Quotas for a minimum amount of English players in a team- Unbelievably bad idea

13

Comments

  • alancrackeralancracker Posts: 5,280
    Forum Member
    I have read much of the thread which seems to dismiss the idea out of hand and yes the arguments against it are persuasive and I largely agree with them.

    But the implication that there's no issue here is wrong too - I looked at the MCFC team last weekend and Lescott and Hart were the only Brits. That club has risen from mediocrity and become PL challengers by using a side made up almost entirely of players from overseas (Barry gone now too, Milner and Richards on the fringes) with overseas managers and overseas money. it prob does not bother City fans too much tbh - but should it?

    I am not picking on City honestly but when I saw their team sheet it was something I noticed - it is prob equally true of most other teams too. LFC now has Brazilians (and Uruguayans :)) as key players, Southampton has a manager who cannot even speak English. I could go on but the point is made I think.

    How can it be addressed?- not by the simplistic quota suggestion but I would like to see someone with insight look at it and make suggestions which could be worked through - and to me it would be a gradual process not some thing which can be changed overnight.

    Any clever people on here want to put forward what they would do? - or do most think we do no need to do anything as it is fine as it is?
  • Sabre92Sabre92 Posts: 726
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    What, youre joking thats the most silist ideal of about a century.

    I thought a few years ago, they had planned a minimum quota, its a club v country thing again, Clubs, would rather have big names, while the Country, needs top english players.

    32% of the premier league players being english, is pretty disgusting mind.

    I heard Man City, are building a good youth system.

    The amount of foreign players, is shown up, by the amount of english players playing in the Championship, which a few seasons you wouldnt have imagined.

    Green, Shaun Wright Philips, Barton, Zamora, Johnson, Caroll and thats just QPR, and they nearly aquired \Defoe

    BIB - And Parker

    Similar story at Wigan, where you have the likes of Perch, Watson, Holt, McManaman (how he didn't get a Prem move this summer is beyond me), Powell, plus if you're including other Brits/Irish you've got Maloney, McArthur, McClean, all of whom are good enough to be playing in the Premier League.
  • jazzydrury3jazzydrury3 Posts: 27,021
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Sabre92 wrote: »
    BIB - And Parker

    Similar story at Wigan, where you have the likes of Perch, Watson, Holt, McManaman (how he didn't get a Prem move this summer is beyond me), Powell, plus if you're including other Brits/Irish you've got Maloney, McArthur, McClean, all of whom are good enough to be playing in the Premier League.

    This guy isnt english, but why any big team, didnt snatch Juilo Cesar is beyond me
  • Sabre92Sabre92 Posts: 726
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    This guy isnt english, but why any big team, didnt snatch Juilo Cesar is beyond me

    I agree that one is ridiculous, even if a Premier League club didn't want him you'd have thought a European club would've gone in for him.
  • Cantona07Cantona07 Posts: 56,910
    Forum Member
    Sabre92 wrote: »
    I agree that one is ridiculous, even if a Premier League club didn't want him you'd have thought a European club would've gone in for him.

    I suspect he was on a wage that would have made Gareth Bale a little jealous (well, maybe not quite!)
  • Cantona07Cantona07 Posts: 56,910
    Forum Member
    How can it be addressed?- not by the simplistic quota suggestion but I would like to see someone with insight look at it and make suggestions which could be worked through - and to me it would be a gradual process not some thing which can be changed overnight.

    Any clever people on here want to put forward what they would do? - or do most think we do no need to do anything as it is fine as it is?

    Quotas are stupid. All it does is weaken the league to fit the English players. What needs to be done is make the English players good enough to play alongside the foreign players. Look at Daniel Sturridge, he is English, surely it is in England's best interests to have him training and playing with Coutinho and Suarez (jokes aside) week in week out, learning from them and making him a better player? Same with Henderson and Lucas, or whoever. Shutting down isnt the answer at all.

    For me the league will reflect the quality of players coming through and that is a separate issue altogether.

    We (im Scottish but it applies equally to us) need to put sport back as a priority for children. Simple as that. The government needs to throw proper money at it and have all kids doing some sort of sport. Sport will teach youngsters how to interact with each other, work as part of a team, show respect, learn discipline etc etc. The social benefits easily justify the investment but the result is also that you have a far larger pool of talent developed in ALL sports so when it comes to the age when clubs are looking for young players they have a far better range to choose from. The knock-on effect then becomes more plentiful and skilful young English players.

    In addition we need to make it easier for kids to have informal kick abouts. I was no great player when i was wee but we used to play football EVERY day amongst ourselves. We played team games, two aside, Wembley singles, headers and volleys, three and in etc etc. Each game taught us a different skill and before you knew it i could dribble, volley, head the ball etc etc to a pretty damn decent standard when i think back, but the truth is we all could. I didnt learn ANY of that from playing in the school team and training and playing once a week. It was all learned with mates down the park.

    As you rightly say it will take time but its the way forward for me. Look at the bigger picture rather than worrying about stopping the Latvian left back coming into the PL a stealing a place from an English lad who isnt good enough anyway.

    And that ends the Party Political Broadcast for the Cantona07 Party!! :D
  • big macbig mac Posts: 4,583
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭



    How can it be addressed?- not by the simplistic quota suggestion but I would like to see someone with insight look at it and make suggestions which could be worked through - and to me it would be a gradual process not some thing which can be changed overnight.

    That's why Greg Dyke's claim that England's target should be to win the World Cup in 2022 is pie in the sky.

    That's only nine years away, and the core of that World Cup 2022 team (should England even qualify, of course) are probably aged around about 15 or 16 as we speak.

    If there are calls for a radical overall of England's youth policy and the development of young players, then the players who could be playing in 2022 are at the moment involved in the flawed youth system. So how can Dyke then say that we should be winning the World Cup in 2022?
  • alancrackeralancracker Posts: 5,280
    Forum Member
    You talk a lot of sense C07 - on this issue anyway :D.

    I will reflect a bit and prob come back to you at some stage - as someone who loved playing football with my mates every day in the street (or if we were lucky on the park) as a youngster, who refs kids games (players aged from 12 to 16 year old) almost every Saturday now and who was a teacher for 35 years so reffed school matches and saw PE lessons over that time and so I have some experience of it all.
  • Cantona07Cantona07 Posts: 56,910
    Forum Member
    You talk a lot of sense C07 - on this issue anyway :D.

    I will reflect a bit and prob come back to you at some stage - as someone who loved playing football with my mates every day in the street (or if we were lucky on the park) as a youngster, who refs kids games (players aged from 12 to 16 year old) almost every Saturday now and who was a teacher for 35 years so reffed school matches and saw PE lessons over that time and so I have some experience of it all.

    Hehe.

    I know your background, hence the nature of my post! :)

    I totally believe it though. Its not just about sport, get kids young enough and its an antidote to potential crime, anti-social behaviour and general mayhem in the future. It makes far more sense engaging with a kid at 6 years old rather than trying to deal a kid once he has gone off the rails altogether, and as someone who works in education finance i can tell you that every single child who ends up in some secure accommodation costs in excess of £250k a year.
  • jazzydrury3jazzydrury3 Posts: 27,021
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Cantona07 wrote: »
    Hehe.

    I know your background, hence the nature of my post! :)

    I totally believe it though. Its not just about sport, get kids young enough and its an antidote to potential crime, anti-social behaviour and general mayhem in the future. It makes far more sense engaging with a kid at 6 years old rather than trying to deal a kid once he has gone off the rails altogether, and as someone who works in education finance i can tell you that every single child who ends up in some secure accommodation costs in excess of £250k a year.

    Tony Gale said on SSN this morning, he feels the best coaches in this country, shoud be coaching the players up and coming, Rather than the best coaches and managers, managing the big sides.
  • O'NeillO'Neill Posts: 8,721
    Forum Member
    So basically he wants to destroy the premier league even more than the brain dead idea to force teams to select inferior players. Maybe Chelsea and England u21s can do a trade with Mourinho and Southgate...
  • jazzydrury3jazzydrury3 Posts: 27,021
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Im only saying what i heard Tony Gale say
  • tennismantennisman Posts: 4,471
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Cantona07 wrote: »
    Quotas are stupid. All it does is weaken the league to fit the English players. What needs to be done is make the English players good enough to play alongside the foreign players. Look at Daniel Sturridge, he is English, surely it is in England's best interests to have him training and playing with Coutinho and Suarez (jokes aside) week in week out, learning from them and making him a better player? Same with Henderson and Lucas, or whoever. Shutting down isnt the answer at all.

    For me the league will reflect the quality of players coming through and that is a separate issue altogether.

    We (im Scottish but it applies equally to us) need to put sport back as a priority for children. Simple as that. The government needs to throw proper money at it and have all kids doing some sort of sport. Sport will teach youngsters how to interact with each other, work as part of a team, show respect, learn discipline etc etc. The social benefits easily justify the investment but the result is also that you have a far larger pool of talent developed in ALL sports so when it comes to the age when clubs are looking for young players they have a far better range to choose from. The knock-on effect then becomes more plentiful and skilful young English players.

    In addition we need to make it easier for kids to have informal kick abouts. I was no great player when i was wee but we used to play football EVERY day amongst ourselves. We played team games, two aside, Wembley singles, headers and volleys, three and in etc etc. Each game taught us a different skill and before you knew it i could dribble, volley, head the ball etc etc to a pretty damn decent standard when i think back, but the truth is we all could. I didnt learn ANY of that from playing in the school team and training and playing once a week. It was all learned with mates down the park.

    As you rightly say it will take time but its the way forward for me. Look at the bigger picture rather than worrying about stopping the Latvian left back coming into the PL a stealing a place from an English lad who isnt good enough anyway.

    And that ends the Party Political Broadcast for the Cantona07 Party!! :D

    Put the post below on the other thread, which largely agrees with your point, Cantona, about unstructured 'free play' where kids develop skills by trying things out under their rules.

    It is this type of experience which kids who only do their youth sports in structured, coached environments are missing / will miss.

    I developed just about ALL my basic skills as a seam bowler in cricket by bowling one ball at a time at a set of wickets in front of a a small wall in our garden. I learnt to bowl straight and to pitch it up, as if I bowled too short, the ball bounced over the wall and hit the windows!

    I did this on my own between the ages of 7 and 11.

    By the time I went to Secondary school, I could do it without thinking and got picked for the U14 team as an 11 year-old. I'd had NO coaching.

    In football, I spent hours after school with an older mate who was a striker where I crossed ball after ball for him to head it into the goal (back post, near post, from the goaline, from the corner of the box etc etc - every option)

    In week 1 at Liverpool University back in 1974, when I got picked for the University side for a season opening friendly against a Sammy Lee lead Liverpool youth team, the coach told me that I had caught his eye because of my ability to hit long passes and crosses - numerous boys who had all played for their County at Skegness in the ESCA Festival (I hadn't) were passed over - go figure.

    Again, no school teacher or coach had told me to do all that practice; I'd just watched the pros and tried to copy them.

    ==============================================

    Even during my time as a tennis coach (only working with kids) between 93 and 07, there was stuff talked about and written on both side of the Atlantic Pond as to how the numbers of kids in structured youth sports was increasing but alongside a concurrent reduction in what the Yanks call Sandlot' sports or what we would call 'jumpers for goalposts' pick-up games in the park.

    The requirements academies make on the kids they sign up has decimated lots of school and borough football but more importantly, stopped a channel of development for the boys in question.

    Now looking back on my time, I'd describe this issue as the importance of 'free play'.

    There is no doubt that coaching has a role with all kids as long as it is pitched at the right level. But my mate who runs a huge junior club in Bromley had kids taken away into academies with all the puffed up parental pride but these kids were coached in training but often didn't actually play any football.

    As a junior in the early 70's, I played for school and clubs in both football and cricket with a little bit of representative stuff too (and then University 1st team sport too). But I reckon a key part of my development was when I went out and practiced / played with mates on the local pitches and experimented with all sorts of aspects of both football and cricket.

    While running my junior tennis programme, especially during holiday activity where there was a bit of time, the longer I did it, the more I let the juniors choose the activity and then also asked them what we could change in any drill game we were playing to make it better.

    This got the kids thinking for themselves as opposed to being straight-jacketed into structured drills out of the coaching manual where often the kids would not really have to think but just conform to a few pre-determined moves / actions.

    There's a balance in all of this but although the numbers tell us that we need huge numbers of new coaches, these are often the ones who don't have the know-all or confidence to talk less, organise less and let the kids utilise their own brains in the skill development process.

    As for the academies, I reckon that all development under the age of 13/14 should be done by local clubs with good organisers and coaches. Like at my mate's club which is an FA Charter Community Club and runs 32 teams from Under 8's up to now a Mens' 1st team in Step 6 of the Kent League structure.

    At the later age, and only for the very best kids, there should be the opportunity to go into academies. Pro clubs are not philanthropists of sport. They are ruthless in what they do; namely to find the pro players of the future. They are not really committed to build the sport at all as evidenced by the complete lack of pathways out of academies to ensure that discarded players stay in the game by moving back into good, well run local clubs.
  • alancrackeralancracker Posts: 5,280
    Forum Member
    I am not particularly insightful on matters concerning football development for young people, all I am is a fairly intelligent person who is a football fan - but least I am honest about it, many involved with it are neither intelligent or insightful but they are making the decisions.

    Being involved with Saturday morning youth football as a ref I see teams where the result matters far too much - especially to parents. Managers (unlike parents) rarely shout unhelpful things at me and the players and they do try to get their players playing the right way, but imo losing bothers them too much. I also think people need to 'think outside the box' as to how the game develops from the small pitches, no offside, keepers rolling it out, 7 a side. small goals ...etc which is played at under 11 (in our area anyway) to the full blown 'proper football' at under 12, It is all done too quickly frankly, development needs to be more gradual.

    Schools? - PE lessons are full of reluctant players who hate the game and stand around doing as little as poss as not all youngsters like football. Teachers may try to teach 'skills' in lessons but in order to make it accessible to all (as they have to) it is often at too basic a level for the better ones. School matches are after school and often sanitised games as players have to be as well behaved as they are in lessons (as their teachers are the refs) and that makes for a strange ethos - and prob there are less now than there used to be with tired teachers with other priorities who consequently have little appetite for running them.

    Club academies? - (I also have some experience of these too as my son who is now 28 played at Peterboro for about 2 years from aged 9 till 11 in the mid 90s) the coaches do really try to educate the players about how to play. The truth is that they have far too many players and the majority go by the way side - and when they are dropped they often drift out the game - and even those who win contracts rarely make the first team of top clubs - which is what this whole thing is about!!

    I think we need to look at successful systems in other countries such as Holland, Spain, France ...etc. As C07 has said we need to make kids love the game and want to play it - and use skills not just to win games - but many do already - and at aged below 10 they are as good as the continentals, many tho do not develop as much as they should in their teens, Maybe they are a bit arrogant and sub consciously think they know it all and have arrived cos they are at an academy.

    At the end of the day tho a lot of it is luck - for instance Belgium now have a lot of talented players but I doubt that they have done that much different in the last ten years to bring that about (if I am wrong tell us what they have done if you know otherwise).

    I do think quotas tho are wrong - imagine LFC having to play Adam Morgan cos he is English. I would love AM as a good Scouse lad who has always supported the club to be a good player but he simply isn't - at best he will end up with a career in Div 1 or 2 - despite having been at LFC for years supposedly learning how to play - but sadly if you do not have it you do not have it and that is the case for Adam as well as many other British players..

    Sorry this is a rambling post - I'll stop now before I totally bore you all .:)
  • tennismantennisman Posts: 4,471
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I am not particularly insightful on matters concerning football development for young people, all I am is a fairly intelligent person who is a football fan - but least I am honest about it, many involved with it are neither intelligent or insightful but they are making the decisions.

    Being involved with Saturday morning youth football as a ref I see teams where the result matters far too much - especially to parents. Managers (unlike parents) rarely shout unhelpful things at me and the players and they do try to get their players playing the right way, but imo losing bothers them too much. I also think people need to 'think outside the box' as to how the game develops from the small pitches, no offside, keepers rolling it out, 7 a side. small goals ...etc which is played at under 11 (in our area anyway) to the full blown 'proper football' at under 12, It is all done too quickly frankly, development needs to be more gradual.

    Schools? - PE lessons are full of reluctant players who hate the game and stand around doing as little as poss as not all youngsters like football. Teachers may try to teach 'skills' in lessons but in order to make it accessible to all (as they have to) it is often at too basic a level for the better ones. School matches are after school and often sanitised games as players have to be as well behaved as they are in lessons (as their teachers are the refs) and that makes for a strange ethos - and prob there are less now than there used to be with tired teachers with other priorities who consequently have little appetite for running them.

    Club academies? - (I also have some experience of these too as my son who is now 28 played at Peterboro for about 2 years from aged 9 till 11 in the mid 90s) the coaches do really try to educate the players about how to play. The truth is that they have far too many players and the majority go by the way side - and when they are dropped they often drift out the game - and even those who win contracts rarely make the first team of top clubs - which is what this whole thing is about!!

    I think we need to look at successful systems in other countries such as Holland, Spain, France ...etc. As C07 has said we need to make kids love the game and want to play it - and use skills not just to win games - but many do already - and at aged below 10 they are as good as the continentals, many tho do not develop as much as they should in their teens, Maybe they are a bit arrogant and sub consciously think they know it all and have arrived cos they are at an academy.

    At the end of the day tho a lot of it is luck - for instance Belgium now have a lot of talented players but I doubt that they have done that much different in the last ten years to bring that about (if I am wrong tell us what they have done if you know otherwise).

    I do think quotas tho are wrong - imagine LFC having to play Adam Morgan cos he is English. I would love AM as a good Scouse lad who has always supported the club to be a good player but he simply isn't - at best he will end up with a career in Div 1 or 2 - despite having been at LFC for years supposedly learning how to play - but sadly if you do not have it you do not have it and that is the case for Adam as well as many other British players..

    Sorry this is a rambling post - I'll stop now before I totally bore you all .:)

    Not rambling but valuable insight from someone who has direct experience.

    I keep coming back to Crewe who due to financial constraint have worked with local players and look at their results.

    In a way, by dint of not being able to afford scouts and networks across the World, like we are lead to believe goes on with the top PL clubs, they have had to use an enforced quota system at the base / start of the process i.e. they have a near 100% quota of English kids to start with.

    Because of this, obviously, those kids are developed into players without having to compete or be squeezed out by kids from elsewhere.

    Sounds almost xzenophobic but that goes with the territory of developing a national team; we have to look within our borders not because we dislike or have anything against those outside our shores but becasue if we want our national tean to do well and ultimately win something, we have to do things bases on self interest.

    PS That point about loving the game and having fun is critical and was at the heart of my 14 years running a programme which had 700 kids a week attending. However, we are not good at 'fun' in this country, seeing serious and often critical approaches to coaching as the default way that things should be done.

    I once heard an ex federation Cup woman player call out to a kid on a court, 'What do you call that?'. In frustration / anger, I almost went up to her and asked her, 'What sort of coaching do you call that?'

    We see having fun and enjoying ourselves, in kids coaching, as 'messing around' and / or 'not doing it properly' and / or meaning 'not for serious players'.

    This over serious attitude is a HUGE mistake.
  • alancrackeralancracker Posts: 5,280
    Forum Member
    Reffed an under 12 pre season friendly this morning - the season starts next week.

    With less than 2 minutes gone the away captain was claiming one of his team had been elbowed - total nonsense - 2 lads challenged for the ball and the home lad came away with it. Shortly after this an away parent shouted Get a grip ref' and with less than 10 minutes gone an away defender was heard to shout 'take him out' - I was not sure who it was so went over to the away manager to tell him to sort his team's attitude out.

    Mind you it was not only the away team, the home team had a parent who was a pain when I reffed them earlier this week and after arriving halfway through the first half he was doing the same thing again - namely constantly shouting 'Get out' to his teams defenders in a very aggressive manner when the opponents attacked which was bordering on child abuse imo. I was so close to going over and talking to him. The home manager (who I know well cos he is Saturday afternoon ref) knows how I feel and agrees with me - he will have to curb this pretty soon - imo there is nothing worse than a kids team playing 'offside'.

    The joys of junior football in the UK hey - but notice none of this is managers, it is parents and some players - who are more often than not the biggest problems and need educating big style.

    For goodness sake this was meant to be a friendly - God knows what it will be like when the result actually so called matters when it is a league match.
  • Cantona07Cantona07 Posts: 56,910
    Forum Member
    Interesting stuff since i posted last from both of you. Just shows that there is still some good discussion possible in among all the jokers and WUMs.

    Its quite a depressing story of your u12 friendly Alan. Kids are naturally competitive anyway, people talk about all this no winners and losers and playing for the enjoyment etc and thats just bollocks frankly. I never played a game of football with anyone as a kid that didnt have a self imposed competitive element. The kids themselves know who the winners and losers are whether there is a trophy to be played for or not. Thats why pushy parents and managers playing offside and stuff is enough to make you weep. Its just not needed. Same with Tennismans example that type of "coaching" will do nothing but turn kids away from sport altogether.

    I genuinely believe that every single child in the country has a sport that they will play and enjoy - its just a question of matching the sport to the child.
  • tennismantennisman Posts: 4,471
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Cantona07 wrote: »
    I genuinely believe that every single child in the country has a sport that they will play and enjoy - its just a question of matching the sport to the child.

    And this last point raises another aspect of the youth sport jigsaw.

    That kids at all the various stages of the process will play and enjoy lessons, sessions, matches etc in all sorts of sports FOR ALL SORTS OF REASONS.

    These are often, if not usually, not the ones parents might think.

    There was some research done in the US in the mid 90's and replicated more recently in the UK where kids gave reasons why they did sport.

    Even amongst elite / performance kids who adults and some coaches might be projecting forward, potentially into the pro arenas, the kids actually came back week after week due to reasons like, seeing their mates, or making new friends, or because they liked to be in a group, or because they enjoyed the activity.

    Although I agree with you Cantona about the often, innate competitiveness of many kids, interestingly, the enjoyment of competing came higher up than than the importance of winning, demonstrating to me that at the very core of all of this, kids want to 'have ago' and that they are the tough and resilient in handling the issue of winning and losing.

    Most kids have the attitude that they'll play to win and they'll enjoy it if they do but that if they lose, well hard luck, now let's move on.

    The number of times, I've seen kids at junior tennis tournaments playing with their mates between matches seemingly quite allright and happy where shortly before, they had finished a match in which they lost; their parents would be agonising and analysing every last detail of the same match.

    I saw one coach at a junior football match keep his players sitting on the grass for over 30 minutes while delivering a Phil Brown post match analysis of how they lost.

    Such a review is fine but do it later; don't ram it down their throats while they are computing and processing the result for themselves.

    While there were very good kids we coached in my programme (one just won 2 rounds at the US Open Boys singles in NYC this week), many came because they wanted to play the sport and have it in their lives, not necessarily because they wanted to be the next Andy Murray or Laura Robson.

    With these kids, I adopted an attitude where I would treat them as if they were aspiring to be top players but I'd know what the real agendas were (being with their friends, girls and boys mixing, having a fun 2 hours on a Saturday afternoon etc etc)

    So they received proper coaching executed seriously but their needs were acknowledged. This way, hundreds kept coming back and low and behold, after a few years, they could all play the game to a basic level at least and some to a much better level.

    So everything was positioned as being about the sport while in reality, an acknowledgement of the socialisation process (in their individual and collective development) going on and even the socialising between the kids was what was actually the key to keeping them happy and willing to return.

    This quite subtle balancing act is one which many youth sport coaches just don't get, in my view. They are often either ultra serious which puts lots of kids off or they don't take it seriously enough and kids get bored ironically feeling that they are being patronised.

    There's a guy called Kevin who is in his late 60's now and he has been coaching kids football on a patch of land near a main road for 30 years here in Oldham, whose staff he was on in the 70's.

    He is an unsung hero as he doesn't run teams but his sessions are full of fun drills which develop skills. Kids then go off and join teams to play matches. A few of the young men at my gym who play good non league football all say they went to Kevin when they were youngsters.

    Watching him coach is a joy. He loves football, passes this on to the juniors and everyone is engaged and happy following his lead.

    Guys like Kevin should be first on the list for Dyke's commission (why is he using such an American term, by the way?)
  • Cantona07Cantona07 Posts: 56,910
    Forum Member
    Great stuff again TM. Totally agree with all your points.

    When i was talking about kids naturally being competitive i was meaning that there was no need for the pushy parent or the over-aggresive coach because no child will naturally play to lose. That said i totally agree that there will be other reasons why they play, and that was the basis for my first post when i was saying that money being poured into grass-roots sports provides wider social benefits to society and that getting olympic athletes and world cup footballers is simply a by-product. If kids have somewhere to go, to interact with friends, learn some discipline and respect and feel engaged they are less likely to be out causing havoc on the street (God, i feel old even typing that!!).

    Bottom line is it has to be fun but i feel a bit of a fraud even discussing it with you when you are clearly at the sharp end and know exactly what you are talking about whereas my opinion is totally theory based and just drawing on my own experience of being a kid!!
  • tennismantennisman Posts: 4,471
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Cantona07 wrote: »
    Great stuff again TM. Totally agree with all your points.

    When i was talking about kids naturally being competitive i was meaning that there was no need for the pushy parent or the over-aggresive coach because no child will naturally play to lose. That said i totally agree that there will be other reasons why they play, and that was the basis for my first post when i was saying that money being poured into grass-roots sports provides wider social benefits to society and that getting olympic athletes and world cup footballers is simply a by-product. If kids have somewhere to go, to interact with friends, learn some discipline and respect and feel engaged they are less likely to be out causing havoc on the street (God, i feel old even typing that!!).

    Bottom line is it has to be fun but i feel a bit of a fraud even discussing it with you when you are clearly at the sharp end and know exactly what you are talking about whereas my opinion is totally theory based and just drawing on my own experience of being a kid!!

    Sorry. I got your meaning and was just adding to it, not disagreeing at all.

    Another good point that you've just made is that no kid will play to lose intentionally.

    If the right environment is created for competition, all kids will go for it.

    What they don't want is all the angst and recrimination which so many adults heap on them.

    Again, ironically and in reality, they start tightening up due to the overlay of parental and coach (and sometimes peer) pressure.

    And this is critical in how competition should be taught; it's not an issue to coach kids that the result objective is to win and there's nowt wrong with it. What is usually handled so badly is the actually winning and losing.

    Not enough at the younger ages is spent on analysing in simple ways what lessons are learned both by losses AND wins.

    A Kipling-esque approach might not seem or be so dramatic but it's much more sane.

    Enjoy the win and then, 'Right, well done, now what did we learn?.'

    Console the loss and then, 'Right, hard luck, now what did we learn?'

    In other words, position all the competition as a journey, as actually, that's what it is to prepare the kid (s) for their adult sporting life.

    The 10,000 hours model often quoted in these discussions, actually developed not by Malcolm Gladwell but a guy called Ericksonn (though not Sven-Goran:D) was broken down into 4 stages which support this point about a junior journey to adulthood;

    Age 5-8 - Play for FUN, FUN, FUN

    Age 9-12 - Train /play to TRAIN

    Age 13-16 - Train / play to COMPETE

    Age 17 plus - Train / play to WIN

    I used this model and think, if executed well, is excellent.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert
  • Cantona07Cantona07 Posts: 56,910
    Forum Member
    Really interesting. Is the 10k hours widely accepted as being pretty much spot on? Is that based on an inherent natural ability or taking someone from scratch? The age group thing look incredibly sensible as does "what did we learn?" in fact it seems to me like all the right stuff is out there to be had.

    I suspect that if you get someone willing to coach a kids football team, people are that grateful to see someone give up their spare time that there is a reluctance to say "Actually you are a **** coach, no thanks". I certainly had experience of that when i was wee. We just went off and organised training ourselves which amounted to us just going and playing football! Its quite funny looking back on it i guess.
  • tennismantennisman Posts: 4,471
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Cantona07 wrote: »
    Really interesting. Is the 10k hours widely accepted as being pretty much spot on? Is that based on an inherent natural ability or taking someone from scratch? The age group thing look incredibly sensible as does "what did we learn?" in fact it seems to me like all the right stuff is out there to be had.

    I suspect that if you get someone willing to coach a kids football team, people are that grateful to see someone give up their spare time that there is a reluctance to say "Actually you are a **** coach, no thanks". I certainly had experience of that when i was wee. We just went off and organised training ourselves which amounted to us just going and playing football! Its quite funny looking back on it i guess.

    Yes, the stuff is out there.

    But it was a great frustration in my time as a tennis coach that not all coaches had the intent, nor I'm afraid the ability to implement it.

    In football, as we've discussed there are far too many people and many of them volunteers on which youth football relies, as you've pointed out, who have their own mindset (I wouldn't even go as far as call it a vision) as to how they want to deal with the juniors.

    Far too many people in too many sports simply adopt an 'adult model' by which I mean the principles and practices used by the top adults and apply it by rote to kids. But kids aren't small adults; they are kids at various stages of development whether mental, emotional, physical.

    The 10,000 hours stuff has been around for some time. But it was in the late 80's onwards that certain people like a guy called Balyi, started interpreting it into the type of 4 stage model above. Balyi, a Hungarian, worked with various national associations of various sports in various countries.

    The LTA adopted it in the early 2,000's but although I reckon it's good stuff, lots of coaches haven't supported it because they don't like the LTA telling them what to do!

    It's only a model and is open to different interpretations.

    I think its' best application is in it being used as above to provide a structure for the principles and practices of each age / stage.
  • Cantona07Cantona07 Posts: 56,910
    Forum Member
    Wow, that is so impressive.

    There is not much i can say in reply.

    I get the feeling that i could be telling Andy Murray's coach how to coach a tennis player so i should probably just shut up.
  • tennismantennisman Posts: 4,471
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Cantona07 wrote: »
    Wow, that is so impressive.

    There is not much i can say in reply.

    I get the feeling that i could be telling Andy Murray's coach how to coach a tennis player so i should probably just shut up.

    :D:D:D
  • celesticelesti Posts: 25,897
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    At 32, I play in the 5-8 model now. Hearing someone shout because a pass went wayward for an indoor game with absolutely no consequence annoys me. Shut up and let me try to nutmeg someone with a backheel.
Sign In or Register to comment.