|
|
 |
[
PLEASE LOGIN TO POST TO THE FORUM
]
|
|
|
Rugby Russ
|
Wed, 16 July 08 07:44 GMT
|
A lot of the issue is really down to how we all coach. Ealing Bill asks where is the proof of the risk of player burnout ... and I share his interest. Burnout is the specific phrase repeatedly used and I have my doubts about its validity. What is often cited is the dropout of players at key age stages and this is not a 'burnout' issue but rather a combination of our rugby structures, life and poor player 'development and retention' by the coach.
Dropout occurs around the key milestones of exams and school changes as well as a proportion in the transition stages of the game Mini -> Youth etc.
Do we know any kids that are playing 2-3 times a week at school with a match on Saturday, Club training midweek with a match on Sunday and then County sessions squeezed in around this ... I am sure we do. Some will cope with this others won't. Some parents will want education to take priority others will be less bothered. Its all a balancing act.
A good club/school/county development strucuture should be player centric and work with individuals to help manage the balance and support the player.
The specifics of the burnout issue then get put into a more valid framework and would probably seen for what they are the consequence of poor development.
Ultimately we lose players mainly because they do not want to play, they are not enjoying it and in those situations the coaches should look at themselves first.
Note: this is caveated to a degree by injury considerations, but even that has a coaching dimension often overlooked.
|
|
|
fergus58
- colin_o_flaherty@hotmail.com
|
Tue, 13 May 08 18:31 GMT
|
I thoroughly agree that Child Protection is an important issue and that there should be a balanced approach to the amount of training/coaching at u12 level. I also believe that there is an enormous amount of information that the players can benefit from without 'burning them out'.
I am not an advocate of extensive training during the Summer, although I do believe that fun activities need to be put on to keep the children's interest in rugby up and team spirit to be nurtured. I know from painful experience that unless regular days out/fun days and som training etc are organised during the Summer, players will be attracted to sports that do not have such restrictions on training.
Rugby is such a technical game that the information needs to be passed to the players much more frequently than other sports such as football. The continuum does not allow for much technical coaching in the regular season as sessions are restricted to 2 hours, and with often two matches to play of 15 mins each way plus another between the two other sides, plus around 5 minutes for each half time, it leaves around 15 mins for pre-match coaching.
For these reasons, much of the technical stuff gets coached during the non-fixture weeks and during the Summer break, albeit in a non-intense, drip-drip way. I feel strongly that if rugby is not to lose out to other sports, then a balanced view is needed and not a doctrine where the kids are rigidly restricted as to how much rugby they can participate in, but can do all the other stuff.
As an example, we have a talented swimmer who swims/trains 6 mornings a week for at least two hoursa session. I understand the physical demands that rugby represents, but as long as sessions are well planned, fatigue and risk of injury (and boredom) are kept to a minimum.
|
|
|
pauldg
|
Thu, 08 May 08 18:39 GMT
|
Hi Ealing Bill,
>Can you point me towards any evidence of this?
I'm afraid not, I'm not a sports medical researcher. I can only go on anecdote and personal experience.
I can go to the park on any Saturday and see five & six year old kids playing football and demonstrating ball skills that leave me far behind. By the time these kids are eight, they can literally run rings round me and frankly if I were to play them at football it would be, to say least, embarrassing...
And I can watch similarly talented kids play Tag or mini rugby at our club. Some will have ball skills that exceed mine - but not one of them will be able to throw a ball further than me, kick a ball further than me or stand the slightest chance of retaining the ball should I choose to tackle, ruck or maul with any of them (or indeed several of them at once).
Their skills don't make up for even my pretty feeble "wrong side of 40" strength.
Puberty makes a lot of difference in rugby. Much, much more so than in football.
|
-------------------------
--
PaulDG |
|
|
didds
- scrumtime@hotmail.com
|
Thu, 08 May 08 13:02 GMT
|
Nick (Gittoins) - in fact I think what you are saying is that our children may be being protected from doing more than 2 hours of RUGBY per week, so they can spend more time playing football, basketball, hockey, etc etc etc.
;-)
What PaulDG's explains is also my understanding - so despite not being permitted to exceed 2 hours rugby training on sunday morning, jonny cold have swum for 2 hours beforehand,m then afterwards go straight out on his bike for 2 hours before playing football for two hours before walking 5 miles home and playing with his elder brothers climbing trees.
But he won;t have been overplayed eh?
;-)
didds
didds
This message edited on Thu, 08 May 08 by didds
|
|
|
ealing bill
- wjgrist@tiscali.co.uk
|
Thu, 08 May 08 07:56 GMT
|
QUOTE
Football is, famously, an "early development" sport. If you don't have the basic skills by the time you're 6, you'll never be world class. Tennis is similar.
Rugby, on the other hand, is a "late development" sport. Until you have passed puberty and have developed some upper body strength and muscle mass, you're putting your entire physical development at risk unless your exposure to the physical stress is controlled.
END QUOTE
Can you point me towards any evidence of this?
If it is true, it must be based on some kind of data. I have yet to find it.
I really would like to.
The trail ends with Bayli and LTAD, based on Ice Hockey and the like in Canada.
Where is the evidence that Soccer is an 'early' sport, for instance??
|
|
|
ballsie
|
Wed, 07 May 08 20:17 GMT
|
It is unwise to get into an argument with your child protection officer.
These officers are usually volunteers like us all and have only the interest of the youngster on their mind. To train/play more than once a week with a mini player is not recommened. I do not mean to suggest that you have nothing else in mind but you have to wonder why you wish to train/play in the closed season..
This message edited on Wed, 07 May 08 by ballsie
|
-------------------------
Ballsie |
|
|
fergus58
- colin_o_flaherty@hotmail.com
|
Wed, 07 May 08 18:57 GMT
|
Thanks for the replies guys. I thought there must be some other legal stuff published restricting training to two hours a week. I thought it must be wrong as I know of other clubs training 3 or 4 times a week around our area (Essex).
To be honest, I don't think at U11/12 you can keep them switched on for more than two hours anyway. (more like 10 minutes!).
|
|
|
pauldg
|
Wed, 07 May 08 18:34 GMT
|
>I was recently reading about Bobby Charlton who used to spend every evening as a lad playing football in the streets.
Football is, famously, an "early development" sport. If you don't have the basic skills by the time you're 6, you'll never be world class. Tennis is similar.
>Today our kids are "protected" against doing sport more than two hours a week, so they can spend more time playing play station or in front of the TV.
Rugby, on the other hand, is a "late development" sport. Until you have passed puberty and have developed some upper body strength and muscle mass, you're putting your entire physical development at risk unless your exposure to the physical stress is controlled.
Laurence Delalio is famous for never playing rugby until he was a teenager. The injury rates of other top England players suggest overplaying in _their_ youth may well have been a problem..
(And anyway, they're not "protected from doing more than 2 hours a week". It's 2 hours a *session* - all that's happened here is a club volunteer has misinterpreted a regulation that is designed to ensure kids don't get over tired at training sessions and hence lose concentration and get hurt!)
|
-------------------------
--
PaulDG |
|
|
gittins
|
Wed, 07 May 08 18:03 GMT
|
I sometimes wonder about Child Protection.
I was recently reading about Bobby Charlton who used to spend every evening as a lad playing football in the streets.
Today our kids are "protected" against doing sport more than two hours a week, so they can spend more time playing play station or in front of the TV.
If this is what your CPO is trying to achieve, the world is going mad.
Nick
This message edited on Wed, 07 May 08 by gittins
|
|
|
pauldg
|
Wed, 07 May 08 09:19 GMT
|
Section 9.2 of the Continuum:
http://www.rfu.com/regulations/PageContent.aspx?SectionID=332
|
-------------------------
--
PaulDG |
|
|
fergus58
- colin_o_flaherty@hotmail.com
|
Wed, 07 May 08 08:25 GMT
|
Do you know where this is written down?
I need to win this argument with the Child Protection Officer!
|
|
|
pauldg
|
Wed, 07 May 08 07:50 GMT
|
There is a limit per session but no limit on the number of sessions.
IMHO though, it's generally impractical to have midweek sessions for U10s and down as their parents are unlikely to be able to make the time to get them to the sessions (and many will be doing cubs, football, etc.) I think that settles down a bit by U11/U12 (which with you mentioning 2 hours suggests that's the age group you're working with anyway).
|
-------------------------
--
PaulDG |
|
|
fergus58
- colin_o_flaherty@hotmail.com
|
Wed, 07 May 08 03:42 GMT
|
Our Child Protection Officer is telling us we can only train for two hours each week.
Perhaps I am being a bit dense, but I cannot see a limit to the amount of training/coaching per week in the continuum. Is there such a limit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
