U13 Results 21/8

[SKII]

Edina 2 Merchi 0

Pitch was dreadful - grass too long, pitch too heavy - and it affected the game in terms of quality. However, Edina came out on top in this fixture and had they had their shooting boots on a bit tighter they would have won by at least a couple more.

Merchi's best chance came from a penalty kick but the Edina keeper dealt with the subsequent strike which was hit straight at him.

A few Tynie observers at the side of the park
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[steveboy]

a few players getting phone calls them,want to come and play for tynie

[SKII]

Originally Posted by steveboy
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

a few players getting phone calls them,want to come and play for tynie

Not sure how they will manage that - they have over 20 registered players. All of whom they had along to the side of the park last week whether they were playing or not. Several boys in tears at not making the selected 16. A few disgruntled parents as well.

Think they were there tonight just to see how Edina got on after beating them last weekend.

[steveboy]

they have told a few boys to get sharper or they are out

[SKII]

Division 1 Section A
Newcraighall Leith Vics AFC P-P Dalkeith CYP
Musselburgh Windsor 0-9 Spartans FC
Edinburgh United FC P-P Hutchison Vale FC
Salvesen BC P-P Edinburgh City FC

Section B
North Berwick Colts P-P Inch Colts ‘A’
Edina Hibs BC 2-0 North Merchiston BC
Tynecastle FC P-P Leith Athletic FC
Hutchison Vale FC Colts P-P Salvesen BC 96

Division 2 Section A
Tranent Colts FC P-P Fernieside FC
Spartans FC Whites P-P Edinburgh South FC
Edinburgh South FC Reds P-P Craigroyston BC
Bonnyrigg Rose BC Blues 6-3 Haddington United CFC

Section B
Peebles FC 7-1 Bonnyrigg Rose BC Reds
AC Oxgangs P-P Loanhead Miners YFC
Edinburgh United FC Panthers P-P Musselburgh Windsor Colts
Cavalry Park SC 6-9 Civil Service Strollers Colts

Division 3
Longniddry Villa 5-4 Preston Athletic YFC
Newcraighall Leith Vics Colts P-P Dunbar United Colts
Eskmill BC 5-3 Inch Colts
Leith Athletic FC Colts P-P Edinburgh South FC Stars
Tynecastle FC Colts P-P Edinburgh City Eagles
Redhall Star YFC P-P Spartans FC Colts

Division 4
Haddington Boys FC P-P Redpath Albion BC
Hutchison Vale FC Hornets P-P Civil Service Strollers
Hunterfield BC P-P Edinburgh United FC 96
Lochend YFC P-P Edinburgh City Colts
Beeslack Thistle 3-6 Easthouses BC
No game Joppa United

[SKII]

Originally Posted by steveboy
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

they have told a few boys to get sharper or they are out

11 and 12 year olds getting told to sharpen up or they're out? The spirit of development football is not dead
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


There is no doubt that certain clubs (and we all know who they are) have an expectation of all their teams that they win the league and cups. To not do so is unacceptable. In their eyes, of course.

I dont want to say too much, but this seems to cloud judgements in terms of what some clubs and coaches see as acceptable in terms of the way they treat kids on and off the park.

[Stew the Hibee]

Originally Posted by SKII
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Not sure how they will manage that - they have over 20 registered players. All of whom they had along to the side of the park last week whether they were playing or not. Several boys in tears at not making the selected 16. A few disgruntled parents as well.

Think they were there tonight just to see how Edina got on after beating them last weekend.

Salvy plan to do this too this year. IIRC, we have 18 just now, with a few trialists still with us. We had a player vote, and it was decided that every boy should turn up to the matches, and the 16 will be named on the match day.

[Gunnerhibby]

Originally Posted by SKII
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

11 and 12 year olds getting told to sharpen up or they're out? The spirit of development football is not dead
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


There is no doubt that certain clubs (and we all know who they are) have an expectation of all their teams that they win the league and cups. To not do so is unacceptable. In their eyes, of course.

I dont want to say too much, but this seems to cloud judgements in terms of what some clubs and coaches see as acceptable in terms of the way they treat kids on and off the park.

Originally Posted by Stew the Hibee
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Salvy plan to do this too this year. IIRC, we have 18 just now, with a few trialists still with us. We had a player vote, and it was decided that every boy should turn up to the matches, and the 16 will be named on the match day.

This just cannot be good for the game in general.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Its all very well to say you want to build a squad of players to be the best they can, but having 6-7-8+ players standing on the sidelines who have no chance whatsoever of getting on the park is just stupid. The coaches have a responsibility to the game to produce players, not sift through them all and pick off the cream. And the players must consider their own position, do they just want to have a "name" on their CV's or do they actually want to progress in the game? If so, they must find a club where they would have a greater chance of getting to play.

Our own coaches have agreed that our squad numbers will be no greater than 16, and we will only pull in more players if, a) they leave by their own choice, b) they are asked to leave, or c) they receive a serious injury(god forbid) and are out for any great length of time.


These so called "big teams" can be a disgace to Youth Football.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[SKII]

Originally Posted by Gunnerhibby
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Our own coaches have agreed that our squad numbers will be no greater than 16, and we will only pull in more players if, a) they leave by their own choice, b) they are asked to leave, or c) they receive a serious injury(god forbid) and are out for any great length of time.


These so called "big teams" can be a disgace to Youth Football.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is the way the eldest laddie's side has operated for the last two seasons and it has worked very very well. They have 17 max - and natural call offs (there was one long term injury) meant they never actually had to tell a kid they were not on the team lines.

A couple of games they ended up with only 13 players but it wasnt the end of the world. They had a tight squad, with very little discrepancy in overall level of player and they coped well.

From our point of view the big draw was them only wanting to carry the one keeper. For goalies to develop they need good coaching and time on the park. Clubs that carry more than one keeper results in either a) an inequity of time on the park and one keeper really suffering or b) equal time on the park and both keepers not getting developmental match time or c) the better keeper only getting the hard games and the poorer keeper only getting the easy ones.

By carrying only one you run the risk of injury affecting your prospects but it was a risk they were happy to take as they wanted continuity in goals and the keeper to develop. They also had an outfielder who was handy enough to stand in if the worst case scenario happened - but it didn't anyway.

The development of all the boys was significant, they did well in the leagues ( a bonus) and had some good cup runs. The laddies bonded really well as there was no moaning about who was playing, who wasn't playing etc. They are a really great bunch of lads.

This season is the same policy being applied and everyone is anticipating an even more fruitful season and development of all the boys. Some of the boys, my own included, resisted the temptation to go initiative in the summer. That, for me, says it all about the set up at their boys club
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Stew the Hibee]

Originally Posted by SKII
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is the way the eldest laddie's side has operated for the last two seasons and it has worked very very well. They have 17 max - and natural call offs (there was one long term injury) meant they never actually had to tell a kid they were not on the team lines.

A couple of games they ended up with only 13 players but it wasnt the end of the world. They had a tight squad, with very little discrepancy in overall level of player and they coped well.

From our point of view the big draw was them only wanting to carry the one keeper. For goalies to develop they need good coaching and time on the park. Clubs that carry more than one keeper results in either a) an inequity of time on the park and one keeper really suffering or b) equal time on the park and both keepers not getting developmental match time or c) the better keeper only getting the hard games and the poorer keeper only getting the easy ones.

By carrying only one you run the risk of injury affecting your prospects but it was a risk they were happy to take as they wanted continuity in goals and the keeper to develop. They also had an outfielder who was handy enough to stand in if the worst case scenario happened - but it didn't anyway.

The development of all the boys was significant, they did well in the leagues ( a bonus) and had some good cup runs. The laddies bonded really well as there was no moaning about who was playing, who wasn't playing etc. They are a really great bunch of lads.

This season is the same policy being applied and everyone is anticipating an even more fruitful season and development of all the boys. Some of the boys, my own included, resisted the temptation to go initiative in the summer. That, for me, says it all about the set up at their boys club
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That was when I realised Salvey was the place for me. When I first arrived they were after two keepers. Then, I was the only one signed, and was told that from what they had seen of me, they were happy enough with one, as it meant the defence would get used to working with the same person, and that I would benefit more too.

While people see it as a bad thing with Salvy having a large squad, I can see the reverse side of the coin too. Yes, it is wrong bringing a boy out to kirkliston just now for them not to play. However, it will keep all players on their toes, and giving more effort in training. Then if it gives the coaches a difficult choice, I would see it as a benefit as the players are all showing their potential ability.

[SKII]

Originally Posted by Stew the Hibee
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

However, it will keep all players on their toes, and giving more effort in training. Then if it gives the coaches a difficult choice, I would see it as a benefit as the players are all showing their potential ability.

If you have 16 boys all of a fairly equal standard you still get competition. There are, after all, 5 places on the bench.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


More than 16 or 17 boys is too many. You can't give everyone enough time on the park. Especially if 19 out of your 20 players are outfielders - that means 9 of your outfield boys dont start and a handful wont play at all. What good is that to boys? They need to be PLAYING to develop.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Gunnerhibby]

Originally Posted by SKII
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If you have 16 boys all of a fairly equal standard you still get competition. There are, after all, 5 places on the bench.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


More than 16 or 17 boys is too many. You can't give everyone enough time on the park. Especially if 19 out of your 20 players are outfielders - that means 9 of your outfield boys dont start and a handful wont play at all. What good is that to boys? They need to be PLAYING to develop.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This system has worked for us for the past couple of seasons, although it was Soccer 7's. We had two squads of 9-10 players playing in two divisions, one above the other. Every now and then we'd take some boys from the lower division team and "promote" them. It meant the players all had something to focus on, ie; staying in the higher division team. The downside(for the player) was you were'nt in the top team, but at least you were still playing and had a good chance of getting back in if your performances merited. End result: non-complacency, players maintaining a level that was competitive amongst the squad as a whole without there being a gulf between one group of players and another. And, more importantly, every player was getting a high amount of game time.

[Stew the Hibee]

Originally Posted by Gunnerhibby
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This system has worked for us for the past couple of seasons, although it was Soccer 7's. We had two squads of 9-10 players playing in two divisions, one above the other. Every now and then we'd take some boys from the lower division team and "promote" them. It meant the players all had something to focus on, ie; staying in the higher division team. The downside(for the player) was you were'nt in the top team, but at least you were still playing and had a good chance of getting back in if your performances merited. End result: non-complacency, players maintaining a level that was competitive amongst the squad as a whole without there being a gulf between one group of players and another. And, more importantly, every player was getting a high amount of game time.

Also, forgot to say, but at Salvy we have worked well with the Colts, as we have given them players "on loan" who have potential, but are lacking in confidence, or are needing to find a wee bit of form still. Works pretty well both ways, as one of our forwards for this season has been signed from the Colts side, and in return they have received a striker and a midfielder.

[SKII]

Originally Posted by Stew the Hibee
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Also, forgot to say, but at Salvy we have worked well with the Colts, as we have given them players "on loan" who have potential, but are lacking in confidence, or are needing to find a wee bit of form still. Works pretty well both ways, as one of our forwards for this season has been signed from the Colts side, and in return they have received a striker and a midfielder.

You can't "loan" players between teams in the same age group from the same club - it is against the rules. Every side is unique and the players are registered to their individual team and not the club per se. Are you telling us Salvy are circumventing the rules?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Stew the Hibee]

Originally Posted by SKII
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You can't "loan" players between teams in the same age group from the same club - it is against the rules. Every side is unique and the players are registered to their individual team and not the club per se. Are you telling us Salvy are circumventing the rules?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Officially the players "loaned" haven't signed with Salvy. They played with the club last season, but haven't been signed on. They have been told they would be better playing with the colts for say half a year, then maybe come back. They are officially calling it a confidence trial. Personally, I see it as a polite way of saying you don't want to keep the player.

If I knew what circumventing meant, then I could answer the question
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Gunnerhibby]

Originally Posted by Stew the Hibee
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Officially the players "loaned" haven't signed with Salvy. They played with the club last season, but haven't been signed on. They have been told they would be better playing with the colts for say half a year, then maybe come back. They are officially calling it a confidence trial. Personally, I see it as a polite way of saying you don't want to keep the player.

If I knew what circumventing meant, then I could answer the question
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If this is true then I would put Salvesen Boys Club into the category I earlier mentioned, "A disgrace to Youth Football".

I'll remind you of what I said ...

Its all very well to say you want to build a squad of players to be the best they can, but having 6-7-8+ players standing on the sidelines who have no chance whatsoever of getting on the park is just stupid. The coaches have a responsibility to the game to produce players, not sift through them all and pick off the cream. And the players must consider their own position, do they just want to have a "name" on their CV's or do they actually want to progress in the game? If so, they must find a club where they would have a greater chance of getting to play.

If Salvey are moving "unsigned players" between teams to keep their numbers up, and giving the player false representation under the guise of a "confidence trial", ie; giving these boys the impression that there is a place for them in their team, but(without informing them) only if their top players get injured/move on, which might never happen, then that is a total disgrace.

Meantime, the players parents are paying for the privilige of the boys wearing a Salvey tracksuit. How much is that per month? £15? £20? £25? And the laddies play very little, if any, fitbaw?

Then there are the legal implications.

Every player signed by a club is covered by that clubs insurance, which is (compulsary)taken through the SYFA/SFA, by means of their registration forms which are lodged with the SYFA. If a player is seriously injured whilst taking part in an official club match then he will be covered by the clubs insurance, as far as medical expenses are concerned,(eg; the player may need surgical treatment for fractured bones, torn ligaments, etc). If the player is not registered with the club then he has absolutely no insurance cover whatsoever, and by doing this the club is putting itself in a very precarious position with the footballing authorities. ie; it could be closed down. Which might be very little consolation for a player who may be hospitalised and his parents have to foot the bill(no pun intended), which could subsequently see the officials of the club being sued by said parents.

Sorry Ross but that is totally disgraceful.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Stew the Hibee]

Originally Posted by Gunnerhibby