Competitive Festivals at u6

[davidgh]

Wow - this wasn't the discussion I was looking for, but what a great turn it has taken, right to the core of the issue, if all the attitudes were correct it wouldn't really matter whether the under 4s got a trophy in the illegal festival!! Unfortunately they definitely aren't

Some great thought processes here ..... I think it would help a lot if the RFU published some thought around the reasoning behind the way we deliver the Continuum, I have a sneaking suspicion that it was designed with this in mind, but it doesn't get much 'moral support' in the field!!

Bill, great to hear your analysis, on the money I would say

PaulDG - that is the absolute truth, and a great synopsis

The other thing we lose by going for 'the best' and 'win at all costs' is club loyalty ... recruiting the best displaces the loyal, this breaks down the team, friendships etc.

A very complex topic, for those of us that love the mini game, the game needs it to be mastered and better understood. It should also be recognised for the immense pleasure it gives 1000s of parents every weekend, not least those that coach, as well as the kids, it is a great family event, provided the energies are channeled and the emotions understood.

OB... you're right, but that doesn't necessarily mean we should encourage that line of his analysis!! Let's point out that he didn't win alone!

Crying when they lose - you have a problem, they definitely need attitudinal adjustment!! Far too much pressure to win, back off.

The 'subbing players and losing' argument is not a one way street, a strong inegrated squad can be one where everyone gets a game, they all feel good about themselves and they all play better as a result. If you bring on a sub once every 3 matches because the star gets injured, it isn't a wonder that he doesn't perform as well as the ones with infinitely more league match experience this season .... the worst get worse .... the best get better .... Nooooo. Give them all a game and get the squad working as a squad.

 

[OB..]

OB... you're right, but that doesn't necessarily mean we should encourage that line of his analysis!! Let's point out that he didn't win alone!

My point was that he does not really care if "his" team won. He just likes scoring goals. He does not see it as a team sport in the way we do, but then it is all very casual at that level.

 

[Rit Hinners]

OB, you ever ask him how many assists he got?

 

[OB..]

OB, you ever ask him how many assists he got?

No, but I doubt if he would know.

From his somewhat incoherent descriptions it sounds like 1841 style rugby: Thomas Hughes had signed off on running with the ball to score a try, but it was illegal to pass to another player.

 

[Rit Hinners]

At his age, I figured that the concept of an assist would be beyond him.

 

[baftabill]

Been looking for some facts around when children can "understand" team sports.
This from the "Dictionary of Psychology"

Cooperative Play
Cooperative Play refers to a play where children plan, assign roles and play together. Cooperative play is goal-oriented and children play in an organized manner toward a common end. Emerges around 36 to 48 months of age and continues through the school years.
Moreover, Cooperative play is a "true Social play" in which children cooperate or assume reciprocal roles while pursing shared goals; play that is organized around a theme, with each child taking on a different role that begins at about two (2) years of age.

Very young children are more sophisticated than they are given credit for.

I think we are lucky in that if you have 50 in an age group you can mix and match to what is appropriate for individuals. We started teaching some of our 7 year olds switches, dummys, and scissors. And some of them got it. We all love being challenged in a 'good' way. ie where we enjoy the experience of learning and applying new things.

One of the core misconceptions of kids is that they see skill as being fixed. That is "He's better than me and it will stay like that for ever." (And many adults still believe this)

If they learn new skills they can learn that they can improve, and that effort leads to reward - enhanced self esteem, not medals.

In fact when I was running the Minis sections I spent a great deal of time trying to decide what we were for. May seem like a stupid question but it could be: "Deliver players to adult rugby" or "Give everyone a good time"
My personal conclusion was: "We aim to enhance the self-esteem of every child who plays rugby"

Everyone should feel better about themselves after joining our club.
That is an unachievable goal. There will always be those who decide rugby is not for them.

But part of that is applying what you have learned - or playing well. In sport the measure of that is scoring.

Finally, I have always felt that being able to lose well is as important as playing well.

 

[OB..]

Cooperative play is surely not the same as sport. My grandchildren (now 4 and 6) often make up role playing games, and have done for a while. That is what I think the quotation refers to. These games are not competitive, whereas sport is. They don't like losing.

 

[L'irlandais]

...Very young children are more sophisticated than they are given credit for...

Hullo,
I go along with that statement. Some folks posting in this discussion, clearly haven't worked with younger players at all.

Here in France, U7 rugby covers two (school) years. So any child who has reached their fifth birthday on the first of January, is elligible from that point on to play. (children are every bit as intelligent as adults, what they lack is expierence.) Last year I had a six year old girl do the half time team talk, and she pointed out to her older team mates that if they run at the defensive line gaps just open up. That after just 7 months of playing the game. A message I failed to get across to many older age groups despite years of coaching. The every ones a winner holds for both mini and midi rugby here in France, but the festivals have a pool stage, followed by semi-finals and finals. All with full agreement of our insurers too.

Much as it pains me (not!) to disagree with the RFU we coach tackling right from this age, just because the powers that be in England are all in agreement in their "2010 doc", (that this is not a good idea,) it doesn't mean that they are right on that point. (Sometimes it good to be this side of the channel.)

ps : I've found kids from Council estates, better at accepting defeat, than many spoilt kids from better-off families.
~shrug~ Downside sometimes is having difficulty controlling their aggression.

 

[gillburt]

What lies at the heart of this is motivation.

A simple theory of motivation is that people are either predominantly intrinsically motivated (IM), or predominantly extrinsicly motivated(IM). (Pedants note: predominantly, not exclusively)

People who are IM, equate EFFORT with performance, judging how well they've done with how hard they tried compared to their potential (i.e. did I do my best). Whilst the result of course has some impact, it allows for people to remain motivated even though they lost. If you try your best, what more could you do. From about 7/8 up to 13 a child's predominant style of motivation can be greatly influenced by a huge range of factors. Much work was done on this from the 1970s onwards. Carol Ames is a good starting point for anyone interested in digging out journals.

People who are EM judge their ability in relation to the outside world. i.e. if they lose they must have played badly, if they win they must have played well.

EMs will tend to do only enough to win and will tend to (over the long term) prefer playing against easier opposition. IMs (over the long term) will want to play their hardest all the time, learn to improve. From a sporting context,whilst EMs undoubtedly exist and there are examples of the highest levels of success, IMs are dominant at the elite level, tend to be more successful and stay in the game longer (less drop out).

It is my learned and researched opinion (degree) that coaching children in a motivational environment (a good one is the TARGET model) that promotes the development of IM tendencies is better for the overall long term development of the person, the player and the sport. It isn't easy, it doesn't happen over night, in fact it takes years to develop. But it works.
Many of the boys from the age of 7 could tell me how many assists they made, how many tackles they made, missed, and so on and so on. Of course, biggest individual smiles were always when they scored, but hell - why not. However, the other factors keep them going and develop their Rugby IQ.

 

[baftabill]

Gilburt, I have read quite a lot about this but years ago now. Dp you know if current theory sees IM as something that can br learned?
Good coaching has always focussed on IM.
Young children from my memory are VERY EM but that changes/can change over time can't it?

 

[gillburt]

Gilburt, I have read quite a lot about this but years ago now. Dp you know if current theory sees IM as something that can br learned?
Good coaching has always focussed on IM.
Young children from my memory are VERY EM but that changes/can change over time can't it?

Absolutely.

Create the correct motivational environment and it makes a big difference. Of course, the child is also impacted by their school, their peers and their parents etc.. but we do what we can with what we can control.

Young children are very EM, but then that goes hand in hand with being ego centric at that age. A lot of the work done in this area worked with children around the 11/12 area. But I've successfully implemented it with 8 year olds onwards - albeit that they don't necessarily have the vocabulary to articulate their thoughts in the same way as an 11/12 year old.

There's no 100% guarantees, but big changes can be made, and amazingly quickly too.

 

[baftabill]

I always felt that the kids responded well to being 'pushed'. In fact don't we all respond well to being pushed? To try things we didn't know we could do?

What I am nervous about is we go down a blind alley with kids. A recent similar situation is the continuing one with not allowing kids to get dirty. Ads tell us bacteria are everywhere and we should sanitise our houses, but this is patent nonsense> kids need to get dirty and build up their immune system.

In sport the parallel is that competition is 'bad'. That excellence makes the less excellent feel bad. And that winning mustn't be brought into the equation until kids are 'ready'. And 'ready' means in many people's eyes when they are quite old.

In my experience this ends up in cloud cuckoo land. I have lost count of the number of times I've heard coaches telling kids that winning and losing doesn't matter.

Problem is, the coach does care. (He is a human)
And, the kids know the coach cares. (Because they are CLEVER)
So, they KNOW he is lying to them.
This is confusing to kids.
The only conclusion can be - in the adult world we all lie about our motivation. Lying is what you have to do.

Good lesson?