Kids can also maybe learn to play hard even when they’re not on their team. Gee whiz, walk on down to an adult pickup basketball game and see how people who don’t know each other that well play, and play hard. Just because the situation isn’t ideal doesn’t mean you can just phone it in.
That’s also an important lesson to learn, sometimes you have to work with a new group of people, and actually try. You should actually be a bit disappointed in your child for not trying (if that’s indeed what she did), regardless of the situation, there’s no excuse for that.
I wonder what some of you think about what a fellow soccer parent said to me several months ago as we watched my daughter’s valiant team get whomped 8 or 9 nothing.
“You’d think the coach would have his girls go easy on them. They’re just rubbing it in” I thought about that, and asked “How is the coach going to ask his players to go easy. Is that fair to those girls?”
Yeah, it’s easy to play nicely with someone once or twice a semester. That’s not teamwork. Teamwork means you play nicely with the same people game after game, week after week.
It’s the same difference between pleasantly chatting with some stranger next to you in the line at the bank and getting along with your co-workers month after month.
I had gym class three days per week in high school. Week after week, year after year. Perhaps I just don’t understand the relevance of your objection and counterexample.
'kay, you got me on semantics. Sure, playing with someone on the same team in gym class or at the playground counts as teamwork.
Don’t you think you get a different experience when you play with the same people all season, working hard with an eye on winning the local area championship, looking forward to the possibility all year, working hard to maintain your dignity and self-respect if it’s obvious that your team won’t get it, working out different plays, getting to know each other’s styles and strengths so well that you know when you do x, that teammate has your back and will do y, sharing the nervousness on the bus rides to the away games, and sharing the ritual of going to the Dairy Queen after each game?
Do you like to watch football? What fun would it be if the teams mixed up after halftime, and the score didn’t count? Why do the kids deserve any less?
As a parent of two current members of both school and other teams, yes, I think the other parent has a point. Especially at that age. Those kids are learning the game, developing skills, and learning sportsmanship. If any of the stuff people spout about the reasons for kids’ sports programs is remotely true, then most of those goals are better served at that level by not humiliating another team. As they get older, the level of commitment and competition goes up, but at 11 or 12? Give them a chance to grow, learn, and yes, even have fun.
She has a coach like Mr. Prick. She loves to PLAY. She belongs to a team, they have a great time together. But they also love to… play. With other teams. Mix and match. Have fun. Hell, there’s a child with Down Syndrome this year on one of the teams and yes, she does play, and yes, the other coaches make… allocations… for her. The whole league is supportive, and the kids have FUN. They belong to their team, they practice hard, they’re part of a group…
But the thing they are taught about as being the MOST IMPORTANT THING OF ALL is good sportsmanship. Seems like that’s what missing in all the posts above who support this Mr. Prick was wrong stance.
I don’t disagree that girls that age are driven by belonging… but I remember, not so long ago, being that age… and NEVER did all that “Am I being approved of?” shit cross my mind. We had better things to do than worry about crap like that. We loved the GAME. We loved to PLAY.
I remember playing competitive Volleyball and Soccer from grade 6 to the end of my high school years. NEVER, EVER would we have sulked and frowned if we’d been asked to play a “fun” match. There’s perhaps even something valuable in learning to play for fun with your opponent. We trained to play together, it is true. But we always learned from others, at training camps and at tournaments. Hell, we even held impromptu mix-and-match games in the warm up courts while other teams played their tournament matches…
shrug Color me confused by all the posts above.
Elly
(Maeglin you are, as always, the voice of reason.)
Actually, I think it’s a great idea. Certainly more entertaining than the XFL.
I am still waiting to hear a demonstration that a healthier attitude towards competitive play diminishes the camraderie of teamwork. If you cannot provide that, than the rest is just so much hot air.
Beg to differ. After that, it still needs to be established that the camaraderie of teamwork is a more preferable goal than other goals which might be advanced, such as caring for others, respect, etc.
See, some folks are coming from the perspective that success in sports, either individually or as a team, is the most important end. And that’s simply a begged question.
I assume science fairs and art contests are also forbidden? They do have winners. What about honor rolls? Frequently, awards are given at elementary and middle school graduation ceremonies. Get rid of those too?
Maeglin, I think you and I have different ideas on what constitutes a healthy attitude toward competitive sports. Playing to win is not a healthy attitude? Remember, I am saying “play to win,” not “win at any cost.”
I was subbing for a ref for a soccer match in Gloucester, ON last summer. Competitive league. 9-10 year old boys.
One coach was of the “no praise unless it’s perfect”, “what doesn’t kill you will make you stronger”, “win at all costs” school of thought. He had one boy in tears because he wasn’t giving the match his best effort. The coach was rolling his eyes at the other team which was, obviously, weaker than his. His team was obnoxious, showing their solidarity by making fun of the other, weaker team.
The weaker team’s coach had a very different attitude. His boys were giggling, laughing, helping each other out. All the boys got to play different positions (no one was assigned to one in particular) just so they’d get a chance to TRY.
The parents of the strong team were… enraged… that the other coach wasn’t, quote “taking the game seriously”. I, for one, found it refreshing. The kids were having a blast, and didn’t give a flying fuck about the other team’s mean determination to win. Yep, they lost the game. But they had fun. AND they went to MacDonalds afterwards for food. AND you know what? Later that season, I ref’d for them again. And they were better than before. And they beat a fairly strong team.
So tell me - what’s important? Camaraderie and teamwork? Or winning and “the gaaaaame” at all costs?
I think a lot of it depends on parents’ attitudes. Remember that we’ve seen parents kill each other over kids’ hockey games in the past…
So tell me - again - what’s important? What are we teaching our kids?
I agree with most of the OP. However, I can only agree with the sentiments when in the context of COMPETITION. It seems to me that Mr. Prick’s team posed no threat of competition, and as such, a “competitive spirit” is overkill. It’s great to instill young girls with this empowerment, and to let them know that they don’t have to just be cheerleaders* - they can play in the game as well. But there comes a point when playing a game in which the outcome is known by everyone involved where it is no longer fun, and there is a complete absence of competition.
*I’m not trying to downgrade or insult cheerleaders, just that for many years, cheerleading was the “only place” for girls at sporting competitions.
Where in my post did I say that no one should win? What I did say was that, at that age, learning the sport is more important than winning every game, and that sportsmanship is a more important value to learn from the beginning than “winning no matter what”. These are young children, many of them just beginning to have a chance to try some of these activities. It is more important to give them all a chance at first.
I knew it wasn’t just me who was wondering why that or “East European immigrant” were part of this pathetic rant.
I had a “humiliate the other team” type of coach for softball for a year and a half. (and all the coaching instruction that went with it) And we won. And then, after one game when we weren’t as ruthless as he liked us to be, he had a fit and quit - we ended up with a “Mr. Prick” type coach, and the game got a lot more fun. Competitiveness is another one of those things that needs to be done in moderation. Too little is bad, too much can be worse.
Imagine if Mr. Prick’s team had been coached by the coach elenfair saw. The latter coach’s approach encouraged the kids to try. He put the kids in; Mr. Prick arranged to mix the team in a misguided attempt to spare the little darlings’ feelings. Of course, said little darlings are old enough to realize when they are being condescended to, instead of being encouraged.
thirdwarning, “playing to win” is very different from “winning no matter what.” Just explain to me how a game is set up so that nobody wins.