Thanks for this great series. As a parent with a young child showing athletic talent and a measure of success this series is priceless for maintaining a balance to nurture long term success and sustained enjoyment of sport.
14:20 True. That does happen. But for every athlete who does survive the gauntlet, countless others were left behind by neglecting the difficulty of the situation.
Thanks for this! As a Canadian rugby coach, and having read the study about kids moving on (i.e. not as likely) from early selection in Craven Week, I'm convinced that we can wait. Don't see many U14s Provincial kids at all moving on at all to senior representative rugby. But you make a good point about exposure and adversity for those who do participate. I think the key word for us, however, is 'efficiency'. South African rugby can afford to have Craven Week and a lot of young boys get passed over as many others out-grow or otherwise show better promise. We don't have much money at all for grass roots development, so these seem to be the only avenues for it. Therefore, money is spent on a very small number of kids, most of whom never make it to the next level. I'd argue that it'd be more efficiently spent on coach development that will reach a greater number of kids and increase the abilities of the talent pool ... I was a selector many years ago at the U17 level, and saw even raw physical specimens turned down by the head coaches because they didn't have the rugby smarts of those who'd been in the system before or who went to schools with better coaching. Cheers for these!
Alright, let's assume we need 50% of Q1s to create adversity for Q4. But let's think this way: if we look closely only at Q4s and pick the most daring, technical or otherwise optimal among them, wouldn't it create adversity for Q1s? Wouldn't it give us more Q4s, who'd take chances at taking advantage of the adversity Q1s represent? What I'm asking is, why not take both, efficiency and effectiveness? If you want to create adversity, fine, let the bigger, older players to play with Q4s, but don't leave Q4s in the backyard league.
Thanks for this great series. As a parent with a young child showing athletic talent and a measure of success this series is priceless for maintaining a balance to nurture long term success and sustained enjoyment of sport.
14:20 True. That does happen. But for every athlete who does survive the gauntlet, countless others were left behind by neglecting the difficulty of the situation.
Did Ross ever release the next video in the series?
Thanks for this! As a Canadian rugby coach, and having read the study about kids moving on (i.e. not as likely) from early selection in Craven Week, I'm convinced that we can wait. Don't see many U14s Provincial kids at all moving on at all to senior representative rugby. But you make a good point about exposure and adversity for those who do participate. I think the key word for us, however, is 'efficiency'. South African rugby can afford to have Craven Week and a lot of young boys get passed over as many others out-grow or otherwise show better promise. We don't have much money at all for grass roots development, so these seem to be the only avenues for it. Therefore, money is spent on a very small number of kids, most of whom never make it to the next level. I'd argue that it'd be more efficiently spent on coach development that will reach a greater number of kids and increase the abilities of the talent pool ... I was a selector many years ago at the U17 level, and saw even raw physical specimens turned down by the head coaches because they didn't have the rugby smarts of those who'd been in the system before or who went to schools with better coaching. Cheers for these!
Superb. I wish more academy coaches and scouts would educate themselves on this.
Alright, let's assume we need 50% of Q1s to create adversity for Q4.
But let's think this way: if we look closely only at Q4s and pick the most daring, technical or otherwise optimal among them, wouldn't it create adversity for Q1s? Wouldn't it give us more Q4s, who'd take chances at taking advantage of the adversity Q1s represent?
What I'm asking is, why not take both, efficiency and effectiveness?
If you want to create adversity, fine, let the bigger, older players to play with Q4s, but don't leave Q4s in the backyard league.