There are quite a few coaches who have posted on this forum recently, who have been involved in selection trials. It was an interesting process with a lot of players trying out for a FFA rep team, who showed a very good attitude. In the past I've only had to omit a very small number.

One of 442's long term posters has been very frustrated with some of the selection criteria used for selection in rep teams in his neck of the woods. He would like ours. The criteria we had to use, with an edict from FFA, was TIC.


Technical

The four core skill in the FFA National Curriculum are:

First touch (the most important core skill).

Striking the ball.

Running with the ball.

1v1 (defensively and offensively).





Insight (Game Sense)

I used this more than the state FFA senior staff coach, to evaluate players.




Communication

It didn't quite get close enough to look at this attribute as being a determining factor of selection for any players over others. The former rep/state players were effective in this area.





I did the trials in conjunction with a very senior state FFA staff coach, as we had a lot of players. We set up the Chelsea Academy drill, Turning Into Space, as a Warm Up. I have made a thread about this, on this page.

There are many technical areas to asses in this exercise. A player's ability to receive and turn, their receiving body shape, their ball carrying, their ability to one and two touch return pass, were possible to evaluate. So we had three core skills to evaluate, but not under game pressure.

Next I set up the 5v3 rondo I've sent out to about seventeen 442 posters via email. This was okay, but for the second trial, we went straight into games after the aforementioned delineated Warm Up.

The first trial was like this:

2 games of equal numbers ( four teams). They all played each other. One game was scrutinised by the FFA staff coach, the other by me. Then we swapped.

He had two categories of players. Those who the FFA staff coach thought were up to a criterion based standard. The second were a group who he appraised as definitely below it.

Being a lot more experienced, he categorised these two groups much more quickly than me. I deferred to his experience, but when looking at the same players, reached similar conclusions. Without him, it would have taken a lot longer. Moreover, he also identified suitable positions for the players he identified as having the requisite ability.

His experience was invaluable in the first trial, more so than the second. The planning for the second trial was determined by his experience and evaluation skills.


The proposal from the conclusion of this first trial session, was that the FFA staff coach suggested leaving the definites and those unsuitable, to play against each other in the second trial, with minimal scrutiny being required. I organised this, with a few tweaks (being a teacher, so they wouldnt work out what we were doing).

Then we could really scrutinise the possibles, in the other game.



The second trial:

At the second trial I planned, we did the same Warm Up, albeit for a shorter period of time. We planned a lot more time to observe players in games. We needed it too. Selections went down to the wire.

We broke off into two games. It was interesting . A lot of the players who had been through state/rep programs, were able to play combination football together, with one twos and third man runs. They were also able to play in triangles. However, not all previous state/rep players were selected straight into the definites.

I was pretty keen on a couple of guys who showed sound game sense, with good decision-making on the ball. They were pretty average athletes, but to me they could play intelligent football.

Another player I brought to the trial, showed good goal instincts and ability to win 1v1 in tight spaces. He was very small, but pleasingly won a few block tackling, 50/50 duels, which I thought would be his weakness. After winning those, he went straight into the squad of 16. I thought I was biased, so I consulted the FFA staff coach for a second opinion. The small migrant player worked hard with us at CFP and only a short time ago he was in refugee camp in another country !

The FFA staff coach wanted another who was a bustling player, with speed and strength, but I wasn't happy he displayed sufficient technique.

Another former star performer, a good technician, wasn't showing enough tenacity and desire at the session.The FFA staff coach would have selected him much earlier, but I still wasn't happy selecting him.

The bustling , strong, athletic player still couldn't convince me either. Not enough of TIC for me, compared to some lesser athletes, but who had good game sense.

Then another player decisively outmuscled a player I had selected in a 1v1, then held him off to score. He made a superb tackle. That player winning this 1v1 and scoring was selected from that one decisive action.

The star technical player , who to me wasn't performing, suddenly got interested, and did some good work on the ball.

The bustling player, showed some speed and decent ball carrying speed, but what won me over was his work rate off the ball in the end. He also was good in the 1v1 winning the ball duels. Interestingly enough, he was a state player recently, but under a different coach evaluating, yours truly, he only just scraped into a lower level squad.


We had our 16 with five minutes to go. We agreed on the composition of the squad.

Then right at the end, the FFA staff coach picked out a strongly built guy who was playing out from the back in a central position. The FFA staff coach thought he was in the squad already. I realised he wasn't!

He looked excellent as a ball playing CB. I couldn't believe I'd missed him!#-o

We then had to take out one of the 16 to make way for him. Ultimately, the FFA staff coach suggested a player who had gone out of the game, for the last 10 minutes, but who had played better earlier.

With the the lack of time, I agreed with it. So the poor guy lost his spot! A decision had to be made, and I was happy for the FFA staff coach to make it.

It ended with me making a speech, thanking all players for trialling, and saying I wish I could select all of them, but that we had to make some tough decisions. I also alluded to how difficult it was to make selections. I encouraged all players to try out again next year and prove us wrong if they were not selected. I wished them all the best for the future.






I intend to create effective liaison with the feeder/consitutent clubs. FFA rep programs have sometimes not enjoyed much popularity with constituent clubs.









Edited by Decentric: 5/3/2013 12:14:54 AM

Edited by Decentric: 5/3/2013 12:41:20 AM

Edited by Decentric: 6/3/2013 12:17:17 AM

Edited by Decentric: 7/3/2013 09:43:10 AM

Edited by Decentric: 10/3/2013 03:18:42 PM

So if this is the player pathway why havent the best players been selected rather than looking for positions to fill ?

It still seems to me though that some of the players are being selected on strength, and physical presence rather than technical ability. In 1v1's the players that most often win the duels are the more physical ones, whereas we should be looking for the smarter players with the better touch who dont get dragged into the duels.

I often see players with physical presence and a high work rate win the ball, but because of their touch and poor decision making get stuck in a 50-50 duel again, and just because of their physicality they win it. This players mistakenly get praised.

Selections must be a combination of small players and tall physical ones, you will find at the 16 years plus age bracket that it's 90% tall boys and 10% small kids, in order to win games you must and I mean must have physical presence in the team, Germany has it , the Dutch have it , Japan haven't got it, thus they find it very difficult to compete with teams like Germany etc, we here in Australia are not Japan, we started with Phisical presence we must finish with them- It's the 90% to 10% rule..

Interesting insight into State selection process Decentric.

Though I understand why we have State team's I don't really agree with them.

Boys dropped from the previous years State team also raises interesting questions;

Is junior player development based only on 30-40 week blocks in a year?
Why isn't junior player development considered a 3 or 4 or 5 year process?
Is the system working for players if they are dropped? Surely with all the resources available, all State Players "theoretically" should be a shoe in year after year. Does the State system not work?

Then there is the issue of the players who just miss out, now they miss out on high level coaching, playing and training with quality players. Surely this affects their development?

As Brew implies it come sometimes easier to pick the athletic boy



Now thats something Cruyff would say.

Dirk, is this a generic comment about selection trials in Australia per se, or a comment made about our particular selections in this state?

I thought we identified the best players based on TIC, particularly Technique and Insight.

I have had some very disappointed parents ringing me, but I think I've persuaded them that the trials were as objective as possible, with us looking at strict criteria in which to assess players. Apart from three players I've coached at CFP, I had no idea of their playing backgrounds prior.
We were criticised for not looking harder at two footedness. What it would it would have amounted to, was dodgy footwork and inferior body shape in some players.

Many rep coaches in the past have looked at physique, strength and speed across the turf as important criteria for winning selection for rep teams. I am probably the antithesis of this approach. There are also issues of growth spurts and general co-ordination.

Also, some players have done a lot more work in the off season. This can be exemplified by playing social rosters in outdoor football, playing Vikings and FFA futsal. Moreover, some kids play a lot a of SSGs at school. The migrants often play for about 90 minutes street football per day after school. A couple in particular put what they'd learnt at CFP into practice on a very regular basis.

Sometimes rep coaches affiliated with particular clubs have also selected many players they've previously coached. Accusations of nepotism and cronyism have been common.

I need about a month to answer some of these points.=d>

Stop asking such quantity and quality of intelligent questions, Arthur!:-k

You are probably aware, Brew, but the 1v1 Core Technical skill has been changed from simply attacking ability, to defensive and attacking 1v1 ability in the FFA NC.

This was changed after our state SAP trainer visited Germany a short time ago ( I am not sure who went with him). The Germans insisted this was a weakness in our FFA NC that needed redressing.

FFA have recently incorporated the defensive aspect of 1v1.

Some players are more proficient at beating players 1v1 with the ball at their feet, others are better at winning it in a 1v1.

This is not state level, but the level below.

It happens that there are some state players from last year trying out, who did not make the NTC squad.

NTC selection guarantees automatic state selection.

The other guys have to go into the rep squads and be selected form performances at state championships that occur on three separate occasions in one season.

This is the archetypal Barcelona or Spanish player.

It has changed the way a number of people think about football.

So the equivalent of NPL ?

At a recent u12 pre season carnival invloving most NPL teams in SEQ the tournamnet was one by
a development NPL team ie the cast offs from the othe clubs/entities. NPL Talent ID my arse
Until football is run by professional clubs then outside inflences will continue and the player drain to europe will continue.
PS There is a good podcast on coachzone from sam saif.

My idea of 1v1 functional game skills
1v1 attacking - moves, being able to beat players in a 1v1, identifying when and where to use which move, shielding, change of pace/direction, deception
1v1 defending - intercepting the ball, tackling (various types of tackling - block, poke etc), jockeying, showing

But it is important that we see the technique and the insight not just the physical aspects i.e. speed, strength as these always change by the time players are 18.

Thats a classic!

Don't stress to much Dirk in Football, anywhere in the world, there is no Nirvana for player development.

As our head coach says if Messi was born in England chances are he'd be cleaning toilets at Old Trafford cause his deemed to small.

I'm sure that talented player ID at 12 and 13 years of age is a waist of time and resources any way.

And my opinion is still is that the FFA has to make some formal arrangements with clubs in Europe to take some of our talented players. Only if we have players in the top six Leagues, in the top teams, playing champions league will we have a successful socceroos side. This is a point Klinsman was making that its not enough for Donovan to be playing at Fulham to impress Klinsaman he needed to be playing for a successful team in the Champions League. While some will come through the A-League the powers that be have to realise there is not ONE RIGHT WAY to develop a player there are a lot of RIGHT ways.

Interesting point, you could say Tom Rogic is a great example of the potential of Australian football. He was written off as a footballer because he didn't join the "pathway" as a junior. I honestly believe he is going to be one of our greatest football exports. You would have to think there are a number of kids in Tom's position.

We desperately need the A League clubs to include juniors into their set up. We need to get rid of the cliques/ friendships we currently have in junior football. a qualified coach working for the Brisbane Roar u14 team is not going to pick someone because their parents are friendly or because he made the team last year. The Roar would then have a in depth look at the best young players in Brisbane.

In the 8 years the A League hasn't had junior teams, we might have seen the "next" Rooney or Piqué fall through the cracks.

You are right there are a lot of right ways, but there are even more wrong ways. Too often coaches kill players creativity between 6-9 so players come into even rep programs frightened. most local and even rep football is frightened football, coaches too afraid too concede goals, get beaten, so often they put their best players in defence and up front and play between the two.

@ Decentric. Did you only have just the 2 selectors? You really should be having more than that. Even if ultimately it is only 1 or 2 of you who are going to be making the final decisions, the more eyes watching the lower the chance you will miss something. You also have to remember the perception of the players and the parents. Having only 2 selectors leads to claims of bias and nepotism but if you have 4 or more there it is hard to make those claims.

Related to that is something I think should be used at all representative trials: video cameras. I had a trial recorded and it worked out great. One selector manned the camera while the other selectors went about business as usual. In between the first and second trials each selector was able to rewatch the trial and see things from a different perspective. We let the players and parents know we would be doing this. Due to the presence of the camera, the feedback we got was very complimentary even though the trial itself was run the same as usual and we probably didn’t make any changes to our selections due to rewatching the first trial, it was more of a case of confirming what we had seen.

One of my big disagreements with how FFA are doing things now is that the nationals are under 13s and 14s where the states pick a squad of 16 at the start of 13s (when most of them are still 12 year olds) and train just those kids.

Before when nationals was under 15s and 16s, most states would select development squads in the 11s and 12s of about 35-40 kids, 13s and 14s would be a few less and then in 15s and 16s they would have a squad of about 20-22 before picking the final 16 a few months out from nationals. Unfortunately there wasn’t a national curriculum so each state did their own thing on the training pitch but more kids got a chance and it is easier to identify 16 year olds that could go on to professional careers than it is 13 year olds.

Rogic did go through the pathway (state teams, NTC) right up to the age of 17 (apparently from the ages of 12 to 17 he played in ACT rep teams in their local league and didn't play for a club at all during this period). The problem for him was there was no Canberra NYL team at the end of the pathway and no other NYL team picked him up. He got lucky that the Nike competition came along when it did.


I agree. However, it is likely that the same coaches who currently coach rep teams and state teams would be the ones coaching junior teams for the A-League clubs.

I have checked with other very experienced rep coaches and even with four selectors, parents still complain if their child misses out!!!

There always seems to be controversy amongst parents. From a teaching perspective in some schools there are some parents who are used to going to the top to see if they can get what they want for their child. Often people in positions of superordinance in the upper echelons of the workforce who tell other people what to do all day! Professionals who should know better, often cave in if pushy parents consider going to a higher authority. This scenario replicates itself in football.



I think we are almost above reproach in terms of bias. We had specific criteria. I was almost a total stranger to most of the group. I checked with the FFA staff coach if I was selecting a player I had coached prior, to see if he shared my appraisals.

We agreed without equivocation on the final 16. Nevertheless, it took until the last 5 minutes of the second session to arrive at the final squad.

Edited by Decentric: 7/3/2013 04:06:10 PM

I think the boys/girls from the state team have to go through the regional rep system the next year unless they get into the NTC. NTC selection means automatic selection for state teams.

Problems arise when new rep coaches like me, who try to be as fair and impartial as possible, don't simply select former state players on reputation alone for regional rep squads. I didn't know which players had what background. I just saw footballers who had to perform and be selected on merit. There were no players trying out from our club either.

Edited by Decentric: 7/3/2013 04:26:06 PM

I thought I heard that he was never selected, told he wasn't good enough. Anyway, he still could have been lost forever if the Nike thing didn't come along, kind of worrying really, as I said before, I believe he will be one of our greatest football exports.

Some of the players not selected would probably have been selected under the same coach they had last year. What one has to look at is what players do during the off season.

In this squad, we had a few refugees who tried out. They were clubless until a few day ago, but had ben training under our Community Football Program, trying out what they had learnt from CFP in about 15 hours worth of street football per week.

There may be some players who don't try out for state teams in some years.

I have a source within an A League club who says that in Victoria, VPL clubs often hide good players from the NTC and rep programs. Conversely, in Queensland a coach will probably find most of the best players within the NTC in that state, according to this source.

Then the question should be asked, is there a future for state rep teams in the future of Australian football development. With the APL kicking in, the state team and system becomes redundant. It just spreads out our already thin resources interms of qualified coaches. It would be much more beneficial if the coaches involved in state teams joined APL teams.

Do England, Germany, Spain, Italy have state or even rep teams. I wouldn't say so. ( apart from national junior teams)

Even if you have 2 completely unbiased and highly experienced and qualified selectors its always better to have a few selectors. Having extra eyes on the field can only help. What happens if an extra dozen kids show up that you weren't expecting?

Parents are always going to complain. Often you get the parents of the worst kid at the trial complaining. There may have been 30 kids ahead of him in the pecking order but they won't see that. I like to always have a small report prepared for each unsuccessful trialist. Usually each selector will have a group of players that they are responsible for writing the report for and will use what the other selectors have noted to compile their report. It gives a lot more credibility to your feedback and selections if you can tell them 4 or 5 experienced coaches have contributed to it.

Rogic did trial for the AIS but wasn’t offered a full scholarship. I saw him play at nationals in Coffs and the NTC and to be honest he wasn’t a stand out. There were a few players from his state team that were picked for a scholarship and at that age they were better than him. The FFA nowadays doesn’t cater at all for a late bloomer like Rogic. A little known story is that Rogic played in a youth exhibition match in Canberra before a Mariners friendly which was designed for the Mariners to look at the local youth and offer players trials for their NYL team. Rogic wasn’t identified. He also played a friendly against the Sydney FC youth team but he wasn’t identified then either. A few months later he wins the Nike competition and all of a sudden the Mariners are interested.

:shock:

#-o

Edited by Decentric: 7/3/2013 09:10:26 PM

We had 17 registered, over 30 turned up!

It was no sweat for me, because of my profession. However, the football observation was an issue. The organisation wasn't an issue , again because of my profession.

I had a former national team player and very experienced FFA staff coach to assist. He was very good at quickly identifying a dozen players, half good enough, and the other group did not meet the criteria he thought was required for rep football. His work in the first session was exemplary.

The second session was a lot easier. We only had to appraise the players on one game. There was no equivocation on selection between us at the end, but it only concluded in the last few minutes.

Edited by Decentric: 7/3/2013 09:16:39 PM

Yes, they will complain.

I'm happy to talk to them. Again all part and parcel of being an infant teacher. I talk to parents every night after school informally as an infant teacher. Usually, telling them good news about their children.

I am extremely confident in this role. I enjoy jousting with bullying parents who have sometimes got away with bullying some diffident colleagues.

If parents asked me to expound about coaching cues and player actions, at this point in time, that is a different story!#-o

Edited by Decentric: 7/3/2013 09:17:30 PM

Brew, in terms of jockeying and showing, my understanding has been that showing is part of jockeying.

I've thought that jockeying is the general term used for delaying and trying to position attackers in BP. Often trying to move them onto their weakest foot, or the part of the pitch where the player in possession of the ball can be least effective, when one's team is in BPO.