the ability argument
w e e k ly
The art of coaching children
The ability argument Why ability-based coaching is a hot topic, by SoccerPlus coach Dave Newbery In the vast majority of youth soccer programmes, players are randomly assigned to mixed ability groups, usually based on which group their friends are in. But abilitybased grouping - segmenting players based on their capabilities - is the norm outside soccer... take swimming, for example, or the ‘belt’ system in martial arts, or school ability. So why shouldn’t it be in this sport too?
Advocates and opponents As an ability-based advocate, it’s my opinion that player achievement increases significantly more than in mixed groups by enabling coaches to present activities, instruction, and pace of delivery to meet the players’ needs. Coaches also find it easier because they are able to select content that activates the interest of all players. Children of all ages benefit most by learning in an environment that is developmentally appropriate. After all, even at the age of just five, they can vary in cognitive, physical, emotional, and social development by as much as +2 or –2 years. Opponents of the model propose that ability grouping not only fails to benefit any players but directs low-level players to lower quality instruction. They say abilitybased grouping widens the achievement gap, while mixed ability grouping suggests that high performers stimulate lower performing peers.
The facts There has been extensive research examining the effects of ability grouping in education and sport, and the wealth of evidence supports the following facts:
1. Grouping players based on ability within a team produces larger improvements in performance than mixed ability grouping. The benefits are slightly better for low-achieving players than for mid or high performers. 2. Grouping players based on ability within a year/school grade leads to significantly greater improvements in performance than mixed ability groups at all levels of achievement. 3. There are no significant differences in performance when high-, mid- and low-ability groups use the same content. 4. When activities are differentiated to meet the achievement levels of different groups, the effects are consistently positive.
Some myths, common objections and responses 1. Ability grouping benefits the high-ability players. Yes, this is true, but empirical evidence indicates low- to mid-level players equally benefit. 2. Players placed in the mid- to low-ability groups are more likely to leave the sport. Our extensive research with town soccer programmes has found the reverse to be true, instead engaging players in a more appropriate learning environment where they are not dominating or being dominated by others. 3. Some players end up in the wrong groups. The more objective the assessment methodology the less the risk of wrongly assigning players. 4. Once a player is assigned to a group, he might remain there indefinitely. After the placement of players, objective and subjective assessments should be constantly conducted. 5. The most experienced coaches will work with the mid-high ability players. An ability based model loses all credibility if the strongest coaches are only working with the high achieving players. There are several ways to distribute coaching talent to avoid this situation.
6. Players want to be with their friends. Children at the early stages are more concerned about the ball with their name on it than who is in their group and tend to make new ‘friends’ very easily.
10 key factors for implementing ability-based programming for the long-term 1. Movement between ability groups for players should be easy and seamless. 2. The assessment process must be well designed and extremely transparent. 3. Parent education is imperative and coaches must be readily accessible to answer all questions and concerns. 4. Leadership is important both on and off the field. 5. Good distribution of coaching talent is essential. 6. A phased approach of moving from mixed ability to ability-based grouping is highly recommended. One option is to, initially, add ability-based sessions as supplements to standard coaching. 7. Commence ability-based training with the youngest age groups in the programme first. 8. Provide written feedback to parents and players after each assessment. 9. Communicate group changes to parents prior to the session when the changes are to take place, and don’t assume a parent will be delighted to see their child move up a group. 10. Establish broad commitment from all coaches in supporting the new approach.
Conclusions Ability-based coaching offers players the opportunity to play with and against children of similar ability - age is not as important as skill, technique and physical attributes. There is no doubt that with the right off-field support, child-centred coaches, and a well planned approach, ability-based groupings will see significantly greater improvements than mixed ability programmes.
profile For over 20 years David has studied and worked in youth education, soccer development and coaching. Dave has written two books with legendary soccer coach Tony DiCicco, offering exciting ability-based coaching games for players aged 3-5 years, and 6-8 years. For more information visit www.coach-soccer.com/playerdevelopment
Soccer Coach Weekly 3
The art of coaching children
The ability argument Why ability-based coaching is a hot topic, by SoccerPlus coach Dave Newbery In the vast majority of youth soccer programmes, players are randomly assigned to mixed ability groups, usually based on which group their friends are in. But abilitybased grouping - segmenting players based on their capabilities - is the norm outside soccer... take swimming, for example, or the ‘belt’ system in martial arts, or school ability. So why shouldn’t it be in this sport too?
Advocates and opponents As an ability-based advocate, it’s my opinion that player achievement increases significantly more than in mixed groups by enabling coaches to present activities, instruction, and pace of delivery to meet the players’ needs. Coaches also find it easier because they are able to select content that activates the interest of all players. Children of all ages benefit most by learning in an environment that is developmentally appropriate. After all, even at the age of just five, they can vary in cognitive, physical, emotional, and social development by as much as +2 or –2 years. Opponents of the model propose that ability grouping not only fails to benefit any players but directs low-level players to lower quality instruction. They say abilitybased grouping widens the achievement gap, while mixed ability grouping suggests that high performers stimulate lower performing peers.
The facts There has been extensive research examining the effects of ability grouping in education and sport, and the wealth of evidence supports the following facts:
1. Grouping players based on ability within a team produces larger improvements in performance than mixed ability grouping. The benefits are slightly better for low-achieving players than for mid or high performers. 2. Grouping players based on ability within a year/school grade leads to significantly greater improvements in performance than mixed ability groups at all levels of achievement. 3. There are no significant differences in performance when high-, mid- and low-ability groups use the same content. 4. When activities are differentiated to meet the achievement levels of different groups, the effects are consistently positive.
Some myths, common objections and responses 1. Ability grouping benefits the high-ability players. Yes, this is true, but empirical evidence indicates low- to mid-level players equally benefit. 2. Players placed in the mid- to low-ability groups are more likely to leave the sport. Our extensive research with town soccer programmes has found the reverse to be true, instead engaging players in a more appropriate learning environment where they are not dominating or being dominated by others. 3. Some players end up in the wrong groups. The more objective the assessment methodology the less the risk of wrongly assigning players. 4. Once a player is assigned to a group, he might remain there indefinitely. After the placement of players, objective and subjective assessments should be constantly conducted. 5. The most experienced coaches will work with the mid-high ability players. An ability based model loses all credibility if the strongest coaches are only working with the high achieving players. There are several ways to distribute coaching talent to avoid this situation.
6. Players want to be with their friends. Children at the early stages are more concerned about the ball with their name on it than who is in their group and tend to make new ‘friends’ very easily.
10 key factors for implementing ability-based programming for the long-term 1. Movement between ability groups for players should be easy and seamless. 2. The assessment process must be well designed and extremely transparent. 3. Parent education is imperative and coaches must be readily accessible to answer all questions and concerns. 4. Leadership is important both on and off the field. 5. Good distribution of coaching talent is essential. 6. A phased approach of moving from mixed ability to ability-based grouping is highly recommended. One option is to, initially, add ability-based sessions as supplements to standard coaching. 7. Commence ability-based training with the youngest age groups in the programme first. 8. Provide written feedback to parents and players after each assessment. 9. Communicate group changes to parents prior to the session when the changes are to take place, and don’t assume a parent will be delighted to see their child move up a group. 10. Establish broad commitment from all coaches in supporting the new approach.
Conclusions Ability-based coaching offers players the opportunity to play with and against children of similar ability - age is not as important as skill, technique and physical attributes. There is no doubt that with the right off-field support, child-centred coaches, and a well planned approach, ability-based groupings will see significantly greater improvements than mixed ability programmes.
profile For over 20 years David has studied and worked in youth education, soccer development and coaching. Dave has written two books with legendary soccer coach Tony DiCicco, offering exciting ability-based coaching games for players aged 3-5 years, and 6-8 years. For more information visit www.coach-soccer.com/playerdevelopment
Soccer Coach Weekly 3
