Development Model for Youth Soccer

8/12/2019 Development Model for Youth Soccer

1/27

1

The developmental model for OrganizedYouth Soccer

David J. Verso

[email protected]

June, 2001

Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 2Current situation............................................................................................................... 2Motivational issues........................................................................................................... 4Developmental issues....................................................................................................... 6Analysis of current situation .......................................................................................... 12Developmental Model for Organized Youth Soccer...................................................... 14Methods for promoting development orientation........................................................... 21Administrative issues ..................................................................................................... 23

Conclusion...................................................................................................................... 24End Notes ....................................................................................................................... 26


2/27

2

The developmental model for Organized Youth Soccer

Introduction

The sport of soccer is called The Beautiful Game. At once both so exceedingly simplethat an average four year old can learn to play in a few minutes yet so complex that noone can come close to mastering the infinite range of tactical improvisation and technicalskills. It is a game that requires no special size to succeed, just a balance of skill,quickness, endurance, finesse, power and the speed of thought needed to react toconstantly changing conditions.

In many ways it is the ideal team sport for youth. It requires a minimum of low costequipment and provides a never-ending set of enjoyable challenges while exercising bothhearts and minds. The soccer experience allows children to learn important lessons aboutdetermination, commitment, communication, and teamwork, while acquiring increasedself-confidence and self-control.

Unfortunately, many children are not able to enjoy the potential the sport has to offer fora variety of reasons, among them:

The competitive structure and training for beginning players is based on a non-realistic age-appropriate concept rather than the highly varied andunpredictable way children actually develop.

Soccer administrators and coaches are often volunteers untrained in andunfamiliar with principles of motivation, development and enjoyment.

The only results that get measured are win/loss records.

As a result, parents are often given a choice between a very expensive, high pressure,

high commitment environment or an environment that impedes teaching, learning andultimately enjoying the game. Administrators, coaches, and parents decry win-at-all-cost mentality yet fail to define what this means and have league policies withconflicting goals and objectives.

The objective of this paper is to help define a systematic approach and rationalimplementation strategy, for preadolescent players, which addresses the causes, not justthe symptoms of these problems. This paper will provide an overview of the problem,background information needed for understanding, and possible solutions with suggestedimplementations.

Current situationCurrently there are about 10 million children in organized youth soccer programs in theUS.1The overwhelming majority of youth soccer organizations use strict age basedcutoffs to place players. The advantage of this approach is that it is easy for everyone tounderstand and it produces a standard to prevent people from cheating.

Although there are countless different ways organized teams and leagues are set up, ingeneral there are two predominate models: One approach most often referred to asRecreational places children of the same chronological age(s) onto teams without


3/27

3

regard to ability or experience. In these leagues anyone who wants to play can playirrelevant of skill (though some exclude more skilled players). The other approach,which goes under various names including competitive, travel, club, all-star and referredto herein as Select takes higher ability players and attempts to group them by levelwithin chronological age groups.

In some programs like American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO), players are forcedto play in Recreational programs if they want to play in Select programs2. In other areasit just the opposite. In Virginia, most Recreational programs exclude VYSA (VirginiaYouth Soccer Association) carded "Travel" players from competing with the non-cardedplayers3. Therefore while the terms Recreational and Select represent the most commonapproaches it is instructive for the reader to remember that the application and meaningof these terms differ widely across the country.

Recreational

The majority of US Youth soccer players are Recreational players under the age of 12. InAYSO and most state associations, Select teams cannot form until a player is 8 to 10

years old. At these ages, anyone who wants to play and, in some cases, meets residencyrequirements can play irrelevant of skill or experience. At older ages, it is also the defacto bottom level select league for those that cannot make higher level teams. As aresult many leagues, including leagues within AYSO, place restrictions against certainSelect players participating on these teams in order to maintain competitive balance4.Recreational leagues also attract players that could make select teams but choose not tofor other reasons including players that want to avoid conflicts with othersports/activities, dont want to make required commitment, or want to play with friends.

The coaches in these leagues are typically volunteers with a large variation inability. The play in these leagues is typically uneven and participants are oftensaid to play for fun, participation, or skill development.

Select

Select play typically starts at U10, although it appears the popularity of youngerteams is increasing. Select teams are characterized by significantly increasedcommitment in the form of money, practice time and travel. There aretypically several levels of play.

Even at the youngest and least committed levels such as U10 recreational all-star teams,All-Star season, off-season/indoor tournaments plus required recreational play meanthat players can play year round. Conversely, many Select coaches want to keep the teamtogether throughout these different seasons, so year round play has become a requirement

to participate on many select teams. In general, the coaching at select teams is at a muchhigher level than recreational teams. Many teams pay trainers and/or coaches. InSouthern California, the cost of playing on a non-AYSO select team is typically between$1,000 2,0005, not including travel costs for many out of town tournaments ascompared to $50 $150 for recreational play. Expenses and expected commitmenttypically increase as the quality of the play increases. However those that play feel theincreased competition, better coaching and the fact their teammates play at a reasonablelevel make it worth the dramatically increased cost and commitment.


4/27

4

Motivational issues

What motivates children to play soccer and keep playing? The reasons citedgenerally include6:

having fun,

improving skills,

developing fitness,

being with friends,

achieving success,

experiencing thrills and excitement.

Any attempt to analyze these reasons is challenging because the field of humanmotivation is an extremely complex subject and several theories can be applied to anystated reason. Rather than attempting to provide an exhaustive list of published theories,two bodies of work that are of particular interest to any discussion on youth sportsstructure will beexamined: Mihaly Csikszentmihalyis research on enjoyment and histheory of Flow7; David C. McClellands systems of human motives with particular

attention to his research on achievement motivation as presented in his book HumanMotivation.8 Both bodies of work demonstrate direct causal relationships between thechallenges faced by the participants and quality of their experience. Both enjoy a widerange of empirical support and are frequently cited in the field of sports psychology andhuman motivation.

Enjoyment

Dr. Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi has developed almost three decades of research into theprocess of enjoyment (Fun and Excitement). He has studied in great depthautotelic activities like sports that are enjoyable in themselves (intrinsicallymotivating). In his book, Flow, Csikszentmihalyi stated the optimal state of inner

experience or Flow happens when psychic energy or attention is invested in realisticgoals, and when skills match the opportunities for action. The pursuit of a goal bringsorder in awareness because a person must concentrate attention on the task at hand andmomentarily forget everything else. These periods of struggling to overcome challengeare what people find to be the most enjoyable times of their lives.

Csikszentmihalyi uses figure 1 to explain the concept of flow:


5/27

5

Figure 1 Csikszentmihalyis Flow channel

An activity requiring minimal skill with minimal challenge like watching TV is likely toleave a person in a state of apathy, while a mismatch between the level of challenge and a

persons skill will lead to states of boredom or anxiety. A critical requirement of theflow state is the person must be pursuing a goal that that is commensurate with theirskills. While passive, relaxed states can be enjoyable, the active pursuit and sense ofmastery of a particular activity is what provides people with long term happiness.

According to Csikszentmihalyi, sports have been developed over the centuries for theexpress purpose of enriching life with enjoyable experiences. Based onCsikszentmihalyis extensive research, enjoyment in youth sports can be maximized byproviding children with a sense of discovery. The focus should be on developing morecomplex skills. External or extrinsic goals - winning, praise, and trophies causecompetition to become a distraction rather than an incentive to focus the conscious on theactivity. Furthermore, these external rewards can become substitutes for intrinsic(internal) motivation and diminish interest in the activity when they are removed.

Finally, in order for a challenge to be enjoyable it must have the appropriate balancebetween skills and challenge.

Achievement motivation

David McClelland and his colleagues developed a theory of achievement motivation(improving skills, developing fitness, achieving success), which is a learned stabledisposition (habit) to achieve. Achievement-oriented individuals are motivated mosteffectively when they are presented with optimum challenge. To provide the right degreeof challenge, the expectation or goal must demand the childs best effort but must not beso difficult to attain that efforts for success meet with excessive frustration anddiscouragement.

This habit for achievement is learned from the way the child is raised and remains stableduring adulthood. A high achievement-oriented child was likely to have been presentedwith moderately high standards and given confidence in the childs ability to succeed.Such children are more optimistic and have a more realistic appraisal of theirperformance than children with low-achievement motive.

Further research9suggests there are two kinds of goals children set in achievement relatedtasks: Seeking to prove one is competent (ability/performance orientation) versus seeking


6/27

6

to improve ones competence (mastery/learning orientation). When children experiencefailure, those with performance goal tend to drop their performance and to withdraw afterfailure, while those with mastery goal are likely to persevere and improve performanceafter failure. While both achievement disposition and mastery disposition are thought tobe developed in early childhood, soccer programs nonetheless should help strengthenthese habits by providing moderately high individual standards and help focus the childs

efforts on improvement rather than results or comparisons to other children.

Clearly both Csikszentmihalyis and McClellends work present an extremely strong casefor the importance of matching the challenge a child faces to the skills that child hasdeveloped. Does this mean children cannot have fun if their skill level is notcommensurate with skills needed to play? Not necessarily. Human motivation is not thatsimple.

Csikszentmihalyi states: Another universally enjoyable activity is being with otherpeople (Play with friends). Socializing might at first appear to be an exception to thestatement that one needs skills to enjoy an activity, for it does not seem that gossiping orjoking around with another person requires particular abilities. But of course it does.

Clearly social skills are important to almost every job in the work force.

McClellend also conducted extensive research on the need for affiliation. While anumber of studies validated the level of affiliation need, there is still widespreaduncertainty about the nature of the motive itself and the origins of affiliation motive insociety or in childhood. Research shows that those high in affiliation need are more oftenanxious about whether they are liked or not so that often they are not very popular.Those high in affiliation need did better in warm and friendly classrooms. They prefercooperative rather than competitive environments. Research on leadership andmanagement indicates that a person with moderate affiliation need is most effective.

While the implications for structuring youth sport with regard to maximizing enjoymentof competition and promoting the achievement motive are apparent, the implications for

enhancing social enjoyment and skills are less clear. If a child is primarily interested in asport to play with friends, will that interest persist once friends leave the sport or theteam? Late maturing boys tend to be high in affiliation need. Would these children gainconfidence in themselves competing in an environment with similarly undevelopedchildren or would being among generally younger children increase the possible anxietyabout their late maturing status? Are children more likely to continue to play soccer ifthere is some sort of ability-based stratification from the very start, or is it better to gofrom no stratification to full stratification in a very short period of time, as is currently thecase?

Developmental issues

When asked about the typical practice of placing children of vastly different ability incompetition with each other, a few will claim weaker players benefit by watching howbetter players dominate a game. A few others will claim that pitting children of vastlydifferent abilities in a contest will somehow help them learn the life skills of workingwith people of different abilities. Most will agree that it is probably not ideal. Thegeneral acceptance of highly heterogeneous competitive grouping in terms of ability is inpart tied to belief that only a very small number of children in their program are outsidethe average ability for a particular age group. This section will review the differences


7/27

7

between children and provide perspective on the both the magnitude and scope of thesedifferences.

Chronological Age

Participants in youth sports are ordinarily grouped on the basis of chronological age, the

age of the child based on his/her date of birth and the calendar. Either One or Two-yearchronological age categories are commonly used in most soccer programs. In areas witha limited amount of participants, including rural areas and older age groups, three to fouryear age groups are common. Two children, whose ages are, respectively, 9.00 and 9.99years, are classified as 9 years of age, although almost one year separates them.

An issue related to age grouping in youth sports involves arbitrary cut-off dates for aseason. Two almost identical children may develop completely different beliefs aboutthemselves and their ability to compete solely as a result of their birthday. The AYSOstandard U8 age, for example, has a chronological age limit of 7 years as of July 31stofthe current season, i.e., the boy has not reached his 8th birthday by July 31st. Boys bornon July 31stand August 1st would thus be classified differently. The boy born on August

1st is classified as a 7 year old while the boy born on July31st plays as an 8 year old. Theformer boy is an old U8 player, while the latter is a young U10 player.

Learning ability

Evidence of differences in learning ability of children has been available since the1920s. A rough distribution of the mentalages obtained by the ten-year-olds in that

sample is presented in figure 2 as follows:10

Figure 2 Approximate distribution of the mental ages of American ten-year-olds, ten at nearestbirthday (based on data obtained from in the standardization of Termans revised Stanford-Binetintelligence scales conducted in the late 1920s and early 1930s)

As the figure 2 demonstrates, there is clearly an extremely wide distribution of mentalages in children. Only about of the children are at the standard mental age for their


8/27

8

chronological age and almost 40% of the children are either 2 years above or 2 yearsbelow their mental ages.

Physical differences

Soccer is a contact sport and as such, differences in physical characteristics such as

height and weight significantly impact the ability of children to effectively compete.While additional weight can either be positively correlated or negatively correlated toperformance depending on whether it due to increased fat or increased musculature,increased height correlates to increased performance for youth players.

CDC height Data for 8, 9 & 10 year old boys

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

110 120 130 140 150 160

Height in CM

Perentage

95 months

107 months

119 months

Figure 3 Graphs of the CDC normalized height data of boys at 95, 107 and 119 months

As the above graphs (figure 3) of normalized CDC height data11demonstrates, onaverage children of 119 months (just under 10) are taller than 95 months (just under 8) asone would expect. However there is also significant difference in the height of childrenwithin a particular age. The smallest 20% of the boys at 119 months are smaller than thetallest 20% of boys at 95 months.

Maturity IssuesIn an article on maturing matching in youth sports, Robert Malina 12presented researchshowing that there are significant individual differences in the rates of biologicalmaturation, and that these differences can have considerable effects on size, strength andskill. The studies focused on children transitioning into puberty where indicators ofmaturity status such as pubic hair are noticeable and can more easily be classified. Thestudy cited to highlight the variation in timing showed the 10 thand 90thpercentiles of a


9/27

9

certain maturity status for boys was 9.0 and 13.5 years respectively and 9.1 and 12.3 forgirls.

Small Empirical studies

As was demonstrated in previous sections, age, cognitive ability, size, and maturity status

vary significantly between individuals, even within a single year age group. With theexception of age, the differences between players within a single year chronological agegroup is greater than the difference between the average of the chronological age groupabove and the chronological age group below. The issue for administrators of soccerprograms is how the natural differences between children relate to soccer.

This section attempts to highlight how age and other variables relate to a childs ability tocompete with other children on the soccer field. There are two sets of data used in thissection. One set is from data used to place boys aged 6 to 10 (U7 U10) in a recreationalspring soccer program.13 The second set of data was developed frompost-seasonevaluations of regular season U10 recreational teams (ages 8,9,10)14.

Agility Test Histogram

0

2

4

6

8

6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5

Time in seconds

Frequency U10 U8

Figure 4 The time in seconds for children to sprint around 3 sides of a 10 yard square starting froma prone position. U8 children were 6 or 7 years of age at a cut-off date 9 months prior to the testwhile U10 players were 8 & 9 years at the same cut-off.

The chart in figure 4 shows the distribution of U8 and U10 times for an agility test whichinvolved a player sprinting around 3 sides of a 10 yard square starting from face downposition on the ground. As the chart shows, the distribution of time within the age group7.2 seconds 12.27 seconds for U8 and 6.56 11.15 for U10, is much wider than the

average (mean) time for the two groups which was 8.11 seconds and 8.65 seconds forU10 (including U9) players and U8 (including U7) respectively. Although the samplesize makes it less obvious visually, the distribution of the two groups is very similar-.92to 98 in standard deviation and 1.44 to 1.45 in skewness.

At its essence, soccer is a series of one on one battles either attacker vs. defender on theball, a 50-50 fight to win loose balls, or off-ball running to create or destroy space.Children are grouped by age in the belief that doing so will provide the vast majority with


10/27

10

a fair and realistic chance to win these battles. For this to be the case there would need tobe a strong relationship between age and player ability.

There are several related mathematical methods to compare the strength and relationshipbetween variables. A mathematical technique called regression can be used to determinethe strength of the linear relationship between age (independent variable) and ability

(dependant variable). If R2

is 1 there is a perfect linear relationship between thedependant and independent variables. If R2 is 0, there is no linear relationship betweenthe two.

Age/Ability Line Fit Plot

0

2

4

6

8

10

90.0 100.0 110.0 120.0 130.0

Age in Months

Playerrating

Rating Predicted Rating

Figure 5 A plot of age vs. ability rating of U10 soccer players with 10 being highestand 1 being the lowest as rated by a group of all-star coaches very familiar withthe players. Predicted rating was derived using least squares linear regression.

The chart in Figure 5 shows the plot of Age vs. ability for the Fall League data sample.The R2for this sample was .095, which is not very high. Clearly there is linearity to the

sample since the cloud of points appears to be moving within a band on each side of theregression line. However many of the oldest players are below average while some of theyoungest players are among the best. A player at 110 months seems just as likely to berated a 2 as he is to be rated an 8 (on a 1 to 10 scale with 10 being the best) which meansthat age by itself will explain little of a players ability.

In contrast the chart in figure 6 shows the time in the Agility test vs. Player ratingsregression plot for U10 players in the spring league. Unlike the age-based plot of ability,the points are much closer to the regression line. A fast player was very likely to behighly rated (120 being best) while a slow player was very likely to be lowly rated (10being lowest). The R2for this sample was .49, which means the players ability in largepart could be explained by their agility times. Since agility and speed are highly related,

the R

2

for speed would likely be high as well.


11/27

11

Agility times/ratings Line Fit Plot

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

6912

Time in Agility test

Playerratings

Rate Predicted Rate

Figure 6A plot of time in seconds for children to sprint around 3 sides of a 10 yardsquare starting from a prone position vs. ability rating of U10 soccer players with120 being highest and 10 being the lowest as rated by several coaches during

preseason practice sessions. Predicted rating was derived using least squares linearregression.

As the table in figure 7 shows, the R2for age was consistently low in every samplebecause large variability in children. The agility score at U8 was also a poor predictor ofability/effectiveness at that level because children tend to be bunched up. At that level,one would expect size, strength and aggressiveness to be better predictors of a successfulplayer. The R2 for speed in skills of fall sample are probably slightly higher than theyshould be in part because they were subjectively developed and the coaches likelyadjusted these to match the ratings. But even a lower relationship demonstrates that it isnot that difficult to do a better job of placing children where they have a reasonablechance to succeed, have fun and learn the game.

Data sample Variable R2

Spring U10 Age 0.14

Spring U10 Agility 0.49

Spring U8 Age 0.15

Spring U8 Agility 0.17

Fall U10 Age 0.09

Fall U10 Speed 0.67

Fall U10 Skills 0.78

Figure 7 R2 values of rated ability/effectiveness vs. various measurements of Youth soccer players

Anecdotal support of differences

The following examples are from a small spring 6 v 6 league 128 boys from U7 to U10plus 5 U6 players playing up15. Players are placed based on a combination of ability andage. Children are divided in 3 divisions as follows:


12/27

12

Division Composition of playersFirst U10 players and better U9sSecond U9 players, better U8s, a few U10s playing downThird Remaining U8 and U7 players& 5 U6 players

Arguably the best player in the first (top) division was the youngest of 3 U8 players inthat division (it should be noted that a couple top U10 players had moved to full timeselect teams). Undoubtedly, the top player and leading scorer in second (mid leveldivision) is a U7 player that had more technical skill and vision than 80% of the kids inthe top division. Arguably the top player in the third division was a U6 player playing upand the remaining 4 U6 players playing up are all arguably among top 10 players in thatdivision.

On the other hand, an informal poll of 10 current recreational coaches with at least two ormore years of experience coaching U10 or above, most recall having at least one playerthat barely touched the ball all season despite being on the field for a minimum of 50%for each game played. One said a player touched it 3times all season while anotherclaimed he had a player that never touched it once.16

Analysis of current situation

AYSO case study

AYSO is the second largest youth soccer organization in United States. Research17

shows that children would rather play for a losing team than sit on the bench for awinning team, that close games are more fun that blow-outs and negative coaching stylescause children to quit playing. The AYSO program stresses that everyone plays aminimum of a half game; it goes through great lengths to make sure all teams arecompetitive; and it mandates extensive training for volunteers to ensure positive coachingstyles are used and sportsmanship is promoted.

One would think that AYSO would be very successful in retaining players. Yet with allthese very positive aspects about the AYSO program, the attrition rate for AYSO playersis significantly higher than the average as compared to overall numbers for theUnitedStates. As of 7/1/99, the breakdown of the 604,000 children was as follows18:

U6 (18-mo div) 14%U8 26%U10 24%U12 18%U14 11%U16 5%U19 (36-mo) 2%

The median age of soccer players in the program was somewhere under 9.0 years of ageand the ratio of players 6 11 to 12 17 is approximately 3.78 to 1. According to figuresfrom theSoccer Industry Council of America from the same period, the national ratio is1.33 to 119. According to US Soccer Data Base Services, the 1998 ratio of players 6-11to 12-17 for USYSA, the nations largest youth soccer organization, was 1.88 to 120.

One likely reason for this is that AYSO as an organization believes ability based playmust not be an integral part of its program. According to the stated policy The National


13/27

13

Board of Directors (NBOD) recognizes that such programs (Select teams based onability) have historically been a part of the AYSO program in various parts of the countryand allows it as an optional part of the overall program. The NBOD, however, advisescaution when conducting these programs because it is by its very nature exclusionary, notinclusionary 21. While high demand for these programs forces some reluctantadministrators to provide Select programs, with the exception of extremely small test

programs, players must first participate in a full season of non-ability based games.

Potential concerns with current Recreational & Select system

The US recreational leagues do a good job of introducing the game to younger players aswell as providing a relatively low cost ($50 - $100 per season with lower amounts foradditional play outside the main season) of organized play. However, the vastdifferences in ability, experience and other factors within a single chronological agegroup (see Development) mean that there is no way one can effectively teach to acommon standard without creating boredom and anxiety for many of the players (seeMotivation).

At the younger ages without extreme short-sided team sizes, some children can go awhole game without touching the ball while others will score 3 or more goals each gameand in the process reduce many of their teammates to the role of on field spectators. Asa result, most players move to select programs or leave the sport by 14. In addition toundermining the benefits and enjoyment of the sport for the players, the significantdevelopmental differences places additional burdens on typically inexperienced volunteerparent coaches. While most recreational administrators like to place the blame for thetrend of younger Select (Competitive) play at younger ages on ego-driven parents andmoney hungry coaches, the reality is that they are probably the biggest contributing factorto the situation.

The existing select system does a good job of providing high level coaching and

competition for those children that are able to make these teams. However it does so atsignificant tangible and intangible costs. The most obvious is that those children whoseparents are unable or unwilling to pay very high fees are unable to participate at higherlevels of play.

Most Select structures are set up on a promotion/relegation basis where the top teams in adivision move to the higher division while the bottom teams are relegated to the lowerdivision. In this system a team that starts at the top level has a much easier time stayingat the top as compared to a team trying to rise from the bottom. Most coaches arecompetitive by nature and want the best teams with the best players. When combinedwith the fact that a professional trainer with a top team can command more direct incomefrom providing access to the highest level of competition and indirect income fromcamps and private training that benefit from the prestige of having a top team it is notsurprising that the pressure to create top teams is often very intense.

There are several negative consequences that many people including the professionaltrainers that benefit from the system agree to be problems:

Early developers and older players within the chronological age brackets areprovided better coaching, equipment and attention. Players coming late to the gameand late maturing players are put at a disadvantage that many can never overcome.


14/27

14

Playing time is disproportionately given to those players that can win games.

Early developers can be held back at their own chronological age where theiradvanced athleticism can be utilized to win games (in older travel leagues) whilesacrificing development of technical, tactical and process skills that not only hinderlong-term development, but also can cause the player to leave the sport completely22.

Recruitment with corresponding promises of tangible and intangible benefits forplaying that at the very best, erode the joy of playing by serving as extrinsicsubstitutes for the natural intrinsic motivation competition and at the very worst,serve to disillusion the player when they are broken.

Children as young as 8 are only given an option of year round participation. Thistrend has led to a dramatic increase in repetitive stress injuries to children anddiscourages better athletes with a range of sporting interests to keep playing thegame.23

Obviously these are generalizations and there are many exceptions of various degreesthroughout the country. Thus while many children have a positive experience, a widerange of people that range from authors of books on childrens sports to professionalsoccer coaches have concerns about our present system. Among the class of sportssimilar to soccer (basketball, volleyball, hockey where the ball is shared amongteammates in a free flowing manner), only soccer has fewer children playing from 12 17 than 6 1124. Of the major team participation sports, only soccer and baseball, suffer adrop in participation, though baseball has nowhere near the rate of children quitting ascompared to soccer. The early age and large numbers of children dropping out of socceras compared to other team sports should serve as a warning that something is remiss.

Developmental Model for Organized Youth Soccer

Overview

In real life people are not sorted by age, but instead interact with other people of all ages.If one goes to a playground they will see people of mixed ages competing in variousgames. Players will either segregate themselves by ability or will modify patterns of playand create informal rules to help make weaker players competitive with stronger ones.

The overwhelming majority of youth soccer organizations use strict age based cutoffs toplace children in competition with each other. The advantage of this approach is that it iseasy for everyone to understand and it produces a standard to prevent people fromcheating. However this structure invariably creates teams of players with significantdevelopmental differences, that at times severely undermine the benefits and enjoyment

of the sport for the players or requires players at the extremes of ability to travelsignificant distances to find enough players of similar abilities to form teams and playgames.

At the U8 U10 level of most organized soccer programs, it is very common to have a 5-year developmental difference in terms of soccer skills between the most developed andleast developed players. At one end of the development scale is someone like U17 starSantino Quaranta, an exceptional athlete with a birthday in the first quarter of the cut-off;from a family of All-American and professional soccer players; and who was so


15/27

15

developed he played in a U10 league as a 5 year old (very few leagues allow this andmany would force a similar child to play within his age group). At the other end of thescale would be an inactive child born 4 or 5 months premature, with some resulting minordisabilities and a birthday that just barely makes an age group cut-off.

The Development Model described herein is not specific implementation guaranteed to

fix all the problems that have been identified in our current system. Further research mayyield even more effective solutions or show that boys and girls might benefit fromdifferent implementations.

The Development model is instead a conceptual model for youth soccer that takes intoaccount significant differences in children and their maturation cycles to place them inpositions where they will be challenged yet have a strong chance to succeed. Much likethe Montessori method of instruction, it factors in the developmental stage of the childrenwhen placing them in competition instead of strictly relying on chronological age duringthe childs prime developmental period. It allows the sport to build the confidence of lessdeveloped children rather than destroy it. The emphasis is on measuring skills rather thanwins and placing advanced children where they are better able to develop their game

rather than win the game. Doing so provides all children in the program with a morereasonable chance to compete and develop their skills. These are proven ways toenhance their motivation, achievement and enjoyment.

U6 U8 Developmental objectives

In this age group the children and their parents are adapting to their respective roles inorganized sports. The objective at this stage of development is to lay a foundation forboth groups that will help the children maximize the potential benefits from participationin organized soccer. At these ages children are rapidly changing and primarily base self-perception on feedback from parents and coaches who in turn should provide support andencouragement to meet realistic challenges.

Concept informal pick-up style competition

The concept is that a group of players get together at a location and are then separatedinto teams to play several concurrent small-sided games. Games are very informal andare designed to maximize playing time, competitiveness of players and competitivenessbetween teams. The informal setting and structure will help focus the children (and moreimportantly the adults) on playing the game and not the result. It will hopefully helpchildren understand that a ball and two goals are all one needs to play soccer. Finally, ifa child does not fit in with a particular team or parent coach it is just one short gameuntil everything starts again. Alternate soccer games such as 4 goal games, end zonegames and variations in goal orientation can also be used to enhance development.

Potential Implementation

The ideal implementation would depend on a combination of variables that includefield space, volunteer structure, program size, existing conditions and existing attitudes.Smaller programs with large fields have been successful having children meet andsplitting them up on game day. More developed players are sent to one area and lessdeveloped players to another. This allows the most physically and technically developedplayers to challenge each other and later developing players increased time and space


16/27

16

necessary to develop their skills. Players in the average range of development would getto play in a variety of competitive situations.

In larger urban programs that may have a large number of players utilizing many smallparks, a more formal rostering methodology would be appropriate. If, for example, thechildren were playing 4 v 4 games 15 children could be placed on one roster. On game

day, 3 fields could be set up where one roster of players would play another roster ofplayers in 3 concurrent games.

In this example, the fields could range from the most developed soccer players on field 3to the least developed players on field 1. At half-time or end of mini-game one thebest players on field 2 from one roster can switch places with the weaker players on thesame roster from field 3 and the weaker players from field 2 can switch places with thestronger ones on field 1. This type of rotation ensures all players are able to play at least of the time, play against players of similar development and get variation in gamesituations.

Most programs use 2-year age groups at these ages and in general the older players arestronger than younger players. Once the season is completed, those younger players thatare obviously extremely advanced for their chronological age would be encouraged (butnot forced) to move up with the similarly developed older players they had primarilybeen competing against during the season. Similarly those older players far behind fortheir chronological age would be encouraged to remain with the younger players they hadbeen primarily competing against.

The important concepts are:

Providing an appropriate challenge for each player,

Maximizing playing time,

Providing flexibility to deal with rapid changes in childrens development atthese ages,

Stressing play, not formality of game.Issues like roster sizes and exact game formats are not important. Players could switch athalf-time, in between mini games, or each week depending on the most convenientroster size for the given field ability, volunteer coaches and organization needs.

Comparison to current programs

One of the major selling points of short-sided games is that kids have more time on theball and will naturally improve their technical skills. Fewer numbers of players on thefield will also simplify complexity and help the development of tactical skills. However,these assumptions quickly begin to break down when players are developmentallydissimilar. Fewer children means that the strong early developer can dominate the game

unabated while lesser developed teammates become on field spectators.

Placing players of similar development stages facilitates learning. Late developers areafforded time and space to make decisions while early developers receive real challenges.The majority of players in the middle are stretched when playing in faster games and gainconfidence when playing in slower ones. From a program standpoint, this translates intovery few, if any, blowouts, many more children being able to score, more effectiverotation of players into different positions and much more accurate player assessment.From a players standpoint, it translates into more fun.


17/27

17

In soccer it is said the game is the teacher but only when you get to play the game.Since children at this age are often sick, going to birthday parties or doing otheractivities, standard organizational guidelines for short-sided games call for very largerosters relative to the number of players on the field to make sure there are enoughplayers to field a team on game day. The current guidelines for the two largest USyouth soccer programs, USYSA and AYSO, allow situations where playing time for

some players is limited to a maximum of just 16 and 10 minutes a game25.

On the other hand, the proposed Developmental Model needs to carry proportionallymany fewer players since absences of any two players is less significant on a largergroup. Furthermore, since the focus is on individual play and not the team, players areused to playing with a variety of players and it is no big deal to put on a vest or areversible jersey and play for the other team.

Younger players of an age group in particular can show great development during theseason. This system allows them to more quickly gain confidence at the beginning of theseason and allows for increased challenge when they are ready to handle it.

Volunteer development any student teacher can tell you that there is a big differencebetween being taught to teach and the experience gained from actually doing it. Largerrosters mean that the limited numbers of experienced and capable volunteer coaches arespread between fewer groups of players. At the same time, having multiple concurrentgames create a true need for assistant coaches. These assistants can gain experienceand confidence helping out at practice and handling substitutions during games under thedirection of more knowledgeable and experienced parent coaches. Volunteers can getadditional technical training needed to coach their childs team the following year or runa team for a younger sibling.

Parent development Many organizations go to great lengths to educate parents that theobjectives and behaviors associated with youth sports are very different from theprofessional sports entertainment industry. In addition to almost ubiquitous educational

programs, someprograms have gone so far as to outlaw parents from making any noiseduring games.26Then starting from day one they draft children onto teams, scheduleformal games, put them in official looking uniforms, create team banners just likeprofessional sports entertainment organizations and then wonder why parents quickly fallback into life long behavior habits learned from observing professional sporting events.The informality of the Developmental Model helps parents by giving them a couple yearsto develop new behavior habits before children start moving into teams that begin toresemble what they see on television and the professional league stadium.

U8 U12 Developmental objectives

Internationally known soccer coaches including Tony Waiters and Bobby Howe27refer to

U8 U12 players as being in the Golden age of learning. This is typically the agewhere children are developmentally ready and eager to learn. At this age children beginto rely more on peer comparison and evaluation as their basis for self-perception.Children build upon the foundation of individual skills learned playing in pick-up gameformats and begin to add more complex team based skills. The objective is to use skilldevelopment to build a virtuous relationship between achievement and self-perceptionswhereby better perceptions of oneself and one's abilities lead to enhanced effort,persistence and achievement, which in turn further benefits self-perceptions.


18/27

18

Concept Developmental rather than chronologically based teams

At this stage of their soccer development, players start transitioning from individual skillsand small sided games to team oriented play and more complex positional play. As aresult, they need to regularly be with a group of players to develop these skills. Theconcept is simply to place players of similar development together on teams and in

competition and reduce the emphasis on chronological age. While the concept ofcreating ability-based teams is nothing unusual, the proposed implementation process ofusing non-chronologically grouped players is seemingly a unique concept in soccer.

At this stage of their development most players can rank order the position of theirteammates in ability about as well as their coaches. Yet few will realize the kid who justscored 3 goals in a group of 10-year-old players just turned 8.

Potential Implementation

At the simplest level, one solution is to allow very developed and less developed playersto play outside of the standard chronological age group. Allowing just 1 3% of the

most extreme cases will create a significant improvement.

A more comprehensive approach can be implemented by creating overlapping divisions.Instead of strictly using age, previous playing experience and developmental differencesare also considered, enabling children to be assigned to a level that is most appropriatefor them. In more extreme cases (under 5%) with informed consent of their parents, it ispossible for players to be placed below the lower bound of the lower division or abovethe upper bound of the upper division.

For the last 2 years, the boys U8 & U10 divisions (112- 128 players) in a SouthernCalifornia recreational soccer league have been combined to create 3 divisions of 8person teams playing 6 v 6: The approximate age division were as follows:

U10 - 8/1/89 - 7/31/91 (8.0 9.9) though typically (8.5 9.9) U9 - 8/1/90 - 7/31/92 (7.0 8.9) though typically (7.5 - 8.5)

U8 - 1/31/92 - 7/31/93 (6 - 7.9) though typically (6 - 7.5)

Although many of the players and the prime evaluator came from outside leagues that didnot have spring programs thus making the selection process far from the recommendedideal, only one parent in 2 years called regarding the placement of their child. Sincemany leagues already rate all children to balance teams, the process can easily be adaptedto place players. Furthermore, the development model calls for much more extensivetracking of players development which further simplifies the process. While there arestill developmental differences between players, the differences more closely resemblethose of select teams than typical recreational teams.

Comparison to current Recreational programs

The currently recommended method of coaching a particular aspect of the game is to usea progression of drills. In this approach, drills often start at an individual level andprogress in complexity by adding more players. At the end of practice a full team ofplayers are encouraged to use what theyve learned in a large sided game or scrimmage.Given the large disparity in developmental level, the typical recreational coach mustteach to the lower middle half of the range to ensure most of the team will be able toexecute any concept. However during the larger group drills and scrimmage, the most


19/27

19

developed players will dominate play limiting the learning of other players. This resultsin a situation where the development of everyone from the least advanced to the mostadvanced players is limited. More skilled coaches will place restrictions on the moreadvanced players which will somewhat improve the situation but is in no means asolution to the problem.

While restrictions can help in practice, they are impractical for use in games. Moredeveloped players build bad habits while less developed players begin to stop trying. Asa result of these problems, more and more children of this age are moving to Selectprograms or dropping out of the sport.

Comparison to current Select programs

The current method of creating ability-based teams within chronological age groups hassome important similarities with the Developmental Model in terms providingappropriate challenges for the better players. However, there are several importantdifferences both from the individual standpoint of advanced players as well as from anoverall standpoint of all players. The focus in this section will be on the effects of the

differences.

As demonstrated by figures 2- 6 in the section on developmental issues, the top 1% ofyouth soccer players in this age group are significantly different from others in the group.These players dominate youth games and can be spotted by even the most casualobserver. The current Select approach is to attempt to group players of a similarchronological age. However, to create an elite team of 15 top players requires 1,500children. Even in major urban areas, this is a lot of children. As a result children musttravel great distances to form teams and to find teams of similar ability. This extensivetravel requirement builds a significant expense for those advanced players interested inplaying to their ability. It also adds a significant time commitment that often prematurelylimits participation in other sports and places young players in cars rather than

somewhere developing their skills.

In contrast, the Developmental Model approach provides children with a similarchallenge from playing for local teams and local leagues. Coordinating participation inother sports is much easier and time can be spent playing instead of traveling.

The process of placing the children on the appropriate level of younger Select teams isextremely inefficient. Few if any youth coaches at this level have the ability to closelyevaluate 1,500 different players needed to field a team 15 elite players. Furthermore,physiological advantages are often related to maturation issues so those players currentlyamong the best may no longer be so if their superiority is based primarily on ephemeraldevelopmental differences.

As a result players slowly shift teams through a sometimes painful process of recruiting,tryouts and cuts. Since coaches and team members would typically rather have betterplayers join them to create a top team rather than have the better players leave, the focusquickly shifts from developing the individual to developing the team so it can advance tothe highest level of play. There is significant pressure to perform and to put incommitment for the team. For many players the internal motivation of playing sport isreplaced with external factors. Players can begin to base their self-perception on the teamwhich can have very negative consequences should a player be cut.


20/27

20

In contrast, the Developmental Model much more efficiently places children inappropriate situations. Players are well known to local league administrators from theirearliest years. The emphasis is using the team to develop the player rather than the playerbeing used to develop the team. The desire to win is primarily intrinsically motivatedsince consequence for winning and losing is minimal.

Another issue with the current select/recreational model is that it only addresses childrenat the upper end of ability and ignores the issues of children at the lower end. While it isvery unlikely these children will develop into top players, there is absolutely no reasonthey cannot enjoy the sport. As long as they can continue developing more complexskills and find appropriate competition it can be a rewarding lifetime activity. There aremany current and ex-professional athletes that have a passion for golf even though veryfew could come close to winning a match with a top teenage golfer. They enjoy theconstant competitive challenge of improving their game to beat their previous score aswell as socializing with friends. Similarly, the Developmental Model provides allchildren with a realistic chance to compete and build their skills until they get matureenough to start internalizing their self-perception. At that point they may choose to focusmore on the competitive aspects of the game or choose more socially oriented leagues

such as co-ed play.

Finally, the Developmental Model raises the overall level of coaching. There is a highcorrelation between high ability parent coaches and high ability youth soccer players. If5 of the better U8 recreational coaches place their children on a select U9 team,approximately 50 children just lost a quality coach. As a result, the quality of experienceand the quality of play goes down causing more children to look to Select teams orpossibly leave the sport. In the Development Model advanced players can continue to bechallenged for several additional years allowing the recreational program to function at ahigher level while making it easy for Select programs to identify truly select players.

Of course, this process will reduce the problem of less qualified parent coaches. It willnot eliminate it. This is certainly a realistic concern for those parents that are not coaches

but have advanced children. This concern can often be addressed with private lessonsthat would likely be no more expensive than paying training fees in club programs wherequality is not necessarily assured.

U13 U19 select

Although the Developmental Model for Youth Soccer is primarily focused on improvingthe experience through their formative years, the process can also be extended into themore competitive years. At this point players begin to decide if they are interested inmaking a commitment to mastering the sport or whether they are primarily interested inthe exercise and camaraderie that playing the sport provides.

One umbrella organization has created standard ratings criteria for players across severalrecreational leagues for interplay purposes. All players interested in committing toadditional practices and travel will be placed on a team at their demonstrated level. Incases where there are not enough players at a particular level (primarily at lower levels)or not enough to form one more additional team, players are encouraged to attend theselect practices thus providing an avenue for late starters or late developers to advance tohigher levels of play.


21/27

21

Methods for promoting development orientation

What gets measured gets done

Everywhere one looks there seems to be a source expressing concern about the seeminglyexcessive focus on the win/loss records in youth sports. From feature articles, featured

books, bulletin board discussions and organizational education to specific non-profitorganizations created to change youth sports, there has been seemingly little progress inchanging the win at all costs environment in many programs. Yet if the only coststhat are measured are losses, is it really all that surprising that despite all attempts toeducate otherwise, coaches, parents and players quickly begin to focus all their energy onwinning?

Certainly part of the issue is that patterns of group behavior take time to change.However given no other objective measure of performance, many parents incorrectlyinfer that a coach winning games is better than a coach that is losing games; that apremier level coach is better than a recreational level coach and so on. Parents end upfighting to get the children in the best programs without understanding what is best for

their children. Combine these forces with our current culture and it is not surprising themust win attitude seems to be intractable.

In the Development Model, success is measured by gains in players achievement, notjust the result of the latest game. A critical component of the system is to define andtrack the progress of each players development. It also involves developingsupplemental competitions to help measure achievement and provide players with anopportunity to demonstrate their improvement. Since children are continuouslydeveloping, all will naturally improve.

Curriculum and skill objectives

A critical component of the program would be the development of a model curriculumwith a specific set of objectives for skills and tactics as they progress from beginning toproficient players. The approach is based on the concept of mastering one set of skillsbefore progressing to the next. It would incorporate an age neutral structure (forexample, the belt system use in martial arts) that would match a set of skills based on thedevelopment level of the player.

At its most basic level it would involve defining and tracking a set of skills that eachplayer should be able to master at the level of play. For instance, if the concepts wereapplied to the standard age based groupings, a program could start with something verysimple 3 basic shielding/dribbling moves and an instep kick at U8. If the coaches wereable to help players master these things, more could be added. The U10 program wouldthen build upon the skills learned at U8. The coach would keep a record of each playersprogress at several intervals during the year.

In programs with additional resources and more dedicated players, a more detailed skilldevelopment history for each player will be compiled so that each year the coach canunderstand what skills need to be developed. An ideal program would have supplementaldrills and techniques a player can work on at home, much like the new computer basedlearning systems.


22/27

22

Potential supplemental programs

It is not necessary to compete at the highest levels to enjoy the sport. Some aspects of thegame such as speed of foot, strength or maturity are not under the control of the player.One of the goals of the program is to provide children an opportunity to measure theirown growth as soccer players over things they can control.

The exact nature of the program is less important than the fact that it is done on a periodicbasis maybe once during player evaluations and 2 or 3 times during the season.Though certificates or medals could be handed out to top performers, the emphasis ofthese programs is not about winning or losing, but instead about improvement. Teamawards could be given out for the greatest percentage of improvement.

These programs could be run in conjunction with games, practices or on days with noother scheduled activities. The pure skill competitions might be best for younger childrenwhile the more competitive applied skills might be run for older children. The exact mixwould depend on volunteers, space and interest. Some programs might include everychild in a division while others might be set up for only those that are interested. Beloware some potential example programs:

Dribble shoot pass

The program involves 3 skills: shooting to a target; passing to a target; dribbling througha slalom course. It is fairly easy to run and set up and is ideal for younger players. MLSand NY Life have run this program and the winners from the region could advance to thenational competition.

FA Soccer Star Awards

This is a program that was developed by the UK Football Association (FA). The goalis to help children develop ability in the critical soccer techniques of running with theball, dribbling, turning, heading, shooting and other basic skills such as passing, controland speed. The program, called the Coca-Cola Soccer Star Awards consists of measuringeach player in six basic soccer skills and comparing them against a set standard.

A number of stars are awarded depending on how well the child performs. Each childsresults are sent to the F.A. for processing. The F.A. then sends back an individualprogress report outlining the players strengths and weaknesses and suggestions on howto improve future soccer development. Players also get a Soccer Star Certificate, SoccerStar Cloth Badge, and Soccer Star Bag Sticker.

Soccer Volleyball

Soccer volleyball is a great game to develop skills for balls in the air. It can be playedwith 1, 2 or 3 players on team. Competitions could be set up for individual players likean open tennis tournament or between teams as is done in high school tenniscompetitions. Competition could take place on tennis courts or with portable nets. Goodfor players (U10 on up) that are learning to play the ball in the air

1v1, 2 v 2, 3 v 3 competitions


23/27

23

Winning 1 v1 battles are critical to success at any level. Competitions of this type allowplayers to test their moves and their defending ability. This is good for players of allages. It can be set up so players go at a single cone, single goal or multiple goals. Thesecan be very quick to organize.

Skill Belts and RibbonsMost martial arts programs are based on the acquisition of skills. Participants are givendifferent colors of belts to signify their skill level. This concept can be extended tosoccer where it can provide less naturally gifted athletes a path to success and increaseskill levels of all players.

Juggling, Artistic Dribbling

Fans voted Diego Maradona as the greatest soccer player of the century in a votesponsored by FIFA. As a youngster he would often entertain the crowds with amazingdemonstrations of ball juggling during half time of soccer games. Players could be givenopportunities to demonstrate their juggling and creative dribbling moves

Administrative issues

Methods of player evaluation

Accurate assessment of competitive levels is important for fun, fair and effectivecompetition. Many youth soccer organizations such as AYSO, use various methods torate players in an attempt to create even games between teams. In some cases it is doneduring a short evaluation, while other use the players coaches.

The majority of coaches in youth soccer are volunteers, some of whom have little, if any,experience playing the game. Furthermore, few have experience in assessment of skills.Finally, many coaches have a child of their own playing.

The proposed developmental structure helps to improve ratings in two ways: First,players start at a young age with flexible short sided games matched up against players ofsimilar ability. While it is often easy for a coach or even a 9 year old to rank orderplayers on a specific team, it is often difficult to rank them against the population of theentire league particularly when a few players may dominate play. Narrowing the abilitylevels helps rating by providing more clearly defined standards and by providing a muchmore even distribution of touches among the players on the field.

Second, the development nature of the program helps to provide a concrete structure as towhat makes one player more effective than another. Since development is more closely

tracked, coaches are also provided objective information from which to base theirdecisions.

Finally and equally important is that the system provides more accurate and objectivefeedback to the parents of the player. If a player is lacking technical and physical skillstypically found at the next level of play, this information can help dissuade a parent fromthinking his or her child is better than they really are.


24/27

24

Methods of program organization

Since the program is based on the concept that each child is an individual and develops atdifferent rates, the ideal implementation would involve reformulating teams each year.This approach not only provides children the opportunity to learn from different coaches,but also maximizes the opportunity to create teams and players that are truly competitive

with each other. This type of system increases the overall level of the league by allowinga larger percentage of players to train under better coaches. Finally, it helps coachesfocus on the mission of development of the individual player instead of strengthening theteam.

However, some programs are structured around the concept of forming a team of playersthat stay together year after year. While there are certainly benefits to formingfriendships among team members, two problems emerge: 1) Very strong teams tend tokeep players while players from weaker teams tend to drop out creating a cycle where thestrong get stronger while players from the rest of the league lose motivation to play, 2)Since players develop at different rates, some players are held back while others reallyare unable to keep up. One method of dealing with this might be call-ups where a pool of

the best players from the level below are available to play up in games where a team islow on players. Teams with the worst records would get the first access to players. Notonly would this help the better players develop, but it would also help make the gamesmore balanced. At the end of each season there could also be an open draft of newplayers and players wishing to switch teams that is weighted to create more balancebetween the teams.

Methods of conflict resolution

Even the most inflexible chronological aged based system league administrators willreluctantly agree to make exceptions when faced with persistent parents with compellingcases. Many youth administrators argue that any flexibility will lead to an avalanche of

special requests. The reality from programs that have allowed flexibility is that it has notbeen a problem provided that a clear explanation of the process is provided at registrationand is readily available. A key component is requiring the parents to document theirrequest and reasons in writing along with any evidence (such as a coaches opinion) thatsupports their claim.

Methods to introduce change

Probably the best way to implement change is slowly building up from the youngest ages.In most cases, the parents will not be particularly tied to the old method of doing thingsor this will be their first experience with youth soccer. At older ages, programs can beginto experiment with some limited exceptions to chronological age grouping by defining

policies allowing the most extreme cases to play up and down. As the policy becomesmore established, the requirements can slowly be relaxed to allow a larger percentage ofchildren to play within their ability, while still maintaining control of the process.

ConclusionMillions of children are benefiting from our current organization of youth soccer.Unfortunately many more millions of children are also dropping out of soccer andsometimes from team sports altogether. From the late developing 6 year old that never


25/27

25

seems to touch the ball even with short sided play to the early developing 11 year oldphenom and everyone in between, there exists an opportunity to do much better. Thephilosophy of Developmental Model for Youth soccer is to place children where they arechallenged, yet have a reasonable chance for success.

The Developmental Model for youth soccer also changes the traditional focus of creatinga team with the best record within an arbitrarily defined chronological age bracket to oneof maximizing the development and enjoyment of each child. Many people decry theWin at all costs mentality of youth sports. Currently the only measure of a season isthe win and loss record of a team. And, as many management experts will state, whatgets measured, gets done. The Developmental Model tracks the growth of playersthrough assessments and skills competitions.

Placing children in this optimal state of challenge for their ability promotes enjoyment,achievement and motivation. Structuring the program so that development becomesmore valued than winning is designed to keep unnecessary external motivation fromcreeping into the natural internal desire to play while promoting the skills that bring asense of satisfaction and accomplishment. These changes will significantly enhance theexperience for many children thus encouraging further participation and allowing soccer

to bring enjoyment into their lives for years to come.


26/27

26

End Notes

112/2000 Organized Youth Team Sports Participation Survey sponsored by Sporting GoodsManufacturers Association2Some pilot programs in places like Southern California and New Mexico are Select programs. Butotherwise, Select programs in AYSO are considered secondary programs and participation in primaryRecreation programs is required to participate in secondary programs.3This statement is based on claims from coaches in Virginia and was corroborated from using a quickcheck of recreational tournaments in Virgina.4Technically anyone that wants can register in AYSO under its national rules. However many localregions either actively discourage or have rules against traveling/club players participating in theirprograms because of competitive balance concerns when players miss games due to conflicts with clubschedules.5This is an estimate based on postings from various soccer bulletin boards along with conversations fromparents with players in club programs. A 3 part series on youths sports in LA written by TRACY WEBERand SCOTT GOLD that appeared in LA Times starting Sunday, February 27, 2000 detailed some programbudgets and the programs mentioned fell into this range. The article stated total costs (including travel,coaching fees tournament fees and participation fees) could approach $5,000 per season.6A similar list appears from many sources although it is unclear whether they were from independentresearch or a restatement of previous studies such as Weiss, M. R., & Petlichkoff, L. M. (1989). Children'smotivation for participation in and withdrawal from sport: Identifying the missing links.Pediatric ExerciseScience, 1, 195-211.7Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper &Row.8David C. McClelland (1987). Human Motivation. New York: Press Syndicate of the University ofCambridge.9Eva Dreikurs Ferguson (2000). Motivation: A Biosocial and Cognitive Integration of Motivation andEmotion. New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 222 224.10Roy P. Doyle, Ed.D. Achievement Standards Versus Unstandardizable Students. The ArizonaGraduation Competency Test Statute.11Stature-for-age data available from www.cdc.org12

R.M. Malina and G. Beunen, 1996. Matching of opponents in youth sports. In THE CHILD ANDADOLESCENT ATHLETE, O. Bar-Or, editor, pp. 202-213. Oxford: Blackwell Science.13The data was compiled in April 2000 from a San Fernando Valley based AYSO soccer program inSouthern California for U8 and U10 boys. Since the cut-off date was July 31, 1999 some players hadalready turned 10. Several evaluators rated children doing drills and scrimmaging over 3 camp sessions.The agility test was held on one just one day and some players did not attend that day.14 The data was compiled in November 2000 from a San Gabriel Valley based AYSO soccer program inSouthern California for U10 boys that were 8 or 9 years old July 31, 2000. Since the data in this section iscompletely based on subjective observation, the sample was limited to 6 coaches that were picked to coachall-star teams that season and was slightly adjusted in a coached meeting to account for small individualbiases. These coaches have more training, rating experience, player familiarity and coaching experienceand thus should provide more accurate ratings.15The observations are by league coordinators from April-May 2001 AYSO soccer program in Southern

California for U8 and U10 boys.16 These are recollections recalled during a series of conversations with experienced boys coaches in 2different AYSO regions (leagues).17There are a several studies generally stating that between 75 90% of players would prefer to be on alosing team if they were able to play in the games rather than be benchwarmers on a winning team. Forexample Rick Wolff - Good Sports: the Concerned Parents Guide to Little League and Other CompetitiveYouth Sports (1993) cited 90% while 75% was quoted by Henschen K. L. Griffin in Psychology Today,Sept. 77.18Posted on AYSO Soccer list Mar. 2, 2000


27/27

19Soccer Industry Council of America released participation information on May 1999 that was derivedfrom a larger study conducted by American Sports Data, Inc. According to the information released,participation rates for children 6 11 and 12 17 were respectively 7.9 million and 6 million youths.These numbers must be taken with some caution since only about 50% of those surveyed played 25 timesor more per year. However, the AYSO numbers for 12 17 also include players in pilot Select programs

and supplemental Select programs. Without these programs, the ratio we older players to younger playerswould likely be much lower.20The USYSA national office provided figures based on information gathered by US Soccer Data BaseServices. As of 8/31/98 number of players 611 and 1217 were respectively 1,566,400 and 1,160,600,which gives a figure of 1.35 to 1 of younger to older players. However it appears the data was eithermislabeled as for example, 9 rather than U9, or age was considered at the end of the season. Therefore inan attempt to get a more accurate comparison to AYSO, the number of players labeled 7-12 and 13-18,1,731,700 and 919,000 respectively, was used to derive the 1.88 number.21Article 2.7 of AYSO Policy Statements22Treasure, Darren C. Motivation: More Than a Question of Winning and Losing23AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS Policy statement; Volume 106, Number 01; July 2000, pp154-157. ABSTRACT. Children involved in sports should be encouraged to participate in a variety ofdifferent activities and develop a wide range of skills. Young athletes who specialize in just one sport may

be denied the benefits of varied activity while facing additional physical, physiologic, and psychologicdemands from intense training and competition.This statement reviews the potential risks of high-intensity training and sports specialization in youngathletes. Pediatricians who recognize these risks can have a key role in monitoring the health of theseyoung athletes and helping reduce risks associated with high-level sports participation.24According to the SOCCER INDUSTRY COUNCIL OF AMERICA 1997 NATIONAL SOCCERPARTICIPATION SURVEY Respective Participants 6-11, 12 17 in millions for the most popular team sports wereas follows: Basketball 9.520, 12.702; Soccer 7.376, 6.034; Baseball 5.047, 4.444; Softball 4.690, 5.418; Volleyball3.825, 8.706; Football (Tackle) 2.603, 5.435; Ice Hockey .431, .785. Unfortunately more recent statistics were notreadily available to the author and relative differences have changed.25The current recommended short-sided implementations posted on the websites for USYSA and AYSOare as follows:AYSOU6 - 3v3; 20 minute games 5 team roster max 1 child plays 2, five minute quarters if all show up.

U8 5v5, 40 minute games, 8 team rosterU10 7v7 48 minute games, 10 per team rosterU12 9v9 60 minute games, 13 per team rosterUSYSAU6 - 3v3; 36 minute games 6 team roster max all children play just 18 minutes if all show up.U8 4v4, 40 minute games, 10 team roster all children play just 16 minutes if all show upU10 8v8 50 minute games, 14 per team roster26USYSA Region 2 proposed that the Region 2 states experiment with observing Silent Soccer Saturdaythroughout the Region on September 30, 2000. Silent Soccer Days encourages silence among coaches andparents while attending youth soccer activities. The idea quite simply is, the only noise that should be heardare the players and the referees whistles.27- Tony Waiters and Bobby Howe - Coaching 9, 10 and 11 Year Olds

Copyright David J. Verso, 2001

Development Model for Youth Soccer

Documents

Transcript of Development Model for Youth Soccer