Bless ya, krones.

Not many ppl out there who could draw a relationship between a barca game and OZ yoof dev.

Move over Mourinho, we got our own special one.

Last night was a classic example of the problems facing Australian youth development.
It was clear that the Brazilian team that played Barcelona in the club world cup had never had to play at such a high pace of play against such an organised team.
Beacause of south Americans isolation players never see teams like Barca and it is the same with youth teams here in Australia.
Last night Isolation stood out like the proverbial dogs xxxx.

No.

But there was one from Tasmania - Paul Stevens.

Edited by Decentric: 15/12/2011 04:28:26 PM

Does anyone have the list of players for the All
Star team selected?

He remains desperate to believe he got genuine value out of the ad hoc course (cobbled up to pay for some Dutch pensioners holiday down under) he attended a few years ago.

Human nature, I guess.

Probably but how do we know this? Regardless when they step up they are found out so my point stands, it's something to focus on.

I'm surprised you included yourself in this 'few'?[-x :lol:

Of course those teams coached by Versleijen could also play out from the back successfully at a lower level. They probably did it in Asian qualifying games. When moving up to the World Championships Australia found it difficult at the higher level . Less time and space on the ball.

Arsenal have been renowned for playing good football out from the back in the EPL and in the early rounds of the ECL. Then they met Barca playing an incredibly intense full pressing and squeezing game. Arsenal couldn't play out from the back and coughed up possession in that scenario. Hence, they were knocked out of the ECL.

You've failed to answer a few questions I've posed to you in your thread.:-k

It is important to define the difference between former Aussie ad hoc approaches and European methodology in general. A lot of KNVB methodology can be extrapolated. We have had basically nothing In Australia until the Dutch orientated NC.

Whether old Soccer Australia was replaced by Clarefontaine, Coverciano, Barca Academy or contemporaneous German national football federation KNVB influenced methodology, all would have been a decided improvement on what was the norm.

Okay good stuff.

I asked that question because IMO playing the ball out under pressure was the major failing with the u17s and u20s, and something that has to improve a hell of a lot.

I define mindless possession as passing the ball around in non-dangerous areas without any intention or ability to attack.

And no, not every good team tries to dominate possession. Udinese for example almost always play on the counter and are happy to play without the ball for large chunks of games. The key is that they know how to attack properly using this strategy.

Also in terms of an available budget to quality/results ratio, they must be close to Europe's finest.

No Decentric, there is no agenda.

Any educated person should be questioning the new system and indeed the initial results of that system. Not to do so is foolish in the extreme.

If you can find someone else asking better questions of what happened at this NTC competition then feel free to point them out.

You are sounding more and more religious about KNVB with each post.

Yeah I meant to say exposure in the context of this tournament but thank God for the dinosaurs at the clubs hey.

I mean seriously bonus points were awarded for how closely a coach adhered to one style of play, or as the FFA puts it "proper execution of the FFA’s playing style".

What concerns me is that youth football should be about encouraging individual development within any system and not about tactical rigidity.

BTW we've seen the chronic problems under Versleijen whose teams were woeful but I'll leave that for a different thread.

It boils down to how seriously the FFA take this tournament as it's borderline pointless to make judgements on quality when the vast majority of players are knackered.

=d> =d> =d> =d> =d> =d>

Yeah, good point.

I think transparency is what's needed. Even some sort of report card with positives and constructive criticism of what they can do to get closer to that further selection.

I totally agree chips, any child that trials for an elite position should in my opinion receive some constructive feedback on points they could improve on.
It is not hard, teachers do it every day.

Edited by krones3: 12/12/2011 05:51:09 PM

What about all the other kids (majority?) that didn't get an audience (or positive feedback) with anyone?

Who mends these broken hearts?

Absolutely. In past years these kids have been broken-hearted at missing out, and have thought they may not be on the right track to obtain higher selection. This time, these kids were told to keep their heads up, keep working because they were so close, and if they put in the hard yards, then they'll get there one day. These kids then walk away from the tournament, not broken-hearted, but encouraged that they're on the map at least and further encouraged that they've been recognised, despite missing all-star selection.

fantastic been a long time coming.

Cheers, mate. Glad to see you appreciated my views over the past week. :)

One big tick I will give to this tournament that I haven't given to national championships in the past, is that the players who were very close to all-star selection, but didn't make it, had this made known to them by the FFA technical staff and these players had a chat with the technical staff regarding where they're at. Much better than leaving those players in the dark regarding their development.

I think the selectors / judges had a fair idea about the teams' competitiveness but the last two games really highlighted this. The level of play was also well worth watching. I'm not sure who did the bonus points but I believe it is also linked to the assessments of the various coaches that was undertaken at the same time. The fact that the judges rewarded the QLD for its play and they then beat a very strong NSW team 4-1 in the final suggests they did a decent job.

Also, the teams did not all play well every time - most had an off day or even two, hence the fluctuation. For example, the ACT team were unlucky to lose 2-3 games after dominating possession or at least not looking threatened very often, but had a shocker against SASI. They could easily have beaten WA in their last game but missed a number of (well created) opportunities.

What do you mean by mindless posession. The aim of every good team is to deny the opposition the ball. We conceded when we failed to do so against a couple of very good teams (in recent internationals). I think bringing players in from outside the development process at that age can be problematic. This will hopefully change with continued improvement here with our younger players.

Judging by the play and scores at this tournament the defences were placed under regular pressure (three attackers) and while a number of goals resulted from defensive lapses, most teams were able to play the ball out from the back regularly. There were almost no real blow-outs. Most teams tried very hard to penetrate with high-precentage passing - very difficult against well drilled defences. The players were obviously under instructions not to waste possesion by simply blasting it clear. While difficult, that is what this is all about as part of the development process.

As I said in previous posts we are not there yet, but the level of play at this tournament indicates to me that we are on the right path. There were a number of players who stood out for a variety or reasons. Most of them were appropriately selected for the all-stars team. A handful of them really strutted their stuff in the final and the all-stars game, especially the four QLD players selected, the NNSW left back I think it was number 5? who scored a cracker in the last game for the all-stars and a couple of NSW players (keeper?). Also the WA number 8. Did not get to see the Victorian number 10 play in that game unfortunately. Apologies to the other players involved, I no doubt missed things. To still be able to shine after a long and tiring tournament is however a good indicator of ability.

Unfortunately, there is an agenda from a few on here to refute the Dutch system in its entirety.

There are two issues.


1. Top European generic methodology compared to what we have had in the past in Australia.

2. KNVB curriculum compared to other top European practice - Clairefontaine, Coverciano, Barca Academy and new revised KNVB based German methodology.

As you say, Incoming, the first three place getters at the 2010 World Cup used Dutch based methodology. Some just don't seem to be able to accept it. It pervades the entire Australian football milieu.

When some coaches, including some former Socceroo coaches, speak of eclectic systems, they forget we have been experts in none in Australia.

I know for a fact most of the players at this tournament play at a high level in their state/s and get exposed to different types of opposition on a regular basis. The Dutch system of development is just one way to improve the technical standards of our players - it happens to be a proven one. Did you notive the two countries at the top of the world rankings and in the World Cup final? They subscribed to it many many years ago. The recent "failures" - not really that bad in most games - just show how far we have to go. Give it time.

Congratulations to Qld....good win!!

Edited by slee45: 11/12/2011 11:10:20 PM

It has been good to see irregular posters Slee, Spathi, Midfield Maestro, Incoming, Mustard and F1 Dave posting in this thread.

Good comments guys.:)

Hope to see you blokes stick around and make more contributions in Performance.

It adds more depth to discussion and adds fresh perspectives.

There are supposedly 20 000 unique visitors to 442 each day. Most of them never post.

Edited by slee45: 11/12/2011 03:54:32 PM

Due to the scheduling, I don't think we are able to see a 100% accurate reflection of what the players can do, but I don't see any way to schedule around this. (I'm not making excuses for the players by the way.)

Strangely enough, on day 4 and day 5, NNSWIS were a different team than that of the previous 2 days and played more like the team which beat NSWIS 3-1 on the first morning.

Okay fair enough but I would've thought we would've already known whether or not the technical team was competitive without needing a final.

Also as an aside, the awarding of bonus points is very subjective. It'd be interesting to know how many different people are involved in this grading as a number of the teams have had wild variations in bonus points from day to day.