Playing up versus own age group for development

[Unregistered]

So, there was a good question on a different thread. What is better to play up on top team or stay in own age group . I have heard arguements that playing up is good but ,then the opposite arguement is that player will be afraid to try new things as won't be won't build confidence.

Which is better for both a team and a player? Many teams are starting to play up but, I wonder if this is really true? My understanding is playing up as a team can result in players not trying new things and relying on old strengths to "keep in the game" and does not really help. Thus if they are afraid to try new things they wont develop.

Also as an individual player at younger ages is it important to play up or stay in own group and build confidence? Any thoughts on this.

[Unregistered]

Lots of good talking points here. I'll try to break it down with my thoughts.

First player playing up:
There are only a few times I think its good for a player to play up. 1st: If they would be top 5 playing up a year. 2nd: If its their grade level. Those two are really the main times I would suggest it. If you aren't an impact starter than why not play your own age and be a team leader. That is an important skill to learn as well.

When you see a player playing up on a team and only getting 50% playing time, and not a starter you have to start wondering if its worth it, where they could probably get 75-100% playing time with their own age group.

A team playing up:
Similar to a player playing up, if you are able to to finish top 5 or 6 in the age group aboves top league then I don't see an issue with playing up. That would most likely mean if you played your own age group you may only get 2-3 good games an entire league season, and how is that supposed to help you. But at every age group there are only 1-2 teams MAYBE that might even be able to do this. It doesn't happen often.

[Unregistered]

Lots of good talking points here. I'll try to break it down with my thoughts.

First player playing up:
There are only a few times I think its good for a player to play up. 1st: If they would be top 5 playing up a year. 2nd: If its their grade level. Those two are really the main times I would suggest it. If you aren't an impact starter than why not play your own age and be a team leader. That is an important skill to learn as well.

When you see a player playing up on a team and only getting 50% playing time, and not a starter you have to start wondering if its worth it, where they could probably get 75-100% playing time with their own age group.

A team playing up:
Similar to a player playing up, if you are able to to finish top 5 or 6 in the age group aboves top league then I don't see an issue with playing up. That would most likely mean if you played your own age group you may only get 2-3 good games an entire league season, and how is that supposed to help you. But at every age group there are only 1-2 teams MAYBE that might even be able to do this. It doesn't happen often.

Good thoughts and comments.

First, I agree on your comments regarding younger players playing up.

Second - As a team playing up, I would think a team could play up and win games if they have fast strong girls at younger age brackets but, does that mean they are learning to play possession ball or that it's really benefiting the players.

One way to evaluate it would look at the majority of goals and how goals are being scored. If the majority of goals are being scored by "fast breaks" relying on the fast player to out run others versus passing then even if your winning there could be a question if players are truly developing. I don't think it's all about the win/loss at younger ages but, more about how they are playing in general.

Coaches may get the idea that playing up is all good but, if the team is not using and learning fundementals to win games then it really is not. At younger ages it's not the win/loss column but, more how are they playing the game. I have seen soccer games where one team is passing more, stronger skills individually but, one "long ball" and they loose. It's when you get to older ages that you'll see the differnence.

I guess you could compare learning soccer to learning to read. In the long run which is better: Learning to read by memorization or by learning to sound the words out. Would you have a kid skip grades if they could learn to memorize words fast? Probably not cause you know in the end it would come back to haunt them.

[Unregistered]

My kids played up for a couple of years. For them it was really about the maturity level of the kids they practiced with not so much the skill. They are both pretty focused and extremely coachable. However, once they were going to play up to U13, we discussed it and they agreed that it would be better in the long run to drop down to their age group. This also put them back with their grade level, which I think is a a plus. I

[Unregistered]

At the younger ages in prticular, I agree with the "how the goals are being scored" should be part of the equation. If one team is passing & playing possession soccer than I think a player is better off playing on that team for development. If the other team relies heavily on those fast breaks to the speedy forwards and the older team tries to control the ball and pass way more, then I would prefer my kid to be on the older team from a development standpoint since my kid is not that speedster forward!

As far as an entire team playing up a division, I think playing "down" a division would give younger teams the opportunity to control games and use games as kind of like training sessions for controlled soccer. I have no idea if this would really result in any differences in play for the next year or not??

[Unregistered]

Most of the individual skills development at younger ages happens in practice, there is a strong argument to be made that surrounding your DKs with higher caliber players in practice is where the real value add comes into play. That said, if your kid doesn't get playing time in games and you see signs of declining confidence or loss of interest then they should be moved down. Many times clubs will pull players down to provide additional playing time and help reinforce confidence (or win games?). Somewhat ironically, my DD had this situation last year and while it boosted her confidence to play down, when she came back up she wasn't as effective. When she played down the players around her looked to her for leadership and she was expected to carry much more of the responsibility. When she came back up to play, she seemed to defer more to the older girls and seemed to question whether she belonged with the older girls. I think she viewed the inability to have the same impact at the older age as a reflection on her own abilities, when in fact it was simply facing better competition. We stayed the course and quit playing her down and she responded by earning her starting spot and her confidence is solidly established at the older age group. I think the key is in managing their confidence and it's unique to each personality.

[Unregistered]

The playing time argument isn't valid as most top competitive teams have players splitting time. It's only in the crappy pdx sw area you get teams with 13 players.

Play up if things are too easy. If things are tough or average. Stay in age.

Simple as that.

[Unregistered]

The playing time argument isn't valid as most top competitive teams have players splitting time. It's only in the crappy pdx sw area you get teams with 13 players.

Play up if things are too easy. If things are tough or average. Stay in age.

Simple as that.

Agreed about playing time and your advice. Since things change by high school anyhow (Varsity/JV/ODP/ENCL/Academies) I am going with an assumption regarding several of the replies to the original query that the posters are involved with younger age groups. Regardless of criticisms sometimes made about the caliber of success Oregon players/teams might have, I recognize that our youth players of yesteryears actually helped today's players gain more opportunities to develop their skills and attain higher successes outside of the state. Those kids helped put Oregon on the radar for recruiting and entry into tournaments. I do think that playing up helped players/teams to enter some tournaments, just as playing up in some tournaments helped teams.

Years ago when there was only one youth league in Oregon, U11s had to go through 11 v11 OYSA Fall League qualifiers (CQTs/PQTs). If you didn't do well the first weekend you would play in either a Classic 1/2/3 league. If you did well the first weekend, you advanced to the second weekend of PQT qualifiers. If you ended up in the top two positions of your bracket, you became Premier 1, and the bottom remaining went on to Premier 2 for league play. That is, you played in the U12 Premier Leagues or U12 Classic Leagues. There was no such thing as U11 Premier or Classic Leagues until years later.

Playing up at U12 was often brutal but there were solid U11 teams that would make the top 6 of U12 Premier leagues, and quite a few ending up within the top 10 of 12 in league. At least for my daughter's and son's teams, they consistently placed in the top two of their when returning to their own age groups (U12-14 years).

Here is the problem back then:WHEN meeting the 11-returning players requirement and placed in the top 6 of Fall League to enter the PQTs for next year's league-if you came in the top two spots you kept your P1 status. The middle placers meeting the returning players requirement would earn a CQT bye and be seeded for the PQT. If you fell into the lower 6 of Fall League, then you had to do both CQTs/PQTs. Skills and quality level of play for successful top Premier teams was sometimes jeopardized If you fell even 1 returning player short of the 11 minimum. Players change clubs, move away, or quit soccer. Going below the 11 returning requirement meant that no matter how successful your team was in Premier league, state cup, and tournaments in the prior year, or a team's new year roster including new talented players, your team had to play as a Classic-level team. This rule was a joke and caused quite a few high-level teams to fold during their younger years. Later the 11-returning players rule would be in effect but a with a couple less required for the minimum. At the time, teams in WA, CA, AZ could move out of a club and over to another club and still play in their high-level leagues. Very frustrating being in OR back then and trying to be accepted into solid skill/development building opportunity tournaments elsewhere if you had premier-level team here that had to play classic-level. Very frustrating having players that played on their ODP teams or guest played for out-of-state teams in high level tournaments.

For those teams that complained about having to play up as U12s, OYSA members voted to change things. OYSA voters included rec clubs, so the entire league qualifiers and pressure for U11s to play only 8 v 8 was decided by a predominantly rec-based majority. These factors were a part of the consideration by the Portland-area clubs that became frustrated with OYSA and formed the OPC. They followed the lead of US Club Soccer founders, clubs also disgruntled with their USYS state organizations for various reasons.

So now, your child has more options to play, at age levels that you deem appropriate for your child. As the poster said, "Play up if things are too easy. If things are tough or average. Stay in age."

By high school, if your child is still playing soccer, and if they have developed in their technical/tactical/mental soccer skills, they likely are playing multi-ages on their varsity teams anyhow. Enjoy the time.