|
|
Mad River Youth Soccer League
|
MRYSL Cricket U8 and U6 Pilot Project
Spring 2005
Final report by Nick Parker
Staff: Dan Birdsall (U8 Mad River Youth Soccer League Rep), Nick Parker, Lindsay Salzman, Arlee Messler, Natalie Bensky, Emmy Monahan, Hannah Garrett, Ginny Bell. Also present: Kim Hall (U6 Mad River Youth Soccer League Rep).
Background: a five week pilot scheme (one session per week) where a group of 5 through 8-year old Mad River players were presented with a “skills clinic’ based on developmentally appropriate soccer fun-learning, and where a trial run for SMALL-SIDED SOCCER was implemented.
FEATURES OF THE PROGRAM:
1. “Big sister” peer coaches; most of the staff were U17 elite players who were interested in working with the little ones. A training for instructors was provided, and most had worked with Nick at this age level before.
2. A major focus on developmentally appropriate curriculum choices, including “social interaction’ games as well as basic soccer skills disguised as FUN!!
3. A high % of activity and “hands on” action time with ONE BALL PER CHILD
4. An experimental format with (as described in US Soccer Small-sided booklet)
3 v 3 (no goalies –small goals)
4 v 4 (ditto)
4 v 4 plus gks in a bigger goal
5. A parent education piece involving approx 14 parents. This consisted of pieces of “Positive Coaching” philosophy, small-sided advantages, and “developmentally appropriate” drills + parent/coach conduct!
6. A parent forum conducted on the final night to guage levels of satisfaction/concerns/support of the pilot scheme and the proposed move to Mad River-wide adoption.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
a) From the children’s perspective, it appears that we selected a format and curriculum (FUN!!) that met their needs.
b) Small-side clearly leads to higher levels of “focused’ player involvement
c) No goalies creates even MORE overall involvement!
d) Vision; 4 x 8-minute quarters, mixing the permutation of your players at the 16-minute mark. Coaches would consult at half-time to maximize enjoyment for stronger/weaker groups of players.
e) RECOMMENDATION: Two (2) sensitive and pre-trained Coach-facilitators could run the format on a (12 v 12 / 4v4) or (8 v 8 / 3 v 3) basis with NO REFEREES.
f) Referees (if used) should be more of a “facilitator of learning’ than an authority figure
g) ** Parents were clear that they wanted their children to LEARN THE RULES, so an “anything goes’ approach is not desirable
h) One idea is to pay 2 trained referees to be at Sunset “all morning’ and 2 others to cover “all afternoon” during U8 season Saturday games. These specially selected refs would rotate among the multiple fields, giving guidance, helping coaches with rule interpretations and on occasion refereeing some of the (proposed) 8-minute quarters.
i) Coaches (of whom 2 or 3 were present at the pilot ) were concerned that acting as ‘facilitators’ of 2 fields would dilute their ability to MANAGE/ENCOURAGE/TEACH their players.
CAUTIONARY NOTES:
I) This report prepared by the Coaching director, who is predisposed toward the small-sided, destructured format
II) Success, on any given Saturday depends largely upon the SENSITIVITY,GOODWILL &PRIOR TRAINING of two (or four) COACH-FACILITATOR figures. Things will unravel rapidly with OVER-COMPETITIVE OR OVER-CONTROLLING adult leadership.
III) Referees: if a “no referee system” is used, the potential for untrained adults to push children in an inappropriate direction is increased.
IV) If ‘rookie’ referees are assigned to CRICKET games, then they must be trained alongside the COACH-FACILITATORS
V) Referees must be fully supported in a sensitive and creative approach to ensure FUN and ACTIVITY are emphasized over rigid adherence to the rules of adult soccer
Coaching director addendum:
As with any level of soccer, coaches parents and players want to experience learning and improvement. This acquired senses of COMPETENCE (SELF-EFFICACY) is integral to the retention of players in the long term.
Example: all players should be competent in using different surfaces of both feet in basic dribbling activities
Example: All players at U8 should understand the meaning of, and perform correctly a throw-in.
These are two age-specific ‘curriculum’ examples. One of the biggest obstacles to this learning taking place for ALL PLAYERS is the misguided idea that the GAMES (MATCHES) are the main forum for this coaching-learning to take place.
Worldwide opinion from CYSA to the “dutch masters” (see bettersoccermorefun.com) states categorically that:
PRACTICES are for learning/coaching/verbal correction etc
MATCHES are to be PLAYED with gusto, and “Coaching’ should consist of subbing, encouragement, and little more!!
All CYSA (and MRYSL) Coaching clinics adhere closely to this position.
Respectfully submitted June 2005
Nick Parker
|
|
|
Home