No winners, no loosers cont'd

[TigerCraig]

Hey Tiger, I'll be up there next year for the Rugby Masters. Will you be involved?

Yep. Hopefully my club (Dee Why) will have a stand alone team. If not we will join up wth another club to enter. We only reformed an oldies team this year and its been great. pretty much all the fellas have boys playing for the club.

I'm off to an end of season carnival on the north coast next weekend - may be a little warm !!

 

[TigerCraig]

Playing in leagues places an emphasis on results, on winning over development which is why a structured season must contain friendlies or development fixtures in addition to league matches.

Clubs having multiple teams in the one age group solves most problems. Boys play in the right team, against other teams of similar skill level.

The concept of "friendlies" is a tough one here. I organised one this year as my boys' team had a bye one week. I checked the draw, rang around other clubs who had teams in the same age group in other divisions who also had byes and finally got a game. The overwhelming response from the parents (and half the boys) was "why, whats the point?". When I contacted the union to get clearance their response was similar.

I remember a few years ago the Australian soccer coach ( I think it was Guus Hiddink at the time ) feeling the need to explain on one of the TV sports show the concept of an "international friendly" and that teh result wasn't important.

 

[Donal1988]

Tiger I think internationally you are dealing with professional athletes who work in the entertainment industry. I agree that an "international friendly" is a bit oxymoronic.

To be honest I cant believe that parents and coaches wouldnt simply play a game just because there was no medal or cup at the end of it. Makes me glad Ireland are trialling this. The day that the people who run kids sports wouldnt schedule a game as there was no "point" is a sad day no?

I mean thats like saying if you arent aspiring to be a world class referee then why bother?

 

[TigerCraig]

To be honest I cant believe that parents and coaches wouldnt simply play a game just because there was no medal or cup at the end of it. Makes me glad Ireland are trialling this. The day that the people who run kids sports wouldnt schedule a game as there was no "point" is a sad day no?

I mean thats like saying if you arent aspiring to be a world class referee then why bother?

Thats Australian sport. Its not just the parents and coaches, it's the boys. It's very hard to get them to play properly in a non-competition game.

I play a bit of Primary Club cricket and Golden Oldies rugby - both of which are fixture rather than league based, and my son and daughter both ask why I bother.

I have actually known a fair few officials in various sports who have dropped out once they weren't on a top panel.

 

[SimonSmith]

And yet, proportionate to population base, you could argue that Australia over achieves.

Coincidence?

 

[PaulDG]

And yet, proportionate to population base, you could argue that Australia over achieves.

Coincidence?

It may not be a coincidence, but what works with their cultural background wouldn't work everywhere else.

Competition, competition, competition has been tried here - and we know it doesn't work. It puts children off sport here. Perhaps that's a shame, but it's the way things are.

 

[SimonSmith]

I think that that could be contested to a degree, not least because I'm not sure it ever really has been tried.

The diminution of the importance in school sports has without doubt helped to 'create this difficulty, but I remain unconvinced that it wouldn't work. What English - and British sport - could do with a few more players like Martin Johnston and Dallaglio, or Fin Calder from a different era. I suspect that the concept of diminishing the importance of competition would not wash well with them.

Look at any really successful sporting team - guaranteed to have some mentally very tough players. It's easier for them to rise where the culture encourages a desire to win and beat the opposition.

 

[Davet]

The Duke of Wellington always maintained that the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton.

If so, it must have been a very different place from what it became later when all that mattered was to play up and play the game, and where taking part was as important as winning.

 

[Donal1988]

As I have said Simon I think that people have drawn incredible logic here and it all seems a bit far fetched to me.

Some people here act as if Ireland has abolished competitive sport. When you turn 12 you deal in victory and defeat weekly. Up until aged 11 you have no knockout tournaments. It is apparently based on the Ajax soccer coaching school of thought.

But competition still exists in sport most noticeably the Provincial Junior (U15) and Senior (U18) Schools Cups. These games are played in front of up to thousands of people and every game is a knockout. These tournaments are the benchmark for Irish sport and top officials (Clancy, Rolland, Lewis etc) officiate them and this is and always has been our bench mark.

We have just taken on an initative to try boost rugby playing numbers in a country battling Hurling, Gaelic Football and Soccer.

 

[TigerCraig]

It may not be a coincidence, but what works with their cultural background wouldn't work everywhere else.

Competition, competition, competition has been tried here - and we know it doesn't work. It puts children off sport here. Perhaps that's a shame, but it's the way things are.

As I said before, the essence is good grading. You can't have successful competition without grading.

Being an E grader bashed up by an A grader is no fun for anyone. Being an E grader playing with and against other E graders is fine - competitive and fun.

Thats also why we generally do not have knockout cups.

Another example of the "friendly game" concept not working here happened a couple of weeks ago in my sons cricket (Under 12 First Division). In a limited overs game we passed their score comfortably - only 4 wickets down with about 17 overs in hand.

I suggested to the other coach that we keep on playing so he could give the rest of his boys who hadn't bowled a go, and I could give my boys who hadn't batted a go. Seemed a great idea. It lasted about 3 overs !!

Their bowlers were mucking about - right handers trying to bowl left handed, they were not chasing the ball in the field etc, while my boys, rather than take the opportunity for batting practice just messed about.

 

[SimonSmith]

Donal - It wasn't an attack on Ireland's stance on this, and I apologize if it came off as that.

I do believe - and you-all can accuse me of being a reactionary old stick in the mud - that many of the "no losers" philosophies, whilst well intentioned, are ultimately harmful.

I only have anecdotal evidence - workplace AND sport - but enough to support my theory that trying to eclipse the element of competition is both foolish and counterproductive.

Gen Y are...challenging. Gen Z may force me to drink.

 

[Dickie E]

what's after Gen Z? :chin:

 

[Donal1988]

No Offense taken Simon just a different point of view. I just feel that people are drawing way too many links between removing knockout competitions up until age 11 and the long term demise of competition in Irish sport, with little to back it up save what coaches say.

TigerCraig you said that your boys had no interest in playing the friendly cricket game to practice. They should have got a bollocking and told that these games decide who plays come the cup/shield. Nothing means the games have to be passive.

 

[OB..]

When I started playing rugby, all school and club games were "friendlies". There were no cups, no league tables. Even the 5N did not have a formal table - they delayed that until there was an actual trophy.

I do not remember matches as being uncompetitive - we still wanted to win.

By contrast, when my son started rugby at grammar school, the first year was serious and competitive, but thereafter the masters were only interested in the school teams. House matches became farcical as the players just started mucking around and nobody in charge cared.

My conclusion is that the existence of a competitive structure is not in itself the thing that matters, but lack of one if you are used to it can matter a lot. The Irish concept appears sound enough for youngsters. In the 1980s my U10s played with just as much determination in Friendlies as they did in the occasional tournament.

 

[TigerCraig]

TigerCraig you said that your boys had no interest in playing the friendly cricket game to practice. They should have got a bollocking and told that these games decide who plays come the cup/shield. Nothing means the games have to be passive.

Kids know that they have passed the winning score and the scorebook has been closed.

Actually my son would have been happy to bat on - he was 32 not out at the time, but I retired him to give the other boys a bat. It's hard for a batsman to give a toss when the bowlers and fielders aren't trying though.

On OB's point. We have a Harlequins team in our union. I was explaining the background and the reason for the unusual jersey design and letters rather than numbers to my boy. This led to discussion of English rugby and he asked me which teams had won the most premierships. The difficulty in trying to explain that there were no premierships or leagues in England until relatively recently led to a stunned, mouth opened look.

 

[Davet]

there were no premierships or leagues in England until relatively recently

However, that didn't mean there weren't competitive groups. Fixture secretaries knew whom they competed against, and whilst the odd new fixture may have been tried it would only be after the newcomer had proved them selves by beating "so-and-so", and "that lot". If you weren't up to it you be offered a game against the 2nds (or 3rds), if that went well for you, and other results followd then maybe next season you may get a go. Conversley, if you started to get too easy to beat then others would maybe drop you play vs their seconds, or regret that they could not accomodate you this year.

The avoidance of being on the end of such an assessment provides a strong competitive urge even though tne game is a "friendly".

If you want to invoke a truly competitive spirit then tell someone that "Actually, you know, I don't think it would be fair on your boys, just at the moment. Our 3rds are short of a fixture though - if you're up for it?" Say that in a clipped "Brit" accent, to - oh, just for fun, say a Colonial... and see if a competitive spirit is not fully engendered...

 

[Taff]

.... We have a Harlequins team in our union. I was explaining the background and the reason for the unusual jersey design and letters rather than numbers to my boy.

I apologise for the hijack, but if you have time can you explain it to me. :chin: Genuine question BTW - I've often wondered about it.

 

[didds]

Trouble is, too many kids don't have Dads.

including those that do (and mothers as well).

parents who's role modelling is based on 999 channels of drivel on a 72 inch plasma wide screen TV & microwave ready meals (obvious caveats through health etc notwithstanding)

didds

.

 

[didds]

OK... here's my 2p on several of the areas touched on here, as a player of RU for 30+ years, decent-ish level of cricket for 10, and coach of RU for 10 years in mini/midi/youth/senior, male/female, club/county/regional.

* "no winners": I have no problems with winners and losers. What I have an issue with, especially at the mini/midi years ( up to and including U12 in England) is coaches/management that see the winning as the sole reason for running a squad and bollix to the development. Some squads can easily win many of their tournaments by basing their mini/midi game around the big/quick kids who score lots of points. Nobody gets developed, so the big/quick kids do well 'cos they are naturally big/quick - but one day they get found out and have not the skills to now move up a notch. The not big/not quick kids don;t get developed as they are there to make the numbers up and have no particular involvement anyway - so they either leave or just become also rans for ever, fuelled by passion. Today's slow, lumpy U7 MIGHT be your 1st XV number 8 in 15 years time - but he won;t be if you don;t develop him to be able to do the basics spot on, and develop himself into a decent all round player. If you're lucky, he may be your 3rd XV prop - if he stays in the game.

So - have winners ... but because the team can win by playing rugby not because it has two players that are relatively outstanding.


*move to county: Those kids that maybe feel a bit naffed off cos they get subbed off even though they are the better players, at club level? At least around these parts, district and county squads start at U13. So those more talented individuals will get plenty of opportunity to shine in an "higher" arena so (IMO natch) what's the beef with only getting half a club game? Next week they are playing Cornwall!

*MoM, POTY : While we're here... man of the match/ player of the year/ At mini/midi levels? meaningless - I'll wager most squads could tell you who will likely "get" PoTY on Sept 1st. How does this help a player develop. Wouldn't it be better if ALL players got a breakdown of what they've done best this season, and what they can use as a focus to develop/improve next year? [ Readers of Dan Cottrell's "Rugby Coach Weekly" will very shortly see my fuller take on this in issue 151 ]

* primary teachers : intresting chat with a friend at the weekend that works in primary education. There is a perceived lack of male primary teachers ; but with a (I am told) highest likely salary of less than 30K as a teacher with added salary points, the social structure in the UK often means (as I believe OB said) male teachers move onto headships to move the breadwinning ability higher.

* mercy finishes. I have long proposed that there is little benefit in ANY match progressing past a 50 point margin, whether U10, U15 or senior 1st XV. The point has been made, there won't be a come back of any meaningful sort (a couple of minor caveats maybe). The side that is now cruising to a victory are likely IME to actually start playing poorer rugby as everybody tries to score from 60m out and structure falls apart. The side that is getting stuffed is unlikely to ever compete by definition so what are they learning except how to continue to miss tackles and stand underneath the crossbar. Its a meaningless procedure.

Summary - winning is fine, we play an invasion game. Meaningless winning is pointless. "Winning is everything" is a retrograde focus. The last point may well not feature in the young players' mind - but may well do in those that take responsibility for their development.

Ask Olly Redman about that 3rd point.

didds

didds

 

[didds]

Oh - just a pertinent (?) thought... I reffed at a schools tag festival today where there was ranking from 1 to 13 in the A festival, and 1 -8 (IIRC) in the B festival.

Not ONE child AIUI had any problems with the results of a game, or their team's position in the overall results.

A few adults did.

didds