By RYAN TOLMICH
With youth development remaining a major priority, U.S. Soccer is making some major changes to how young players play the game.
U.S. Soccer announced Monday that the organization would be making changes related to small-sided games and birth-year registration. The changes are expected to go into effect by August 2017.
“Our number one goal is to improve our players down the road and these initiatives will help us do that,” U.S. Under-20 Men’s National Team head coach and youth technical director Tab Ramos said. “With small-sided standards what we’re trying to do is to help players develop by putting them in an environment where they are constantly involved in the play and our changes in birth-year registration will make age groups easier to understand, while aligning our calendar with the international calendar.”
To start, U.S. Soccer will focus on adjusting field standards for youth players from the U-6 to U-12 age groups. Field sizes will now be based on age group, allowing players to develop more technical and game recognition skills than with previous setups.
Field dimensions and team sizes will increase from 4v4 at the U-6, U-7 and U-8 levels, 7v7 at U-9 and U-10, 9v9 at U-11 and U-12 and, finally, full 11v11 games at the U-13 level.
“Now you’re playing 4v4, 7v7, and 9v9 at a young age and chances are the players are involved a lot more in those types of games,” Ramos said. “Over a period of 10 years, there are thousands of more times that you’ve been involved in certain plays and that will speed up the process of players getting more comfortable.
“The players, by being involved in the play constantly, will learn how to make important plays, and make plays individually that can break down teams.”
In addition to field adjustments, U.S. Soccer has adjusted registration calendars to reshuffle player eligibility. Previously, U.S. Soccer was run on an August-to-July calendar, but will now implement a more traditional January-to-December listing.
The changes, U.S. Soccer says, will align birth-year registration with the international standard while also allowing the federation to better combat “relative age effect,” the idea of selecting players that are more physically mature due to early birthdays.
New changes in registration will be grandfathered in, allowing current players to play up with older age groups rather than abandoning current teams.
“I think the birth registration changes make everything easier,” Ramos said. “Over the years you go through coaching youth and people are confused about what age group they’re in, if they’re supposed to be U-15 versus U-14, because they’re born in such-and-such year, but they’re born in June. This new calendar makes things easier for everyone.
“If you’re born in a certain year you belong in that certain age group. It also gets us on the same calendar with the rest of the world, so now it becomes easier to identify for U.S. National Teams and everything else when it comes to international soccer.”
What do you think of the changes? How will they impact youth development? What other changes do you think need to be made to improve the quality of play at the youth level?
Share your thoughts below.
The age group rule, especially for younger athletes/kids who we are trying to get interested in the game is terrible and nobody has answered what to do with 8th graders who are born in the fall. What will they do while their club teammates are in the high school season? I wrote a whole post on my thoughts http://www.illinoislawyers.com/blog/2015/08/26/u-s-soccer-just-made-the-dumbest-law/
A). Every club that I have coached with and children have played at, have played the small sided games for the younger age groups. We never had trouble find teams that did the same. Nothing new here, just sad that they are just now doing it.
B). How does changing the month range get rid of the older kid that has a physical advantage over the younger? Now the Jan. kid will be more advanced than the December kid. Nothing changed here.
They did not go far enough. 4v4 up to U9. 6 v 6 (5 plus GK) for U10 and U11. 8v8 until U13 and full 11 v 11 after that. Kids need to touch the ball when they are young and mathematically speaking that requires a small number of players. Also, most coaches of the younger age groups are amateurs so why burden them with a large rosters and thinking up tactics.
As for syncing the age groups to the calendar year THAT didn’t go far enough either. US soccer needs to get together with ALL sports and school districts as well and have 1 uniform age table.
Why start at 4v4, where the game is so complex? That doesn’t mean that we need teams of three players with dedicated coaches and fields for that team. What it means is that organizations have a pool of players and create an environment where the kids can play and learn in 2v2 and 3v3 SSGs. So that there might still be 10 kids on the team, but the curriculum is based around appropriate sized SSGs where the kids can process what is going on around the field. One coach could easily coach two fields of 2v2 games in an area 1/8 the size of a full field.
The game is not complex for 4v4 at U6. It is still everyone chase the ball. Small goal, no goalie.
Delaware has been doing this for a few years at U6 and U8. It is hilarious.
However, one major problem with the discussion above is team size. Team size is still 12-15, you play on two field simultaneously with hockey substitution to both fields. It dilutes the ability of the stars (which at this age is based on age, not real skill) to dominate the play. This is completely stolen (w/acknowledgement) from the Germans, who moved to this style after a WC debacle (2004??) The powers that be in Germany did a study and found that this technique gets everyone to touch the ball and play.
In Delaware, they started with 25 min games with a 5 min changeover. They had to shorten the games to 20 minutes. The kids were having so much fun and running so much they were exhausted. To hear the coaching trainers (I was getting my D coaching license) this has been a tremendous success.
They all chase the ball at U6 in 4v4 because the game is too complex. Exactly my point.
If you have them in 2v2, now they can process the fact that there is the ball, one teammate, two opponents, goals, and boundaries. Of course, as you mentioned, these games are to small goals. It’s fun to see 6 year olds actually pass the ball. Or to dribble because he has actually made a decision to. You don’t see these things in 4v4 games at this age.
Someone a few months ago did an analysis of birth dates for top US soccer players. The most common birthdays were Jan – March and August – Sept with very few being born in Nov, Dec, and May – July. It was thought the August – July age group determinations were why you saw so many players with August and September birthdays even though they were younger than players born in April. Seems these changes are likely to eliminate that Aug – Sept pool of players.
August – September birthdays dominate because they are the oldest players in the age group under the current cutoff rules. They generally make up the bulk of A-team players at clubs and get better training/competition opportunities. This has very little to do with their talent, but they are beneficiaries of their birth dates. However, once some of them get to international level, the international competitions use calendar year cutoff, which makes them some of the youngest players on the field. It puts our national youth teams at a competitive disadvantage. I will guess that January-March group are either graduates of European academies or the guys that benefited from ODP calendar year cutoff or the guys that simply defied the odds under the current system.
It was an analysis of US youth national teams which uses the calendar age groupings. The Jan – Mar players were the oldest so that was their advantage. The high number of Aug – Sept birthdays was assumed to be a remnant of the fact that most players grew up playing on teams that used the Aug – July age groupings. These players grew up being the oldest, best and most confident players on their teams and those years of advantage survived the process of going to the birth year age groups. Self belief and confidence go a long way in soccer. With this switch that group of Aug – July players will likely go away. Going to birth year is just stupid when are dealing with a bunch of kids who go to school from August to June. It does not put our youth teams at a disadvantage because the oldest kids in the Jan – Mar birthdays have essentially been playing up against Aug. – Dec bday players who are older than them. Some US development Academy teams struggle to field teams at the U18/U17 level because of the calendar age groupings and how it coincides with when players graduate
This is not a US phenomenon. This is true in German soccer, hockey etc. It is mentioned in one of the Freakonomics books.
Well, you might think that it is stupid to use the calendar year, but pretty much soccer folks in every country with the exception of the UK disagree with you, because they adopted the calendar year model. And as for your argument that Jan-March kids are not at a disadvantage because they were playing up, it also means that kids with Aug.- Dec. birthdays will not be at disadvantage either and should not really “go away.” In your words, they will be essentially ” play up” as Jan.-March kids do. And probably will do it on B and C teams, where most late school year birthday kids are currently sent. But as Cruyff said, every disadvantage has its advantage. If you have to play against bigger, stronger, faster players, you have to find other ways to win.
USSF should copy age group and coaching of River Plate. Newells, Danubio, Santos and others clubs.
Regardless of the effect this has on the national teams, the effect this will have at the youth level will be enormous.
Malcolm Gladwell, in his book “Outliers,” wrote extensively on the effect of birth dates on athletic development. Those born closer to the “cutoff date,” in whatever sport, were at a huge advantage, and statistics bore this out. He focused on ice hockey, but the age effect is the same.
For example: I have a daughter in the ODP program (14’s). This change will be huge for her. She is born in May. With the August 1 cutoff date, she has been consistently one of the youngest, if not the youngest, in the program. Now, she will be able to drop an age group and play against kids much younger than her.
The flip side, obviously, is that her teammates born in the fall will now be very negatively affected. Their advantage of being born closer to the “after August 1 date” will evaporate. Now they will be the younger girls playing against older competition.
If I’m a youth soccer parent, especially if I think my kid has a shot at college soccer or higher, I’m calling my kid’s team coach the moment I finish reading article. This is a big big deal.
ODP is already on a calendar year classification. US Club and USYS are the ones that are not.
US Club is on the calendar year classification for the competitive league that they run – the National Premier League. For lower level local leagues they let those leagues decide what works best for them.
If US Soccer really wanted to impact youth development they would revoke their accreditation of either US Club or USYS. It is ridiculous to have two competing youth soccer associations. In my area you have teams in neighboring cities that don’t play each other because they are in different soccer associations. Our local clubs teams will travel an hour to play games not because that is the only way they can find enough competition but because of the politics of the people who run the club.
Virginia Premier League, which is part of NPL, does not use calendar year.
Checked the NPL rules it is birth year for boys and Aug – July for girls.
You’re right, limo, ODP is on the January 1 calendar. My bad. It’s my daughter’s first year – might explain why she got a call back! However, Cal South is on the August 1 calendar. So is the Southern California Developmental League, so is ECNL (Elite Club National League).
Frankly I think more clubs should consider adopting half year teams – 2001, 2001.5, 2002, 2002.5. Not all clubs will have enough players at every age group, but it would certainly help the development of those kids who fall in that “late calendar start date” category.
Yes, it is a logical thing to do, but check VPL rules, at least last year they differed from NPL rules. Perhaps they fixed it this year, but last year they did not follow the calendar age cutoff.
Editors Note: Neither of these initiatives pertains to coaching. One is about registration. The other is about team and field size. Details.
proof that people will freak out over anything passed down from the top — seriously I have enjoyed the comments on this site and other as I am not currently involved in youth soccer but have high hopes for it.
personally I think small sided games are huge for development, especially at the youth level but also for adults. I really like the idea of building a foundation like this; more time on the ball, lower player to coach ratio, less traditional 1-11 positions more well rounded games, etc.
the calendar vs. school year turnover period sounds a lot more simple. I am sure that there will be some awkward transition period but i am all for it.
in the end soccer is growing in the country, we can and should listen to these suggestions; schools and clubs that want to part of the elite future will.
Well we will “freak out” if it involves our kids.
And for me, as well as many others on this discussion, it isn’t my two blood kin kids, it is my KIDS. Hundreds of kids that I will coach in the future…or maybe I won’t because Junior has to play with the different grade level.
With guys that have coach decades of seasons, we know what works and what doesn’t and probably have strong opinions on them. I think that everyone is very calm on this site and elsewhere in their strong opinions, I wouldn’t want any coaches to have weak uncertain opinions, and very willing to listen.
I am no longer involved with youth soccer as my kids have grown but I once was heavily. I see nothing but problems with this plan and question if any of it would trickle down to what goes one in the youth teams. Im not sure US Soccer has any authority to change programs at the town level. That’s number 1. Moving past that, other problems include:
2) Numbers – smaller teams means more teams. More teams means more fields. Many towns just dont have them.
3) The system is set up to go U8, U10, U12, U14, U16 and U18 There are not enough kids to go U8, U9, U10, U11 …. and if there were…. that would also mean more coaches and fields
4) Parents – when U12 went from full field to small field the parents didnt like it. A ton of complaints from them and players. You lose kids this way
While it sounds good on paper…I dont see it happening. Clubs wont like it. Less players per team means less $$ in and more coaches hired so it’s more $$$ out. So dream on Tab and JK. In the end, it doesnt matter since we are not really interested in developing Americans anyway but more in locating yet the next dual national to put our NAT jersey on. I wonder why the Women’s team has none of that? and they actually win too. Our girls go through the same program the boys go through and they do just fine.
1) They have no official authority, but many top youth leagues follow USSF guidelines.
2) Smaller teams play on smaller fields. Can fit more fields into the same spaces.
3) Again, many top youth leagues, certainly all in major areas, have different teams for every age.
4) There will be complaints for a season or two, then it will be the new normal, and no one will no any better.
5) The rest of the world is catching up to the USWNT, fast. Mainly because the European teams are starting to apply the same training methods that the use with the men onto the women.
Basically your argument is we shouldn’t do this because clubs will make less money.
These changes will have a large impact on the ’06 academy (next year select) teams.
Most academies and leagues here in Dallas are implementing these changes right away rather than trying to realign their teams and leagues when it becomes official.
August to December ’05 players will be grandfathered and stay with the ’06 teams. August to December ’06 players, currently with ’07 teams, will need to switch or create ’06 teams as ’07 will be the first year that goes with true birth year. Given the skew in older players representation on academy teams (11 of our 14 ’06 boys actually have ’05 birthdays), this will result in many of the current ’07 teams essentially moving up to ’06. There will be a large increase in supply of players in the ’06 group.
At the same time, the ’06 boys will spend their first 2 years of select playing 9v9 instead of 11v11. Suggested roster sizes will be cut from the current plan of 15 for 11v11 to 12 for 9v9.
So, for the ’06 select class, we will have a substantial increase in the supply of players and a dramatic decrease (20%) in the demand for players. It should make the ’06 age group more competitive.
U.S. Soccer also needs to drop its inferiority complex and consider that maybe there are actually a few things we get more right than other parts of the world. The age group was one of them.
Totally agree with this sentiment Matt D. Unfortunately Klinsmann can’t wrap his brain around anything but the German way. He and US Soccer decry the play to play system and yet they do everything in their power to undermine school-based soccer programs which are either free or far cheaper than club soccer and school based programs have community support and an automatic fan base. They should be improving and expanding school based soccer programs rather making them irrelevant. Also, having children developed within professional soccer clubs by people whose job depends upon them funneling a pipeline of talent to the first team is wrong, unethical and a conflict of interests. The US got sports right in this country when we based athletics around school rather than professional athletic clubs. If winning a world cup requires sacrificing what is in the best interest of kids, most of who will never become a professional soccer player, then I don’t want any part of it.
Yeah, very stupid decision.
The people that seem to disagree by taking the position that if the kid doesn’t like not playing with his friends, weed them out is a joke.
I will be pushing for my club to ignore that completely. I am trying to get MORE people playing soccer. JK and company seem to be trying to get LESS.
Amen to this and wood chip zipp above.
That is my concern also — I want more kids playing.
Does Klinsmann realize that participation in youth soccer has declined by 10 percent in the last five years?
Increasing numbers should be a top priority from U.S. Soccer, and if they were serious, public-school outreach would be goal No. 1.
To be fair, participation in all youth sports as declined recently.
Kids have a lot of choices and some conflict. There is football in the fall, baseball, lacrosse or softball in the Spring (depending where you live).
As they get older, the numbers drop off. Why? some are working or playing school sports. Others just cut themselves. It gets to a point that the ones are that are there because their parents signed them up or to be with friends can’t compete anymore some many drop. You can’t push them at all at younger ages or they quit. It has to be fun first and then if they want to go further… give them more when they’re ready
My son was a perfect example of what not to do with a kid. He has two older sisters that played soccer year around. Both played HS soccer, one played in college. Along came my son… I worked with him, taught him and yes, pushed him too hard. He had ability and could have been something but he wanted to bee with his friends at U12. We have tryouts for placement on teams. He was good enough to make the top team but didnt want to be there and was miscible. So I got him moved to a lesser team. The team he left won the State Championship in the Spring season in Div 1 (the highest DIv here). He could have been part of that but he didnt care. The next year, he made the team again and was again miserable. I really wanted him to be there but he didnt like the kids there. He ended up quitting soccer totally and never played in HS. It was a crime because he could have been really good and he likes soccer… just hated the others on the team.
So the moral is…let them develop at their own pace and don’t let what you want replace what they want. Had I not tried to get him on that top team, he might have continued on instead of quitting. There is nothing important in U12 and lower but getting them to want to go and play… nothing.
There is always club soccer for those that are prepared to have their ego’s ground into the dust and where they could arrive one day to find they’re been dropped cause a better kid came along. Does any 10-12 year old need to be cut? I dont think so
“There is nothing important in U12 and lower but getting them to want to go and play… nothing.”
I want to get a sound system and shout this from the rooftops. Well said.
Now someone would tell U.S. Soccer.
Getting the kids wanting to play is a big part of it, but it’s not enough. We have to TEACH the kids how to play as well. If a kid has been taught the game by the time he is 12, he is severely behind. Fun is a huge component, but they have to learn the game too. And, no, kids don’t necessarily learn the game just by playing it.
The No. 1 reason kids want to play soccer is to play with friends. Now we are taking half their friends off the team. They can go play with those friends in baseball, basketball, football, gymnastics, dance, scouts, and everything else, but in soccer we have decided to add one more hurdle to participation.
Additionally, the 40 percent of kids on any given team who are in the lower grade than their teammates are going to be at a real disadvantage and be much more likely to quit.
I continue to wonder if some people making decisions forget that there are actually kids on these teams.
Klinsmann has been involved in a lot of questionable decisions for U.S. Soccer, but this one tops them all.
Rec teams/leagues can continue to do whatever they want, and if that’s the environment kids/parents want, then great.
But I know that my kids don’t care about playing with their friends…they want to play with other players that have the skills that they do. And this change will benefit them a great deal.
If they are at an advanced stage in soccer, that is probably true. Otherwise, that is more likely you who doesn’t care if they play with friends. And many kids will not reach that advanced stage playing soccer without first being able to play with their friends when they are younger.
Do you have kids? Kids that love sports?
Yes to both.
#AskMattD?
It’s really easy for a kid to strike up a friendship on the field when he or she sees another kid that can play the game in a way that they respect. On the other side of the coin, a kid can get really frustrated with his “best friend” when their is a gap in talent between the two.
Exactly.
I’m not sure how the youth leagues are structured where you live, but where I’m at the kids don’t get to choose which team they play on anyhow so the argument that they don’t get to play with their friends doesn’t hold water. I suspect most other rec/beginner leagues are also set up this way. Regardless, don’t we want to teach the kids to make new friends? Most of us don’t get to grow up and say, “I’m not going to work there because my friend works elsewhere.”
I think the bigger issue with kids at the u5-u8 levels is coaching. I’ve coached in this age range for 5 years now in a rec. league and I’ve seen a lot of suspect coaching. Constantly yelling at the kids to “do this” or “do that” during games doesn’t help the kids in the slightest. Also, running a youth team as you would a high school team does nothing besides make the kids miserable. If kids aren’t having fun, they won’t stay with the game. Poor coaching at this level does considerably more damage to the retention of players than not playing with your friends.
Although coaching classes are available, most of the volunteer parents in u5-u8 rec leagues don’t pursue any kind of license. And worse yet, a number of these parents don’t know the game of soccer at all. I don’t know how it can be done, but I’d like to see more focus on educating coaches in this age range.
re: Education of potential coaches.
Nothing stopping you. Go for it.
Oh, I did. I got my coaching license shortly after I first volunteered to coach because I enjoyed working with the kids, and I knew I lacked soccer knowledge to properly give instruction. I also took a GK Level 1 course when keepers were introduced at u7. Then I took it a step further by joining an adult league and I now play year round. The more I know, the better of the kids will be.
I spent 20 years playing baseball; now I wish I had never touched a bat. I really wish I played soccer as a kid, but that won’t stop me from trying to make up for lost time. Unfortunately where I live, I don’t think most other youth coaches even take the first step to educate themselves. I strive to instill a life-long passion for soccer in the kids I coach, but I don’t see that in most other teams.
I won’t even get started on coaching to win games at this age. Pointless.
Maybe it’s better these days but when my girls first started playing rec league around age 5 their coach told them to take throw-ins underhand. This was around 2001/2002. Maybe it’s a little better now. I eventually became the coach but it does seem that coaching education could be better.
I guess part of it is the game becoming more mainstream. For example, kids probably grew up a generation or two ago playing baseball or basketball so the coaches at that level already know the rules. I assume this will be true of soccer (or may already be true)
My guess it that you probably think it’s ok to dissect your kid’s performance in the car after a game because “he wants that feedback.”
There is no way a 6 year old wants or needs anything other than playing with friends. And I’m a soccer dad of an ODP regional player who eventually played up, but fell in love with the game with his buddies.
The calendar change makes sense for US Soccer because it aligns with international soccer standards. If a kid doesn’t love the game enough to play it just because a couple of their friends are on a different team, so be it.
I am going to post this yet again, since I believe it is so important. I seriously wonder if anyone writing the US Soccer Curriculum actually has experience working with children in the “golden years” (8-12), much less the younger children ages 4-7.
Put bluntly, this SSG progression is not good…
Children learn the game much better if there is a more gradual progression in numbers than what is shown in the USSF chart. Yet another example from a very disappointing “curriculum” that US Soccer has put together.
Why are we not starting out children playing 2v2 and 3v3? 2v2 are the right numbers for the youngest players because the variables are cut down enough for them to process what is going on and what decisions are available to them. 3v3 should certainly be on the SSG map somewhere, right? The principles of the game change completely with a second teammate. By the time you get to 4v4, at least one player theoretically has his back to goal, and just about every principle of the game is involved. In other words, 4v4 is the game in a pretty complex form, and it would not make sense to start 5 and 6 year olds starting at this level.
The variables faced in 2v2 are plenty challenging for these kids, and it puts them in an environment where they can actually learn something. Progress from there to 3v3 and start teaching kids about triangular positioning… Then get to 4v4 at 10 years old (in terms of curriculum, not necessarily in terms of competition numbers). From there, the game will come very fast…
The problem is not USSF. They have almost no power to dictate how private soccer clubs are run. Youth clubs are not in the business of developing players, their record makes that much clear. Their main focus is to make as much money off the parents as possible. until USSF is ready to foot the bill they can make as many recommendations as they want, but don’t expect the clubs and the parents to listen too intently.
You are completely right. But it is extremely disappointing that the organization that is supposed to be leading the way for youth development in the US seems to lack any sort of actual plan for doing so.
US Soccer’s so-called “curriculum” should be an extremely valuable resource that coaches and organizations CAN follow if they so choose. Unfortunately, the “curriculum” is not a curriculum at all. At best, it is a manual of best practices, but even that would be generous. In reality, outside of tidbits here and there, it is fairly useless. By no means does it offer any sort of actual method for training players. The information is as basic as it gets, and it’s as if they published it just so they could say that it’s out there. There is little in the way of theory and it is so vague, in an overall sense, that one would be better off looking at many, many other resources before turning to the one that should be the cornerstone.
Stan Baker put it nicely when he subtitled his book, “Our Competition Is the World,” “Ideas For Implementing the US Soccer Curriculum.” He should have just made the subtitle, “Ideas to Supplement a Completely Inadequate US Soccer Curriculum.”
Do Reyna, Ramos, and whoever else helped write it even have the proper education or experience to take on such a task?
I agree. USSF should put as much info out there as possible. If nothing else it could push some parents to start questioning how their club are run why their kids are not being given the best shot at development.Soccer in the US is at a point where it makes sense for the parents to spends some serious resources into it they way we do with football and baseball. Leaving all the decisions to the money making machines that youth clubs are is nothing short of irresponsible.
Amen
I hear you Don, but I am going to take the flip side of that for the very youngest ages.
My experience, and it is many teams, is the 3v3 is almost a waste of time. One great athlete and the passing goes out the window and results in 15 goals against kids that are just learning to play.
I think the 4v4 will be better. At least an introduction to how to pass, spacing and play defense. The kids can handle it, they just don’t enough in the 3v3 games as they realize the more effective technique to winning is kick the ball forward and have your fastest player run full speed.
If one kid is dominating 3, then great. Get him a better challenge. He could probably dominate 4 just the same if there is that big of a gap in talent. The number have to do with how the game is taught at these levels.
The problem is that nobody is actually teaching the game here. The principles of 2v2 are dribble, pass, shoot, defend with one teammate, etc. Very simple. The principles of 3v3 become much more complex due to the addition of player just one player. Talking about angles of support comes into play in a more realistic way. Playing laterally and ball circulation come into play. Then, at 4v4 a player has his back to goal. This introduces the most complex spacing and combinations in addition to things like pass variation, etc.
The game can be taught in a systematic way. Think of math. We don’t throw kids into calculus. There is a method to learning basic foundations and progressing from there. Throwing kids into 4v4 at five years old (or even older, in my opinion) means that the coach is not teaching the game efficiently. That gets to the root of the problem. Very few real coaches are actually teaching the game at these ages.
Progression of SSG numbers makes complete sense, but not in the way it has been presented by US Soccer, which does little for the process of accelerating development. If there were a more cohesive logic to these progressions with specific points of emphasis for each, we could have children at 13 years old who really understand the foundations of the game and are ready to accelerate from there.
Curious – do you know if countries that are generally considered the best at developing players – i.e. Holland, Germany, Spain – have this kind of SSG progression? Do they not even have 4/4 at age 10?
Yes in spain they still play 7 v 7 at 12 on smaller fields. Having kids play 11 v 11 at 9 is crazy. They are not playing, they are running after the ball.
Spain’s development model dating back to the 90’s is based on Horst Wein’s philosophy of 3v3 for youth players. Wein has also been very prominent in advising clubs in Germany in recent years. English clubs like Arsenal have used him as a consultant too, as have the English and German FAs.
A key component to his philosophy besides the numbers is that each team attacks two goals (there is also a scoring zone). This increases the depth of the cognitive processes that the players go through and has them playing more intelligently without them even realizing it.
I have been working for years to extend Horst’s theories to create an entire progression that includes 3v3 as well as other SSG numbers at various ages. As mentioned earlier, it is a systematic approach to development.
Sounds good, especially the smaller sided teams. Coached U-11/U-12 girls teams and playing 11v11 on a full size field wasn’t ideal. These changes make sense. Not sure why they don’t go into effect for two years but better late than never.
Yeah, same. Now the big girls I coach are humbled as the other girls can now handle the big ( regulation ) field and goals.
I wonder if they took gender into consideration at all. The girls develop so much earlier, mentally and physically, but many of the boys I coach have the strength to handle some things earlier.