Changes to Youth Soccer

so on one hand you are arguing for more soccer just like they play it at the youth level in Europe and Africa and South America ... and on the other you are saying its crap?

you do realize that the reason so few Canadians make it to the "big game" of world soccer is our outdated training model right?

do kids in Africa play in a championship at age 11?

Deank wrote:so on one hand you are arguing for more soccer just like they play it at the youth level in Europe and Africa and South America ... and on the other you are saying its crap?

you do realize that the reason so few Canadians make it to the "big game" of world soccer is our outdated training model right?

do kids in Africa play in a championship at age 11?

I don't know...do they?

Though I would compare more to European countries than African when it comes to soccer...not because their players are better...but because their organization for soccer is more advanced (ie. organized teams/leagues for all ages).

Soccer has evolved and devolved since I was a kid. And there are big differences from where I played to here.

Here's the real problem I have about it.
A GAME is to be won or lost.
A practice is for skill development.

Personally...even at levels as high as the World Series, or Superbowl, I get upset that all the players don't get a chance on the field...a chance to show what they can do at the "big game". But...a coach will put who they believe is the best player at that time.

For U12 levels though...where there is a "pool" selection rather than a "tryout"...then I believe all players should be REQUIRED to play a minimum amount of game time...and PER GAME...not for the season. So everyone would get to play in every game...guaranteed.

But if there's a "tryout" component to get on the team...then that coach has selected players based upon their abilities...and if their abilities don't meet the standards for a particular competition...then the player may not get to play.

Thats part of the problem we see at the older ages. U14 players looking toward the provincial program, and they don't know how to kick the ball, how to shield with their body, because someone has allowed that to continue because their team continued to win and that is all that mattered.

We have more and more coaches at the higher levels, who are technically competent as they have been accredited under the provincial land national icensing programs. We defer to their expertise to tell us how a player is devleoping.

Remember, these changes are for the U9-U12 ages.

"For U12 levels though...where there is a "pool" selection rather than a
"tryout"...then I believe all players should be REQUIRED to play a
minimum amount of game time...and PER GAME...not for the season. So
everyone would get to play in every game...guaranteed."

Luck you.. you just described what is called FAIR PLAY which every youth rec sports team is required to follow regardless of kids effort, attendance at practices and attitude towards coaches.

And you have also just described the thing that drives 20% of the kids away from sports.

"Remember, these changes are for the U9-U12 ages."

you can say that until you are blue in the face and we both know it wont sink in.

Deank wrote:"For U12 levels though...where there is a "pool" selection rather than a
"tryout"...then I believe all players should be REQUIRED to play a
minimum amount of game time...and PER GAME...not for the season. So
everyone would get to play in every game...guaranteed."

Luck you.. you just described what is called FAIR PLAY which every youth rec sports team is required to follow regardless of kids effort, attendance at practices and attitude towards coaches.

And you have also just described the thing that drives 20% of the kids away from sports.

Drives 20% of kids away from sports?

How so? Cause they have to play...when they don't want to be there to begin with?

no.. because they are forced to play with kids who dont have to put in the effort and still get the time.

Its one of the major reasons private leagues start up. No focus on skill development just focus on every kid playing regardless of skill. Now if you take the focus slightly away from the competition aspect and focus more on the skill... more kids will stay in longer as they are still having fun.

Deank wrote:no.. because they are forced to play with kids who dont have to put in the effort and still get the time.

Its one of the major reasons private leagues start up. No focus on skill development just focus on every kid playing regardless of skill. Now if you take the focus slightly away from the competition aspect and focus more on the skill... more kids will stay in longer as they are still having fun.

This is where & why the academy programs are starting to spring up here in the city and province. They emphasize more on the skill development of the players as opposed to the game play. One particular academy that I am very familiar with, the kids practice at minimum of 3 times per week, an hour each session for every game played (indoor) and outdoor, they may go for weeks of training before playing an actual game with a referee. There may be intersquad games where both boys and girls are mixed on the teams and the emphasis on these games are to see play development and positional development. GAMES are always a bonus part of training as that is where you get to execute what you have learned in your training and if you don't execute, then you have to correct in training.
When you look at the up and coming provincial program in Manitoba, most of the highest skilled players are now coming from the academy programs.

Deank wrote:no.. because they are forced to play with kids who dont have to put in the effort and still get the time.

Its one of the major reasons private leagues start up. No focus on skill development just focus on every kid playing regardless of skill. Now if you take the focus slightly away from the competition aspect and focus more on the skill... more kids will stay in longer as they are still having fun.

wrong...wrong...wrong.

If you take the focus away from playing for a purpose, more kids who would be good players will quit (ie. the same ones you claim are quitting now) to go play somewhere they can have some competition.

And you're wrong with your first line...they do not quit because they have to play with kids who don't have to put in the effort. AGAIN...this is U12 we're talking...so it's parents who are pulling them out, not the kids quitting...and you think they are going to leave their kids on a team where it doesn't matter if they win or lose?

Want to fix the problem...EDUCATE the players and the parents...most of them will learn if taught. Part of the reason for requiring parent-participation.

Are you kids over or under 12 AA?

As a main organizer of youth hockey and soccer and a coach of multiple teams at these age levels I can tell you that its more then often the kids driving it. They simply dont want to play any more when they put up with the crap from the other players. ( better players who hog the puck/ ball and worse players who barely even try) Allowing EVERYONE to focus on developing skills is a good thing.

Part of the reason for requiring parent-participation.
You are dreaming or on drugs.

one good thing about this discussion.

Perhaps.. JUST perhaps... with this being front and centre in the news more people will come out to Community Centre meetings and try to get involved so that they can actually have a say in this development.

small perhaps...

Right, thats what we need, is more community centre participation in the delivery of sport programs. Part of what got us where we are is the involvement of people who have motives other than the development of the game and the players.

no no.. you are misunderstanding.

It will get them involved...How do most people end up on the soccer boards?

They come up through the CCs.

I am going way back to the beginning, I think that this is somewhat a good idea. To an extent, such as U12 is a little old for no scores, as they are starting to compete at a higher level (provincials for soccer starts at U13, as well U12 has a developmental age group), they are somewhat specializing in the sports they really like as well are talented at.
U10 is a great age to do this, as long as the coaches encourage dribbling and scoring, if the coach is encouraging passing and letting other people score this defeats the whole purpose of soccer..... to score, and ultimately to win.....but like someone said in the sun comments, "the kids don't really notice who wins", instead they run to their parents and tell them how many goals they scored.

Okay. The idiot from BC isn't familiar with Winnipeg's soccer program. Is U9 all non-competitive?! They don't do any rep teams or score keeping until they're 10+? Is it city-wide, or rec-centre to rec-centre?

I'm also going to go stand beside AgesAces on this one. I'm highly competitive, and feel irked on the holding-hands-kumbyah stance that sport has been taking lately. Not everyone is a winner, baby.

I, too, am a very competitive person. I've been involved in youth soccer for some 10 years, and this is a great move for the soccer community.

U9 soccer is community centre based, and while its supposed to be a recreational program, its not working out that way. Winnipeg Youth Soccer has provided statistics on high scoring games, with a greater than 8 goal difference for the current indoor season. There are 121 games, and of that 20 of them are in the U9 age group. This is supposed to be recreational teams with kids drawn from thier local community centre, but some of these folks spend more effort to form their teams than the provincial program.

And as I keep saying, its not about not winning or losing games, its about not keeping standings. Good training sessions include an element of competition, but 9 to 12 year olds don't need to worry about being city champions.

These measures are just a start at what has to be done to improve sport for kids in this city.

I think the problem is that sports have become so ultra competitive that there is some over compensating going on.

Kids played in the timbits soccer - which was fine.

When they went up to interclub, they had a skills camp/day. Being the naive parent, I thought, sure sounds good. Well it wasn't a skill development day, it was a scouting camp to get kids into 5 days a week soccer program, and this was the first year after the timbits program.

If you want to be ultra competitive, fine. But at ages 8 and 9 that should be the exception, there should still be a recreational level ( with scorekeeping of course) that takes precedent.

When I played hockey, there was no tier system until 12 or 13. CC teams only. Now it seems like they are getting kids into tier level at 6 or 7.

8 in hockey.

See, too early.

Focus at early ages should be on inter-club.

Bring the uber-competitive in later.

Because....it weeds kids out of sports earlier and gets them more sedentary. Why would a non-competitive kid want to play in that environment?

When you say inter-club, what are you referring to? There are 69 community centres in Winnipeg, some with catchment areas of 24,000 or more and others as small as 5,000. Common sense is that if you have a population of 5,000, how can you get enough 9 or 10 yr olds to compete with teams drawn from catchments of 24,000?

And would everyone take a minute and remember, the proposal is to eliminate standings and championships, not eliminate the competitive aspect of a game. Each game is played with the intent of winning, there has to be a competitive aspect of each training session. There will be opportunities to play in tournaments, its just that league play becomes less important and the development of the player becomes primary. I've seen 10 yr olds scrimmage with an undersized ball, and they played like it was the World Cup.

Ok Freeman, you must be reading something in the article that I missed.

I read something about not keeping score, taking away the competitive component, and an indication of stopping play to do skill exercises.

I was thinking about this issue last night...and about my experience growing up.

I think the U6 groups can deal with the no standings...most the kids don't care if they win/lose the game...they care about how many goals they score, or how often they get to touch the ball. And at that age, a push for the enjoyment of the game should be the primary focus, as well as a sense of teamwork and skill building.

By U9 though...MOST of the kids have come up through the U6 level...and they are now looking for something a bit more. They WANT to know the score, and if they've won or lost...and they WANT to know if they are better than the rest of the teams. Forcing the coaches to provide equal (or that 25%) playing time is a good thing though, provided it's done properly. Telling a kid they are in the game just to get their time is NOT how to do it. All players should be treated as equally as possible, with little-to-no favoritism shown.

The U12 though should start developing a true team-based attitude. Begin showing the kids that their commitment is to do what's best for the TEAM, and that individualism, either as an "all-star" or "non-player" does not help the TEAM. Players should still get a chance to play...if for no other reason than they (their parents) paid for them to play, not sit the bench... but that the benefit of the TEAM comes first.

When the U14 or U16 (depending on the sport) hits...the game changes...and should become more about the competitiveness and skill-building. These are the years which will change the lives of many of the players. These are the years when the Colleges & Universities are looking for their new "stars". And for those sports which have professional levels...these are also the years they start watching the players...and that can be EXTREMELY life-changing.

"I read something about not keeping score, taking away the competitive
component, and an indication of stopping play to do skill exercises."

Did we read the same article?

The score will still be kept. NO STANDINGS WILL BE KEPT and no CITY Championship will be held.
Stoppage of play?? where did you get that? Do you mean the two or three training sessions per game?

Yeah. that means practices at a ratio of 2 or 3 for every game played. ie practice Monday, Wed, Thursday, Play Saturday....not stop the games two or three times and have the kids practice.

As for everything else. you mention AA.

That is basically the model that they want to progress to.

People need to take the time to realize that what is reality and what the papers spew is often two totally different things.

http://www.canadiansportforlife.ca/default.aspx?PageID=1004&LangID=en

Active Start 0-6
Fundamentals6-9
Learn to Train 9-12
Train to Train 12-16
Active for life



Some coaches and parents are so far off the mark they are having kids lifting heavy weights at age 6 and 7.

And then you go to the other extreme where some parents are so clueless that I had a bunch of them freak out because we had their kids do wrist curls at age 11.

Freeman wrote:When you say inter-club, what are you referring to?

I'm suggesting that after timbit soccer ( age 7?), perhaps the focus of WYSA should be inter-community club leagues as opposed to feeding kids into HP programs like South End United.

When my son played soccer after timbit, the local community club couldn't field a club team, he had to play out of Waverley Heights. probably because of the focus being to feed players to HP.Of course, the conspiracy theorist in me says that WYSA collects more in fees from those in HP than in club leagues, so they have an interest in promoting HP programs.

I understand the reasoning behind eliminating score keeping. I don't think this is the proper way to achieve that goal though.

I think people are "confused" about what the current model of soccer is in the city based on experiences that might not be 100% accurate.