Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SoccerDadx2]

Happy friday the 13th to all,  Please help me out  is 60 + games to much for GU11 . 

just asking , please feel free to respond !!!!

[Vancouver Soccer Dad]

That might be a little high but not too much. My daughter will be playing U11 this year and her team's plan if or about 50 games including summer tournaments, fall league, NWCL, spring league, and challenge cup.

[SoccerDadx2]

thanks ,  the 60 games are as of today  we still have winter classic this wekend any friendlys , spring leauge and then state cups . she will be pushing 70+ . just think that too much for this age group  i may be wrong .

just my 2 cents .

[Islander]

When DD was a U11 I tracked 133 teams.  They averaged 40 matches.  There were four in the 50s, none in the 60s

[SoccerDadx2]

So, They are playing far to many games for this age group , or has times changed that these coaches are pushing them harder and playing alot more games to pad their coaching stats  and club stats .

[Vancouver Soccer Dad]

I would say that 70+ is too much. We're planning for 50 max assuming we do well in summer tournaments, challenge cup, etc. A few "3 and out" tourneys and a short cup run could reduce that to near 40. Even then, we'll still run around 80 practice sessions of 1.5-2 hours. The girls will get lots of touches without playing 70+ games.

[Islander]

One step futher

U12 118 teams average 34 matches
U13 131 teams average 31 matches
U14 149 teams average 29 matches

For each of those three years a couple teams would get to the 60 mark but not much higher.

Does it relate to success?  most often the top 10 to 20 had the most matches every year.  Some of it just because at every tournament (including state) they would get a match or two more than the others.

[Bathos]

I would say 60 is too much for that age, but it depends on the family. 

Also, off topic, how do you keep track of all those games Islander?

[SoccerDadx2]

my self and other parents have being saying way too many games ,  but now we all  know he is a trophy coach and half of the parents will  not let DD play for him nay more .  and what funny about it the DOC has done nothing  well can't really call him an DOC  director of the select programm .

[Dragon]

Don't remember how many my DD played at U11, but at U12 her team played 100 games exactly...

It might of pooped them out, but they did win the state cup lol

So I would let your DD judge if 60-70 games are "Too much"... for some kids it may be too much.....but, for others, they may say; "Only 60?"  LOL LOL

[EWSoccer64]

my self and other parents have being saying way too many games ,  but now we all  know he is a trophy coach and half of the parents will  not let DD play for him nay more .  and what funny about it the DOC has done nothing  well can't really call him an DOC  director of the select programm .

Sixty games?  Seventy games?   Fabulous.  Your team will likely do well at this age and at U-12.  By U-13, half or more of the players will be gone from the team.  By U-15, if the team exists at all, odds are that there will 3 or less of the current roster left on it.     But the coach will proudly display all the trophies and victories on his resume.

What is the aim of your kid, your family, and the members of the team?  Answer those questions and you will know if your team is playing too many games.

[drarcher]

It has been a few years but I remember reading studies done by kinesiologist concerning kids under 12 playing 30+ games a season and the consensus was that it was not recommended for the kids. Most soccer clubs don't want you looking at what professionals in kinesiology say because all the studies will say that kids should cross train and play a multitude of sports/activities under 14/15 years old and start specializing then. All these additional games at young ages add up and are the reason major injuries are taking place at much younger ages. Cross training (or playing many different sports/activities) allows different muscle and join groups time to rest and reduces the chance of repetitive use injuries (This is what all of us did growing up).

That does even touch the psychological side of it and high rate of burn out these kids will see.

A good rule of thumb I have found in youth sports in general is if you suspect something is not right as the parent, there is probably some instinctual things going on that you should listen to. Unfortunately, as the parent we seem to be the only adult who looks long term for our kids, these clubs for the most part are all short sited.

Finally, if a club tries to tell you different see if any of them have a PhD in Kinesiology or Sports Psychology? Then go find answers from those who do. 

[tripleplay]

All these additional games at young ages add up and are the reason major injuries are taking place at much younger ages. Cross training (or playing many different sports/activities) allows different muscle and join groups time to rest and reduces the chance of repetitive use injuries (This is what all of us did growing up).

But this is not what the vast majority of world class athletes in skill sports did. They repeated their sport-specific movements over and over and over and got really good at them.

It's not hard at all to find people (usually from other countries) who played soccer for hours every day when growing up - say 500-1000 hours per year. Sure - not everyone could do that and most wouldn't want to, but I think it refutes the idea that soccer is some dangerous activity that children have to be protected from.

[EWSoccer64]

The doctor of bows and arrows approaches the subject differently than I did, but +1 for him for stating the below.  He is right.  And is supported by innumerable posts over the years.

It has been a few years but I remember reading studies done by kinesiologist concerning kids under 12 playing 30+ games a season and the consensus was that it was not recommended for the kids. Most soccer clubs don't want you looking at what professionals in kinesiology say because all the studies will say that kids should cross train and play a multitude of sports/activities under 14/15 years old and start specializing then. All these additional games at young ages add up and are the reason major injuries are taking place at much younger ages. Cross training (or playing many different sports/activities) allows different muscle and join groups time to rest and reduces the chance of repetitive use injuries (This is what all of us did growing up).

That does even touch the psychological side of it and high rate of burn out these kids will see.

A good rule of thumb I have found in youth sports in general is if you suspect something is not right as the parent, there is probably some instinctual things going on that you should listen to. Unfortunately, as the parent we seem to be the only adult who looks long term for our kids, these clubs for the most part are all short sited.

Finally, if a club tries to tell you different see if any of them have a PhD in Kinesiology or Sports Psychology? Then go find answers from those who do. 

[EWSoccer64]

It is so refreshing to see people like TP post, people who are convinced that their kid is going to be the next Mia Hamm or Leo Messi.  Or the next Igor Ivanski, the female weightlifter with a moustache and sideburns.   That the only important thing thing is that they become the "world class athlete".  That nothing else is of any concern.  And it is nice to know that according to TP there is no negatives when someone devotes their entire childhood to playing a single sport and then they do not achieve success in it.......

All these additional games at young ages add up and are the reason major injuries are taking place at much younger ages. Cross training (or playing many different sports/activities) allows different muscle and join groups time to rest and reduces the chance of repetitive use injuries (This is what all of us did growing up).

But this is not what the vast majority of world class athletes in skill sports did. They repeated their sport-specific movements over and over and over and got really good at them.

It's not hard at all to find people (usually from other countries) who played soccer for hours every day when growing up - say 500-1000 hours per year. Sure - not everyone could do that and most wouldn't want to, but I think it refutes the idea that soccer is some dangerous activity that children have to be protected from.

[tripleplay]

I did not say that at all. Merely pointing out that the "too much soccer is bad for your health" argument is dubious. I'd estimate that the world norm is practicing 3x per week and playing 1x, with the elites at older ages bumping practice up to 4x or 5x. And informal play on top of that.

Games exist to add fun and focus. In my view a coach who is trying to squeeze in some extra practices is to be preferred over one trying to squeeze in extra tournaments. But you do need those games to boost interest. Too high is when the kids aren't looking forward to them. And games drive up the cost,especially when travel is involved, so that is another factor.

[ThiKuBC]

60 games for a 10 year old? Are these coaches mad!?!? my goodness. But I guess these guys know better than USSF, English FA, DFB etc...60 games!

A Look at the Effects of Over-Scheduling Kids: http://www.hyper-parenting.com/sioux.htm

1. The kids need rest and recovery MORE than any adult does and adults are limited at the elite levels to 45-60ish games other than the rare team that makes the final of the Champs league, makes a league cup run, or plays EVERY game for their English nPowership/L1/L2 46 game season (which none will).
2. Kids need socialization AWAY from sport
3. They need family time
4. They need time for school work (yes, 10 years olds get hw)

Kids need more rest, more sleep despite appearing to have endless energy and elastic muscle fibres and tendons.

These tournaments are becoming more and more clearly about money, and trophies. I have now set my own team rule that if we enter a tournament each kid is getting a rest game out of the guaranteed games. If playing 4 games they get a full rest game. If playing 3 games than in one of the 3 games they will get minimal minutes (maybe 10-15 minutes). The largest squad possible will be brought, and ideally a back-up GK to give that player a rest as well. (back-up could be a regular outfield player of course).

60 games!!

@EW - totally correct. The kids will quit. Way too many games.

@Dragon - Let the kid decide? Yer taking the piss. The role of the parent is to make these decisions for their 10 year old. And hopefully the parent doesn't think "we will go do every sport, every day" etc etc.

The same thing applies to the math prodigy, or the science wiz. The kids need time to be kids.

3 practices, 1 game is perfectly fine for 10 years old - and for some kids it'll be too much. 4-5 when they age is fine if they are competitive.

[drarcher]

All these additional games at young ages add up and are the reason major injuries are taking place at much younger ages. Cross training (or playing many different sports/activities) allows different muscle and join groups time to rest and reduces the chance of repetitive use injuries (This is what all of us did growing up).

But this is not what the vast majority of world class athletes in skill sports did. They repeated their sport-specific movements over and over and over and got really good at them.

It's not hard at all to find people (usually from other countries) who played soccer for hours every day when growing up - say 500-1000 hours per year. Sure - not everyone could do that and most wouldn't want to, but I think it refutes the idea that soccer is some dangerous activity that children have to be protected from.

I think you are pulling this out of thin air. Having spent considerable time in some of these "other countries" I would disagree. My kids have grown up in one of these cultures and they did play soccer before school and at lunch and after school and on weekends but there is a big difference between the pick up soccer they played and organized soccer. I'd watch them play after school in games as big as 30+ a side.

So yes, they play a lot more soccer but what Americans fail to recognize is that the free play of soccer in other countries is not the same as additional regimented practice and organized games here.

Also, many of the professional players I am aware of in the UK played rugby and/or cricket growing up. I think people have a hard time dealing with the fact that they are just not as good at soccer (or any sport) as professionals so they conjur up these ideas that it is because those athletes dedicated themselves to that one sport. This allows them to think if they did the same thing they would be professional but it is just not true. Most pro athletes could be pro in more than one sport.

[tripleplay]

All these additional games at young ages add up and are the reason major injuries are taking place at much younger ages. Cross training (or playing many different sports/activities) allows different muscle and join groups time to rest and reduces the chance of repetitive use injuries (This is what all of us did growing up).

But this is not what the vast majority of world class athletes in skill sports did. They repeated their sport-specific movements over and over and over and got really good at them.

It's not hard at all to find people (usually from other countries) who played soccer for hours every day when growing up - say 500-1000 hours per year. Sure - not everyone could do that and most wouldn't want to, but I think it refutes the idea that soccer is some dangerous activity that children have to be protected from.

I think you are pulling this out of thin air. Having spent considerable time in some of these "other countries" I would disagree. My kids have grown up in one of these cultures and they did play soccer before school and at lunch and after school and on weekends but there is a big difference between the pick up soccer they played and organized soccer. I'd watch them play after school in games as big as 30+ a side.

So yes, they play a lot more soccer but what Americans fail to recognize is that the free play of soccer in other countries is not the same as additional regimented practice and organized games here.

Also, many of the professional players I am aware of in the UK played rugby and/or cricket growing up. I think people have a hard time dealing with the fact that they are just not as good at soccer (or any sport) as professionals so they conjur up these ideas that it is because those athletes dedicated themselves to that one sport. This allows them to think if they did the same thing they would be professional but it is just not true. Most pro athletes could be pro in more than one sport.

The 3x is from personal experience. The 4-5x comes from discussions about how the European elite strive for a 5:1 practice to game ratio.

CDC recommends a minimum of 1 hour per day of physical activity for kids, i.e. 365 hours per year. I suspect that there are a couple of Bernie James teams that meet that with organized soccer alone, but the vast majority of year-round Washington youth soccer players are going to be in the 150-300 hour range, with seasonal rec more like 50. So I agree that the need to cross-train is there to meet just the minimum activity recommendations. But the idea that we have large numbers of people playing unhealthily high levels of soccer is really far-fetched. Soccer tends to have low hour levels compared to individual sports, and American soccer has low soccer hours compared to other countries' soccer.

The original query was about games, which is a different matter. Part of the problem is that we make a huge deal out of our games (hour travel each way, hour warm up, and pretty soon you've spent a day for <60 minutes of playing time). That's where the need to limit games comes from. One of the appeals of indoor soccer is that it is "show up and play". It's a miniscule minority that are concerned about optimal development -- a far bigger fraction just want to have fun.

[drarcher]

You can keep giving your opinion or look at the experts.

Are you aware that Manchester United's U18 academy team plays a maximum of 30 games per year and takes 3 months off?

The U.S. Soccer Federation published their guide called "Best Practices for Coaching Soccer in the United States" (look it up) they recommend that U10 players play a maximum of 20 games per calendar year with a ratio of 2 to 3 practices per match. That is 40 to 60 practices on top of 20 games per calendar year. They also recommend that parents discourage their children from specializing in soccer or one sport. No more than 1 hour travel is recommended and no state cups/tournaments.

For U12 up it to 30 matches with the same ratio of practices and kids are strongly encouraged to take a break during the year from "organized" soccer. Again organized and street soccer are completely different and one should not be substituted for the other which is what people are trying to do.

U14 is the same as U12 and an extended break from organized soccer is recommended.

U16 and U17 are the same but now the break is to prevent burnout.

So is 60 games too much? The answer is yes for any youth group. 60 games probably means that they are also practicing too much and not taking enough breaks.

You can download the best practices guide here: http://www.ussoccer.com/coaches/resources.aspx

[tripleplay]

FYI, "Best Practices" has been superseded by the Reyna coaching manual as USYS official policy and they conflict in many, many places.

But even using your older source, The key thing is the ratio. A U11 should have 2-3 practices per match. So for a team that has 120+ practices, 60 games would not be unreasonable.

And not all people are the same. The point is that formal soccer is well below the minimum recommended physical activity, not maximum.

[EWSoccer64]

>>>>And not all people are the same. The point is that formal soccer is well below the minimum recommended physical activity, not maximum.<<<

Ah, TP strikes again.  When he loses an arguement, he pretends it was about something else.
TP, this debate was about how much soccer is too much and at what age.

BTW - TP, using your logic, one should not drink water because it does not have enough vitamin C in it.   

[tripleplay]

The U.S. Soccer Federation published their guide called "Best Practices for Coaching Soccer in the United States" (look it up) they recommend that U10 players play a maximum of 20 games per calendar year with a ratio of 2 to 3 practices per match. That is 40 to 60 practices on top of 20 games per calendar year.

Fyi-The current US Soccer recommendation (Reyna technical coaching guide) for this age (u9 too I believe) is 3 90min practices per week for 9 months of the year. That is 117 practices in 175 hrs. Using your ratio, that is 39-58 games.

I think your health angle is completely bogus. The real issue is whether the games are fun and what kind of overhead they involve.

[drarcher]

The U.S. Soccer Federation published their guide called "Best Practices for Coaching Soccer in the United States" (look it up) they recommend that U10 players play a maximum of 20 games per calendar year with a ratio of 2 to 3 practices per match. That is 40 to 60 practices on top of 20 games per calendar year.

Fyi-The current US Soccer recommendation (Reyna technical coaching guide) for this age (u9 too I believe) is 3 90min practices per week for 9 months of the year. That is 117 practices in 175 hrs. Using your ratio, that is 39-58 games.

I think your health angle is completely bogus. The real issue is whether the games are fun and what kind of overhead they involve.

I am not as inclined to say Reyna (who is a soccer player) knows more about youth development physically and mentally than people who have dedicated their lives to that specific cause, but I will go with it.

If you look at his guidelines he calls for teams to practice three times a week for 90 minutes with one 60 minute game on the weekend. While he proposes 9 months of soccer training, he only proposes two 12 week macrocycles of competition per calender year. That means his plan calls for 24 games a year.

You can't take pieces from one plan and pieces from another and put them together to say what you want them to say.

[tripleplay]

I am not as inclined to say Reyna (who is a soccer player) knows more about youth development physically and mentally than people who have dedicated their lives to that specific cause, but I will go with it.

If you look at his guidelines he calls for teams to practice three times a week for 90 minutes with one 60 minute game on the weekend. While he proposes 9 months of soccer training, he only proposes two 12 week macrocycles of competition per calender year. That means his plan calls for 24 games a year.

You can't take pieces from one plan and pieces from another and put them together to say what you want them to say.

The 24 would be a minimum number of games, not a maximum number of games. The maximum recommended (which in no way whatsoever implies that more is unhealthy) is derived from longstanding recommendation practice-to-game ratios. No one with any experience with soccer at all would consider playing 25 games in a year dangerous! And I don't bring up the modern recommendations because I believe they are better, but to show that recommendations such as these which change dramatically from year to year and organization to organization are the result of whim and fashion, not science. The CDC recommends a minimum of 365 hours of physical activity per hour. An argument that an amount well below the minimums is unhealthy is not tenable.

[ThiKuBC]

I see the article here from the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/everyone/guidelines/children.html

Anyway, although 25 games may or may not be the "minimum" (and by the way, where in the standards you are quoting is the word "minimum"??) the discussion is really about 60 games. 60 games is exceptionally too much. It's too much for adults, so it must be too much for kids.

1. How long is this u11 season in which the 60 games are being played?
2. How many of these 60 games are included in tournaments? Are they in one league or multiple leagues (shouldn't happen)? How many regular league games are they playing in a weekend (ie, full games!)?
3. How often are tournaments on consecutive weekends?
4. How often, after the tournaments, are these girls practising in between?
5. When a tournament ends how much, if any, rest days are the kids getting?
6. If tournaments are excessive why is the club not monitoring this and restricting the number of tournaments due to the increasing knowledge we are gaining of the physical harm short and long-term that tournaments can cause.
7. Finally - if the kids are being given a week of rest b/w tournaments for recovery (good) how does the coach satisfy the req'd 3:1 game to training ratio? Which of course you can't when tourneys are a week apart. You'd have to train 12 out of 14 days in advance of a tournament if the tournament was 4 games.

Some tournament nutrition ideas: http://www.soccer-tournament-guide.com/SoccerTournamentNutrition.html

[futbol123]

These tournaments are becoming more and more clearly about money, and trophies. I have now set my own team rule that if we enter a tournament each kid is getting a rest game out of the guaranteed games. If playing 4 games they get a full rest game. If playing 3 games than in one of the 3 games they will get minimal minutes (maybe 10-15 minutes). The largest squad possible will be brought, and ideally a back-up GK to give that player a rest as well. (back-up could be a regular outfield player of course).

Is this your rule for every tournament no matter what? There will be a lot of kids that won't want to play for you. Nothing wrong with bringing in extra kids to give everyone a rest but to say that each kid WILL sit out a game is going a bit far. Kids can play 4 games in one weekend as long as it's not on a regular basis. I know my DD would not be happy being told she had to sit out because you thought it was best for her.

[ThiKuBC]

Well first of all we enter little to no tournaments, second we'd discuss it as a group (coach, parents, players) first and make a decision.

So I should say it's not "hard and fast" as a rule. Probably just limit playing time in 1 game for each. I did this recently in a 1 day 3 game tournament, and every player was thrilled to have a rest game where they played very little in the game. At the end of the day they were fresh(er) and finished with a flurry. All players and parents were aware they'd have a game with minimal minutes. No complaints. The parents reported their kids were happier the next day, recovered quickly, and eager to get back to training whereas when they play many full games (or extended minutes if not full) over a weekend the kids weren't eager to get back to practice for a good while after.

Kids CAN play 4 games in a weekend, sure. But is it good for their bodies? No. That's been proven. Even playing one game every day over 4 days isn't good for kids. But I realize the restrictions we all face and thus tournaments do become somewhat of a necessity.

[tripleplay]

Drarcher seems ok with US Soccer sanctioned 175 hours of  training per year and 24 hours of games. Or about 200 hours per year. So the issue is whether adding another 40 hours per year as games is unhealthy.

For comparison: “Elite gymnasts must train six days a week for five to seven hours a day. To reach this level you should be training many hours from a young age: 12-18 hours-per-week at ages 6-7, 20-25 hours-per-week at ages 8-9, 25-30 hours-per-week at ages 10-12, and 30-40 hours-per-week by age 13.”

Now let’s say we have an 11-year-old girl doing gymnastics, but not on the elite track, so she is only doing 20 hrs/week for 50 weeks per year, or 1000 hours/year.

Now, nobody would deny that gymnasts are very tough. But are soccer players really so delicate, fragile and weak that moving from 20% of a gymnast’s load to 24% is going to wipe them out and send them to the hospital? Doesn’t it stand to reason that at least some people who opt to play soccer are tough enough to survive 1/4th of what a gymnast does?

Games have a bad rep because: (1) they can be expensive with huge overheads especially in Washington where we have huge travel mandates, and (2) they are allegedly less developmentally efficient than some perfect super drill just imported from Camp Nou. We have lost sight of the fact that playing soccer games can and should be fun.

[drarcher]

I think you have lost sight of the fact that youth soccer should be about the kids first. No need in arguing with you as you are set in your ways. Even when evidence is given to you, you add words or change examples to make it work for you. I feel bad for your kids and hope you are not responsible for any kids outside of your own family.

For the record, elite gymnasts have some of the most severe issues recorded of over training as youths. Most of them have major physiological issues in their late teens/early 20's and many girls report drastically late onset of puberty along with stunted growth and development. I am sure you will find another example. sigh.

As for the original poster of this thread. Don't listen to me and please don't listen to Mr. "I could care less about the kids well being, give me your money and win for the club." Go finds experts, not soccer guys, but doctors or kinesiologist and sports psychologist. They will give you answers that are best for your kid, not best for the team or the club. Then, follow the experts advice and demand rest for your kids if needed. I have told clubs that my kids were unavailable because they needed to rest. That is my job as their parent.