Quote Originally Posted by mickd1961 View Post
I was the opposite.

I had a squad of around 18 of very limited players including my own son who wasn’t very good at that time and he possessed a bad attitude as well.

All the kids used to turn up for training and for the matches and I made a point of playing everyone for at least 15 or 20 minutes.

I made my own son a sub most weeks because I hate nepotism and I’d hook him first if I started him, especially if he was mouthing off.

I fell out with the committee because one knob wanted his useless son to play all of every match and they didn’t like me playing all of the squad.

The parents were disappointed when I resigned because they liked how fair I was with everyone, even with the kid with two left feet.

Problem though when you have teams - why should those kids who are talented suffer? I get it if there’s only enough for one team as give every child some playing time as football is for every one. With two sides though - talented kids are happy as they are competitive and want to win. The other team who are less able won’t have an inferior confidence problem as they will be playing with similar kids.

Big row going on in Ripon as many parents want one of the last grammar schools abolished as they feel with bright kids altogether it’s weakening on local schools. Strange that those parents who are bitter are the ones whose kids would never pass the 11+ to get in. Bright/talented kids should thrive at their own pace. Academies are ruthless as they trial a kid and reject them if not good enough. Sadly this is a competitive world and life!

I wish I had been a scientist but sadly I was not bright enough!!!