How Important Is Winning?

[pirana 0]

At what age, or what number of years of experience, do you start playing to win?

Let's assume kids on average begin playing a typical competitive team sport such as baseball or basketball at age 10. By this I mean they are playing in a league of organized teams for the first time in which there are officials, score is kept, and usually a season or tournament champion is crowned.

I was a bit surprised when the volleyball team I coach (6th grade - mostly 12 year-olds) got into a debate on whether we share playing time equally even if it meant reducing our chances of winning or play to win if that meant giving better hitters more playing time. It was in the middle of the season-ending tourney and we had won 3 matches and gotten to the round of 16 (out of 55 teams) by playing the 5 good hitters full-time and platooning the 2 weak hitters in the 6th position. Even so, the players were in dissent and our team chemistry was about to come apart in a flurry of the nasty little comments 6th grade girls can make.

So I took the issue to the parents. By a 2/3 majority, they called for equal playing time no matter the consequences; which were that we ended up getting bounced out of the elite 8, finishing 11th, and watching a team we had beaten 2 weeks prior take the title. The secondary consequences are that the team chemistry improved dramatically. However, 3 of the best players have expressed they will not return to a team that does not intend to play to win.

I am having a difficult time sorting out the good from the bad on this one; and came to the conclusion that it all depends on what age a person feels that winning is the primary goal of competitive sports.

So that is the question I am posing, in order to see what this radically opinionated group has to say.

At what age do you start playing to win? Give reasons for your opinion.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[airdvr 210]

I think it's when you hit the High School level. Anything prior to that is learning how to play the game.

Oh...and my condolences for your involvement with 6th grade girls. I have one of my own

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

At what age, or what number of years of experience, do you start playing to win?

I've got a 3 1/2 year-old and an 18 month-old. They BOTH play to win. It's a natural instinct, I think.

Everybody wants to win.

However, I think you should look at what type of leagues that there are. I look at soccer as a good example. In AYSO, the policy is that everyone plays. Everyone plays at least two quarters. When I was a coach in AYSO, everyone played three quarters.

AYSO is an instructional league. That should be competitive, but there should be instruction as a primary goal. This means that you play to win, and everyone plays. Everyone plays to win - not just those who find themselves more worthy of others.

To be a member of a team, one should be humble. One should learn the role of the team. This should be the introduction.

If you win, great. You play to win. But play to win the right way. And you play to win as a team.

All-star? You play to win. Then again, on an all-star team, everyone has proven that they can play.
Club sports? Yes. You play to win.

It depends on the league.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[pirana 0]

Quote

I think it's when you hit the High School level. Anything prior to that is learning how to play the game.

Oh...and my condolences for your involvement with 6th grade girls. I have one of my own

They're pretty cool most of the time. The exceptions are when they start sniping at each other. Much meaner than boys.

The crying took some getting used to. They're higher level of sensitivities results in a lot of tears. They cry when they are happy, sad, angry, winning, losing, physically hurt, etc. I've actually had a couple times when they didn't know why they were crying.

I made a little joke once because we were in a double OT game with the score tied and about 30 seconds left. I said that either way we were half a minute away from everybody being in tears because win or lose, you just know it's coming. Most thought it was funny, a couple thought I was being insensitive.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[downwardspiral 0]

This is a tough one but I am against "equal playing time" for tweens. They should get a reasonable amount of playing time but if they want equal status then they need to earn it. The irony is had you not given in, your players would have likely (if they won) all had more playing time as a whole.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So I took the issue to the parents. By a 2/3 majority, they called for equal playing time no matter the consequences; which were that we ended up getting bounced out of the elite 8, finishing 11th, and watching a team we had beaten 2 weeks prior take the title. The secondary consequences are that the team chemistry improved dramatically. However, 3 of the best players have expressed they will not return to a team that does not intend to play to win.

Losing 3 of 7 players doesn't sound like better chemistry.

I think in the final tourney, it's appropriate to play to win. During the season, equal playing time is suitable. As others suggest, high school is a cutover point where you focus more on winning and less on player development.

The other part I question is that the parents decide. As catty as girls are, parents are often shown to be the people with the problems in fun competition.

[lummy 4]

It kind of depends on what league you are playing in and what the league's philosphies are. Is the league a competitive league or strictly recreational? If it's competitive, then you play to win. If it's a rec league then play to have fun and make sure everyone is equal.
I think what matters most is that you state your team philosophies at the beginning of the season and stick to it through to the end. If the thing that matters most is that plastic trophy at the end of the season, fine, but make sure everyone knows that coming in.
I've been involved with AYSO for almost 4 years now. Our league doesn't start keeping win loss standings until the under10 division. There have been a number of conversations about doing away with standings for all of the divisions because it only causes problems. The problems are mostly the parents who tend to get pretty out of control over winning or losing a soccer game.

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[nerdgirl 0]

The older I get the less I care about ‘winning’ at the little things, like sports the way I play, i.e., for fun & exercise. The big things are a completely different case. Although I don’t think about it in terms of “winning” - think about it terms of strategy to achieve the outcome I want and the responsible tactics to achieve that goal.

Otoh, I will never intentionally lose a game of Trivial Pursuit against a guy I like again.

Imo, you’re teaching the girls just as much about winning as losing and when it matters (or doesn’t).

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[DZJ 0]

Quote

...However, 3 of the best players have expressed they will not return to a team that does not intend to play to win.

Are these three attention-seeking brats keen on personal glory, or are they team players? If the latter, I'd say that you should try and make them understand that part of their duty to the team is to try and encourage the weaker members to work harder and raise their game. If that works, you could ultimately have a team where everyone can play, and you still get to go home with the trophies.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

...However, 3 of the best players have expressed they will not return to a team that does not intend to play to win.

Are these three attention-seeking brats keen on personal glory, or are they team players? If the latter, I'd say that you should try and make them understand that part of their duty to the team is to try and encourage the weaker members to work harder and raise their game. If that works, you could ultimately have a team where everyone can play, and you still get to go home with the trophies.

I've been on teams that choose not to focus on winning. Or more precisely, they choose to ignore the B team that I was on - in a racing season that went from March till October, we peaked in early June. I wasted the rest of the summer on it.

I know how those girls feel, and they're perfectly right to want to make a different choice for next season. What would be inappropriate would be to walk off on the spot.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

They should get a reasonable amount of playing time but if they want equal status then they need to earn it.

How do they earn it? On the field. Keep them off the field and they'll have a hard time with it.

Some kids just plain suck. I know that. Some of them don't want to be there but their parents have them there. I know that.

But - these kids can get a boost of confidence from being out there. The other kids should be there to help them do better. A kid out there who's sole goal is, "Don't mess up" will mess up. And that's an attitude that comes from the coaches and other players.

It's up to the players and coaches to build this as a team. You win as a team and you lose as a team.

Just my thoughts from one of those guys who had a coach teach me that as good as I am, I can't do shit without help.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[downwardspiral 0]

How did the good players become good? Are they just naturally good? Or did they work at it? Do those that work their ass off to become good deserve equal status to those that don't? Do we want to teach our kids that working hard makes no difference?

My first year of competitive sports was when I was 5 years old and I pretty much was a bench warmer. I got playing time and never complained but one day my dad told me that if I wanted to start I would have to earn it and I took that to heart. After that through various sports I never again sat the bench because I put forth the effort by practicing whenever I could and usually by myself.

I don't buy into this new age of kinder, gentler competition where we don't keep score because losing sucks for the losers.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

How did the good players become good? Are they just naturally good? Or did they work at it? Do those that work their ass off to become good deserve equal status to those that don't?

A mixture of the two. I didn't work my ass off at soccer - it came pretty naturally.

Quote

Do those that work their ass off to become good deserve equal status to those that don't?

You'd think so, wouldn't you? There were kids who worked harder than I did at soccer, but still I was better. Again, I thank Coach Doug for humbling me.

Quote

Do we want to teach our kids that working hard makes no difference?

No. Which is my kids who work hard should get in and play, and not be benched because they are viewed as "not so good."

Quote

I don't buy into this new age of kinder, gentler competition where we don't keep score because losing sucks for the losers.

Neither do I. I think that Kindergarten league should be scored. But that's another question. Should these kids play? Dern tootin.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[downwardspiral 0]

Yeah but we're not discussing playing time. We're discussing equal playing time. The OP had two players ruin their chances at possibly feeling what it was like to succeed through team work. Instead they now know what its like to lose due to political correctness. Its not like those two players weren't getting court time. So those two chose NOT to be team players by causing a problem due to their own selfish needs.

Like I said...its a tough choice but I'm for reasonable play time not equal play time.

As far as natural talents... my experience makes me believe this is not the rule.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[likearock 2]

I think it's very important. Winning is at the heart of being competitive and being competitive is at the heart of achieving excellence. Don't kid yourself, even Einstein was competitive. IMNSHO watering down competition with "equal playing time" rules is just another step plunging our country further into mediocrity compared to the rest of the world.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Are these three attention-seeking brats keen on personal glory, or are they team players?

Good to know that even in a thread about kids athletics there is someone you can count on to take it down to name-calling.

Very nice.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[shropshire 0]

Quote

I look at soccer as a good example. In AYSO, the policy is that everyone plays. Everyone plays at least two quarters. When I was a coach in AYSO, everyone played three quarters.

WTF are 1/4s doing in Football? It's a game of 2 Halves.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[pirana 0]

Quote

Yeah but we're not discussing playing time. We're discussing equal playing time. The OP had two players ruin their chances at possibly feeling what it was like to succeed through team work. Instead they now know what its like to lose due to political correctness. Its not like those two players weren't getting court time. So those two chose NOT to be team players by causing a problem due to their own selfish needs.

Like I said...its a tough choice but I'm for reasonable play time not equal play time.

As far as natural talents... my experience makes me believe this is not the rule.

Thanks for pointing that out. As I said; the strong hitters & diggers were playing full-time, the weaker players half-time. I thought it was a very reasonable approach for a 6th grade team (heck, there are schools around us that have tryouts at that level - - we play everybody), and it did get us into the sweet 16.

As far as how they get good; for the best players it is natural athleticism and hard work. Either one without the other can get you to good; but to be a rock star requires both. If a kid is unable or unwilling to run killers, dive on the floor, bang into people, etc - - they should take up golf or swimming or play intramural.

BTW, for younger kids (prior to 6th grade/12 years) the approach is purely instructional. Everybody gets to try everything & everybody gets equal playing time. And we preach from day one that they need to come to every practice they can, listen to the coaches, work hard, and practice on their own to prepare for the days in the future when more playing time does go to those that work for it.

That really was the point of the OP: Do people feel that the age we are making that transition (12 years) is the right age? (Keeping in mind this is travelling team and is intended to be competitive).

BTW, in all the teams I've coached, the weakest players are almost always the ones that miss the most practices and rarely practice on their own.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[lummy 4]

Quote

WTF are 1/4s doing in Football? It's a game of 2 Halves.

AYSO has a "substitution" break about halfway thru the half

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

As far as how they get good; for the best players it is natural athleticism and hard work. Either one without the other can get you to good; but to be a rock star requires both. If a kid is unable or unwilling to run killers, dive on the floor, bang into people, etc - - they should take up golf or swimming or play intramural.

Especially with volleyball. Some kids may be taller and have a higher vertical jump but there is no way anyone can become a very skilled player in this sport with out working at it. Passing, digging, setting, blocking and hitting are not easy.

I used to be hardcore into volleyball. Even made it as far as playing on an open club team full of former University players. So I have a good understanding of what it takes to succeed in v-ball.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[shropshire 0]

Jeeeze Leave things alone that don't need changin'

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[lummy 4]

Quote

Jeeeze Leave things alone that don't need changin'

Guess I won't mention the fact that u10's are 7v7 ;)

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[shropshire 0]

[shakes head]..... do they use a softer slower ball too? bunch of pansies

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

As far as how they get good; for the best players it is natural athleticism and hard work. Either one without the other can get you to good; but to be a rock star requires both. If a kid is unable or unwilling to run killers, dive on the floor, bang into people, etc - - they should take up golf or swimming or play intramural.

I think the swimmers would take issue with that remark - they have to work harder than volleyball players if they want to succeed - there are no breaks in the middle of a race. And you can't brute force technique - efficiency is necessary in the water.

Golfers - any kid playing golf as a sport pick fights with no one.