Government could damage youth development
Post-Olympic plans go against FA vision
26 August ~ The success of London 2012 has rightly been pounced upon in an attempt to increase participation in sport across the country. However, government proposals regarding its competitiveness may harm the ability of Britain's young footballers. At the end of the Games the prime minister David Cameron said: "We need to use the inspiration of the Games to get children playing sport more regularly. I want to use the example of competitive sport at the Olympics to lead a revival of competitive sport in primary schools. We need to get children playing and enjoying competitive sports from a young age."
This autumn's national curriculum will require primary schools to provide competitive team sport in activities such as football, hockey and netball.
Football's role as Britain's most popular sport may see more emphasis placed upon winning matches rather than developing technical ability, even at such a young age. This has long been cited as a pitfall of the English coaching system. José Mourinho once said: "In England you teach your kids how to win. In Portugal and Spain they teach their kids how to play."
The government's plans go directly against recommendations made by the Football Association's Football Player Development Review of 2011. One of the key suggestions made in this report was "Promotion of The Future Game as a best practise guide to future development".
Gareth Southgate, the Head of Elite Development at the time, wanted to prioritise enhancing technical ability in young players, rather than winning matches. "At the very youngest age there wasn't much emphasis on skill development," he said. "We had all of the great English traits: team spirit, great worth ethic, a never-say-die attitude. But the emphasis on our coaching has never totally been around skills and technical ability."
The FA proposed to scrap all league tables for any children of primary school age as part of the review. The aim is to remove the oft-criticised demand for victory among children, in favour of increasing the focus on a coach's attempts to turn them into technically gifted players and bettering their chances of becoming a professional in the future.
The more talented players there are, the more likelihood there is of England being a genuine force at international level. If competitive team sports are made compulsory in the curriculum, as the prime minister hopes, these aims will not be made reality.
While the government's attempts to encourage an increase in sport participation in the wake of the Olympic euphoria is correct and commendable, some of its proposals should take into account the impact it may have on its various national sides in years to come. Matt Ramsay
Unfortunately I believe the headline of this article applies much more widely than football.
Or sport.
There is still this misconception that "competitive sports = neglect of technical development". Competitive sports gives the children something to really aim towards on a short term basis. It's the job of the coaches to ensure that children are developing in the meantime, that the individual goals that should be set for young players are realistically developing the players long-term. And it's theiur job to convey this to the children ion a way that continues to engage the children, regardless of result. Strike the balance between the two, and you have the best use of competitive sport with primary aged children.
Then it's the parents job to subscribe to this philosophy, rather than baying from the sidelines every time their cherub is tackled.
When they become adults, they play for the win. People need to remember though - in order to win, you need the tools to be able to do so. The only way you'll get these is by developing the technique early on.
Not sure why Cameron et al just mention the words "competitive sports", and expect it all to be OK overnight. Well, I do. It's because he's shit, deluded and opportunistic.
I don't see how scrapping league tables helps anything. My school team in 1996 won the league winning all but one game. There was never any pressure to win, it was all about playing and playing well. Training was about improving technique and skill. In fact I can't actually recall a single time winning was mentioned to be honest. Even during games.
A balance needs to be struck between exposing children to competitive sport too early and teaching them one of its most valuable lessons - how to cope with the ups and downs of life. They need to learn from a very early age that more important than the result is how you react to it, win or lose, and they also need to learn that without losers there can be no winners. If adults could be persuaded to stop treating results as all-important, there is no reason why the emphasis should not be put on improving technique while still playing for points.
In terms of football, a mixed blend of spain and Brazil's coaching techniques along side the British mentality of work ethic..oh. if conducted in the correct way would surely be a good platform to produce more exciting British football teams for the future. Mr Cameron should not get involved and newly appointed Mr Matt Ramsay should oversee football development in England.
You seem to be implying that the Spain and Brazil haven't got a work ethic there.
Kettle, I agree with you on everything. The problem is that, as a coach that does exactly as you mention, I am in the minority and very much swimming against the tide. The F.A., coaches and parents pay lip service to kids enjoying themselves being the most important element of football which is why competitive sports can get out of hand.
This is why you have progressive organisations like Man Utd (yes, I know - weird) removing their academy sides from competitive leagues and banning parents from training
Man United were the pioneers in England of 4v4 games from as early as possible for their children - the rationale being that Ferguson's policy of passing was always "2 short options, one long".
The coaches within the FA are very good at sending the message out about inclusion being more popular and important than results, and that competitive sport has a place in youth football. The problem comes from people not listening, not undertsanding or not subscribing to it. Professional clubs are getting better because they have to, because EPPP is now going to mean even less money to clubs unless they produce players they can sell after the Academy process.
I have to disagree slightly, Kettle. Yes, the FA is good at sending out the message but they grant FA Charter status to clubs with no real checks on how results-orientated clubs are.
Just as coaches can glide through level 1 badges by paying lip-service to the fair play and 'Respect' criteria so clubs can do the same to achieve charter status
Discuss this article
You must be logged in to comment. Please register if you don't have an account yet.
