jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (7 posts)

At a sports game, do you think it's fair to only play the most athletic players

  1. slaffery profile image60
    slafferyposted 6 years ago

    At a sports game, do you think it's fair to only play the most athletic players or play everyone?

    For middle school aged children, Do you think it's fair to only play the best players on a team?  Or, Should all players be allowed participate and take the focus off of winning or losing?

  2. sexualharassment profile image56
    sexualharassmentposted 6 years ago

    Well, sometimes the situation calls that only the best players should play. Anyway, they are belong to the same team which VICTORY is their goal. However, if situation permit, it should be highly appreciated if everybody got the chance to play.

  3. moneycop profile image78
    moneycopposted 6 years ago

    how all the players could play the game. even in every game there is limitation in no of players, and if chosen wrongly they will loose the game making a sad environment among players. the think which could be done is take best player up to 80 percent and 20 percent those who are not so good in that way an opportunity will also be there and the game could also be won

  4. CyclingFitness profile image93
    CyclingFitnessposted 6 years ago

    I think a team's aims need to be set out before the season or before a specific game and therefore parents (and players) are aware of how things work.

    I once played soccer (assoc football) for a team growing up that had two goalkeepers which the manager rotated every game- however this led to an outcry from the players and parents as they felt that a degree of stability was required.

    If the aim of the team is to win then it should be at the team manager's discretion to play weaker players when they see that there is an opportunity

    The downside is that it is always going to be a juggling act. The best players will become unhappy at times if they're not always playing, while those not playing will get disheartened and potentially look to move to another club.

  5. docbruin profile image78
    docbruinposted 6 years ago

    At that age everyone should get a chance to play regularly, at least for a portion of the game. I can understand playing the best players most often, as your goal is to have fun AND win.  But winning should not become so important that some players sit out so much that they don't feel they are part of the team, even if it is a winning team.

  6. supplies expert profile image59
    supplies expertposted 6 years ago

    When I was younger we had two soccer teams, we had a team that was competitive and you joined if you wanted to play competitively which could mean if you were not the best player you would sit the majority of the games. I typically played stopper or a defensive center mid and would play the whole game, a lot of times though when the wingers would get tired I'd replace them and then would rotate in a player who wasn't as good. Typically these players would play 20 mins a game and would just substitute to give the starters a breather. We played very well and had plenty of seasons as a quality team.

    When I got older in High School in the fall I would play for the school team, and then in the spring I continued playing for this competitive team. The High School team was a team in which was fun and yeah the better players started and played longer but there was only maybe 4 of us who played the whole game. The goalies would switch at half time and there wasn't too much stress on winning. Luckily as a team and a strong core of leaders as our team captains we ended up going undefeated until the last game and lost the last game with a record of 15-1. That was probably the most fun we had as a team and yet we had a very good season. The competition we were playing probably wasn't as hard as with my other team but still good times nonetheless.

    It really depends on the members of the team. We had a few people who played barely 50 mins the whole season, but they really still felt a part of the team and enjoyed every bit of the season.

    So I think that they should have two teams one that's skilled and one that isn't, but if players want to try and come up to the more skilled teams they can make that transition by becoming a better player.

  7. slaffery profile image60
    slafferyposted 6 years ago

    Docbruin and supplies expert,
    I agree with your answers.  At the middle school level it's all about developing their skills.  Helping them to get exposure to the game.  Winning is great but we are prepping our kids for the future and need to give them opportunities to improve.  If they are never played at this level will they have the confidence to try out for future teams or will they decide that they are not cut out for the sport they are currently in because a coach deemed them not good enough to play?