Thursday 16 January 2014

How did this tiny soccer club produce so many National team players?


Because I write often about kids soccer development and the Long-Term Player Development (LTPD) model, I often get questions from parents, coaches, and youth soccer club administrators on specific elements of LTPD. Recently, I have fielded a lot of questions about eliminating league standings in the lower age levels prior to U12.

I won’t repeat everything about the logic of eliminating league standings for young players. You can read my thoughts in my post about how kids learn to lose. Instead, I will tell you the story of some of the National team players who have come out of my club’s no-standings U6-U11 house league. 

Since 1998, I have coached at Bays United FC in Victoria on the wet and wild west coast of Canada. The club has approximately 1,000 kids in U6-U18 programs, and in the last 10 years, we have sent at least six players to Canadian national team programs:

Adam Straith (U17, U20, Senior men)
Simon Thomas (U23, Senior men)
Joey Loreth (U20 men)
Liam Stanley (Para-Soccer)
Ally Courtnall (U17 women)
Leigh Quinlan (U20 women)

Why should anyone care?

Firstly, because our 1,000 kids represent only 0.14% of the 700,000 kids ages U6-U18 playing soccer in Canada.  

Secondly, all six of these players played no-standings soccer in our U6-U11 house league. 

Thirdly, unless I’m missing something, they all seem to have learned how to compete.

I bring this up because there has been much gnashing of teeth in some soccer jurisdictions in Canada in the past two years when someone proposes eliminating league standings below U12. The common cry has been, “The kids won’t learn how to compete!”

If that was really a concern, then how do we account for 0.14% of the pool of Canadian youth players (Bays United FC) making up approximately 0.9% of the national team selections over the past 10 years?

By my rough math, we have been batting about 6 times the average that we should be—and I’m pretty sure I’m still forgetting one or two more players.

Here’s my rough math:

In the last 10 years, if we assume 23 players per national team, and about 6 teams (U17, U20 and senior in both men’s and women’s national programs), and a completely new team selection every 2-3 years, then we have 6x23 players selected on perhaps 4 occasions over the past decade. This equals 6x23x4 = 552 players selected to national teams during this time.

(Note 1: I have a feeling the real number is probably far less than 552, but I want to be conservative in my estimates.)  

Bays United has produced at least 5 of those 552 players, and 5 divided by 552 = 0.9% of player selections.

(Note 2: I have not accounted for Liam Stanley currently playing for our national Para Soccer team, because I am not sure how many players are carried on the squad, or how often the roster turns over.)

As I say, given that random selection would have seen Bays United FC provide about 0.14% of the players to our national teams, the club has produced about 6 times as many players as you would expect.

That’s pretty impressive.

Despite no league standings in U6-U11.

Researchers would call these kinds of numbers “statistically significant”. The rest of us would call it blatantly obvious—there is something going on here.

I would like to say we have superior coaching at my club, but sadly, I don’t think that is the case. I think our array of volunteer moms and dads are pretty comparable to the volunteer moms and dads at each of the other 9 soccer clubs in greater Victoria. (This is not to say that the players listed above did not receive good coaching! I'm just saying their opportunities were not altogether different from other kids in our region.) 

And that raises another point. In the same 10-year span, the other 9 clubs in greater Victoria have combined to send only 4 or 5 players to national team programs. And together these clubs represent about 6,500 youth players. Clare Rustad, Josh Simpson, and Emily Zurrer are three players who come to mind. (If anyone knows of others, please let me know.)

If we have more or less the same coaching, why so few players? What’s the difference?

I can see only one significant difference between the clubs: Bays United was the first club to move to small-sided game formats with no league standings in U6-U11 way back in the early 1990s. And since that time, we’ve also clung stubbornly to playing within our own self-contained house league.

The other clubs in greater Victoria eventually moved to small-sided games and no-standings in the past 15 years as well, but they continued to compete in inter-club competition until this year. I find it interesting that their games at U8, U9 and U10 frequently featured screaming spectators, screaming coaches, and referee abuse just like the adult game. These things are essentially unknown within the Bays United house league, and this is why we never wanted to participate in inter-club play prior to U12.

So what does it mean? Is it all about eliminating league standings?

There may be other factors that have accounted for the success of Bays United players, such as a longer outdoor playing season on the temperate west coast. But then again, the other clubs in greater Victoria have the same advantage, and they haven’t produced nearly as many national players on a proportional basis as Bays United in the past 10 years.

It’s tempting to think that no-standings and small-sided games account for a lot. But if anyone has other insights, I’d welcome hearing them.  

I would also love to hear from any youth soccer clubs in Canada with approximately 1,000 players in U6-U18 that have had players graduate to a national team program. That's a serious question - in the interest of science, I'd really like to know. (Thanks in advance!) 

Copyright © 2014 by Jim Grove. All rights reserved. 

8 comments:

  1. Great timing of this article as I'm reading about England's efforts to adopt something similar in rugby and am hearing all the "they won't learn to compete" complaints. My thoughts are that kids compete more in the moment while coaches and parents are the only ones who care about league standings and who really 'won' a large tournament with complicated brackets / conditions to determine finalists. All the discussion has reminded me that when we played as kids, we definitely knew who won the game at recess and competed, but we didn't keep a tally of wins and losses recess to recess over a period of weeks and months! We also were quick to choose up sides and also make changes to those sides in the interest of fairness and fun. Keep up the good work! (I'm in Victoria, and should come down and watch some day to see how you guys operate.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, absolutely - kids will naturally "compete in the moment" as you say. It's a gross distortion of the nature of "playing a game" as a kid when the adults put you in a position where suddenly you have to have one eye on the standings board at age 8. That's well and good for someone who is 25 years old, or even 15 years old, but not for kids in U6-U11 who are just learning the game and developing decision-making, motor memory, etc. It's basic developmental psych and neuro-psych, but how many parents have a grasp of these things? Not many. Send me a direct message (DM) on twitter @grovecoach if you want to grab coffee sometime to share info on coaching kids.

      Delete
    2. One more thing! "Compete in the moment" -- all of the top professional athletes describe how all awareness of time disappears when they are playing and mentally "in the zone". No disruption to cognition (i.e decision-making) -- they are completely in the moment, and everything that they have learned (motor memory and other) comes to the fore. That's coaching and development shines through. Or not. Depends if any development of independent cognition has taken place!

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Jim... interesting post, thanks for the time and effort you put into it.

    Let me first say, I am at best an amateur soccer enthusiast. I've had my kids in grassroots programs and have interacted with LTPD and NCCP folks from the local, Provincial and National soccer community.

    I fundamentally agree with most of the tenants of LTAD as positioned by the experts and published on CS4L website, etc... My LTAD/LTPD observations would include....

    - The more physically literate our youth are, the greater the sport opportunities afforded them. They will learn skills more effectively and will have opportunities to transition between sports as their physical and psychological development becomes clear.

    - The more physically literate our youth are, the better chance they will remain active through life (anecdotal based on my experiences, having multiple sport experiences as a youth has allowed me to enjoy at least being mediocre at those and other activities later in life)

    - Many sports have a system of development focused around competition... impacting the focus of coach's and how they develop their teams (assuming they wish to keep their jobs for long)

    - Many sport (especially team sports) do a poor job reinforcing individual skill development in any regular and meaningful way (I am trying to help in this area... see brief note at the end)

    - Most sports have no method of tracking and analyzing physical development, psychological development, skill development & performance data to determine how their athlete development pathway ACTUALLY works

    - We need expert coaches for each stage of development - people who really know how to develop youth of all shapes and sizes, and instill a love for the activity they are pursuing, or even offer guidance for activities better suited to their talents

    - Our sport system is based on athlete 'ownership' by clubs/sports ... when funding is based on member #s as a gauge of need, what chance do we have to create a true physically literate system of 14-16 & unders who can choose and pursue sport or lifelong physical activity in the areas suited to their mental and physical capacities?

    So all of this brings me back to the issue of competition and standings etc.... I am not going to argue the right / wrong of removing standings, rather I am wondering....

    What is the inherit difference in a system without standings and one with?

    I'm guessing it is a perceived removing of pressure on the coach to 'prepare for Saturday' every week, and the permission to focus more on skills?

    Or is it the removal of competitive pressure on players or teams less skilled or under-sized as compared to others?

    The problem we have is that we don't know the true answers.

    As mentioned earlier, we are looking to pilot a project with team sports to better understand the correct answers. We are looking to hockey, floorball, basketball, soccer and any other team sport to implement a skill tracking tool that can track and recognize the development of individual skills, team-oriented skills, mental skills, physical skills, competitive skills and maturation markers. The premise is that if we regularly reinforce the skill development of our individual players, and allow competition to become a test of skills under the reality of human interaction (vs pilons) ... then we might see a change of focus from the parents and players. So far there has been a very positive response to piloting this from all of the above mentioned sports.... we will be looking for some clubs from the soccer community in the near future. Reach out if you want to learn more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RE: the inherent difference in a system without standings -- check out my blog "don't worry kids learn to lose" and follow the link to the CSA's competition in the early stages of LTPD -- the CSA document explains the reasoning. Basic recap: no-standings allows coaches to coach skills at the key developmental ages when motor memory is best learned (e.g. fast dribbling, precise ball receiving) rather than primitive tactics designed to get a result (e.g. hoof the long ball up the field, and rely on a big fast kid to run onto it and toe it into the opponent's net). You can coach very, very badly and win league titles in youth soccer in Canada (e.g. kick and run soccer). But what happens when our players get to the international level? They don't have the skills in dribbling, passing, receiving, shooting, heading and decision-making that players from other countries have. And long ball no longer works (or very seldom works) -- players from other countries are skilled at intercepting those long balls and turning them into devastating counter-attack in a matter of seconds. No-standings also means that the kids are not going into the game thinking about the wrong objective. See John Wooden of NCAA basketball fame. He never said, "Go out there and win!" What does that mean for the player? What does "win" look like? It's too abstract. Compare with this concrete instruction: "Go out there and play with 100% effort. Don't leave the field/court without having given every ounce of effort you have. And do the things we worked on in practice. Pass early, keep possession, and shoot anywhere near the 18 -- we want to test this goalkeeper early." Guess what -- that's how teams "win".

      Delete
    2. RE: the skill tracking tool with maturation markers etc. that you are working on -- do you have a website where someone can look at it? (e.g. is this a web-based tool?) I'm not in the market for such a product, but there may be readers who want to check it out.

      Delete
    3. Thanks Jim. www.checklick.com is the site - web-based and mobile friendly.

      I certainly understand the thinking behind how eliminating certain competitive forces could 'allow' coaches to focus more on skill development.. The reality is, having competition as part of skill development can work as well - it is up to the coach how they choose to use their practice and competitions after all. Parent influence will always be there, but if the parents become more aware of their child's individual skill development, that parent influence can be turned into a positive.

      Delete