Comments on: Hot Pot Of Lax: Disappointment And Youth Sports

By: laxiq

laxiq — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 17:36:00 +0000

I agree with the author in theory. I played on a team to play the game. That was the most important thing for me – to play. However, my 12 yr old has played since he was 5 in age appropriate brackets. Now at 12 with the influx of new players to the game, he doesnt want to play with kids that can not pass or catch that do not work to improve. Life is not about ‘everyone gets to play’. But everyone should get the opportunity to play and show they want to play. Stratification occurs on the playground, parents did not invent it. I have four sons 28 to 12… been there, done that. They are 3rd generation lacrosse players and have done their share of recruiting for the game.

By: jsobey2

jsobey2 — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 05:52:00 +0000

So excited for the day I hit ‘Swagger’ status.

By: jsobey2

jsobey2 — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 05:50:00 +0000

I am certain we will continue to keep kids in line with their perspective high school affiliation. I think seeing a group of kids grow together as a team from their young elementary school years into high school is one of lifes wonderful experiences, not just for the kids but for their loved ones.
That being said, I can see a case for putting together teams in a very large league where you have one team of exceeding talent, one team of players who just picked up a stick last week, and then everyone else be in balanced out teams. I’m not saying I’d advocate that, but I also would not condemn it. I’ve only been around the sport for 6-7 years, so I have a ton to learn. Hence my acknowledgement of watching other similar programs to learn from their successes/mistakes.
So fantastic we are talking about the youth game!

By: Paul Woody

Paul Woody — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:24:00 +0000

The C team players are new to the sport. The need to be taught how to scoop and cradle. The A team players are split dodging with both hands and learning complex slide packages. Having them on the same team would be detrimental to both of them. We do have to take into consideration the geographic location of the kids I am referring to. Probably more the exception than the rule.

By: Swank Lax

Swank Lax — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:00:00 +0000

Yes, but for different reasons than the ones you present. Also, he has far more radical solutions.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:28:00 +0000

I think MG might actually agree with me here!

By: Swank Lax

Swank Lax — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:17:00 +0000

You should read Malcom Gladwell’s Outliers, he speaks at length about the biggest problem with youth sports, the advantages of age and how we squander talent.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:08:00 +0000

Yes, I’ve definitely been on some bad teams. And yes, I admit it can be really tough.

But when a kid gets frustrated by the others on his team, he is really being given an opportunity as well.

It’s EASY to say “these other kids suck, this team sucks, whatever”. It’s HARD to say “I’m the best kid on this team and it’s my mission to make everyone around me better”. So while your lax skills might not get a whole lot better (I would argue that they actually do improve b/c you have to do so much more in a star role), your leadership skills could improve, and those are just as important.

Notice I’m NOT advocating for creating awful teams… I’m advocating for even teams. and in the end, I think by having even teams in youth ball, where kids can develop, and will be carried along and instructed by better players, we can avoid the “awful” HS teams.

As for the A attack man playing in a C league… how is that part of my proposal?

If you create even teams there will be A d guys and A attack guys. Match ups then become important too, and that is yet another skill to teach kids: identify the threats and match up well on them. Will there be some mismatches sometimes? of course, but that’s just lax, right?

By: Zach Freed

Zach Freed — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:07:00 +0000

i know exactly how you feel about the terrible team thing in school. my senior year of high school i was with all freshman and sophmores, all of which had never seen varsity time, while i was returning all region and returning captain. many of the kids on my team had no business being on a varsity team, and we went 0-13 after going 15-2. and we moved up a league, which we shouldve done the year before. i agree, in some situations my play dropped but i still managed to get post season honors.

i agree that some kids may not benefit as much but i do think that it may teach kids how to be unselfish. and to give other kids that arent as good as them a chance to score instead of the good kid just driving through the defense. you do get better by playing against tougher opponents, so why cant the B kids play with the A kids? the A kid may run circles around the B defender, but it will benefit the B defender because he has to match up with the A attackman.

By: Brian Donaghy

Brian Donaghy — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:55:00 +0000

Connor,
I’m curious if you’ve ever played on a genuinely bad team. One where you might be a star, and everyone else is a zero. I’ve had this happen before (The team was 0-14, and I was the team captain as a soph in HS. It was NH lacrosse, I’m not trying to brag at all. This team was just crappy.) You’ll notice after a while, your play starts to degrade down to the other players level. The A, B, and C leagues are good because it pits comparable players against each other, benefiting them and improving their skills. A quick, stick skills strong attack isn’t going to benefit by playing against a defender that belongs in the C league. A lot of the best players are the best players because they play against tough opponents. Also many of the best players have been playing competitive ball since a young age, probably in an A-league type situation. While I am all for the fun of the sport, I feel like having separate skill level leagues allows for kids to both develop their skills and enjoy the sport instead of being frustrated by the mediocrity of their peers.

By: Zach Freed

Zach Freed — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:53:00 +0000

i just believe in dividing by age group. i think when i was a kid we had a huge clinic and then after that we were divided pretty evenly. coaches would determine skill from the drills we did and the games we played and then place us onto teams. but everything was pretty even. i think it has a lot to do with parents now, obviously wanting the best for their kids, but going a little overboard with how they go about some things. i think they separate the kids because mixing kids could lead to a smaller and less experienced kid getting hurt in a possibly higher paced game. but i dont really believe that should be a reason to divide kids like that because it doesnt benefit the learning curve, it hurts it. and that hurts the later programs because there wont be as much depth. i just dont believe in being so selective with kids that young.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:19:00 +0000

But do they really HAVE to split them into A, B and C teams?

What’s wrong with creating 7 pretty equal teams, all playing at the B level?

Do people really think the ONLY way to improve is by playing against better players exclusively?

I’m honestly just curious about this. I have seen NO concrete proof that playing on elite teams or A teams really makes a player better than if they play on more average teams. As long as the kid is playing a lot, I’m not so sure it matters as much as we think it does.

I’m not convinced either way 100%, definitely want to keep this conversation going though Paul. Thanks for responding!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:16:00 +0000

if you did have several hundred kids in one organization, do you think you would try to create teams based on talent, or stick to location based teams?

Say you had enough kids for 8 teams in one age group, would you divide them up into A. B, and C teams? Or would you try to create 8 relatively even teams?

I remember playing town soccer growing up where all the teams had stars and zeros, and I remembers that being the most fun ever, even though I was somewhere in the middle of the pack. I still ended up starting on varsity for 4 years in HS, and I think a lot of that had to do with the fact that I just enjoyed playing the game so much, and was never focused on what team I made.

Thoughts on that, Jsobes?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 04:39:00 +0000

We have a single non-profit youth program in a city with 4 high school teams. We divide teams up geographicly, so the kids for the most part play together as they grow older and get to high school. I do see a time where our program will grow to several hundred and we will need to take a close look at how we make our teams. I will be taking a close watch of other programs now and going forward to learn from their successes as well as mistakes.

By: Paul Woody

Paul Woody — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:16:00 +0000

I think for certain teams that only field a few squads in each age group, this theory should be implemented. However, some of the organizations have over a hundred kids to manage each spring. The Severna Park Youth Lacrosse League in my neck of the woods has so many kids applying that they have to split them up into A, B and C. That way they can make sure that the C kids get taught the basic fundamentals over and over while the A and B teams can concentrate on more advanced techniques. The goal of every lower team player is to advance to the next bracket year after year. It works well for them and the area is a breeding ground for lax talent. They field at least 7 youth teams in a few age brackets each year.

Great topic. O and I think it’s total BS that this post only gets 175 views and a picture of a helmet gets 1300!