Girls and unisex or girls and boys football team

[r0tringLover]

I'm in a position of influence in a school and recently needed to debate with parents whether there should be continue to be a boy-only football team.

I guess the sport is irrelevant except that football is a male-dominated sport, especially in schools.

We have several girls teams which compete against other girls teams. The rules in the local league don't actually appear to exclude girls from the boys team but are clear that boys cannot play for the girls teams. I feel that this is about following the spirit of the law as opposed to the letter. Not a single team we compete with has a girl playing with the boys. I'm sure a large part of this is due to the equally good girls league with plenty of fixtures and camaraderie.

Many parents wanted the girls to be classed a closed group whereas the boys as a free-for-all Perhaps unsurprisingly, they were the same parents who will defend the need for girls to have spaces reserved for them.

Was I being unreasonable defending the need for boys to have space free from girls and any politics involved should girls be picked over boys? I'm rarely unsure about my opinions (for better or worse) but on this occasion I am doubting myself.

To see if my mind was changed. It hasn't been yet but I've certainly been given food for thought

Fair enough, it's a tricky subject, with no easy answer.

My thoughts are less about a boy being bumped off and more about having boy and girl spaces

I do agree that there are precious few opportunities for boy only spaces these days, and that this can be difficult. I also agree that boys do benefit from boy only spaces - all my children go to single sex schools, and I think this works for them. I suppose I just don't think that football should be one of those spaces, as it is already boy dominated. At least your school does allow plenty of opportunity for everyone to play football, which is more than some primaries can do.

Just stick with girls and boys teams. That's the best way to make it fair for all. Weaker boys shouldn't get penalised and you don't want the best girls to be creamed off, thereby disadvantaging the other girls.

Any very keen girls will most likely play in a mixed team outside of school - or at least they will if they are serious enough to be wanting a career in it. It won't hold them back if they play with girls at school.

*I have gone slightly further and pointed out that they wouldn't just be put on the team they would have to train, then be a sub then play full matches. (match fitness, learning set plays, team formations etc)

What I have objected too, is that the "better" player, with no checks and measures will just be put on to the team. (As titchy, seems to think)*

Yeah, I think you just misunderstood what titchy, I and others were arguing for. All of those things in the first paragraph are what I'd expect all members of the team to participate in (although if a new player joins, girl or boy, and it's apparent very quickly that they're good enough to be in the starting lineup, then I don't think there's any need for them to be a sub).

I think the whole of that debate on P.4 was crossed wires.

Just pick the best team in primary. If that means 'weaker boys' not getting a look in, tough.

Any very keen girls will most likely play in a mixed team outside of school - or at least they will if they are serious enough to be wanting a career in it.

Most keen girls don't actually want a career in it tell the weaker boys to join a club if they want to improve enough to get on the team!

Also after 11 there are no mixed teams out of school.

Going back to the OP I think the responses need to be based on the end game. DIfferent set ups produce different outcomes.

A. If you want to win a cup / league and nothing else then pick the best team on merit alone. Mixed and prob boy heavy.
B. If you want to maximise participation in sport of all children have a range of mixed ability teams at different levels. mixed. Prob still boy heavy but less so.
That way all children can join a team at their level.
C. If you want to encourage very strong girls to improve, they tend to be better off in mixed teams. This is often because boys start playing on average earlier e.g. Age 4 and are more physical on average.
On average girls start playing later e.g. Age 7/8/9 and are then 2-3 years behind. (Many play age 3-5 then drop out then return later).
D. If you want to encourage loads of non football girls to have a go at football in a non intimidating environment, offer girls sessions and teams and the give girls the option to play mixed as well if they are the right ability to be on equal terms.
This opinion is based on years of working within footy and tons of research that has been done.

BTW girls can play in mixed teams all the way up now to 18.
Elite girls players in RTCs play against boys teams as a norm. Loads of girls aspire for careers in football - players, coaches, physios, reporters, event manager etc
As with boys, there are recreational girl players, girls who play in school teams, girls in mixed and girls only club teams and elite girls clubs.

OP - you need to decide what you want to achieve from your decision.
Participation and long term gain or winning a few matches but no growth in participation?

Also after 11 there are no mixed teams out of school

There most certainly are. Teams are mixed (or at least can be) up until age 18. My teenage sons play for a club that has girls in past age 11. They do seem to be rare though, which is another reason in my opinion that primaries should field mixed teams , to encourage talented girls to play mixed football.

For me, the purpose of girls teams is not giving girls a space to themselves, away from boys, it's to address a gap in participation (that persists and intensifies beyond primary school).

In an ideal world with sufficient resources, I'd have mixed teams of different tiers, based on ability, in sufficient quantity to ensure everyone who wanted to be on a team, could be on a team.

In my year group in school (admittedly 20 years ago and girls' participation has improved a bit), even if we had an A, B, C and a D team, I don't think more than a couple of girls would have made it on ability. As it stood, we were lucky if our B team got to play any games, and didn't have anything below that (or a girls team).

Having a girls team is a practical solution to allow girls to participate if they don't have the requisite ability to make it into the male-dominated mixed teams and leagues.

And its proven that a lot more girls participate if there is a girls only option for many many reasons. Thats why I think OP needs to decide what the end game is