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 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

[diablopilot 2]

Both sides of your discussion are playing to win, but what they are playing for is different.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[skyninja 0]

That's a disturbing story.

Why don't you just play 'chicken' on the railroad tracks? It would be a cheaper way to toy with death, I'm sure.

CWR #2 - "You SAID collision!"

[pirana 0]

Quote

Both sides of your discussion are playing to win, but what they are playing for is different.

Allow me to clarify. There is a group that wanted to win the championship tourney. The other group wanted to share playing time, regardless of the impact on chances of winning the tourney.

" . . . 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

[diablopilot 2]

Right, one wanted to win a championship, and one wanted to win an experience. Nothing wrong with either.

The key for next time, when building the team, ask what the goal is. Bring up this scenario.

I play to win, always. But sometimes my goal is different than the assumed goal.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[Jewels 0]

I think you're assuming that everyone eventually comes around to the idea that winning is more important than equal participation. I don't think that's a safe assumption. That's why there are different kinds of leagues in different kinds of sports that are intentionally set up to have varying levels of competitiveness. I'm competitive in a lot of areas but, for the most part, just don't have any interest in competing athletically. If I do something athletic, I do it for fun and quite often ignore the score altogether--if I keep it in the first place.

TPM Sister #102

[pirana 0]

Quote

That's a disturbing story.

It's a very common scenario. I've coached many kids teams; from 6 year old T-Ball to HS age baseball. At either end of that the answer is usually very obvious. For the 6 year olds the emphasis is on instruction; with no regards at all for who wins the game. At the varsity level, there is little doubt that the object is to win the game and players have roles of rock-star-starter to benchwarmer and everything in between. Accepting their role is part of remaining on the team.

My quandry is: Where does winning the game take priority over fairness in playing time?

p.s. - If that is disturbing, you must be an absolute wreck with all that is going on in the world today.

" . . . 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

[riddler 0]

Quote

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.

When I was 10 years old, I was on a little-league football team. I wasn't very good. The coach, who was very competitive, put me in the game only twice the entire season, for very short periods. I worked hard in practice, but I hated football after that experience because I never got to play.

Years later, I had friends that played college football, and they had similar stories. They went on to other teams and became very good players as adults.

I think it's fine to praise children for their talents when they are young. When we judge children for their lack of ability, we are never giving them a chance to get better. The best compliment I can give my children is that they worked hard to accomplish something, not if they are "good" or "bad" at something.

The story has a happy ending - I was the top earner for the little league team doing door-to-door sales. Today, I own a successful business doing consulting work

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[pirana 0]

Quote

I think you're assuming that everyone eventually comes around to the idea that winning is more important than equal participation. I don't think that's a safe assumption. That's why there are different kinds of leagues in different kinds of sports that are intentionally set up to have varying levels of competitiveness. I'm competitive in a lot of areas but, for the most part, just don't have any interest in competing athletically. If I do something athletic, I do it for fun and quite often ignore the score altogether--if I keep it in the first place.

Very good - -What is the stated purpose up front? I hadn't thought of it other than to go to the parents since I consider it their team. I did chat a couple days later with the head honcho of volleyball for our district and he hedged a bit, but thought the kids who are working hardest, and therefore improving their skills the most, deserve more playing time, especially if it means placing better.

And maybe my initial explanation needs more detail. I coach in programs where the intent is to instruct and train athletes to successfully compete at the varsity level. Success at that level in our district means winning (but doing so within the rules and letter of the law). We are not an intramural/recreational program; but are expected to deliver highly skilled competitive athletes to the varsity level.

To do that we start out with instruction as the only goal, and eventually move to winning the games as the primary goal. We never stop instructing, but at what age do we reward skills with more playing time? (And therefore a better chance of winning?)

" . . . 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

[Genn 0]

I played basketball in this age group (7?-8-13) for 5 years.

We had great team chemistry and played to win. Mr. Chelaro (still remember his name!), was a great coach and made it work (suicides comes to mind).

Anyway, by age 12, I think winning is important and should be the primary goal of competitive sports.

Also, my last year, I switched schools and was forced to join another team. The coach was terrible- and so was the team. That's the year I quit playing. If the coach didn't care, the team didn't care. Why should I?!

A couple girls from Mr. Chelaro's team went on to get scholorships.

[pirana 0]

Quote

When I was 10 years old, I was on a little-league football team. I wasn't very good. The coach, who was very competitive, put me in the game only twice the entire season, for very short periods. I worked hard in practice, but I hated football after that experience because I never got to play.

Years later, I had friends that played college football, and they had similar stories. They went on to other teams and became very good players as adults.

I think it's fine to praise children for their talents when they are young. When we judge children for their lack of ability, we are never giving them a chance to get better. The best compliment I can give my children is that they worked hard to accomplish something, not if they are "good" or "bad" at something.

The story has a happy ending - I was the top earner for the little league team doing door-to-door sales. Today, I own a successful business doing consulting work

Whole-heartedly agree. For my baseball team of 10-year olds, everybody plays, everybody gets a chance to try whatever they like. It is all about being ready to learn, putting forth effort, and enjoying playing ball with your friends.

My story is similar to yours. I sucked at baseball until about my middle teens. Played Little League B team only because not many kids came out (small town). Couldn't even come close to making the HS squad. But by about age 19 I was rock-star good. I don't even know how exactly it happened. Just kept playing I guess until my senses and body matured.

I am terrible at fund-raising though.

" . . . 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

[pirana 0]

So maybe it is a matter of fit. Like so many things, it is all about the relationships. Do the program, coaches, players, and parents have a mutual goal?

I'm concerned about this because next year I've got 7th Grade Girls Basketball. It involves a few of the same girls. I want to address this up front before we get started without scaring people away.

" . . . 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

[Conundrum 1]

I was competing to win when I was 12 years old. Travel hockey team, playing in various leagues. Playing time wasn't always equal. If certain players were hot during a game, they played more than someone who might have been a little off their game (which was rare). Our team went 52-2 and we loved every second of it. Practices at 3 in the morning an hour away, 3 games in a day for 2 days straight. We wanted to win, and we did what it took to win, even if certain players didnt play. But, travel sports are a little different than your average weekend community soccer league.

Winning isn't everything, but wanting to win is.

[Jewels 0]

It's interesting that this issue didn't come up earlier in your season. I think it's an excellent idea to set goals and have a vision for what your team's priorities will be before you get started next year, especially if that's communicated to both parents and players early on.

I don't coach (there's a shock!), but would it be possible to spend the first half of the season giving everyone equal time, and then move to a more competitive approach where you cherry pick your players as you get further along? That way the less-than-stellar players could have a significant role in the season but you could still use your stronger players when the stakes start going up.

TPM Sister #102

[livendive 8]

I'm a very competitive person, but that doesn't mean that winning ALWAYS has to be the goal. I played on a softball team for 8 years where having fun was the primary goal, regardless of winning. My own team shouted far more insults at me on the pitching mound than the opponents and we took beers out to our positions. Whenever there was a significant run disparity we would switch positions each inning, and everyone who showed up healthy played every inning of every game...even those with a batting average below .100 and no defensive skill at all. One year we came within one win of the league championship by pure luck, and when we lost that game to a bunch of a-hole ringers recruited specifically for that tournament, nobody cared (possibly because we were absolutely smashed late in the second game of a double-header).

I guess what I'm getting that is the team has to establish a goal. Winning is then defined by accomplishing that goal. If the goal is to beat your opponents as many times as possible, then winning on the scoreboard reigns supreme. If the goal is for everyone to play and have fun, accomplishing that makes for a successful season. Next year, I'd suggest the goal be established at try-outs or the first practice, and make sure everyone buys into it. Then at the end of the season, or whenever things get tough, remind yourself (and the team) of the agreed upon goal.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[TheCaptain 2]

I think you had a great solution in what you did with the Volley ball team, poll the parents and majority wins. This way everyone knows upfront the direction the team is taking.
My son got into football in Fifth grade and since it was his first year as a parent my concern was with equal playing time and I am sure as time goes on and my sons skills increase I may push more for the win aspect.
Kirk

Kirk
He's dead Jim

[pirana 0]

OK then. I'm going to meet with the varsity basketball coach and get the intended direction of the program, and how that might impact playing time.

Everybody does get to play. It's a small school, so there are no tryouts. The issue is really just about playing time.

Seems pretty simple, I just wanted and appreciate additional perspectives.

The thing is if we scare off all but the best skille paland everybody

" . . . 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

[Genn 0]

I think it is impossible to please all the parents, but possible to please all the players.

At 12 years old, everybody on the team was happy to be part of a winning team. However, this mindset was developed over the years. If your goal is varsity level players, a 'pep talk' at the beginning of the season is always a good idea.

By this age, many of us went to basketball camps (West Point/Fordham/Oneonta/etc.) during the summer and invested quite a bit of money. Our coach did not ask for parental input. You can't please them all. In my opinion, catering to the parents can/will be the detriment to the team.

If we gave up the title to a team we beat 2 weeks prior because our coach 'polled the parents'(eta: instead of the team), most the team would have walked or petitioned for a new coach.

[pirana 0]

I definitely felt for the 2 highly competitive-minded players. The only reason I went to the parents was because I had 4 players asking why everyone wasn't playing equally. So I asked them. Two said do what it takes to win the tourney, 4 said share time equally, and 1 wouldn't commit.

I did give up control of the team; and it is something I won't do again. The plan for next season's basketball team will be to meet with the director, come to agreement on direction, let everybody know the score up front, and stick to it.

It will be 7th grade, and related to what was mentioned, several of the players are attending camps this summer, shooting daily, and in general doing what it takes to improve skills.

" . . . 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

[Genn 0]

I think you came up with a good game plan.

[skymama 35]

I asked my husband his opinion. He's been a club, HS and state soccer coach for 20 years. His opinion is that at that age you still need to try to give everyone equal playing time. You want the lesser players to stay interested in the sport and give them a chance. He said he starts playing to win around age 16.

She is Da Man, and you better not mess with Da Man,
because she will lay some keepdown on you faster than, well, really fast. ~Billvon

[SpiritFingers 0]

I think it completely depends on the program.

I remember in little league (elementary school) we got pretty fair play time but still wanted to win. And yes scores were kept and the winning team got trophies... so we learned even though we all got to play - that there was still a winner.

When i moved into Jr High School the rules changed. It then became about winning and playing as a team (no matter what role each player played). And our coaches were very up front about that. Its not about being fair anymore. Its about teaching a group how to work together and be a team. If we missed a practice the day before a game day - then we didn't play during that game. There were rules and playing was a privilege (not a right just cause we were on the team). We always had to prove ourselves and that made us an amazing team. We were in it to win.

I honestly think that it all depends on the program and what exactly you are trying to teach these kids. Are you trying to teach them to be fair or to win?

[cocheese 0]

Awe tell em to pop a Midol and listen to Tom Petty.

Even the Losers.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_T94e7mgW8&feature=related

[kschilk 0]

I believe the operative word(s) here, would be "team(s)". There's a difference in "team" sports and those that pit individuals, against individuals or a "neutral" opponent...like a track, obstacle or maybe even "Mother Nature", in general.

I think team sports, are best suited (at that age) to instilling the virtues of teamwork and winning should be a secondary goal. When the team really gels and comes together as "one", the wins will follow by natural course. As for the three that quit....no matter what their skill level, no team needs a quitter.

"T'was ever thus."

[DJL 232]

Quote

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

This is something that you as the coach have to define at the beginning of the season. Anything but a "select" league should tend towards equal playing time. You should also move your elite players to an elite league.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher