|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Moderators
Last Login: 05/03/2010 11:46:41
Posts: 229,
Visits: 1,561
|
|
| It would be interesting to know on what basis the bodies who are using LTAD took up the system. There is a real push to get some science behind the systems of coaching and the LTAD certainly helps it. I would concur that is "fits" nicely into what we think. The key problem lies in 12-16 age group due to problems PHV (different growth rates). The debate might shift at this stage in "weights" instead of "ages" and whether teams should play in leagues - another can of worms!
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 12/06/2008 16:09:53
Posts: 17,
Visits: 28
|
|
| From a rugby (selfish) point of view I think it is better to follow a path of LTPD (Long Term Player Development), using a combination of skills/technique that are relevant to the game/postion. If you make things interesting, give achivable goals, & try to set them in a relevant sport specific context, then development should follow. If the tasks/drills etc are boring & repetitive then most tend not to give 100% or give all together, as we all would in any aspect of what we do, sporting or otherwise. Developing players (athletes) at what ever level or age is about getting them to push themselves & not realise that they are doing so. Making activities relevant & achivable can achive this. What would you rather do, run 10 shuttle sprints of 50m, or play in a controlled game situation that could be running between 10 rucks at set positions on the pitch, outcome is the same but the relevance is very different.
Ruck, Ruck, & Ruck again.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 09/05/2008 22:24:24
Posts: 9,
Visits: 16
|
|
I think size is the issue. Rugby is a physical sport. I'd argue that at all levels size is generally considered an advantage over skill.
For example, at a junior level you might see a 6'3" (2 metres) 14 stone (196lbs, c. 90kgs) 14 year-old boy simply running through a team of technically superior and committed 9-stoners (126lbs, c. 57kgs).
How many coaches would prefer a 15 year old fly half to be able to kick tactically prefectly, but only manage 15 metres with a clearance, to a "hoofer" who can kick 40 metres from hand, but in an uncontrolled way?
Which players benefit?
Teams with smaller kids tend to lose. Teams with bigger kids don't get the chance to learn how to play properly.
|
|
|
|