Smaller-Sided Soccer Is Changing. But Are We Changing How We Coach?

By Jean DeCarmo

Across youth soccer, national associations are reconsidering when and how children should transition to larger playing formats. Canada has updated its grassroots standards, England's FutureFit pathway keeps players in smaller formats for longer, and the Netherlands has been piloting 9v9 for selected U13 competitions.

The reasoning is familiar to most grassroots coaches: more involvement, more technical actions and more decisions for players to make. The KNVB reports that later-maturing players were more involved and completed more successful actions in 9v9 than in 11v11 in its research. That is encouraging, although it does not establish long-term development outcomes. I've often wondered whether Canadian players would benefit from more time in smaller-sided formats before moving into 11v11.

But the more I think about it, the more I question whether we're giving enough attention to what actually happens during training.

The Format Can Only Do So Much

Consider two coaches working with U12 players in 9v9. One encourages players to receive under pressure, take risks with the ball and recognize opportunities to play through opponents. Mistakes are expected, and the coach uses questions to help players understand what happened and what they might try differently. The other coach is primarily concerned with winning. Players are encouraged to avoid mistakes, move the ball forward quickly and rely on the strongest individuals to create scoring opportunities.

Both coaches are using the same format, but the experience they're providing is very different. Whether players make meaningful progress depends heavily on the decisions the coach makes.

That distinction becomes particularly important as players approach the transition to 11v11. I've noticed how easily our attention can shift toward formations, pressing structures and sophisticated team tactics. We start discussing inverted fullbacks, false nines and positional rotations, sometimes before players are technically comfortable enough to execute the basic actions those systems require.

I'm certainly in favour of developing tactical understanding. Even young players should be learning to recognize space, support teammates and make decisions based on what they see. However, I distinguish those individual and small-group decisions from the more complex team tactics associated with the full-sided game. A player who struggles to receive across their body under pressure will need help with that action, whatever tactical system we use. Before we become too concerned about how our teams are organized, perhaps we should be more concerned about how comfortable our players are with the ball.

Giving players another year of 9v9 might help, but if that year is spent rehearsing ways to win matches rather than developing individual ability, what have we really accomplished?

The Pressure to Win

We regularly tell parents that development matters more than winning. Clubs reinforce that message, and some younger age groups use competition structures designed to reduce the emphasis on results. Yet the pressure to win remains.

Some of it comes from parents who understandably want to see their children succeed. When a team loses several matches, they may begin questioning whether their child is developing. Some comes from coaches themselves. Winning can bring recognition and opportunities for those hoping to advance their coaching careers. The difficulty is that the behaviours most likely to produce an immediate result aren't always the behaviours that contribute most to long-term development.

A physically dominant U12 player might be able to run past opponents and score regularly. A coach who builds the team's approach around that advantage may enjoy considerable success, but what happens when the physical differences begin to narrow? Meanwhile, a player who is encouraged to receive under pressure, experiment with different solutions and make independent decisions may experience more mistakes and setbacks along the way.

Those mistakes are part of learning. I've always been a positive coach, particularly when players are attempting something difficult. Even at the professional level, mistakes are a regular part of football. Reprimanding a young player for making one can discourage them from trying again. Where I do have high expectations is in effort and commitment. I want players to challenge themselves, respond positively when things go wrong and take responsibility for improving. That approach doesn't guarantee results, but I believe it creates a better environment for long-term development.

Developing the Coach Matters Just as Much

One of the most valuable ways I've improved as a coach has been by watching other coaches work. I'm interested in how they organize their sessions, but I pay particularly close attention to their conversations with players. A well-organized session makes good use of our limited training time; it doesn't, on its own, tell us whether meaningful learning is happening.

Guided discovery is something I value enormously. Asking players what they saw, why they made a particular decision or what other options were available can reveal a great deal about their understanding. We sometimes expect improvement to become visible almost immediately, when in reality a player may be able to explain a concept during one session but need repeated opportunities over time before they can apply it consistently under pressure.

That's why I would like to see more coaches observing and learning from one another. It doesn't need to be complicated. A coach could spend an evening watching a colleague's session, discuss what they observed afterward and take one or two ideas back to their own team. It could be particularly valuable for younger coaches, but I suspect experienced coaches would benefit just as much. Our article on building coaching consistency across a club explores how directors can make that support part of everyday practice.

What Happens When the Coach Isn't There?

With only a few hours each week together, we can create purposeful training sessions, provide feedback and introduce technical challenges, but there are limits to what we can accomplish. I place enormous value on helping players become motivated to improve on their own.

I've coached players who became increasingly committed to practising outside our scheduled sessions. In one case, I believe much of that change came from the positivity and encouragement I brought to our relationship. The player wanted to get better, and that motivation became their own. For me, that's one of the most rewarding things a coach can accomplish.

Of course, not every child needs to become obsessed with soccer. They should enjoy the game and have a healthy relationship with it. But helping a player develop confidence, resilience and the desire to challenge themselves can have an influence that extends well beyond the training pitch. Perhaps we should pay more attention to whether players are becoming independent, curious and motivated learners, rather than judging coaching effectiveness primarily through match results.

Helping Parents Recognize Progress

I've had conversations with parents after difficult stretches of results. My approach has generally been to explain what we're trying to develop and then discuss how their own child has been progressing. Maybe they're receiving the ball more confidently, starting to scan before receiving or showing greater willingness to attempt something difficult. These are changes that can be meaningful even when the team isn't winning, and most parents I've had these conversations with have appreciated the explanation.

It reinforces something I've come to believe strongly over the years: coaches frequently recognize development that isn't immediately obvious to parents. The challenge is remembering those observations and communicating them consistently, a theme we explore in our guide to youth soccer player evaluations.

That experience is part of what motivated me to build inFORM Metrics. I wanted to help coaches preserve the small but meaningful things they notice during training and matches, connect those observations over time and develop a clearer understanding of each player's progress. The coach still provides the expertise and judgment. Having a record of what we've seen simply gives us more context when we reflect on development or speak with families.

Changing the Game Is Only the Beginning

I welcome the movement toward smaller-sided soccer. But changing the number of players or the size of the pitch won't, by itself, change a coach's priorities. We should give as much attention to how coaches communicate, encourage experimentation and inspire independent learning as we give to how the game is organized.

We've begun adapting the game to better suit young players. Perhaps it's time we gave equal attention to how we develop the people coaching them.