Coach Tom talks about how to get kids invested in the game, the different types of teaching methods within activities, and how recreational coaches can help their players develop technique.
I wonder if there are differences as to how to engage girls versus boys. I find that my efforts to “ just let the girls play” looks nothing like what is described here. They seem to have a hard time getting organized to even begin playing.
I also find they get so discouraged if they are “losing” in a scrimmage that it appears demotivating to play at all.
Do you have thoughts about this or recommendations?
That's a good question. I spoke with another coach about the social differences between boys and girls and they said that girls (on average) don't like to stand out from the group. By having players organize themselves it means that a single person needs to step forward and lead, otherwise they'll just stand around and wait for the coach to tell them what to do. If girls do not like separating themselves from the group then that could be the problem.
But there is an opportunity embedded in that to teach players how to lead (creating a plan, enlisting the help of others, being decisive). And there may be a way to frame all of that in the context of: organizing a game will help you become a leader, being a leader means you can help the world solve problems.
That's an oversimplification and too short to capture the full meaning/persuasion of that idea but it might be a concept worth exploring with the players.
And if they're not in the right stage of development for that then the alternative is to not have them organize themselves. Setup the field for them and hand out the pinnies. Once they become familiar with how the process works start giving them responsibility to do it. Setup the field for them but tell them where they need to put the goals, or vice versa. Ask them to setup teams in a way that's fair and then check-in with them throughout the game to see if their decisions worked. All of this can be done in a step-by-step matter until they eventually understand the whole process.
As for the losing element, I think Coach Tom would say it's okay for the coach to step in. The coach, or a more experienced player, can play for the losing team and use their abilities to level the playing field and teach players on the field about how to improve their positioning, their decision making, their execution of skills, etc.
You could also reinforce the idea that scrimmage reflects the game and we're not a team that gives up simply if we're down by a goal or two (which can be linked to grit, persistence, commitment, emotional resilience, etc. Whatever language you use with your players). You can call a water break and switch a few players on teams. You could simply avoid coaching the winning team and work exclusively with the losing team; then you can focus their attention on a smaller game within the game and keep track of their progress ("In the first 5 minutes you lost the ball eight times in your defensive half and in the last 5 minutes you only lost it three times. That's because Player X did this and Player Z did that and together this happened. Well done.") Praise them for things they had control over and actually did well.
And because this has become a tangent I'll add one last little thought, and it's something that I didn't get the chance to ask Coach Tom about. The narrative that comes from the English FA and German FA and other European countries is that there needs to be a return to street soccer. The US Soccer Federation did that exact same thing, but it missed one thing: we've never had a street soccer culture. Way back when, kids played baseball in the streets and today you'll see people playing basketball at the park. But it's never been soccer. How can we return to something that never existed? I think Coach Tom is on to something when he says coaches should teach players how to play soccer games and then encourage them to do so outside of practice, which does require player autonomy/initiative/leadership.
I wonder if there are differences as to how to engage girls versus boys. I find that my efforts to “ just let the girls play” looks nothing like what is described here. They seem to have a hard time getting organized to even begin playing.
I also find they get so discouraged if they are “losing” in a scrimmage that it appears demotivating to play at all.
Do you have thoughts about this or recommendations?
That's a good question. I spoke with another coach about the social differences between boys and girls and they said that girls (on average) don't like to stand out from the group. By having players organize themselves it means that a single person needs to step forward and lead, otherwise they'll just stand around and wait for the coach to tell them what to do. If girls do not like separating themselves from the group then that could be the problem.
But there is an opportunity embedded in that to teach players how to lead (creating a plan, enlisting the help of others, being decisive). And there may be a way to frame all of that in the context of: organizing a game will help you become a leader, being a leader means you can help the world solve problems.
That's an oversimplification and too short to capture the full meaning/persuasion of that idea but it might be a concept worth exploring with the players.
And if they're not in the right stage of development for that then the alternative is to not have them organize themselves. Setup the field for them and hand out the pinnies. Once they become familiar with how the process works start giving them responsibility to do it. Setup the field for them but tell them where they need to put the goals, or vice versa. Ask them to setup teams in a way that's fair and then check-in with them throughout the game to see if their decisions worked. All of this can be done in a step-by-step matter until they eventually understand the whole process.
As for the losing element, I think Coach Tom would say it's okay for the coach to step in. The coach, or a more experienced player, can play for the losing team and use their abilities to level the playing field and teach players on the field about how to improve their positioning, their decision making, their execution of skills, etc.
You could also reinforce the idea that scrimmage reflects the game and we're not a team that gives up simply if we're down by a goal or two (which can be linked to grit, persistence, commitment, emotional resilience, etc. Whatever language you use with your players). You can call a water break and switch a few players on teams. You could simply avoid coaching the winning team and work exclusively with the losing team; then you can focus their attention on a smaller game within the game and keep track of their progress ("In the first 5 minutes you lost the ball eight times in your defensive half and in the last 5 minutes you only lost it three times. That's because Player X did this and Player Z did that and together this happened. Well done.") Praise them for things they had control over and actually did well.
And because this has become a tangent I'll add one last little thought, and it's something that I didn't get the chance to ask Coach Tom about. The narrative that comes from the English FA and German FA and other European countries is that there needs to be a return to street soccer. The US Soccer Federation did that exact same thing, but it missed one thing: we've never had a street soccer culture. Way back when, kids played baseball in the streets and today you'll see people playing basketball at the park. But it's never been soccer. How can we return to something that never existed? I think Coach Tom is on to something when he says coaches should teach players how to play soccer games and then encourage them to do so outside of practice, which does require player autonomy/initiative/leadership.
Alright, I'm done. Good question!