Academy Pool Groupings versus Placing on Teams by Ability

[Dexter Mcfarlin]

I have wondered about the best model to follow when it comes to this. The US Soccer guidelines recommend inclusion but focus on training that meets each child's needs. I am mainly looking at U9-U10 ages. I see two common approaches to whether to group players, whether 1) by ability, or 2) playground, academy pool play.

Ability based placement seems harsh at first but kids all develop at different rates as acknowledged by everyone. Place kids on A, B, and/or C sides.

PROS- train kids by ability/ experience. Easier to train at the level of your high end (do not have to dumb down training). Easier to achieve optimal training size (at this age, 7-10).
Able to have rosters for league play.
I have noticed many of the more advanced players will get bored with games involving too many basic skills, that less experienced players need desperately. However, less experienced players get quickly lost if you train at the upper level of your kids. This allows a coach to better train at the level of the players and provides for a better custom, player needs approach.

CONS- parents get upset if kids on B or C side. Mid level players may not get the opportunity to grow optimally by playing with better players (learn by seeing, iron sharpens iron concept).


Playground, Academy Pool Play- all kids are grouped together by age without regard to talent or experience. They train together and then are broken out in teams that change by the match. Different levels of talent are almost always huge.

PROS- everyone gets same training without regard to needs of kids. No social stigma of A, B, or C sides. Focus on playing not winning as teams are mix matched for every match.

CONS- Can not train to the higher levels of players experience. Almost always have to "dumb down" training to the lower level present as lesser experienced players are unable to participate confidently. Hard to identify with team.
Parents concerned with winning are not patient or receptive. Loss of numbers possible.
Coaches tend to be left with large numbers of kids which makes technical training difficult. Optimal number at younger ages in my experience is 7-10 so that you can focus on their technique and play SSG's with smaller numbers for more touches. Hard to achieve in reality as most directors look at resource allocation not the training needs of the kids.
Difficult to play in leagues as there are no set rosters.

Our club is exploring this concept and I am personally just curious as to the thinking on both. There are Pros and cons for both sides.
I tend to think a hybrid is the best option especially for the younger U9-U10 ages. Technical ability gaps are usually biggest at this age as most are coming from rec coaches which is always a technique crap shoot. I do like the idea of pool play, but in reality it seems to 1) not allow smaller training groups for better technical training, 2) hold the better players back. 3) loss the better players that want to play only with better players or the parents concerned with kid playing on the top side, or winning-est side. Hate it but it is reality.

I would think that being able to have enough kids to have a two pools, an upper and lower level, which be optimal. However, by doing so, you are in effect almost going back to ability based placement. I just can't get around needing to break up these younger kids by ability. The talent and technique gap is just so large.

Does the NSCAA have an approved solution for this issue? Thanks.

[Ian Barker]

Dexter,
I would love to chat about this on the phone. 913-362-1747.
You should also fire your question/thoughs to Mike Woitalla at Soccer America. He would likely pick up this debate and be excited to run with it.
Some thoughts.... the whole notion of forget age and place them with like ability technically and athletically certainly resonates for people of a certain generation and perhaps from various soccer environments. For my part at 15 I played with adults based on my ability and size and it was great for my development. At the same time I had no business being in the locker room with men of 24-32, could not socialize with them or interact beyond the field. Also in the UK in the 70s we played one sport, soccer, for 2-3 different teams, youth, adult, representative. In the USA today I do not think those models exist so clearly. Youth soccer has money challenges, greater parental inviovlement and child development theories are more pervasive in how children are managed. So radical departure from age group clusters deserves debate specific to our culture.
As to the managing of your program I like your term "hybrid" and that would be my recommendation. You identify a pool that are all equal members of your club. You conduct training where they are mixed and some where you separate out. If you can use a club pass then players will identify with a team as normal, but you can also move players around your rosters. So if a parent thinks they have a kid ahead you can move them up for a look. I would try to have one "top" team and several "next" of equal talent mix. Use your club evaluators for insight and experience and then use some outside evaluators with no pre conceptions. Chances are they will see what you see, but you can "rely" on their feedback to support your placement too.
Overall we must try to elevate each kid. Focus on the top and ignore the bottom and visa versa at your peril. Also better for development to play a lot on the "2nd" team than be a make weight on the "1st" is something parents need to appreciate.
Lastly the kids, in my opinion, are far less worried about the placement and can accept it than the parents can. If a kid reacts it is often for fear of letting down the parent. The kids are resilient. Ian Barker.

[Ian Barker]

http://www.soccernation.com/youth-so...costs-cms-3331

[NSCAA Registration]

For full access to our forums, become a member of the NSCAA today!

Click here to learn more!