U11 small sided games - positive or negative

[Unregistered]

After reading a discussion on another TS link, I am wondering what others think of the U11 playing 9v9 or 8v8, as opposed to full field games?

Small-sided games are intended to promote more touches to the ball, and improve better ball-handling skills, but when it comes down to it, boot ball can be an advantage on the small fields, and not all clubs coach the same.

Here's what I took from another link:

"I would like to make a simple recommendation for whoever makes up the rules about field size and mini-mod soccer. If the girls are big enough to kick the ball damn near the length of the field (especially the keeper) - then either the field is too small or you should ban punting. Make the keeper throw it or roll it out."

Do you think small sided games at U11 is the way to go? Is it REALLY that much better to play the small sided games at this age?

I prefer we go back to the 11v11 model. Let rec teams stick to the smaller fields, but Oregon clubs should stick to full fields.

[Unregistered]

It has it's pros and cons. Overall I think it is a positive move.

[Unregistered]

For a long time I hated the idea of small sided games for U11. And then my son played U11 last year in oregon full field and I started to understand why people say its not good for them. Its not just about more touches and everything, its more about the field size. Its just too big for them. our team tried to pass, and did it decently, but sometimes teams would just push all their players into one side knowing we can't hit a ball far enough to switch it on them without passing it a few times. To adjust we had to shift as well and it made it kind of ridiculous. But even through all that i thought similar to what you posted that the small sided game was just too small.

Then we went and played state cup in Washington where they do small sided all year. They didn't use boot ball, they used their skill and moved the ball. I was impressed with how fast the ball moved on the smaller field, and how it picked up the speed because there wasn't so many "dead areas" (spots on the field that are so far away from the goal that players don't even bother pressuring because there is zero danger there), and the fact that you can counter attack so fast actually added to the intensity to the game and had the boys going all out the entire game.

When you mention boot ball that is on the coach to not get sucked into that. If you have a team that only does that, then fine, in a few years those players wont be nearly as good as the ones who try to take advantage of the small sided games.

[Unregistered]

Very misleading title. I thought you were asking of young kids should play small sided games such as 3v3 or 4v4. 8v8 is not small sided to me.

[Unregistered]

It has it's pros and cons. Overall I think it is a positive move.

I like the small side - but it has too many drawbacks for me to vote for it.

1) No one plays on the same size field or goal. It makes play inconsistent and is difficult for the kids to adjust. To go from a 4x12 goal on one field to a 8x20 on another is ridiculous.

2) It makes the keeper punt a weapon. Some kids at 10-11 years old can actually bounce a ball into the opposing box

3) Larger kids have an advantage because the game is tighter - less space makes it more physical

4) Teams can press 7 field players into the opposing half because through balls (not boot ball) run to the keeper very easily

5) 1 on 1 play is rare. Because of the lack of space, I would challenge the assumption that kids are encouraged to beat people 1 on 1 in small sided ball and utilize moves and footwork.

[Unregistered]

Very misleading title. I thought you were asking of young kids should play small sided games such as 3v3 or 4v4. 8v8 is not small sided to me.

Anything smaller than regulation is "small-sided".

[Unregistered]

Small sided is better. I would vote for 4 V 4 through U 9 and 8 V 8 through U14.

There is absolutely no rational justification for U11's playing full sided in my opinion.

[Slow Xavi]

Small-sided/futsal at u11 and below.

Reasons - more touches per player/per game, harder to hide on the field . . . until kids have reasonably ball mastery and can recognize (and occasionally execute) wall passes and 3rd-man runs, keep the concepts simple.

Do wish there was more uniformity though across tournaments/leagues. As a default think we should be looking at what Washington does (6v6 in some cases) absent a compelling reason to go our own way or maybe push futsal rules to a certain age. Either way some consistency across playing experiences.

[Unregistered]

Anything smaller than regulation is "small-sided".

No it's not. Dumb thread title.

[Unregistered]

I feel like the move to 11v11 at U11 forces the coaches to work on full side tactics, which the kids don't need. Need to work on individual skills.

[Unregistered]

I feel like the move to 11v11 at U11 forces the coaches to work on full side tactics, which the kids don't need. Need to work on individual skills.

The funny thing here is at U11 I saw so many coaches actually teaching very bad habits and tactics that worked because it was U11. At that age because the kids are big enough or strong enough to do certain things on that size of the field (switch the ball for example) so they taught the kids tactics that worked to win the game, but in a few years those same tactics will now need to be retaught correctly.

Instead at U11 they should be working on small tactics like 3v1 or 3 man runs. Not full field tactics. Lets just get the kids individual skills there first.

[Unregistered]

The funny thing here is at U11 I saw so many coaches actually teaching very bad habits and tactics that worked because it was U11. At that age because the kids are big enough or strong enough to do certain things on that size of the field (switch the ball for example) so they taught the kids tactics that worked to win the game, but in a few years those same tactics will now need to be retaught correctly.

Instead at U11 they should be working on small tactics like 3v1 or 3 man runs. Not full field tactics. Lets just get the kids individual skills there first.

I posted the previous statement and wasn't clear. Thank you for clarifying my remarks. I could not agree more.

[Unregistered]

another view

I feel like the move to 11v11 at U11 forces the coaches to work on full side tactics, which the kids don't need. Need to work on individual skills.

Perhaps I am a purist. I don't like the small sided game. I believe the game at 11 a side is a reward for practicing during the week. After all, all practices are small sided and should be small sided. The game whether it is 11-a-side or 25-a-side if broken down to a bunch of small sided situations. So you get small sided games with the confines of a 11-a-side game. I do agree that we need to worry less about the tactical aspect of the game at the younger ages and teach the technical part.. unfortunately many coaches are not good at the technical part and the tactical part if much easier to teach. Perhaps it is one of the reasons so many kids stop playing past U14 (because the physical advantages are gone and now you need to be technical).

[Unregistered]

Watch this!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9Pc1vf_tlg


No one and nothing benefits from kids trying to play the full sided adult game.

[Unregistered]

I like the small side - but it has too many drawbacks for me to vote for it.

1) No one plays on the same size field or goal. It makes play inconsistent and is difficult for the kids to adjust. To go from a 4x12 goal on one field to a 8x20 on another is ridiculous.

2) It makes the keeper punt a weapon. Some kids at 10-11 years old can actually bounce a ball into the opposing box

3) Larger kids have an advantage because the game is tighter - less space makes it more physical

4) Teams can press 7 field players into the opposing half because through balls (not boot ball) run to the keeper very easily

5) 1 on 1 play is rare. Because of the lack of space, I would challenge the assumption that kids are encouraged to beat people 1 on 1 in small sided ball and utilize moves and footwork.

1) The answer to that is pretty simple, get a group of set rules for these things. In Washington this last year they made the rule that all games had to be played on the same size goals.

2) So a keeper can sometimes punt it into the other box.... If im not mistaken isn't that the same thing in the pro's? but in the past 3 years of watching this age the majority of kids can barely punt to half, so just becuase 1 kid out of probably 20 teams can come close to getting it to the other box, then thats not a reason to change all the rules.

3) Larger kids have more of an advantage on a bigger field where they can use their size and speed to just run into the open space. If you play on a larger field then they just have to kick it as far as they can and run past the kids. Much easier to do on a big field verse a smaller field. Smaller fields actually help the smaller quicker kids.

4) On a large field you can push you rentire team into the offensive 3rd because as long as you have a faster kid in teh back they can't clear it out of that section with you pinning it back in.

5)1 on 1 is actually less rare because there is less space you constantly are under pressure which should help you get used to controlling the ball under pressure.