Re-evaluating Small Sided Games

Short-Sided Recreational Soccer

---

I have long thought that the short-sided game should be re-evaluated.

Although I have years playing/coaching , blah, blah, blah ... which hardly makes my qualified (Since most soccer conversations that I have with people, and the first thing that is said is: "I played for seven years and in high school, and I think that ... " is usually followed by some ancient ideas or rule interpretations that have long since changed.

Anyway ... I have contributed the most to the game as a referee. Although I am qualified and capable of handling a variety of game levels, I have always enjoyed youth rec soccer. It allows me to take a teaching/referee role that I do not get to use in "competetive" matches. Not to mention that youth players also deserve a qualified and experienced referee.

Why I dislike short-sided:

1). No true regulation of field sizes. Some fields are so small that the bulk of the field is penalty area. Others are near regulation size (although these are the exeption, not the rule - try to play 8 on 8 on a reg field)

2). Players are not forced to "endure" during a match on undersized fields, so it's always full-speed, full-on competition between players - in a very small area. I think that this promotes injury and agressive play.

3). Coaches and spectators are too close to play, which ruins the player experience by shouting continuous instructions at every second of the match. The players are not ever given the chance to make a decision on his/her own, instead they are overwhelmed with instructions (many of which are incorrect). Part of the experience of play is to make mistakes, and learn from them. As an adult, I wouldn't want to be in the center of a hundred people who are constantly yelling instructions at me.

... as a sideline ... when I took a coaching seminar many years ago, an instructor put it this way ... If you went to a Broadway play, and during the entire performance the director was yelling instructions and lines to the cast onstage, would it be an enjoyable experience ? Rehersal is the time for "instruction". The performance is the time to demonstrate what you learned and rehearsal.

4). When a team is clearly dominating a match, a short sided match should end. Everyone has an idea of what is dominating, but what good does continuing do ? One team holds back and plays in a way that makes no sense to young players on the winning team, and the losing team continues to be demoralized by being the unable to score even when the other team is just passing the ball around.

A well meaning youth coach will instruct his team to stay in the defensive end and only "boot" the ball out. (Anyone who believes that this is acceptable clearly needs to re-evaluate). Now all of the players are on one side of a way-too-small field. Why would any coach or club want to risk injury by putting all of the players in a hostile and undersized area for a match that is clearly over.

5). Short-sided does not improve quality touches. Yes, maybe each player touches the ball more, but many of these games are as fast as the new NHL. The field is too small, there is no space, and other players are right on you before the ball is even trapped. This speed of play does not allow young players opportunity to make choices or handle the ball. I don't think that older, skilled players could keep the pace of many S/S games. This also promotes a "kick and run" style of play, and does not allow for quailty play on the ball.


Does anyone share my dislike for short-sided games ? I think that there are reasonable modifications that could assist young players, but short-sided is not the answer.

Full Discusion