NFR: children's sport being all about the winning

[domprague]

I think kids should be playing sport for the fun of it - keeping fit, being in the open air, making new friends, learning skills, gaining respect for the umpire/ref and the game and so on. But it seems like the 'it's all about wining' mentality now affects kids' sport as well.

We moved to Surrey from West London a couple of years ago and the good news is that there are lots of sports clubs round here for kids. My boy is 8. My daughter is 10 but she's into swimming rather than team sports.

So last year my son spent three months going every Saturday to pitches all over Surrey in the wind and rain to play with a local club but when the league started we stopped hearing from the club.

He's a big lad who is not scared of being hit by the ball so he could turn into a useful keeper or centre half. Trouble is that the other kids had been playing organised football for a year already so they were more advanced. He could probably have caught up in a year but the clubs weren't willing to wait.

I've just signed him up for the local cricket club for Friday night sessions. Today I organised a cricket day at the kids' (state) primary school to give them all a chance to try the game. One of the coaches from the cricket club came along because his son goes there, too.

We were having a chat about how good it was to see the kids playing cricket and he was pleased that my lad was coming along to his club. I mentioned about the experience with the football clubs and his whole attitude changed.

"Your son will be in leagues with us next year so it will be the same," he said. "Let's face it, we all play sport to win."

I felt like asking him if he'd watched Fulham play recently.

Jokes aside, it seems crazy to me that clubs are not interested in enthusiastic young kids because it might affect their places in the league. This is not the First XI, it is the under 8s or 9s.

It seems crazy to me so I thought I see what everyone else's views are.

[bill taylors apprentice]

When I was a lad (born 1955) the earliest you could play football in an organised game was for the cubs at under 11 or your primary school also under 11 ish and if you were good enough for the primary schools district team.

Competitive matches were limited until you joined a boys club at under 12s, I'm unaware we had organised football for kids under these age brackets?

I can tell you nobody was more competitive than my mates and myself and not playing in organised leagues until I was around 12 didn't stop me from progressing in the game as I got older.

As for your question, I think 8/9/10 year olds should play for fun and develop their game, once you get to under 12's football its understandable that teams are picked to win along with learning all the important aspects of sport, team work, respect for the rules etc etc.
I would also hope the adults use some common sense and clever selections to give late developers and triers game time.

Maybe you need to find him a team where he will be welcomed even if it one of those teams that get beat every week because often as they move up the ages these same teams grow into winners.

I understand kids start playing in leagues earlier today but I think while each game should played in a competitive spirit, league tables should not apply until 12 so as to give everyone a chance to play who wants to.   

I suspect my ideas are rare but don't let your boy  struggle for a year or two before he can break into the team, find him a team that will play him now regardless of results, he wont like losing but he will develop. I remember plenty of boys who were the business up to 10 and 11 but left behind as everyone else out grew and at skilled them by 12 and 13.

[domprague]

bill taylors apprentice
Many thanks for your thoughts. I think I shall try and find a 'no leagues' side. There must be some out there. It just seems daft to me - we're not talking about Arsenal or Surrey County Cricket Club here, just a local club in a small town. There's a lot of talk about parents living their sporting lives through their children. I wonder how much that's also true of coaches.

[Nero]

its the age old problem of Dads living out their dreams through their sons, at 8 years old they should be playing for fun and improving techinques not be shouted at by some idiot who thinks he fergie cos the lad mis places a pass.

what part of surrey have you moved to, I'm sure someone on here will know a team where winning isn't the be all and end all

[domprague]

Cheers, nero.
We're in Dorking. Lovely place, all very laid back but they take their sport a bit too seriously.

[domprague]

When I worked on a local paper I would go along to the awards nights for the local sports clubs. There would be some kids who left with armfuls of trophies and medals. They all wanted to be professionals so I would keep a note of their names to see if they made it. None of them did.

[Andy S]

When my son played football at youth level there were managers who would only pick the taller players. Yes they were more successful at that level.However those lads never went on to achieve anything in men's football. Now I watch my grandson play and some they win and some they lose but it is the parents who are competitive. The coaches by modern rules have to rotate the kids and being subbed is not an insult it is a fact of life. there is no preference and they all get a game. Some have more ability than others but in general there is not a lot of difference. It's the same as it has always been,to be a good footballer at any age you have to be better than your opponent,or as good. So I believe you have to play better players to improve your own game. It might not be now but if you have the right temperament you can go on. And yes it is always about winning in the end,but there is no shame in losing if you have done your best

[domprague]

Andy S
It's interesting how often you hear of a player such as Payet who was rejected when he was a teenager for being too small. I think exactly as you - no shame in losing to a better team - but I think that we are in the minority of Dads and Grandads in believing that.

[Beamer]

The 'best' players at very junior level in many sports tend to be the physically better developed boys (and girls), so are stronger, better stamina, etc. so they tend to dominate and as a result win awards. However as the other kids catch up physically that dominance fades and so often the 'we always win' kids suddenly have to face up to not necessarily being the best and losing for the first time, which can be a hard lesson for kids who haven't been used to it. This taken with the fact that they have not often had to push themselves to be top is often the reason that they fade away in interest from their sport or don't appear to reach their potential. Obviously this is not always the case but is a common occurrence which is well recognised within the sports coaching fraternity.
So it is in the club's best interest to ensure that they don't put off the less immediately 'able' kids for the sake of instant success. Good clubs will want to win leagues but they make sure that enough friendlies are arranged to keep the 'other' kids interested as it is just as likely that their next super-star will come from them.
I'm all for competitive sport/games for kids of all ages but it is as important for them to learn how to both win and lose because they won't always win during their life.

[ron]

Learning how to lose provides important lessons for life.....not in the context of a lot of trendy waffle about taking part being the important thing, and that competition provides losers, which is bad for self-respect and all the rest of it..
Learning how to lose with dignity and using the experience as a positive to win later through focused attitude is valuable in life

Well, it still sounds like waffle, but God preserve us from those who would shelter us from competition in case we get disappointed in loss
What would Charles Darwin have made of it?   "The Losers* Shall Inherit The Earth" sounds a second best theory.

* .. As for the 'meek'....well, make a start on that one this coming Sunday at Matins.............

[filham]

Of course we all play to win but have to remember that there is only one winner so we should learn that there has to be enjoyment in taking part.
Awful to hear that the intensity of the professional game has slipped down into youth football which should be where there is freedom to develop skills.

[Ron Sheepskin]

I couldn't agree more with domprague's sentiment if I tried.

A few years back, I coached a girl's football team in the season that they moved up to 11 a side from 7 (this was before the advent of 9 a side). The girls were 12/13 and starting to be more interested in going shopping with their friends than playing football. I took the view that I really wasn't bothered about the match results, league positions or cup runs, but wanted to make the training sessions fun, and the matches could pretty much take care of themselves.

I didn't often have more than 9 players to put out in a match, but they never complained and had a ball. The day I knew that I was doing something right was the day we got beaten 13-0 in the rain by a team that took it all very seriously, and had a coach that shouted criticisms constantly. At full time, his team trudged off. Mine ran over to me, all beaming and wanting to know who they were playing next week.

A new coach took over from me the following season with the stated aim of winning. The team folded when the girls just stopped turning up.

[domprague]

Ron Sheepskin - you don't fancy coaching in Surrey, do you?