U18s development league

[oldandround]

Rumours abound at Lothian clubs that the lowland are expanding the development leagues to include an U18s league in addition to the 20s from next season.

 

Registration would be through the club so players would be able to play 18s 20s top team etc.

 

Apparently there are 10 teams signed up for it

 

Anyone heard anything[emoji848]

[leomessi1984]

11 minutes ago, oldandround said:

 

Rumours abound at Lothian clubs that the lowland are expanding the development leagues to include an U18s league in addition to the 20s from next season.

 

Registration would be through the club so players would be able to play 18s 20s top team etc.

 

Apparently there are 10 teams signed up for it

 

Anyone heard anything

 

Another positive step forward if true!

[Burnie_man]

34 minutes ago, oldandround said:

 

Rumours abound at Lothian clubs that the lowland are expanding the development leagues to include an U18s league in addition to the 20s from next season.

 

Registration would be through the club so players would be able to play 18s 20s top team etc.

 

Apparently there are 10 teams signed up for it

 

Anyone heard anything

 

Not a Dicky Bird.

[FairWeatherFan]

Wasn't this rumoured end of last year with the SYFA trying to put a stop to it? Both u18 and u16 leagues it was then.

[gaz5]

Not heard a thing. You'd think if true the current 20's Dev clubs would know about it.

Same rumor was doing the rounds last year.

[the tin man]

This is being spoken about now apparently few teams being spoken to about playing u16s. Sfa r saying there too young

[Burnie_man]

Bringing in an U18 league would make sense. Largely removes the issue of SYFA not playing ball with regards to trialists in the U20's, and also makes it easier for clubs to field teams in the SFA Youth Cup.

[parsforlife]

8 hours ago, the tin man said:

This is being spoken about now apparently few teams being spoken to about playing u16s. Sfa r saying there too young

I can see the SFA not wanting a formal u16 league, generally it’s still perceived for games at that age to be ‘non competitive’  nothing to stop there being a group of clubs who arrange fixtures against each other.  I believe in the CAS structure only a u17 table is kept and that’s only due to it being necessary to declare a champion to play in UEFA tournament at u18s? and still kept pretty hush hush. 

5 hours ago, Burnie_man said:

Bringing in an U18 league would make sense. Largely removes the issue of SYFA not playing ball with regards to trialists in the U20's, and also makes it easier for clubs to field teams in the SFA Youth Cup.

It certainly helps but does it not just move the issue down an age group when the u18s want to use a 15 year old doing well?

Long term as we continue to see a change in how youth football and adult football link up(away from the pathway of Boys club, u21 side, adult side to it being an integrated club right through)  We should see non-league sides link into the CAS system.

I’m a little out of touch since project brave but I think it pretty much works with having clubs classed as elite or performance where you play 2/3rds of you games vs sides in your own category and the other third against the other sides.  Bringing in another level(for arguments sake ‘progressive’ or ‘community’) where they play each other most of the time and on occasion the performance level clubs makes perfect sense IMO.

[Burnie_man]

10 hours ago, parsforlife said:

It certainly helps but does it not just move the issue down an age group when the u18s want to use a 15 year old doing well?

Probably a rarer occurrence than the U20's wanting to trial U18/19's.

It does kick the can down the road a bit, but it gives greater flexibility to the U20 side in developing players for the first team, also more chance of an U16/U17 signing and playing regularly for the U18's and making the odd appearance for U20, than trialling occasionally for U20's under SERYFA threats!

[the tin man]

Is it still the case once u go up an age group you can't come down that's maybe where the problem lies

[RampantFM]

On 03/03/2020 at 13:52, oldandround said:

 

Rumours abound at Lothian clubs that the lowland are expanding the development leagues to include an U18s league in addition to the 20s from next season.

 

Registration would be through the club so players would be able to play 18s 20s top team etc.

 

Apparently there are 10 teams signed up for it

 

Anyone heard anything

 

Can't see it happening as most clubs are playing U18 players in their development squads already.

There has also been a couple of teams pull out of the league this season due to lack of numbers. 

Don't see how adding another full squad will help with this.

Only thing I can think of is maybe community clubs with a lot of youngsters such as Spartans or Cumbernauld Colts have expressed an interest. 

Definitely won't be every team commiting. 

[Bestsinceslicebread]

On 05/03/2020 at 16:45, Burnie_man said:

Bringing in an U18 league would make sense. Largely removes the issue of SYFA not playing ball with regards to trialists in the U20's, and also makes it easier for clubs to field teams in the SFA Youth Cup.

Before we go any further I just want to say I seriously dislike the SYFA, I think its a job for the boys, looking after each other and the rules they have implemented are very wrong, are archaic and are harming Scottish Youth Football but we as coaches see the problems but they are not interested in what we have to say.

To be honest as a successful grassroots coach previously winning leagues and supplying lads to either junior or senior ranks I would say that's a define NO to U18s - 100% NO

The process that a lot of teams have now, mainly grassroots and academies is that teams go up through the ages and then hopefully once they get to U19s they should be at the stage where the first team should be taking notice, 

Right now I know for a fact of some development teams at U20s are having problems with the requisite of taking U17 players from a grassroots team
A lot of development teams don't have a full squad and take players from the younger age which some managers don't like. Obviously the first team can supply a couple of older players to bring the lads one while getting the older players match fit. 

We as a nation do not have enough players playing football anymore, especially at youth level so if putting an U18s league you are putting more of a strain on grassroots youth taking boys away from teams, teams not performing and then folding as boys that make an U120 development team are usually coming from an U19s grassroots team but if there is a strain on the level before we wont have these teams operating, its a catch 22.

In my experience of playing football and coaching I am fully 100% behind the pyramid and the development league but 100% against an U18s development league

p.s I hope what I've written here is conveyed the same way it is meant but I get a feeling it wont be and that's my bad 

Edited March 12, 2020 by Bestsinceslicebread

[Burnie_man]

None of that makes me think an u18 development league would be a bad thing. Sorry.

When you have the SERYFA making life very difficult for U20 teams to take U19/U17 players on trial, basically threatening their clubs with sanctions, how can that be any good for player pathways, even within the same club?  They need cut out.

Edited March 12, 2020 by Burnie_man

[Kelheart]

Growing up we had to play under 15s when we were 12,13 etc as there were no leagues for us then , hardened us up after some serious drubbings and kickings but once we got to around the age of 15  we started to win things 
makes me think young ones playing at an older level wouldn’t be a bad thing in the long run 

[gaz5]

Before we go any further I just want to say I seriously dislike the SYFA, I think its a job for the boys, looking after each other and the rules they have implemented are very wrong, are archaic and are harming Scottish Youth Football but we as coaches see the problems but they are not interested in what we have to say.
To be honest as a successful grassroots coach previously winning leagues and supplying lads to either junior or senior ranks I would say that's a define NO to U18s - 100% NO
The process that a lot of teams have now, mainly grassroots and academies is that teams go up through the ages and then hopefully once they get to U19s they should be at the stage where the first team should be taking notice, 
Right now I know for a fact of some development teams at U20s are having problems with the requisite of taking U17 players from a grassroots team
A lot of development teams don't have a full squad and take players from the younger age which some managers don't like. Obviously the first team can supply a couple of older players to bring the lads one while getting the older players match fit. 
We as a nation do not have enough players playing football anymore, especially at youth level so if putting an U18s league you are putting more of a strain on grassroots youth taking boys away from teams, teams not performing and then folding as boys that make an U120 development team are usually coming from an U19s grassroots team but if there is a strain on the level before we wont have these teams operating, its a catch 22.
In my experience of playing football and coaching I am fully 100% behind the pyramid and the development league but 100% against an U18s development league
p.s I hope what I've written here is conveyed the same way it is meant but I get a feeling it wont be and that's my bad 

My experience is almost the exact polar opposite of this.

We have an under 19's and an Under 20's team at the moment and they are too close in terms of age so they end up competing for the same players and because there are 40 players competing for first team opportunities it reduces their exposure (and we're a team built on getting guys into the first team).

We have a number of players playing 20's who are still young enough for 19's and a great number of players in the 19's good enough for 20's, plenty between both groups good enough and already having played in our first team this season.

We've decided that, given our experience, running 19's and 20's at the same time isn't the best model for the development of the players, that 17's and 20's would be a better balance with it being more beneficial for a 17's player to step up to the 20's to be "stretched" as required for their development.

It has been great to have so many quality players to pick from for the first team, but it has to be about the development of the players we think 17's and 20's will provide a better balance in that regard than 19's and 20's as you suggest.

I think we'd be interested if 18's was an option, purely because it takes the SYFA out of the loop and makes it far easier to develop players between the groups.

[Bestsinceslicebread]

3 hours ago, gaz5 said:

My experience is almost the exact polar opposite of this.

We have an under 19's and an Under 20's team at the moment and they are too close in terms of age so they end up competing for the same players and because there are 40 players competing for first team opportunities it reduces their exposure (and we're a team built on getting guys into the first team).

We have a number of players playing 20's who are still young enough for 19's and a great number of players in the 19's good enough for 20's, plenty between both groups good enough and already having played in our first team this season.

We've decided that, given our experience, running 19's and 20's at the same time isn't the best model for the development of the players, that 17's and 20's would be a better balance with it being more beneficial for a 17's player to step up to the 20's to be "stretched" as required for their development.

It has been great to have so many quality players to pick from for the first team, but it has to be about the development of the players we think 17's and 20's will provide a better balance in that regard than 19's and 20's as you suggest.

I think we'd be interested if 18's was an option, purely because it takes the SYFA out of the loop and makes it far easier to develop players between the groups.
 

I'm not disputing that I'm more concerned about the effect of the grassroots teams younger down, you will want players from a normal U17 team as well and this will not go down well for the coaches of those teams and there is less lads playing football so you will pick the best to come up for development and thus it will have a knock on effect of the U17s and when that u17s come to U19s the late developers at youth level who do shine at U19s will find it harder.  I'm not looking at this blindly, I have worked at 3 excellent academies recently and popped into pro youth sets up to see the ins and out so I've been about and with the ever declining youth football we need to work out the best ways to stop this and get more involved and I see a younger development at U18s being a hinderance than a help.  Some teams might benefit from this but I believe there will also be an adverse effect on the local surrounding grassroots teams who can supply lads eventually who are good enough to be developed further.

I have worked in academies with some great coaches BUT they have been at the same academy so they only know what they have witnessed and experience when other academies have different problems and again when I've been to a different academy I see a lot of great/excellent things but also problems of a different kind to what a different academy have had.

At the academy where I work at the moment we have already introduced these ideas to stretch the lads. Our U19s team recently got a U17s lad released to come and play for us in a trial match against a top quality grassroots team in the league and then his U17s club resigned him again. We have coaches coming to older sessions to watch how they operate and we have lads moving up to older training sessions, all this implemented but it doesn't change my view on a U18s development league, I do not see it as a benefit in the general sense, not being specific to one team and a couple of teams might do well out of it but the overall picture, a definitely no.

 

To add to this,

let another U20s development league start in the West as I believe the standard will become so go that both the east and West development will shine and become a beacon of development as the standard is so high, thus more younger lads will wan to stay in football at their local team in the hope of being used for the development league.  Once and if the climate change with more lads involve din football then Id look into an U18s but id rather get the while thing sorted first with the U19s

 

Also Gaz I'm in agreement mostly with this 

"We have a number of players playing 20's who are still young enough for 19's and a great number of players in the 19's good enough for 20's, plenty between both groups good enough and already having played in our first team this season.    
We've decided that, given our experience, running 19's and 20's at the same time isn't the best model for the development of the players, that 17's and 20's would be a better balance with it being more beneficial for a 17's player to step up to the 20's to be "stretched" as required for their development."

 

But two things regarding this, is that its my main point, taking younger lad from a younger team but that younger team will be affected in their games if the best is away but if its an U18s team it will be worse.  I want to see the U20s team able to take a U17s player into their fold for experience as well, that should be able to be performed without an U18s league, so consultation need sot be with the SYFA and SFA to not have clubs and players  threatened and development teams should be able, easily to play younger players from grassroots

its the same all over.
if you coach at a grassroots team, do you go and watch the first team and development teams play and train
if your a development squad coach do you go and watch the first team and also visit the grassroots younger teams to watch train and play

If your a coach of a first team do you go and watch the development teams and also then the grassroots teams.
Nearly all will say they do but in reality, they don't, they only know what they know from their experience so if they are honest with themselves and if they don't do that then how can they come up with ideas on how to improve football out with their own level that's why we should take consultation on all the levels at different age groups as that's why we should all bonce off each other because it can only improve youth football.  ( and that is not aiming at anyone in particular its just general analysis for us all to look at ourselves and think of the best ways to help improve our youth football)

Last year our U19s team, (all in their first year at 17) played against pro youth teams, Airdrie, Patrick Thistle, Clyde, Motherwell and Celtic first team ladies to give them an experience of a higher level, we had 4 lads sign duel contracts with the first team and this had a big effect on the younger academy players.  This has nothing to do with an U18s development league but improvement and development does happen you just have to find the right fit.
 

Edited March 12, 2020 by Bestsinceslicebread
More detail

[Bestsinceslicebread]

1 hour ago, Burnie_man said:

None of that makes me think an u18 development league would be a bad thing. Sorry.

When you have the SERYFA making life very difficult for U20 teams to take U19/U17 players on trial, basically threatening their clubs with sanctions, how can that be any good for player pathways, even within the same club?  They need cut out.

Please don't put me alongside these organisations, I dislike them, they are only interested in their self's and their own self preservation, it should be about development.
Do you think the SERYFA would be receptive if a coach from a team in their league came  and asked them for a change in rules as its a major problem, no I don't think so.
these are guys who sit and make decisions abut usually don't coach so don't know the ins and outs and some do coach or run a team but are so blinkered at their more powerful job they don't bother doing anything to improve the situation.

My views have got nothing to do with these groups , its from my own experience. Even being captain at Dalry when I was 26 I was coaching Pollok U21s and always been interested in pathways into junior and senior teams and have , like you and many we have noticed the change in climate in youth football and attitudes, most to detriment of youth football.

[Burnie_man]

17 minutes ago, Bestsinceslicebread said:

Please don't put me alongside these organisations, I dislike them, they are only interested in their self's and their own self preservation, it should be about development.
Do you think the SERYFA would be receptive if a coach from a team in their league came  and asked them for a change in rules as its a major problem, no I don't think so.
these are guys who sit and make decisions abut usually don't coach so don't know the ins and outs and some do coach or run a team but are so blinkered at their more powerful job they don't bother doing anything to improve the situation.

My views have got nothing to do with these groups , its from my own experience. Even being captain at Dalry when I was 26 I was coaching Pollok U21s and always been interested in pathways into junior and senior teams and have , like you and many we have noticed the change in climate in youth football and attitudes, most to detriment of youth football.

I think you need to read again what I posted, I haven't put you alongside anything! and I agree completely with your views on the SYFA.

Problem is, we have U16/U17/U19 under the SYFA, and the U20's under the LL.   The SERYA are doing their best to hamper the pathway between the two by threatening the U16/U17/U19 clubs with rule breaches if they allow their players to trial with the U20's.

It's insane, parochial shite.  Looking at it, a Lowland U18 league would remove all of these barriers and as gaz - who knows way more than me about this - points out, it is perhaps better than the U17/U19 age group in terms of moving players up the pathway through the U20's.

It needs explored.

 

[Bestsinceslicebread]

37 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

I think you need to read again what I posted, I haven't put you alongside anything! and I agree completely with your views on the SYFA.

Problem is, we have U16/U17/U19 under the SYFA, and the U20's under the LL.   The SERYA are doing their best to hamper the pathway between the two by threatening the U16/U17/U19 clubs with rule breaches if they allow their players to trial with the U20's.

It's insane, parochial shite.  Looking at it, a Lowland U18 league would remove all of these barriers and as gaz - who knows way more than me about this - points out, it is perhaps better than the U17/U19 age group in terms of moving players up the pathway through the U20's.

It needs explored.

 

I know you didn't but was just making sure no one else thought I was similar views.

I agree with it needs explored but remember the youths are our future, no getting away with it so we all must come together including these idiotic organizations and get it right or our football will continue to decline.

I deal with the SYFA quite a few times and it in general is good but too much crap is involved that is a constant hinderance and harming youth football, some ideas 20 odd years ago might have been good then but not now.   I am very experienced but not putting myself up on a pedestal here but im looking at the harming of the younger grassroots team, if there is a U18s development league and a U20 development league, it will harm U19s football which will always have lads who are not going to make a higher grade but when younger if these lads realise they wont make the grade they will probably leave football at U17s and guess what, pals in the team who may potentially make it will probably leave football with the pals and do other things.

I will say, attitudes and environment growing up in different areas will be different but I'm a West lad living in Glasgow and I don't see the benefit of a U18s league, it might work for the east thought, but I see it as more harming of grassroots football. In order to get things right, you cannot listen to one man, including me, you have to bounce of most and take all the experiences and points and work out what's best.  I'm not blinkered in any way and I believe I come at everything objectively and sometimes I'm coaching 5 nights a week, helping other coaches, younger ones and bring them on in their development,  I enjoy it and being able to help lads reach a higher level of football, junior senior, part time or full time is all I want to do.  I'm not saying U18s is a bad thing, I get it but I believe in the current climate it will harm grassroots football which ultimate will produce most of the lads who would reach development football teams.

Right now, with teams folding in U17s/U19s and u21s there is a basic rule from the SYFA. Any team who signs a player after march 31st, said player is cup tied from any cup games.  I know 7 teams out of 20 in the league where I reside will be in problem because of this. The youth association have bene notified but they haven't bothered their ass about this. They are actually stopping lads from playing football and also harming clubs that they cannot fulfill a fixture.  So we all know how these organizations are harming and that is one of the basic rules that should be abolished

Edited March 12, 2020 by Bestsinceslicebread
forgot the 31st date lol, important opps

[gaz5]

I'm not disputing that I'm more concerned about the effect of the grassroots teams younger down, you will want players from a normal U17 team as well and this will not go down well for the coaches of those teams and there is less lads playing football so you will pick the best to come up for development and thus it will have a knock on effect of the U17s and when that u17s come to U19s the late developers at youth level who do shine at U19s will find it harder.  I'm not looking at this blindly, I have worked at 3 excellent academies recently and popped into pro youth sets up to see the ins and out so I've been about and with the ever declining youth football we need to work out the best ways to stop this and get more involved and I see a younger development at U18s being a hinderance than a help.  Some teams might benefit from this but I believe there will also be an adverse effect on the local surrounding grassroots teams who can supply lads eventually who are good enough to be developed further.
I have worked in academies with some great coaches BUT they have been at the same academy so they only know what they have witnessed and experience when other academies have different problems and again when I've been to a different academy I see a lot of great/excellent things but also problems of a different kind to what a different academy have had.
At the academy where I work at the moment we have already introduced these ideas to stretch the lads. Our U19s team recently got a U17s lad released to come and play for us in a trial match against a top quality grassroots team in the league and then his U17s club resigned him again. We have coaches coming to older sessions to watch how they operate and we have lads moving up to older training sessions, all this implemented but it doesn't change my view on a U18s development league, I do not see it as a benefit in the general sense, not being specific to one team and a couple of teams might do well out of it but the overall picture, a definitely no.
 
To add to this,
let another U19s development league start in the west as I believe the standard will become so go that both the east and West development will shine and become a beacon of development as the standard is so high, thus more younger lads will wan to stay in football at their local team in the hope of being used for the development league.  Once and if the climate change with more lads involve din football then Id look into an U18s but id rather get the while thing sorted first with the U19s

I'm not coming at this blind either.

I started my coaching journey as an under 19's manager 10 years ago with the sole remit of developing players who can step into first team football. We were pretty successful at that.

The reason I was asked to do it, as a recent ex player who had to retire young through injury, was because the boys club approach wasn't working for our club as well as it was hoped. The best players from our young teams struggled to step up, despite their obvious ability.

I later moved as first team coach to one of the biggest legacy community clubs in the West of Scotland, with kids teams all the way from 20's down to 4 year olds. I saw what worked but most importantly what didn't in another context and those experiences, as well as my current role, have formed my opinion over the last 10 years.

Now I'm managing a first team and my background in developing youth players and seeing the benefits of that means I want a working pathway as part of my football structure and I have a firm view on what is best placed to give the players the best possible chance to develop.

The first thing I did when we moved EoS was bring in joint 20's managers, one with 20 years experience playing at a very good level (now moved on to first team management himself) and a coach who had been involved in community football for 10+ years, to add that expertise.

This season we added 19's with a manager still playing in the senior game and another who played at a good level, who also run their own performance academy. We have a wealth of knowledge and experience in all levels of the game now and we use all of that to try and build a successful pathway. Up to now, it's working, but there's still more we need to build.

In my opinion, a grassroots/boys club type approach up to under 17's, 19's & 20's wouldn't give players the best platform. There's too much of a disconnect between those levels themselves and the first team as a whole.

As a simple example, I think there's very little, if any, emphasis on the mental aspects of first team football through the grassroots setups beneath 20's, in my experience. We (rightly) concentrate our coaching courses on developing technical ability in the team that players currently play in, through most often a single set of coaches for sometimes 10 plus years.

We used to see it at our community levels and we still do. A volunteer coach, someone's dad a lot of the time, gets the badges and runs the team from the early ages, moving with them to the end of their grassroots journey at times, right up to 19's.

Now that's great, because we need people to run teams to get and keep boys playing and I've nothing but respect for the coaches who do that. I watch our young teams at times and as someone who has only ever coached from under 16's to First Team, it's a completely different skillset. I couldn't do what those guys do, so they are hugely important for engagement and participation.

But one of the things we noticed was that the first time some really talented players were being asked to adapt to new coaching methods, or new expectations around logistics, or just new personalities was when they stepped from you football at under 19, where they'd had the same coaches and sometimes the same teammates for 10 years, into a first team. They hadn't developed the ability to adapt to new coaches, new methods or new groups of players and it put a false barrier in to their development that often was bigger than the technical or physical step up. They end up falling away because they're "not liking it", not because they're not good enough, because it's "different" and they've no ability to adapt to change.

That's why I think a 17's/18's & 20's development set up at the end of grassroots is so important. In the model we use, I appoint those coaches and they're static. The players have to get used to adapting to the first coaching team and will regularly be in with the 20's and first team so be learning that adaptability/mental requirement for 3-5 years before being dropped into a senior team full time, removing that barrier to their progress. They've already learned how to adapt to new messages, or just different ways of expressing the same messages.

Plus regular exposure to the levels above aids in technical development as well. Something being denied by not being able to move between the sides in the SYFA model.

And because the years are staggered more players can pass through, covering your concern about late bloomers. We've all seen it, but in that model you still catch them.

For me, I don't care about the politics, the only thing that interests me is giving the players coming through our pathway the best possible opportunities to play at the highest level they can in the adult game. For some, that will be below the level of our first team, for others that will be our first team and for others still that will be above the level of our first team. If we take that approach, we'll benefit as a club, but more importantly so will the players who come through our setup.