1st real 10 U tournament this weekend already an issue??

[klamath632]

Respectfully disagree.

I was head coach for four years from 10U through 12U. Gave the team up when I moved out of state. I batted the full lineup every game for four years. Kept roster small. Had only 10 players on year. NEVER lost a player because the team wasn't winning enough or because we weren't trying harder to win. And we were just a .500 team every year. Always played the hardest schedule possible that would keep us middle of the pack. Never had the talent to do more than that, but we steadily progressed from playing .500 at entry level 10U to playing .500 at the top tournaments in the state. Several of those players, now age 14-15, will play in college if they choose that route, a couple of whom might've not batted as much at age 9-10 if we'd batted 9.

Important to remember that this is 10U. Winning is fine, but caring about your players and giving every one of them the best chance to succeed is more important at that age.

btw, I'm saying that I was such a great coach. I sucked at a lot of things and made some stupid mistakes. But I think that's the best thing that I did - I tried to see things from the kids' perspective. I've not seen many 10U kids make significant strides because they sat the bench and became motivated by it. But I've seen kids who used to bat 10th who steadily got better and are playing at a level now that many would not have predicted. Kids are more motivated by "I believe in you'' than "We might lose if you bat.''

Your entire post is irrelevant. Most teams carry 12 players, and therefore do have enough upset parents that attrition will be a problem. Carrying 10 players means that you could have kept two more players on your roster but didn't.

Who helped those two players more?
* The coach who carried them on a roster and instructed them for a full year with two practices a week and warmups before games and any playing time they got?
* Or the coach who told them they weren't good enough to make a team?

 

[CoogansBluff]

Who helped those two players more?
* The coach who carried them on a roster and instructed them for a full year with two practices a week and warmups before games and any playing time they got?
* Or the coach who told them they weren't good enough to make a team?

Answer - The coach who kept his roster small so that his players could maximize their playing time while those two players could find another team where their time also will be maximized.

Question for you - What is more common - People saying there are too many travel teams, or not enough? Those two players that I didn't take will be fine. I have helped players that I did not take find teams that would be better for them.

Most teams carry 12 players, and therefore do have enough upset parents that attrition will be a problem. Carrying 10 players means that you could have kept two more players on your roster but didn't.

At the tournaments that I attend, it is far more common to see one or two players in the dugout while the team is on defense than to see three in the dugout. Also, the OP was about a 10U team. Do you really feel that most 10U teams have 12 players? Maybe you're right, but that's not what I see.

But to use your words, it's irrelevant. The fact that other coaches choose to have 12 players and invite upset parents and attrition doesn't apply to the model that I suggested, which is fewer players and, in my experience, happier parents and less attrition.

 

[klamath632]

I am certainly open to input from others, but here in Illinois, and at national tournaments that I've been to, 12 seems to be the standard. Ten should makes things harmonious for the players, but what if one of them sustains a long-term injury or sickness? What if it happens at a tournament where you were already down one player? What if a player gets an invitation to join a better program? Carrying ten players just seems like inviting too much risk to the entire team.

What type of tournaments are you playing in? USSSA tournaments, for example, allow you to bat your lineup and free substitutions as well.

 

[CoogansBluff]

I am certainly open to input from others, but here in Illinois, and at national tournaments that I've been to, 12 seems to be the standard. Ten should makes things harmonious for the players, but what if one of them sustains a long-term injury or sickness? What if it happens at a tournament where you were already down one player? What if a player gets an invitation to join a better program? Carrying ten players just seems like inviting too much risk to the entire team.

What type of tournaments are you playing in? USSSA tournaments, for example, allow you to bat your lineup and free substitutions as well.

I had a 10-player roster only once. The plan was 11, and we were holding out for another pitcher. She never materialized, so we survived with 10. I wouldn't recommend 10. We got lucky. The other three years, we had 11. As for a player getting an invitation to join a better program, I don't expect players to leave in mid-season. They're committed. If they want to leave after the season for a better opportunity, I'm happy for them, although that never really happened. It might've if I'd continued to coach it.

The only tournaments that required that you bat only 9 was ASA, and then only ASA qualifiers and perhaps ASA state c'ships. I understand the necessity of batting 9 in those situations. We didn't play ASA qualifiers because we weren't quite good enough to have a legit shot at qualifying.

Final point - My viewpoint is not one of 'everybody gets a trophy, let's play for fun.' Competition is great. Winning is great. I have no problem w/ high school teams, college teams and older elite travel teams batting nine and putting a much higher priority on winning. I just have a different view of player development and believe that the 'no girl left behind' approach at younger levels will produce more and better players in the long run.

I also understand that you have to be reasonably successful (win) in order to keep your team together. I have declined to take back a player once or twice because they couldn't keep up and the team would've split if the gap between top and bottom got too wide. That was very hard. But they were given every chance to succeed and play while they were on the team. So in the end, it still comes down to the fact that you have to produce sooner or later. I just think sooner is made to be too soon sometimes.

 

[bpeck]

Well we had the first game "we had to win" lost 8-4.. now we play for third.. we will see how it goes.. I see both points, but I feel that they should still be able to bat.. I don't think they hurt the team that much if they bat or don't bat.. it's a learning experience for her and yes maybe she will work harder but if not given chances how can they prove themselves too?

 

[Rocketech1]

Welcome to the world of competitive softball. This isn't rec anymore where everyone bats every game and has to play defense x number of innings. You are never going to please all families, period. Some families and players will feel slighted but that's how competitive softball is. Maybe this lights a fire under your DD and you to have her get better where the coaches have to play her. I think if you asked most members on this site about whether something similar had happened to their DD, the answer would be yes it has.

For example, DD first all star team she only had 3 hits all summer and got limited playing time. We made a pact that after the season that she would become a better hitter and I immediately got her hitting lessons. She is a much improved hitter today because of the reality check. I said it before but you have a couple of choices, get bitter or get better. My DD chose the later.