There is a big misconception the curriculum is dutch when its actually a curriculum designed to fix the deficiencies in Australian players which is mainly technical and tactical weaknesses.

I suspect the first to go through it in the early years they still had technical deficiencies but had time to address the tactical aspect which they also was lacking.

I did notice in the struggles when teams at youth level started playing like this at the beginning especially playing out from the back, struggle to keep the ball under pressure etc clearly they had alot of issues against better opposition.

Basically they still were brought up with old habits when they first came through.

I think these days when players are coming through they were would have gone through a different process from SSG, SAP to the 11v11 at 12 or 13 depending on elite level coaching they get they get taught the right habits quite early, alot different to when players started playing on big pitches and little to no formal coaching standards were in place.

I think the frustration is un-necessary when this was always going to take time for these things to come through, I could be wrong but it usually takes 10 000 hours or even 10 years to develop a football player that will meet the demands of pro football.

How far these guys go its up to them, like you said the mental and physical is so important at the top level.

Its alot different now with more improvement to come you would think, Trevor Morgan is already talking about evolving the current curriculum as it is.

on the field, it is usually the centre midfield who organises the team. Or at least the good ones do.  I thought this would be the main position.

The coaching courses are probably of some assistance (i never did one so i cant comment). I do know that 90 percent of crappy players who do these courses come back thinking they are the second coming and to be polite, it does more harm than good.  Obviously that isnt the case for the best ones.  Ange seems the perfect example of using the coaching courses to improve.  The key is to use your own brain when taking in the information.  Any soccer player who is any good will be constantly learning. Coaching is no different.
If i was to take a stab in the dark as the most succesful of the Latest batch of retiring players who might make a good coach, i think Milligan would be my choice.  Seems a good organiser with a good football brain.  Timmy Cahill is a much better player and was coached by better coaches, and if he coaches he will getthe better opportunities to start with, but i just get the feeling Milligan might be slightly better in the role.

For what is worth,as a player, i think i would learn a lot more from say, Lucas Neil, than i would from some no name i have never heard of who had just completed the major courses with top marks. Obviously there will be exceptions to this rule occasionally though.

I am sorry, but the current system is an absolute shambles.  They dont have scores Gradings or tables until about under 12s!
That means you have good players playing with kids with disabilities almost and everyone (except the kids) to scared to tell the kids when they are good, when they are crap, what they have to do to play well and win.  Good kids with talent are deprived of the chance to get better because the teams are all at such different levels.  Clubs will sort half pick players they know or players from "academies" to go into good teams which is okay, but it means that plenty of others will slip through the net, often good players.  And without proper coaching or playing the kids get disheartened and disillusioned and go play other sports, or just give up.  Compare this to say brazil (or most european) countries where kids just play and train soccer all day every day.  WE have no chance with the current setup.

UNtil we bring back grading so that all kids can actually enjoy the game at their own levels, and get the enjoyment of actually looking up a table to encourage them to actually try to improve themselves, we give away too much of a headstart and really have no hope of replicating the golden generation even.

Im sorry but bringing back the points system where results take paramount over the kids development and overall enjoyment of the game isn't exactly the right way forward.

We have to remember majority of these kids that play at grassroots dont have an interest in becoming an elite player, we have the remember it should be about the kids experience not the experience of the coach or parent who just want bragging rights for some stupid u12 result on the weekend.

It should all be all about the player and not the egos involved.

And its not say the kids aren't competitive as it is anyway? so that doesn't change for them as it's still a game of football.

You clearly don’t know what’s going on with that comment. 

massive differential in their ability to communicate
contemporaneous coaching methodology too cerebral and complex to devise sophisticated and sequential training ground practices

I am pretty sure that if any the coaches are learning that sort of language in their FFA coaching course, then i know why they are having trouble with communicating!

A few seem to know the curriculum well, some probably even have done the course (i havent). So could you please tell me where in the curriculum and how often does it mention:
Keep it simple.
First touch away from player.
Mark up.
Talk to your players
Put in the effort.

These are just 5 golden rules (without any thought) that need to be constantly enforced, before you worry about zones, triangles, BPO, Methodology, Opposition Analysis, Sequential practices or any other sophisticated contemporaneous methods that might have the potential to make big differential to a coaches ability to communicate.
 

I am sure i dont know what i am talking about.  
So when does this club grading start.
Before or after the "muster".  Do they grade by the sound of the name? The size of the kid? Your comment sounds like good old modern bureacracy thinking because you have your methodology correct all must be working.  It isnt even close and what is trying to be achieved (a way to handle unruly parents and create some sort of communist utopia which sadly isnt possible) is only affecting the kids.

It is actually quite sad when i think back to the gold old u6 miniroos where some of the kids (lost to the game and who will probably have nothing much in life) are robbed of their short moment of fun and glory because some parents cant cope with their children losing or being judged. This current system is a shambles.

And by the way, what is the great advantage of not publishing tables, and not having match reports write ups for the kids, like they used to do.  Why is it so important to get out kids not thinking about their upcoming games.  How does this improve enjoyment for the kids?

Also why is it that when i look at the church soccer, they do have published tables and gradings and they also (in my area at least) nowadays have more teams than proper soccer teams.  Is that unusual nowadays? What is the reason for this.  is it the good managemetn of the church group or the bad management of the other?

So let’s get this straight. We have one example of a shoe salesman coaching at the highest level and he won Champions League titles. So 100% success rate for shoe salesmen coaching football teams to international success.
On the other hand of your list of ex-players only 2 Out of 14 (Postecoglu and Popovic) have won anything on the international stage (about 14%).

Al Bundy was a footballing icon, at Polk High but it if my memory serves correctly it didnt translate to the coaching ranks, though his protege did end up a pretty decent shoe salesman!

Which Ausralian Coaches have achieved more than those i listed?

Ever heard of Rale Rašić?

Rasic and Mulvey both played at the highest level in Australia in the old Nsl. Merrick is an outlier.

Look, I just pointed out the errors in your comment which were that they do grade kids from age 6 and they do keep scores and ladders. 

Your question was, which coaches had achieved more than the ones you’d listed. 

Arnie has said that the players in Aus underage squads that he has recently seen can do technical things rarely seen in Australian players of the past.

Good day, Quickflick. 

Haven't seen you post for a while. Good to see you back, mate.

This is the case with any system. There are probably always some unlucky candidates for coaching positions anywhere. I've often been lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time with the skill set required by the decision-makers of the epoch.  

Good post.

Respectfully disagree with this , QF.

In the era of the 90s, it was probably easier for Australians to get into the better European leagues then the present as scouts can easily  visit nearby Africa for recruitment.

The criterion for success from many who constantly laud the GG was that Australia ostensibly had players playing in top European leagues. Most of the time, most Aussies were not regulars in those European clubs and were in and out of the team.

For 32 years we struggled to qualify for World Cups. This includes the GG  in the 90s and early 2000s.  We had tough play offs against  the likes of  Argentina and Uruguay, but we were also knocked out of World Cup campaigns by New Zealand, Iran ( twice) and Israel in the 32 year WCQ drought. Various former Socceroos,  like Robbie Slater and Alistair Edwards have publicly  discussed this tactical naivety in big games.

If you can, go back and have look at WC knockout games against Iran in 1997, Uruguay in 2001 and even the WC of 2006. Comparatively, current Socceroo teams, despite supposedly having limited individual personnel, are structurally stronger, tactically much more aware and battle hardened units less prone to making mistakes.  

The turnover they made were incredibly frequent compared to the present. There were also few rhythm changes, where Austria played at a high tempo most of the time.

Current Soccer teams tend to make far less mistakes. Pim constantly alluded to the fact hat the players playing in Italy ( Bresciano, Grella and Valeri) and  Holland ( Culina), were immeasurably more tactically savvy than most of  the other players.

The English Football Association, were very impressed with Aus as a team unit at the 2014 WC under Ange. They were keen to send FA coaching staff to Aus, to work out how a country with modest playing  cattle could   compete so effectively against Chile, Holland and Spain on the biggest stage.

 Overseas coaching personnel stated   that Aus looked like Dutch teams , they way they trained and set up, and were  advantaged by a national system  where the cattle who played for Aus at senior level came up through the national ranks of Under 16, 17, 20 and Olympics.

 The English FA were impressed at how Aus players were able to adapt to national game plans, seamlessly, usually within the 1-4-3-3  variations. Comparatively, English players were confused, because of all the  different game plans they played at club level.

Fast forward to the last 4 years for so, and England has made trememdous gains having won an under 17 and under 20 WC for  the first time. Gareth Southgate and Steve Holland have looked to Europe, like we have.

The 'robots' that Frank has described,  an appraisal Arnie disagrees with, have qualified for four successive WCs, won an Asian Cup under Ange, and come  second under Holger.

There are probably always a few positions where national teams in any era struggle.
 

Good day, Bender Parma.

Good to see you posting again.

It is usually the keeper and CBs who organise the team at pro level,  and probably a bit less less frequently  Defensive Midfield screeners do.

It is far easier for  players to organise players in front  of them, than players behind them.

Apart  from playing a high defensive line, and running back defending towards one's own goal, CBs are usually facing the play,  the whole game and the team shape,  in front of them. It is easier to organise a team from this position.

I like how you just deflected (ignored) the fact you were wrong about 2 of the three. 

I honestly think that nostalgia plays into things more and more as the years pass since the GG were playing.

Decentric 

Quick question. What level did you play at?

Im sure you would be pretty familiar with it and the processes which were put in place Decentric, agree with Arnie even though he can be a tad over the top with his comments at times! 

Its interesting watching the u17 side that played at the World Cup last year, they did many things which often in the past Oz teams would have struggle with in a technical standpoint.

But having the technical foundation isn't enough, you need all facets to become a top player so it will be interesting if any of these players will develop all 4 facets to their game (technical, tactical, physical and mental) especially the last two.

The problem is when you rely on a handful of players to make the right choices with their career moves along with an ever competitive player landscape you will always get into dilemmas with what is best for the national team and what is best for their careers.

Heck even Canada is developing players at the top level.

The problem stems back to a weak talent pool at senior level and therefore would not create the strong talent pool that will help the national team in the long run.

We only have 2 players that are playing in top 5 leagues in Europe, I think Japan our nearest rival has about 10.

Alot of work to do to improve that.

This could be a false attribution, I would say technical ability is improving all around the world at the same rate. 

Im talking about our problems and our deficiencies.

What goes around the world should not be a concern as we have our own unique problems.

I.e you cant copy the Brazilian football street culture or the strict robust European system

State underage squad.

Two current NPL clubs, youth and senior (short period).

Very little technical and tactical coaching - nearly all physical fitness and strength training.  

Thats funny, Rasic was a U21 player for Yugoslavia and played in Yugoslav National League, before emigrating to Aus and playing for Footscray JUST (before NSL started)

Mulvey played juniors with Man United and then emigrated to Aus and played NSL with Brisbane Lions

Bear in mind Decentric, as posted on this forum, last played competitively in 1974.

100% agree, the world has developed further than us since the NSL and thats why there are only 2 Australian players in top leagues now.

You will hear all the various excuses (like there were no Africans playing then) and these are all BS used to justify the piss poor state of our development.

No - African players is a huge reason along with various others