While last week's media hubbub over the Ontario Soccer Association's ongoing implementation of the CSA's long-term player development (LTPD) plan has died down -- as the drive-by commentators have predictably found new sources for their eternal outrage -- there are still plenty of questions being asked about the perennially-contentious plan.
Presumably to help allay some fears and counteract misconceptions about LTPD, the OSA has released a long statement from its president, Ron Smale, to stakeholders. Its assessment is surprisingly but refreshingly frank and candid about the realities of the sport's current standing and why the status quo needs to change.
Below are some edited (for punctuation/clarity only, not meaning) excerpts from Smale's message. Except where noted, any emphasis in the quotes is from the original document, not added by me.
[PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]
On the idea that LTPD is forcing kids out of soccer:
While some unhappy parents may be looking at other sport options for their child, the facts are actually as follows. We have been losing kids in big numbers in recent years and the feedback is inevitably the same: Kids are pressured at too early an age and coaches and parents yell all the time. If winning and losing games at the age of 8 or 9 is why a parent chooses a sport for their son or daughter, it may be important to re-assess why children are involved in youth sports. Kids want to have fun and “get better”. We have tried to deliver that message but perhaps parents are not receiving the full message and our broader intent. We will be working very hard to ensure we get the right information in the hands of parents so they can make informed decisions.
Smale gets started right away with the central thesis of his message: That those raising the largest stink about the changes inherent to LTPD are not players, but adults who (it would appear, anyway) are worried about themselves, not their kids. As someone who's been involved with a youth club for nearly all my life, it's a sentiment that rings pretty true.
On the elimination of scores and standings at younger ages:
Yes, many parents and kids do typically want scores and standings. But that approach, while (it's) what parents know and are familiar with, has clearly not led to healthy results. We have seen major drop-out rates in recreation(al) and competitive soccer. And we are simply not properly developing the majority of those youngsters who enjoy and actually have a passion and a skill for this sport. Sure, some do make it, often despite the “system”, but most don’t.We don’t have “class rankings” in elementary schools, for example. We introduce that when our youngsters are older and better able to understand competition and what it means. It makes sense to do the same in sports.
We need to do a whole lot better—and we will.
I imagine that the rankings Smale refers to are the ones described by Jason de Vos in last week's episode of the TSN FC podcast.
On the idea that "kids need to learn how to lose":
Yes, kids need to learn how to lose. But do we seriously think these lessons have to be taught (at) the age of 8, 9, 10 or 11? And who is doing the so-called “teaching” about losing—and what impact is it having on our kids? Youngsters are naturally competitive and keep score in every game they play. Kids aren’t the problem. Too often, parents and coaches are the problem. There are many great volunteer coaches in our system and many thoughtful, supportive and engaged parents. But enough parents and coaches with wonky priorities have wrecked things for the others.Let’s let the kids keep score, but teach them the skills they need without fear of making mistakes and being screamed at for fear of losing a game and a chance at being “promoted”. How will kids learn the skills they need in a sport like soccer if they are afraid to try things because of the adults around them?
Again, the emphasis in that quote is from the original document; but if it hadn't been there, I'd likely have added it myself. As I said in a post on LTPD last week, everyone knows kids will naturally keep score -- and this is perfectly fine. If anything, it shows that kids naturally have the competitive spirit that some LTPD opponents believe will be snuffed out by shifting the emphasis away from standings.
On the idea that LTPD removes competition:
Of course competition is a part of life. Players will be competing against each other at each practice session and each game from 6 years of age. But we’re talking about soccer at the early ages where we will de-emphasize standings and there will be no promotion and relegation. There will be plenty of competition and plenty of games and competition at the young ages—we just won’t focus on standings.If people are honest, the system in Ontario has, for years, been built on the backs of coaches poaching players and recruiting the biggest, fastest, oldest players they can. Parents and coaches yell “kick it out, kick it out, get rid of the ball…” to alarmed children, all to tell them to get the ball up to the big, fast kid who can score and “win the game”. This leads to placing their team high in the standings and being “promoted”. But it’s not a real team when only a few players matter and skills are not being developed.
THIS.
It's the story you'll hear from countless people involved in the game in Ontario -- and other provinces, I imagine, but I can only confidently speak about what I've heard first-hand. But when the president of the provincial association goes ahead and spells it out -- well, that's as clear a sign as you're going to get that the problem is systemic, and change is needed.
Sadly, this poisonous cycle never stops. Surely no one truly believes that approach is healthy—or develops the skills of ALL young players? Are some kids more important than others? Because under the old system, that’s what we had: A focus on a very few players, while other players sat, got little playing time and virtually no attention so they could improve. The result was lost confidence—and players lost to soccer. That certainly wasn’t “fun” for all the players.
On the idea that LTPD is just for competitive players, not recreational players:
In fact, LTPD is for both the elite players who aspire to a future in the game and also for the recreational player. Recreational soccer is the backbone of our sport. Kids wants to play for fun, fitness, healthy activity and because they like to compete. LTPD will enhance this experience because more kids will now have the ability to play the game at a skill level that will make the experience fun. Yes, we will have to work hard to make sure coaching methods improve, so kids want to come to training sessions and are always learning new things and not standing around. We have enhanced our coaching programs to help achieve exactly that result. But it’s a work in progress.For those youngsters that aspire to a scholarship or playing for Canada, professionally or internationally, LTPD will at long last help many more of those youngsters to develop the touches and skills they need to be comfortable and creative on the ball—which is what sets most countries apart from Canada.
Emphasis is mine this time, because it's an important point. I've seen countless kids get discouraged, frustrated or just plain uninterested in the game because they're unable to keep up with what's going on around them. This is the house league level I'm talking about. Surely these kids aren't having any more fun "playing soccer" than they would be standing around in their backyard.
So why not try creating an environment where all kids have the skills to actually participate in the game? That sounds like a lot more fun than the alternative. Smale rightly identifies the coaching issue as a big, BIG one -- but that's another fish to fry.
On the idea that LTPD is just being pushed by a bunch of academics:
If critics of LTPD choose to ignore the science and research behind LTPD, fine. Then just listen to the coaches around the globe, some of the best and brightest, who talk about why we need to focus on skills development and not winning games at the young ages. This has been happening elsewhere for years already. And if people don’t believe what is being said and practiced around the rest of the soccer world by coaches and players who know what they are talking about and are truly expert in this field, at least be aware that our own best Canadian players, like Diana Matheson and Dwayne De Rosario support this initiative one hundred per cent. And they are far from alone....
Surely we aren’t relying on kids “losing a soccer game” at the age of 9 or 10 to teach them about disappointment, handling adversity, sportsmanship or competing? Before we expect a student to apply for Law School—and possibly “fail” in their attempt—we make sure they have the basics down cold through years of study, training and proper support in the “system”. That’s the least we should do with children in sport before we make them deal with things like “relegation”.
Why should a youth team be built around a handful of players while every other youngster waits their turn to play, develop and gain confidence? That’s what we’re fighting, and we’re not going to turn back now because some people are upset by change. We all resist change. But when change is about making for a healthier environment, we have to stay the course. And we will.
De Vos makes a similar analogy in the above-linked podcast: Would we throw a kid into a swimming pool and expect them to compete in races before they'd mastered the fundamentals of the various strokes? Of course not. Yet that seems to be good enough for some involved in the game of soccer: Boot it, hoof it and hope for the best so that you can rack up those five-dollar trophies.
The overriding message appears to be that the OSA will be going ahead with this come hell or high water, and individuals are free to get on board with LTPD or get off the train. It will be interesting to see how Smale's message will be received by the people to whom its message is directed.
.