A prominent European based youth TD and senior educator (has performed consultant work for FFA) advised a young Australian lad approximately 18 months ago to take the opportunity at available in Europe because he deemed the level of education ( including ais) as substandard compared to the club in Europe. The lads parents were concerned about threats of not making oz team, blocking clearance requirements and visa propaganda. His response ...... Your answer is there if FFA management believed their development programs are world class they wouldnt rely on threats !

Kid went overseas, doing well and is continuing to be ignored.

And we have people like Decentric who continue to ignore issue and refuse to accept criticism of their beloved setup.
I wil no longer post regarding this topic, we are the champions of the emu effect!.

They probably don't but you can bet there's scouts from all over the world watching the performances of these blokes. Presumably if they get signed by big clubs their development will be fast tracked. And presumably the more players playing at a higher level the better it will be for the national team in the future.

Look at the fapping going on over your mate Rogic. (A player mind you that wasn't good enough for the FFA. So much for pathways.)

Really?

You dont think that the players with the best fitness, speed, strength, defensive structure, organization, finishing ability are teh best sides in adult football?

Can i ask what you think gives those adult teams the edge?

Really?

You dont think that the players with the best fitness, speed, strength, defensive structure, organization, finishing ability are teh best sides in adult football?

Can i ask what you think gives those adult teams the edge?





Technique, technique,technique and individual brilliance. He is not saying that those other areas are not important but that they can all be easily improved with the exception of finishing that falls under the heading of technique.

How many of them have mentioned fitness as an area we need to improve (I won't name names but it undermines their credibility in this subject. Not to say they don't have credibility in other subjects)

youth tournaments are dominated by teams that are good in three areas
1. Fitness speed and strength
2. defensive structure and organization
3. finishing

Apart from finishing it is a poor indicator of how good a player will be at adult level.
Like I said before the majority of top four places in youth tournaments are not taken by world cup winners at senior level and our best youth tournament resulted in our worst generation
I really don't understand why this is so hard to understand ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

There are plenty of posters here such as quickflick, krones, redcarded, moops, arthur, robbo, and others (none of whom are lightweight forum contributors) who are explaining in great detail what they think the problems with the Under 17's were without getting bogged down in the "results are all that matter" mantra.

I'm glad that there are posters who can get past the "everything's peachy keen attitude" some on here have.

That is not to suggest the lads didn't try their hearts out. As I have said, it was clear Kye Rowles was fighting tooth and nail to the death. That is very commendable.

There were passages of play when the Joeys had MEANINGFUL possession for protracted periods of play.

Again, that's what we want to see.

What is concerning are inability to maintain consistency for longer, poor technique for too long, poor first touch, poor defensive organisation and decision-making, toothlessness up front, a lack of speed and agility from too many players, a lack of 1 vs 1 ability from too many players (save Derrick, really, although Armenakas and Arzani showed glimpses), lack of squad rotation and at the fact that one of the best technicians and quickest players spent almost the whole tournament on the bench.

This is what worries me.

This is not the lads' fault. Kudos to them for their hard work.

But it means that at an administrative level, there are problems which are not being addressed and, more worrying still, for which excuses are made.

Why are we defensive? Why can we not have transparency and accountability? Why? Why? Why? Do we want the Stasi or something?

For Christ sake, this is ridiculous. There isn't some agenda to put down these players.

So what if Nigeria is awesome. We were shit against them AND AGAINST OTHER SIDES AS WELL. We have a NC. We did NOT play according to the ethos of that curriculum.

There's a sheer lack of accountability and transparency. People actually make excuses for this, too. That beggars belief.

For evidence, I go by what I see before me.

I saw that Australia played truly shit against Germany, Nigeria and against Mexico (for a half). I didn't see the match against the Argies but the reports didn't make for nice reading.

What I saw was that Australia was shit-house for the majority of both those matches and that, with about one or two exceptions, our players looked seriously seriously unfit, untalented, unathletic (unathletic compared to German and Mexican sides, too, not just Africans).

There's no excuse for having fitness levels of which my grandmother would be proud. Yet there are excuses made for this.

To make matters worse, people are misinterpreting philosophy pertaining to the technical and tactical sides of the game and simply suggesting that fitness doesn't matter.

Then to make matters worse, levels of graciousness dropped to unbelievable lows. People started spouting crap about the Nigerians being age cheats and only winning because they're stronger and (allegedly) bigger. It makes me ashamed to be from Australia to read that tripe. It totally ignores the TECHNICALLY SUPERIOR FOOTBALL WHICH NIGERIA PLAYED COMPARED TO AUSTRALIA.

Basically, what has happened is we played crap, got out of the group by fluke, got thrashed by a very good side.

Everybody keeps their job, no questions are asked, no independent review.

Great stuff Australia. Keep being a backwater plagued by incompetence, insecurity and inflated sense of self-worth.

Edited by quickflick: 6/11/2015 10:55:57 PM

We've nearly won this tournament before and it made no difference to the national team. Id be stoked if the boys won world cup, but none of it really means much if they don't find clubs and develop more as players. These kids aren't even professionals yet. The national curriculum in my opinion should be deemed a success or failure if the players that have gone through the system have improved the senior national team.

But they might too.

Seriously though Switters if we'd won this tournament would you still be saying that it makes no difference to our performances at senior level or would you say we're on the right track and it's a vindication of the pathways and the NC?

Of course you would so give me a break and the give the selective quoting a miss. (Ignoring the other 90% of the text and points made.)

And the reason teams like Nigeria and Mali aren't successful at senior go well beyond what's happening in a tournament at youth level.


Edited by munrubenmuz: 7/11/2015 01:57:31 PM

finally

They probably don't but you can bet there's scouts from all over the world watching the performances of these blokes. Presumably if they get signed by big clubs their development will be fast tracked. And presumably the more players playing at a higher level the better it will be for the national team in the future.

Look at the fapping going on over your mate Rogic. (A player mind you that wasn't good enough for the FFA. So much for pathways.)

They probably don't

Where is the evidence that it does?

Cos, it doesn't.

Show me the evidence where results at this level dictate performance and results at senior level.

(1) - Yes. (And the only game they won they abandoned the NC.
(2) - Maybe. Depends on whether the players are adhering to the system or if they have the correct cattle.
(3) - Yes it does.

(1)At the end of this tournament, we should be viewing how the team played, their system, technique in accordance with the national curriculum. (2)The coaches should be sacked if they were deemed to not play to the curriculum. (3)It has nothing to do with getting out of the group, or how many goals we conceded or scored.

we were technically stronger than previous generations yet people really want us to "look at reality" by looking at results
all i can say is im glad such people dont have much say over the direction of youth development in australia

I tell you what I'm not going to do peanut and that's crap on about how they're all age cheats and they only won because they were superior athletes.

If you think the Australia is going well by arsing it out of a group by the skin of their teeth in 4th place of the 4 best placed third teams then you're as deluded as decentric who's hailing this a some kind of success and a vindication of the FFA methodology.

We won one game. A game where Australia abandoned the philosophy and methodology.

Talk me through again how well we've done.

Munrub, given you have kids under the auspices of FFA programs, should you save yourself a few thousand bucks and withdraw them?

You've said you are an advocate of the FFA NC. I've asked before you to state what you like about it?

Since you've only excoriated the FFA NC to date, surely you can coach your own kids yourself?:d

Given you are putting your hard earned into FFA programs for your kids development, you are displaying financial support for something you castigate on here.:roll:

Given you are putting your hard earned into FFA programs for your kids development, you are displaying financial support for something you castigate on here.

Since you've only excoriated the FFA NC to date.

I tell you what I'm not going to do peanut and that's crap on about how they're all age cheats and they only won because they were superior athletes.

If you think the Australia is going well by arsing it out of a group by the skin of their teeth in 4th place of the 4 best placed third teams then you're as deluded as decentric who's hailing this a some kind of success and a vindication of the FFA methodology.

We won one game. A game where Australia abandoned the philosophy and methodology.

Talk me through again how well we've done.

Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, England and Holland didn't make the final either.

Would there be be consternation in those countries about it?

Mali and NIgeria make the final ?

Im sure munrubenmuz is about to come and tell us european and south american football is in crisis

The other saving grace is that when the Aussie under 17s get into HAL programs, fitness is a massive issue because the HAL is played at a very fast tempo. Hopefully not to the extent that football athletes, like in the past in Oz, have been more highly valued than footballers.

There is no doubt that the Malinese and Nigerian football teams were good. But to actually study their methods may not assist us improve to become a better football nation.

Then again, maybe it could.

Its a good yard stick

Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, England and Holland didn't make the final either.

Would there be be consternation in those countries about it?