Kids need to learn to win and lose

I'm pretty sure "playing for fun" is internal satisfaction there Bayman. Of course internal satisfaction will develop for many kids, regardless of whether the score is kept or not, but the score is an external motivator. Keeping score or not does not prevent the competitive nature of kids coming out either. But it does change the focus a little for the "non-competitive kids" (i.e. the late-bloomers, or slightly unco ones, the kids who are there to be with their mates) to given the space to join in and not be seen as a liability, or decrease the chances that they'll be shunned by the other kids for losing a game. It does sound like you are taking these kids games a bit too seriously yourself though Bayman.

Dalgety, Don't worry....I'd be taking away all the 'plastic trophies' as well. I'm not a big fan of getting something for 'participation'. That internal satisfaction you talk of will happen anyway, with or without the score. Most kids know when they've played well - except, perhaps the kids just playing for fun because they will never get any 'internal' satisfaction.

No, Dalgety, but wanting to is. Playing for fun is fine for the U7s, U8s etc but once a kid gets to about ten or eleven he (or she) wants to win. And those who do not care about winning are a liability to those who do. If you think the competitive kids happily accept the 'I don't really care' kids you're kidding yourself.

So Bayman, is winning the only reason to play?

''if they know the score and know who won, then why hide the scoreboard? It’s all just a feel good sham isn’t it?'' No. Regardless of having a league table or scoreboard kids know when they have won or lost. It also helps coaches develop tactically rather then use the big player is better then a small player mentality (which doesn't work in Aussie Rules, League and Rugby as you need both) to get the others to pass them the ball so they can run over the top of the opposition to help win the game. Winning graciously and respect for the umpire/referee comes from the top and coaches encourage that. It's obvious which sports don't enforce it properly and the kids that play those sports bring that mentality to games that I am involved in. Kids also pick up things that adult pro players are doing and good referees like Nigel Owens nip it in the bud like this incident here. It shows to the kids that are watching that the referee is in charge not the players. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXoBNFOxlQM

''I don’t believe that kid must get a game every week just to pander to his sensibilities.'' That's a silly thing to say. This isn't the 80s anymore. Kids have too many options these days whereas back then there wasn't really a competitive juniors scene. In a lot of countries money is still tight so kids can't try every sport at the same time. Sports can ill afford to lose kids as junior subscriptions are a key part of amateur club finances. Plus it's tough to get committed sponsors these days to make up the money. This is what separates schools and clubs. Coaches at clubs have to face this challenge whereas at school you pretty much have to provide a note to say why you can't train and play. In a club environment where it's a battle to keep the players when they reach high school age there is no A and B teams so we don't have that set up when they are younger. They perform worse when they think they are in the B team. Coaches also have to build teams it's no longer good enough to have a Dad with a whistle chucking out cones doing kick to kick, doing the big fire up speech and picking the same players every week. Where I coach there is a policy of inclusion and the kids who were ''average'' at under 10s are now as good as the ''stars'' from the under 10s. How they got better was by playing games and they have developed in to thinking players. The team unit is much better and the kids turn up every week which is important at club level. We haven't had a drop off in numbers so there is no issue in getting a full team out on the pitch which does occur at other clubs. Other teams that still rely on their 'star' players are predictable and aren't as proficient unit and skills wise. The kids that play other sports like GAA and Soccer said there is a mentality of leaving players on the bench and guess where they are heading with their sports choice when they get older....

The Dutch were the pioneers I believe and they produce more complete players then the English do so no wonder the FA is considering this pathway too.

Maybe you could write a rebuttal opinion piece covering all your arguments

And its a great objection to have too, I can totally relate. So sick of the " we can't hurt little johnnies or suzies feelings" brigade. No matter what sport or age group we play to win.

you lost me at overseas junior soccer acadamies

Sure it's fine hiding behind the "opinion piece" defence and the cherry picking the points you want to argue with, but I think you skate around several meteor sized holes in your argument: 1. The premise for this change is not to "protect kids from winning and losing", but to shift the emphasis from winning to having fun. 2. You never specify what age this is for, but it is at very junior level, U/10 and below I think. 3. That this change will somehow threaten the hard wired competitiveness of our kids is a silly idea, given it's all of about 20 or 30 minutes of their week and it's an innate instinct. 4. That there are more opportunities for our kids to win and lose during a single week than you could poke a stick at. 5. Giving your kids a well rounded variety of experiences is the best strategy for them to grow and develop into well rounded adults. 6. Taking away the score offers chance to participate in something where the rewards are internal more than external.

Bakkies, I don't know a single society that ever benefited from pandering to the lowest common denominator. By the time a kid is ten years old, especially the boys, they want to win and be seen to win. That is, they want someone to keep score. At ten, my girls definitely did not like losing but they understood it was just as likely as winning. They didn't suffer as a result. I agree kids develop at a different rate in terms of size and talent but rarely in terms of winning and losing. Even the ten year old duds prefer to win. Personally I have no problem with a kid not being very good. However, once winning is seen as important by these kids I don't believe that kid must get a game every week just to pander to his sensibilities. The star in the U10s is usually the kid with a bit of talent and a fair bit of size. I'd suggest most people who know about the game, any game, can see whether a kid has something or not. In U10s it might be just attitude. The trouble with ideas like 'no score' is that society these days seems to think kids need to be protected from the truth for their self-esteem. This is my objection. When I was ten I played to win but sometimes I lost. Losing did not destroy me and make me feel inadequate. I just wonder why the 'experts' today think things have changed.

Wow... 'team manager' for U9's... Sounds very important for kids who can't even keep score. Good on you for getting involved, but I don't think the author was negating anything you've mentioned as important, he didn't say kids shouldn't learn skills, just said that one of those skills should be the ability to win or lose graciously. It seems to me getting kids to participate despite not being "the best" is the entire point of the article. If kids want to quit because they're not "the best" then it's up to parents and coaches to teach them that they're still an important part of the team despite this. Kids need to be taught that sometimes someone else will get a trophy and they don't, that's life, that's sport, they still have fun, that's the beauty of kids, so why not reward those who do well or improve greatly? So as not to offend those who don't? Would the same apply if we were referring to reading levels in school or who gets the lead in the school play? Include and accommodate by all means but stop the pandering.

You mean the big kid who may not be good academically or may not be good musically or artistically but may find his niche as a full forward? I'm all for teaching kids to share the ball and practice skills, that's why there's a coach, and at that age the coach can literally walk out there and bring the ball back, but let the talented footballers shine, let the mediocre majority improve and be rewarded for that (that's what coaches awards and consistency awards etc are for), and let the kids with less ability learn that you can't be good at everything, but you can always improve. They're going to know with or without a scoreboard. Give the kids more credit.

It's already happening in Rugby in other countries and more kids are playing the game then ever. It gives more kids an opportunity to improve and start loving the game. I have written an article on the Rugby section on this just waiting to see if it gets put up.

''The problem with the ‘no score’ philosophy is that it panders to those kids who don’t care, aren’t very good and are not instinctively competitive. '' That's a shocking attitude to have. Only a small fraction make the elite (or even be the elite in their local club) the rest keep loving and playing the game. They also keep the game going at amateur level regardless of the sport so administrators are finally copping on to that. Kids also develop at different rates. The star in under 10s might not be the star in under 16s so don't punish the kids who may not be any good at under 10s as they have other options. You don't want kids to leave or hate the game. Simples.

if they know the score and know who won, then why hide the scoreboard? It's all just a feel good sham isn't it?

These new ideas may hold some kids back. Timmy Watson walked into Windy Hill for a training session and was playing senior football at 15 in a VFL comp that was much more physical then what it is now. BTW there was a young bloke by the name of Ron James who played in a senior VFA premiership with Williamstown at the age of 14, would some of you people deny him that opportunity by making him stick to these silly rules, i would hope not because he never got to play in another one. He died in an accident on the Murray River a couple of years later after Footscray recruited him. I think kids should learn how to win and how to accept defeat, and dont hold them back.

As a mother I'm split over this one. There's the part of me that wanted my children to enjoy sports for the exercise ans socialisation aspects it provided, and then there is the acceptance that competition can be a healthy impetus towards self-improvement and the production of our best efforts in sport as in other aspects of life. I feel the answer lays in dividing sport into two age-deleniated levels; the non competitive skill acquisition phase up to, say, Under 11's and the transition into competitive sport once those skills are attained, from Under 11's onwards.