Switch to 3v3 for u6?

We switched to 4v4 (no keeper) last year and I think it went well. There were the inevitable complaints that it wasn't "real soccer", and how would the kids ever learn to play goalie? You know what? The teams that moved up to U7 this year, 5v5 with keepers, made the transition just fine.

You will have the fields - because now you can play in areas that were too small before. Or you may be able to put 2 fields where you only had one before.

You will need more coaches. One way around that is to have teams with double-sized rosters. They practice as a team, with a coach and assistant. On game day, they split into two squads, and play simultaneous games against another split team. Some leagues even have one of the split teams switch fields at halftime, so all the kids end up playing against everyone else for half the game. (We didn't do this. One of the reasons we jumped when we did is that we had a lot of potential coach volunteers the season we switched.) Even if you stay with traditional teams, each with a coach and assistant, you can probably get enough volunteers by emphasizing the learning aspect of the small-sided game. The coach learns along with the kids. You just have to have opportunities for them to learn - clinics by experienced coaches, etc. You can also point out that coaching a u6 team doesn't imply a life-long commitment. There will be less coaches needed as the players get older, and play on teams with larger rosters.

One problem we had, and probably continue to have, was how to deal with a "quasi-goalie". The idea behind small-sided soccer is more involvement in the game. That is partially unfulfilled if a team appoints one of their players to stay deep to defend, acting like a goalkeeper in all aspects except use of hands. We want teams to implement attacking and defending roles (not bumblebee soccer); we just don't want a player stationed way back there with nothing to do.

Speaking of bumblebees, if you go to smaller teams, you will only have 6 or 8 players crowding around the ball instead of 10 or 12. I know they make those size-3 balls with kid-magnets in them; the kids just can't help but get drawn close to the ball. But with fewer kids on the field, there's a better chance that the ball will squirt out from the herd. And then, if there just happens to be a player outside the knot that can take advantage of the free ball - well, now the kids start to see the value of spreading out instead of clumping up.

Without a goalkeeper, scores of 22-14 won't be uncommon. But who really cares? At u6 you're not supposed to be keeping track, right? And if both teams score "a lot", it makes it harder for the kids to remember just who is winning.

There can be a problem when you get a team with an exceptional player on it. Now that kid only has to beat 2 or 3 players, and she scores a goal. If that happens, you can get into ridiculously lopsided scores very quickly. So you have to give the coaches good options on how to play the game meaningfully and competitively, yet keep the score down. We did have a few of those 28-3 blowouts we had to deal with.

You also have to look at what kinds of rule changes you want to implement. We changed as little as possible, except for the number of players and not having a keeper. We didn't use all the modifications like kick-ins. (We already had rules that all free kicks were indirect, no PK's, no offside until u8, etc.)

You may be presenting this idea to your Board a little too late to be able to implement it in the fall. Probably they should have begun discussing it at the end of the past season. But you might still be able to pull it off, if you don't get a lot of opposition to the idea.

 

my boys grew up with 6v6 and turned out fine. we then, however, moved to a club where 3v3 was the standard then then 5v5.

once they reached the higher levels, the kids who played small-sided at u6-u8 were more confident and had better ball skills due to more touches.

i have changed my view from being a fan of 6v6 to being a proponent of 3v3...

 

i think anything under 7 is good. its a good idea, you get more touches on the ball therefore developing better skills and having more fun. just like in brasil

 

Very easy. Our club plays 4v4 through u8 with no goalie. Kids get lots of touches etc. Teams are made up of 8 players so they play half the game. That is long enough for most. In most cases coachs are easy to come by as parent volunteers. No real experience needed. Go to a clinic or two to learn from experienced coaches and maybe buy a book. At that level just getting them to do simple things takes a long time

 

In our association, we switched to 4v4 a year ago. In order to keep the number of teams down, we put 12 - 14 kids on a team. On game day, we split the team up and play on side-by-side fields. In order to keep the 'dominant' kid from running up the field, we divide the kids by "Level of aggressiveness". This way, the parents don't feel that we are saying their child isn't good (they readily admit their child is or isn't aggressive). When you have 4 good/aggressive kids on the field, it isn't so easy for one kid to dominate.

 

I coached my oldest 9 years ago in 7v7 with a goalie and am now coaching my youngest in 3v3 (U-5) with fields of 25 x 20 yards. I like the 3v3 format better. Soccerfn, I hope you didn't call your assn crazy - that won't win you many friends!

I'd definitely favor the 12 to a team concept, then breaking down the team on game day. I started this spring with 5 and 2 dropped out - which makes it hard to have practices. Bigger teams would minimize this issue.

I've got two "hot shots" on my team (and Bryan76, if you're reading this, you only saw one of them). Did their superior play intimidate the 2 who dropped out? I don't know.

I have not had any problems with kids wanting to stay in goal. However, the 2 better players like to sit back there, pounce on a loose ball, and run up the field and score.

Finally, lets drop the horses**t about how the kids don't know and care who won. I always stress that we don't keep score and never talk about winning. But my three kids definitely know how many goals they have made and how many the opposition have made. These three all have older siblings in soccer so they already know that scoring is the essential task in the game.

 

Having coached 8v8 w/ GK for a number of years I've long battled to move to 4v4 w/o GK using hockey sized goals. You can see a huge difference in the technique of the kids who grow up playing small sided soccer vs. their 8v8 counterparts. If your assn. doesn't go for it then screw'em and form your own league.

 

We run a league that plays 3v3 for 6 and under: Two on the field with one GK. I know a lot of leagues don't use GKs, but I think you just have too many goals scored from a mindless 'whack down the field'. With GKs, the players have to learn to contol the ball better. Also, goalkeeping is part of the game, so....

Each team has 6 players. We play six 5-minute periods: Each player gets 2 periods on the field and 1 in the goal.

Coaches (we call them trainers-somehow it's less threatening) are recruited from volunteer parents. We have a trainers' session where they are given a small manual (that we developed just for the three-a-side) with every practice planned out, and we go through it with them demonstrating every drill/game in the book.

Obviously, we use much smaller goals (3 feet high-4 feet wide - IIRC) on a field 30x20 (or as close as we can get).
.

 

Here are some general comments from a youth coach who finally got my association to change to the short sided game this spring:

1. We had the lopsided games problem. It was worse with larger goals, so smaller goals is definitely one option, but that maybe reduced scores from 20-1 to 10-1. I am still looking for a better solution...

2. Goalkeepers without hands. The idea of no goalkeeper was to eliminate the fear of goalkeeping created by starting keepers before they have the hand-eye coordination to catch the ball with anything but their face. Unfortunately, most teams play a "goalkeeper who can't use their hands".

Has anyone tried a "shooting zone" so that teams can only score on shots from within the attacking half or a marked area close to goal? This could eliminate the incentive to have a player hang back to stop junk goals and reduce scoring from balls booted upfield that accidentally role in the goal.

I'm also considering switching to a wider field, as we seem to get too many throw ins.

3. Insane U6/U8 coaches: I have a coach who kept track of his team's season and bought them all trophies, as they were "League Champions". This in a league where keeping score was prohibited.

Finally, I saw a big jump in playing ability in almost all of our players playing the small sided game and parents even commented on it. I just hope this one subtle positive doesn't get washed away by the more noticable negatives.

 

Our park has always played 3 v 3 or 4 v 4 at this level. I couldn’t imagine playing with more players on a team. One of my sons was a dominant player who could score at will. Our solution was to move him to U-8s.

 

I have a couple of suggestions that we implemented in our league. I know you didn't specifically ask, but I thought I'd just throw them out there.

1. Lopsided games: Sad but unfortunate reality of the game. It is almost ALWAYS caused by coaches who are more interested in feeling good about themselves (by winning all the time) that developing players. How do you form teams/divide the kids? I am the commissioner for our league, and I get to see/know most of the kids just by watching games. A couple of us get together before the season and try to organize competetive teams. We also have a coaches session where we discuss ways for coaches to keep games closer (ie. kids have to pass 3 times before they shoot, only shoot with opposite foot, etc).

2. Goalies: Another big issue with parents at young age. We don't use them until U-8 (the kids play with the small pugg goals until then). We have an arc in front of the goal. Noone is allowed in that area until after the ball goes in there. Also, we tell all coaches they need to move defenders to mid-field when the ball is in the other area. Some kids naturally want to defend (that's ok with us), but we don't want that used as a tactic.

3. Insane Coaches: I hate them. I've actually had to tell a few parents they would not be able to coach any more after problems with them. That's hard for me, considering I have to usually beg for 3 or 4 coaches every season. The best way I've found is to talk to them first. Get them to understand this is a learning process, not a competition. If they are still a problem, get rid of them. Trust me, the other coaches/parents will take notice quickly.

Another thing we do is to have a coaches game every season. It's always interesting to see the ultra-competetive coaches see what it's like when they play with/against people their own size and strength. They more often than not realize that soccer isn't always as easy as it looks from the sideline.

 

"Touches on the Ball
Article Written by Glen Buckley NYSWYSA Director of Coaching


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I was Director of Coaching of the Eden Prairie Soccer Club in Minneapolis I did a survey of the difference in the amount of touches a player can have in a small sided [ 4v4 ] game as opposed to an 11 v 11 game. Three different games were assessed, the players were average ability. They were 10 and 11 years of age. The following quite remarkable results were recorded. If these figures do not help change the opinions of the anti small sided game coaches and parents then I fear nothing will.
11 v 11 friendly game, 22 touches in 60 minutes, (0.37 touches on the ball per minute).

4 v 4 games ( 205 touches in 48 minutes, (projected 60 minutes = 256) (4.3 touches on the ball per minute).

4 v 4 games ( 217 touches in 48 minutes, (projected 60 minutes = 271) (4.5 touches on the ball per minute).

The player in the 4v4 game touched the ball 12.31 more times in the same time period against the same opposition as the 11v 11 game. The assessments were done on four different occasions against different opposition, and assessing different players each time to reinforce the above figures.

The reason to implement small- sided games into the program was to increase the time and amount of touches a player had on the ball and these results clearly back this up. It would be useful if other coaches tried the same experiment and showed the results to anyone who just simply doesn?t understand why we do it and why it is important.

I have heard it said by someone who falls into the above category that yes they get more touches on the ball but they aren?t all quality touches? Of course they aren?t all quality touches because if every touch was a quality touch then our players would all be great players with nothing to learn and we know it doesn?t work like that. Even the best players in the world have non ? quality touches on the ball. Lets say for arguments sake 50% of touches were ?Quality? touches, then in the 11 a side game that player got 11 quality touches and in the 4 a side games the same player got 135 quality touches. Players learn from doing it right but also from doing it wrong. I believe players must make mistakes to help them learn how to do things correctly as well as learning from doing it correctly in the first place. From the 135 non - quality touches they will have gained valuable experience of what not to do e.g. a first touch was bad and the ball went to the opposition so next time that player concentrates on making a good first touch and so on. In comparison in the 11 a side game the same player hardly touched the ball making only 11 quality touches but also only 11 non ? quality touches meaning very little opportunity to learn from quality work and non ? quality work.

My experience in the game has taught me this is an important way to help players develop their technique and improve their game and these results act as confirmation of this. I am sure this presentation goes some way to show how important it is to continue to use this type of developmental work as a part of our overall coaching programs."

 

I agree with the switch to 3x3 or 4x4 if you have enough coaches. We have had enough problems getting coaches in the older divisions as some of the coaches are doing multiple teams therefore we don't have a U-6 division

 

The reality of 5v5 is that you can only have one game going on per team. You need to limit youself to 10 kids (at least in my area where kids are guaranteed playing time of 1/2 game). We used to do this in my area, but we still had the problem with one or two kids taking over the game. They got all the touches while others were left to chase them (or lose interest all together).

If you go to 4v4 (we did) or 3v3, you can have one team of 12 - 14 kids, but have multiple games at the same time. This way, each kid plays more minutes and you can have the more aggressive kids play against more aggressive kids and less aggressive kids play against less aggressive kids. The best part of this is that lots of goals are scored. Nothing better than having a parent come up to you and say how happy their child is because he/she scored in a game that day.

 

I coached back in the dark ages. When my now 34-yr-old son was 6 he was playing 11-a-side recreation league. After seeing kids burn-out in their early teens, I became an advocate of small-sided soccer for all kids under 8 or 9, with the emphasis on fun and skills learned through touching the ball as much as possible. I'm happy to see that this has really taken off around the country over the past decade or so.

I also like the idea of moving advanced kids up an age group or two, and not being locked into cookie-cutter soccer by strict age groups. I've played pickup games in parks with players ranging from 12 to over 50 (which would be me), and everyone had fun -- and that is the point, after all.

 

3-a-side (2 field players 1 gk) also allows players to develop as dribblers; facing 1v1 and 1v2 situations in both games and practices.

As the 7 & 8 year olds move to 4-a-side (3 field players 1 gk) passing is introduced (although it is introduced to some degree in the 6 year olds).
And of course having 3 field players leads to learning about triangles, shape, movement off the ball, etc. This is also when we begin playing with the offside rule.

At 9 & 10 is when we play 6-a-side (5 + gk).

Referring back to earlier concerns about dominate players/teams.........It happens. Players might as well learn now that the sun is still going to rise.

Actually, we do keep score in the 4,5,& 6 yo age groups. That is how we schedule the next set of games. Winners play winners, those that didn't win play other teams that didn't win. Each week I update 'standings' so that we get as close as possible to teams playing others of similar strength. It helps that we will have 20 or so teams in each age group so there is no way every team will play each other anyway. Scheduling based on previous results helps make the games as competitve as possible - Also elliminates a LOT of those blowouts.

OH. But the biggest selling point to playing 3-a-side? Getting coaches. You only have 6 players on a team - one of them is yours. Get a friend to help and you only have 4 chldren you are unfamiliar with. Coaches also get to build confidence as they learn more about the game therefore generally keep coming back.

 

See here for answers to your questions: http://www.westasoccer.com/WAYSA short-sided games.htm

 

The fact that the USSF "strongly recommends" 3v3 for U6's would hopefully sway some of these soccer parents to implement it. If not, you probably have a lost cause on your hands.

From the previous post's link:

"In August 2002, USSF reaffirmed its desire for small-sided games by issuing the following statement: 'Beginning September 1, 2003, under-6 (U6) programs should use no more than four players on a team (three strongly recommended) and no goalkeepers. U8’s should involve no more than five (four strongly recommended), and keepers should not be used. U10 soccer teams should be no more than 7-a-side (six strongly recommended). U12 can be 11 versus 11, although eight-a-side is strongly recommended.' ”

Also, if one utilizes 3 field players, they unknowingly learn the famous soccer "triangle" which helps kids learn how to support the ball carrier.

Keepers should not be used at the younger ages since you are trying to teach as many how to dribble, pass and shoot - No need to stick one in goal. Plus, the more goals, the better at these younger ages. Without keepers, one can have a 11-9 score which is great fun for these kids. We don't introduce keepers until the U10 level (U6's 3v3 (no keeper), U8's 4v4 (no keeper), U10's 6v6 (keeper), etc.

 

Congratulations! I have high hopes that the combination of this format and the fact that more and more coaches are former HS and college players will lead to higher levels of play in 10 years.

 

I rather change the game to 4 v 4 shape because you have all the passing options foward 2 angle and back.

None soccer people probably flipped when they found out these kids were not playing 11 v 11 and I am not kidding.

Not enough fields. Play on a half field and at the same time play another game at the same time on the other half.

Bad experience just like you had parents did not want to do it.