Put Me In Charge

If you enjoy my content and want to express gratitude, I would be so happy if you made a contribution towards my Argentina trip in the summer of 2021. The plan is to go there for four weeks and look at everything football, development, coaching, and culture. Any amount helps. I won't be upset if you ignore this message, as I produce this content purely for the enjoyment of it. Here is the link: http://fnd.us/c1en5f?ref=sh_98yL48

I think there’s a better way for us to do football. All of us. I have seen a lot that goes well, and a lot more that goes wrong. Much of what we do has to adapt or change. Here, I have taken many different elements, and fused them together into something which I think is an adaptable template, that works best for players, rather than profit making clubs. Some of the pure greed and total disregard towards the child that I have observed in the United States is obscene. I believe people here are numb to it because they lack a wider perspective. For them, this is how it is done in their other sports, and of course, the mindset is if you’re not shelling out a fortune, you definitely won’t be improving as a player. In the US, Coach is God, and if coach wants $100 per hour to train my kid to do push-ups, toe-taps, and stepovers, then the parents will pay it.

It is also my belief that the US has failed in its attempt to work out the heading issue surrounding young players. Banning heading altogether was a short sighted knee-jerk reaction. If you ban a fundamental element of the game, without manipulating the constraints of the game that cause such an element to frequently occur, you’re doing a massive disservice to your players. Why ban heading, if you are still going to play on long pitches, allow goal kicks, throw-ins, corners, and drop-kicks? Natural, unopposed restarts, where the advantage is often gained if the ball is played aerially. What this has led to is a bunch of older kids that cannot head to save their lives, and a bunch of younger kids that attack aerial balls with a varying assortment of flying limbs. A kid may have been kung-fu kicked in the face, or elbowed in the head, but at least they didn’t head the ball.

It’s also important to remember that at least 95% of coaches within American grassroots are complete dumbasses. They honestly are. Some are nice people, but most are clueless. It was also believed that by banning heading, teams would switch to a more possession based style, which is more developmentally appropriate. What we are seeing now is coaches encouraging their teams to go long more frequently, as it can’t be headed away. I see many kids will chest the ball from a long boot from the keeper, only for it to then be stolen by the opposition. Win the knock-downs, get the second balls, or just gamble for flick-ons or missed balls altogether. The brave defender jumps up and does very well to control with the chest, only for the game to punish them by having the nearby opponent steal it. These are not situations where a coach would want a player to bring the ball down, because a ball travelling forty or fifty yards in the air allows for opponents to read this, and then press whoever might be the receiver. What are your choices as a defender attempting to win a ball from a goal kick? Control it, and risk it being stolen by the opponent, or let it go, and hope your recovering defender gets to the ball before the striker? Any coach who wants to win at all costs will just be shelling the ball forward here. Imagine playing a Pulis or Allardyce team, but not being allowed to head it. How could you win?

I’m going to summarise my thoughts with a table, and then discuss parts of it later, going into more detail. Essentially, I think many countries go too big too soon. We see the adult 11v11 game, and want to get there as quick as possible. As a general rule of thumb, go age minus four to determine the number of players there should be on each team. Another rule is that if the goalkeeper cannot touch the crossbar, the goals are too big for them. Football, but particularly on the girls’ side, between U11 and U16, is full of keepers too short for their goal. All you have to do is hit it high. This leads to looping and hopeful shots from way out, that will eventually fly in, way above the keeper’s outstretched arms. This constraint does not teach players the effective methods of chance creation, nor does it encourage a useful technique when shooting. Instead, it encourages kids to take what would be pointless shots at the adult level, because doing it enough times while young will win you the game.

Pretend you’re an academy coach, and a kid who is top scorer for their grassroots club comes to you for a trial. You quickly notice they can’t pass or dribble too well, and they cannot strike with their laces. How about the finishing? Couldn’t hit a cow’s arse with a banjo. And then you see it. They have a right leg that mimics a golf swing, always looping the ball high and over the goalkeeper’s head from outside the box. But this is the academy game, and your keeper is tall and competent. Your keeper easily catches this kid’s three shots within the first ten minutes of the session. The kid cannot read the play, and only gets the ball by chance, from the very rare bad touches the opponents make. The kid cannot link up with others, and their "run really fast at the player with the ball" method of pressing does not work here. Limited, dejected, and way out of their depth, this grassroots top scorer is already a NO, just ten minutes into their academy trial. The United States has more kids playing football than many top FIFA nations have as populations. It is an insult to everyone involved that these kids are so terrible.

Enjoy the table.

Dev Stage	Age	Teams	Ball	Seasons
Active Start	U5	1v1	1	Festivals
Active Start	U6	2v2	1	Festivals
FUNdamentals	U7	3v3	3	Festivals
FUNdamentals	U 8	3v3	3	6 Weeks
Learn to Train	U 9	5v5	3	6 Weeks
Learn to Train	U 10	5v5	4	6 Weeks
Train to Train	U 11	7v7	4	6 Weeks
Train to Train	U 12	7v7	4	6 Weeks
Train to Compete	U 13	9v9	5	Apertura/Clausura
Train to Compete	U 14	9v9	5	Apertura/Clausura
Train to Compete	U 15	11v11	5	Apertura/Clausura
Train to Compete	U 16	11v11	5	Apertura/Clausura
Train to Win	U 17	11v11	5	1 Year
Train to Win	U 18	11v11	5	1 Year

Names of development stages taken from Canada’s LTAD Model.

There are so many things to take into account here, so I will get to explaining, starting off with what is happening at U11. This is an idea I have seen used in Catalan football. Around those ages, they go into two-year age groups. This goes some way to combat Relative Age Effect, as within these groups, you have a maximum of three teams at any club. So there is no U11 league, but there is a U12 league that has U12 and U11s playing in it. In those older ages, the players will graduate from U12 to U14 to U16 to U18 every two years, but the team will stay in the same division.

Why?

It has been an ambition of mine for a while now to end up somewhere like a remote island or a small country, and be in charge of football development for the nation. How that will coincide with starting a family like I will be doing over the next few years, I have no idea. There's so many accounts of people that have gone to such places, and they make me dream. In the last year, I have seen advertisements for roles on the Cayman Islands, Cook Islands, Turks and Caicos, as well as a PE teaching job in the Falkland Islands. Then there are many Asian and African countries that have been looking for technical directors.

Stories like these are fascinating:
http://trainingground.guru/articles/coaching-adventures-on-a-tiny-dot-in-the-pacific
https://footballoceania.com/2017/12/27/from-aldershot-to-the-south-pacific/
http://www.thesoccermen.com/synopsis

I'd like to have a go one day.

My experience draws upon working within the game in England, USA, Canada, Mexico, Kuwait, and Singapore, watching football in many more countries, watching teams from more countries, and working with colleagues from all over the world. The sharing of ideas, networking, and discussion shared on courses and other meetings can expand one's mind. This is an attempt at an amalgamation of the good bits, and applying it to a blank slate country.

The first thing I would do is change the team sizes at different age groups. In countries that are terrible at developing talent, they try to get as many kids on the field as possible, as soon as possible. I once saw seven year olds playing organised 11v11 on a full sized pitch. In countries that are good at developing talent, they keep the field size and the team numbers relatively small. Tight spaces improves decision making, less players produces more involvement and game actions per player.

5 1v1 or 2v2
7 3v3
9 5v5
11 7v7
13 9v9
Finally reaching 11v11 at the age of fifteen.

This is a little extreme compared to some countries, like here in the US. At the age of eleven, there are kids playing 11v11. Picture in your mind the less physically developed eleven year olds. If each child scores within a range of +/-2 years mentally, physically, socially, and experientially, you can get some small kids being forced to play the adult game. More on this later. What we see every year is the kids who go from 9v9 to 11v11 and they are not physically ready. A right wing to left wing switch was previously a twenty yard pass, now it's a forty yard pass. In the three months between their last 9v9 game and their first 11v11 game, kids have not doubled in size, so why has the pitch?

There will be no leagues before 3v3. Red team takes a bunch of their kids to play against Blue team. They match them up in 1v1s and 2v2s, play for five minutes. Winners move up, losers move down, like a ladder. Do this for twenty minutes, have a break, then do it for another twenty minutes, and finish.

Player Ages:

Players do develop at different rates, they are motivated socially, so I think we should allow some affordances for this. It is their game after all. I would allow for a team to have two or three (depending on team size) older players that play down a year. We have a tiny 2008 kid, born on December 30th. He is smaller than most 2009s. He can hardly get near the ball when playing with his own age group, so it would be in his best interests developmentally to play down a year for the time being. I would also consider breaking some of the younger ages into smaller age bands, like perhaps six, four, or even three months.


League characteristics:

Age	Team Size	Referees	Ball Size	Period Length	Game Length	Offside	Build Out Line
5	1v1/2v2	None	1	4x5mins	40	No	Yes
7	3v3	None	2	3x5mins	3x15mins	No	Yes
9	5v5	1	3	3x8mins	2x24mins	No	Yes
11	7v7	1	4	2x15mins	2x30mins	No	Yes
13	9v9	1	4	3x20mins	1x60mins	Yes	No
15	11v11	1	5	3x25mins	1x75mins	Yes	No
17	11v11	3	5	3x30mins	1x90mins	Yes	No

Referees:

The youngest age groups do not need referees. Having a parent or coach oversee the game removes some of the tension that comes with having an impartial observer. In my experience, if there is no referee, and someone has to judge while managing their own team or players, they are incredibly fair and honest. They let the opposition retake bad restarts, call more against their own team, and insist upon fairness. Having a ref adds a competitive atmosphere that is not needed at those ages.

Three officials are not needed until the players are much older. We have three sanctioned referees per 9v9 game here in the US, and that costs the league $100 a go. Why? Because there are too many aggressive morons out there. In other countries, we have a parent volunteer or assistant coach do it. There's far more respect between the clubs and the officials when this is done. Depending upon the number of referees available, it might be possible to have more at some games, but it's not really necessary.

Team Size:

At the younger age groups, with less players, it becomes easier for coaches to focus on the individual development of the players, and less about the win. It's harder to sacrifice the long term development for the short term gains. If a coach takes a group of five year olds, splits them into pairs, and has them play in simultaneous games, said coach will be less concerned with scores, and more concerned with how the players are actually doing.

As mentioned earlier, smaller teams make the game more beneficial for the players because they are more involved, and have far more repetitions. The smaller fields become less about athleticism (or kids that have grown quicker than others) and more about the first touch and intelligence. The smaller spaces mean players have to solve their footballing problems with footballing solutions. You can't completely remove the physical element, and bigger, faster kids will always have situations where they dominate (more on that later) but you can tip the balance in favour of skill and intelligence. Smaller teams also mean players cannot hide. They are exposed to the game. You can't play your weak player over on the wing where they won't touch the ball.

Ball Size:

Taking a page out of the book of futsal, a smaller ball requires players to really work on their skills and ball manipulation. Comparing my chart to the norm, it's hardly a radical progression, more of a delay. We see five year olds turn up to practice with size five balls. Parents don't think anything of it, because that's the ball the adults play with, and the ball the older sibling plays with. The youngest children would improve at a much more rapid rate because the ball is a far more appropriate size. A five year old trying to manipulate and strike a size one will improve quicker than the size three or above we see too frequently.

Period Length:

Unless playing two games on the same day, I try to advocate for playing thirds or quarters. It provides a natural stoppage for kids to refresh, but it also serves two far greater purposes. Coaches are more likely to shout less random nonsense during a game if they are given small breaks in which they are able to converse with their players. It's like a timeout. The extra break or two allows for more changes and more discussion, and thus more learning as a result.

Pre game: Play like this.
Period A: Losing 2-0
Break: Do this instead.
Period B: Back to 2-2.
Break. Try this.
Period C: Win 3-2.
Post game: Autopsy.

This provides plenty of opportunities for players and coaches to discuss the game, tweak what they do, and learn from the cause and effect. What are their weaknesses? How do we exploit them? Go do that! Did it work? Why/why not? Repeat. This gives so many opportunities for players to Plan-Do-Review, so much more room for experiment and reflection, which is often lost in the hyper-charged and massively limited two half system, where coaches just shout stuff, and it largely comes from a place of emotion.

The other major advantage as noted before is that it would also mean coaches don't have to make so many subs during the match itself. In the US, coaches seem to make subs every ten seconds. It kills the momentum of the game so badly. And they make massive changes, often five or six players at a time. Not only does it kill momentum, it kills synergy.

Game Length:

At the younger age groups, it would be advantageous for teams to play two or three games in one go. The scorelines at these ages are often ridiculously high, and losses can be by many goals. After losing 10-2, you have to wait another week for a game. What if you could play a second or third game? For example, 3v3 plays three games of fifteen minutes.

Team A v Team B
Team C v Team D
Team A v Team C
Team B v Team D
Team A v Team D
Team B v Team C

Every five minutes is a quick one minute break. Quick drink, quick chat, maybe a sub.

At ages eight and nine, players would move into 5v5, which would be somewhat similar.

Team A v Team B
Team C v Team D
Team A v Team C
Team B v Team D

Every week, your team is scheduled two games, back to back, against different opponents. It would be two games of twenty four minutes, providing forty eight minutes of football for the players to enjoy, split into eight minute periods.

At the oldest age groups, it becomes one game split into thirds. The benefits mentioned before also apply.

Offside/Build Out Line:

I believe these are fairly self explanatory, and fall in line with normality.

Number of Subs:

For me, some form of rolling subs is necessary. Perhaps as they get older, it could be only one entry per period. In ice hockey and basketball, Americans sub all the time. That's not how any country does soccer, apart from parts of Canada. I do however think it is important to limit numbers on the bench. Some coaches take boat loads of subs to games. In the short term, it means that the slice of game time pie that the players receive becomes smaller. In the long term, it allows coaches at certain clubs to literally hoard players. When the game is run for profit, expect clubs to treat you as revenue streams.

Try it like this:

3v3 - Game day squad size of 5 = 45 minutes divided into 3 spots between 5 players.
5v5 - Game day squad size of 8 = 48 minutes divided into 5 spots between 8 players.
7v7 - Game day squad size of 10 = 60 minutes divided into 7 spots between 10 players.
9v9 - Game day squad size of 13 = 60 minutes divided into 9 spots between 13 players.
11v11 - Game day squad size of 16 = 75 minutes divided into 11 spots between 16 players.
11v11 - Game day squad size of 16 = 90 minutes divided into 11 spots between 16 players.

3v3 average = 27 minutes if using a maximum of 5 players.
5v5 average = 30 minutes if using a maximum of 8 players.
7v7 average = 42 minutes if using a maximum of 10 players.
9v9 average = 41  minutes if using a maximum of 13 players.
11v11 (75) average = 52 minutes if using a maximum of 16 players.
11v11 (90) average = 62 minutes if using a maximum of 16 players.

These numbers are based on there being a full bench, and coaches employing an equal playing time philosophy. I would make it a rule that every player, barring injury, plays at least half a game.

Goalkeepers:

5v5 onward. Never have restrictions on keeper movement. At 5v5 allow them to restart games by rolling or kicking from the ground. 7v7 and above should be more formal and ceremonial. The priority in their first years of keeping is just getting the ball back into play, and restarting the game. I would also make it a rule that keepers are the ones who have to take the goal kicks. At all ages, unless there is an injury. Not having keepers take goal kicks is one of the most damaging things to happen within youth soccer. And in my version of the youth game, the fields are small due to the team numbers, that keepers won't have to boot it.

Restarts:

At 5v5 and 7v7 let them roll or kick in to restart the game. Formal throws waste time, and since everyone is always screaming "THROW IT UP THE LINE!" it turns into a possession relieving exercise anyway. A roll or a kick means the player now looks for a pass, as it is done in a more traditional manner. Introduce real throws at 9v9. Like with the goalkeepers, as they are playing on smaller fields due to the smaller teams, there will be less launching, booting, and sending it. The game encourages finding solutions, rather than playing hit and hope. I would consider making it a rule that a team has eight seconds to take a restart once it has been awarded, or else it will turn into a drop ball, or could be given to the opposition (providing the ball is still in close proximity to the pitch - at the discretion of the referee). This keeps the game fast paced, and prevents coaches running down the clock by taking forever to restart the game. If the opposition attempts to delay the restart of play, punish them by moving the ball further forward (relative to age) and removing the time limit for that restart.

Heading:

Don't be ridiculous. Of course the kids can head. That would be completely stupid to remove it. But, what can be done, is playing smaller sided games on smaller fields, with build out lines and no throw ins, meaning kids have less aerial balls to contend with. Don't remove it, just have them play a better version of football.

Age Grouping

Now to talk about something I have alluded to a couple times earlier. As kids develop at different rates, it is important to try to group them in ways that are more appropriate for the stage of development that they currently occupy. Bio-banding is a good way to combat the Relative Age Effect, but it would be complex to implement nationwide. There is another way of implementing some kind of rough bio banding. It's not exact, but does implement well. A problem that many critics have of bio-banding is a Piers Morgan type argument of "they will be playing against players of differing physicalities when they are older." A little too articulate for Piers. This is an idea that I am lifting out of Catalonia, where kids can be grouped depending upon physicality, but also smaller kids can play against bigger kids. Here we go.

Using the birth years, we will group two ages together at each stage of development. There will also be a more prominent school football programme, which I will talk about later.

That means that in this past summer, 2006s would have finished playing 7v7, and moved up to play 9v9 with 2005s. The 2005s would have already played one year of 9v9, having one year of 9v9 remaining before graduating to the first phase of 11v11

I take it that you can foresee many problems with this, so let me continue to paint the picture before the whining begins. In the US exists super clubs, where there are often five or more teams per age group. Talk about hoarding players. The clubs are so big that there is no progression or pathway within them. They serve as a place for people to come together and play, nothing more, while making a fortune off of their players/customers. For example, my 2006 boys B team currently plays in a division of about nine teams, four of which come from the same club. What's the point in that? We operate an A team B team system, where the best Bs move into the A team, and the worst As come down. That's a really strange concept in America. Coach keeps hold of their best players so they can win more games, whereas we put players where they need to be in order to experience the best developmental environment.

What we are going to do is limit at club to no more than three teams at 9v9 and above. They will be called A, B, and C. Everyone will be aware that they are A, B, and C. They will be treated as such. These teams will be entered into a league with multiple divisions, and will gain promotion and relegation. As players grow, progress, improve, the club will move them around between A, B, and C. It will be important to put in some rules about how many games a player can play, so that coaches don't keep borrowing better players from the A team to win an important B team game. You know it will happen.

Here's what it might look like. Going to use English names for familiarity. Instead of giving the leagues some stupid name like Early Development or Junior Premier, I'm going to make it simple and call the leagues by their numbers.

9v9 Boys 2005/06
Division 1	P	W	L	D	GF	GF	GD	PTS
1. Manchester City A
2. Arsenal A
3. Liverpool A
4. Chelsea A
5. Tottenham Hotspur A
6. Manchester United A
7. Southampton A
8. Everton A
9. West Ham United A
10. Wolves A
Division 2	P	W	L	D	GF	GF	GD	PTS
1. Fulham A
2. Newcastle United A
3. Manchester City B
4. Leicester City A
5. Watford A
6. Crystal Palace A
7. Liverpool B
8. Brighton A
9. Arsenal B
10. Huddersfield Town A
Division 3	P	W	L	D	GF	GF	GD	PTS
1. Cardiff City A
2. Manchester United B
3. Burnley A
4. Southampton B
5. Bournemouth A
6. Fulham B
7. Leicester City B
8. Tottenham Hotspur B
9. Manchester City C
10. Chelsea B
Division 4	P	W	L	D	GF	GF	GD	PTS
1. Liverpool C
2. Arsenal C
3. Bournemouth B
4. Brighton & Hove Albion B
5. Watford B
6. Newcastle United B
7. Wolves B
8. Fulham C
9. Cardiff City B
10. Everton B
Division 5	P	W	L	D	GF	GF	GD	PTS
1. Tottenham Hotspur C
2. Southampton C
3. Chelsea C
4. Watford C
5. Burnley B
6. Manchester United C
7. Wolves C
8. West Ham United B
9. Huddersfield Town B
10.Crystal Palace B
Division 6	P	W	L	D	GF	GF	GD	PTS
1. Leicester City C
2. Newcastle United C
3. Everton C
4. Crystal Palace C
5. West Ham United C
6. Cardiff City C
7. Burnley C
8. Bournemouth C
9. Huddersfield Town C
10. Brighton C

Replace Premier League team names with the names of your local towns. It would be done so that two teams from the same club cannot be in the same division. Teams placed first and second move up, replacing teams placed ninth and tenth.

There is a danger that a good club's B team will continuously win Division 2, and not move up, but the risk of that is far less than the damage caused by clubs having a monopoly on the top division. The seasons will be twice yearly, and due to the way I have made the age groups, 50% of the players will change every twelve months. The chances of the same B team dominating Division 2 every year and being stuck there will be small. Clubs will move the better players into their A team quickly, or the players will leave and join a rival club's Division 2 A team.

In my example, the top three in Division 2 looks like this:
1. Fulham A
2. Newcastle A
3. Man City B

If that Man City B team keeps winning Division 2, and the players are not moved into the A team, the better players will defect to Fulham or Newcastle. The Man City A coach will be looking to bring on the better ones to make that team stronger. Then after the year is complete, the older half of that team will graduate to 11v11, with a new group coming up from 7v7. There's too many forces at play here to make this a regular problem.

Promotion and relegation is done to keep players playing at a level that is more appropriate to them. A year is a long time in a kid's life, which is why two seasons will be done per year. The clubs will also appoint coaches by age and level. For instance, your job will be the B team coach at 9v9. Your job is to prepare players for the 11v11 game, and try to get your better ones into the A team. That is how you will be judged. Rather than staying with a group of players for a long time, coaches will remain in the same position, but the players will have that coach for a maximum of two years. It also prevents parent coaches being accused of bias for favouritism towards their own kid. Perhaps parents could work as an assistant, but the head coach should be neutral (or at least cannot follow their kid).

Leagues will not collect or publish results at 3v3 or lower. Anyone caring will be instantly banned from football for life. Clubs boasting about victories will be fined (Our U8 boys destroyed their opponents 7-1 in the game yesterday). In addition to the leagues from 5v5 upwards, other aspects will be published, such as player retention rate (do they keep discarding their players year on year, or do they keep them long term to work with and develop them?), coach qualifications, respect/fairness ratings, and if it can be counted, how many players progress up into the A team (although I would be a little hesitant, as these numbers can be skewed by giving pointless debuts).

Mercy Rules:

In the interest of fairness and development, we shouldn't get too many one sided matches because there will be a promotion and relegation. However, each age group will have a goal limit. Let's pretend it is six goals. If Team A is beating Team B by six clear goals, Team B can bring on an extra player. If this has happened in the first period, continue the game until the break, forfeit the match, mix up the teams, and play the rest of the game as a friendly. What's the point in continuing a game that is so heavily one sided? If a team shows up with less players, let them borrow some of yours. This kind of collaboration must happen, as it is about the long term player development. If we turn up to a 5v5 game with 7 players, and our opponents have 3, why would anyone play 5v3 with 2 subs, when the game could just be 5v5?

Central Location:

One good thing that happens in the US, and is starting to happen back home too, is that games occur at central locations. Our league in St. Louis hires pitches at a few venues nearby, and our teams show up there to play. It has a few benefits to it. As a consumer looking for the best product, you can choose your team based on quality rather than location, because all games will be at the same place, regardless of who you play for. Training location would still be an issue.

The central locations remove the home and away advantage, meaning you can play a strange number of games as a league, rather than ensuring absolute parity between teams. It's not that big of an issue, but coaches and parents make it an issue. If you play ten games a season and play them all away, it doesn't matter, as you played ten games, but some people will care. So make it neutral. If you played five home games and another team played six, people will care. It also helps for a shortage of referees, who can do multiple games consecutively, increasing referee coverage. The central locations also reduce the travelling for parents of multiple kids, if you know that all the possible venues are within a couple miles of each other. This puts less of a burden on parents, and gets more kids playing sport.

It would also be important to find a way to get each age group playing at its own time. What is often experienced in the US is that you have three kids, playing a couple different sports each, and the parents are driving all over the place, balancing conflicts, apologising for being late, and ferrying the kids around, shoving them out of the car, dressed and fed. The parent does all the thinking, and is very stressed. Perhaps this is a contributing factor in the ridiculous sidelines here in Missouri? Nevertheless, if you knew that your 7v7 child was only going to play Saturday morning, you could probably structure your life a bit better. In Mexico, we wouldn't know our game times until Tuesday or Wednesday evening, and we played home and away fixtures. Let's plan the fixtures well in advance, and your 7v7 kid is always going to be playing Saturday morning, between eight and twelve, at either the leisure centre, sports fields, or sports complex. Life gets easier for parents, and kids can make multiple commitments without conflicts.

Team names:

Under no circumstances will a club be named after a person. Just no. All teams will be referred to by age group and level. For example, one of my old clubs from back home was Botley Village. There's a few clubs here that name the team after the coach, so we would be Botley Village Wilson. How up your own arse does that sound? If I was the girls 7v7 C coach, the team would be called Botley Village Girls 7v7 C. Simple. There's all sorts of stupid names out here, and clubs using names like elite, academy, pre-academy, premier, they use coach names, and they even use the names of pro clubs. Botley Village Manchester United. What a load of nonsense.

Kit and Numbers:

Let's keep this simple. A team kids will be numbered 1-20. B team kids will be numbered 21-40. C team kids will be numbered 41-60. That's what they get at the start of the year. If a kid plays on the C team as number 47, and gets promoted to the B team, they will keep their number. That helps people see how well the kids may be progressing, and if the club is making the right decisions for the players. All clubs should sell their kit to the players (preferably as part of their inscription package) so that clubs or players are not held to ransom. The kit is yours, you keep it. There are too many examples of players leaving, not returning the kit, and the team suffering for the rest of the year, because they are always short of a uniform. It also reduces the nonsense time of kids showing up and having to get changed on site, and then some lucky parent having to wash the team kit. The traffic jams waiting in the hallways of some changing rooms are ridiculous.

Database:

One central database with all the players' names and registration details should be kept and maintained. Why are they uploading their birth certificate every year? It's still the same. Every couple of years, they might need a new photo, but other than that, there's no need to keep changing. The players register to play for the Football Association, and then are assigned to the clubs they join. It helps keep everything streamlined and easy, especially when they change clubs, play for a second team, play for school, high school, college etc. It has to be made easier for kids to play football. Four forms of identification are needed in Mexico every year. Ridiculous.

Qualifications:

As stated earlier, clubs will publish the qualifications of their coaches. There will also be some basic requirements in order to coach at certain levels. There is nothing like this in the US, and it is desperately needed. They do something like this in Iceland. A good thing the US has done is implemented qualifications for the different age groups, and has put these online so that they are accessible to all. 11v11 coaches must have the 11v11 certificate, for example before they can work with that age group.

Two main directions are stated here, in that we will make qualifications mandatory, but also accessible and cheap. Let's get the knowledge out there, rather than making it a closed society.

Cup:

As an extra, not replacing league games, and not interfering with the league schedule. Split the divisions up, 1+2, 3+4, 5+6. Gold, silver, bronze cups. Every six months, keeping in line with the season. One off knockout games, played at neutral venues. There is room for a do or die competition with kids. Kids do want to compete, and there needs to be a competitive edge. The problem is when coaches and parents put too much emphasis on the winning, and employ a win at all costs mentality.

With the cup being split up into gold, silver, and bronze by divisions, there is the opportunity for a club's A and B team to directly compete, which adds extra pressure and competitiveness that comes with cup competitions.

Maybe not done on weekends. Potentially done week nights. There are a lot of factors that would determine this. Look into it on a case by case basis.

Tournaments:

Not during the season. These are great fun, but are such a pain in the arse. Parents with three kids and a job have to get time off work, get kids out of school, and choose if both husband and wife go, which of the three kids go, weighing it up against what will be missed or have to be cancelled. It is a logistical nightmare for leagues and coaches to factor all these games into their schedules. Just don't do it during the season. Have two or three months, winter and summer, where the tournaments can happen. Honestly, fantastic experiences, but they mess up so much, and the ends don't really justify the means.

Something I don't like about tournaments in America is that you win three or four games in a weekend, and then call yourself a champion. The teams should play more games. They can't, because the kids will be exhausted. In my model, we play with smaller numbers. We should also play shorter games. For example; in the real world, ten year olds play 60 minutes of 9v9. In my model, ten year olds play 30 minutes of 7v7 (one game, as my model has them playing back to back league games on weekends). If the tournament provider shortened the game to 20 minutes, realistically, how many 7v7 games of 20 minutes could a 7v7 team play in one day? If they played five games (5x20) then the would play for one hour and forty minutes (100 mins), which is 20 minutes shorter than if they played 2x 9v9 games of 60 minutes (120 mins). In my model, so much more football could be played. Not only more football, but age appropriate football. Play five games Saturday, five games Sunday, screw playing a final because that rewards form rather than class, and then crown the winner. Who has the most points after playing ten games? Much better than winning three games in a skewed bracket, and winning a final. The kids would prefer it too.

Futsal:

Futsal is good for you. Get over it. I would be tempted in having futsal leagues that run concurrently to the football. Not just a niche sport to do in the winter or summer, but an opportunity to play all year round. It's technically a different sport, adding to the multi sport athletes Americans love so much. I would ure every club to run such a programme. In England we have locations that run leagues like Goals or Powerleague. In St. Louis there is Vetta. In one Vetta location of two 6v6 converted ice hockey rink pitches, one could easily fit about six to eight futsal pitches. More people playing, and more playing a more beneficial sport.

The clubs should have a curriculum and game model. One will be provided if they can't make their own. Coaches will be educated in football, on the cheap and accessible courses we would be running out. Much of it could even be done online.

I would also advocate for some leagues without coaches. The kids are in charge of their teams, and they call the shots. Perhaps they can represent their club, or make an entirely new team with their friends. This puts more fun back into their experience, while also giving more ownership, responsibility, and engagement. We all thought we were brilliant at the park or in the playground. This would provide an opportunity to live pout that fantasy.

Public Spending and Facilities:

If employed by a country and given a budget, in which I had to devise a plan to build facilities, much of it would depend on weather and population density, but here's what I would be looking to build, and why.

3v3 pitches. In the parks, just like the jungle gyms and the swings, I would build a couple 3v3 pitches.



Picture this, but a tad smaller and made out of wood, so then they could be permanently erected. Also means no gaps between pitches, covering less space.

Football cages.



Sometimes called multi-use games areas in England. Maybe bigger, maybe smaller, depending on the space available. The small space makes for tighter, more developmentally challenging games. The fences allow for quick restarts and ball retention. The surfaces means that games don't depend on the weather, and kids can play any time.

Surely we all remember the Nike advert from 2002 and how cool that cage was?

Is the song stuck in your head yet?

Domes

These inflatable domes are great, especially in the winter.

All weather astroturf pitches.



Don't for a second think that I am fetishising the American obsession with these pitches. I think it is obscene. The above photo comes from one of three St. Louis soccer complexes that were all on the same road. Each one has facilities that can rival the world's top professional clubs. But they are wasted. The space economy is all wrong because there are too many small kids playing too many per side, on gigantic fields. Most of these pitches are almost the FIFA maximum. We have twelve year olds running around on these things competing marathons, not playing football. Look at the space used. It would be so much better served being used for 3v3, 5v5, 7v7, 9v9 pitches, with maybe four 11v11 pitches, that were also smaller and more appropriate in size. There's thirteen massive 11v11 pitches in that complex. Why? Because it impresses parents and we have our kids playing the wrong versions of football.

All weather pitches are important, though. Especially depending upon the climate of the country. We need more in England. The problem is that they are expensive, and organisations that own them charge small fortunes for their use. When it comes to league games, only recently did some of the leagues and County FAs allow games on astroturf pitches. I'm not sure how many it is now. I believe there is still a lot of resistance to it.

School Sports:

School sports can provide an excellent opportunity for more sporting experiences and learning opportunities for kids. Schools differ greatly in size, and how a local region functions would have to be dependent upon such factors.

What I would look to implement would be playing school year age groups, as opposed to birth year, giving older and younger players a chance to switch those dynamics. I may also recommend that schools play age minus two, instead of my age minus four guidelines. This is done to give kids a more diverse range of experiences in their football experience banks. The different games pose different, but still relevant problems. Football is all about problem solving, and I think this could be part of it.

I would have schools look to play regular fixtures or festivals, like I have recommended before. Growing up, sports on Wednesday afternoons were a big deal. As long as we ensure the environment is right, and keep in line with the correct development ethos, we can do this well again.

The question a lot of Americans would be asking right now would be in regards to high school sports. My answer is simple. Burn it down to the ground. Start all over again. The way you do it is so asinine and pointless, that it only resembles football because the ball is a sphere. They don't need to play eight hundred games a week. We don't need stadium announcers. No national anthems. No calling out every player's name, making them think they have reached the big time when they can't even trap a bag of sand. No stupid restrictions on when and how to train.

School coaches have to be qualified and educated. Again, I would ask schools to have a game model, or borrow one. It's a great opportunity for so many kids to grow and learn, but you are wasting it on colossal levels. Be better. Fight the system.

Academies:

Let kids play grassroots and other sports. Let them be kids. The commitment requirements for kids in academies create so many problems for their psychological and social development. Many clubs that claim to be world class in producing talent seem to pick up their best players around fifteen. The players that actually go on to do something relevant in the world game grew up outside of the reputed academies, at grassroots clubs or smaller academies. This is a sad indictment, but they still take the credit for the player development. Turns out that these players are playing more years outside of that club's academy than they are playing inside it. The local academy in St. Louis claims to have developed some US men professionals. Turns out they were already fantastic as kids, joining the club for their last couple academy aged years. The club didn't develop them, they only recruited them. Someone else developed them, but the club got these players because they have the monopoly on professional pathways. Sad when a kid who has been in the academy for eight years is less likely to graduate as a pro than a kid the academy picks up at a later age.

In an open system with promotion and relegation, this doesn't happen. Academy status wouldn't be dished out like franchises in the broken and corrupt US system. It would be like in Europe, where there are categories of academy. The status awarded to an academy is based on its facilities, staff qualifications, game model, proven player development, and other important factors. So many independent clubs in the US have been screwed over by this system. A lot of the actual academies do terrible jobs of developing players, but benefit because they hold the keys to the door for professional football. Kids go there because of the pathway, whereas in many cases, those kids are better off developing at another club.

Only certified clubs can use the term academy. The word is thrown around in so many countries that it loses all meaning. I would potentially advocate for an A and B type system in each academy. We can recognise that a kid has potential, but rather than cutting them, we keep them in the incubator for a bit longer. Much like with the clubs, I would look to publicly post retention rates, as well as stats on where the players actually end up. That way, potential players and parents look at the important numbers, rather than the shiny objects a lot of American youth clubs use to dazzle and trick parents into forking over their hard earned cash.

Game Models

Have you ever tried coaching without one? After years of working off of curriculums, methodologies, schemes of work, playing styles etc. to have recently gone back to coaching without one, I wonder how I ever did it. Much like how in the last few years I have developed allergy problems, and now take for granted all those times before when I could breathe easily.

Every club must provide one. Football Association provides one for clubs that cannot develop their own. DOC checks for adherence. We must all work together and ensure accountability. I have seen some great game models at some clubs that have absolutely no intention of enforcing them. It simply becomes a free-for-all.

Multi Sports:

Try not to conflict. Get clubs to compete in basketball, futsal, and handball too. A big benefit of some European clubs is that they are sports clubs. Some US clubs are trying this, and it's a step in the right direction. The clubs act like leisure centres. The girl is dropped off at lacrosse, the boy at basketball, and mum goes to the gym. All fees paid to the same organisation, and also making for much smoother membership.

Remember when we used to own TVs, and could watch channels? And now we have to subscribe to a hundred different streaming services at triple the price? I miss those days. And the youth sporting experience is going down the same route. It needs to be made easier for practitioners, who are essentially customers. The American model seems to be based on squeezing every penny out of everyone at every opportunity. The quality of the product is severely reduced, and it's not like you can go anywhere else, because most clubs are providing the same money-grabbing service. We should be doing all we can to make the experience of ourselves and the families of our players easier and more streamlined. Instead, we have agents fighting to maintain the status quo, on behalf of rich wankers. "The guy whose arse I have kissed for fifteen years makes a profit off of it being this way, so you and your family will just have to put up with it."

Girls and Boys:

Girls can play with boys up until eighteen. Don't be a dick. As long as the experience will benefit the girl and she won't be out of her depth, let it happen. Until we reach true equality and girls get the same exposure, experience, opportunity, expertise, facilities, investment etc. as boys, I see it as perfectly reasonable for girls to look to supplement their development by playing with boys. It has to make sense on a case by case basis, but the rules will allow it. Just like bringing in any other player to your club; is this the right fit for them and the team?

Coach Education within Clubs:

I would stipulate that clubs have to list their coach qualifications on their website. Nobody gives two craps about if a coach played in high school or ODP. It means nothing, and it tells you nothing about the coach's ability to coach. On my next job application, I'm going to list which AC/DC riffs I can play on guitar. Such information is just as pointless to know and time consuming to read.

Clubs have to have regular coach education meetings. This would depend on the club, time, facilities etc. But there has to be a way that we can monitor that coaches are receiving continued professional development. Many volunteers are dumped with a team, and then left to fend for themselves. The coaches deserve better. The players deserve better. I would make it so that the club has to provide the local FA coach coordinator a schedule of when these meetings would be, and what topics will be covered as time goes by. What is their scheme of work? How are they helping their coaches and players? How does this fit in with their game model? A big club near us recently had a coach ed meeting that was based on how to make substitutes to win the game. Most of their teams I play against have large benches, and sub four or five players every three minutes. Once I was linesman. covering one of their games, and the referee got so frustrated with their constant subbing, he banned them from subbing unless it was an injury. What a completely ridiculous situation.

Central Database For Everything:

No US Club, USYS, and all the other ten thousand competing acronyms that dominate American soccer. In my country, we are having one database. Like the FA in England. Not a separate organisation for every conceivable branch. In England, my coaching license, referee license, and even the number I used to buy my England tickets, are all under the same ID. I login with that ID regardless of what I am looking to do. Separate departments, sure, but all under the same vision. Not looking to compete, snatch, and steal in the way the many American organisations are looking to do to each other.

Conclusion:

I have probably forgotten a whole bunch of things to consider. Maybe I will one day come back to this. Essentially, I believe we should be doing football much better, and for the benefit of the kids experiencing it. I might be becoming apathetic, but I don't wish to work in a system that either doesn't fall in line with such a mantra, or isn't open to change to achieve such outlines. In my opinion, this is what underpins everything else. The rest of what we do doesn't matter, and is essentially nuance if we don't have kids playing developmentally appropriate games in developmentally inappropriate environments. If we have twelve year olds running marathons around massive pitches, our curricula and qualified coaches can only take us so far. Talent identification doesn't matter a whole lot if there is only mediocre talent available.

Small countries like Belgium, Croatia, Netherlands, Uruguay, Portugal etc. seem to do exceptionally well on a frequent basis. I'm not suggesting their systems are perfect, or even implementable in any given country. Maybe some of their successes can be attributed to other factors and constraints that play a part in shaping their national identity and standards.

Although some is up for debate, what I am proposing is a player-centred approach, that is far more beneficial to the development of all kids, not just the early developers. It is more inclusive, with less adult involvement, more affordable to the players, and just an all round more fun experience. Many systems only exist for the purpose of developing top talent. I believe that this direction makes the system flawed. We need more kids playing, more often, and for longer. Put the experience of the child at the centre of what we do. We will create more footballers for life. That should be the aim. And then, due to more players playing better football for longer, we will develop more highly talented players. Like I have mentioned before, the American system is a filter for deselection. It's not the only country to operate in such a way, but the difference with the American system is that it is beginning to feel more like self-sabotage, rather than misguided good intent.

Put the focus on fun. We'll develop more better people, inspire more intrinsically motivated and resilient players, and then be able to provide our national team with a more potent talent pool.

Suppose this kind of thinking is like what you would do if you won millions on the lottery. Personally, I'd buy a box at the Azteca and make it badass. Also fly to watch all the Champions League finals in a given year, and then to the World Cup Cup in December. What would you do if you were in charge of a country? And if you like my ideas and are head of the FA on a tropical island somewhere, then get in touch.