Too many for one Team

[From the Bunker]

My daughter is part of a squad of 27! At her age group it is 13 a side. She is the 11 year old in under 12. Tonight 22 turned up that would have left 9 subs to be satisfied (if all 27 turn up there would be 14 subs). She played one quarter and a five minute spell later on. This is going to be the gig for the year. She is already not getting enough game time to bring her on. Thinking of pulling her from the club for the season and joining a Town team that would have a 'B' team. Any other solutions?

[johnnycool]

My daughter is part of a squad of 27! At her age group it is 13 a side. She is the 11 year old in under 12. Tonight 22 turned up that would have left 9 subs to be satisfied (if all 27 turn up there would be 14 subs). She played one quarter and a five minute spell later on. This is going to be the gig for the year. She is already not getting enough game time to bring her on. Thinking of pulling her from the club for the season and joining a Town team that would have a 'B' team. Any other solutions?

How about you offering to take a "B" team in the club you're already at.

[brokencrossbar1]

My daughter is part of a squad of 27! At her age group it is 13 a side. She is the 11 year old in under 12. Tonight 22 turned up that would have left 9 subs to be satisfied (if all 27 turn up there would be 14 subs). She played one quarter and a five minute spell later on. This is going to be the gig for the year. She is already not getting enough game time to bring her on. Thinking of pulling her from the club for the season and joining a Town team that would have a 'B' team. Any other solutions?

Do they play the players 'on the age' or do they play the best players irrespective of age?

[oakleaflad]

My daughter is part of a squad of 27! At her age group it is 13 a side. She is the 11 year old in under 12. Tonight 22 turned up that would have left 9 subs to be satisfied (if all 27 turn up there would be 14 subs). She played one quarter and a five minute spell later on. This is going to be the gig for the year. She is already not getting enough game time to bring her on. Thinking of pulling her from the club for the season and joining a Town team that would have a 'B' team. Any other solutions?

If there are 27 players your club should have 2 teams entered. At under 12 level i'm sure there would be no problem with playing one of the teams 11-a-side or something similar if need be. Getting everyone plenty game time is the most important thing.

[AZOffaly]

We have this issue in our club. Between U12s and U11s we have 40 players. We have entered 3 teams in football, and 2 teams in hurling (as the hurling will be during summer holidays). Our teams play 13 a side, 13 a side and 11 a side.

All our U12s are on our 'top' team, which means we won't win any championship, but all our u12s get games at an appropriate level for them. We don't, as a rule, put U11s  onto the 'top' team, even through some of our U11s would be better than some u12s. The rationale for this is that we want lads to play with their friends, and we know your average U12 might be your best minor.

The exception to the rule we have, with the individual players in mind, is if a player is completely out of his depth at a certain level, we would talk to his parents and him about going back to a team below, so he can be at a level where he feels he can contribute and not be embarrassed.

Likewise if an U11 is too good for his level, and his development is stunted because he is not challenged, we would suggest moving him up.

Those decisions are never made with a view to winning a championship though. We want to win every game we play, but not at the expense of long term development and player retention.


This approach is not universally liked in the club, as some people feel we should play our strongest team at the top, regardless of age. I'm not sure there's a right answer here, but I'm happy we are trying to do the right thing by our players. I'll be at a meeting tonight where we will be challenged again regarding this approach.

[Rudi]

My daughter is part of a squad of 27! At her age group it is 13 a side. She is the 11 year old in under 12. Tonight 22 turned up that would have left 9 subs to be satisfied (if all 27 turn up there would be 14 subs). She played one quarter and a five minute spell later on. This is going to be the gig for the year. She is already not getting enough game time to bring her on. Thinking of pulling her from the club for the season and joining a Town team that would have a 'B' team. Any other solutions?

How about you offering to take a "B" team in the club you're already at.

That's the answer.

[Maroon Manc]

Would echo the sentiments of the posters with regards to having a B team.

[shark]

We have this issue in our club. Between U12s and U11s we have 40 players. We have entered 3 teams in football, and 2 teams in hurling (as the hurling will be during summer holidays). Our teams play 13 a side, 13 a side and 11 a side.

All our U12s are on our 'top' team, which means we won't win any championship, but all our u12s get games at an appropriate level for them. We don't, as a rule, put U11s  onto the 'top' team, even through some of our U11s would be better than some u12s. The rationale for this is that we want lads to play with their friends, and we know your average U12 might be your best minor.

The exception to the rule we have, with the individual players in mind, is if a player is completely out of his depth at a certain level, we would talk to his parents and him about going back to a team below, so he can be at a level where he feels he can contribute and not be embarrassed.

Likewise if an U11 is too good for his level, and his development is stunted because he is not challenged, we would suggest moving him up.

Those decisions are never made with a view to winning a championship though. We want to win every game we play, but not at the expense of long term development and player retention.


This approach is not universally liked in the club, as some people feel we should play our strongest team at the top, regardless of age. I'm not sure there's a right answer here, but I'm happy we are trying to do the right thing by our players. I'll be at a meeting tonight where we will be challenged again regarding this approach.

Stand firm. Your approach is absolutely the best one.

[Dinny Breen]

We have this issue in our club. Between U12s and U11s we have 40 players. We have entered 3 teams in football, and 2 teams in hurling (as the hurling will be during summer holidays). Our teams play 13 a side, 13 a side and 11 a side.

All our U12s are on our 'top' team, which means we won't win any championship, but all our u12s get games at an appropriate level for them. We don't, as a rule, put U11s  onto the 'top' team, even through some of our U11s would be better than some u12s. The rationale for this is that we want lads to play with their friends, and we know your average U12 might be your best minor.

The exception to the rule we have, with the individual players in mind, is if a player is completely out of his depth at a certain level, we would talk to his parents and him about going back to a team below, so he can be at a level where he feels he can contribute and not be embarrassed.

Likewise if an U11 is too good for his level, and his development is stunted because he is not challenged, we would suggest moving him up.

Those decisions are never made with a view to winning a championship though. We want to win every game we play, but not at the expense of long term development and player retention.


This approach is not universally liked in the club, as some people feel we should play our strongest team at the top, regardless of age. I'm not sure there's a right answer here, but I'm happy we are trying to do the right thing by our players. I'll be at a meeting tonight where we will be challenged again regarding this approach.

Love this whole post bar the bit about from people challenging this approach, they should FRO.

On the bit highlighted, have you thought about challenging them in different ways e.g. how when playing can they make their team mates better, work on developing their leadership qualities etc

[toby47]

We have this issue in our club. Between U12s and U11s we have 40 players. We have entered 3 teams in football, and 2 teams in hurling (as the hurling will be during summer holidays). Our teams play 13 a side, 13 a side and 11 a side.

All our U12s are on our 'top' team, which means we won't win any championship, but all our u12s get games at an appropriate level for them. We don't, as a rule, put U11s  onto the 'top' team, even through some of our U11s would be better than some u12s. The rationale for this is that we want lads to play with their friends, and we know your average U12 might be your best minor.

The exception to the rule we have, with the individual players in mind, is if a player is completely out of his depth at a certain level, we would talk to his parents and him about going back to a team below, so he can be at a level where he feels he can contribute and not be embarrassed.

Likewise if an U11 is too good for his level, and his development is stunted because he is not challenged, we would suggest moving him up.

Those decisions are never made with a view to winning a championship though. We want to win every game we play, but not at the expense of long term development and player retention.


This approach is not universally liked in the club, as some people feel we should play our strongest team at the top, regardless of age. I'm not sure there's a right answer here, but I'm happy we are trying to do the right thing by our players. I'll be at a meeting tonight where we will be challenged again regarding this approach.

Stand firm. Your approach is absolutely the best one.

Read an article last year on Dr Crokes. They have massive numbers underage so field a couple of teams of equal standard at every age group. Not an 'A' team of their strongest 15 then a 'B' team of their weaker 15. It mentioned they do not win an awful lot of underage competitions but have won 13 Senior Championships, 7 Munster's and 2 All-Ireland clubs so it's definitely done them no harm.

[GaillimhIarthair]

We have this issue in our club. Between U12s and U11s we have 40 players. We have entered 3 teams in football, and 2 teams in hurling (as the hurling will be during summer holidays). Our teams play 13 a side, 13 a side and 11 a side.

All our U12s are on our 'top' team, which means we won't win any championship, but all our u12s get games at an appropriate level for them. We don't, as a rule, put U11s  onto the 'top' team, even through some of our U11s would be better than some u12s. The rationale for this is that we want lads to play with their friends, and we know your average U12 might be your best minor.

The exception to the rule we have, with the individual players in mind, is if a player is completely out of his depth at a certain level, we would talk to his parents and him about going back to a team below, so he can be at a level where he feels he can contribute and not be embarrassed.

Likewise if an U11 is too good for his level, and his development is stunted because he is not challenged, we would suggest moving him up.

Those decisions are never made with a view to winning a championship though. We want to win every game we play, but not at the expense of long term development and player retention.


This approach is not universally liked in the club, as some people feel we should play our strongest team at the top, regardless of age. I'm not sure there's a right answer here, but I'm happy we are trying to do the right thing by our players. I'll be at a meeting tonight where we will be challenged again regarding this approach.

Absolutely it's the correct approach AZ.  We do the exact same at those age levels also.  We only start to tentatively progress towards an A team when we start to compete at Feile age level etc

[Maiden1]

We have this issue in our club. Between U12s and U11s we have 40 players. We have entered 3 teams in football, and 2 teams in hurling (as the hurling will be during summer holidays). Our teams play 13 a side, 13 a side and 11 a side.

All our U12s are on our 'top' team, which means we won't win any championship, but all our u12s get games at an appropriate level for them. We don't, as a rule, put U11s  onto the 'top' team, even through some of our U11s would be better than some u12s. The rationale for this is that we want lads to play with their friends, and we know your average U12 might be your best minor.

The exception to the rule we have, with the individual players in mind, is if a player is completely out of his depth at a certain level, we would talk to his parents and him about going back to a team below, so he can be at a level where he feels he can contribute and not be embarrassed.

Likewise if an U11 is too good for his level, and his development is stunted because he is not challenged, we would suggest moving him up.

Those decisions are never made with a view to winning a championship though. We want to win every game we play, but not at the expense of long term development and player retention.


This approach is not universally liked in the club, as some people feel we should play our strongest team at the top, regardless of age. I'm not sure there's a right answer here, but I'm happy we are trying to do the right thing by our players. I'll be at a meeting tonight where we will be challenged again regarding this approach.

Stand firm. Your approach is absolutely the best one.

Read an article last year on Dr Crokes. They have massive numbers underage so field a couple of teams of equal standard at every age group. Not an 'A' team of their strongest 15 then a 'B' team of their weaker 15. It mentioned they do not win an awful lot of underage competitions but have won 13 Senior Championships, 7 Munster's and 2 All-Ireland clubs so it's definitely done them no harm.

http://www.irishnews.com/sport/gaafootball/2018/02/22/news/we-don-t-care-if-we-lose-ye-will-all-get-a-game-joe-kavanagh-on-nemo-s-famous-underage-policy-1261352/

[shark]

We have this issue in our club. Between U12s and U11s we have 40 players. We have entered 3 teams in football, and 2 teams in hurling (as the hurling will be during summer holidays). Our teams play 13 a side, 13 a side and 11 a side.

All our U12s are on our 'top' team, which means we won't win any championship, but all our u12s get games at an appropriate level for them. We don't, as a rule, put U11s  onto the 'top' team, even through some of our U11s would be better than some u12s. The rationale for this is that we want lads to play with their friends, and we know your average U12 might be your best minor.

The exception to the rule we have, with the individual players in mind, is if a player is completely out of his depth at a certain level, we would talk to his parents and him about going back to a team below, so he can be at a level where he feels he can contribute and not be embarrassed.

Likewise if an U11 is too good for his level, and his development is stunted because he is not challenged, we would suggest moving him up.

Those decisions are never made with a view to winning a championship though. We want to win every game we play, but not at the expense of long term development and player retention.


This approach is not universally liked in the club, as some people feel we should play our strongest team at the top, regardless of age. I'm not sure there's a right answer here, but I'm happy we are trying to do the right thing by our players. I'll be at a meeting tonight where we will be challenged again regarding this approach.

Stand firm. Your approach is absolutely the best one.

Read an article last year on Dr Crokes. They have massive numbers underage so field a couple of teams of equal standard at every age group. Not an 'A' team of their strongest 15 then a 'B' team of their weaker 15. It mentioned they do not win an awful lot of underage competitions but have won 13 Senior Championships, 7 Munster's and 2 All-Ireland clubs so it's definitely done them no harm.

http://www.irishnews.com/sport/gaafootball/2018/02/22/news/we-don-t-care-if-we-lose-ye-will-all-get-a-game-joe-kavanagh-on-nemo-s-famous-underage-policy-1261352/

Yep, Nemo a great example too. Of course, they have big numbers which helps. And unlike other duel clubs in Cork city they are football first, hurling second. But they don't win a whole lot underage - certainly nothing close to their record at adult level. Priority is keeping kids playing and understanding that all kids develop at different speeds.
I was born in the month of February. Had I been born two months earlier I am not sure if I would have played past the age of 14, as I would never have got sufficient playing time in the age group above me. I didn't grow until I was 16, and then improved (a small bit!). Thankfully my club has long since evolved to a development-first ethos.

[Dire Ear]

Brilliant AZ,  absolutely the right way

[trailer]

Handy when you're a big club and you've got 20 or 30 at each age group. You'll win you're share of Senior champs when you've the shear weight of numbers in your favour.
But I do agree all children no matter what ability should be given a game and picking the best out at such a young age sickens my hole. I see it so often.