Children's play - adding to Billy Harris's column
Children's play - adding to Billy Harris's column
Children need to be given time to let their skills emerge.
1 hour of coaching each week for 20 weeks of the year is insufficient.
They need to play in an unstructured environment to allow them to develop their emergent skill set on a daily basis all year round.
Clubs would be best advised to open their grounds with supervised 'play' leaders for several hours a day to replicate the deliberate play of another era.
These supervisors need to be able to let children play amongst themselves: with varied age groups; not chronologically determined and at their own pace and in their own way - to allow peers to share their developing tactical and skill sets.
Adults (play leaders), therefore, become facilitators not dominators of the child development. We didn't make children walk - they did that as and when they felt able to. Most parents at that stage of the child's development were wondrous of the child's ability to do something 'remarkable' yet developmentally always gong to happen - lets just let their sports movement skills emerge in the same way.
Kids want to master their bodies and the space around them - there is no need to force an adult approach to playing the game on kids.
Let them decide the numbers in each team - It will generally be smaller in number than the adults prescribe. Children always determine the size of the pitch better - they know how far they can kick, run or dribble.
When it gets too hard they will make it smaller - when there are more players they will know when the size of the pitch is too small.
They know when to split the teams into another game if they do not get enough touches - just let them take more control.
1 hour of coaching each week for 20 weeks of the year is insufficient.
They need to play in an unstructured environment to allow them to develop their emergent skill set on a daily basis all year round.
Clubs would be best advised to open their grounds with supervised 'play' leaders for several hours a day to replicate the deliberate play of another era.
These supervisors need to be able to let children play amongst themselves: with varied age groups; not chronologically determined and at their own pace and in their own way - to allow peers to share their developing tactical and skill sets.
Adults (play leaders), therefore, become facilitators not dominators of the child development. We didn't make children walk - they did that as and when they felt able to. Most parents at that stage of the child's development were wondrous of the child's ability to do something 'remarkable' yet developmentally always gong to happen - lets just let their sports movement skills emerge in the same way.
Kids want to master their bodies and the space around them - there is no need to force an adult approach to playing the game on kids.
Let them decide the numbers in each team - It will generally be smaller in number than the adults prescribe. Children always determine the size of the pitch better - they know how far they can kick, run or dribble.
When it gets too hard they will make it smaller - when there are more players they will know when the size of the pitch is too small.
They know when to split the teams into another game if they do not get enough touches - just let them take more control.
Sounds like a good idea, but coached football would still be good
aswell.
There is no problem with coaching per se.
It�s the type and approach.
Overt prescriptive coaching is counterproductive.
This is the rationale regards the belief that kid�s skill will emerge in appropriate learning environments.
Often coaching is inappropriately structured to allow football decision making, i.e. skill, to materialise.
It�s the type and approach.
Overt prescriptive coaching is counterproductive.
This is the rationale regards the belief that kid�s skill will emerge in appropriate learning environments.
Often coaching is inappropriately structured to allow football decision making, i.e. skill, to materialise.
I've just heard a rumour that NZF (or S) want to change the format
of the game for juniors up to 10th grade. They want them to be
playing with four small goals (two each) wide on the goal lines,
with no keepers, as opposed to the single central goal with a
goalkeeper. This is allegedly to encourage wide play and open
space, instead of all the players bunching in the middle of the
field.
How is this going to develop a youngster into a fully fledged
footballer, with a full understanding of the actual game as the
rest of the world plays it? If we go down this track is there any
hope for the youngsters coming thru' the ranks now to be able to
compete internationally (they seem to be struggling at the moment)
?
Do any other federations play this way or develop players
using this method? Or any other countries, for that matter? Is this
a valid way of playing the game at junior level, or should it be
left on the training pitch?
Next thing you know we won't be keeping score...
I think it has some merit Stuart. Some of the leading clubs
play similar systems or game types to this with kids that age and
it strikes me as a viable idea to stop 'clumping' and make kids
think more.
Many kids playing up to the age of 10 have only a vague understanding of the game as it is played anyway, that can be taught and reinforced once they get to the 10 year old bracket (and they actually start listening), but maybe out of this we get kids with improved basic skills at that point.
Most people think that if you haven't got the skills sussed by that age you are stuffed for life and from what I see we could benefit from anything that would help with that process.
I did hear a rumour that factions in Wellington were talking about introducing alot more Futsal in the school years to try and keep kids in the game,
I'm not saying that these are a panacea for all our ills, but I think they are worth considering. I do have one concern and that is how it would impact developement of keepers. In particular I'd be interested in knowing what age top keepers started to become 'specialised' in that position, either locals or overseas players.
Many kids playing up to the age of 10 have only a vague understanding of the game as it is played anyway, that can be taught and reinforced once they get to the 10 year old bracket (and they actually start listening), but maybe out of this we get kids with improved basic skills at that point.
Most people think that if you haven't got the skills sussed by that age you are stuffed for life and from what I see we could benefit from anything that would help with that process.
I did hear a rumour that factions in Wellington were talking about introducing alot more Futsal in the school years to try and keep kids in the game,
I'm not saying that these are a panacea for all our ills, but I think they are worth considering. I do have one concern and that is how it would impact developement of keepers. In particular I'd be interested in knowing what age top keepers started to become 'specialised' in that position, either locals or overseas players.
Thanks, HN for the input.
I realise it does have its merits, just think it should be
used as a training excercise, not structure whole leagues around
that sort of play, as is being considered. I too had similar
questions about where goalies will come from. I s'pose they're
often late developers anyway.
Interesting that you mention Futsal too. That has been
suggested as being "compulsory" for our rep players. I know lots of
kids who have done this voluntarily, and their skills really have
improved. We have some very promising young players here in the
Waikato - look out world.