I'm certainly not saying that kids shouldn't play sports. Far from it. I'm talking about the idea that parents seem to expect kids have to become great at a sport while they are still in elementary school, make the regional travel team in middle school, and be on the college scouting reports by high school, winning that college scholarship and then being drafted to the pros or National team.
Sadly, many of the kids who specialize in a sport in elementary school won't be playing it when they exit high school, and most will have their (or their parent's) dreams crushed by those awful college scouts and coaches before they start college. Hopefully, they have a 'Plan B'...
There are lots of reasons for this tailing off process - career ending or cumulative injury, burnout, lack of athletic ability, even being on the wrong team at some point. Lack of athletic ability often gets blamed on coaching, but in reality the opposite is often true - good coaching can make the most of poor talent, teach fundamental skills and take you all the way to a point where physical ability of other players 'catches up' as everyone else passes puberty and starts to mature into their bodies. Malcolm Gladwell talks about the blessing of having a January birthday in Outliers. Kids born in January are more likely to be the oldest in their age group, grade, and will likely have more opportunities to do well in sports while still young simply because they *are* the best in their particular year. Assuming of course they don't flame out...
Injury is another whole kettle of fish. Football and Hockey players are 4-5 times more likely than other high school sports to incur concussions. Other sports like soccer or basketball may also have career ending injuries from torn tendons and fractures. And I'll rile some parents by this, but I believe competitive gymnastics is one of the *worst* in terms of injury and burnout. Gymnastics injuries seem to be more hand/wrist and back, but the burnout toll... wow. Not only burning out mentally from a high volume of workouts, competitions and pressure from parents and coaches (who generally have a financial stake in keeping kids coming), but also from pain and injury. NOT exactly a ringing endorsement of the club machine.
And don't think that just because little Bart or Bettina is in climbing camp, running camp and power soccer camp plus canoeing and soccer practice 6 hours a day all summer means they avoid the issues of a single sport focus. Personally, I think this is throwing gasoline on the fire and then playing with matches - just increases the likelihood of major burnout or injury.
As I've become more involved in coaching and developing my own personal philosophy, I've become a big believer in the Long Term Athlete Development (LTAD). The Canadian Sport for Life organization has a great description of this model, broken into seven stages, running from birth to early 20s. The first two stages, encompassing ages 0-8or9 can be lumped into "Learning to Play", moving into "Learn to Train" and "Train to Compete" and "Training to Win". The model spells out expectations and cautions for each age level in very common sense terms.
This is not to say that for some young athletes who show particular prowess and drive at a fairly young age in a particular sport (like figure skating, gymnastics, and yes, even hockey) that leagues, meets and regular practice are not appropriate or encouraged. They can be great activities - but make sure that the activity is right for the kid, not right for the parent. It's one thing to for a girl who loves tumbling (a great class for all kids), is likely to only grow to 5'2" and has trim bodied parents to take up gymnastics and 'climb the ladder'. It's another entirely for parents to insist that their son who is likely going to be very average size, average height and doesn't particularly *like* cold to go to hockey 4 times a week in hopes that he may make the traveling team like dad did. Odds are by 15, he'll be burned out, beat up and hate skates.
In general, I'd like to suggest that up until age 8 or 9, most kids should be in mixed play - park/rec programs to expose them to many sports, riding bikes, skiing, paddling classes, swimming classes, tumbling, etc. These are usually inexpensive and require little commitment in terms of time, travel or equipment. 9-12 can be more of the same, or focusing on 2-3 sports, but still not an all-encompassing effort to make the traveling team. Kids who show a particular interest in a sport after this point can do so. If their aptitude and size lend them to the potential of doing well, but their skills are less than their peers (since they haven't been doing the camps from age 5), NOW is the time to sign them up. The desire and maturity will help greatly to move them toward competitive levels with their peers. And coaches *will* see the desire at the same time that their peers who have now been in sport for 10 years but aren't doing the same level of work may well be fading.
Again, there are exceptions to every 'rule'. This post is intended to at least push some parents to think about what's best for their child, not what they'd like to see their child do. I welcome dialog about this process. It's something I feel applies to most sports and most kids, but maybe not to you/yours.
~marsh
Injury is another whole kettle of fish. Football and Hockey players are 4-5 times more likely than other high school sports to incur concussions. Other sports like soccer or basketball may also have career ending injuries from torn tendons and fractures. And I'll rile some parents by this, but I believe competitive gymnastics is one of the *worst* in terms of injury and burnout. Gymnastics injuries seem to be more hand/wrist and back, but the burnout toll... wow. Not only burning out mentally from a high volume of workouts, competitions and pressure from parents and coaches (who generally have a financial stake in keeping kids coming), but also from pain and injury. NOT exactly a ringing endorsement of the club machine.
And don't think that just because little Bart or Bettina is in climbing camp, running camp and power soccer camp plus canoeing and soccer practice 6 hours a day all summer means they avoid the issues of a single sport focus. Personally, I think this is throwing gasoline on the fire and then playing with matches - just increases the likelihood of major burnout or injury.
As I've become more involved in coaching and developing my own personal philosophy, I've become a big believer in the Long Term Athlete Development (LTAD). The Canadian Sport for Life organization has a great description of this model, broken into seven stages, running from birth to early 20s. The first two stages, encompassing ages 0-8or9 can be lumped into "Learning to Play", moving into "Learn to Train" and "Train to Compete" and "Training to Win". The model spells out expectations and cautions for each age level in very common sense terms.
"Inappropriate or premature specialization can be detrimental to later stages of athlete development if the child is playing a late specialization sport. Premature specialization promotes one-sided development and increases the likelihood of injury and burnout." (Canadian Sport for Life)
The entire process is meant to remove the pressure of conformity, and sport specialization from younger children, allowing them to run, jump, climb rocks and trees, exposing kids to a broad range of activities without imposing leagues, traveling teams and competitive pressures to *most* kids, and hopefully setting them up for 'sport for life'. This is not to say that for some young athletes who show particular prowess and drive at a fairly young age in a particular sport (like figure skating, gymnastics, and yes, even hockey) that leagues, meets and regular practice are not appropriate or encouraged. They can be great activities - but make sure that the activity is right for the kid, not right for the parent. It's one thing to for a girl who loves tumbling (a great class for all kids), is likely to only grow to 5'2" and has trim bodied parents to take up gymnastics and 'climb the ladder'. It's another entirely for parents to insist that their son who is likely going to be very average size, average height and doesn't particularly *like* cold to go to hockey 4 times a week in hopes that he may make the traveling team like dad did. Odds are by 15, he'll be burned out, beat up and hate skates.
In general, I'd like to suggest that up until age 8 or 9, most kids should be in mixed play - park/rec programs to expose them to many sports, riding bikes, skiing, paddling classes, swimming classes, tumbling, etc. These are usually inexpensive and require little commitment in terms of time, travel or equipment. 9-12 can be more of the same, or focusing on 2-3 sports, but still not an all-encompassing effort to make the traveling team. Kids who show a particular interest in a sport after this point can do so. If their aptitude and size lend them to the potential of doing well, but their skills are less than their peers (since they haven't been doing the camps from age 5), NOW is the time to sign them up. The desire and maturity will help greatly to move them toward competitive levels with their peers. And coaches *will* see the desire at the same time that their peers who have now been in sport for 10 years but aren't doing the same level of work may well be fading.
Again, there are exceptions to every 'rule'. This post is intended to at least push some parents to think about what's best for their child, not what they'd like to see their child do. I welcome dialog about this process. It's something I feel applies to most sports and most kids, but maybe not to you/yours.
~marsh
No comments:
Post a Comment