No winners, no loosers cont'd

[baftabill]

I have thought about this a great deal. Have watched my lot go from 4 years old to U14. We are a great side and we've won nearly everything. This season we lost a few to school rugby, boarding school and one hissy fit...
We're facing relegation, but the boys are still just as committed.
Winning stuff hasn't made them worse people. I'd argue it's made them better people because they have one thing in their life that has shown them that together they can be great.
Now they are losing, they have perspective and take it with good grace.
Winning is never absolute. We have great rivals locally, one of whom we always beat in the final of the county championship. But, if you look at their website you will see the many things that they have won over the years.

I've watched development sides in London struggle into being and lose game after game. They grow stronger and then one day they win one and they feel great. Winning, in my view is the best feelings you can have. And when you win in a team, it really means something.

Having said that, I think when kids are young they don't necessarily need competitions which produce winners, but I've never seen them do much harm.

 

[Tryer]

Didds, agree with pretty much everything you have said..... however, MoTM and POTY etc can have a place if managed properly and to a set of objectives otherwise they are meaningless......

We have a players player and the boys (u14's now) always have always chosen based around their experiences. If you were looking at just playing ability and contribution in games then they usually are the best players and as coaching team would agree with their choices over the last few years.....

However, we have a set of objectives on how individuals and the team develop and play throughout a season and the coaches POTY and most improved player are selected from these objectives. We record examples throughout the season for the end of season awards so we can justify and remind the players and parents of why they have been awarded.

We no longer do a MOTM but when they were younger it would be given by the coaches to the player who best performed the aspects we had been coaching and wanted them to think about during a game. For example at U11 it could be the player that drew and delivered a try scoring pass in a 2 v 1 situation rather than trying to beat the last man themselves. Another example was for the player that tried to talk/communicate more in organising the defence.... etc. The award was to encourage and recognise behaviour and technique.....

The best award we feel is given for all round contribution to the squad not just during a game........ last year in our CC competition some players had to miss out, the award went to a boy who didn't get into the team yet came to every training session and every match to warm up and encourage the team, it was about attitude and his belief that he had something to offer to help..... he was appreciated by everyone and this had to be recognised..... the less able players (at the moment) still want to be involved and can still receive an award..... it's the best award that we give.... as as you say in the next 12 months he could be the best player we have.......

I hope this isn't taken as me blowing our own trumpet but some ideas for others...... of course people may still not agree with me and that's fine as well......

 

[didds]

Didds, agree with pretty much everything you have said..... however, MoTM and POTY etc can have a place if managed properly and to a set of objectives otherwise they are meaningless......

actually I don;pt have a problem with that, and agree entitrely.

As i said to a fellow coach recently... if we are NOW to pick a PoTY how do we choose between our props who do unsung work and our 10 who scores several tries week in week out? How do we differentiate between the kid who looks as if his parent picks and chooses the weekends he comes along - and oh look they are ALWAYS match weekends, and missed weekends are ALWAYS training - and the kid that turns up week in week out, has played in just about every position going?

In short - what are our criteria, because other wise you are asking a group of people to choose which fruit is the best out of a fruit bowl.

So, in agreement withj you, set oput the criteria for PoTY in SEPTEMBER and let everybody know what they must do to acheive it.

And in MY book that means giving each player three (say) things to develop in the season, and seeing which of them achieve it!

MoM I'd personally rather have a champagne moment - which can be a blistering break and swerve by the "obvious" candidates, or a (currently) maker up of numbers who does something perfectly in a game for the very first time - which could be as simple as taking and giving a pass. I'll accept THIS approach for MoM goes totally against the objective principles set down above for PoTY

didds

 

[Tryer]

Loosing is a state of mind. What is success when coaching a group of kids?? To me it is about facing a challenge as a team and learning to rely on others, accepting their strengths and weaknesses. There is nothing better than watching children encouraging each other, it costs nothing and makes the receiver feel good and make them try even harder.

 

[Davet]

Didds - I think the "champagne moment" notion is top drawer.

I mention it to my son - I'm not involved coaching, he is - with our local U15s

 

[dave_clark]

i remember the two seasons my team did awards. the first season (U10s i think) we gave the player of the year to our hooker. the second season was when our club instigated a youth awards day (U17s) where we voted on player's player, most improved player, and clubman of the year.

player's player ended up being the hooker again (different player).

not rigged in the slightest, honest, but maybe it shows that rugby players and officials are more sensible than we sometimes give them credit for?

 

[The umpire]

Came across an interesting variation of the MOTM from one team we played against, they nominated a MOTM on the other team. Coach said they started it to help make them think about the other team a bit and not just on what they were trying to do when they had the ball.

 

[didds]

not rigged in the slightest, honest, but maybe it shows that rugby players and officials are more sensible than we sometimes give them credit for?

Sadly Dave I think your point is valid... in that only SOME players and officials are more sensible etc... I still see many PoTY awards that get given to the top try scorer/the open side flanker/the goal kicker or other "obvious" candidate, including at senior 1st XV level.

Player's player is also an idea that I embrace, but I have reservations at younger age groups. Not because I don;pt trust the players or that they shouldn't have a democratic process, but I do wonder if at these young age levels it really comes down to a "popularity" contest based around school peer groups,where the kids that may be the only representative of their school have no chance wrt a large group from another school, who may tend to vote for their school mates, rather than necessarily their favoured squad member (if that makes sense) - in other words, the vote may not reflect the squad involvement on Sundays but who they play with Mon-Fri.

didds

 

[didds]

......

 

[didds]

Came across an interesting variation of the MOTM from one team we played against, they nominated a MOTM on the other team. Coach said they started it to help make them think about the other team a bit and not just on what they were trying to do when they had the ball.

Now that is something I do see quite a lot and I know at least one of age groups asks the oppo coaches for a MotM (though I would agree asking the oppo PLAYERS would be a better approach - as long as they can appreciate it SHOULD be more than "who scored all the points").

I must say that maybe subconsiously I am biased... in 30+ years of playing rugby, 99% in the front row, I was MotM ONCE. And that was in NZ! And I have to confess that I can't believe that in 30 years I never deserved it ONCE more! ;-)

didds

 

[Ian_Cook]

The problem I have with a "no winners no losers" policy is that kids who are really competitive may not be being catered for, and we risk losing them from the game.

A friend's daughter was a good case in point. She was a netballer, and a very good one. She played Centre and Wing Attack. By the age of 14 she could start and stop on a sixpence, and throw lighting-bolt passes at will. She also had a great eye for space, and many knowledgeable people in the game were predicting high-level representative honours for her. At the time she was playing, Netball NZ had a "no-score" policy. There were no leagues, no records kept and sometimes, teams that we knew had lost on the scoreboard (because the parents kept score even though they were actively discouraged from doing so) were given awards for "trying hard". The "winners" got nothing.

Suddenly, she gave it up and went snowboarding instead, and she is now a professional snowboarder for a major manufacturer the USA and competes regularly on the X-Games circuit.

When asked about it, she said she'd had enough of training and trying her heart out for no reward.

She was just one of many, many girls that were lost from netball during the time when the governing body had this politically correct bullshit policy, and now, years later, the sport is paying for it. While the NZ netball scene was being run by a bunch of sandal wearing women with long-dangling earrings and number-one haircuts, our counterparts across the Tasman were rewarding excellence, and allowing mediocrity to fall by the wayside. Now, our top level women get their arses kicked just about every time they play Australia.

IMO, a "no winners - no losers" policy can, and does, lead to the punishment of excellence, and the rewarding of mediocrity, and accordingly, we tend to lose the excellent players, and retain the mediocre ones.

 

[SimonSmith]

If I had green, I'd give you some.

Bravo Sir. Bravo.

 

[baftabill]

Can we all agree that not keeping score is insane?

I agree that good players have "rights" too.
They have the right to be pushed to be the very best they can, not be held back by ineffectual 'everybody gets a turn', 'everybody gets a prize thinking'.

I believe the professional view in education is coming round to th idea that our current parenting style where everything our kids do is brilliant, isn't working.

My view is that kids are clever, can tell good from bad, and when they are told that s*** is shinola, come to the obvious conclusion that being adult means talking c*** and everyone lying to everyone else about pretty much anything.

To be specific: the classic coach pre-match talk.
"I don't care if you win or lose, I just want you to have fun"

Kids look back wide-eyed at coach because
1. they want to win
2. they know he wants to win more than life itself.

Kids are confused, and either conclude, their desire to win is bad. BAD KID!
Or, conclude, wanting to win is OK but you have to lie about it in public. BAD WINNING!

This is not what the coach intended me thinks.

 

[Tryer]

I believe that winning is an objective as children feel a lot happier if they come of the pitch having scored more points than the oppo until they get their hotdogs......... but I also believe that we shouldn't be too hung up if they loose, they will have plenty of dissapointments in life and its how they respond to that, with the help of coaches and parents..... and it needs to be put into perspective in that it's only a game....

However, really it's about performing to the best of their ability, if they do that then they will enjoy themselves. There is a caveat of course that the oppo is not so much better that there is never a contest.

As they say, calm seas do not make skillful sailors.

 

[Adam]

Winning and losing should be allowed, it's a good way of preparing children for later in life.

Take applying to university as an example (which I'm going through now). During the process some students receive all offers from their universities, most receive a few offers or they are 'unsuccessful' and some are 'unsuccessful' in their application to all their universities. Sport teaches us how to cope with losing, and how to come back stronger after reassessing your options.

From my perspective, the people who haven't taken part in sport cope with this situation worse than those who have learnt to win, lose, and deal with problems through sport.

Winning and losing is essential to development, preparing them for later in life where not everyone can be a 'winner'.

 

[Davet]

Might be old fashioned - but winning or losing isn't the be all and end all -

By which I mean if you do everything you can do, within the Laws and spirit if the game and get beaten by someone who, within that same ethos is better, then a) That's life, b) work out how to get better.

Kids follow the example set by adults - and many adults want to succeed vicariously through the kids, and want it so badly that they lose any view of the idea that the point of winning is to take pride in the victory. If they feel pride in a victory that was gained by cheating then I just find that rather sad.

 

[Rit Hinners]

With Gridiron football here in the states the athletically frustraited explayer mini-coach has been a bit of a sterotype for quite a while. It's excaberated by the fact that once out of high school/university there is no place for anyone to play except for the less than 1% that make the NFL. It's a "cost prohibitive" sport- all that necessary gear. With no chance to continue playing they naturally turn to coaching children.

At least with rugby you have the chance to continue your playing career well beyond schooldays. That should mitigate how many "little Hitlers" are produced.

 

[didds]

Kids look back wide-eyed at coach because
1. they want to win
2. they know he wants to win more than life itself.

here's one coach that is isn't looking to win especially (though its a nice bonus and the "reason" for playing ie to try and win)! I'd rather my squad plays the best rugby it can and lose, than play poorly and win (probably against a weak team almost be definition).

caveat - I currently coach club mini/midi/youth having given up on self-delusional seniors.

didds

 

[Casey Bee]

caveat - I currently coach club mini/midi/youth having given up on self-delusional seniors.

didds

!!!!!
Not the ones who play one season and know all there is to know about rugby, or who don't train then lose badly, clearly cos the ref is an idiot and the opposition all cheat?!

 

[baftabill]

Didds.

But, if given the choice would your players choose winning or losing?

Simples.