Why streaming in mini rugby is problematic

When coaching mini rugby, a common question arises: should we stream, or separate, youth players into ability-based teams?

The Rugby Football Union (RFU) advises against this, recommending mixed-ability teams for young players. 

This guidance isn’t arbitrary – it is rooted in evidence and long-term player development strategies; coaches are often subject to pressures from players and parents alike, who may emphasise winning over development.

– The case AGAINST streaming

1. Unequal game time and coaching

Tiered teams often provide ’elite’ players with better coaching, facilities, and game time, while others miss out. 

This creates an uneven playing field, limiting opportunities for late bloomers to thrive.

The RFU’s ’half-game’ rule is designed to counteract this disparity, ensuring every child gets meaningful playing time.

2. The fallacy of early talent

Research indicates that children labelled "talented" at an early age often fail to meet their perceived potential. 

Early physical advantages, like size or speed, can diminish, while late developers – like England prop Trevor Davison, or Leicester City footballer Jamie Vardy, who both joined the professional ranks aged 25 – demonstrate that elite potential can surface later. 

Researchers argue that over-emphasis on early talent identification risks excluding future stars.

3. Dropout risks

Streaming can alienate players deemed ’less talented’ – they often lose confidence and leave the sport entirely, depriving rugby of diverse talent pools.

One study highlighted how early exclusion leads to disengagement and dropout, particularly in players who lack initial physical advantages.

+ The case FOR streaming

Advocates argue that streaming allows coaches to tailor training for players of similar abilities.

This might accelerate the short-term development of top players and boost confidence in others by removing competitive pressures. 

However, this approach prioritises short-term results over long-term growth, often at the cost of inclusion and player retention.

Mixed-ability teams offer a more sustainable model, fostering the RFU’s TREDS values (Teamwork, Respect, Enjoyment, Discipline, Sportsmanship). 

They keep more players engaged while providing an environment for all to develop.

The problems with hierarchies in youth sport

Why humans gravitate to hierarchies

Paul Gilbert’s Compassion-Focused Therapy (CFT) explores the human tendency to establish hierarchies as a survival strategy, tied to basic needs like social status and security.

Schools and sports teams reflect this dynamic, with tiered systems like A, B, and C teams reinforcing status-based thinking.

While hierarchies can organise groups, they often activate the ’threat’ system in players, triggering defensiveness and anxiety. This leads to:

• Parental pressure: Parents may push coaches to secure their child’s position in ’top’ teams.
• Toxic cultures: Players may bully or ostracise others perceived as weaker, fostering unhealthy competition that contradicts rugby’s values.
• Coach burnout: Volunteer coaches can feel overwhelmed by managing parent expectations and status pressures.

The impact on players
When young players feel their place in the hierarchy is at risk, they may adopt defensive behaviours:

• Avoiding risk-taking to protect their status
• Reluctance to experiment with new skills
• Developing a fear of failure, rather than a desire to improve

This can alienate developing players and create a culture that discourages late bloomers. 

Encouragingly, inclusive coaching can break this cycle, building safer, more productive team environments.

Team culture: compassion over hierarchies

What the best teams do
World-class teams thrive on inclusivity and shared purpose.

The All Blacks, for example, emphasise humility, collaboration, and player ownership of culture. This starkly contrasts with hierarchical systems, which stifle creativity and risk-taking.

In rugby, creativity becomes a key differentiator as players reach higher levels.

Physical differences diminish, leaving decision-making, adaptability, and skill as defining traits. Compassion-focused environments help players develop these attributes, benefitting both the ’best’ and ’worst’ performers.

Benefits of a compassionate team culture

• Risk-taking and skill development: Players in compassionate environments feel safe to take risks and try new things, essential for long-term growth.
• Process-driven goals: Focusing on effort and improvement, rather than outcomes reduces pressure on players and coaches alike.
• Open mindsets: Carol Dweck’s work on growth mindset shows that environments valuing effort over innate talent foster resilience and learning.