|
grazorblade
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
So to match the player salaries of the ecl would take over four million pounds for a squad.. A league one squad just over a million pounds
Looks like we are actually punching above our weight in the a league....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pistola
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 91,
Visits: 0
|
Wrong nation and the wrong players if the socceroos want to get some results against the best nations the whole youth system must change better coaches, take a look at the NRL they have the best coaches in the world, why easy because it's the nations main sport and all the money is channelled this way.
|
|
|
|
|
Justafan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Have to agree with Bozza at National youth team level results do matter, it should be do not win at all costs such as long balls etc but winning the right way including using our never say die attitude. Playing nice and losing is not achieving anything. We need the killer pass, the final third ruthlessness that the top nations have and we lack at all levels . I think we have gone from one extreme to the other and need to find a better balance in between.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
thupercoach wrote:You know what they're doing? They're just boys in their twenties living the dream.
If someone had thrown $60K at me to play a sport when I was 20 I would've snatched their hand off for the chance.
Probably done it for 30 tbh. It seems lucrative at 20, but then it seems to dim as footballers approach 30.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
Great stuff , Arthur.=d> A mate and I have been discussing this a bit off forum. The difference in wages between the EPL and leagues I and 2 is amazing. I'll send this link to him.
|
|
|
|
|
Arthur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.1K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
thupercoach
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.3K,
Visits: 0
|
You know what they're doing? They're just boys in their twenties living the dream.
If someone had thrown $60K at me to play a sport when I was 20 I would've snatched their hand off for the chance.
Probably done it for 30 tbh.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
Pistola wrote:What the book doesn't tell you, is that it's easier to thread an elephant through a needle than playing at a top level overseas and making good money not the miserable money one gets paid in this country, you ask any player what they want to be when they grow up, is it a Plummer, No - is it a builder No - is it going to Uni - No but they will tell you I want to play for x a s I want to be a professional soccer player, many many players will be very disappointed and at the end will be un- skilled and in big trouble. Even if one plays English Leagues One and Two, they don't make a fortune either. When some Aussie players go for easy money in the MIddle-east, which doesn't help their career prospects, I sometimes wonder why they play pro football at all. If it is simply money they are interested in , they might as well think about a profession from an earlier age, instead of being a pro sportsperson.
|
|
|
|
|
Pistola
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 91,
Visits: 0
|
What the book doesn't tell you, is that it's easier to thread an elephant through a needle than playing at a top level overseas and making good money not the miserable money one gets paid in this country, you ask any player what they want to be when they grow up, is it a Plummer, No - is it a builder No - is it going to Uni - No but they will tell you I want to play for x a s I want to be a professional soccer player, many many players will be very disappointed and at the end will be un- skilled and in big trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
Barca4Life
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
Fozz's article on the World Game mentioned that the FFA is planning to create videos of the practice content in the NC, which is why the FFA are looking for a new digital partner to not just take over the websites but also probably to digitalise the NC content.
Which again the FFA will have taken another huge step forward. =d>
Edited by Barca4life: 27/9/2013 01:48:10 PM
|
|
|
|
|
neverwozza
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
They do this already grazor but they don't have to play them against men. They just throw them up into the next age group and they get beaten almost every week. The ones lucky enough to make the AIS side then get thrown into the youth league and the same thing happens. Here is a link to the ladder for last season: http://www.footballaustralia.com.au//yleague/ladderI know its not all about winning but I firmly believe losing can become a habit as well. I also believe if you're constantly out of your depth it will affect your development.
|
|
|
|
|
grazorblade
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
Decentric wrote:grazorblade wrote:In cricket development they would get us playing games against each other with reduced numbers and you would perfect one shot at a time. There was a very clear perscription on how to technically develop players
However, a competitive attitude, self confidence to punch above your weight, mental toughness were all coached too through playing us in lower mens grades (at the age of thirteen and sometimes even younger)
This was done without compromise on technique. Leg spinners had to bowl over the wicket for most of their overs even if they were getting flogged and the captain had to bowl them. Field placings had to be aggressive. You had to play proper cricket shots and even if you hit a six with a baseball slog you were chastised. Players were chosen on technique rather than physique. We would get flogged at first but eventually be better than the lower mens grades and eventually the upper mens grades, some as early as 14
I have heard michael slater comment that this has changed but I'm not sure if it is true or not
Seems there is a lot of analogies that can be drawn to football coaching? Why not have 12-15 play against lower mens grades but be uncompromising in the tactics and technique and selection policy?
Why can't we have a technical possesion based game with mental toughness? Its not either or. Just takes some out of the box thinking
This comination caused australia to punch a mile above their weight in cricket. In cricket, we have had the best coaching system in the world, which apparently other nations have followed.. We are a powerhouse, albeit in a small pool of countries who compete at cricket. right and I was wondering if we could do something similar in football coaching, have kids (12+) play against weaker adult teams and have the kids have a no compromise technical and tactical approach. Get flogged at first but keep at it
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
grazorblade wrote:In cricket development they would get us playing games against each other with reduced numbers and you would perfect one shot at a time. There was a very clear perscription on how to technically develop players
However, a competitive attitude, self confidence to punch above your weight, mental toughness were all coached too through playing us in lower mens grades (at the age of thirteen and sometimes even younger)
This was done without compromise on technique. Leg spinners had to bowl over the wicket for most of their overs even if they were getting flogged and the captain had to bowl them. Field placings had to be aggressive. You had to play proper cricket shots and even if you hit a six with a baseball slog you were chastised. Players were chosen on technique rather than physique. We would get flogged at first but eventually be better than the lower mens grades and eventually the upper mens grades, some as early as 14
I have heard michael slater comment that this has changed but I'm not sure if it is true or not
Seems there is a lot of analogies that can be drawn to football coaching? Why not have 12-15 play against lower mens grades but be uncompromising in the tactics and technique and selection policy?
Why can't we have a technical possesion based game with mental toughness? Its not either or. Just takes some out of the box thinking
This comination caused australia to punch a mile above their weight in cricket. In cricket, we have had the best coaching system in the world, which apparently other nations have followed.. We are a powerhouse, albeit in a small pool of countries who compete at cricket.
|
|
|
|
|
grazorblade
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
In cricket development they would get us playing games against each other with reduced numbers and you would perfect one shot at a time. There was a very clear perscription on how to technically develop players
However, a competitive attitude, self confidence to punch above your weight, mental toughness were all coached too through playing us in lower mens grades (at the age of thirteen and sometimes even younger)
This was done without compromise on technique. Leg spinners had to bowl over the wicket for most of their overs even if they were getting flogged and the captain had to bowl them. Field placings had to be aggressive. You had to play proper cricket shots and even if you hit a six with a baseball slog you were chastised. Players were chosen on technique rather than physique. We would get flogged at first but eventually be better than the lower mens grades and eventually the upper mens grades, some as early as 14
I have heard michael slater comment that this has changed but I'm not sure if it is true or not
Seems there is a lot of analogies that can be drawn to football coaching? Why not have 12-15 play against lower mens grades but be uncompromising in the tactics and technique and selection policy?
Why can't we have a technical possesion based game with mental toughness? Its not either or. Just takes some out of the box thinking
This comination caused australia to punch a mile above their weight in cricket.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
Barca4Life wrote:Decentric wrote:Rod Tilbrook wrote:
In particular, that a full side field is flawed for u12s. But not because its too crowded. There's too much space.
The kids can get lost on a full sized field. The number of touches of all players declines. Fast players can kick forward into the spaces and chase rather than having to rely on quick feet in tight areas. The spaces between the lines are too wide and the short passing game suffers for it. Too much long balls from the back,and floated shots and free kicks from distance direct on goal.
Totally agree. Why did the FFA go in this path when introducing 11v11 at Under 12s, whats behind there motives? I'm not sure about under 12s, but last year a FFA national instructor said the gradually increasing size of teams as they move up to under 12, was to appease hostile parents and other stakeholders. I'd like to see 4v4 ( 5v5 with keepers) all the way up to under 12s, then go to 11v11 like they do in Brazil. Baan advocated this when FFA TD. With the small SSGs the are a lot of touches. Games are often won depending on skill rather than than tactics.
|
|
|
|
|
Rod Tilbrook
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 87,
Visits: 0
|
The FFA needs to decide what they truly believe is right for youth development. What is behind the FFAs reasoning here? That SSF is the best format for our kids development unless they go on to play for their country? Maybe the FFA should start scouting u6 games and develop an elite full sized field squad to prepare for the 2022 u14s AFC tournament?
|
|
|
|
|
neverwozza
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Arthur wrote:neverwozza wrote:Barca4Life wrote:Decentric wrote:Rod Tilbrook wrote:
In particular, that a full side field is flawed for u12s. But not because its too crowded. There's too much space.
The kids can get lost on a full sized field. The number of touches of all players declines. Fast players can kick forward into the spaces and chase rather than having to rely on quick feet in tight areas. The spaces between the lines are too wide and the short passing game suffers for it. Too much long balls from the back,and floated shots and free kicks from distance direct on goal.
Totally agree. Why did the FFA go in this path when introducing 11v11 at Under 12s, whats behind there motives? I honestly think it just to keep parents happy. You would be amazed at the percentage of parents that are just busting to see their kids play real football on bigger pitches and for points when the kids clearly aren't ready. My understanding was that Under 12 competitions were to be included into SSF until the AFC dictated that member Fedrations were now required to field an U14 National Side.It was deemed necessary to field 11v11 Under 12 to assist in the identification process for the U14 Side. That seems silly because your best players are going to be your best players whether they are playing 9 a side or 11 a side. You would think FFA would get that. 2012 NSW rep 11's were broken into SAL and SAP. SAL was full field 11 v 11 and SAP was SSG. Both were non comp but they had a cup competition at the end of the year that included both groups of players. For mine the West SAP side was clearly the best side during the year across both comps and they ended up winning the cup comp quite easily on a full field even though they spent the season proper playing SSGs.
|
|
|
|
|
Arthur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.1K,
Visits: 0
|
neverwozza wrote:Barca4Life wrote:Decentric wrote:Rod Tilbrook wrote:
In particular, that a full side field is flawed for u12s. But not because its too crowded. There's too much space.
The kids can get lost on a full sized field. The number of touches of all players declines. Fast players can kick forward into the spaces and chase rather than having to rely on quick feet in tight areas. The spaces between the lines are too wide and the short passing game suffers for it. Too much long balls from the back,and floated shots and free kicks from distance direct on goal.
Totally agree. Why did the FFA go in this path when introducing 11v11 at Under 12s, whats behind there motives? I honestly think it just to keep parents happy. You would be amazed at the percentage of parents that are just busting to see their kids play real football on bigger pitches and for points when the kids clearly aren't ready. My understanding was that Under 12 competitions were to be included into SSF until the AFC dictated that member Fedrations were now required to field an U14 National Side.It was deemed necessary to field 11v11 Under 12 to assist in the identification process for the U14 Side. PS
To be selected for the U14 national Team a player needed to be in the U13 Skillaroos it is at this point that U12's are identified for U13 Skillaroos.Edited by Arthur: 26/9/2013 02:45:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
neverwozza
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Barca4Life wrote:Decentric wrote:Rod Tilbrook wrote:
In particular, that a full side field is flawed for u12s. But not because its too crowded. There's too much space.
The kids can get lost on a full sized field. The number of touches of all players declines. Fast players can kick forward into the spaces and chase rather than having to rely on quick feet in tight areas. The spaces between the lines are too wide and the short passing game suffers for it. Too much long balls from the back,and floated shots and free kicks from distance direct on goal.
Totally agree. Why did the FFA go in this path when introducing 11v11 at Under 12s, whats behind there motives? I honestly think it just to keep parents happy. You would be amazed at the percentage of parents that are just busting to see their kids play real football on bigger pitches and for points when the kids clearly aren't ready.
|
|
|
|
|
Barca4Life
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
Decentric wrote:Rod Tilbrook wrote:
In particular, that a full side field is flawed for u12s. But not because its too crowded. There's too much space.
The kids can get lost on a full sized field. The number of touches of all players declines. Fast players can kick forward into the spaces and chase rather than having to rely on quick feet in tight areas. The spaces between the lines are too wide and the short passing game suffers for it. Too much long balls from the back,and floated shots and free kicks from distance direct on goal.
Totally agree. Why did the FFA go in this path when introducing 11v11 at Under 12s, whats behind there motives?
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
Rod Tilbrook wrote:
They are forced to stay compact, play in traffic, master first touch or lose the ball, change direction, use the width of the field, play back under pressure etc. Midfielders can play a box to box role without having to be be future olympic middle distance runners. Good dribblers of the ball quickly learn to choose the right time to dribble rather than automatically run at the opposition.
This half size pitch sounds like a good idea. It creates more pitches too.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
Rod Tilbrook wrote:
In particular, that a full side field is flawed for u12s. But not because its too crowded. There's too much space.
The kids can get lost on a full sized field. The number of touches of all players declines. Fast players can kick forward into the spaces and chase rather than having to rely on quick feet in tight areas. The spaces between the lines are too wide and the short passing game suffers for it. Too much long balls from the back,and floated shots and free kicks from distance direct on goal.
Totally agree.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
Dan The Man wrote:
Australia won't get better from implementing this programme. Little kids should be playing organised football with the smallest possible numbers.
Also, the formation layouts still show the backs labelled as 'defenders'. This is a foolish mistake. Defence and attack are NOT POSITIONS. They are moments on the ball!!!
When a back has the ball, and is making a pass toward the opponent's goal, how is he a 'defender'?
How is a forward without the ball an attacker? He's not, is he? He's in the defensive moment.
It's still so naive.
Disagree the document is naive. Overall the system is infinitely better than we had before. This can be exemplified when I put up my C Licence assessment plan on this forum. Some of the the coaches who had done it as late as 2008, thought it was very challenging for a C Licence. I passed this on to our FFA course head instructor for the C Licence. He said a C Licence now is more like an A Licence of 8 years ago. If I pose a lot of the methodology from the current C Licence and KNVB Youth Certificate to a number of ostensibly highly trained coaches of yesteryear elsewhere on the inter web, they can't answer almost any regulation methodological questions I pose to them about training ground practice . These guys are rabid cynics of the current system. Empirically, our NPL in Tasmania, is already playing higher quality football than the previous regional leagues. The coaches are much better trained. It shows on the pitch. Edited by Decentric: 25/9/2013 07:02:52 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
Dan The Man wrote:Hi All
It's a document that has some good points, but also some major flaws.
You shouldn't be playing 11v11 at U12. That is a serious error. Oh well, the FFA had the chance to show some spine but blew it.
The best teams in the world didn't start playing 11v11 until 14 or 15. They're still playing 8v8 (9v9) until then. That's because a child needs a lot more space and time to play - 22 players on a pitch makes it far too crowded at U12. Too many factors to try to cope with.
Welcome to the forum, Dan. They played 11v11 in Holland a few years ago. They may still do it. Having said that, when Rob Baan was Aussie TD, he advocated 4v4 or (5v5 with keepers) until under 12s, like they do in Brazil. I asked this question at last year's FFA Regional Conference, about the 4v4 being better for development. The response was that the current system placates the recalcitrants who still want 11 v11 from as early an age as possible.
|
|
|
|
|
Rod Tilbrook
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 87,
Visits: 0
|
Dan The Man wrote:Hi All
It's a document that has some good points, but also some major flaws.
You shouldn't be playing 11v11 at U12. That is a serious error. Oh well, the FFA had the chance to show some spine but blew it.
The best teams in the world didn't start playing 11v11 until 14 or 15. They're still playing 8v8 (9v9) until then. That's because a child needs a lot more space and time to play - 22 players on a pitch makes it far too crowded at U12. Too many factors to try to cope with.
Australia won't get better from implementing this programme. Little kids should be playing organised football with the smallest possible numbers.
Also, the formation layouts still show the backs labelled as 'defenders'. This is a foolish mistake. Defence and attack are NOT POSITIONS. They are moments on the ball!!!
When a back has the ball, and is making a pass toward the opponent's goal, how is he a 'defender'?
How is a forward without the ball an attacker? He's not, is he? He's in the defensive moment.
It's still so naive. Agree with nearly all your points above. In particular, that a full side field is flawed for u12s. But not because its too crowded. There's too much space. U9s and u10s in SAP NSW play on a half-size field (across the field) with 9v9. They are forced to stay compact, play in traffic, master first touch or lose the ball, change direction, use the width of the field, play back under pressure etc. Midfielders can play a box to box role without having to be be future olympic middle distance runners. Good dribblers of the ball quickly learn to choose the right time to dribble rather than automatically run at the opposition. The kids can get lost on a full sized field. The number of touches of all players declines. Fast players can kick forward into the spaces and chase rather than having to rely on quick feet in tight areas. The spaces between the lines are too wide and the short passing game suffers for it. Too much long balls from the back,and floated shots and free kicks from distance direct on goal.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan The Man
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1,
Visits: 0
|
Hi All
It's a document that has some good points, but also some major flaws.
You shouldn't be playing 11v11 at U12. That is a serious error. Oh well, the FFA had the chance to show some spine but blew it.
The best teams in the world didn't start playing 11v11 until 14 or 15. They're still playing 8v8 (9v9) until then. That's because a child needs a lot more space and time to play - 22 players on a pitch makes it far too crowded at U12. Too many factors to try to cope with.
Australia won't get better from implementing this programme. Little kids should be playing organised football with the smallest possible numbers.
Also, the formation layouts still show the backs labelled as 'defenders'. This is a foolish mistake. Defence and attack are NOT POSITIONS. They are moments on the ball!!!
When a back has the ball, and is making a pass toward the opponent's goal, how is he a 'defender'?
How is a forward without the ball an attacker? He's not, is he? He's in the defensive moment.
It's still so naive.
|
|
|
|
|
Arthur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Justafan wrote:Rod Tilbrook wrote:neverwozza wrote:+1 Rod. It would take a very brave coach to stick to his principles of playing possession footbal if the kids are losing by 1 or 2 goals a match and especially if those goals were coming from defensive errors. My sons team coach was sacked because of poor results/parental pressure. The parents main grip I think was that the kids weren't direct enough and weren't shooting from distance (they conceded a lot of goals from long shots and free kicks outside the box). Justafan: The following is just one example of the issue of playing for points at an early age: As mentioned in the quote from Neverwozza above, this problem of kids being encouraged to shoot from distance is an issue in the Youth NPL. U12s is the first year that kids start playing full size fields with full size goals. But consider the height of the goal keeper at that age. All a team needs is a player capable of receiving the ball on or near the edge of the box and just floating it into the substantial gap between the height the average 12 year old keeper can jump to and the top of the net. No need for sophisticated passing or dribbling to unlock a defence using this technique. But by the time the goalkeepers are over 16 years old then this type of tactic will rarely work anymore. Has excessive use of this tactic helped to develop team and individual skills in the junior years - most probably no. Has it helped teams to win games and accumulate points across a season - almost definitely yes. I agree Justafan, that the very best youth teams through their better organisation and individual skills can and should develop tactics to counter pressing, parking the bus, flooding of the midfield, route one, long range floating shots etc. And these better teams will generally win regardless of the tactics used against them. But what about other teams that arent as strong across the board? Will they be forced to kick long etc. to maximise their chance of winning but at the expense of the development of some of the more promising players in their team? Very good point, maybe it would be best to make these goals more realistic for the age group like SSG so that getting a goal is more difficult and requires better build up play and positioning to score. Works for SSG formats. It is disappointing that the FFA didn't have the courage of their convictions and kept the U12's in SSF as originally devised. Only to remove this requirement to identify players for the U14 National Team. Which can only mean that they (the FFA) will end up identifying the physical early developers any way.
|
|
|
|
|
Arthur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Justafan wrote:I am a little confused, first it was win at all costs and now it is not to aim to win but to just develop. What is wrong with development with the aim to win? Why is winning such a dirty word at present in junior football.
Everyone talks about lack of "street soccer" well when I played in the street as a young kid I can assure you it was more important to win, than just developing skills. That meant we had to make forward runs and support each other and take on players, because our aim was to score more than we gave up.
While I agree with most of the NC and its aims, we should not lose sight that all the countries mentioned the most important thing is winning, have you ever heard ADP talk, it is all about we have to win no matter what.
I agree winning by just lumping it forward is not the way to go, but just passing the ball without the pressure to win is just a 360 turn to me, the ultimate outcome is win playing the right way, not just develop playing the right way or else we will become the Dutch, not much to show for it. In regards to your comments about "Street Soccer" there are other components to it. Firsttly in "Street Soccer" no ladders are kept. Secondly there are no age barriers. So players are able to experiment and come up with stratergies to deal with varying abilities, sizes and capabilities. Thirdly if a team is winning by too much the game is usually stopped and another one started. Lastly there is no or very little adult interference. Unfortunately in todays society in Australia and in most first world countrys there is very little "Street Sports' let alone "Street Soccer' any more. But the key points are there to be used in organised sports.
|
|
|
|
|
Justafan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Rod Tilbrook wrote:neverwozza wrote:+1 Rod. It would take a very brave coach to stick to his principles of playing possession footbal if the kids are losing by 1 or 2 goals a match and especially if those goals were coming from defensive errors. My sons team coach was sacked because of poor results/parental pressure. The parents main grip I think was that the kids weren't direct enough and weren't shooting from distance (they conceded a lot of goals from long shots and free kicks outside the box). Justafan: The following is just one example of the issue of playing for points at an early age: As mentioned in the quote from Neverwozza above, this problem of kids being encouraged to shoot from distance is an issue in the Youth NPL. U12s is the first year that kids start playing full size fields with full size goals. But consider the height of the goal keeper at that age. All a team needs is a player capable of receiving the ball on or near the edge of the box and just floating it into the substantial gap between the height the average 12 year old keeper can jump to and the top of the net. No need for sophisticated passing or dribbling to unlock a defence using this technique. But by the time the goalkeepers are over 16 years old then this type of tactic will rarely work anymore. Has excessive use of this tactic helped to develop team and individual skills in the junior years - most probably no. Has it helped teams to win games and accumulate points across a season - almost definitely yes. I agree Justafan, that the very best youth teams through their better organisation and individual skills can and should develop tactics to counter pressing, parking the bus, flooding of the midfield, route one, long range floating shots etc. And these better teams will generally win regardless of the tactics used against them. But what about other teams that arent as strong across the board? Will they be forced to kick long etc. to maximise their chance of winning but at the expense of the development of some of the more promising players in their team? Very good point, maybe it would be best to make these goals more realistic for the age group like SSG so that getting a goal is more difficult and requires better build up play and positioning to score. Works for SSG formats.
|
|
|
|
|
Pistola
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 91,
Visits: 0
|
Good set of points, FFA has expressed their dissatisfaction about youth playing to win, look at the skilaroos no matter what happens the skilaroos can't get relegated and play out from the back for development many f the players play 1 or 2 years up an age, why ,,,,,because they don't care about the table its about developing the younger players.
|
|
|
|