Ajax

[lardy]

There are those who say that pre teens should not play any competitive football, the emphasis should be on building skills and awareness. I can understand that to a point, but this season there has been a competitive element brought into matches played by our Under nine to Under eleven sides and it seems they have excelled at it.

http://www.cardiffcityfc.co.uk/news/...t-3716525.aspx

This news supports my feeling that City's youth development record is good at most age groups, but tapers off as you reach Under 18 level as youngsters who were very impressive when compared to those at other clubs fail to succeed in the final, and most important, stage of their development - the transition into the physically demanding world of the senior game.

Generally agree with your post but not sure about this. There's nothing wrong with competitive football at a young age as it encourages motivation but concluding that teams who win these tournaments must have a very strong set of promising players is what leads to bafflement at the lack of progress when they're at the age to turn pro.

If two U11 teams went into a tournament, one trying to win it and one trying to work towards very good 16 year olds, then I'd strongly fancy the former to progress further. But do you judge the two teams at this stage and say that the former team have a good record? If they're not doing what they actually need to do, which is produce good pros, then it's a smokescreen.

Perhaps it's easy to say "but they were doing so well" because there are medals but the cracks are hidden underneath the wallpaper. I'm not saying this is certainly the case at City but I would say it's easy to look in the wrong place for the breakdown.

My personal take is that it's easier to teach a 14 year old what to do in a game than it is to teach them excellent ball skills, so it's the ball skills that should be a priority at a younger age.