OYSA small sided soccer (U9, U10, U11, U12)

[Unregistered]

There's a lot of discussion regarding OYSA plans to change field sizes for the younger teams -- namely U9/U10, U11, maybe U12 too.

Thoughts? Is small-sided the way to go? More touches = more development, but does it REALLY put an end to boot ball?

Washington does it (for U11, but not U12), but California doesn't.

When will it start -- if it starts?

What will current teams do? Do teams cut current teams and send A team players to B teams, and send B teams to C teams? OR do they keep 16-18 kids on a roster and just sit everybody on the bench a lot longer (which equals less touches to the ball).

[Unregistered]

As long as they can get the correct field sizes, I think smaller sided games will be better. The teams will be made stronger (particularly the ones where there is a significant drop off in ability levels from starters to bench). Yes, some A players will go down to B teams but those B teams will be stronger and it will be better for the development of those bubble players who are moved down - although the players & their parents may not like it! If the clubs only switch the U11 teams down to 9v9 (& not U12) they will likely have less push back since the U11s recently moved up to 11 v 11 so the weaker players were most likely moved up from their club's smaller U10 B team in May. Easier to stomach going back to B team now than at U12....

[Unregistered]

There's a lot of discussion regarding OYSA plans to change field sizes for the younger teams -- namely U9/U10, U11, maybe U12 too.

Thoughts? Is small-sided the way to go? More touches = more development, but does it REALLY put an end to boot ball?

Washington does it (for U11, but not U12), but California doesn't.

When will it start -- if it starts?

What will current teams do? Do teams cut current teams and send A team players to B teams, and send B teams to C teams? OR do they keep 16-18 kids on a roster and just sit everybody on the bench a lot longer (which equals less touches to the ball).

Washington does 6v6 and 9v9 at u10
California does 8v8 u-9 to u11 at u12 they play 11V11
Oregon has been in incompetent mode forever,,,,

OYSA will go 7v7 at U9 and U10
9v9 at U11 and U12
11v11 at U13+

this is the best model and proven all over the planet.....teams are condensing down for this coming spring...I'm sure there will be some angry parents, particularly the new bubble players that are hovering around the 11-16 on the roster....roster sizes shouldn't go any higher than 10 in the 7v7 format....I know at 9v9 the roster size is 14 max....

this is exciting and will change how we develop here in Oregon...it's an important step that should have taken place 5 years ago....trouble is that money runs the leagues and more players on a roster makes for more money....

wait...then this model won't work for PTFC....smaller rosters means smaller profits....maybe PTFC and OYSA are all about money...maybe development is important....I agree that they are on the right track and this Spring is when it starts

[Unregistered]

Washington does 6v6 and 9v9 at u10
California does 8v8 u-9 to u11 at u12 they play 11V11
Oregon has been in incompetent mode forever,,,,

OYSA will go 7v7 at U9 and U10
9v9 at U11 and U12
11v11 at U13+

this is the best model and proven all over the planet.....teams are condensing down for this coming spring...I'm sure there will be some angry parents, particularly the new bubble players that are hovering around the 11-16 on the roster....roster sizes shouldn't go any higher than 10 in the 7v7 format....I know at 9v9 the roster size is 14 max....

this is exciting and will change how we develop here in Oregon...it's an important step that should have taken place 5 years ago....trouble is that money runs the leagues and more players on a roster makes for more money....

wait...then this model won't work for PTFC....smaller rosters means smaller profits....maybe PTFC and OYSA are all about money...maybe development is important....I agree that they are on the right track and this Spring is when it starts

NorCal does 8v8 at U11. SoCal does 11v11

[Unregistered]

wait !!!

wait...then this model won't work for PTFC....smaller rosters means smaller profits....maybe PTFC and OYSA are all about money...maybe development is important....I agree that they are on the right track and this Spring is when it starts

OYSA had this plan 5 years ago and the people who are leading the PTFC and the big two Timber Alliance Clubs (East and West) PCU and all the members of the OPC left OYSA because they didn't want to comply with what is best for kids.

Are those same people now saying Chuck was right the whole time.

Small sided games and ODP are the way? WHHAATTT?

[Unregistered]

Are you sure all U11 & U12 OYSA teams will be switching down to 9v9 for this Spring league? Seems like they'd make the switch for Fall 2014 so #s on teams could be picked accordingly at try outs in May. Our TA team has 18 players but no B team so will they just let more kids sit the bench? I read somewhere (?) that they were going to try it out first on a few teams...although I don't know how they could manage just a few teams switching either...

[Slow Xavi]

OYSA had this plan 5 years ago and the people who are leading the PTFC and the big two Timber Alliance Clubs (East and West) PCU and all the members of the OPC left OYSA because they didn't want to comply with what is best for kids.

Are those same people now saying Chuck was right the whole time.

Small sided games and ODP are the way? WHHAATTT?

Ironic isn't it - one trip to Barcelona and folks found religion.

I'll add some of the background studies to this thread a bit later.

[Unregistered]

OYSA had this plan 5 years ago and the people who are leading the PTFC and the big two Timber Alliance Clubs (East and West) PCU and all the members of the OPC left OYSA because they didn't want to comply with what is best for kids.

Are those same people now saying Chuck was right the whole time.

Small sided games and ODP are the way? WHHAATTT?

It is about money :-)

[Unregistered]

Are you sure all U11 & U12 OYSA teams will be switching down to 9v9 for this Spring league? Seems like they'd make the switch for Fall 2014 so #s on teams could be picked accordingly at try outs in May. Our TA team has 18 players but no B team so will they just let more kids sit the bench? I read somewhere (?) that they were going to try it out first on a few teams...although I don't know how they could manage just a few teams switching either...

who is the retard that carries 18 on a U11 or U12 roster? AYFKM? tell me your kidding

[Unregistered]

We have two teams that both have 17 and there are a couple that float back and forth, so really we have two squads of 18.

Going backwards to smaller games would cause all kinds of problems.

Hopefully they leave the small sized games to U11 and under or we will break away and play OPL at our age level. We spend way too much time working hard to build two full roster of quality players and maintain them. Going backward would be counterproductive.

i really doubt they are going to make this change right now. You need to give notice for a change like this.

I am not commenting on whether I think small sided games are good for development or not.

[Unregistered]

Smaller teams = greater expense. Need more fields and more coaches, but there's the same number of parents to fund it all. That means the per participant cost goes up because there are more teams (fields, refs and coaches), or the cost goes up because there are fewer participants (same number of teams but smaller rosters), or the cost stays the same with giant rosters so they play half as much. There's already a shortage of fields and good coaches and competitive soccer already prices too many kids out of participating. Does 11 a side help the club's bottom line? Maybe.

On the development side, kids should and do spend way more time in practice than in games. They should be playing 3 v 3, 5 v 5 etc in practice. Small sided games would be ideal, but it's a lot more complicated than saying "do what's best for the kids." What's best for the kids would be no pay to play, lots of great fields and experienced coaches. We're a long way from that happening.

[Slow Xavi]

Smaller teams = greater expense. Need more fields and more coaches, but there's the same number of parents to fund it all. That means the per participant cost goes up because there are more teams (fields, refs and coaches), or the cost goes up because there are fewer participants (same number of teams but smaller rosters), or the cost stays the same with giant rosters so they play half as much. There's already a shortage of fields and good coaches and competitive soccer already prices too many kids out of participating. Does 11 a side help the club's bottom line? Maybe.

Your math makes intuitive sense . . . Thought the Norcal report had some good ideas there on layout, but does not address all of the issues.

One thing going smaller does open up is the potential for more fields: the more you go towards a futsal mindset, a greater number of surfaces and fields options open up (for example basketball courts, corners of field complexes that are wasted space for the bigger fields).

On the coaching front, rec in PYSA through u8 already split the games (2 coaches for each team, one goes with group a and the other with group b); don't know that it would be that much more difficult to do that with Classic u10 development team: just throwing numbers out there, but lets assume you have a roster of 18, split them and have 9 go with each coach, other team does same thing, and play 7v7 on each half of a standard field.

Having said that, running leagues is complicated when you don't own/completely control all of the fields; adding a bunch of variability in field size, # of players, # of refs, etc. only makes it more difficult; but I think those are problems worth solving.

On the development side, kids should and do spend way more time in practice than in games. They should be playing 3 v 3, 5 v 5 etc in practice. Small sided games would be ideal, but it's a lot more complicated than saying "do what's best for the kids." What's best for the kids would be no pay to play, lots of great fields and experienced coaches. We're a long way from that happening.

Fair enough. Just think the increased number of touches, number of offensive opportunities, quick transitions from defense to offense and vice-versa leads to a richer soccer experience in the same amount of time.

Until a child has some basic technical ability; understands what a wall pass is and can do it sometimes; understand what 3rd-man running is (and can execute sometimes); and has a basic understanding of marking or zonal defending, think we are asking them to process a tremendous amount by throwing them out into 11v11 game.

[Unregistered]

Pretty Funny

OYSA had this plan 5 years ago and the people who are leading the PTFC and the big two Timber Alliance Clubs (East and West) PCU and all the members of the OPC left OYSA because they didn't want to comply with what is best for kids.

Are those same people now saying Chuck was right the whole time.

Small sided games and ODP are the way? WHHAATTT?

Pretty Funny !

[Unregistered]

Your math makes intuitive sense . . . Thought the Norcal report had some good ideas there on layout, but does not address all of the issues.

One thing going smaller does open up is the potential for more fields: the more you go towards a futsal mindset, a greater number of surfaces and fields options open up (for example basketball courts, corners of field complexes that are wasted space for the bigger fields).

On the coaching front, rec in PYSA through u8 already split the games (2 coaches for each team, one goes with group a and the other with group b); don't know that it would be that much more difficult to do that with Classic u10 development team: just throwing numbers out there, but lets assume you have a roster of 18, split them and have 9 go with each coach, other team does same thing, and play 7v7 on each half of a standard field.

Having said that, running leagues is complicated when you don't own/completely control all of the fields; adding a bunch of variability in field size, # of players, # of refs, etc. only makes it more difficult; but I think those are problems worth solving.



Fair enough. Just think the increased number of touches, number of offensive opportunities, quick transitions from defense to offense and vice-versa leads to a richer soccer experience in the same amount of time.

Until a child has some basic technical ability; understands what a wall pass is and can do it sometimes; understand what 3rd-man running is (and can execute sometimes); and has a basic understanding of marking or zonal defending, think we are asking them to process a tremendous amount by throwing them out into 11v11 game.

I totally agree....in my opinion I would rather have a 8-5 game at 7v7 rather than a 1-0 game at 11v11 with 10 year olds on a 110X70 field

[Unregistered]

OYSA had this plan 5 years ago and the people who are leading the PTFC and the big two Timber Alliance Clubs (East and West) PCU and all the members of the OPC left OYSA because they didn't want to comply with what is best for kids.

Are those same people now saying Chuck was right the whole time.

Small sided games and ODP are the way? WHHAATTT?

I feel like one of those characters in the stupid 80's TV dramas that would paint themselves into a corner plot wise, do the next episode the main character would wake up and realize it had all been a bad dream. Has OPL just been a bad dream brought on by a partially digested chunk of turkey?