Are the FA doing the right thing with anti competitive youth football?

[jaybee]

I help coach young boys for our club, and the age group I am most involved with is currently under 8's. Next year has always traditionally been the year that the boys look forward to (under 9's) in that this becomes the first year they can play in "competitive" leagues with published results and hence tables with points. This is being stopped. All under 9 age groups next season will not be allowed to do this. The season after in 2014/2015, it is being extended to under 10s as well. So my age group cannot play "competitive" football for a further 2 years despite that we have played in knock out tournaments already at this age group.
Players also now stay playing as 7v7 until the age of 11 when it changes to 9v9. Under 7's play as 5v5 but this may be changing to under 8's play as 5v5.

What does "competitive" mean?
It means you can play in leagues and have leage tables published with results.

What other way is there?
It's usually referred to as "festival" based or friendly mini soccer. You may still play in groups and/or be tiered to make the games as fair and competitive as possible, but these will not be leagues. Results must not be published anywhere online or in papers etc. Boys names cannot be used. If you write a match report the guidelines state that it must use things like "we then came foward and scored".

Why are the FA doing this?
The thinking behind it is to try to prevent a "win at all costs" attitude and to change coaching. It is trying to make results less important and to stop coaching that is aimed at "winning tactics". i.e. Hitting it long and direct for example. It aims to focus on long term player development, and to provide a playing environment for young players where they are not as under pressure or concerned with results and can play football and be taught "properly" to play the game and explore new football ideas and techniques in order to help promote better development and standards at mini soccer level.

It also aims to give more players more touches of the ball with the smaller team numbers. Emphasis is on Small sided games (SSG's).

We as a nation are apparently very behind on coaching methods. This is supposedly the way our fellow Europeans have been running youth football for years.


So do we have to follow the FA's guidelines?
Yes, they are mandatory in all organised youth football in the UK as far as I am aware.


What are the main arguments against the above approach from the FA?
- It won't change coaching.
- Life is competitive so why shy away from competition.
- Overly protective (politically correct) of children losing.
- It spoils the enjoyment for many.
- It does not reward players/teams who want to compete at a high level at young ages which goes against the key "development" emphasis.
- No sense of achievement. "What are we playing for?"
- Most young players actually want to play in leagues with scores and points if you ask them, even at very young ages.
- Why/how ultimately, will this help develop more home grown English talent?
- Football is about competing to win and success should be celebrated
- Losing is also an important lesson and should be accepted by players too

There is that saying that "it's the taking part that counts". I think this would sum up the FA's new approach. The other extreme would be "play to win".

What is your opinion on this?




EDIT: Also a poll would be good:

Do you think the FA are doing the right thing banning competitive league play until under 11's age group?

1: Yes it's a good idea.
2: No it's a bad idea.

 

[mp260767]

it seems to be the approach take by most of the main footballing nations from what i can see, though ages can vary.

more importantly it's supposed to give the youngsters chance to develop proper skills rather than working on "winning" matches.

with reference to most young players wanting to play in leagues, that's how they've been brought up, the attitude has to be changed to making the skill levels be more important and valuable to them.

as mentioned, it's down to being too competitive, and having a "must win at all costs", rather than developing the skills of the game, which is what it should be about at that age.

Being behind on coaching has to be put firmly at the door of the FA, they need to sort things out, and have been stuck in there ways for to long.

winning/losing isn't an issue that will be developed as they mature, early on skills are all that matter, otherwise we'll end up in an even worse situation than we're in at the moment.


so i think it's a good idea, been talked about for agesssss, better late than never i guess, just a lot of catching up to do.

 

[FrankJH]

Its a great pity that the kids the OP looks after are on the "hump" and lose the extra year of non-competitive games, however in the long run for all those kids involved in the coming years imo its a good change.

The skills being developed early and nurtured are what matters, not the competitive nature of the games as such.

 

[G|mp]

Agreed, I think it's a good thing, it's the competitive nature of kids football that causes a lot of the problems.

How many times do you hear about Dads kicking off at matches and referees getting attacked at under 9 games. They have had this kind of system abroad for years, kids shouldn't be competitive at that age, plenty of time for that once they have learned the basics of team play and how to play football with a smile on your face.

 

[atpbx]

Winning isn't important at that age.

Coaching young teams just to win and picking the most productive players from those youth teams is the reason why Andy Carroll and Emile Heskey are professional footballers.

 

[Derek W]

Since when was 'hitting it long and direct' a winning tactic?

 

[BigChief]

After reading the first few lines of the OP I was thinking of course it's a bad idea. Upon reading the justification of what the FA are trying to achieve it significantly changed my view point. I now think it's a good idea. I especially agree with the focus on SSG.

As a kid I played 11 a side from the point at which I could kick a ball. Always a defender and playing left back I didn't see very much of the ball and now feel I'm not the player I could have been. I was never coached to run with the ball or go past players, it was always a focus on defending. I needed to be a good defender in order for the team to win, other aspects were deemed less important because winning mattered. Taking away the "competitiveness" should encourage coaches to develop all aspects of the game for kids. Allowing coaches to play kids in different positions, as the emphasis is not on the winning, but the development of the skillset of each individual.

Competitive attitudes within the children will come out naturally as they grow up. At what age the "competitivness" should be brought in is the question.

 

[4T5]

I think this is a great idea as in my experience there's maybe 20 kids in a team who want to play but the Coach only plays the 11 he thinks will win the game. The other 9 soon get fed up & wander off to do summit else. This way All the kids will get played & all will get trained/coached accordingly.
The Cream will always rise to the top & we would have a bigger pool to pick from.

 

[fez]

The reason many of us gave up football around the age of 13 was because it wasn't competitive it was just nasty. I have competed in a number of sports at county level and the only one that I ever stopped playing was football.

There came that age where you would be playing against kids that had hit puberty a little earlier and were much taller and they would just foul you off the ball while the refs did nothing. It also attracted the biggest ***** as well.

I was one of the better players and we had a good team but when it hit that age range we just got pasted by teams who would win at any cost and picked their teams to smash us rather than outplay us. You can get enjoyment out of losing a good game, you can't get it out of a game where there was no good football, just fouling and bullying.

 

[jaybee]

Some good points raised. Although I would argue against:

Winning isn't important at that age.

I feel it is still important. Ultimately, we don't train and go to matches to lose. We go to win. The objectives of football go hand in hand with competing to WIN the match, by scoring goals. Of course it is not ALL about this. Not at all. We play to have fun and enjoy the game. But, if there were no goals in football to score into, it would not be football. If there was no winning and losing, then there is no match. It's not something we should be scared of. Our young players can take it.

I have experienced players in our squad crying at a tournament when they lost in a final to penalties. It was a knock out tournament. They were crying because THEY wanted to win. They soon got over it. They picked up their runners up trophy and were praised by parents and coaches massively due to their efforts. That day they learned to accept a painful defeat. They also learned to make the most of what success they had and deserved to get runners up.
Nobody has been hospitalized by losing.
Nobody wants to quit due to missing a penalty.
Nobody was so under pressure that they did not enjoy it. The boys loved every minute of it but just got emotional.

Sometimes I feel that without competition like the above, it would be a shame for the boys and for football.

Lose the passion, and you lose football some would say.

Since when was 'hitting it long and direct' a winning tactic?

A lot of youth football coaches play with tactics such as this to win games. They will often field teams with physically matured players that despite being clumsy, are very big and strong and dominate possession. Often we see teams that are told to "get rid of it" and to "clear it" or to "hit it long" straight towards the goal route 1, which is often very effective. Not pretty, but effective. I have seen and witnessed first hand goal keepers that are told to go for goal in tournament games with smaller pitches. Yes, I mean literally will drop kick from their hands from the edge of the box and aim for goal. You would be surprised how many times they create a goal or even score directly due to young players not being competent in goal with high bouncing balls.

The point is, not to develop players to play like Stoke, but rather to have the confidence to play like Barcelona. Plenty of individual skill and touches and passing and movement.

 

[fez]

I feel it is still important. Ultimately, we don't train and go to matches to lose. We go to win. The objectives of football go hand in hand with competing to WIN the match, by scoring goals. Of course it is not ALL about this. Not at all. We play to have fun and enjoy the game. But, if there were no goals in football to score into, it would not be football. If there was no winning and losing, then there is no match. It's not something we should be scared of. Our young players can take it.

I have experienced players in our squad crying at a tournament when they lost in a final to penalties. It was a knock out tournament. They were crying because THEY wanted to win. They soon got over it. They picked up their runners up trophy and were praised by parents and coaches massively due to their efforts. That day they learned to accept a painful defeat. They also learned to make the most of what success they had and deserved to get runners up.
Nobody has been hospitalized by losing.
Nobody wants to quit due to missing a penalty.
Nobody was so under pressure that they did not enjoy it. The boys loved every minute of it but just got emotional.

I think you might be missing the point here. There will always be winners and losers in a football match, they are trying to remove the desire to win above all else. They are not saying that a winning mentality is bad they are simply saying that if you prioritise that from a young age you tend to promote the wrong kind of football and encourage those who either develop early or are more agressive players.

We are starting to realise more and more in this country that children in sport should not be treated like their adult counterparts. The pitch and goal size for one should reflect the players. I remember that we used to score countless goals at under 12 level just by hoofing the ball at the goal and hoping it bounced over him.

By the time most of the players have grown up they have gone through god knows how many styles of football. Each one being effective for the age they were playing at until they get to the top level and they can't make that change. Its too much.

 

[Loki]

I look after my lads team and we go Under 12's next year in the 9 v 9 format. We have gone from doing 'Joint training sessions' (Under 5's to Under 7s) to It's not a league it's just a group with no published table to 7 a side runners up to 9 a side relegation.

I would challenge the OP on the title of the thread, it's not anti competitive its pro skill based. By it's very nature football is a competitive team sport. Regardless of there being no league formal league structure or cup, will this detract from it being competitive, will it hell. Kids will still talk about their results on the playground on a Monday morning.

Personally I am all for it and I don't think it goes far enough, nowhere near far enough.

I have experienced players in our squad crying at a tournament when they lost in a final to penalties. It was a knock out tournament. They were crying because THEY wanted to win. They soon got over it. They picked up their runners up trophy and were praised by parents and coaches massively due to their efforts. That day they learned to accept a painful defeat. They also learned to make the most of what success they had and deserved to get runners up.
Nobody has been hospitalized by losing.
Nobody wants to quit due to missing a penalty.
Nobody was so under pressure that they did not enjoy it. The boys loved every minute of it but just got emotional.

Sometimes I feel that without competition like the above, it would be a shame for the boys and for football.

Lose the passion, and you lose football some would say.

No issue with that per se. What the real issue of competitive football is not necessarily the kids but more so the parents. Too many times parents forsake the kids development for the result on the Saturday or Sunday morning.

The barometer of success is defined by Little Johhny scores or sets one up and the team win, little Jonny makes a mistake the team loses. Too many times do you hear parents or coaches shouting at kids

'DONT DRIBBLE ON THE EDGE OF YOUR BOX, CLEAR IT' - Conversely we bemoan our national team for not being able to play the ball out from the back like continental team X or International team Y

'RELEASE IT, YOUR TOO GREEDY' - Down the pub have we heard 'England has not had a decent winger for years who could take somebody on'

'SHOOT, IF YOU DO ONE THING JUST SHOOT' Statistically more goals are scored inside the box than outside the box. I'm sure we have all seen teams like Germany, Spain, Holland etc all being able to score from open play and from within the box.

Nobody wan'ts to lose but their has to be a better way to win. If removing a league structure means kids are more likely to make mistakes on the edge of the box, learn from it and become better footballers then Hallee Effin Lujah we are doing something right. If Little Johnny keeps taking on players he will sure as hell become a good winger. I can coach him to cross the ball once he has beat his man, I can't coach natural talent into him on how to take the **** out of a defender.

Another thing the FA have got right is from next season all parents and spectators from both teams will be on one side of the pitch and the coaches on the other with a greater distance from the touch line. Again Halle effin Lujah. I don't have to put up with 20 or so other coaches behind me sniping why their kid isn't getting enough game time or why we make a substitution or telling their Kid to mark Player X when I say cover position Y.

Again, small steps, positive steps, nowhere near enough. Football should be a summer sport for kids. From September to December last year, we played 4 games including 1 cup game due to water logged pitches, how on earth is it good for their development to play 1 week on, 3 weeks off.

I agree football should be competitive but for the right reasons. Nurture the talent, let them learn the skills but more importantly let them play with a confidence that makes better decision makers on the pitch.

We would all be happy to say that Gerrard and Lampard were probably some of the best English midfielders we have produced in the last twenty years or so. Would we put them up there on the international stage consistently with the Pirlos, Iniestas of this world, probably not. And that's not through lack of skills. At the very highest level when the pressure was on their decision making was more conservative than their peer's. At a young age players get taught what they should do and what they shouldn't do. When they think in such a rigid framework, is it any suprise why England does so poorly at tournament football ?

 

[jaybee]

Loki, at our club we are lucky to have some really nice parents. They are generally very well behaved and a great bunch. They totally respect our decisions as coaches and we have already been playing behind FA respect lines for all of last season and some of the one before, where they are a) behind a barrier back from the sideline and b) the other side of the pitch to coaches and players. This works well. I have seen parents and coaches are already learning to follow FA respect guidelines. There is massive emphasis on fair play, sportsmanship and achieving charter standards. Each game is scored by each team on the opposition for parents, manager and player behaviour.

There are always going to be an unfortunate minority that spoil things. I would say 80% of coaches I meet week in week out, are nice guys and behave as expected. The other 20%....well...I have seen some incidents that we have had to report including abuse to refs being the main one. It's hard to watch young 14 year old refs take abuse. I have seen coaches come onto the pitch and argue in the middle of a game. Yes some of the refs (which are also scored) make big mistakes, but I always stand by their decision and we have always done this as a club. Say nothing, let them ref. The worst incident I have heard of this season, is of a ref being physically abused. The person that did this is likely to lose his CRB and all football related qualificiations and be banned from the youth football for life.

Parents. I have seen OTT aggressive shouting at players. I have seen a parent run onto the pitch to celebrate a goal with their son doing an aeroplane celebration. Yes really. At under 7's level!

But all of this is dying out as people learn that they are scored and reported for such behaviour, at least in our league anyway. I say league, I mean league without results You know what I mean.

I think generally the steps they are taking to promote better coaching and general behaviour and sportsmanship in football is great, but I'm just not sure a total ban on scores/results is called for. A lot of my boys are really dissappointed about this and have even talked about giving up. The problem is, that they are the first year to experience this. They have grown up with parents and brothers telling them that "next year will be where you play for real points in leagues" and is something they look forward to as the next step into playing more grown up football. I think waiting till age 11 to do that is OTT. I have a 4 year old that knows how to win and lose and is a fantastic little footballer already. He must wait 7 more years to presumably be considered ready to play in competitive leagues. It just doesn't seem right to me.

Coming bottom of the league never hurt anyone. If your feelings hurt that bad from it, then turn it around by playing better. That's how my team got good when we were young. We wanted to climb league tables and go places. Why shouldn't highly competitive and talented young 8 year olds be allowed to be competitive and rewarded for continued effort and performances week in week out? That's my beef.

 

[No1newts]

After reading the first few lines of the OP I was thinking of course it's a bad idea. Upon reading the justification of what the FA are trying to achieve it significantly changed my view point. I now think it's a good idea. I especially agree with the focus on SSG.

Same.

I do think a bit of competitive football is a good thing though or it will come as quite a shock when they do hit a competitive league, all in all though good reasoning.

 

[Loki]

There are always going to be an unfortunate minority that spoil things. I would say 80% of coaches I meet week in week out, are nice guys and behave as expected. The other 20%....well...I have seen some incidents that we have had to report including abuse to refs being the main one. It's hard to watch young 14 year old refs take abuse. I have seen coaches come onto the pitch and argue in the middle of a game. Yes some of the refs (which are also scored) make big mistakes, but I always stand by their decision and we have always done this as a club. Say nothing, let them ref. The worst incident I have heard of this season, is of a ref being physically abused. The person that did this is likely to lose his CRB and all football related qualificiations and be banned from the youth football for life.

That is encouraging. I have seen a Fourteen year old ref reduced to tears due to an over zealous coach calling him out for being bias because a few decisions didn't go His way never mind the kids way. Again the need for winning to get promoted was way above player development or sporting behavior.

Coming bottom of the league never hurt anyone. If your feelings hurt that bad from it, then turn it around by playing better. That's how my team got good when we were young. We wanted to climb league tables and go places. Why shouldn't highly competitive and talented young 8 year olds be allowed to be competitive and rewarded for continued effort and performances week in week out? That's my beef.

I agree in part and I guess it's a fine line between encouraging competitive play and being in the right spirit and discouraging competitive nature to the point where it stifles player development due to the result being more important than the performance

My team came runners up won promotion two years ago through playing football in what I feel is the 'Right way' They can get the ball down and play good football on the deck. It was one of their proudest days playing for the club to goto the league ceremony and pick up their medals and runners up shield, we then get relegated and overtook by teams who are more direct who play the sterotypical more direct style of play, launch it long to somebody who has pace but no skill. If he shoots ten times, he will score 2 but will never have the skill to round the keeper.

Again it's a fine line, and I probably sound as though I am going to contradict myself but where non competitiveness really does screw things up is that there is no natural order. The level of opposition at junior level should always be appropriate. If any team in hammering other teams 10 nil or vice versa getting hammered 10 nil then they will gain nothing from playing football. How can you set an appropriate level of opposition without having a structured league around it

 

[mp260767]

i don't being competitive will be an issue, some people are naturally more competitive than others and that will still come out.

i'm hoping that the "competitive" side of things will be more along the lines of old keepy uppies, dribbling past players more players than your mate etc, once they have the skills, and are taught how to play properly then they can work on the rest.

nice work with the team Loki, hopefully more teams will be starting to play that way.

as for the league side of things, i don't think it will be much different than it is now if you have a new team starting ?

if they do get drubbed 10-0, as long as there playing well, its down to the coaches and parents to encourage them and help them.

 

[Diesel]

I think small sided games are fantastic. I see little point in 7 year olds playing on a massive pitch (I remember my first game at under 10's was on a pitch that I played on last season in senior football!) with 21 other kids barely getting a touch of the ball.

 

[HangTime]

The reason many of us gave up football around the age of 13 was because it wasn't competitive it was just nasty. I have competed in a number of sports at county level and the only one that I ever stopped playing was football.

There came that age where you would be playing against kids that had hit puberty a little earlier and were much taller and they would just foul you off the ball while the refs did nothing. It also attracted the biggest ***** as well.

I think Rugby is even worse due to greater amount of physical contact - although on the flipside it is perhaps better preparation for the 'real world' i.e. physique can be limiting even in the adult game.

I had some crazy ill-conceived idea about how children's football should be based on height bandings rather than age, which would mean you wouldn't get a situation where some teams have a Peter Crouch to punt the ball up to, and equally Peter Crouch would actually have had to learn how to jump for headers rather than simply stooping his head (watching him over the years I'm convinced this is why his technique in the air is so poor, in schoolboy football he probably towered over his peers and so never properly developed or learnt how to time his jumps). Of course there are a lot of reasons why it wouldn't work and would perhaps penalise taller players (i.e. a 12 year old thrown in with 15 year olds with 3 years more training and under their belts plus a stronger build). Plus Messi in the U14s, lol.

 

[Purdy]

Many people gave up on football where I live due to the fact grammar schools seem to think it is some kind of working class sport and rugby is above it, gotta force that rugby ********/rowing and athletics in the summer the ballbags, pretty pathetic that no grammar school plays it here pretty much.

 

[atpbx]

Some good points raised. Although I would argue against:



I feel it is still important. Ultimately, we don't train and go to matches to lose. We go to win. The objectives of football go hand in hand with competing to WIN the match, by scoring goals. Of course it is not ALL about this. Not at all. We play to have fun and enjoy the game. But, if there were no goals in football to score into, it would not be football. If there was no winning and losing, then there is no match. It's not something we should be scared of. Our young players can take it.

.

Its nice to win, but when there really isnt anything at stake, like when you are developing players so that they have confidence to use their skills without the fear of letting the team down if it goes wrong, winning isnt important.

Being able to play with freedom and expressing themselves is the only thing that matters at this stage, with the pleasure of winning a game BECAUSE they have expressed themselves and played without fear, being a secondary consideration.