Change underage back to u14,16,18

[StephenC]

The U14 and U16 system would have had the 2nd year/4th year problem too. The problem isn't with the school year they are in, it's due to them being 2 years older. Therefore, no matter what cut off date you go for, the exact same issue will remain.

There are currently clubs who struggle for numbers with the 2 year age bracket. They (and many others) will never be able to field at every 1 year age group.
Add in clubs trying to facilitate all of these new teams across all codes. It's a non-runner.

Yeah, my 11 yo out this evening playing against lads who are 14 since January, because we can't field a U14 team from the 2 years. Numbers are what is killing small clubs.

[Armagh18]

I'm not against it but why does keeping them in school years make a big difference?

The big advantage soccer has, from what I can see, is that they don't struggle for numbers. They are able to field a few teams at every age group.
Then again, giving kids a shed load of games on a consistent and regular basis will attract them.

So you're playing with lads you already run about with in school. Especially for lads who stay on, half the year are playing minors and half can only play senior

[From the Bunker]

Because of Covid my young lad ended up playing under 12 as 11 year old in 2020 and under 13 as a 12 year old in 2021 (this year) on a panel of 25. So he's had two consecutive years as the younger age. When I say he played, that is an exaggeration. He trained and sat on the bench for games with a plethora of others.

[Taylor]

The school years made sense - granted for one season you would play against people older than you however for the second year most of the teams you met would have players from the same year at school.

For a child it is comfortable playing against kids in your own year - even though some may be bigger you will still see them as a peer.

With it being odd numbers, even if you are in your final year at that age group and seen as the 'oldest' in the group you could still be playing against players a year above you.

The confidence that kids should feel in their final year at a level never materialises. I know for a fact clubs have lost a number of kids already & this is the core reason.

It will only get worse as well unfortunately.

Has anyone actually explained why they changed the younger grades - under 11, 13 & 15

[thewobbler]

They moved u17 because of player welfare concerns. In the old system, a talented 18 year old would have been expected to player county minor hurling and football, club minor hurling and football, club senior hurling and football. Even beyond player welfare, it's a fixture chaos situation, especially at championship time. True, most people aren't dual players. But I believe it has had the desired effect.

Keeping the grades 2 years apart (17, 15, 13) of course made sense at that point.

But in retrospect the better thing to do might have been to change the age of adulthood (eligibility for adult competitions) to 19.

I'm still not sure it solves many of the concerns discussed in this thread, as some of them are clearly related to the changeover of the system rather than the new system, while some are just blathering.

80%+ of children quit Gaelic football before they're 21 years old. It's usually because they're missing one or more of the core faculties needed to excel in a sport that requires dedication to physical conditioning, and occasionally it happens because there's just nowhere for them to go (a good, dedicated player joining the adult ranks after 5-6 years of good teams coming through before him). Dropout is rarely if ever attributable to age grade cutoffs.

[Taylor]

They moved u17 because of player welfare concerns. In the old system, a talented 18 year old would have been expected to player county minor hurling and football, club minor hurling and football, club senior hurling and football. Even beyond player welfare, it's a fixture chaos situation, especially at championship time. True, most people aren't dual players. But I believe it has had the desired effect.

Keeping the grades 2 years apart (17, 15, 13) of course made sense at that point.

But in retrospect the better thing to do might have been to change the age of adulthood (eligibility for adult competitions) to 19.

I'm still not sure it solves many of the concerns discussed in this thread, as some of them are clearly related to the changeover of the system rather than the new system, while some are just blathering.

80%+ of children quit Gaelic football before they're 21 years old. It's usually because they're missing one or more of the core faculties needed to excel in a sport that requires dedication to physical conditioning, and occasionally it happens because there's just nowhere for them to go (a good, dedicated player joining the adult ranks after 5-6 years of good teams coming through before him). Dropout is rarely if ever attributable to age grade cutoffs.

It is a culmination wobbler - if a child is constantly playing against bigger/older players in age levels the interest wanes until the drop off is inevitable.

They might not quit when until the older age groups however the process was set in motion earlier in their career.

You cannot estimate the knock in confidence this is having in kids.

Consistently playing against your school peers brings a kid on an awful lot

[David McKeown]

I remember seeing a stat a few years ago that 70+ % of Olympic athletes were born in the first three months of their school year. The stats for premier league footballers were similar. I wonder what the stats are in GAA and does the two year age groups impact on that. The working theory was the older kids tended to bigger stronger etc earlier and therefore came to the fore sooner and got more coaching and playing time as a result.

[Truth hurts]

I have yet to see an u19 competition in Ulster or Ireland that has been taking seriously? The best players are playing senior football

[shark]

I remember seeing a stat a few years ago that 70+ % of Olympic athletes were born in the first three months of their school year. The stats for premier league footballers were similar. I wonder what the stats are in GAA and does the two year age groups impact on that. The working theory was the older kids tended to bigger stronger etc earlier and therefore came to the fore sooner and got more coaching and playing time as a result.

Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell covers this in detail. The figures are staggering. I can't see any reason why the GAA would be immune from this. Although the different age cut offs between club and school might actually be a good thing. The lad born in November is at a statistical disadvantage for club, but he would be one of the oldest on a school team. I was born in February, which was great for me. But was always a tougher ask making the school team than the club team on my "good" year, as there was more competition.
No matter where you put the cut off, there will be some lads who missed it by a month. It's up to coaches to recognise this and make allowances for it.
My concern with minor being a year early is that lads will drift away as they become forcefully disengaged. I'm not talking about the lads who would have been lost anyway , but the lad who will play if he feels he has something worth playing for , but won't if he does not. There are 17 year olds who are just not physically ready for even lower division adult football. One year makes a big difference at that age.

[johnnycool]

In my experience the school year thing is most important at primary school levels as kids are inclined to stick at it if their friends at school are also on the same team. When the GAA was calendar year then you'd some of the class playing a different agegroup to their classmates and some dropped out due to it.

Down moved to the school years a few years before Croke Park started messing around with it and IMO it works for us as a club. I'd be more ambivalent to it at the older agegroups as kids are more developed and confident and can take or leave the calendar year vrs school year debate either way.

As for U19's, it patently isn't working as intended due to the overlap with adult competitions and is an end of year, in the depths of winter, box ticking competition but there were similar issues with U18's as there was an overlap with adult competitions as well but was squeezed in somewhere or other.

Moving the requirement to be over 19 to play adult competitions will be the death knell for small, rural clubs. trust me on that one.

[thewobbler]

Johnny out of curiosity, why are you thinking one more year of juvenile classification would create a death knell?

It is  obviously vital  to have players coming through each year. Surely the actual handover age isn't as important as the process?

By the way, I'd have no qualms with 16 year olds playing adult football myself. The problem inherent is that we are perhaps the only sporting organisation on earth in which when a player is talented enough to move up a grade, we force him to play both grades.

[johnnycool]

Johnny out of curiosity, why are you thinking one more year of juvenile classification would create a death knell?

It is  obviously vital  to have players coming through each year. Surely the actual handover age isn't as important as the process?

By the way, I'd have no qualms with 16 year olds playing adult football myself. The problem inherent is that we are perhaps the only sporting organisation on earth in which when a player is talented enough to move up a grade, we force him to play both grades.

I believed you were moving it up two age groups and not the one but then U19 would still have the overlap with adult competitions with no gain for those 18yo's unless I misunderstand you.

Here's one for you. We've a 15yo who was on our U15 team this year and he plays rugby and is training with the Ulster U18 development squad yet can't play U17 intercounty hurling which he's well capable of.

Now I think the GAA are entirely right in not allowing those U15 to play U17 intercounty yet the rugby crowd have no qualms over playing a 15yo @ U18...

[thewobbler]

It would be one year up.

Currently if born in 2004 or later, you're a juvenile for all of 2021.

What I'm suggesting is that if we were to return to u18, 16, 14, then from a fixtures/burnout perspective the rule for 2021 would be better implemented as "if born in 2003 or later, you're a juvenile for all of 2021".

This would though be self-contradictory, as a lad born on 1 Jan 2003 would be an adult in the eyes of the law (and insurance makers) for an entire year before he can play senior football.

This I suppose though is fundamentally why the top brass forced in 17-15-13, for as it stands, anyone playing u17 grade this season cannot become a full adult / 18 years old during any part of the season.

——

The u19 grade is utterly pointless. It will always be a shambles as the better players will be on their club's senior panel, and the less interested players will either be living it up at uni, or earning enough coin to do things that interests them more. In Down there are maybe 4-5 clubs with a big enough pick to generate a team from what's left.

[Truth hurts]

The u19 grade is a disaster and I guarantee clubs have lost more players earlier than before.

[Armagh18]

The u19 grade is a disaster and I guarantee clubs have lost more players earlier than before.

agreed.