I'd like to get other posters opinion's on the following.

Please try and keep it civil and constructive rather than "your(sp!) an idiot". Genuinely interested in opinions of others with more experience than me.

SSF is good. In fact it is excellent.

My only beef with it is the FFA caved to parents and clubs and let the kids progress to a full field far too early.

In it's initial stages the kids weren't starting until a later age. (Under 13's I think). They now progress to a full field in under 12's so that you have 11 year old boys and girls on a 100m long pitch. Ridiculous.

If it were up to me I'd have 9 v 9 playing across a full field (with 5m x 2m goals) right up until the under 15's. (I believe they don't play full field in Spain until the under 16's.)

Can you imagine the close ball control and tight passing that would develop on a crowded small pitch with young men and young women going full belt? Long balls out of defence and speculative passes would be worthless in a game played on a pitch this size by virtue of the restrictions placed on the ground size. Because of less time and space on the ball the players would develop into much more composed, skilful, tactically aware, pass oriented, close ball control and dribbling footballers.

At the moment I think they progress to full field at under 12. Far too early. I referee under 14's occasionally (they haven't gone through the SSF system) and all they do is kick and chase. It's hopeless.

Just to clarify by across the field I mean each full pitch is split up into 2 fields and the games are played perpendicular to that of the main field.

I understand that playing on a small field would be detrimental to learning the 40m switch and the piercing through ball out of midfield but given the choice between developing that part of their game and the other (to me) more important parts I'd take the small field over the big field any day.

I've read that the Roar train 11 v 11 on a modified pitch that spans from the 18 yard to 18 yard box for the reasons listed above. If it's good enough for them then surely it's good enough for our kids.

Are parents to blame because in their minds they're not playing "real football" until they're on a full pitch? Was the FFA wrong in letting them progress too early to a full field?

Cheers.








Edited by munrubenmuz: 3/11/2011 02:46:09 PM