The mancityfans.net football forum

Ok, I'ckle Rural plays for an under 7's side, he's six doesn't set the world on fire but most importantly he enjoys it, tries his best and turns up week in week out. We live in a small catchment area for his team and theres maybe 12 or so lads turn up to play, there was 4 more but they were scouted and gone off to trials, 2 other lads went for trials but never made it and came back. Anyway his team don't win each week and the other Sunday they lost 23 - 3, after the game one of the other parents came right in my face and said 'well at least my lad won't be playing with this load of crap (they are 6 for fucks sake), and that Simon (under 12's manager) is taking the best players and those who are on trials and making a 'Super Team' to beat all other teams, inclusive of the kids who trial with Burnley even though they never train with jakes team. As a parent it was lick a kick in the bollocks, yes I appreciate they are of mixed ability but so long as they enjoy it and turn up week in week out I don't think it's fair to start nicking off with the best lads.

Anyway I asked Jez (current manager) if this was whats going on and he knew fuck all about it. Yesterday this Simon collered me in the park and told me it was happening and that Jez had quit cause he didn't agree and that Jakes lot (of lesser skill) would not have a manager and the team would fold if they didn't find one. He tried his best to convince me it was for the good of the team and that he wanted to build a team of winners, remember they are six. I told him I didn't agree in it and that fair enough doing this when they are older but at this age surely it's about mixed ability and the better ones bringing the others along.

I am not a parent who is PC to the point of wanting Sports Day banned or non competative, I think kids need competiton through life but also think that to take half the kids and tell them they are the best and leave the rest to rot I don't think is fair. Over protective maybe but at six isn't it about enjoying the play and gaining healthy exercise rather than dividing on ability?

Sorry if it's long winded but it's just fucked me off, if it had been done right rather than another parent in my face then maybe I wouldn't be as fucked off.

Cheers

Rural x

They're SIX for fuck's sake! It should be all about having fun.

That parent is the biggest fucking loser ever, and I really feel sorry for his kid. He's probably gonna pressure all the fun out of footy for the poor lad.

Rural,

Kick that twat fucler parent very hard in the nadgers then walk off and organise kickabouts for the leftover kids.

I understand how you feel mate. Years ago, I used to take my son to play for the local kids team every week and it was like a closed shop between a small number of the parents.

Incredible how thick and gobshitey a lot of folk can be.

Even if you are better than everyone else at that age, could you not learn just as much by being on the ball more often, running rings round the other kids, perfecting loads of tricks etc rather than just being one of 11 similar talents who only touches the ball occasionally? Surely the other kids will also learn more & see how they can improve their skills from having better players amongst them so it's good for both?

With people like that though, it's more about what kudos the parents & coaches get out of it than the kids & it's horrible.

"Give it to bloody Gordon" syndrone ...

Precisly Ted. The kids who are 'better' are only better in the fact they can score goals. All they want to do is get the ball charge at goal and score, pretty much what every six year old wants to do. They don't pass, play a team game or have any interest in defending or playing goalie.

ruralblue wrote:Precisly Ted. The kids who are 'better' are only better in the fact they can score goals. All they want to do is get the ball charge at goal and score, pretty much what every six year old wants to do. They don't pass, play a team game or have any interest in defending or playing goalie.

It might be a bit of cultural divide here, but I think it should only be about the fun when your 6. Trials, putting only the best players on the pitch, etc. should be put on hold for at least a couple of years (until they're around 10 at the earliest). At that age it should be about getting to love football, to learn to play in a team, to handle wins AND defeats. It's not good for you going through life winning with 23 - 3 every weekend!

But of course these are just my views based upon a Swedish, soft-arse, social democratic upbringing, where every kid get a medal - no matter what postioin they end up in the race.

ruralblue wrote:Ok, I'ckle Rural plays for an under 7's side, he's six doesn't set the world on fire but most importantly he enjoys it, tries his best and turns up week in week out. We live in a small catchment area for his team and theres maybe 12 or so lads turn up to play, there was 4 more but they were scouted and gone off to trials, 2 other lads went for trials but never made it and came back. Anyway his team don't win each week and the other Sunday they lost 23 - 3, after the game one of the other parents came right in my face and said 'well at least my lad won't be playing with this load of crap (they are 6 for fucks sake), and that Simon (under 12's manager) is taking the best players and those who are on trials and making a 'Super Team' to beat all other teams, inclusive of the kids who trial with Burnley even though they never train with jakes team. As a parent it was lick a kick in the bollocks, yes I appreciate they are of mixed ability but so long as they enjoy it and turn up week in week out I don't think it's fair to start nicking off with the best lads.

Anyway I asked Jez (current manager) if this was whats going on and he knew fuck all about it. Yesterday this Simon collered me in the park and told me it was happening and that Jez had quit cause he didn't agree and that Jakes lot (of lesser skill) would not have a manager and the team would fold if they didn't find one. He tried his best to convince me it was for the good of the team and that he wanted to build a team of winners, remember they are six. I told him I didn't agree in it and that fair enough doing this when they are older but at this age surely it's about mixed ability and the better ones bringing the others along.

I am not a parent who is PC to the point of wanting Sports Day banned or non competative, I think kids need competiton through life but also think that to take half the kids and tell them they are the best and leave the rest to rot I don't think is fair. Over protective maybe but at six isn't it about enjoying the play and gaining healthy exercise rather than dividing on ability?

Sorry if it's long winded but it's just fucked me off, if it had been done right rather than another parent in my face then maybe I wouldn't be as fucked off.

Cheers

Rural x

23-3? How long are the games? Kids under 9 or 10 are not meant to be playing competively, and only in small sided games as per FA rules.

Any games at this stage are meant to be friendlies, and surely the referee (coach?) should have turned around and stopped the game? 23-3 defeat for kids at bthat age cane be extremely demoralising.

rural, you and your lad are well shut of these wankers

take him down the rugby club on Sunday mornings. Kids minis is great fun and will teach him more about teamwork and discipline than hanging around with these knobs. bacon butties for dads, and join in if you want. beer to round off the morning, while the little ones have a coke

And they will know how to introduce competition (and contact) gradually rather than try to play out a World Cup Final every time they go near.

Or move nearer to civilisation where you might find a decent club that understands

mr_nool wrote:
But of course these are just my views based upon a Swedish, soft-arse, social democratic upbringing, where every kid get a medal - no matter what postioin they end up in the race.

I think I'm right that you lot don't start "school" until you're 7, while we force feed ours from 4.
You are right about this, so maybe you're right about sport too, although there's no evidence of it when it comes to competition ;-)

Alex Sapphire wrote:

mr_nool wrote:
But of course these are just my views based upon a Swedish, soft-arse, social democratic upbringing, where every kid get a medal - no matter what postioin they end up in the race.

I think I'm right that you lot don't start "school" until you're 7, while we force feed ours from 4.
You are right about this, so maybe you're right about sport too, although there's no evidence of it when it comes to competition ;-)

7 when I was a kid, 6 now.
I also didn't get grades in School until I was 13.

And England hasn't beaten Sweden in football since 1969 ...

mr_nool wrote:

ruralblue wrote:Precisly Ted. The kids who are 'better' are only better in the fact they can score goals. All they want to do is get the ball charge at goal and score, pretty much what every six year old wants to do. They don't pass, play a team game or have any interest in defending or playing goalie.

It might be a bit of cultural divide here, but I think it should only be about the fun when your 6. Trials, putting only the best players on the pitch, etc. should be put on hold for at least a couple of years (until they're around 10 at the earliest). At that age it should be about getting to love football, to learn to play in a team, to handle wins AND defeats. It's not good for you going through life winning with 23 - 3 every weekend!

But of course these are just my views based upon a Swedish, soft-arse, social democratic upbringing, where every kid get a medal - no matter what postioin they end up in the race.

I think there are plenty of people over that agree with the thinking that 6 yr old's should be enjoying football 1st & foremost & I get the impression the bloke in charge at national level, Trevor Brooking, feels that way.

I wouldn't want to follow many more of your soft arsed Swedish methods though. Mind you, if a suitable fit blonde was lecturing me on that that kind of thing I'd lie & pretend to agree completely.

mr_nool wrote:

Alex Sapphire wrote:

mr_nool wrote:
But of course these are just my views based upon a Swedish, soft-arse, social democratic upbringing, where every kid get a medal - no matter what postioin they end up in the race.

I think I'm right that you lot don't start "school" until you're 7, while we force feed ours from 4.
You are right about this, so maybe you're right about sport too, although there's no evidence of it when it comes to competition ;-)

7 when I was a kid, 6 now.
I also didn't get grades in School until I was 13.

And England hasn't beaten Sweden in football since 1969 ...

68
see you at the World Cup then

Nooly has this BANG ON. Rural, sort it out mate.

dazby wrote:Nooly has this BANG ON. Rural, sort it out mate.

Soft arse Aussie!

What makes it even more depressing is that it's not even a proper league at U7, so the twat is putting together a team of "winners" to win friendly matches.

If i was you rural, i'd get together 10 or so of the lads and take them down to a 5-aside pitch and just let them play.

Rural, was a coach for years and coached a team from 6 yrs old up until 11 years. It is very normal to separate the better players. The flip side to other arguments is that the better players dont get stretched and the lesser players hardly get a kick. When i coached we always separated the lads into 3 categories, Good players, potential players and the ones who want to have fun. I started coaching the ones who wanted to have fun and saw a few of them make it through the ranks to play for the 1st team so dont worry. All kids learn at different speeds and develop skill and physicality at different ages.

The FA teach you how to stretch the better kids by complicating training drills to keep them interested, normal training drills just do not hold their interest. However, the other kids are happy to just train and enjoy playing. Its the way it is unfortunately.

Your current situation is how I got involved in coaching, give it a go, its brill!

Took my 4 year old for the first time last week to an under 6 session and was impressed by the way they did it. For a start, every kid had their own ball (a small one too) and they did lots of short exercises to improve ball control, including pretending it was a puppy in one.

At the very end, they split them up and had about 5 minutes of 5 a side across the hall. You can see how pointless that is, with a load of kids just running after the ball, but for such a short time, it was just a bit of fun. Playing long matches is likely to turn them off football. I don't give a stuff what the FA think either - do kids in Brazil play long games with decent balls and best quality trainers, or do they learn how to trap a tennis ball in the sand?

Rural I feel really bad for your kid. (I think this was your story) First they are teaching him about the holocaust and now leaving him in the dust when he is 6? Like others have said, a "good" six year old is a selfish kid who doesn't pass and goes straight at the goal everytime.

Rural, Mr nool is pretty close to the right way to train/ coach with six year olds. Blue thingy is also quite correct too.

At the age of six children should be enjoying the game. Every child should spend as much time in a training session working with a ball. IT certainly isn't about scoring goals at this level. Rather who scores goals. When young johnny starts getting double hattricks in a game , his coach should pull him out give him a rest and then play him in defense for example, to give others a chance to learn and play the game. A child of six rarely has spacial awareness for example, it needs to be developed in all the players not just the one apparent talent in the team.

You will find that the more the kids work with a ball , as long as possible in training, they will soon catch up on johnny hattrick.

In any case the teams should not be playing eleven a side at this level, no more that six out field players. THey can all learn to take turns in goal too, (especially Johnny hattrick).