Underage Grades

Started by Seany, November 10, 2019, 08:13:24 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

DuffleKing

Correct Wobbler. Its mad how scared people are of change and how blind to obvious they can be.

For whatever reason, noone seems to recognise the uselessness of an u21 championship jammed into the darkest corner of winter. Is that really a development bridge from underage to adult football. Surely a complete u19 or u20 season, properly thought out, can serve clubs better?

I guess neither perspective is scientific but the majority of club coaches i know in armagh consider the half ages to have been a step backwards.

Smokin Joe

Quote from: DuffleKing on November 12, 2019, 12:52:06 AM

I guess neither perspective is scientific but the majority of club coaches i know in armagh consider the half ages to have been a step backwards.

Really?  Why are the half years a step backwards? To my mind the ability to play with your classmates the whole way up through the underage structure has to be better than two class mates, one born in December and the other in January not being able to play the same underage grade one year in two.
I keep harking back to the fact that this ability to always play with your classmates has to help participation rates.

Farrandeelin

Mayo have the evens as their main events until early August or so. From then until end of October the switch to odds occurs. The u-17 came in a few years ago but was scrapped again soon after.

I suppose having a lad turning 18 in or around Christmas is better off still playing u-18 instead of playing adult football for most of that year.
Inaugural Football Championship Prediction Winner.

t_mac

Quote from: Throw ball on November 11, 2019, 01:43:57 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on November 11, 2019, 01:35:02 PM
Think for Northern teams, the half years work well as it leaves lads playing with their own school year the whole way up.

100%. Young fellas will stay longer if their school friends are there too.

That's it in a nutshell in the occupied 6, last worked very well IMO.

The Gs Man

Antrim keeping 12, 14, 16 next season.

QuoteAge groups for 2020

Following central councils adoption of the "Academy Report" in June 2019, a direction was issued by An Ard Stiúrthóir on 2nd October 2019.

In that correspondence the Ard Stiúrthóir confirmed that the " Association Policy" was to change the age groups  to u13.u15 and u17 for 2020, but noted that other grades  i.e. 14, 16, and 18  could be allowed subject to prior approval from Central council.

Given that this is a policy and not a rule confusion exists thought-out the country

Its anticipated that a range of motions will be put to congress in Feb 2020 setting the 13,15 and 17 age groups into rule commencing Jan 2021 ( it's highly unlikely that they could be delivered any earlier as most counties will have competition schedules in place by the time congress meets in Feb 2020).

The County Chairman, Ciarán Mc Cavana, has been taking soundings  from both inside and outside the county over the last few weeks.

Based on that engagement  Antrim GAA will be retaining  the current u14 u16 and u18 age grades for 2020 .
Keep 'er lit

magpie seanie

Quote from: thewobbler on November 11, 2019, 07:40:00 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on November 11, 2019, 07:20:30 PM
Tipperary is hanging onto the U12, u14, U16 for dear life. Still playing 21 this year as well. There is a sense that this convention might be the death knell and next year will go to odd years. I actually don't see much wrong with 12s 14s and 16s, but equally I don't think moving to odd years will result in a mass exodus either.

This is the odd thing about any clamour against changing the age grades; the ones who object to it cite dwindling playing numbers and player retention as major issues for their clubs, but want to retain things exactly as they are. I'm really not sure they're looking at the problem and the solution at the same time .

Ok - so what is the problem that switching age grades from "even" to "odd" will solve? I honestly don't see it. Usually dwindling numbers and player retention issues are caused by bad coaching/management and/or a poor fixtures programme. Also - has changing to U-17 and U-20 at county level been a success? I think it has been a total failure and that seems to be widely acknowledged. A pure nonsense.

johnnycool

#21
Quote from: Smokin Joe on November 12, 2019, 06:56:12 AM
Quote from: DuffleKing on November 12, 2019, 12:52:06 AM

I guess neither perspective is scientific but the majority of club coaches i know in armagh consider the half ages to have been a step backwards.

Really?  Why are the half years a step backwards? To my mind the ability to play with your classmates the whole way up through the underage structure has to be better than two class mates, one born in December and the other in January not being able to play the same underage grade one year in two.
I keep harking back to the fact that this ability to always play with your classmates has to help participation rates.
I'd agree entirely with this statement when its based purely on the Primary school age groups and Down are hopefully sticking with it even if it does change to P3 P5 and P7.

I don't think thereafter it matters as much as kids are now attending three, maybe four different secondary schools anyway.

U19 age group won't work for us as that means some lads are away to university and fitting fixtures around adult hurling is near on impossible.
Won't be a problem for big clubs but once again little or no thought given to small, rural clubs.

Does anyone have the problem statement this move is meant to fix?

The only thing I can think off is that the powers that be wanted to move away from junior cert and leaving cert ages, but even that doesn't make sense.

Rudi

Quote from: manfromdelmonte on November 10, 2019, 09:47:24 PM
There was nothing wrong with U12, 14, 16, minor.

Too much tinkering about in the GAA the last 6 or 7 years
Every president feels they have to leave their mark or legacy, instead of just being the head of the GAA for 3 years and representing the association  as best they can

Would agree, as an underage coach its a total pain in the h&le. Leave things alone.

Taylor

I still dont understand what they are trying to achieve by constantly tinkering with the grades?
Does anyone know?

As a coach who has seen high volumes of kids dropping out I agree that 1/2 year age groups are the best. Irrespective of kids being spread across schools playing with kids in the same year as you makes much more sense.

But sure what do we know. We only coach the kids in small clubs.

It is much more important to look after the largest clubs and counties  ::)

Rudi

Whole heap of marketing people in the GAA/ Croke Park who look at change as a good thing to keep things fresh? Really they are just ballsing things up.

thewobbler

Surely everyone can accept that a talented u18 being asked to give his time to colleges, county minor, club minor, and club senior for the same season is a problem? That's before dual sport commitments.

That's the fundamental reason for moving to u17. It actually does make sense folks.

shark

Quote from: thewobbler on November 12, 2019, 02:10:39 PM
Surely everyone can accept that a talented u18 being asked to give his time to colleges, county minor, club minor, and club senior for the same season is a problem? That's before dual sport commitments.

That's the fundamental reason for moving to u17. It actually does make sense folks.

County minor has already gone to u17. Colleges is done and dusted by the spring time, before club u18 gets going properly. If I look at the senior team in my own club, the first 24/25 guys, I'd say about 3 of them were playing on the senior team at u18. The last one would have been 7 years ago.
The drop off rate is bad enough from 18 to 19, without bringing it forward a year.
County can do what it likes as far as I am concerned, they are not the ones developing the players, and can afford to ignore the late developers. My club needs it to stay at u18, and going by the last time this was proposed at county board level, we are in the vast majority.

thewobbler

Maybe you're right Shark.

I just don't see it myself.

I don't see how playing one more year of juvenile football (instead of seconds football) would have any impact on dropout rates.

I just don't see how an 18 year old focused entirely on senior football (after the colleges season has ended) won't make the breakthrough quicker. Senior managers have had a relatively good excuse to not play 18 year old until now ie they're getting games at minor level, or they're not often at senior training due to county/college/club minor commitments.

thewobbler

Also please explain the science behind "my club needs to stay at u18 level".

It's at best intuition. There's no proof.

I'd expect you've had a handful or two of lads in your club's history who struggled at under 17, then went on to play senior football. We've all had them. But lads like this very rarely skip reserve football as a building block.

Blowitupref

Quote from: thewobbler on November 12, 2019, 02:10:39 PM
Surely everyone can accept that a talented u18 being asked to give his time to colleges, county minor, club minor, and club senior for the same season is a problem? That's before dual sport commitments.

That's the fundamental reason for moving to u17. It actually does make sense folks.

Can see some sense with changing U18 to U17 but less so with u21 to U20
Is the ref going to finally blow his whistle?... No, he's going to blow his nose