Go Games - Good or bad - discuss...

[From the Bunker]

I think start competitive at under 10 and burn off the driftwood earlier. If they are not good enough at that age they never will be.

I jest!

I have a son who is right in the middle as to ability, not outstanding and not shite. Until this year, his last competitive game was in 2019.

2020 he was 11 years old in a under 12 team. Panel of about 27.
2021 he was 12 years old in a under 13 team. Panel of about 27.

Being the young lad and of average ability, his sub number was about 22.
There were up to 9 lads involved training these teams, most of the trainers would be parents of the older lads.

This year was his good year. He was 13 years old in a under 13 team. But the two years of non competitive football have left him like a rabbit in the headlights. He did not know what to do.

We went to about half way in this season and pulled the plug. It was a huge relief leaving the whatsapp group. It's amazing how you can end up despising part of something you love.

He is a very decent soccer player and this has been his saviour. Full competitive games over the same period and oozing in confidence.

The younger lad of 10 is now doing go-games. He is of a decent standard. But I'm weary of the road ahead.

[Stall the Bailer]

https://www.irishtimes.com/health/your-fitness/2022/10/11/we-nearly-lost-our-boy-due-to-men-who-needed-the-under-12-win-to-make-them-feel-they-were-great/ interesting article about this topic

[Newbridge Exile]

https://www.irishtimes.com/health/your-fitness/2022/10/11/we-nearly-lost-our-boy-due-to-men-who-needed-the-under-12-win-to-make-them-feel-they-were-great/ interesting article about this topic

An article I can relate to for football but thankfully not hurling for my son this  year for go games ,/ blitzes

[LeoMc]

Just finished up an u11.5 season where we'd 2 x teams, one a mostly p7 team playing in d1, one a mostly p6 team playing in d4. I jumped between the teams week on week and got a good flavour of both.

I have to say it's a credit to the South Down board (Brendan Rice the coordinator) that both our teams got 16-18 games on Sunday mornings with official referees,and just about every match played in the right spirit.

There are some serious plus points to Go Games. The first one being that I can count on one hand the number of players blown up for overcarrying all year; the players just seem to get it. The direct result of this is a clear need and resultant emphasis on other skills: quick hand passing and support play, longer, earlier passing, and timed tackling. Half backs can read space in the knowledge that opponents will have to kick. Full backs learn that they can stand a man up and force him into a mistake, even if he's twice their size. Midfielders (still the strongest athletes have to use their heads as well as their legs). From a coach's perspective, the non-competitive angle does allow you to t**ker with positions and give you more room to give weaker players a lengthier run out.

But there's clear downsides too. The weakest players just don't figure in the way anyone would hope they could. They tend to be too far off the pace in terms of athleticism, or interest levels, or both. Truth is, football is no more or less likely to be their medium term pursuit, than it was for 10 year olds of a similar ilk from 30 years ago. This sounds cruel, but when the weakest players manage to pair off against each other, it's a something of a relief for both sets of coaches. The lower mid-level players get many more touches (i assume) than in the "olden days" but they're usually little more than ball walls for the stronger players to get a rebound from. I guess the stronger mid-level players benefit the most: the rules mean the stronger players want and need them to get better and encourage them along.

But the biggest concern from my limited experience is just how more tuned in stronger players get when they go to a tournament. It could be 4 teams or 40 teams in the field, it doesn't matter. If there's a cup and medals to play for, the interest levels and efforts of the stronger players go through the roof. Which personally I love to see happening. It just makes me wonder if the development leagues are actually suitable for the development of stronger players. Going through the motions in a series of "fun league" fixtures probably isn't helping them.

Long way of saying I don't know if it's good or bad, I suppose.

That is a great bit of work by the Down Board. In Tyrone there were 9 rounds of Go games from April to September. It was up to the participating clubs to arrange their own referees.

[trueblue1234]

Just finished up an u11.5 season where we'd 2 x teams, one a mostly p7 team playing in d1, one a mostly p6 team playing in d4. I jumped between the teams week on week and got a good flavour of both.

I have to say it's a credit to the South Down board (Brendan Rice the coordinator) that both our teams got 16-18 games on Sunday mornings with official referees,and just about every match played in the right spirit.

There are some serious plus points to Go Games. The first one being that I can count on one hand the number of players blown up for overcarrying all year; the players just seem to get it. The direct result of this is a clear need and resultant emphasis on other skills: quick hand passing and support play, longer, earlier passing, and timed tackling. Half backs can read space in the knowledge that opponents will have to kick. Full backs learn that they can stand a man up and force him into a mistake, even if he's twice their size. Midfielders (still the strongest athletes have to use their heads as well as their legs). From a coach's perspective, the non-competitive angle does allow you to t**ker with positions and give you more room to give weaker players a lengthier run out.

But there's clear downsides too. The weakest players just don't figure in the way anyone would hope they could. They tend to be too far off the pace in terms of athleticism, or interest levels, or both. Truth is, football is no more or less likely to be their medium term pursuit, than it was for 10 year olds of a similar ilk from 30 years ago. This sounds cruel, but when the weakest players manage to pair off against each other, it's a something of a relief for both sets of coaches. The lower mid-level players get many more touches (i assume) than in the "olden days" but they're usually little more than ball walls for the stronger players to get a rebound from. I guess the stronger mid-level players benefit the most: the rules mean the stronger players want and need them to get better and encourage them along.

But the biggest concern from my limited experience is just how more tuned in stronger players get when they go to a tournament. It could be 4 teams or 40 teams in the field, it doesn't matter. If there's a cup and medals to play for, the interest levels and efforts of the stronger players go through the roof. Which personally I love to see happening. It just makes me wonder if the development leagues are actually suitable for the development of stronger players. Going through the motions in a series of "fun league" fixtures probably isn't helping them.

Long way of saying I don't know if it's good or bad, I suppose.

That is a great bit of work by the Down Board. In Tyrone there were 9 rounds of Go games from April to September. It was up to the participating clubs to arrange their own referees.

I don't mind the organising of the refs tbh. Usually just a matter of the home team drafting in some of the minors, which I think is good for them as well.

A few more games would definitely have been good.

What do clubs tend to do for training for the U8's and u10's? We do one night training during week and then games/ training Sat morning. But was speaking to 2 clubs who were out twice a week training then game. And to be honest it showed.
But I think that's a lot for that age group. Makes it hard for other activities. That said I know most of the players tend to love getting out and it's great to get them doing physical activity so often.

[Truth hurts]

Just finished up an u11.5 season where we'd 2 x teams, one a mostly p7 team playing in d1, one a mostly p6 team playing in d4. I jumped between the teams week on week and got a good flavour of both.

I have to say it's a credit to the South Down board (Brendan Rice the coordinator) that both our teams got 16-18 games on Sunday mornings with official referees,and just about every match played in the right spirit.

There are some serious plus points to Go Games. The first one being that I can count on one hand the number of players blown up for overcarrying all year; the players just seem to get it. The direct result of this is a clear need and resultant emphasis on other skills: quick hand passing and support play, longer, earlier passing, and timed tackling. Half backs can read space in the knowledge that opponents will have to kick. Full backs learn that they can stand a man up and force him into a mistake, even if he's twice their size. Midfielders (still the strongest athletes have to use their heads as well as their legs). From a coach's perspective, the non-competitive angle does allow you to t**ker with positions and give you more room to give weaker players a lengthier run out.

But there's clear downsides too. The weakest players just don't figure in the way anyone would hope they could. They tend to be too far off the pace in terms of athleticism, or interest levels, or both. Truth is, football is no more or less likely to be their medium term pursuit, than it was for 10 year olds of a similar ilk from 30 years ago. This sounds cruel, but when the weakest players manage to pair off against each other, it's a something of a relief for both sets of coaches. The lower mid-level players get many more touches (i assume) than in the "olden days" but they're usually little more than ball walls for the stronger players to get a rebound from. I guess the stronger mid-level players benefit the most: the rules mean the stronger players want and need them to get better and encourage them along.

But the biggest concern from my limited experience is just how more tuned in stronger players get when they go to a tournament. It could be 4 teams or 40 teams in the field, it doesn't matter. If there's a cup and medals to play for, the interest levels and efforts of the stronger players go through the roof. Which personally I love to see happening. It just makes me wonder if the development leagues are actually suitable for the development of stronger players. Going through the motions in a series of "fun league" fixtures probably isn't helping them.

Long way of saying I don't know if it's good or bad, I suppose.

That is a great bit of work by the Down Board. In Tyrone there were 9 rounds of Go games from April to September. It was up to the participating clubs to arrange their own referees.

I don't mind the organising of the refs tbh. Usually just a matter of the home team drafting in some of the minors, which I think is good for them as well.

A few more games would definitely have been good.

What do clubs tend to do for training for the U8's and u10's? We do one night training during week and then games/ training Sat morning. But was speaking to 2 clubs who were out twice a week training then game. And to be honest it showed.
But I think that's a lot for that age group. Makes it hard for other activities. That said I know most of the players tend to love getting out and it's great to get them doing physical activity so often.

Tournaments at underage need to be culled, they only create division and some take all day when the kids are standing around freezing most of the time. Then the dreaded 1-hour lunch break. They are one of my major gripes in the GAA

[Armagh18]

Just finished up an u11.5 season where we'd 2 x teams, one a mostly p7 team playing in d1, one a mostly p6 team playing in d4. I jumped between the teams week on week and got a good flavour of both.

I have to say it's a credit to the South Down board (Brendan Rice the coordinator) that both our teams got 16-18 games on Sunday mornings with official referees,and just about every match played in the right spirit.

There are some serious plus points to Go Games. The first one being that I can count on one hand the number of players blown up for overcarrying all year; the players just seem to get it. The direct result of this is a clear need and resultant emphasis on other skills: quick hand passing and support play, longer, earlier passing, and timed tackling. Half backs can read space in the knowledge that opponents will have to kick. Full backs learn that they can stand a man up and force him into a mistake, even if he's twice their size. Midfielders (still the strongest athletes have to use their heads as well as their legs). From a coach's perspective, the non-competitive angle does allow you to t**ker with positions and give you more room to give weaker players a lengthier run out.

But there's clear downsides too. The weakest players just don't figure in the way anyone would hope they could. They tend to be too far off the pace in terms of athleticism, or interest levels, or both. Truth is, football is no more or less likely to be their medium term pursuit, than it was for 10 year olds of a similar ilk from 30 years ago. This sounds cruel, but when the weakest players manage to pair off against each other, it's a something of a relief for both sets of coaches. The lower mid-level players get many more touches (i assume) than in the "olden days" but they're usually little more than ball walls for the stronger players to get a rebound from. I guess the stronger mid-level players benefit the most: the rules mean the stronger players want and need them to get better and encourage them along.

But the biggest concern from my limited experience is just how more tuned in stronger players get when they go to a tournament. It could be 4 teams or 40 teams in the field, it doesn't matter. If there's a cup and medals to play for, the interest levels and efforts of the stronger players go through the roof. Which personally I love to see happening. It just makes me wonder if the development leagues are actually suitable for the development of stronger players. Going through the motions in a series of "fun league" fixtures probably isn't helping them.

Long way of saying I don't know if it's good or bad, I suppose.

That is a great bit of work by the Down Board. In Tyrone there were 9 rounds of Go games from April to September. It was up to the participating clubs to arrange their own referees.

I don't mind the organising of the refs tbh. Usually just a matter of the home team drafting in some of the minors, which I think is good for them as well.

A few more games would definitely have been good.

What do clubs tend to do for training for the U8's and u10's? We do one night training during week and then games/ training Sat morning. But was speaking to 2 clubs who were out twice a week training then game. And to be honest it showed.
But I think that's a lot for that age group. Makes it hard for other activities. That said I know most of the players tend to love getting out and it's great to get them doing physical activity so often.

Tournaments at underage need to be culled, they only create division and some take all day when the kids are standing around freezing most of the time. Then the dreaded 1-hour lunch break. They are one of my major gripes in the GAA

I'd disagree. Have great memories of going to various ones as a child and have been back plenty as a coach since. As long as they are well run there is certainly a place for them.

[johnnycool]

Just finished up an u11.5 season where we'd 2 x teams, one a mostly p7 team playing in d1, one a mostly p6 team playing in d4. I jumped between the teams week on week and got a good flavour of both.

I have to say it's a credit to the South Down board (Brendan Rice the coordinator) that both our teams got 16-18 games on Sunday mornings with official referees,and just about every match played in the right spirit.

There are some serious plus points to Go Games. The first one being that I can count on one hand the number of players blown up for overcarrying all year; the players just seem to get it. The direct result of this is a clear need and resultant emphasis on other skills: quick hand passing and support play, longer, earlier passing, and timed tackling. Half backs can read space in the knowledge that opponents will have to kick. Full backs learn that they can stand a man up and force him into a mistake, even if he's twice their size. Midfielders (still the strongest athletes have to use their heads as well as their legs). From a coach's perspective, the non-competitive angle does allow you to t**ker with positions and give you more room to give weaker players a lengthier run out.

But there's clear downsides too. The weakest players just don't figure in the way anyone would hope they could. They tend to be too far off the pace in terms of athleticism, or interest levels, or both. Truth is, football is no more or less likely to be their medium term pursuit, than it was for 10 year olds of a similar ilk from 30 years ago. This sounds cruel, but when the weakest players manage to pair off against each other, it's a something of a relief for both sets of coaches. The lower mid-level players get many more touches (i assume) than in the "olden days" but they're usually little more than ball walls for the stronger players to get a rebound from. I guess the stronger mid-level players benefit the most: the rules mean the stronger players want and need them to get better and encourage them along.

But the biggest concern from my limited experience is just how more tuned in stronger players get when they go to a tournament. It could be 4 teams or 40 teams in the field, it doesn't matter. If there's a cup and medals to play for, the interest levels and efforts of the stronger players go through the roof. Which personally I love to see happening. It just makes me wonder if the development leagues are actually suitable for the development of stronger players. Going through the motions in a series of "fun league" fixtures probably isn't helping them.

Long way of saying I don't know if it's good or bad, I suppose.

That is a great bit of work by the Down Board. In Tyrone there were 9 rounds of Go games from April to September. It was up to the participating clubs to arrange their own referees.

I don't mind the organising of the refs tbh. Usually just a matter of the home team drafting in some of the minors, which I think is good for them as well.

A few more games would definitely have been good.

What do clubs tend to do for training for the U8's and u10's? We do one night training during week and then games/ training Sat morning. But was speaking to 2 clubs who were out twice a week training then game. And to be honest it showed.
But I think that's a lot for that age group. Makes it hard for other activities. That said I know most of the players tend to love getting out and it's great to get them doing physical activity so often.

Tournaments at underage need to be culled, they only create division and some take all day when the kids are standing around freezing most of the time. Then the dreaded 1-hour lunch break. They are one of my major gripes in the GAA

I'd disagree. Have great memories of going to various ones as a child and have been back plenty as a coach since. As long as they are well run there is certainly a place for them.

Agreed.

tournaments, especially outside your normal county boundaries are a good experience for the kids.

We're off to Dungannon for an U9 one this Sunday. 

[LeoMc]

Once a week for training and a game, whether go games, tournaments or challenge games is plenty. The players would go 4-5 days a week all year round but you need to give them space to do other things and you do not want to fatigue the Parents or coaches.

[cornerback]

Once a week for training and a game, whether go games, tournaments or challenge games is plenty. The players would go 4-5 days a week all year round but you need to give them space to do other things and you do not want to fatigue the Parents or coaches.

Yeah, between football, hurling/camogie, soccer plus other activities (be it swimming, music, youth club etc) I think one training a week is plenty at the younger age groups.

Our club actually merged the football & hurling training at U7.5 age group which I thought was a great idea - introduced boys to hurling that probably wouldn't have otherwise taken it up; obviously not everyone kept it going but I think it's great to expose young children to as many activities as possible.

[themac_23]

Once a week for training and a game, whether go games, tournaments or challenge games is plenty. The players would go 4-5 days a week all year round but you need to give them space to do other things and you do not want to fatigue the Parents or coaches.

Yeah, between football, hurling/camogie, soccer plus other activities (be it swimming, music, youth club etc) I think one training a week is plenty at the younger age groups.

Our club actually merged the football & hurling training at U7.5 age group which I thought was a great idea - introduced boys to hurling that probably wouldn't have otherwise taken it up; obviously not everyone kept it going but I think it's great to expose young children to as many activities as possible.

My sons team do that, they do first 45 mins hurling then 45mins football or vica versa. when he started he hated hurling used to cry he didnt want to do it (prob to do with the helmet etc) but after about 6 months he's done a complete U turn and enjoys hurling more. Really shows that these things take time =. His coaches are first class too, brilliant with the kids which id say will stop there being a massive drop out rate.

[befair]

It's not only players we lose; lack of involvement/ownership means we lose the sense of community, the future administrators and club officials

[thewobbler]

It's not only players we lose; lack of involvement/ownership means we lose the sense of community, the future administrators and club officials

I've heard variations of this thought process a volume of times the past few years, and I'm growing quite cynical about it.

Based on my own narrow club experience, future administrators are few on the ground, but easy to spot. They tend to have a sense of place, and help out with small jobs in a quiet manner from an early age. The "surprise package" administrators tend to come along when their children show interest / promise in the game, and they then throw their shoulder to the wheel.

Something I don't think correlates with future administrators at all, is some kind of relationship /curve  addressing how long they dragged out a playing career at juvenile and reserve ranks.

[befair]

It's not only players we lose; lack of involvement/ownership means we lose the sense of community, the future administrators and club officials

I've heard variations of this thought process a volume of times the past few years, and I'm growing quite cynical about it.

Based on my own narrow club experience, future administrators are few on the ground, but easy to spot. They tend to have a sense of place, and help out with small jobs in a quiet manner from an early age. The "surprise package" administrators tend to come along when their children show interest / promise in the game, and they then throw their shoulder to the wheel.

Something I don't think correlates with future administrators at all, is some kind of relationship /curve  addressing how long they dragged out a playing career at juvenile and reserve ranks.

Case closed, based on "your experience.'

[thewobbler]

It's not only players we lose; lack of involvement/ownership means we lose the sense of community, the future administrators and club officials

I've heard variations of this thought process a volume of times the past few years, and I'm growing quite cynical about it.

Based on my own narrow club experience, future administrators are few on the ground, but easy to spot. They tend to have a sense of place, and help out with small jobs in a quiet manner from an early age. The "surprise package" administrators tend to come along when their children show interest / promise in the game, and they then throw their shoulder to the wheel.

Something I don't think correlates with future administrators at all, is some kind of relationship /curve  addressing how long they dragged out a playing career at juvenile and reserve ranks.

Case closed, based on "your experience.'

No, it's not like that. Not closed.

Just my experience.

Open to the floor.