Appropriate Small-Sided Games for All Ages

[threeputzzz]

Youth soccer where I am is played as follows (# of players, approximate field size in yds, all games w/keepers):

recreational:
u5, u6 - 4v4, 20x30
u7 through u10 - 6v6, 30x50
u11+ - 7v7, 45x65

competitive:
u9, u10 - 6v6, 35x55
u11, u12 - 8v8, 50x80
u13+ - 11v11, full size

Recreational rules are set by the local club, competitive rules by the state association. I'm curious as to how this compares to other locales, particularly on the recreational side. I'm starting to become more involved with the local club administration and have a specific recommendation regarding altering the schedule listed above, but I want to gather opinions on the way things are now from other coaches first. Does it look appropriate? What would you change, if anything?

[rca2]

Have you taken a look at USSF's best practices? U5's 4v4 with keepers! That is crazy. So is using the same field for high schoolers as you use for 10 year olds. I also don't understand the idea behind high schoolers not playing 11v11.

[Twenty26Six]

I also don't understand the idea behind high schoolers not playing 11v11.

Are you talking about his recreational teams? They're probably very _limited_ players. I'm sure that 7v7 for a high school house league is cool enough. They all get touches and have fun this way.

[rca2]

Are you talking about his recreational teams? They're probably very _limited_ players. I'm sure that 7v7 for a high school house league is cool enough. They all get touches and have fun this way.

From a coaching and league adminstration point of view its very inefficient. Same resources expended per game for 40% fewer kids. Some kids may like playing small sided, but my passion was always to play hard for 90 minutes 11v11. I guess kids don't think of soccer today like I did as a kid in the 60's. Substitution rules have really changed the game. To me 7v7 on a tiny field is not the game I love. Its just kicking the ball around. As long as I can still run, I will be playing 11v11.

[Twenty26Six]

From a coaching and league adminstration point of view its very inefficient. Same resources expended per game for 40% fewer kids. Some kids may like playing small sided, but my passion was always to play hard for 90 minutes 11v11. I guess kids don't think of soccer today like I did as a kid in the 60's. Substitution rules have really changed the game. To me 7v7 on a tiny field is not the game I love. Its just kicking the ball around. As long as I can still run, I will be playing 11v11.

I think you're underestimating the kids that might be playing in this league. House leagues for teenagers, where I am from, are for the kids with thick glasses, asthma, two-left feet, baseball spikes, basketball shorts, little-to-no athletic ability, obesity, etc. It might be co-ed.

I'm exaggerating, but you should be getting a better picture. It's bad. It's not even soccer. ;)

It might be too much of a disaster to play 11v11.

[CCSC_STRIKER20]

I think you're underestimating the kids that might be playing in this league. House leagues for teenagers, where I am from, are for the kids with thick glasses, asthma, two-left feet, baseball spikes, basketball shorts, little-to-no athletic ability, obesity, etc. It might be co-ed.

I'm exaggerating, but you should be getting a better picture. It's bad. It's not even soccer. ;)

It might be too much of a disaster to play 11v11.

Correct.

It's like a college league. In my experience. 7 v. 7 has been much better. Smaller field. Just all around better aspects.

[rca2]

...It's like a college league...

At the college I went to US students couldn't get on an intermural team. We didn't have a soccer team then, and the foreign students (most in their early 20's) were better than US college players anyway. I am not going to tell you how long ago that was. :P The level of play in our country has improved a lot since then.

[Twenty26Six]

At the college I went to US students couldn't get on an intermural team. We didn't have a soccer team then, and the foreign students (most in their early 20's) were better than US college players anyway. I am not going to tell you how long ago that was. :P The level of play in our country has improved a lot since then.

It's not universal across the board. Some places are hot beds for soccer and some aren't.

For example, the difference between Cleveland and Buffalo soccer is HUGE. And, that's not even taking into account that Cleveland isn't really one of the best soccer cities in the nation.

[CCSC_STRIKER20]

It's not universal across the board. Some places are hot beds for soccer and some aren't.

For example, the difference between Cleveland and Buffalo soccer is HUGE. And, that's not even taking into account that Cleveland isn't really one of the best soccer cities in the nation.

Right.

North Dakota isn't exactly a bumping place for soccer.

But when I was down in Omaha, the quality of competitive and recreational soccer was much higher. I went to Creighton. Soccer team was pretty decent, but so were the leagues for high school kids and the kids (like me) that wanted to play for fun in college.

[threeputzzz]

From a coaching and league adminstration point of view its very inefficient. Same resources expended per game for 40% fewer kids.

Only a center ref is required, with the smaller space requirements and the small number of players at the upper levels of rec, it is easier for league administration to play 7v7 than 11v11.

Your observation about using keepers at the youngest levels is a valid one for sure - but in my experience the kids love it, perhaps only because they get to wear a funky tie-dye T-shirt, but what we lose in development we gain in player enthusiasm. Unlike the upper levels the youngest age groups are jammed with players and lacking in parent volunteer coaches so rosters of 8 players instead of 6 are much easier for the club.

The age group I had in mind to change is U7 and U8. I'd like to see them play 4v4 or at most 5v5 to remove the need, perceived or real, for coaches to assign positions.

[Bass0r]

Your observation about using keepers at the youngest levels is a valid one for sure - but in my experience the kids love it, perhaps only because they get to wear a funky tie-dye T-shirt, but what we lose in development we gain in player enthusiasm.

Perhaps, if you're not doing this already, you should rotate the 'keeper throughout the game, giving everyone equal time by the end.
Most kids actually find being in goals a bit boring (even if it means getting to wear a funky-looking shirt), and at such a young age, you want to encourage children to score as many goals as possible, whereas the addition of the 'keeper makes it more difficult, and can cause the game to become a bit frustrating.

I'm assuming that throwing the 'keeper into the field will make it a 5v5 small-sided game, which is probably the best number of players.

Try it out, and see what happens.

[ranova]

Only a center ref is required....

Any rec game only "needs" a center. You can use club linesmen, but the impression I get is that most refs would just as soon pass on club linesmen. Rec games are friendlies after all, despite what the parents might think. I think the use of linesmen in house leagues has more to do with training referees than to do with the needs of the match. The administrative load is identical for a 7v7 team as for an 11v11 team, everything from recruiting coaches, planning practices, and scheduling fields to ordering uniforms.

[threeputzzz]

Any rec game only "needs" a center. You can use club linesmen, but the impression I get is that most refs would just as soon pass on club linesmen. Rec games are friendlies after all, despite what the parents might think. I think the use of linesmen in house leagues has more to do with training referees than to do with the needs of the match. The administrative load is identical for a 7v7 team as for an 11v11 team, everything from recruiting coaches, planning practices, and scheduling fields to ordering uniforms.`

Even rec games are difficult for a single ref if they are 11v11 on a full sized field. Just because it is a rec game does not mean the kids aren't giving their all. We have a few upper level rec teams in our league that could easily play with the travel (competitive) teams.

The main reason 7v7 works better for our local league is some of the age divisions have only 3 or 4 teams in the league. If they played 11v11 we could not put together enough teams. There is also greater availability of small sized fields locally.

[threeputzzz]

Perhaps, if you're not doing this already, you should rotate the 'keeper throughout the game, giving everyone equal time by the end.

In most games the keepers are rotated every 5 minutes along with all the other players.


Most kids actually find being in goals a bit boring (even if it means getting to wear a funky-looking shirt), and at such a young age, you want to encourage children to score as many goals as possible, whereas the addition of the 'keeper makes it more difficult, and can cause the game to become a bit frustrating.

Every time I've coached this age the kids beg to play keeper, YMMV.


I'm assuming that throwing the 'keeper into the field will make it a 5v5 small-sided game, which is probably the best number of players.


u5 and u6 currently play 4v4, 3 field + keeper.