WARNING: this
column may cause severe drowsiness. Writing about youth
football in Scotland tends to have that effect. While we
bicker about the standard of the Bank of Scotland
Premierleague and the deficiencies of our national team,
any reflections on the system which produces the talent
we so readily criticise is deemed to be yawn-inducing.
"Going round the houses" is journalist lingo for asking
questions on the subject of youth development to
managers, chairman or chief executives. The reality is
that the subject is not headline-grabbing. Worthy, yes.
Exciting, definitely not.
While The Herald
receives blizzards of correspondence about the reportage
of Old Firm minutiae, recent articles on the Scottish
Football Association's youth action plan and academy
systems north and south of the border drew a
comparatively moderate response.
The lack of interest, and coverage, is only partially
explained by its failure to provide back-page copy.
There is now a widely held perception that things have
improved over recent years. More young players have
broken through in the SPL, the national team is
performing better at senior and under- age level; things
are on the up.
To some extent, that is true, but Scottish football
still is a long, long way from being able to rest on its
laurels.
Any progress should also be measured against where we
were coming from. It was not hard for the country to
make vast improvements from 15-20 years ago. Those were
the years in which school football died and the void was
filled by success-hungry boys' clubs, whose coaching
methods were often counter-productive.
The establishment of the academy system subsequently
helped the development of elite youngsters. Coupled with
an economic crisis in professional football, these
youngsters have been afforded the opportunity to
continue their development in the first team.
Earlier this season, I watched several under-11 games in
the SFA youth initiative leagues and the standard was
excellent. In seven-a-side matches, the youngsters
zipped short passes around, showed great close control,
even tried an array of tricks. All the players were
afforded plentiful touches and none drifted to the
fringes of the action.
Coaches cajoled and encouraged at the sidelines, a far
cry from the manic utterances of yesteryear. Although
no-one was keeping the score, there was still a clear
will to win. All the ingredients for long-term success -
technical development, competitive instinct - were
present.
Then I watched a few under-12 games, again in the youth
initiative leagues. From under-11 to under-12, the game
moves from seven-a-side to 11-a-side. Frankly, it was an
eyesore.
The nature of the matches was dictated by the dimensions
of the full-size pitch. Short passing was sacrificed in
favour of longer balls, leading to minimal passing
movements and no continuous relationship between attack
and defence.
Tiny keepers, dwarfed by the huge goals, failed to
launch goal-kicks 30 yards, skills were in short supply,
the ball cannoned around aimlessly. Inevitably, the game
became physical and the competitive instinct nurtured in
sevens spilled over into ugly scenes on and off the
park.
Two were carried off injured and a contentious penalty
decision was so fiercely contested by the visiting coach
that he was sent from the touchline.
The 11-a-side format not only fails to develop
youngsters properly but brings out the worst in adults.
Is there some research or evidence to justify
maintaining the status quo? If there is, then it is
worth noting that the club which has been the leading
producer of young talent over the past 20 years is
unaware of it. What is more, they, too, want 11-a-side
scrapped at junior level.
Brian McClair, the Manchester United academy director,
in an interview with The Herald earlier this year,
lamented the eagerness to fast-track kids into
full-blown 11-a-side matches. United want to switch to
even smaller-sided games between the ages of eight and
11, the so-called golden age of learning.
At the moment in England, it is eight v eight (compared
with sevens in Scotland) between eight to 11-year-olds,
but United's view is that smaller games give young
players the opportunity to get more touches on the ball,
develop close control and short passing skills. It is
not rocket science but they have encountered resistance.
"We've piloted the four against four for numerous
reasons, but it's not been adopted universally," said
McClair. "We feel that the more contact you get with the
ball, the better you become. There seems to be such a
rush here to get to 11 against 11.
"It goes to 11 against 11 at under-12s, but why not
progress it? Five v five, six v six, seven v seven, all
the way up and you could adjust the pitch accordingly?
Eventually, you would get to a place where you have more
skillful players."
Not even the most talented youngster has achieved
complete mastery of a football by the age of 11. So why
do we persist with full-blown 11-a-sides for under-12
upwards?
That question remains unanswered.
Source:
The Herald [UK]
