* (not the kids) work hard at coaching, you won't have to worry about the weak teams.
Perhaps the problem with your question is that the more experienced coaches can barely understand what you are suggesting. Whenever I drive by a field where a coach is standing at home plate hitting balls to his fielders "in their positions", I know that coach is clueless.
A good coach breaks defense down into discrete parts and works on each part. Using one hour to work on tosses by the SS to 2B or 2B to SS is not unusual. Everyone works on it...catchers, pitchers, outfielders, infielders.
At practice, you should do a lot of station work with fielding and hitting. You do variations as what you practice with a particular child at that station. E.g., at the "groundball" station, one kid may be working on fielding a slow roller while another may be working on back hands. But, each kids is getting the same number of grounders. If you want to teach someone how to play 1B, then EVERYONE ON THE TEAM gets the same lesson and the same number of reps. If you want to teach someone how to catch a ball against a fence, EVERYONE gets the same lesson and the same number of reps.
I rarely put all the kids "in position"during a practice except for working on relays.
Against weak opponents, you let your weaker players start and play. If the game becomes "too close for comfort", then you put your best lineup on the field. But, honestly, if *you* (not the kids) work hard at coaching, you won't have to worry about the weak teams.
Perhaps the problem with your question is that the more experienced coaches can barely understand what you are suggesting. Whenever I drive by a field where a coach is standing at home plate hitting balls to his fielders "in their positions", I know that coach is clueless.
A good coach breaks defense down into discrete parts and works on each part. Using one hour to work on tosses by the SS to 2B or 2B to SS is not unusual. Everyone works on it...catchers, pitchers, outfielders, infielders.
At practice, you should do a lot of station work with fielding and hitting. You do variations as what you practice with a particular child at that station. E.g., at the "groundball" station, one kid may be working on fielding a slow roller while another may be working on back hands. But, each kids is getting the same number of grounders. If you want to teach someone how to play 1B, then EVERYONE ON THE TEAM gets the same lesson and the same number of reps. If you want to teach someone how to catch a ball against a fence, EVERYONE gets the same lesson and the same number of reps.
I rarely put all the kids "in position"during a practice except for working on relays.
- Feb 8, 2009
- 271
- 18
I don't understand why you wouldn't put kids in "positions" in practice. While there may be more efficient ways to practice, I want the girls to feel comfortable making plays where they'll be making plays in a game. I do think you are over thinking it a little. If you feel confident placing the girls in positions where they'll be successful and help the team at the same time, then stick to your guns. There'll always be the parent who sees Susie as the shortstop, regardless of whether she possesses the skills to succeed there or not. Just my 2 cents... Don't play Susie at shortstop just because she has the best arm on the team. She better have the best instincts and hands as well.
