Australia is producing 'robots', says youth guru Smith
BY DAVE LEWIS

AIS Youth coaching kingpin Ron Smith, the man who nurtured golden generation stars like Mark Viduka, Vince Grella, Craig Moore and Lucas Neill, has added fuel to the furnace of the Socceroos’ FIFA World Cup exit by claiming the country’s development systems produce “robots” high on energy but short of goalscoring technique.

With the recriminations over Australia’s impotence in the final third in Russia raging, the former chief of the now defunct Canberra-based AIS finishing school for budding Socceroos insists an "obsession" with producing players "who run about like lunatics" in adherence to a methodology put in place by Dutchman Han Berger during his five-year reign as the FFA’s technical director from 2009-2014 is partly to blame for what ails Australia.

Famously hailed by the legendary Viduka as the best equipped coach to lead Australia, Smith believes a lack of focus on encouraging individual technique and a return to a landscape which sees youngsters playing the game at a competitive level for only six months each year have also contributed to a vacuum in the production of top-tier talent.

"Are we looking for strikers who are like Olympic athletes and can do shuttle runs ad-nauseam but may not be able to score goals?” Smith said.

"If someone else pops up do we just go ‘oh no he’s not going to fit the mould’.

"I’ve always been about tailoring the team’s playing style around the quality of the players. Right now in Australia we have people chasing the ball and running around like lunatics.

"We’re more concerned with that than we are about nurturing people who can put the ball in the net.

"The mentality is ‘yes, he can score a goal but he can’t chase people around all day, so I’m not even going to have a look at him’.

"That attitude that emanates all the way down to the junior teams. Why can’t we develop flexible players and allow our coaches to be flexible in their thinking. People are obsessed with systems.

"I’m beginning to hate that word. I’m sick of hearing it. Everybody has one but they never say what it is."

The AIS Centre of Excellence, under Smith and his predecessor Steve O’Connor, also produced Mark Bresciano, Brett Emerton and Mile Sterjovski, plus the likes of Ned Zelic before that.

It was closed in an FFA cost cutting measure last year.

Smith, 67, traces the beginning of the end of Australia’s ability to harbinger intuitive players of the ilk of Viduka and fellow great Harry Kewell to the arrival of Berger and his Dutch coaching manuals.

"When he rode into town he virtually kicked out everything that had been the standard procedure before," Smith said.

"What was implemented was a system where you blow a whistle and players all run to their starting positions like robots.

"It was the complete opposite to the philosophy that had been in place for 25 years, which was about developing individuals within the team structure.

"Decision-making was at the crux of everything. Players had the freedom to do pretty much what they wanted but within the realms of the structure.

"There was a consistent message from the state institutes up to the AIS.

"All the advances we made were just thrown out of the window. Culturally there was a mismatch.

"I tried to educate Han Berger on what had gone before but he never listened to a word I said," added Smith, at the time an analyst within the Socceroos set-up following his departure from the AIS.

"It was a case of ‘you’re going to have this, whether you need it or want it because I have it in my manual’."

The advent of the A-League in 2005 also played a part in the suffocation of the talent pathways, with Smith explaining: "Between 1992 and 2005 we had the opportunity for kids to virtually train and play all year around. All the NSL clubs had a youth teams.

"But that ended with the A-League and from that point on kids put their boots away and went surfing.

"So we went back to what we used to refer to as a six-month mentality - that was the situation in the 1970s when we all played in the winter.

"It’s hard to compete on the world level when you’re only training and playing six months of the year because nobody else does that.

"If you’re a national youth coach now and you want to find players it’s like a dogs breakfast. There’s nothing in place.

"There’s also not the same dedication to go out and play for the love of the game as there used to be ... kids just have too many other distractions."

Smith describes Daniel Arzani - an uncut Socceroos gem who began his football education on the streets of Iran - as "a breath of fresh air".

"But why aren’t there more like him?" he added.

"I think it’s because there is zero emphasis on teaching technique in our coaching programs and I don’t believe kids just become great technicians just through playing the game.

"At some stage you need to be able to refine technique. That requires a fair amount of ability from the coach; you don’t just inhale that through the atmosphere."

uh oh, secrets out

Yep. Rather than trying to copy the Dutch we need to be ourselves. The golden gen was influenced by a melting pot of styles including Italian, British, Eastern European, etc and our own unique Australian twang which consisted of high fitness and strong physicality. Now we have Han Bergers and the FFAs shitty Dutch model which fucked everything, we’ve developed nothing close to the era of the golden gen. I guess this is what happens when you bean counters posing as business people hijacking the creative process by mandating their own shitty guidelines and systems. The Dutch manual has clearly failed and we need to fuck it off and take the responsibility for development off the suits and give it back to the grassroots.

Agree with a lot of what he has to say. He’s clearly very experienced and in the know. BUT, our youth system was broken before Berger and the Dutch system came along.

I don’t like how he’s trying to rewrite history as though it was he Dutch that broke everything.

By the time we started going Dutch, we already had a severe lack of talent coming through.

We can’t blame that on Berger or the Dutch system. Players coming through the Dutch generation are an improvement on the one before it (the Missing generation).

Too many older generation players and coaches who have no knowledge of the new system say this.

None who've undertaken new FFA coach education do. 

The biggest sceptic has been  Frank Farina. He is one of few coaches who has undertaken new FFA  coach education, but ignored a lot of it as a HAL coach.

Being ourselves was nebulous and ad hoc and poor practice. 32 years of failing to qualify for a WC is evidence of it.

Well said, in the past Clubs developed players based on their Club's philosophy in many cases this took the form of their ethnic heritage.

Whats occurred now, everyone is playing to the one philosophy. We've created homogenised football.

In Europe and South America a Clubs Philosophy is their own.

Its another Global Standard thing.

There is no manual. Designing training sessions is hard work requiring a lot of cerebral planning using current practices.

The  FFA NC is predicated on Germany, Spain, Holland and France's curricula and methodologies. If you think they are unsuccessful nations, you have an interesting definition of what constitutes failure. There is also a lot of homogeneous content that extrapolates from country to country. Dutch practices have heavily influenced Spanish development through Johann Cruyff.

Recently, Ed Ten Cate from the Dutch KNVB, has conducted an overview of what has failed recently in Dutch methodology and has headed to France and Germany to acquire what they are doing well. Football practices constantly change and evolve.


ATM we desperately need a  FFA TD to re-design how we approach finishing and attacking interplay.

Thats perfect. Time to keep Han Berger and his mob away from the FFA. Bloody leeches.

I tend to agree with Nearderthal’s view on this one.

Football was in many ways going backwards in this country, which was before this Dutch philosophy came into the picture.

The NSL structure has its benefits but it also was failing to gain traction, so although there were good news stories around some player development, it just seemed each year to be less and less stable.

The HAL transition was a challenge, which has started to click again now but we needed a rebuild. The benefits of such change can take time to flow through, but overall it is about time we started to see more technical, smart footballers who have composure and can read a game better than we currently have.

Let’s hope we are on the right path but only time can truly tell.

A few points here.

* The tactical nous of our current players and coaches has improved immeasurably since the time when Ron was national TD circa 2003-5. I did  coach education in the old Soccer Australia system and current FFA system. There was little  emphasis on sharing methodology across Australia in the old system under Ron. Everybody did different things. Basically, our coach education was utter rubbish. I learnt more in two hours of Dutch KNVB than five days of previous Soccer Australia coach education

*Ron Smith has some good instructional videos, and has some good ideas. But in his era of national TD, it wasn't shared  across Australia.  

*He also struggled as a coach for Perth Glory in the HAL and was sacked along with Mulvey as assistant at Roar. Ron also presided over a system with 32 years of failure to qualify for senior WCs. A lot of the good stuff Ron did, was never shared with coaches across the country.

* In the recent WC we did well in all three thirds of the pitch in 5 out of 6 criteria. As we all know shooting and finishing was absolutely shocking. Ron is right. ATM there is a dearth of  Oz strikers. There are few playing in the HAL. Wind back to the mid 2000s and we had Agostino, Despotovski, Mori, Mrjda, Allsopp, Archie, Milicic,  Zdrilic, Pretovski, just playing HAL.

* To solve  the striking problem we need a FFA TD again, like Berger, to go to places like Brazil, France and Belgium and have a good long, hard look at what they do for coaching strikers, attacking interplay and shooting training.

Ron is correct players need individual technical training. Nevertheless, he has been nebulous highlighting 1 criteria out of 6, to claim we  are struggling everywhere on the pitch.

Unfortunately like Spain also just found out, that 1 criteria is the one that wins matches.

I would also say that we aren't great defending in transition. 5 out of 5 goals we conceded were in transition from possession to defence. Once our defence was set we were difficult to break down

At the 2006 world cup we conceded 3 in transition (including the pen against italy which knocked us out), 1 from a free kick and 2 from goal keeping errors

Many teams concede goals like this if they play a higher defensive line at some stage in the build up.

It is when teams  have to turn a chase and defend facing their own goal, it is harder to defend.

And the blame goes on. Anyone would think Aus football was a world superpower before we hired some Dutch influence. Not saying things are great right now, but all these dinosaurs sticking the knife in aren’t helping. We’ve only ever produced a handful of players you could say are genuinely better than what we have now, hardly compelling evidence of the current failure.

Beat me to it.

So true.

The way Ned Zelic in particular, and sometimes Bozza and Robbie Slater speak on Fox Sports, one would think we qualified for every WC and progressed out of the group stages at every tournament the way they discuss their era.


They are highly critical of teams and players since 2006 who achieved far more than they did as international players.


it is arguable whether Bozza would replace Ryan as keeper, Zelic would replace any of the  current CBs or DMs, or Slater would get into the current team as a wide player.

There are so many who fatuously criticise a system that is based on European powerhouse methodology.


At the same time we need drastic measures to improve striking. Appointing a senior FFA TD would be a start.

So if what we were doing pre-Burger was working, why didn't we produce more Mark Vidukas and Harry Kewells?

The revisionism that goes on in this country is unbelievable. If you didn't know better, past players and coaches would make you believe Australia was some sort of footballing powerhouse - regularly winning World Cups and producing Ballon d'Or winners - before the collapse of the NSL.

Reality check: we were just as much a global laughing stock then as we are now.

These old, bitter has-beens and never-weres need to stop shitting on the current model/players and come up with ways to make what we are currently doing work better. But they won't, because there's no financial gain. 

How I knew the system would get smashed I guess this what happens when people are dissatisfied and frustration with the results shown in the last few years FFA...

For all of the skepticism we are seeing more technically gifted young players coming through in the last few years

But I do agree with Smith is the lack of individual quality they have (not individual technique but individual quality in executing the technical things like passing, shooting, 1v1 defending).

So we are seeing technically proficient players but seem to lack in decision making and execution under pressure which is noticeable with the lack of quality forwards, strikers and defenders.

So I get what he’s saying what he means by producing robots, technically and tactically we are producing better players but what’s missing is the individual quality part along with the improved parts.

How to incorporate it is the question for the experts.

Maybe study how the top talent in attacking and defensive players in France, Germany and Belgium are being developed? Is there any special techniques they use? Who knows.

He may have a point,  but anyone coming out with opinions like this needs to say at the start.. 

"what I'm talking about has nothing to do with the current Socceroos, they mostly weren't brought up in the Dutch system, I am just using the opportunity of national soul searching to talk about something unrelated"

Otherwise it comes across as a bit misleading 

there are reasonable criticisms of pasquali, arzani, mcgree, caletti, deng, atkinson, warland, folami etc. but not sure if it makes sense to call them robots.....

We need to get rid of this useless dutch fetish and forge our own path. 

Hands up if you loved missing out on world cups for 32 years??

From my understanding the so called “Dutch System” isn’t actually very Dutch at all. The curriculum is a hybrid of theories from all the most successful football nations around the world.

But hey, we were doing so well in international football prior to 2006 so let’s just throw the baby out with the bath water and go back to playing EPL clubs in “international” friendlies.

Too funny!

The use of satire to ridicule  something silly that Ron said to highlight his agenda, and others are deluded in believing, is very well done!  

Just for an interesting observation the FFA NC got released in mid 2009 and the roll out of the first year of the new system with it would have been in 2010, the kids from 6 or 7 would be 15 or 16 of today.

Those from 18 to 21 would have go through the new system but only the middle to latter stages unlike the 14 to 16 year olds now who have been from the start from u7 playing 5v5 to now which are in the game training phase and soon to be in the performance phase.
These kids are the current Joeys (u16 kids that will be competing in the u16 AFC Championships) later this year, so then we can judge but the lack of preparation for the junior teams of late have been very poor so if they don’t do well I fear the conversation will go back to how the system has let them down when it’s the same story about the poor preparation unlike other countries where it’s fully funded and take care of unlike now with the FFA.

So let’s judge the NC from now with the kids from u16 and when they get older without judging them as robots.

Another different take,

The current Socceroos apart from Arzani have come from the old development system and never been through a skillaroos program or even the odd SSGs which most kids go through now.
The youngest after Arzani with MacLaren was with Football Victoria NTC in 2009 but still never came through new system at all.

So maybe the conversation should have more context instead of people to smashing it down without analysis or discussion about mplementation or the tweaks that could be made from this?

Just giving some perspective here as these are facts, by no means defending the system by the lack of context within the Australian football discussion is quite appalling.

This is exactly what I have been saying for ages ....there is so much misinformation about this ...everybody keep blaming the Dutch and the National Curriculum because some "old dinosaurs" Smith , Slater, Zelic, etc   think things were better in the past...quite simply put  ...the facts do not support this .
One of our biggest strengths and also biggest failures is we Aussies want instant success..and instant success at anything rarely lasts.
The NC has not yet been going long enough to see what sort of internationals it produces. We will start to see its results over the next few years . Even then you can't expect instant Socceroos stars . Like any system it is still evolving and in its early years it may or may not produce great players until coaches and adminstrators etc work out how best to implement it and that is basically a case of trial and error.
We, as a nation, are far too impatient for results.
Our professional league and its clubs are all only 13 years old and are still figuring out what works and what doesn't for our unique landscape.
Euro clubs evolved in a time when there were no distractions . You worked and you played or watched football for entertainment.
Now we are trying to grow clubs and a league in an environment when kids have the attention spans of gold fish. They have so many other choices of things to do ...which is good for them ....but not good for football.
We need to be more patient .
Sure ..we do need to address our lack of strikers ... our league set up.... and dozens of other things but gees guys let's just do it calmly and patiently.
We are not going to start winning World Cups in my lifetime so lets just concentrate on getting a little better each year.

At the same time, we need a new senior FFA TD to refine the curriculum. When I did a lot of coach  education tiki tala was hang great success.

In our case, we desperately need to add some new attacking interplay and shooting ideas.

Not sure if you have read the NC, but 5-9 is "discovery phase" is about kids having fun and not coaching, U9 to U12/13 is skills acquisition so that means the youngest of the first batch is now U17. 

Easiest way to directly compare the NC impact versus previous generations is to look at performance of the Joeys squads and these are easy enough to find, but if the NC was superior to previous methods then surely results should be better, unfortunately they are not. 

There will be boneheads on here that will sprout crap about under age results not mattering, its all about the development, yadda yadda, but that is just BS by politically correct "every ones a winner and gets a ribbon" arm chair experts, but anyone who has any real experience with football with tell you, strong juniors lead to strong seniors. 

The below interview with Matt Crocker who is the English FA’s Head of development is really interesting, particularly in light of their recent success.

 https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/74879/england-youth-on-the-rise-the-fas-matt-crocker-o.html

Lol, this hasnt worked with englands junior females . u17 recently lost 8-0 to germany.

Lol, wish our U17's made the Quarter Finals like the U17 English Girls did at last world cup in 2016. Shit I'd be happy if ANY of our junior teams just made it to a junior world cup full stop!

 

Of the under 17s who play at World Cups, many don't even become senior football pros. 

For some reason some players peak early and fade out.

Even when I've coached under 12 and under 14 rep teams that feed into state rep teams, the fade out is high to senior level. Unexpected kids often make it to senior NPL level. Precocious stars often fade out. Particularly ones with with big egos and who think they know it all.

This is a huge point that I feel is missing within the current make up of the sport!
So much emphasis is placed on these early age prodigies and as cliche as it may sound from what I see they are advanced purely due to athleticism in the early stages.
Quite a number of great decision makers playing that have not been identified by the State TIDC and therefor the aleague clubs as their scouting method is to purely look at players from the TIDC. In my opinion a large % of the wrong players are getting through the system

A very very good point the last 10yrs at least.
Having been around the traps on the sideline at PL3 YL trials in Sydney and observing next level up I stagger at who's picked and not.
A taller physical kid with less technical skill most times gets in compared to a shorter more skillful kid, its been size over matter so as the club can win games the coming season.
The talented kid and parents obviously annoyed walk away wonder WTF.
May go to another club as long as spaces are available for most Trials are set similar times, may get in or even goes back to Club.
juniourcoach this is what I'm understanding on your post ?.

grazorblade, I'd like to see theFootballlover's POV for he has been around my traps and carrying on from juniourcoach's post when SFC/WWW went around plucking what they consider the best YL and up for their YL teams etc they could have looked also at PL2/3 for the potentials I've watched over the years have been impressive.
Even up to current U18's their skill and play level is way above the times I was in Rep back in the bitter days as some suggest let alone just 10yrs ago.
I get excited watching these kids nearly every match weekend.
There is some really dangerous potential players that IF they ever could get spotted with better coaching/philosophies/guidance we don't know otherwise.
Some might end up at PL1 sooner or later or just go back to State/SL levels for trying to make Trials in Sydney is so challenging, most clubs hold them similar times, club TD's have their agendas, maybe they should open their blinkers a little more at times as well.
Its a melting pot and very disappointing imo for we do have the youth talent, were not picking them up.

Good post LFC
From my observations its the ultra short and the ultra tall that are missing out in the early stages.
The average size who are fully in tune with their bodies at young age are at peak condition in the early stages and show best athleticism.
The ultra short obviously have physical limitation and the ultra tall are gangly and quite slow and weak (growth spurt stage). But I have seen some class players that fall in to these two brackets being overlooked due to physical issues. The decision making with some of these players is quite excellent though as they need to think quicker and smarter whilst dealing with these physical in-capabilities. 
I have seen a number of players in TIDC/Aleague academies who are able to cover up flaws due to an extremely high physical and athletic capability rather than decision making and technical.
I think this goes back to Decentric post where we see a lot of these "early adopters" fade away and the unlikely shine later down the track.
Big difference to how clubs overseas tackle this important issue.
You also need to remember that VIC/NSW want to beat each other at nationals every year to show which state is doing things better so in the meantime the ultra short/tall do not fit into state federations achieving that.
Hope this makes sense

I've missed good kids in trials too.

The state TD and I missed some kids, who according to others who knew them well, just underperformed at trials.



Thankfully, I got them into the program at  a later date after booting some arrogant kids out. One of the late recruits got into  the state team, but hasn't yet made it into senior NPL ranks.

The players who've got into senior NPL ranks have been the hard workers, forever trying to improve their game. Not the ones with most talent, who often  had tickets on themselves. Moreover, they couldn't see,  when told by a number of different coaches, where they needed to improve their own weaknesses. They thought they were already very good! And, poignantly  haven't progressed to NPL senior level yet.

Talent ID is flawed , even in overseas professional clubs with coaches with certs galore , players missed out at u13 club level only to represent thier country 2 years later.
The important thing is the safety net and the mentality of the player to deal with the lows, no player pathway is linear.

I saw Craig Foster deliver a big lecture to a big group of young players about this at a holiday soccer camp - the ability to be resilient and respond to being overlooked at some stage of one's career. He claimed it was inevitable one would be overlooked in a career.

He advanced it was how they responded to the setbacks that was paramount. 

A very good summary Barca typically.
Lets watch what the current U16's and those coming after them regards their state of play.
Have to say even watching current U18's in PL3 some skill and BPO etc is good to watch for they have been watching the current global Fav players for sometime and mimmick them.

I'm sorry for the current Gen of our Roos and we all know they put in their 110% but they just are not good enough barring a few exceptions. The expectations are so high especially when involved in a World Cup - just look at these last few R16 games compared to our current abilities.
Foz and the likes can say all they like BUT we don't have the ability/standard they bark on about - we got to face and accept this not matter the systems they were in.
I don't think it fair to bag the past/NSL or SA etcetc, yes they did it their way and not as a whole focus together in training philosophies etc lets stand back and be fair on it for there wasn't unity.
To bring up 26yrs of never qualifying FFS we were part timers and in a worse position/standing than we are today regards to support/media etcetc....like get real.
There is good and bad then as there is now just as people commenting from the past and those today.
As mentioned there is a couple of good points made by Smith - so because he's from the past he's talking shit, talk about ignorance more so.......
No matter the system there will be constant challengers from outside inside - to counter this most times whats needed ending up being a formidable Squad is that Gen mix of varying qualities combined that "ticks" the box's.
Then it will be quoted what a great system or this or that - NO, its the timing that all these kids were born within a few years of each other that they were born with that "IT" factor more than anything else. 

Our current Socceroos, particularly  the older  ones who've played in the HAL in the last five years are a partially  a  product technically of the older system, but definitely structurally and tactically a product of the new system.

The younger Socceroos have learnt most of  their tactical and structural training under the new system.

The imported HAL coaches are finding local players much easier to coach tactically. This is a product of the Dutch, French, German, Spanish amalgam of coaching methodology, which the Belgians also currently adopt. 

The likes of Guus, Pim, Berger, Baan, Versleijen, had great difficultly coaching our players because unless they had played in Italy or Holland, and to a lesser extent, England, because the tactical senior coaching in the NSL and early HAL was abysmal.

In the last five years or so, all Aussie trained coaches, with Arnie, Kenny Lowe, and Merrick structurally, not so much tactically, partially adhering to it, particularly  with the Pim and Guus influence for Arnie, while Farina disregarded a lot of it, the rest have used their new tactical acknowledge from FFA coach education to great effect - Ange, Muscat, the Aloisis, Popa, Okon, Rudan, Miller  and Valkanis.

In the last five years if we have had ACL success,  it  is because of the superior structural   tactical ability of the Aussie coaches, who've  had technically inferior cattle.

You sprout a lot of garbage.

Of the 23 man squad Guus took to Germany in 2006 there were 3 HAL players (Archie, Miligan & Beauchamp) and none of them played any minutes.

In 2010 Pim only took 2 HAL players, Culina who recently returned from an extended stay in Europe and Galekovich who was called up because Jones's kid was sick. 

With so few HAL players participating not sure how they had any difficulty.

Pim coached Socceroo teams comprised of all Aussie domestic HAL players in some qualifiers, it may have been Asian Cup, when Euroroos were unavailable, like playing Kuwait at home.

He said it  was difficult because of most of the HAL players lack of tactical knowledge.

Pim  also commented how much the HAL has improved in recent years.

Source or is it your normal sauce?

Pim said the the A League was a like a Bundesliga 2nd Division training session.   

In recent visits to Oz, Pim has commented how much the HAL has improved tactically since he lived here.

I only recall Pim thinking/saying our local league was rubbish.

I logged in, saw this thread and immediately guessed how many times Decentric would have posted already. :)

Decentric, you're a teacher by trade. You firmly believe in systems, structures and curricula. I get it. Its what's kept you employed for decades.

As our football world here in Australia moved into this paradigm post 2004 it gave you an opportunity to move your skills into this area. I get it.

But here's the thing some of us know.............. It doesn't work. Not in school and not in football.

It creates obediant, compliant mindless drones. Perfect for a society focused on law and order but no good in football.

It stifles creativity. It stifles "out of the box" lateral thinking which in society so threatens the "order". We've lost a generation of players, coaches and administrators thrown out as being not compliant.

Someone not touched by this disease like Arzani turns up and everyone things he's a revelation. He's not as I've seen countless others. Somehow someone made it though without being "educated". Clipboard holders are perplexed. Cahill is another who doesn't subscribe. These players didn't come from structured football. If you think you're going to make a Persian and a Samoan bend to your will good luck with that. But 100% freestyle doesn't work either.

It requires work to harness the energy and potential of a talented player. Hard Work. It requires special people who are flexible. Man-managers of the highest calibre. They don't exist in the teaching world. The incompetent will bring out the coaching manual or the teaching curricular and beat every round peg into a square hole. If it doesn't fit, throw it out or send it to the principals' office. It makes life very easy for those employed. Potential sacrificed. Its no wonder teachers need a union.

The paradigm you believe in is slowly unravelling. Its been exposed. Dog whistling "32 year no WC" to keep everyone in line hopefully will have no effect. I look forward to some change. Ron Smith knows more than most in the local game. Some like him, others are threatened. He's now seen both sides, pre-2004 and post 2004. He's worth listening to.

I guess it comes down to the mentality of the coach. Do they take on what they learn from books and their experiences, or simply follow the book?? From my personal experience very few follow the book. It simply provides the tools with which to succeed, but as with any job you need to know how to use those tools and which tools are best for the job. This is something that can't be taught by the FFA (or others), but is taught by experience (the best lesson is your last mistake).

Creative players are established through pick up games and SSG (or kids practising for hours in their backyard). SSG should now be the stable diet of any training session from u6's to masters ... no excuse. The length of the season is a problem, as are unstructured / organised pick up games (that is a fact of our society more so than anything FFA or football did). The thing is you can't "teach" someone to be creative, you need to give them the opportunity ... this is why I like a 4-3-3 formation, as it gives plenty of incentive for mids to be creative, wingers to take a man on and strikers to make the most of their opportunities. Of course you need the personnel or recruit the personnel if at a higher level.

I'm struggling to understand what you are talking about? What part(s) of the new curriculum do you find too structured?

You realise most of the coaches still in NPL football are from the old school? 

I'm not sure how creating a common structure for your team to play as a unit is restricting individuals. A structure (if done properly) helps players get the best out of each other and in turn allows the individual to shine. I had a player who played rep football for the first time when he was 17 and he is now playing for Central Coast Mariners' NPL and NYL side. He was a fantastic individual who needed some guidance in how to play with and for the team.

Before players get to senior football, players need to develop technically which is what SAP is for. But SAP is not enough - parents and the kids need to spend a lot of hours on their own if they want to make it as a professional. Its not just the system.

If you are reading this, Freaken, Football Lover is also, like many others on 442, a semi-pro/pro FFA trained coach. He knows what he is talking about. Not like where you've spent most of your time on the internet, where many people spout gobbledygook.  Then when the same views which lack genuine football insight  are repeated enough,  they become an axiom for you and other Bitters.

I started playing in the mid 1960's..so I qualify as a dinosaur
....the one big difference between now and back then is that when I came home from school every day I kicked a football around the back yard by myself or with friends till it was too dark to see . I then went to structured football training with my club , school and rep teams and I was playing up to three games a week.
I had a ball at my feet every single day and for many hours a day (even walking around the house)  .
Some was at training, some was in games and some was me v the trees in my back yard.
It didn't turn me into a superstar but I was typical of many kids back then.
This was where the Vidukas,Kewells  etc came from.....a world where football was King to us and there were relatively few other distractions.

Kids get home now and lie on a couch and play FIFA.Then they may go to training one or two times a week and play a game once per week .
It is not enough time on the ball ...simple as that .
Kids now don't spend the time with the ball that players of earlier generations did...and it shows .
This is our biggest challenge ...you can have any coaching systems you want ...but skills and feel for the ball only comes with having that thing at your feet....a lot.

a lot of kids think all they need is three sessions and a game a week in the npl to become a great player. they are doing so much less than when the vidukas and kewells were kids.

It is pretty obvious you know little about performance in football, Freaken.

You choose, as always, to avoid deconstructing or/and refuting football specific analysis to elucidate facets of the Socceroo performance in Russia.

Ron has highlighted one massive weakness, to wrongly claim every facet of play is failing, when it isn't, and, overall, we have improved immeasurably since we've adopted European powerhouse methodology. This is exemplified in 4 successive WC appearances, and Oz men and women winning Asian Cups. Remember 32 years of failure to qualify for a WC under ad hoc coaching methodology ?

It is one reason the NPL clubs have improved - including yours. They are applying contemporaneous  structural and tactical methodology. 

One of the facets of FFA coaching, is to adopt training ground practice depending on the identified football problems identified on a week by week basis, through a comprehensive pro forma. They are based on a team's weekly performances against opponents. 

Also, teaching requires different individual education plans formulated  to meet every students's individual needs.


Ron was angry he was sacked by FFA. He is pushing an agenda. If you've noticed lately, Rogic, De Silva and Amini have emerged, who can be defined as creative players in the attacking mid position we didn't have before in this quality, apart from possibly Troy Halpin. Scoring goals is currently a big problem, that needs a resolution,  but the defence has improved immeasurably as has possession and structure  in build ups.

The paradigm isn't unravelling. 32 years of failure  between 1974 and 2006 shows it is progressing.

The last straw in maintaining the adhoc, unstructured systems we had was helped by Farina who put the nail in that coffin. It firmly highlighted we needed good disciplined systems to be learnt, not from necessarily from the mega footballing nations who get there by default but by smaller ones whom are more aligned with our population size. The Dutch fitted the bill and we've been better for it.

Now just imagine Farina taking in charge of the NT. Arnold was not much better but he has learnt a tremendous lot.

Farina didn't want to do it. $70k. It was a favour in very hard times due to David Hill earlier incompetence. You don't know what you're talking about.

The bloke does know what he is talking about.

He knows a lot more than you, Freaken.

He is a former NSL player - a comp you adulated.

So according to your logic Farina's tactical incompetence was because he wasn't paid enough lol. You're a funny freaken fella!

LOL!

Sorry to burst the bubble of some on here who think Daniel Arzani was just plucked out of obscurity from some back street, but he actually trained under Tony Vidmar at the COE for two years using the theories espoused in the national curriculum.

Anyone who thinks Arzani did not spend a minute under the influence of the National Curriculum has no idea what they are talking about and clearly out of their depth.

 

Odd, can't A-League youth team players play in the NPL during the winter , I thought they did ?

From my experience the coaches as high as state TDs are still finetuning how the curriculum is actually delivered. Coaches are certainly not sure and in some cases what coaches are being asked to do changes within a 12 month period. For example we were told at our first meeting with the head body that all teams under 13 to 15 must do game training sessions that followed a very strict structure of passing practice, positioning game (small sided game basically) game training and training game. There was no room for specific skill based training like 1v1s, shooting, crossing etc, This was all to be learned and mastered in the SAP. I was personally horrified but that was to be and we would be audited on its implementation.  Over the next few years this stance softened as the TD who was  a coach in the old system developed a less and less literal understanding of how the curriculum was to function. The other thing that was slavishly adhered to was guided discovery as the pedagogical approach. Ron Smith is particularly critical of this and I agree with him. At the outset it was almost like throw them a ball give them a task and they will just learn it by working it out themselves. Coach interventions were very much discouraged and when you did stop the activity and step in you gave another task and hoped they work it out. The theory is let them play let them make decisions. I do believe the things you learn the deepest in life are the things you grapple with and master independently. However Ron Smith is right that there needs to be room for the coach to come in and explicitly teach skills and decision making. In my opinion there needs to be a blend of guided discovery and explicit teaching and definitely scope in training players over 13 in explicit skill based activities both isolated and with game resistance. Good coaches have been doing this for 50 years here.

Bottom line is that if you are waiting for the first bunch of 6 and 7 year olds to come all the way through the system to judge whether the curriculum works or not then you are being too hasty. A national curriculum is a good idea and we should hang firm and stay committed because coaches are getting better and better in understanding how it is supposed to be delivered. There are some pretty amazing 12 and 13 year olds running around in my neck of the woods and they are not robots.

With 1v1, shooting, crossing, etc that can be incorporated into passing prac or positioning game. I do a lot of that stuff in passing prac.

There is a teaching process when coaches observe and intervene. I'm not sure where you got the idea for that being discouraged came from. 

Yes we all do but there is a place for some isolated repetitive practice.

I got the idea from raising the point and being discouraged,

i meant to say that this was at the beginning. In the years that followed in the demonstrations that followed the interventions became more encouraged and the information more explicit.

This is an excellent post from Rob A.

It is also written by a someone with considerable insight into the current system. No system is perfect, but as a teacher myself, some of the ideas, such as kids finding their own way to do something correct, is surprising. I've often provided explicit instruction instead.

In terms of guided discovery, it works well a lot of the time. This is  where the onus is on the coach to make coaching points/interventions if anything is performed incorrectly. And for people reading this who've done no coach education and  think there is a FFA manual, the posts written by Rob A and Football Lover clearly display there isn't one.

The point Rob A makes about players making decisions autonomously is important to develop creative players - not ones overly reliant on coaching instructions. BVM claimed the current Socceroos were too keen to follow his coaching instructions to the nth degree.


Furthermore, most of our recent top coaches within the  FFA system  who I've seen taken demonstration  sessions themselves could  be failed using their own criteria for assessment, in some aspects of a training session. This includes Han Berger, Kelly Cross and  Rob Sherman.


Our FFA system isn't perfect, and the KNVB training I did was better and more solid in some ways. despite convergence in a lot of methodology. Our system needs a new FFA TD to overhaul and fine tune the curriculum.

This is a profound point of differentiation  between the Dutch KNVB and the FFA NC. Whether this is the Spanish, German or French influence on the FFA NC, I'm not sure? I suspect it is Spanish, because we've viewed many videos of Barca and Spain as the mooted paradigm of exemplary practice in FFA Regional Conferences and coaching courses.


The Dutch considered that a player's technical training should be improving from the moment a player takes up football, right up to when they retire.

The biggest mistake made by the FFA NC in comparison, and I'm sure agreement would be unequivocal amongst any other teachers reading this, is that some aspect of technical acquisition should have been acquired at an earlier age for some players.

What if it hasn't been acquired? This is very rigid thinking - in this facet of FFA NC methodology. It is also the antithesis of most of the rest of the curriculum.

The Dutch KNVB also advance that a team  needs a strong defence as a foundation and the rest should follow -  proficient midfield build ups and attacking interplay. The FFA NC isn't like this. It should be IMO. The focus is immediately on Possession in the FFA NC.

The two  philosophies  are manifest in BVM's approach with the Socceroos on the one hand, and Ange's approach on the other.

BVM is much more a product of the KNVB, whilst Ange is the most extreme version of the FFA NC philosophy. People reading this will have ideas about which approach they prefer.

What the FFA NC did in the C Licence, was really focus on body shape/ body position, and work on specific ideas for players  to support the ball carrier in Ball Possession. The theory was manifest in KNVB  for this facet of play, but the FFA NC worked specifically and systematically in developing this aspect of build ups from the back.

What occurred in Ron's epoch as Australian TD was so simplistic and underwhelming compared to the aforementioned.

Nevertheless our current finishing and attacking interplay in the Attacking Third of the  pitch needs to improve immeasurably to bring it into line with everything else.

AIS can talk, they turned away Tommy Rogic because he didnt conforn to the generic style.

Someone doesn’t know how successful English youth teams have been recently 😂😂😂😂

@ALF are we really going to judge the last u16 Joeys team based on a result in Asia? or are we really going to judge the players such as Lachlan Brook, Ramy Najjarine and John Roberts that played in that team to see if they will be playing in the a-league and hopefully beyond in the Socceroos in the few years instead?

That’s the thing with youth development it’s the ultimate result of what the players could do at the top level, that’s how you judge success not from a nice youth result, do they help yes? But it doesn’t always mean those players when they get older as a lot of factors come into play when they reach senior level.

Just some throughts on that u16 AFC tournament in 2016,

1) it was a very AIS based squad and only had 4 players outside of the AIS squad
2) with that group a lot of players have joined a-league or overseas based clubs and so the AIS did not have the best talent like it used to have and so coaches who weee also head coaches of that Joeys team refused to look at more non AIS players
3) And it was poorly prepared team with the rumours to go by

Not trying to make excuses because it was a poor effort given the talent that was there and not selected to for political reasons and it should have done much better buts it’s no surprise the AIS/FFA COE is now extinct as the current Joeys squad talent process is completely different so I’m prepared to judge this group more than the previous ones.

But most importantly let’s judge players when they get older? People want to judge a piece of paper without looking at the other factors is quite immature from the football community.

The biggest problem for me which is lost in translation is instead of blaming it on a piece of paper, should the coaches and TDs coaching should be asked instead and get feedback from them instead? How they coaching? is it being implemented properly? What is working and what could be improved on? Etc

Also you can have the best development curriculum in the world and the best grassroots system in the world it mean nothing if the first team opportunities at the top are so limited for players to be developed and break through as first teamers.

The lack of opportunities are so small in Australia we are seeing boys and try there luck overseas in the tough European market and we are missing out on developing more talent this is what separates the golden generation era to this....opportunity to play first team football!
This an occurrence in the a-league era where youth development has been put on the back burner compared to the NSL era for all its problems it had a good structure and youth development was encouraged.

It also doesn’t help that the current youth league isn’t what it used to be, although a national 2nd division could be a potential game changer in that regard.
But the problems are not a piece of paper it’s not that deep as people make it out to be.

Also people talk about doing well at youth level there are a few things that have to happen,

1) a strong group of players in that age group
2) a good coach and preparation to boot
3) development system to help them come through
4) luck of draw in the group
5) football moments in the games
6) level of football (we are competing in Asia and not the much easier level in Oceania) whilst England play in the strongest concede in the world

But should you judge the players only on that or should judge a player if he’s playing first team and hopefully for the Socceroos in the future? People are too impatient for results and it’s reflective in society but when it comes to investment in people it takes time and you would not see the results in some cases years.

@Barca all people keep doing is making excuses for the current state of youth development, the NC hasn't had time, the best players weren't picked, wait till they grow up, yadda, yadda, yadda. 

Your comment about Oceania is naive as you can easily compare performance by looking at U17 WC's which arent affected by the different confederations. In 1999 our U17's were runners up and in 2001 they made the quarters and by comparison our performance since 2005 has been poor with us making only 2 appearances & not participating in one (tournament is run every 2 years).

Obviously not all U17's "make it" and there were some notable players who didnt make the U17's squads (like Dukes) in the past but youth performance is a leading indicator of upcoming senior performance and the results in 99 and 01 are no surprise as this was the was the lead in to the GG. 

Plus are you seriously saying that we should be happy that at the 2016 AFC U16's championship where we lost to powerhouses Kyrgystan and Vietnam? That they are much tougher opponents than what was faced in Oceania? 

Personally I dont believe the NC is the biggest issue facing youth development, it is the lack of opportunities with the HAL franchise system  and this is what needs to be fixed most urgently. 

@AJF I’m hardly not saying we should be happy by no means we should not except this and we can do better at youth level but does it mean the NC is not working based on that or how the players would go when they get older at senior level instead? That’s the point I’m trying to make from my last one.

You talk about being in Oceania was naive? It’s a fact, if the current Joeys and young Socceroos played in Oceania also they would also qualify so this is a daft point but Asia is another level up and with these countries invest in a lot in youth development it does not come as a surprise to me.

The last time the young Socceroos won a game at a World Cup was in 2001, well before the a-league began.

But the Joeys in the new era both made second round matches abit losing 4-0 and 6-0 both times but it’s better than nothing I guess and is something we have to improve on.

At least you admit the Curriculum is not the problem that’s what I’m making, the lack of the opportunities is the biggest problem out of them all which is hurting th chances of the Socceroos right now and this is far more important than anything else in the youth development space.

It seems to me that:

1) The AIS was a pretty good finishing/development school for our young players of the NSL generation.

2) That the AIS was axed by the FFA to save money.

3) Nothing equal or better has replaced the AIS as a finishing/development school for our talented young players. 


So what is the solution??