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.
