I know this was discussed within the Fall thread, but it really deserves its own thread. It's a done deal now and will take effect no later than August 2017 and there is a BIG push to have it take effect in August 2016 by labeling it a "best practice," which the big club will be loathe to violate. Here's the official announcement: http://www.usyouthsoccer.org/changes_coming_to_youth_soccer_in_2016/ Note that the changes include a shift from August-July age groupings to calendar year age groupings AND standardized field sizes and number of players for small-sided games below the U13 age group. (P.S. One thing that has tripped most people up is that the January-July kids will REPEAT an age group, while the August-December kids will push up an age group when they originally were scheduled to do so, so no one is "losing a year.")
I don't like the BS with standard goal sizes. They have changed it again. Several years ago our club went out and purchased a ton of Kwik-Goal 7x21 goals, that are now dinosaurs. The 6x18 were standardized a few years ago for U-10 and are now being pushed up to U-12's. That is going to be an expensive switch over. From our standpoint in upstate NY, Jan-Dec works well that it mirrors our grade years of Dec-Nov. Seems this will create the lopsided effect in other parts of the country that we had here due to August year (which runs with a lot of state school year age groups).
Totally agree that the mandated field sizes are way too small. 47x30 yard fields for 7v7 U10 soccer (for example), is way to small. I'm guessing that the switch to standardized field and goal sizes will take significantly longer than the switch to calendar year age groupings. In many cases, the clubs don't own or control the fields they play on, and often the fields and goals are publicly owned and maintained (public school fields, for example) rather than even being privately owned. I don't see local governments going out and buying new goals for their fields until the old ones are in actual need of replacement. In my area, we currently have purportedly standardized field and goal sizes, but most of the fields are not in compliance with the rules and everyone just kind of shrugs.
Big clubs will be able to handle this age-grouping switch much easier than small clubs will. A lot of the small clubs in my area don't even have a team in every age group, meaning that they can't mix and match their teams to bring them into compliance with the new rules. I imagine that a lot of these teams (and maybe even clubs) will fold altogether, with their players disbanding to other clubs. Another alternative would be to keep the team together and just have all the January-July kids play up in the higher age group, I guess, though that seems problematic for small club teams that in all likelihood already were struggling to compete. I currently coach two teams, both for small clubs, but almost all of my players (16 out of 18 between the two teams) were born in January-July, so my teams actually will benefit tremendously from this rule change.
Smaller size fields promote ball skill and tactical development. It forces players to attack defenses with support rather than run around opponents. It also makes it easier to defend against kick and run tactics, as it is easier for the keeper to support the back line. As long as the length of the field is 2 times the distance that players can kick, it is long enough to have midfield play.
Fine in the abstract, but there's obviously such a thing as "smaller size fields" that are simply too small for the number of players you are trying to cram onto them. My U10 team currently plays 7v7 on fields that range from 60-70 yards long and from 35-40 yards wide. When we play on the fields that are 60x35 yards, it's really too small for 7v7. There's just no space to work with. The coaches often agree to each drop a player. The 70x40 yard fields are about right for 7v7. US Soccer is mandating 47x30 yard fields for 7v7 at U10. That's way too small for 7v7. Your metric of the field "the length of the field is 2 times the distance that players can kick" fails to take into account HOW MANY KIDS ARE ON THAT FIELD. I'm not saying that 47x30 is too small for any kind of soccer, I'm saying it's too small for 7v7. 47x30 would be fine for 5v5 soccer at U10, but not for 6v6 and definitely not for 7v7. Think about it this way: The minimum size of a regulation full sized soccer field is 110x70 yards, a total of 7,700 square yards. With 22 players on the field, that's 350 square yards per player. With a 47x30 yard field, you're looking at 1,410 square yards for 14 players, so 100 square yards per player. That's just too small. Obviously, US Soccer was trying to standardize the field size to allow a full sized field to be cut into four pieces for U10. I wonder if they even tried having U10s play 7v7 on a field that small. I can't even imagine that they tried it and thought it looked right.
Consider that the minimum size for an adult futsal field is only the size of a basketball court. Outdoor soccer makes us think in terms of long passing defining the game, but that should not necessarily define development games. Rather than passing lengths, I think more important to an appropriate size field is the maximum effective supporting distance between players on defense. Both depth and width. 10 yards is a lot for 10 year olds. I would expect 7 yards would be more effective. That would be a space of 28 yards wide by 14 yards deep. Two lines would get you a box of 28 x 28 yards. I think this approximates the rationale leading to the field sizes. I expect the thinking was to design the field to make it practical to defend and thus create more stress on development of attacking play. The point would be to develop the skills to penetrate 7 yards of space between defenders.
First of all, futsal fields are significantly bigger than basketball courts. Regulation futsal is about 45x25 yards, whereas as basketball court is 31x16 yards. U10 futsal teams play 5v5 on a field that is 45x25 yards. As I said, that field size is big enough for U10s to play 5v5. It is NOT big enough for U10s to play 7v7. It's just not. I've tried it, and it's not.
You probably realize you stated the maximum size for adult futsal. The minimum size is 16 by 27 yards, about the size of a basketball court.
I stated the standard size. That's the size used for actual competitions. The size you stated is the minimum and is only actually used by people who only have a basketball court available to them. And, even then, the game is played 5v5, not 7v7, which indicates that you are missing the fundamental point, which is this: the size of the field must be appropriate for the number of players on that field taking into account the age and size of those players. U.S. soccer is actually making the U10 age group 7 months older than it used to be and simultaneously cutting the field size in half (from 2800 square yards to 1410 square yards) without taking any players off of the field. It's painfully obvious that you've never seen U10 soccer played 7v7 on a field as small as the one being proposed. Anyone who has seen it knows that it's a terrible idea. There's no space to operate in.
For those of you who are actively coaching teams who have been together for some time and plan to stay together (for the most part), when are you planning to break this news to your team? My plan is to wait until there is an official announcement from our league regarding the implementation date. If it's August 2016, I will tell them ASAP, if it's not until August 2017 I'd rather not make too big of a deal out of it.
"How do I know in which age group a player will participate? Players born between Jan. 1 and Dec. 31 of any given year will all play on the same team, unless a player is “playing up” in an older age group. For example, a player born on Jan. 1, 2000, would play on the Under-16 team in 2016." Apparently USSF is now mandating single-year teams instead of two-year teams. That seems like a change in policy and is inconsistent with how USSF runs the development academy with two-year teams. The SSG chart implies the same thing as it gives standards by single-year age groups even when the standards are the same, e.g., U9 and U10 are listed separately, but have the same standards. In contrast the USYSA's 2012 Player Development Model, which is the current USYSA curriculum provides it's guidance in 2-year groups. Ditto for the 2008 USYSA Coaching Manual. One thing I liked about 2-year groups is that children are not always the oldest or the youngest on the teams. I believe that helps temper the advantages and disadvantages of differences in biological ages. It is biological age (and particularly the timing of Peak Growth Velocity), not the birth year, that the Long Term Athlete Development model is based on. Despite the expressed concern for promoting player development, this birth year distinction is driven solely by adult interests in competition, not by player development factors. As it always has.
From a club management perspective, I believe you want to let parents know what the potential teams may be. As a rule, people hate change. Early warning helps them go through the stages of grief, so by the time the Change is implemented they've had time to accept or make alternative plans. Otherwise, you leave them a chance to be an absolute disruption at a time when things need to be settled.
As I've always said, USSF makes these mandates assuming (or only caring about) the elite players and elite clubs. On a futsal court, a fast, flat predictable surface, the speed of play is FAR greater than on grass, so the tightness of space is mitigated by the speed of play. Playing on a crowded field, with long grass or choppy surfaces, the decreased space compounds the problem. Our winter indoor matches (on turf) are soo fast. When we get outdoors (8v8 70 yard field), I could see adding maybe one more player. Trying to find that sweet spot with players/field size is tough. Elite players can do it. Most players are not elite and struggle mightly with that.
Excellent points and I agree completely. You mentioned in another thread that you attended a coaching course this weekend. Was there any talk of these new mandates at the course?
It was discussed. Not in a 'what are we going to do now' way. NSCAA courses are in a way similar to these threads, where we talk, give opinion and learn from one another. Our concerns and compliments here are similar to what I heard over the weekend. And a big theme was finding the 'sweet spot' that I said above. What is the right field size, what is the correct number of players. What works at Red Bull Elite academy may not work on my upstate NY 'B' team of boys the same age. What works in DA tournaments may not be the same as the local club tourney.
With the addition of the retreat line, that midfield is going to be packed. I imagine most teams "playing out from the back" is going to be the keeper rolling/kicking it to a kid with a big kick, who either blasts it into the midfield pinball game or gets it long to the other keeper, who will then roll it out to his big kick player, ad nauseam...
Punting is strictly prohibited, which should go a long way toward stunting players' ability to take a ball out of the air or off a high bounce. Another bizarre feature is that play stops entirely when the keeper gets possession and the other team must retreat behind the "build out line," which I suppose they can do as slowly as they want. So that will stunt quick transitions pretty much completely. And the fact that the keeper can't punt will lead to the opposing team stacking their players on the build-out line ready to bum rush the poor player who receives a goal kick or a rolling ball from his keeper. It's going to be a blood bath inside the build-out zone.
I really hadn't focused much on the buildout line until @CoachP365's post about it, but the more I look at it the more terrible it seems. It's OK in theory for goal kicks. As those of us who coach below U12 know, goal kicks are the easiest way to give up a goal, so the build out line concept helps with that by backing the opponent up some and allowing some time to get possession. But with the penalty box only being 10 yards deep (holy cow!) and the build out line only 14 yards from the endline (i.e., 4 extra yards beyond the tiny penalty box), the pressure inside the build out line will be so immense that you'll still be tempted to attempt long goal kicks rather than face the quagmire that will greet you inside the build up zone. Far worse, however, is that the build out zone also applies when the keeper has possession of the ball. So basically play stops completely when the keeper gets the ball and the other team has to move outside the build out zone. That might be OK if the keeper could keep the other team honest by mixing in some punts, but punts are banned, so the other team will stack four players (remember, they have six field players on an itty bitty field) on the build out line and await the ball being rolled by the keeper to his helpless defender who will get mobbed by four guys within 14 yards of his goal. Ugh.
Again, its a wonderful idea in theory, but the unintended consequences of both, bad coaching and the tendencies of children will likely make this happen. Look, I think I'm a fairly effective coach, but trying to get this 'drilled' into kids to play out of the back and with composure and not going for the tendency to get rid of it, takes more than one or two practices a week. It also, slows down the teams that learn how to play it fast (I suppose they can play it fast without penalty as long as the ref allows it).
I'd also add, as a referee, its going to be odd to officiate a match with the wall of players in such a rule. I don't mind when coaches agree for it between their teams, but now it comes with a mandate to enforce it. This is going to slow down matches to allow the teams to retreat each time.
I view the situation differently then the rest of you. For competition purposes, you want a field size that is easy to play on. That is why FIFA specifies specific field dimensions for international competitions. For development purposes, however, you want to put stress on the players, not make it easier for them. Small field sizes are one way to stress the players. You all most likely used this stressor in your last practice session. I see youth matches as a training tool. (In past posts I suggested seeing the system of play as circuit training with the positions as stations to rotate players through.) Without stress, you don't get adaption and improvement. What you don't want, however, are fields so small that the attack cannot be successful. In essence it comes down to whether you want to train players to attack by playing around and over defenders or encourage them to take the defenders on. Players will have to use more skills and tactics this way. Teams will not be able to get by on just advantages in physical skills. PS: I haven't played on a good grass field in over 15 years. Everything was either dirt, clumps of grass, or synthetic surfaces. The only grass covered fields I played on were hard clay base with a thin centipede style grass cover, chosen for toughness rather than playing surface. It was like playing on a hard synthetic surface with no loft. PPS: Over the years I have played adult matches with only 8 players, played matches on 100 x 130 yd fields, scrimmaged on 80 yd fields with 14 v 14, and played on all kinds of surfaces. It is all soccer. You adapt and are the better for the experience.
I hate the long breakaway forward on fields that are too big as well, but I don't see this being as something that many strikers will succeed at either. Shrinking the field AND adding a player has overcorrected the issue.
The reason you view the situation differently than the rest of us is because you are dealing in the abstract and we are dealing in the practical realities. You generalize and simply say things like "small fields are better than big fields." No one is arguing about whether U10s should be playing small-sided soccer. We ALL think they should. The question is about how small that small-sided field should be and how many players you are going to put on that small field. Any size field is fine by me so long as you put the correct number of players on it. If they want to use 47x30 yards fields, then we should be playing 5v5. That field is too small for 6v6 and WAY to small for 7v7. I'm not against playing 7v7 on a 47x30 yard field because I think it's too hard for the kids or overly stresses them. I'm against it because it's going to be a cluster. It would be the equivalent of playing a men's game with 25 players on each side. It's a mass of humanity in too small of a space. There will be no positional shape because the field is small enough for all players to cover nearly the entire field. In fact, you'll likely see many teams just throwing people on the field without positions at all, much as you would in a 25v25 game on a full field. We run SSGs on smaller fields, BUT WITH FEWER PLAYERS. I've never heard of anyone playing a small-sided game in training where you intentionally reduce the size of the field without taking into account how many players are on it. For example, men's teams might run a SSG playing 7v7 on half a field. But they don't play 11v11 on half a field. When I have my U10s play a small sided game it might be 3v3 on a 35x25 yard field or 5v5 on a 45x30 yard field. But I don't shrink the field and leave the same number of players on. That's just nutty because the field size already takes into account the number of players you're using. Most places are not like NOVA where all of the decent grass fields have been replaced by synthetic fields. The vast majority of youth soccer in this country is played on grass. Like 90% or probably significantly more. These grass fields come in all varieties, but most are pretty lumpy and beaten up.