[Archived] England's Future - Fa Ban All Competitive Games Until Age 11!

[The Prof.]

Unless you have a junior footballer in the house you may not know the FA currently has a ban on all Under 8 competitive game (really). This is rigorously enforced as only the FA can with the threat of a ban on competitive game or tournament organisers!

Listening to Trevor Brooking this morning on Talksport his plan for the future is to extend this until age 11. The reason is that it allows kids to concentrate on skill. Number 2 sons team won all their games bar one this year and at the end got -- nothing (officially). "What did we play all those rainy day s for then" I was asked.

Brooking (later supported by the muppet on the same radio station at 5.00) argued that a team with a large player would be unfairly advantaged and win all the games. No. 2 sons team is not that big but has a huge amount of individual skill. 4 are at MUFC (sorry) soccer academy and 1 is at Rovers, 2 not picked up(yet).

We've played very big teams and after an initial onslaught settled down and passed the ball round them eventually catching them up and winning well.

We get lads kicked more than most but they learn and get up (or don't go down).

I am a professional educationalist full time and think the schools ban on competitive sports is the most harmful thing ever to happen to British sport. (Watch tennis this week). Yet the Muppets in charge of the FA are extending this outside school. I was nearly in tears when the kids explained to me they were trying to keep a record of how many points they had compared to the next best team they had played this summer but were finding it hard work.

All kids are naturally competitive and you need to loose and win(we've lost games in friendly tournaments) but they learn and get on with it.

This is going to put us many years behind even the poorest soccer nations in terms of ability.

I wondered what you thought and if any of our overseas readers could give me an idea what happens where they live at this level.

[rover6]

Sounds like a case of cracking a nut with a sledgehammer - whilst blindfolded and strait-jacketed.

Excess competitiveness is seen as a threat to player development. And it may be partly true, however, surely you need to work to change the culture of coaching rather than introducing these type of bans.

My secondary school PE teacher got us playing with rather heavy balls that no-one could kick to improve our technique. The thinking was that it would encourage us to pass rather than hoof (cos we couldn't hoof!) and it would level the field between the guys who had powerful kicks and the rest. This really worked and did revolutionise the style that we played with (total football indeed).

Whilst, it won't work for older kids, such innovative methods are much more productive, I think.

[American Rover12]

Well, in the township I live in, oddly enough the schools themselves don't offer teams until high school (grades 9-12 in my town). For sports before them however, their are town recreational leagues for every sport I can think of, all with schedules, Win-Loss records, playoffs, and championships. Larger nationwide programs like Pop Warner American Football and Little League baseball have divisions and ways that teams who keep winning go on to play on larger and larger stages. I'm never shy about talking about leading my Pee Wee American Football team to the state title in 7th grade, or going all the way to the last round of playoffs for the Little League World series regional bracket with my All Star team in middle school as well.

I think competition is important and offers a way to learn many things along the lines of teamwork and sports man ship. It also provides motivation, because with nothing to play for, why pay league dues when you can just run around in a park. I have to admit feeling a bit saddened when reading your post and hope that it does not follow though as planned.

[American]

Read an article about this not too long back. They have started giving "participation" awards in youth sports here, and there has been a big backlash from kids who don't feel they deserve a trophy if they haven't won anything. Will see if I can track it down.

[awhom111]

Well, in the township I live in, oddly enough the schools themselves don't offer teams until high school (grades 9-12 in my town). For sports before them however, their are town recreational leagues for every sport I can think of, all with schedules, Win-Loss records, playoffs, and championships. Larger nationwide programs like Pop Warner American Football and Little League baseball have divisions and ways that teams who keep winning go on to play on larger and larger stages. I'm never shy about talking about leading my Pee Wee American Football team to the state title in 7th grade, or going all the way to the last round of playoffs for the Little League World series regional bracket with my All Star team in middle school as well.

I think competition is important and offers a way to learn many things along the lines of teamwork and sports man ship. It also provides motivation, because with nothing to play for, why pay league dues when you can just run around in a park. I have to admit feeling a bit saddened when reading your post and hope that it does not follow though as planned.

If I remember correctly, we did not have official scores and championships until U-10. I think that the question in America is whether coaches at the high school and college levels are too worried about losing their jobs instead of developing their players for the pros. I would suspect that "competitiveness" is different when the stakes are not as high for the coaches, so I see no reason why it would really harm the players. That said, players do need to both learn how to win and learn how to lose.

Read an article about this not too long back. They have started giving "participation" awards in youth sports here, and there has been a big backlash from kids who don't feel they deserve a trophy if they haven't won anything. Will see if I can track it down.

I remember playing baseball at age 6 and the league not keeping the scores. While the coaches never mentioned the score or the result, you can bet that you could ask any of us players who was winning at any time during the game and get the absolute correct answer. Children, especially boys at that age, really like competing (and winning).

[American]

That said, players do need to both learn how to win and learn how to lose.

That's the key right there. In life you win and you lose. Nothing brings out the best (and unfortunately, sometimes the worst) in people than competition. Even when it brings out the worst, you learn how to deal with people that it brings the worst out in.

[Sydney Rovers]

Here in Australia we're going through the same thing with the introduction of Small Sided Games (FFA Link here), and I can understand the merits of not caring who wins because at the age kids should be having fun and learning the fundamentals of the game instead of worrying if their team won or not. Also think that something like this will stop some of the over competitive parents shouting abuse at kids who miss tackles, mess up passes or miss goals.

I even know that before in some states they had this system called "Roo Ball" where you would never played a game aganist another club and only ever played teams in your own age group and in your own club.

[Uddersfelt Blue]

Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that teams under the age of 9 cannot play for points but there is nothing to prevent matches being played between clubs, which is the case in the Huddersfield League. Its just that league tables aren't kept.

[S15]

Listening to Trevor Brooking this morning on Talksport his plan for the future is to extend this until age 11. The reason is that it allows kids to concentrate on skill. Number 2 sons team won all their games bar one this year and at the end got -- nothing (officially). "What did we play all those rainy day s for then" I was asked.

And there lies the true problem? Why? You spotty little runt? Because you love the game, and shouldn't need an excuse to play it.

In europe they don't play competetive games until between 13 and 15. That ends any argument you may have IMO.

BTW Rover6, your teacher had a great idea with the hard balls.

[andrew92]

i played in tournoments and leagues since i was 7, up until last year, and i dont know how it can help yong players progress by holding them back.

[The Prof.]

Thanks for the replies folks. I was particulary interested in the guys from down under as they always seem to put a competitive team out for anything they play. Looks like the USA is in some respects similar to us.

I can sympathise with the point that it might keep parents of the backs of small kids but trust me - it doesn't even in 'non' competitive games.

I think the format is we will play games which have a score but no league. I bet there is at least a couple of teams counting points. I remember playing on the tops up Mellor in a combination cup game and it hailstoned through the second half. Didn't do that for the love of the game!

Funnily enough skills balls now are very light and you just can't kick them far - this apparently helps passing and control and it seems to work.

I still think competition is the key to enjoyment and participation and agree that money would be well spent on coaching qualifications for junior team coaches.

[LeChuck]

Don't most other countries not play competitively until that age either? Personally I'd raise it to 13.

The competitive edge from a young age is what makes our sports people technically inferior; far, far too much emphasis is placed on pointlessly winning rather than perfecting skills. It angers me so much to hear parents yelling things like "GET RID OF IT!" at children's matches. I can't agree at all that "competition is the key to enjoyment", I'm not sure what you base that on.

We desperately need to change the culture of youth football in this country, and this is just one step that was needed in my opinion. People are naturally competitive, nobody is going to lose out by being restricted on that front until they're 11. Who actually cares what they achieved in Primary School football anyway?

Edit: Your tennis point baffles me too. The Brits always have heart and determination but always fall short technically.

[RoversFanUSA]

Well theres a similar thing going on here in the states. Some people have gotten together and have thought it a good idea that up intill the age of 10 all sports (baseball,soccer,basketball,peewee football,hockey,) that kids play will not keep score and and that in the end "Everyone wins" amd get a trophey.

What crap! To me its just holding kids back and teaching them that no matter what your going to win and not to worry because it'll be ok. I mean what happens when they grow up and are in the office and dont get that all important account? Will they be able to handle it or will they just think its ok everyone wins!

I grew up winning and losing and I feel its VERY important to a childs delvelopment while growing up. I feel it teachs them that you dont always win and if you dont win then pratice and work harder.

Stupid people...

[S15]

If you believe that a child should be able to cope with the self/or peer pressure which is attached to winning/losing from such a young age than you're a 'stupid person.'

So many would quit so young, and special talent would be wasted.

[American Rover12]

An insult in quotes isn't an insult? Well in that case, you're 'dumb.' Just because your child can't cope with losing and learn from what occurred doesn't mean any other child can't. at that young of an age, usually there is not one major fualt in any of the individual childrens' play, just the fact that the other team had a little better day at the office. The learning from losing come into to play when you as a parent or coach can help see the breakdowns on a personal child level or on a team/cooperative level and can instruct on how to learn and grow from them. If you're raising your child like a 10 year old league footy game is the CL final then you're a 'stupid person.' If you and/or the child can grow and learn from the ups and downs of competitive play, then you have the right idea in mind.

edit: a few typos

[The Prof.]

At he moment the ones with us who appear to be fed up are the ones who have real potential. What's the point of playing well for nothing - just so they can show off skill, it just doesn't appear to them that the skill is being appreciated in any meaningful way. Why should anyone strive to be good at anything? This attitude is the end of Britain as a competitive sporting nation. If there is a damaging amount of peer pressure this is the problem the FA should sort out not kids natural competitiveness.

The 'we don't want anyone to loose because they feel bad' brigade cause some of the biggest problems in society in my eyes as they give up at the first knock back and you have a large amount of unemployable drunken youths wandering round - and you know what a problem that is in the UK. Everyone finds something they are good at if they've anything about them.

Do you think Wayne Rooney ever played an uncompetitive game - especially down the backstreets at Everton?

Or lets just enter the world keepie up cup and sychronised swimming championship eh.

[S15]

An insult in quotes isn't an insult? Well in that case, you're 'dumb.' Just because your child can't cope with losing and learn from what occurred doesn't mean any other child can't. at that young of an age, usually there is not one major fualt in any of the individual childrens' play, just the fact that the other team had a little better day at the office. The learning from losing come into to play when you as a parent or coach can help see the breakdowns on a personal child level or on a team/cooperative level and can instruct on how to learn and grow from them. If you're raising your child like a 10 year old league footy game is the CL final then you're a 'stupid person.' If you and/or the child can grow and learn from the ups and downs of competitive play, then you have the right idea in mind.

edit: a few typos

I'm just gonna agree to disagree okay. I do not have a child by the way.

As I said earlier, Europe don't start with competetive matches until between ages 13-15. They are far superior to us at the said sport.

I don't really agree with a word you say. Well, the words I can make out..

[Flopsy]

For once i'm with Shilto, if you have a must win at all costs attitude, then the biggest and strongest of the age group will be in the teams, and gues what, thats been happening and thats why we have a national team that cant pass to each other from more than 5 feet away.

For once the FA has got it right

[S15]

At he moment the ones with us who appear to be fed up are the ones who have real potential. What's the point of playing well for nothing - just so they can show off skill, it just doesn't appear to them that the skill is being appreciated in any meaningful way. Why should anyone strive to be good at anything? This attitude is the end of Britain as a competitive sporting nation. If there is a damaging amount of peer pressure this is the problem the FA should sort out not kids natural competitiveness.

The 'we don't want anyone to loose because they feel bad' brigade cause some of the biggest problems in society in my eyes as they give up at the first knock back and you have a large amount of unemployable drunken youths wandering round - and you know what a problem that is in the UK. Everyone finds something they are good at if they've anything about them.

Do you think Wayne Rooney ever played an uncompetitive game - especially down the backstreets at Everton?

Or lets just enter the world keepie up cup and sychronised swimming championship eh.

From my experience the majority of children, especially of a young age, work closer to full potential when feeling under no pressure what so ever. Of course there will always be exceptions, but I feel the best way for a child to develop is if they feel totally at ease and not feeling as if any mistake may cost there team points in the Under 10s local league.

And like it or not cretinous parents screaming at their kids will always exist. This hinders development.

''Get rid of it...''

[The Prof.]

I'm not saying it should be a 'win at all costs' situation. If the FA think peer pressure and parents create an atmosphere unsuitable for skills to be learned thats what needs tackling not the games/leagues.

I think you'll find the Germans are the largest team in European Football and they can pass (not tonight though!)- it certainly hasn't hindered their progress in the competition, they always play to their strengths, we don't at international level, we try to play like other teams. Some of the most skillful players ever have come through competitive leagues - in this country. I've been to Germany and they play competitively and/or have almost boot camp training. The French have an exchange system with English Academies. Competitiveness is one of our key strengths - we just don' use it.

At MUFC junior academy they don't play other team but they have competitive games in the squad. At Rovers I think they use Coever Coaching with no games at all and I've seen kids leaving that saying it's rubbish - they don't get a game at the end. (however I think it's great - it's just not what the kids are motivated by.

I would also think that a team thats been together for 5 years playing competitively and played a team at age 16 thats never had a competitive game would have only one outcome.

[LeChuck]

I would also think that a team thats been together for 5 years playing competitively and played a team at age 16 thats never had a competitive game would have only one outcome.

What have 16 year olds got to do with it? Regardless of that, it doesn't matter who wins what at 16. The more physically developed kids always dominate things in kids sport, it doesn't mean they'll be the best when everyone has matured fully though.

A more apt hypothetical situation would be a team that has played competitively from the age of eight versus a team that learned skills for three years then played competitively from age eleven - now that would only have one outcome.

[thenodrog]

Non competative football?! Maclaren must have been working to that blueprint.

Just how do you stop a game becoming competative though? I've played in many 'friendlies' but they were never friendly after the first 10 mins.

Apart from all that it's time Trevor bloody Brooking effed off into the setting sun. Soppy southern poofftah. Until councils spend money on sports facilities instead of dollopers, spongers and skivers so that local football pitches are all like Ewood / Brockhall there is no point whatsoever trying to play a passing game in places like Blackburn where pitches from Oct onward are just muddy bogs.

[Silencio]

...

[neekoy]

Lunch times at school football was always competitive, it's just no one cared about the score. It wasn't like we didn't try and score goals and win it was just non competitive as a league format.

I think it was more fun to jerk around trying different things without needing to worry about losing the ball or having a goal scored against you.

In that way I think it actually assists in improving player development by making them more skillful and not afraid to try new ideas/tricks on the playing feild.

The previous poster also made a very valid point about the game day parents screaming and yelling at the kids.

South American kids have always played the game because they loved it and when there skill levels developed they move into the competitive form of the game at a later age, as noted the same as mainland Europe.

[Silencio]

England ceased to be a competitive footballing nation a long time ago. The Europeans don't play competitive football on adult sized boggy pitches all the way through childhood. This is why we generally see the biggest kids teams win in English youth football but when these teams get older they are technically limited compared to the youth teams in France, Spain, Holland and Portugal.

The problem in England is there is a dire need for more space for kids to practice and we need to invest in good, small sized pitches on artificial grass. Kids will then naturally improve their touch and start to learn to use the ball properly. I live in Korea at the moment and there are lots of spaces for kids to play basketball, football, whatever. I'm sure more investmet in facilities for youth would not only improve our football but also have a positive effect on what kids do in their spare time. There are complaints about there being a 'Playstation Generation" at the moment but there is a genuine lack of space to play...

If there were more small football pitches and a way to fund them then kids could go and play on them themselves for fun and if they want to keep scores and bring some competitiveness in then they will do. The current league system in England and the conditions in which the kids play is why we are not producing players like Arshavin, Iniesta, Silva or Moutinho. When I hear all the hype over Gerrard (who gives the ball away every other pass) and compare him to the players I just mentioned I find it laughable and I'm sure most of Europe does...

Re: Rooney, I'm sure he did play competitive football but we don't produce many like him and he's currently having a footballing identity crisis which is slowing down his progress to being genuinely world class. Most of England and Scotland's older and greatest players didn't learn just playing on giant grass pitches but by playing small sided street games where they really learnt about how to use the ball in tight spaces and with improvisation. For various reasons kids can't really do this nowadays so the investment in small pitches and a change of mentality is what we need to catch up with Europe.

People say old footballers were better. That applies to England and Scotland without a doubt but the level of some of Spain, Argentina, France and Portugal's players is extremely high, regardless of any limitations in those teams as a whole. They might have more power and goals but Gerrard and Lampard do not compare to Iniesta, Xavi, Silva or Fabregas surely? Our under 15 kids are supposed to be amongst the poorest in Europe in terms of teachnique, which is a disaster for a country which is the home of the Premiership and 60 million people.

I think the fact the FA are looking to change things is good. It's a fact that we have to change in line with Europe. It's not just a case of banning competitive games but also changing the coaching culture and attitude to football. I think Michael Owen's assesment that "not one of Croatia's players would get into the England team" was a pretty damning indication of some of the attitudes to football in England. It's going to take a long time to change things around and Trevor Brooking usually talks sense but I also get the impression his talk is not backed up enough financially by the FA. I think the Government also should take an interest in providing sports facilities to youngsters too.

Manchester United's under 8's are said to be unbelievably good due to a system where they practice ball skills and 3 v 3 games where the emphasis is on dribbling. They only play Manchester United players but I'm sure scores are kept but they don't come accross players from other teams. I've heard they are producing very promising players and when they do get to 11 years old they're players will be wiping the floor with other teams in terms of skill. Then they can worry about learning how to use they're body which is much easier at that age than learning how to trap a ball properly...