Just for the record the ADD kids seem to be responding very well to consistent discipline, smaller numbers at training, more individual attention and total involvement at training.
ADD my arse.

Excellent news, krones.

I have taken the liberty of sending links to this forum and thread to international academies of child and adolescent psychiartry.

I have a strong belief that your success in this field will soon be recognised globally.

Strayan sockah dads, doing us proud.

You're wrong.

Are you from the 1930s or 20s??

Townsville.

My arse? Then why the "responding very well" after altering to smaller numbers, more individual attention and total involvement? And also, by the way, consistent discipline, with consistent being the operative word.

All of which were and are advised for ADD children.

That's no excuse.

It's like administering chemotherapy and then saying "cancer? my arse"

Hinterland mentality is same all over the western world......you should know that.

Access to quality psychiatric care is limited, which is reflected in their collective local knowledge.

I'm with you krones buddy, there's nothing like a bull whip to enforce a little bit of discipline with kids ... although I'm not sure it's part of the official FFA curriculum.

Access to quality psychiatric care is limited only because all the places are taken up by neurotic mothers and brow beaten fathers.
I can just see these fathers cringing and wondering how did I get my self ties up with this shit.

It is interesting to look at Melbourne Heart in 2011 and how they are successfully employing the 1- 4-3-3.

If one looks at the reference to Gregory Parker's aforementioned article, it has an excellent diagram delineating the 1-4-3-3 system with two screeners in the midfield triangle.

Heart sometimes plays this formation, alternating it with the attacking midfield triangle with two attacking mids and one defensive screener in the triangle.

In the last two games Heart also used the 1-4-3-3 with the 3:1 formation in the defensive line, also known as the 4-3-3 with a midfield diamond. In Gregory's diagram move one defender in front of the back three for the 3:1 defensive line.

Against Victory last week, Heart initially played the 1-3-4-3 version, but were struggling to contain Victory's fast counter attacks. They reverted to the 1-4-3-3 with a flat back four and negated Victory's game plan.

Then against Sydney tonight, they started with the flat back four and the attacking midfield triangle. They found they were outnumbered in midfield against Sydney's midfield diamond when they played a 1-4-4-2.

Then Van't Schip revered to the 1-3-4-3, to put more bodies in midfield. They were also less concerned about Sydney's offensive tansitions and speed on the counter attack.

Heart won both games. Van't Schip is value adding as a coach. He has developed players who were unwanted by other clubs. The 1-4-3-3 system has worked well for him and Heart this season.

Comparatively, I thought Coolen had a fair amount of good luck early in the season last year. His issues may have been more a question of player management, not poor use of the 1-4-3-3 system.

:shock:

Yes, after you've mentioned this for the 120,537th time, we get what you mean. He couldn't possibly be a poor coach, as he's Dutch, so it must be his man management skills.

But, alas! Communication and connection, the gaining and retention of attention, the ability to pass on one's knowledge and the commanding of the respect to enable you to do so, is 90% of the qualities of any good teacher, mentor or coach.

If one doesn't have these qualities, regardless of subject knowledge, one cannot be anything more than a very poor teacher, mentor or coach and very much in the wrong profession.

But, you should know this, not ignore it and not attempt a special exemption in the case of a Dutch teacher, mentor or coach.

What I'm saying is that his training tactically and technically would be very sound. It is the same with any French, new revamped German or Italian, Dutch coach.

Of course some are better than others.

All have to go through sound methodological training in top European practice.

And so do school teachers, particularly those doing the 4 year Bach. Ed. But just like coaches, all the training in the world won't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear if one doesn't have the ability to Communication and connect, to gain and retain attention, the ability to pass on one's knowledge and the commanding of the respect to enable one to carry out all of the above.

But i've already explained all this, as you well know. But as usual, choose to ignore what's said.

I know exactly what you're saying, btw. You're trying to avoid saying he might, in practice, be a poor coach, despite his Dutch heritage.

Are you of Dutch heritage yourself?




Edited by skeptic: 2/1/2012 09:05:57 PM

No.

English.

I have a lot of relatives in England.

Like teaching, football coaching is multi- faceted.

There is no point going into detail. You constantly miss points most others don't.


Some good man managers are mediocre tacticians.

Some good tacticians are mediocre man managers, etc.

You constantly avoid points most others don't, so don't try to avoid an answer, again. I simply don't accept a non answer and avoidance, unlike most whom accept bullshit, regardless of being aware that's what they're doing. I'm a real bugger to one's face.

The bolded comment has been my point all along, not that you weren't aware of that, you recalcitrant bugger.


Some good man managers are mediocre tacticians.

Some good tacticians are mediocre man managers, etc.

And those capable of both are capable teachers and coaches. Those that aren't, are not.

Edited by skeptic: 2/1/2012 10:34:17 PM

Comments from the special one on the Chelsea 4-3-3 of 2004-2006.

http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/01/25/teams-of-the-decade-13-chelsea-2004-06/





Edited by Gregory Parker: 24/2/2012 04:00:40 PM

4-3-3 is a terrible formation unless you have super fit talented players.

Man U (4-4-2) recently beat Ajax (4-3-3) in Europa League. Man U were not at full strength and Ajax were a depleted side from their last seasons triumph. So when you boil it all down it really depends on the quality of players rather than the formations. I personally think 4-3-3 is a horrible midfield formation unless you vary the formation to 3-5-2 which is a cross formation of 4-3-3 and 4-4-2.

4-4-2 sliding diamond is also much more effective than a straight 4-3-3.

I do not like the way our system is mandated to be 4-3-3 or the highway. This is very limiting to coaches that wish to morph between the 4-4-2 variations and 4-3-3 variations.

My 2 bobs worth...

Edited by Aussiesrus: 25/2/2012 07:45:51 AM

The KNVB consider the 1-3-5-2 too hard physically for amateur clubs. This is because they think the wide players have too much work and it is impossible to be fit enough unless professional.

I found on smaller pitches that players don't have to be really fit to play 1-4-3-3. The attacking wingers can still get back to defend in a line with the the attacking midfielder/s in the triangle.

The main difficulty I've had is getting players to hold the triangle shapes in midfield. One option which sounded good to me was doing what Andy Jackson does. That is to play the defensive triangle, with two defensive mids, and play the 1-4-2-3-1. He suggests it is easier to pay the formation in four lines. It sounds like a good idea. I have found the attacking triangle , with one DM is easier to coach than the defensive midfield with two DMs.

What I've done is play 1-4-3 (keeper, back four, midfield triangle) a lot in practice against the attacking and midfield lines, working up to 7v7 or 8v8 with keepers.
Initially the back 7 (or 8 with keeper) have played against 2 attackers, 3 attackers, 4 attackers, until they are competent enough to play against the same number, as they learn to play out from the back, and keep a cohesive and compact zonal defence.
It is also important for the keeper to organise and direct the back 4 in positioning. (This was a useful FFA session I attended with Tony Franken, free too). Forbze has been trying to do this with FFV for years, but they never reply.[-x

The back four should organise the midfield trio. It certainly helps to have a good organising keeper and at least one organising CB.

Gregory Parker has shown an excellent midifeld exercise in one of his artlcles. The emphasis on his drill was working the midlfed. I have mainly worked this exercise with a defensive orientation. It is easier.


The 7v7 (8v8 with keepers) is a good precursor to 11v11.

I'm surprised this is not part of the National Curriculum and the KNVB. Professional Dutch trained coaches seem to really like it. Arnold, Verbeek and Baan have shown a preference for the 1-4-4-2 with the diamond shaped midfield.

Arnold contends it is difficult to play against. Van t' Schip and others like to deploy the 1-3-4-3 or the 1-4-3-3 (with the 3:1 formation in the defensive line) when confronted with the diamond shaped midfield 1-4-4-2.

I think this is used as a weapon of control in Australia. Some FFA coaches want to exercise power over less senior coaches. As I keep stating, the KNVB were not that prescriptive with us. They were emphatic that their methodology was a system that was not the be all and end all.

It is also easy to change from the 1-4-3-3 with the attacking midfield triangle, to the 1-4-4-2 with the midfield diamond. If one has a good number 10 and two strikers, it works beautifully in with the 1-4-3-3, which needs a target striker and two wingers in the attacking line.

I agree with you, Aussiesrus.

As decentric said, these all fall under "player management".

A

It is interesting to note how upset some people get by the FFA mandating a 1-4-3-3 system in the NC. This is only part of the NC. A system is a static concept or reference point. The 1-4-3-3 system is a good system in which the rest of the NC can be implimented. Learn to play 1-4-3-3 first then morph into other systems as the players get older. During different phases of the game the 1-4-3-3 system looks very different.

Last year I mentioned I coached a medium level U14/15 mixed community team. The difference in skill level was large. In some games to reduce the space in the outside channels I employed a 1-4-2-3-1. The concepts of the NC were still used. The results were outstanding. We can still used the concepts of the NC to improve football in this country but we must be flexible enough to change with the players we have.

The 1-4-3-2-1 system can provide this flexiiblity if we do not have athletic wing forwards.

This is probably stating the obvious but it also depends on the individual players in the system. It is really obvious when Bernie Ibini comes off the bench he is more comfortable receiving the ball in the wider positions so plays more like a winger whereas all the other forwards are slower and more cumbersome (just ask the stream commentators for Wednesdays match)and prefer playing centrally. I was really hoping we would sign a left winger this year to give us a bit more flexibility in our attack. We could have done something similar to Heart and either played Simon(Babalj) as the hold up man or Rojic/Amini (Terra)as the man dropping deep to pick up the ball from midfield.

The funny thing is when I was a junior in Victoria during the early '70's evry one played 4-3-3.

We had the Fullbacks, Centre Back, Sweeper, the Centre Half, inside right and left, the centre forward and of course the Outside right and left.

Only in the late 70's and 80's when the influence of the British community in coaching ranks and the national coaching structures grew did we start using 4-4-2.

Not to forget that Arok introduced us to a 5-3-2 at national level and as the team progressed allowed the wing backs to attack creating a 3-5-2 formation.

In his last game as national coach he wanted to play a 3-4-3 formation with the young bright talents, unfortunateley he went with Thompson taking over providing us with a 4-5-1.

For the Dutch (especially the Gruyff Ajax School) and Guardiolas's Barcelona the 3-4-3 is considered the perfect formation especially if you have the right playing group. It has acheived mythical proportions in some circles.

I personally prefer the 4-3-3 with two out and out wingers it is an enjoyable type of game to watch.

Though I am eager to employ a 4-2-4 formation especially at a lower/intermediate junior level as I don't think many teams with be able to cope tactically.

played 433 until mid 80's in england , total football was the influence

just going thru the henk meriman soccer method (simlar to dutch) where he uses 3-4-3 as the development model as 3 players at the back makes better 1 v1 players and mistakes arent covered and consequently results by having 4 defenders, might explain why FFA like 3-2-3 for 9 aside as that gives the same affect.