Number Of Games

Too Much Of A Good Thing?

When the pros play, we take them a little bit for granted.  Think of the summer tours by European giants here in the US, fans gripe about the lack of the biggest stars making appearances in these friendly matches, or how quickly they are removed from a match.  But it's worth considering how carefully the economic value of a Rooney or Ronaldo is balanced against the very real necessity for that player to play at the highest possible level over the long domestic season.

Given the audience of this site, more to the point, consider how many minutes might be appropriate for a youth-level player.  

Consider this graphic from the Wall Street Journal:


For A Full Time Job They Don't Play More Than A Main Line 11-Year-Old!

From  ESPN (Miguel Delaney) as part of a Euro 2012 preview:

Since the start of Euro 2008, the core squad (ie, the five to seven key players) of each of the main Euro 2012 favourites have played, on average, the following number of games per year: Spain 58 England 56 France 49 Portugal 47 Germany 46 Italy 45 Netherlands 44.  Over four years, that's a lot more than just a few matches.

It could be that the more matches, the better performance results due to all the time spent playing- though not all those games were spent with just the national sides, most weren't, so chemistry isn't necessarily being helped though individual performances could be if fatigue is not counteracting excessively.  But it could also be argued that there is a threshold, a tipping point.  The other three semi-finalists in this year's Euro Championship (Italy/Germany/Portugal) had stars who played fully 10 games fewer than Spain's.  But of course, Spain let the ball do the running, don't they?  So, as always, Spain are a true outlier.  England, the Netherlands and France, with good but not great teams, may have over done it, being just a little too worn down to advance.  An oversimplification, to be sure.

Now, take out the two largest and two smallest numbers from that list of EURO favorites, and the average per year is 47 and some change games.  Since August 30th, the Quick Boys have played 5 matches, with another 10 or 11 league games, the Columbus Day Weekend Tournament and the inaugural LMSC Thanksgiving tournament.  By December 1st it is likely they will have played 23 matches...nearly half the annual average of a professional player in three months.

The saving grace may be that it is all a wash, really.  Since every club and national team is playing as many games as possible (games on TV = $$ after all!) the players are all equally exhausted, and the more talented, better organized, etc. group will win out.

From When Saturday Comes as part of an Olympic preview:

Alba played every minute of the Euro 2012 campaign, while Mata, another scorer in the final, was pivotal as Chelsea won the FA Cup and Champions League. Four Spain players managed more club appearances than Mata's 53 last season: Adrián López, Ander Herrera, Javi Martínez and Iker Muniain.

As we now know, the Spanish didn't get the gold.  One has to wonder if excessive minutes was a factor.  Of course, the U23 (plus three overage players) squad isn't the national team, and oughtn't be looked at in quite the same light.  But still...

The Leading Edge Of Player Development

Furthermore, consider the advice from the English FA, as presented by our own USSF in the Best Practices document (available in PDF for free, here).

The Football Association (FA), the governing body of English football, has made the following

recommendations regarding the Football Academy program, which targets the top young

players in England and is run as a mandatory developmental arm of the top professional league

in England (the English Premier League –EPL):

* Players aged 12 to 18 should play a maximum of 30 games per year with their club.
* No 11-a-side soccer until age 12. 

(In the US we opt mainly for U13 to be the first 11-a-side level)

* The level of competition should be compatible with the player's colleagues and opposition.  (e.g., Not so difficult that success is not an option, and not so easy that the players become unmotivated.)
* Clubs and coaches should take care that players: Play alongside, and against, boys of a comparable standard, enabling them to put into practice skills learned during the week in an environment where they will be stretched.

* Play in a competitive environment where quality of performance is more important than results.

I'm the first to tease the Brits about their insistence about being the football nation.  But they have been at the development game a little longer than their US counterparts, have certainly produced more world-class players, and we can learn a little bit from their approach.

One more thought from the USSF on page 32 of the Best Practices:

Manchester United’s Academy U-18 team, along with the rest of the 

English Premier League Academy teams, play a 27-30 game league schedule that begins in 

mid August and finishes in mid April. That’s 27-30 games over the course of 9 months or 36 

weeks, or less than one game per week, with 3 months of no matches.

Imagine if US kids followed this guideline.  There are several caveats to note, of course. The coaching is probably a bit more uniform and organized, to say nothing of being handled by professionals.  The single biggest criticism I can make of coaching in the US is that it is done largely by part-timers at the youth level, and the results show this.  Secondly, those EPL academy kids probably train 4-5 nights per week throughout the schedule, and are putting in far more time than our kids will do here with school demands and other extra-curriculars.  

A Slightly Different Take

The NBA fans out there wonder how the Europeans and Argentinians have closed the competitive gap far more effectively than US Soccer has done relative to the rest of the world; I would surmise that it is the structure taken from the football clubs and applied to hoops that's done the trick.  The Real Madrid basketball team youth system is probably coached by pros...not high school teachers or community members with other jobs.  Why the NBA hasn't started academies in the same way US Soccer has (though far too slowly) ought to be a source of much concern.  Granted, the money-grubbing NCAA will push back in every conceivable way, but it is just more middlemen, confusion, and detours on the way to the top level.

The US does, in some ways, provide a better balance of sport and everything else.  Whereas young kids in Europe have to choose the soccer versus scholastic routes early on, our kids don't have to.  Of course, our kids take on too many extra-curriculars, but that's a different issue. 

Fewer Games, Better Instruction & Environments

At the end of the day, our biggest clubs (and not just ECNL/Development Academy affiliates) should be finding ways to hire coaches who make their living in soccer.  They'll have the resources to do so (though Odyssey Sport is a great example of a small club pulling off the same trick for far less in fees) and the population base to have the human resources nearby.  College coaches ought to be heavily involved, rather than taking the strictly parasitic stance of waiting for someone else to develop kids for them to pluck at graduation.  Many do contribute, but many do not.

Of course, DOCs could hire any qualified coach, and there are surely plenty who make their daily bread outside the game, but there aren't a lot of folks who hire plumbers who make their living doing something else.

Dan Coyle has made the 10,000 hour rule hugely popular though sports folks have somehow missed the bit where he says 10,000 hours of practice.  He certainly doesn't endorse 10,000 hours of concerts for a pianist!  Improve the training, do more of it, make matches meaningful and special- a reward rather than a weekly routine- and teach children the joy of the process rather than the base satisfaction of results.