|
Decentric 2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x[quote]Succeeding coaches Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie, would have been very unhappy with the high number of turnovers against Japan, Brazil and Croatia in 2006. Against Italy, playing their classic perfectly formed cohesive half press in Ball Possession Opposition flat midfield 4-4-2 formation, featuring perfect 10 metre distancing between players, between and within, the lines, the Socceroos struggled to penetrate even against 10 men.
So you believe Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie value possession more than making it out of the group stage? No. Not at all. The aforementioned coaches wouldn’t like losing possession to the opposition from too many needless turnovers. Hence, missing the opportunity to control a game. Guus wouldn’t have been happy either. you really need to move past the possession obsession as it doesnt win games, goals do and in the process of trying to score goals you need to take risks which means you will inevitably loose possession. You are completely out of step with current UEFA evidenced based research, AJF. An exhaustive study conducted by UEFA showed that the teams who had more possession in the attacking third won 72% of the time. I learnt this from one of the FFA National Regional Conferences. You seem to think there is some sort of alternative evidence based research that shows teams with less possession win games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric 2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x
I agree that before Guus, Australian football was tactically lacking. I'll deal with that in a moment. In 2005 and 2006, we were tactically very solid. A friend of mine who has played semi-professional football in Sweden and even been part of an Allsvenskan squad (highest level) was watching a bit of the Uruguay match recently. He told that he was extremely impressed by the tactical awareness and movement.
I'd argue that when our guys had the ball, they actually moved the ball forwards quickly and exploited angles. This is a world apart from the slow sideways passing that was the hallmark of the NT in 2016 and 2017, never mind >70% ball possession.
I have a question for you. Might the overall tactical improvement in the Socceroos have something to do with the overall tactical improvement that has occurred throughout the footballing world?
Paragraphs 1 and 2, the Socceroos pushed the ball forward quite quickly, but turned the ball over all the time. It was pretty mediocre. The third paragraph is a good point though. When Australia was playing Croatia, when I've looked at old footage in WC 2006, they were also equally as bad as us. The number of turnovers from Croatia was shocking too. Both teams made heaps of mistakes. There is no doubt that the overall football standard of world football has improved. Moreover, many football nations are forever improving so that we see more even games at international level with improved structural organisation and ameliorated tactics. It would be an interesting exercise for your Allsvenskan mate to look at more recent Socceroo games to draw comparisons. They've often played against stacked, compact defences, with little distance between and within the lines in half pressing game plans . Passing triangles & possession dont win games and the Socceroos performance at last 2 WC's clearly shows current crop is no where near as good as GG, table below shows performance at last 4 WC's. | Year | Pos | Pld | W | D | L | GF | GA | GD | Pts | Qualification | | 2018 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 | −3 | 1 | | | 2014 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 9 | −6 | 0 | | | 2010 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 6 | −3 | 4 |
| | 2006 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 4 | Rnd 16 loss to Italy | One has to look at the quality of the opposition too. The 2014 WC featured a relatively inexperienced Socceroo side against the group of death in the tournament - Spain, Holland, Chile. Australia could have conceivably won the first two games against Chile and Holland, but without sufficient rotation were outclassed in the final game by Spain, the other non-qualifier from the group. As I reiterate, points accrued are not always an accurate measure in a few games. 40% of games are attributable to chance. The English FA were impressed by the Socceroos two performances against Chile and Holland in 2014. In the last two World Cups, particularly 2018, we struggled to convert chances created in front of goal from the number of chances created. Bert pulled his hair out because of the lack of clinical finishing and mediocre attacking interplay in the penalty box, that negated the good work in the other two thirds of the pitch, and even in the attacking third with the number of balls played into the pen box. The weakness in the Socceroos was the Attacking Third in Ball Possession in 2014 and 2018. The GG team of 2006, were more clinical in front of goal, than the WCs of 2014 and 2018. Also, Holman and Cahill weren't too bad in 2010 in finishing. However, if one evaluates the other facets of play in the other two thirds of the pitch in Ball Possession and the three thirds of the pitch in Ball Possession Opposition, I doubt the 2006 Socceroos were significantly superior. Moreover, the 2006 Socceroos claimed they were lucky opposition teams weren't able to do their home work on the Socceroos, like the campaigns of 2010, 2014 and 2018 WCQs. The latter three featured a more clearly delineated football style for opposition teams to plan against. Regarding your facetious comment about triangles and possession, Guus's 2006 team still tried to play these patterns with diamonds and triangles. This was emphasised in some early FFA C Licence courses around 2007. Succeeding coaches Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie, would have been very unhappy with the high number of turnovers against Japan, Brazil and Croatia in 2006. Against Italy, playing their classic perfectly formed cohesive half press in Ball Possession Opposition flat midfield 4-4-2 formation, featuring perfect 10 metre distancing between players, between and within, the lines, the Socceroos struggled to penetrate even against 10 men. The difference was the GG players had not played the triangles and diamonds on a consistent basis in their embryonic years in Australian development. There was no holistic national Aussie system trying to develop a national playing style based on world powerhouses. The football education of Aussie GG players varied depending on which clubs in which countries Australians plied their trade in. It also varied between coaches coaching in Australia, youth and senior, who coached in very different ways. There was a massive differential in quality. No one really knows what should or shouldnt have been done in the last two world cups. I thought the sides we had played very well, about as well as they could have. Obviously an ounce of luck here and there could might have chaneged things, if the coaches had have had the sides a bit longer, they might have got the players to keep possession a bit better create more triangles etc. You have a decent analysis of the game in this manner using the current coaching methodology. Maybe you can spot reasons and things we could have done better. I like to hear different theories on this type of thing. I haven't seen the FIFA Technical Department's analyses of Australian games in Russia 2018, but I concur with a lot of Tim Palmer's analyses of the games we played in Russia 2018. As I've previously stated, if we appraise the three thirds of the pitch in Ball Possession and Ball Possession Opposition, we held our own in five of these criteria out of six. The weakness was in Ball Possession in the attacking third. The attacking interplay to play the ball into the pen box wasn't too bad, but closer scrutiny of the game was where our forwards anticipation was often slower than the opposition defenders. Moreover, the lack of cohesion, the loss of too many 1v1 battles in the pen box and fluffing goalscoring chances created, was our downfall in Russia 2018. Having said that we had a massive weakness in finishing around goal, doesn't equate to struggling in the other two thirds of the pitch in BP and BPO, or BPO in the front third. In short we had one massive weekness in five criteria our of six. This does not equate to having problems in all six criteria.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric 2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xBit harsh Frank. The A league was started to develop local talent. The NT have qualified for every Wcup since 2006. Won the ACup in 2015. Quality players such as Maty Ryan, Mooy, Rogic, Sainsbury, Milligan (despite criticism he played damn well at Wcup 2018!) , Rhyan Grant, Mabil, Risdon, Arzani, Leckie etc etc - they all developed via the A league. Most of NT success has involved Tim Cahill scoring amazing goals- freakish player- hard to replace obviously. Saying the ‘NT now resembles nothing’ is out of order. The ironic part of this is the young talent coming from the 2000s and up have all benefited from the programs implemented from the FFA and state feds that included the NC aka 'dutch 433' and SAP programs a decade ago are now some of the best young talent coming through in the aleague perhaps ever since its inception. Technically they are more advanced in all the things they do and unlike of the current senior players struffing around who still struggle to the do the basics at times. 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. 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. I suppose mental strength can also improve later on in a career. I have never seen it improved! i would say its harder to improve at a late age then any other trait. It needs to be built in from an early age. Good old aussie battling spirit used to be around in spades. I reckon the fair go to everyone, anti competitive environment we have created in juniors (and to be honest in society in general) is doing more harm then good on this stage. I could be wrong but i doubt it.
The main thing I do feel these days is the constant distractions that kids have these days that take them away from sports. The ease of access to video gaming and the internet broadly sees many less likely to go outside and try and put maximum effort into developing their football skills.
I think it may be a problem in all sports, BP. An Indian cricketer recently told me that there is far less street cricket played on Indian streets than there used to be, with so much digital addiction.
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Succeeding coaches Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie, would have been very unhappy with the high number of turnovers against Japan, Brazil and Croatia in 2006. Against Italy, playing their classic perfectly formed cohesive half press in Ball Possession Opposition flat midfield 4-4-2 formation, featuring perfect 10 metre distancing between players, between and within, the lines, the Socceroos struggled to penetrate even against 10 men.
So you believe Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie value possession more than making it out of the group stage? No. Not at all. The aforementioned coaches wouldn’t like losing possession to the opposition from too many needless turnovers. Hence, missing the opportunity to control a game. Guus wouldn’t have been happy either. you really need to move past the possession obsession as it doesnt win games, goals do and in the process of trying to score goals you need to take risks which means you will inevitably loose possession. You are completely out of step with current UEFA evidenced based research, AJF. An exhaustive study conducted by UEFA showed that the teams who had more possession in the attacking third won 72% of the time. I learnt this from one of the FFA National Regional Conferences. You seem to think there is some sort of alternative evidence based research that shows teams with less possession win games. Source or is it more KNVB sauce (or should I say mayo) Using your contemporary KNVB coaching analysis skills, tell us what the final score was for this fairly significant match from Europe was: 
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric 2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Succeeding coaches Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie, would have been very unhappy with the high number of turnovers against Japan, Brazil and Croatia in 2006. Against Italy, playing their classic perfectly formed cohesive half press in Ball Possession Opposition flat midfield 4-4-2 formation, featuring perfect 10 metre distancing between players, between and within, the lines, the Socceroos struggled to penetrate even against 10 men.
So you believe Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie value possession more than making it out of the group stage? No. Not at all. The aforementioned coaches wouldn’t like losing possession to the opposition from too many needless turnovers. Hence, missing the opportunity to control a game. Guus wouldn’t have been happy either. you really need to move past the possession obsession as it doesnt win games, goals do and in the process of trying to score goals you need to take risks which means you will inevitably loose possession. You are completely out of step with current UEFA evidenced based research, AJF. An exhaustive study conducted by UEFA showed that the teams who had more possession in the attacking third won 72% of the time. I learnt this from one of the FFA National Regional Conferences. You seem to think there is some sort of alternative evidence based research that shows teams with less possession win games. Source or is it more KNVB sauce (or should I say mayo) Using your contemporary KNVB coaching analysis skills, tell us what the final score was for this fairly significant match from Europe was: You are using a one game example to try and substantiate a spurious and indefensible position. The team with 61% Possession in this one game had 8 shots on target, compared to 3 for the team with 39% opposition. Most of the time, with a ratio of 3:1, the team with more shots on target will win. I'm using an exhaustive, evidence based UEFA research to substantiate a proposition.
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Succeeding coaches Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie, would have been very unhappy with the high number of turnovers against Japan, Brazil and Croatia in 2006. Against Italy, playing their classic perfectly formed cohesive half press in Ball Possession Opposition flat midfield 4-4-2 formation, featuring perfect 10 metre distancing between players, between and within, the lines, the Socceroos struggled to penetrate even against 10 men.
So you believe Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie value possession more than making it out of the group stage? No. Not at all. The aforementioned coaches wouldn’t like losing possession to the opposition from too many needless turnovers. Hence, missing the opportunity to control a game. Guus wouldn’t have been happy either. you really need to move past the possession obsession as it doesnt win games, goals do and in the process of trying to score goals you need to take risks which means you will inevitably loose possession. You are completely out of step with current UEFA evidenced based research, AJF. An exhaustive study conducted by UEFA showed that the teams who had more possession in the attacking third won 72% of the time. I learnt this from one of the FFA National Regional Conferences. You seem to think there is some sort of alternative evidence based research that shows teams with less possession win games. Source or is it more KNVB sauce (or should I say mayo) Using your contemporary KNVB coaching analysis skills, tell us what the final score was for this fairly significant match from Europe was: You are using a one game example to try and substantiate a spurious and indefensible position. The team with 61% Possession in this one game had 8 shots on target, compared to 3 for the team with 39% opposition. Most of the time, with a ratio of 3:1, the team with more shots on target will win. I'm using an exhaustive, evidence based UEFA research to substantiate a proposition. other than blowing your own over inflated opinion out your arse and pretending its research, you cannot provide one shred of evidence to back up your point can you? So supercoach, let me explain, that was the Champions league final from last year (Spurs vs Liverpool in case you forgot) and spurs dominated all the stats but lost and I used it deliberately as it is from an actual UEFA technical report (not the fairy-tale type you refer to) covering the Champions league which clearly states that possession doesn't determine results (ref below which is self explanatory).  Similar story for the last WC, read the technical report for that and see what it says. Not sure what the trends were in 2008 when you did your KNVB community certificate but football has moved on and rather than preaching your robotic view, perhaps you should actually educate yourself about whats happening in contemporary football tactics.
|
|
|
|
|
dirk vanadidas
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.9K,
Visits: 0
|
my view on keep is simple is: The keep it simple for me indicates in a game where by players pass sideways and backwards and with no penetrative passing , play it safe , play long balls into oppo half and fight in thier half. We have all seen complex training sessions that lose players and the best example was the great Ron Smith , Ange did the next session and you could see the improvement in play
Europe is funding the war not Chelsea football club
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Succeeding coaches Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie, would have been very unhappy with the high number of turnovers against Japan, Brazil and Croatia in 2006. Against Italy, playing their classic perfectly formed cohesive half press in Ball Possession Opposition flat midfield 4-4-2 formation, featuring perfect 10 metre distancing between players, between and within, the lines, the Socceroos struggled to penetrate even against 10 men.
So you believe Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie value possession more than making it out of the group stage? No. Not at all. The aforementioned coaches wouldn’t like losing possession to the opposition from too many needless turnovers. Hence, missing the opportunity to control a game. Guus wouldn’t have been happy either. you really need to move past the possession obsession as it doesnt win games, goals do and in the process of trying to score goals you need to take risks which means you will inevitably loose possession. You are completely out of step with current UEFA evidenced based research, AJF. An exhaustive study conducted by UEFA showed that the teams who had more possession in the attacking third won 72% of the time. I learnt this from one of the FFA National Regional Conferences. You seem to think there is some sort of alternative evidence based research that shows teams with less possession win games. Source or is it more KNVB sauce (or should I say mayo) Using your contemporary KNVB coaching analysis skills, tell us what the final score was for this fairly significant match from Europe was: You are using a one game example to try and substantiate a spurious and indefensible position. The team with 61% Possession in this one game had 8 shots on target, compared to 3 for the team with 39% opposition. Most of the time, with a ratio of 3:1, the team with more shots on target will win. I'm using an exhaustive, evidence based UEFA research to substantiate a proposition. other than blowing your own over inflated opinion out your arse and pretending its research, you cannot provide one shred of evidence to back up your point can you? So supercoach, let me explain, that was the Champions league final from last year (Spurs vs Liverpool in case you forgot) and spurs dominated all the stats but lost and I used it deliberately as it is from an actual UEFA technical report (not the fairy-tale type you refer to) covering the Champions league which clearly states that possession doesn't determine results (ref below which is self explanatory). Similar story for the last WC, read the technical report for that and see what it says. Not sure what the trends were in 2008 when you did your KNVB community certificate but football has moved on and rather than preaching your robotic view, perhaps you should actually educate yourself about whats happening in contemporary football tactics. Gold. 24 carat.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric 2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xI agree with Farina The problem with coaches who didn't play at a high level is how do you know as people they understand excellence? In the cut throat world of high performance people need to be able to prove they are winners. Understanding excellence has nothing to do with obtaining qualifications. It has everything to do with how to react to tough situations, how to react on game day and all those fuzzy things in between that make someone successful over a long period of time. The big problem with former players is that there is a massive differential in their ability to communicate with players and impart the knowledge they have. There are also a massive number of former players around, who find contemporaneous coaching methodology too cerebral and complex to devise sophisticated and sequential training ground practices, based on comprehensive analysis of previous games. 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. One could say what a load of old cobblers, keep it simple is number 1 for producing robots, points 3,4,5 are a given even for 6 year olds maybe it is because their coach has them focussing their attention on countering in BP when threading an eye of the needle pass through the channels and into the path of the front triangle to unlock the defence while the Natural Number 10 is busy drifting into a false 9 position, instead of just winning the ball and playing a diagonal ball behind the defence for the attackers to run on to? I have been coaching juniors for a while and in my experience it is OK for the coach to think complex, but on the training ground you need to keep it simple and set it up so the kids figure out the complex themselves. If you have been coaching juniors for a while, how do you impart technique to your players ? How do you divide technique into different categories?
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric 2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xI agree with Farina The problem with coaches who didn't play at a high level is how do you know as people they understand excellence? In the cut throat world of high performance people need to be able to prove they are winners. Understanding excellence has nothing to do with obtaining qualifications. It has everything to do with how to react to tough situations, how to react on game day and all those fuzzy things in between that make someone successful over a long period of time. The big problem with former players is that there is a massive differential in their ability to communicate with players and impart the knowledge they have. There are also a massive number of former players around, who find contemporaneous coaching methodology too cerebral and complex to devise sophisticated and sequential training ground practices, based on comprehensive analysis of previous games. 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. One could say what a load of old cobblers, keep it simple is number 1 for producing robots, points 3,4,5 are a given even for 6 year olds maybe it is because their coach has them focussing their attention on countering in BP when threading an eye of the needle pass through the channels and into the path of the front triangle to unlock the defence while the Natural Number 10 is busy drifting into a false 9 position, instead of just winning the ball and playing a diagonal ball behind the defence for the attackers to run on to? I have seen some horrendously complex sessions run by B-License coaches for boys (U13 & U14) which saw both the players & coach getting confused and eventually frustrated and as a sideline spectator, me & other coaches scratching our heads wondering what was trying to be achieved. Would you have been able too devise superior sessions with clearly delineated coaching objectives set out at the beginning of the sessions and been able to evaluate them clearly at the end ? How would you have those unsuccessful conducted sessions differently, AJF? Which topics did you deem to be unsuccessful?
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric 2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Succeeding coaches Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie, would have been very unhappy with the high number of turnovers against Japan, Brazil and Croatia in 2006. Against Italy, playing their classic perfectly formed cohesive half press in Ball Possession Opposition flat midfield 4-4-2 formation, featuring perfect 10 metre distancing between players, between and within, the lines, the Socceroos struggled to penetrate even against 10 men.
So you believe Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie value possession more than making it out of the group stage? No. Not at all. The aforementioned coaches wouldn’t like losing possession to the opposition from too many needless turnovers. Hence, missing the opportunity to control a game. Guus wouldn’t have been happy either. you really need to move past the possession obsession as it doesnt win games, goals do and in the process of trying to score goals you need to take risks which means you will inevitably loose possession. There is nothing wrong with the triangles, SSGs adn other methodology, but you need to remember the basics. The best coaches and players will learn from every situation. There is no one correct answer and what works in some games doesnt in others. This is why you need players who are aware of these basics, but who play the game as they see it on the field. Some times a great player will do something great just because they do. Even robots need to have the freedom to turn the game on the head when they need to, from time to time. Coaching robots dont understand that this means they can have their own way of playing and dont need to follow FFA's 433 vision (which Ange ignored as well by the way). Yes C & B courses use the FFA Vision and Philosophy as a basis because many of the novice coaches havent developed their own style yet and by having the same platform it makes it easy to run the courses, but in the A & Pro licenses coaches can use their own Vision & Philosophy as their frame of reference for the course and it is in fact encouraged for them to develop their own. MAIN MOMENTS
| BPO>BP
| BP
| BP>BPO
| BPO
| KEY PRINCIPLES
| Immediate transition into BP positions
| Effective Possession
1. Structured Build- Up
| Immediate transition into BPO positions
| Win the ball back as soon as possible
|
| Quick forward passing
| Effective Possession
2. Controlled Possession In The Middle Third
| Press the ball carrier immediately
| Deny opponents time and space to build up
|
| Quick forward movement
| Combination Play
1. Organised Opponent
| Limit opponent’s passing options
| Limit opponents’ ability to create scoring chances
|
| Make the field as big as possible
| Combination Play
2. Disorganised Opponent
| Make the field as small as possible
|
|
|
| Individual Skill
1. To create scoring chances
|
|
|
|
| Individual Skill
2. To convert scoring chances
|
|
|
Ange didn't deviate from the NC in terms of the way to play football. The biggest difference was that Ange didn't see the intrinsic value of 1-4-3-3 formations as a mandated formation for senior teams. Many coaches like playing it, because they've done so much work in this formation, breaking it down into subsections of defence, midfield and attack for SSGs in training ground modules. The FFA NC hasn't specified 1-4-3-3 either as a mandated formation for seniors football either, but has advocated its a vehicle for a uniform development formation - the same as in France, Spain, Holland and Belgium. Germany prefers, or did, the 4-2-3-1, by simply moving the wingers back in a line with AM or Attacking Midfielder. 1. I've had a good chat to Damian Davies about Ange's supposed repudiation of the FFA NC at a National Regional Conference. He laughed it off as typical rubbish one reads on the internet. Damian was a keynote speaker. DD was Ange's assistant coach, or/and youth coach at Roar in Ange's epoch. Later he took the reins at Roar as senior coach. 2. Ange conducted a joint clinic with Kurt Reynolds, then Football Fed Tas TD at Tas FFA HQ. I've worked with Kurt a lot. The topic was Building Up From the Back Of The Pitch To Attack. It involved a lot of discussion about Body Shape/Body Position in terms of playing forwards, and requisite diagonal passing lanes in diamonds and triangles to advance the build ups. Ange does not like straight balls, because of a less advantageous body shape, if closely marked, for the receiver to keep playing or moving forwards. 3. I attended the session, as did coaches under my tutelage at the club I was TD of at the time. Vision and philosophy that you state coaches have to advance is true, AJF.
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI agree with Farina The problem with coaches who didn't play at a high level is how do you know as people they understand excellence? In the cut throat world of high performance people need to be able to prove they are winners. Understanding excellence has nothing to do with obtaining qualifications. It has everything to do with how to react to tough situations, how to react on game day and all those fuzzy things in between that make someone successful over a long period of time. The big problem with former players is that there is a massive differential in their ability to communicate with players and impart the knowledge they have. There are also a massive number of former players around, who find contemporaneous coaching methodology too cerebral and complex to devise sophisticated and sequential training ground practices, based on comprehensive analysis of previous games. 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. One could say what a load of old cobblers, keep it simple is number 1 for producing robots, points 3,4,5 are a given even for 6 year olds maybe it is because their coach has them focussing their attention on countering in BP when threading an eye of the needle pass through the channels and into the path of the front triangle to unlock the defence while the Natural Number 10 is busy drifting into a false 9 position, instead of just winning the ball and playing a diagonal ball behind the defence for the attackers to run on to? I have been coaching juniors for a while and in my experience it is OK for the coach to think complex, but on the training ground you need to keep it simple and set it up so the kids figure out the complex themselves. If you have been coaching juniors for a while, how do you impart technique to your players ? How do you divide technique into different categories? +x+x+x+x+x+x+xI agree with Farina The problem with coaches who didn't play at a high level is how do you know as people they understand excellence? In the cut throat world of high performance people need to be able to prove they are winners. Understanding excellence has nothing to do with obtaining qualifications. It has everything to do with how to react to tough situations, how to react on game day and all those fuzzy things in between that make someone successful over a long period of time. The big problem with former players is that there is a massive differential in their ability to communicate with players and impart the knowledge they have. There are also a massive number of former players around, who find contemporaneous coaching methodology too cerebral and complex to devise sophisticated and sequential training ground practices, based on comprehensive analysis of previous games. 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. One could say what a load of old cobblers, keep it simple is number 1 for producing robots, points 3,4,5 are a given even for 6 year olds maybe it is because their coach has them focussing their attention on countering in BP when threading an eye of the needle pass through the channels and into the path of the front triangle to unlock the defence while the Natural Number 10 is busy drifting into a false 9 position, instead of just winning the ball and playing a diagonal ball behind the defence for the attackers to run on to? I have seen some horrendously complex sessions run by B-License coaches for boys (U13 & U14) which saw both the players & coach getting confused and eventually frustrated and as a sideline spectator, me & other coaches scratching our heads wondering what was trying to be achieved. Would you have been able too devise superior sessions with clearly delineated coaching objectives set out at the beginning of the sessions and been able to evaluate them clearly at the end ? How would you have those unsuccessful conducted sessions differently, AJF? Which topics did you deem to be unsuccessful? poor Brew, got burned by actual UEFA technical reports debunking your blow hard theory on possession and now this is the best comeback you have! maybe you should tell us how you handled it back in 2008 when you were coaching the refugee team in Tassie?
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric 2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Succeeding coaches Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie, would have been very unhappy with the high number of turnovers against Japan, Brazil and Croatia in 2006. Against Italy, playing their classic perfectly formed cohesive half press in Ball Possession Opposition flat midfield 4-4-2 formation, featuring perfect 10 metre distancing between players, between and within, the lines, the Socceroos struggled to penetrate even against 10 men.
So you believe Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie value possession more than making it out of the group stage? No. Not at all. The aforementioned coaches wouldn’t like losing possession to the opposition from too many needless turnovers. Hence, missing the opportunity to control a game. Guus wouldn’t have been happy either. you really need to move past the possession obsession as it doesnt win games, goals do and in the process of trying to score goals you need to take risks which means you will inevitably loose possession. There is nothing wrong with the triangles, SSGs adn other methodology, but you need to remember the basics. The best coaches and players will learn from every situation. There is no one correct answer and what works in some games doesnt in others. This is why you need players who are aware of these basics, but who play the game as they see it on the field. Some times a great player will do something great just because they do. Even robots need to have the freedom to turn the game on the head when they need to, from time to time. Hang on, I hear you say, doesnt the NC create robots with no individual skill? No, actually robot coaches create robots. At junior level, good structure and robotic play (ie predefined passing & player movement patterns) are more successful than free play (plus small pitches let coaches yell their minute instructions with ease) so robot coaches focus on this during training rather than developing individual skill like first touch, dribbling, etc. U9's playing tikka takka certainly gets parents and coaches going doesn't it! Unfortunately there are too many of these guys in circulation and while they are happy to sprout crap about triangles and body shape (2 words which coincidentally don't appear in the FFA Advanced Coaching manual AT ALL) but they eventually get caught out and leave coaching, so we are seeing fewer robots out there. I'm not sure who you think does C Licence courses, AJF? Nearly all coaches I did the C Licence with were former state league players, or/and current NPL state league coaches, or elite and rep youth coaches who'd played the game prior. Rob Sherman, when he attended, was the worst player on the pitch in 11 v 11 sessions. If you have completed the C Licence, AJF, it is virtually impossible not to have had detailed discussion topics about body shape, triangles, diamonds, etc. Even former high level players have usually studied body shape in some depth, even those who have not had access to contemporaneous coach education. If you have completed the C Licence, your instructor must have been a dud. Who was he? Who appointed him? Or you must not have been listening frequently, and, your topic of assessment/evaluation to pass the course must have been different, possibly a BPO exercise.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric 2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI agree with Farina The problem with coaches who didn't play at a high level is how do you know as people they understand excellence? In the cut throat world of high performance people need to be able to prove they are winners. Understanding excellence has nothing to do with obtaining qualifications. It has everything to do with how to react to tough situations, how to react on game day and all those fuzzy things in between that make someone successful over a long period of time. The big problem with former players is that there is a massive differential in their ability to communicate with players and impart the knowledge they have. There are also a massive number of former players around, who find contemporaneous coaching methodology too cerebral and complex to devise sophisticated and sequential training ground practices, based on comprehensive analysis of previous games. 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. One could say what a load of old cobblers, keep it simple is number 1 for producing robots, points 3,4,5 are a given even for 6 year olds maybe it is because their coach has them focussing their attention on countering in BP when threading an eye of the needle pass through the channels and into the path of the front triangle to unlock the defence while the Natural Number 10 is busy drifting into a false 9 position, instead of just winning the ball and playing a diagonal ball behind the defence for the attackers to run on to? I have been coaching juniors for a while and in my experience it is OK for the coach to think complex, but on the training ground you need to keep it simple and set it up so the kids figure out the complex themselves. If you have been coaching juniors for a while, how do you impart technique to your players ? How do you divide technique into different categories? +x+x+x+x+x+x+xI agree with Farina The problem with coaches who didn't play at a high level is how do you know as people they understand excellence? In the cut throat world of high performance people need to be able to prove they are winners. Understanding excellence has nothing to do with obtaining qualifications. It has everything to do with how to react to tough situations, how to react on game day and all those fuzzy things in between that make someone successful over a long period of time. The big problem with former players is that there is a massive differential in their ability to communicate with players and impart the knowledge they have. There are also a massive number of former players around, who find contemporaneous coaching methodology too cerebral and complex to devise sophisticated and sequential training ground practices, based on comprehensive analysis of previous games. 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. One could say what a load of old cobblers, keep it simple is number 1 for producing robots, points 3,4,5 are a given even for 6 year olds maybe it is because their coach has them focussing their attention on countering in BP when threading an eye of the needle pass through the channels and into the path of the front triangle to unlock the defence while the Natural Number 10 is busy drifting into a false 9 position, instead of just winning the ball and playing a diagonal ball behind the defence for the attackers to run on to? I have seen some horrendously complex sessions run by B-License coaches for boys (U13 & U14) which saw both the players & coach getting confused and eventually frustrated and as a sideline spectator, me & other coaches scratching our heads wondering what was trying to be achieved. Would you have been able too devise superior sessions with clearly delineated coaching objectives set out at the beginning of the sessions and been able to evaluate them clearly at the end ? How would you have those unsuccessful conducted sessions differently, AJF? Which topics did you deem to be unsuccessful? poor Brew, got burned by actual UEFA technical reports debunking your blow hard theory on possession and now this is the best comeback you have! maybe you should tell us how you handled it back in 2008 when you were coaching the refugee team in Tassie? Avoiding answering the questions, indicates a lack of knowledge on your part, AJF. To bring it back to the thread topic, FF is also a maverick coach. He has never been happy having to undertake new coach education.
|
|
|
|
|
AnthonyC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 611,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Succeeding coaches Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie, would have been very unhappy with the high number of turnovers against Japan, Brazil and Croatia in 2006. Against Italy, playing their classic perfectly formed cohesive half press in Ball Possession Opposition flat midfield 4-4-2 formation, featuring perfect 10 metre distancing between players, between and within, the lines, the Socceroos struggled to penetrate even against 10 men.
So you believe Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie value possession more than making it out of the group stage? No. Not at all. The aforementioned coaches wouldn’t like losing possession to the opposition from too many needless turnovers. Hence, missing the opportunity to control a game. Guus wouldn’t have been happy either. you really need to move past the possession obsession as it doesnt win games, goals do and in the process of trying to score goals you need to take risks which means you will inevitably loose possession. You are completely out of step with current UEFA evidenced based research, AJF. An exhaustive study conducted by UEFA showed that the teams who had more possession in the attacking third won 72% of the time. I learnt this from one of the FFA National Regional Conferences. You seem to think there is some sort of alternative evidence based research that shows teams with less possession win games. Perth Glory
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric 2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Succeeding coaches Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie, would have been very unhappy with the high number of turnovers against Japan, Brazil and Croatia in 2006. Against Italy, playing their classic perfectly formed cohesive half press in Ball Possession Opposition flat midfield 4-4-2 formation, featuring perfect 10 metre distancing between players, between and within, the lines, the Socceroos struggled to penetrate even against 10 men.
So you believe Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie value possession more than making it out of the group stage? No. Not at all. The aforementioned coaches wouldn’t like losing possession to the opposition from too many needless turnovers. Hence, missing the opportunity to control a game. Guus wouldn’t have been happy either. you really need to move past the possession obsession as it doesnt win games, goals do and in the process of trying to score goals you need to take risks which means you will inevitably loose possession. You are completely out of step with current UEFA evidenced based research, AJF. An exhaustive study conducted by UEFA showed that the teams who had more possession in the attacking third won 72% of the time. I learnt this from one of the FFA National Regional Conferences. You seem to think there is some sort of alternative evidence based research that shows teams with less possession win games. Source or is it more KNVB sauce (or should I say mayo) Using your contemporary KNVB coaching analysis skills, tell us what the final score was for this fairly significant match from Europe was: You are using a one game example to try and substantiate a spurious and indefensible position. The team with 61% Possession in this one game had 8 shots on target, compared to 3 for the team with 39% opposition. Most of the time, with a ratio of 3:1, the team with more shots on target will win. I'm using an exhaustive, evidence based UEFA research to substantiate a proposition. other than blowing your own over inflated opinion out your arse and pretending its research, you cannot provide one shred of evidence to back up your point can you? So supercoach, let me explain, that was the Champions league final from last year (Spurs vs Liverpool in case you forgot) and spurs dominated all the stats but lost and I used it deliberately as it is from an actual UEFA technical report (not the fairy-tale type you refer to) covering the Champions league which clearly states that possession doesn't determine results (ref below which is self explanatory). Similar story for the last WC, read the technical report for that and see what it says. Not sure what the trends were in 2008 when you did your KNVB community certificate but football has moved on and rather than preaching your robotic view, perhaps you should actually educate yourself about whats happening in contemporary football tactics. A ratio of 12 wins out of 14, is definitely different from 72% which was the figure concluded over an exhaustive number of professional games in circa 2013/14 when it was presented to me. This small sample you have used is 26 games in the UEFA CL, not thousands of games. This is selective. However, it still shows that circa 60% of games were won by the teams dominating possession over the whole of the pitch. My stats use a different criterion. That is the teams that have more possession in the attacking third, usually win - 72%. Your figures are derived from possession stats all over the pitch - 60%.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric 2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Succeeding coaches Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie, would have been very unhappy with the high number of turnovers against Japan, Brazil and Croatia in 2006. Against Italy, playing their classic perfectly formed cohesive half press in Ball Possession Opposition flat midfield 4-4-2 formation, featuring perfect 10 metre distancing between players, between and within, the lines, the Socceroos struggled to penetrate even against 10 men.
So you believe Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie value possession more than making it out of the group stage? No. Not at all. The aforementioned coaches wouldn’t like losing possession to the opposition from too many needless turnovers. Hence, missing the opportunity to control a game. Guus wouldn’t have been happy either. you really need to move past the possession obsession as it doesnt win games, goals do and in the process of trying to score goals you need to take risks which means you will inevitably loose possession. You are completely out of step with current UEFA evidenced based research, AJF. An exhaustive study conducted by UEFA showed that the teams who had more possession in the attacking third won 72% of the time. I learnt this from one of the FFA National Regional Conferences. You seem to think there is some sort of alternative evidence based research that shows teams with less possession win games. Perth Glory If you are contending that Glory win games after having less possession than the opposition, there are always exceptions to the rule, Anthony. The comprehensive evidence based research unequivocally demonstrates more possession over the whole pitch, and even more conclusively, teams who dominate possession in the attacking third, extrapolate to those teams winning more games of football the majority of the time.
|
|
|
|
|
Bender Parma
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 428,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xBit harsh Frank. The A league was started to develop local talent. The NT have qualified for every Wcup since 2006. Won the ACup in 2015. Quality players such as Maty Ryan, Mooy, Rogic, Sainsbury, Milligan (despite criticism he played damn well at Wcup 2018!) , Rhyan Grant, Mabil, Risdon, Arzani, Leckie etc etc - they all developed via the A league. Most of NT success has involved Tim Cahill scoring amazing goals- freakish player- hard to replace obviously. Saying the ‘NT now resembles nothing’ is out of order. The ironic part of this is the young talent coming from the 2000s and up have all benefited from the programs implemented from the FFA and state feds that included the NC aka 'dutch 433' and SAP programs a decade ago are now some of the best young talent coming through in the aleague perhaps ever since its inception. Technically they are more advanced in all the things they do and unlike of the current senior players struffing around who still struggle to the do the basics at times. The hope is that they do have the combination of attributes necessary to succeed at the top level (talent, technique, temperament and, for certain roles, speed/agility). The issue, which you've highlighted, is that many senior Australian footballers today have been far worse in all those departments (talent, technique, temperament, speedy/agility) than the Golden Generation. As a result, our footballers have struggled massively in Europe in the long-term and our NT has been utterly without competent strikers and wingers. Many of these footballers are products of the NC. However, they they haven't learnt their craft entirely from the NC (the NC was adopted by the FFA when they were a bit older, as I understand it). 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 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. You clearly don’t know what’s going on with that comment.
They do have “tables” pre-U12’s - they just don’t publish them.
They do “gradings” before U12 (typically U9 formally but they grade miniroos from season 1 which is U6).
There are problems on the system (pay for play for one).
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? Under 9's to 11's are graded in Brisbane. This is a club website but the one I was at used to do this too. https://www.gapfootball.org.au/frequently-asked-questions/ . Look for the Geckos, Goannas and Komodo Dragon bit. A club like Logan Lightening or Rochedale will have various teams in various grades. https://www.loganlightningfc.com/wspTrialsfor2020.aspxhttps://rochedalerovers.majestri.com.au/Event.aspx?enc=6VdLUKndi52n%2BH7S2o%2F6JQ%3D%3Dhttps://qldlionsfc.com.au/2020-trials-for-sap-expression-of-interest-forms/ Trials are conducted for these age groups, the SAP program and the NPL. It's become very fashionable to crap on about how all the 'competitiveness' has gone out of junior football when in reality that's a big bunch of arse. There may not be tables in all grades but the kids aren't stupid. They want to win like kids always have. Get along and watch an under 11's Komodos go around from one of the bigger clubs and you'll be amazed at the standard compared to when we were kids.. Thank you for this link. At least it explains they are doing a small bit more than i originally thought, but you are completely wrong as with the other poster earlier when you try to suggest that it is graded. I note from those sites, that the junior sides are graded at the "end of the year". How do you think this works. The teams from say under 7s to under 8s are always completely (or more accurately half) different from year to year. Performance from year to year is completely irrelevant especially when most of the time they are simply different sides with no more than 1 or 2 players from the previous year. To be fair on my understanding they may sometimes switch a side or two midyear. Maybe i am wrong i would be interested if you or others know more or otherwise. The even bigger problem though is what you mentioned later. Yes it is true that Logan lightning or Rochedale (how times have changed how do such a crappy side like logan lighting become a powerhouse, lol). the problem is that those sides themselves are not graded properly. The best sides do not pick the best players in their best sides. Truth be told they sort of half pick the best sides by picking the mouthy parents who hang around the club or overtry real hard, or the kids with older siblings who are known. This is no fault of them, what else are they to do, there are no preseason grading games or training sessions allows (at least our political correct society frowns on it and i dont know of any) so they can only sort of guess. What it means is that the best players do not play the best players and there are so many talented young players who simply give up because it is simply not enjoyable to play in teams where half he players are so much better or so much worse than you. There is no proper gradings and pretending otherwise is simply ridiculus. You say that kids arent stupid. So why treat them like it? What is the great advantage of depriving a child the enjoyment of winning the competition (or for that matter placing 6th instead of 7th in the competition. Or of not having match reports that mentioned the score. Or of not knowing that they just kept the top of the table to a 2 goals instead of their match avereage of 10 goals. you are right about kids not being stupid. They lose interest easy. I would like to know exactly how this is improving the game, and preventing kids from playing for other sides. You clearly have preconceived ideas that you don't want corrected. I suggest you familiarise yourself with the processes, the TD's and trials at these clubs and then come back and say it's all rubbish. Done. It's all rubbish. I have only really spoken to people at a half dozen to dozen clubs, perhaps I picked the wrong ones? Or perhaps you have preconceived ideas that you dont want changed. Perhaps the problem is the individual clubs, perhaps it is because everything is so secret and the Goanna, Komoko, gecko system is so coded? Almost certainly it starts with those in charge having preconceived ideas that they dont want corrected. that being said, it isnt about knocking people (no doubt they are doing what they think is best). It is about discussing, looking at different ideas and constantly learning. This needs to be done. So, focussing on the organising side of things, it would be nice to see some intelligent discussion on these things. Not sure why there is such a need to grade kids and keep it quiet and not let kids know which teams they are playing and how they are doing. Why is it a good for kids losing every game to not know that they are playing the top team or that their 4 goal loss was actually pretty good compared to how other teams went. i have given examples of why this is bad. Perhaps some of those who jump up and down saying your wrong your wrong, we dont do that (and wrongly say You dont know what you are talking about) coudl simply give some answers. I could be wrong, because i dont see any benefits. So what are the benefits and advantages. Perhaps there are better ways to achieve those benefits or things this is trying to achieve, without wrecking the game for kids. It is open for discussion could maybe one person put an argument up?
|
|
|
|
|
Bender Parma
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 428,
Visits: 0
|
Decentric,
What do you say about one of the the points i have been making that all these curriculums are just placing high profile buzz words which dont really mean or say anything.
I am going to have a go at translating the page that was posted a couple of pages back in the next couple of days or so. (It is a lot harder than it sounds). I will be interested to see how the criteria stacks up and whether or not i can provide any valid criticisms of it. Certainly no matter what happens, it will have some important points and basics. LIke with any course i have ever seen, the obvious problem is always going to be lack of practicalities. This is the biggest problem with all coaches who place too much emphasis on the coaching theory. It has been a problem for as long as i can remember.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric 2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Succeeding coaches Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie, would have been very unhappy with the high number of turnovers against Japan, Brazil and Croatia in 2006. Against Italy, playing their classic perfectly formed cohesive half press in Ball Possession Opposition flat midfield 4-4-2 formation, featuring perfect 10 metre distancing between players, between and within, the lines, the Socceroos struggled to penetrate even against 10 men.
So you believe Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie value possession more than making it out of the group stage? No. Not at all. The aforementioned coaches wouldn’t like losing possession to the opposition from too many needless turnovers. Hence, missing the opportunity to control a game. Guus wouldn’t have been happy either. you really need to move past the possession obsession as it doesnt win games, goals do and in the process of trying to score goals you need to take risks which means you will inevitably loose possession. You are completely out of step with current UEFA evidenced based research, AJF. An exhaustive study conducted by UEFA showed that the teams who had more possession in the attacking third won 72% of the time. I learnt this from one of the FFA National Regional Conferences. You seem to think there is some sort of alternative evidence based research that shows teams with less possession win games. Source or is it more KNVB sauce (or should I say mayo) Using your contemporary KNVB coaching analysis skills, tell us what the final score was for this fairly significant match from Europe was: You are using a one game example to try and substantiate a spurious and indefensible position. The team with 61% Possession in this one game had 8 shots on target, compared to 3 for the team with 39% opposition. Most of the time, with a ratio of 3:1, the team with more shots on target will win. I'm using an exhaustive, evidence based UEFA research to substantiate a proposition. Not sure what the trends were in 2008 when you did your KNVB community certificate but football has moved on and rather than preaching your robotic view, perhaps you should actually educate yourself about whats happening in contemporary football tactics. I'm not sure what your animosity towards the Dutch KNVB stems from, AJF? You do realise the progenitor of Dutch KNVB, was Rinus Michels? Two of his best coaching prodigies were Johann Cruyff and Louis Van Gaal. Along with Ukrainian coaches, Victor Maslov and Valery Lobanovoski, Michels was the progenitor of concepts of pressing in BPO. The Dutch KNVB was very successful in the 1980s and 199s. When both Cruyff and Van Gaaal, went to Barcelona, their KNVB/Ajax influence was profound on the development of the Barca Academy, and, consequently Spanish national team football. Particularly under the Cruyff influence, Dutch methodology's influence on Spanish national teams football was profound. Many national team players were selected from Barca, Spanish national team coaches Aragones and Del Bosque, used the Barca paradigm to successfully win Euro Champs,2008 and 2012 and the World Cup in South Africa in 2010. Pep Guardiola, an acolyte of Cruyff, left Barca to coach Bayern Munich. To beat Barca in the ACL, whilst Bayern used possession dominance to achieve success in the Bundesliga, they needed pace out wide, to launch accelerated attacks. They needed to catch Barca out defending by running towards their own goal. The higher defensive line Barca committed to in Ball Possession, the more susceptible they were to accelerated attacks in their Defensive Transitions and Ball Possession Opposition. So Guardiola used KNVB/Spanish/German amalgam to achieve success. KNVB Michels Cruyff/ Van Gaal Barca/Spain Guardiola/Bayern/ Germany There is a constant KNVB influence for key trends in world football. No eminent coach from the epicentres of Coverciano, Clairefontaine or Barca's academy, would denigrate the KNVB.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric 2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xDecentric, What do you say about one of the the points i have been making that all these curriculums are just placing high profile buzz words which dont really mean or say anything. I am going to have a go at translating the page that was posted a couple of pages back in the next couple of days or so. (It is a lot harder than it sounds). I will be interested to see how the criteria stacks up and whether or not i can provide any valid criticisms of it. Certainly no matter what happens, it will have some important points and basics. LIke with any course i have ever seen, the obvious problem is always going to be lack of practicalities. This is the biggest problem with all coaches who place too much emphasis on the coaching theory. It has been a problem for as long as i can remember. They are not buzz words, but integral terms for contemporary coaching, BP. Those words and concepts are everyday football performance terms used throughout Spain, France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Portugal and now Australia. Any discussions we've had in group sessions with the likes of Muscat and Victory staff and Phil Moss, means we have uniform football performance terminology in Aus. I'd surmise something similar would be apparent in Italy's Coverciano too. I've never had any problem extrapolating new methodology to the training track - as long as it has been age appropriate. Some former pros like Frank Farina and Peter Katholos, don't like new terminology. The former coach Glory coach, Ferguson, ostensibly failed his A Licence whilst coaching Glory. At the time, Glory were playing a different style of football than FFA wanted.
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Succeeding coaches Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie, would have been very unhappy with the high number of turnovers against Japan, Brazil and Croatia in 2006. Against Italy, playing their classic perfectly formed cohesive half press in Ball Possession Opposition flat midfield 4-4-2 formation, featuring perfect 10 metre distancing between players, between and within, the lines, the Socceroos struggled to penetrate even against 10 men.
So you believe Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie value possession more than making it out of the group stage? No. Not at all. The aforementioned coaches wouldn’t like losing possession to the opposition from too many needless turnovers. Hence, missing the opportunity to control a game. Guus wouldn’t have been happy either. you really need to move past the possession obsession as it doesnt win games, goals do and in the process of trying to score goals you need to take risks which means you will inevitably loose possession. There is nothing wrong with the triangles, SSGs adn other methodology, but you need to remember the basics. The best coaches and players will learn from every situation. There is no one correct answer and what works in some games doesnt in others. This is why you need players who are aware of these basics, but who play the game as they see it on the field. Some times a great player will do something great just because they do. Even robots need to have the freedom to turn the game on the head when they need to, from time to time. Hang on, I hear you say, doesnt the NC create robots with no individual skill? No, actually robot coaches create robots. At junior level, good structure and robotic play (ie predefined passing & player movement patterns) are more successful than free play (plus small pitches let coaches yell their minute instructions with ease) so robot coaches focus on this during training rather than developing individual skill like first touch, dribbling, etc. U9's playing tikka takka certainly gets parents and coaches going doesn't it! Unfortunately there are too many of these guys in circulation and while they are happy to sprout crap about triangles and body shape (2 words which coincidentally don't appear in the FFA Advanced Coaching manual AT ALL) but they eventually get caught out and leave coaching, so we are seeing fewer robots out there. I'm not sure who you think does C Licence courses, AJF? Nearly all coaches I did the C Licence with were former state league players, or/and current NPL state league coaches, or elite and rep youth coaches who'd played the game prior. Rob Sherman, when he attended, was the worst player on the pitch in 11 v 11 sessions. If you have completed the C Licence, AJF, it is virtually impossible not to have had detailed discussion topics about body shape, triangles, diamonds, etc. Even former high level players have usually studied body shape in some depth, even those who have not had access to contemporaneous coach education. If you have completed the C Licence, your instructor must have a dud. Who was he? Who appointed him? Or you must not have been listening frequently, and, your topic of assessment/evaluation to pass the course must have been different, possibly a BPO exercise. The more tripe you write, the more I doubt you actually did an advanced course Brew. With regard to your obsession with possession, here is a little beauty from the FFA Advanced Coaching manual which you should become aquainted with:  I highlighted the last line especially for you and it is worth repeating, according to the FFA NC "The only statistic that matters is the scoreline!"
Here is another interesting fact, the words " body shape, triangles & diamonds" are not used in the Advanced Coaching manual at all, can anyone guess why? Because it is an advanced course an it's focus is the coaching process and if you dont know basics like body shape already you shouldn't be there. Those basic topics are covered in community courses where novice mums and dads who probably played AFL or other sports (like your favorite pocket pin ball) need to learn and I suggest this explains why you are always talking about them because thats what they would have covered in your KNVB community certificate back in 2008. At your course I imagine you probably had to learn about wetting the needle before pumping up balls as well. Your suggestion that any senior player or coach had to have the importance of body shape explained to them is ludicrous! how many tassie state league players have missed out on playing for Barca because their body shape was wrong? time to give up the charade supercoach, you are embarassing yourself
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+xDecentric, What do you say about one of the the points i have been making that all these curriculums are just placing high profile buzz words which dont really mean or say anything. I am going to have a go at translating the page that was posted a couple of pages back in the next couple of days or so. (It is a lot harder than it sounds). I will be interested to see how the criteria stacks up and whether or not i can provide any valid criticisms of it. Certainly no matter what happens, it will have some important points and basics. LIke with any course i have ever seen, the obvious problem is always going to be lack of practicalities. This is the biggest problem with all coaches who place too much emphasis on the coaching theory. It has been a problem for as long as i can remember. Its not the curriculum thats the problem, its the novice coaches who dont know any better and then implement what they see roboticly. I am sure the first thing Ange did when he got to Japan was teach them about body shape and passing triangles and thats why he won the J-League. His next step will be to go to Europe and win the champions league by doing the same thing. Decent coaches dont need that jargon, only frauds do
|
|
|
|
|
localstar
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI agree with Farina The problem with coaches who didn't play at a high level is how do you know as people they understand excellence? In the cut throat world of high performance people need to be able to prove they are winners. Understanding excellence has nothing to do with obtaining qualifications. It has everything to do with how to react to tough situations, how to react on game day and all those fuzzy things in between that make someone successful over a long period of time. The big problem with former players is that there is a massive differential in their ability to communicate with players and impart the knowledge they have. There are also a massive number of former players around, who find contemporaneous coaching methodology too cerebral and complex to devise sophisticated and sequential training ground practices, based on comprehensive analysis of previous games. 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. One could say what a load of old cobblers, keep it simple is number 1 for producing robots, points 3,4,5 are a given even for 6 year olds maybe it is because their coach has them focussing their attention on countering in BP when threading an eye of the needle pass through the channels and into the path of the front triangle to unlock the defence while the Natural Number 10 is busy drifting into a false 9 position, instead of just winning the ball and playing a diagonal ball behind the defence for the attackers to run on to? I have been coaching juniors for a while and in my experience it is OK for the coach to think complex, but on the training ground you need to keep it simple and set it up so the kids figure out the complex themselves. If you have been coaching juniors for a while, how do you impart technique to your players ? How do you divide technique into different categories? +x+x+x+x+x+x+xI agree with Farina The problem with coaches who didn't play at a high level is how do you know as people they understand excellence? In the cut throat world of high performance people need to be able to prove they are winners. Understanding excellence has nothing to do with obtaining qualifications. It has everything to do with how to react to tough situations, how to react on game day and all those fuzzy things in between that make someone successful over a long period of time. The big problem with former players is that there is a massive differential in their ability to communicate with players and impart the knowledge they have. There are also a massive number of former players around, who find contemporaneous coaching methodology too cerebral and complex to devise sophisticated and sequential training ground practices, based on comprehensive analysis of previous games. 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. One could say what a load of old cobblers, keep it simple is number 1 for producing robots, points 3,4,5 are a given even for 6 year olds maybe it is because their coach has them focussing their attention on countering in BP when threading an eye of the needle pass through the channels and into the path of the front triangle to unlock the defence while the Natural Number 10 is busy drifting into a false 9 position, instead of just winning the ball and playing a diagonal ball behind the defence for the attackers to run on to? I have seen some horrendously complex sessions run by B-License coaches for boys (U13 & U14) which saw both the players & coach getting confused and eventually frustrated and as a sideline spectator, me & other coaches scratching our heads wondering what was trying to be achieved. Would you have been able too devise superior sessions with clearly delineated coaching objectives set out at the beginning of the sessions and been able to evaluate them clearly at the end ? How would you have those unsuccessful conducted sessions differently, AJF? Which topics did you deem to be unsuccessful? poor Brew, got burned by actual UEFA technical reports debunking your blow hard theory on possession and now this is the best comeback you have! maybe you should tell us how you handled it back in 2008 when you were coaching the refugee team in Tassie? Avoiding answering the questions, indicates a lack of knowledge on your part, AJF. To bring it back to the thread topic, FF is also a maverick coach. He has never been happy having to undertake new coach education. Ha ha, old decentric trick- retaliate by asking stupid questions, then claim "victory" because nobody can be bothered with them.
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Succeeding coaches Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie, would have been very unhappy with the high number of turnovers against Japan, Brazil and Croatia in 2006. Against Italy, playing their classic perfectly formed cohesive half press in Ball Possession Opposition flat midfield 4-4-2 formation, featuring perfect 10 metre distancing between players, between and within, the lines, the Socceroos struggled to penetrate even against 10 men.
So you believe Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie value possession more than making it out of the group stage? No. Not at all. The aforementioned coaches wouldn’t like losing possession to the opposition from too many needless turnovers. Hence, missing the opportunity to control a game. Guus wouldn’t have been happy either. you really need to move past the possession obsession as it doesnt win games, goals do and in the process of trying to score goals you need to take risks which means you will inevitably loose possession. You are completely out of step with current UEFA evidenced based research, AJF. An exhaustive study conducted by UEFA showed that the teams who had more possession in the attacking third won 72% of the time. I learnt this from one of the FFA National Regional Conferences. You seem to think there is some sort of alternative evidence based research that shows teams with less possession win games. Source or is it more KNVB sauce (or should I say mayo) Using your contemporary KNVB coaching analysis skills, tell us what the final score was for this fairly significant match from Europe was: You are using a one game example to try and substantiate a spurious and indefensible position. The team with 61% Possession in this one game had 8 shots on target, compared to 3 for the team with 39% opposition. Most of the time, with a ratio of 3:1, the team with more shots on target will win. I'm using an exhaustive, evidence based UEFA research to substantiate a proposition. other than blowing your own over inflated opinion out your arse and pretending its research, you cannot provide one shred of evidence to back up your point can you? So supercoach, let me explain, that was the Champions league final from last year (Spurs vs Liverpool in case you forgot) and spurs dominated all the stats but lost and I used it deliberately as it is from an actual UEFA technical report (not the fairy-tale type you refer to) covering the Champions league which clearly states that possession doesn't determine results (ref below which is self explanatory). Similar story for the last WC, read the technical report for that and see what it says. Not sure what the trends were in 2008 when you did your KNVB community certificate but football has moved on and rather than preaching your robotic view, perhaps you should actually educate yourself about whats happening in contemporary football tactics. A ratio of 12 wins out of 14, is definitely different from 72% which was the figure concluded over an exhaustive number of professional games in circa 2013/14 when it was presented to me. This small sample you have used is 26 games in the UEFA CL, not thousands of games. This is selective. However, it still shows that circa 60% of games were won by the teams dominating possession over the whole of the pitch. My stats use a different criterion. That is the teams that have more possession in the attacking third, usually win - 72%. Your figures are derived from possession stats all over the pitch - 60%. So supercoach is now arguing with the conclusion of a UEFA technical report into arguable the highest level competition in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
Zoltan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 444,
Visits: 0
|
I think that this discussion is irrelevant because everything depends ....
So its a bit of a false premise....
For example
The reason the best teams in the world have higher possession is because they have the best players. When you have the best players you keep the ball. Also they have no weaknesses so the team also tends to keep the ball.
What we can say though is that its possible to have a highly effective team that doesn't not have high possession if they have 2 or 3 high impact players in the front third.
So the Socceroos beat higher ranked teams during the golden generations because we had Cahill, Kewell and Viduka...
So if you take the above being true then teaching possession for the sake of possession is dumb.
Possession is great if you have the cattle
Possession is great during certain parts of a game (the eb and flow of a game)
Possession is great if the opposition is not organised and runs around too much
Possession is not so great if you don't have the cattle
Possession is stupid if during parts of the game a particular player is on fire (get it to their feet and let the majic happen)
Possession is dumb if it goes nowhere and nothing happens in the front third..
Does anyone really believe that the Socceroos should play a possession game vs say a France or a Spain?
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+xDoes anyone really believe that the Socceroos should play a possession game vs say a France or a Spain?
Which is why the end of Ange's tenure shit me so much.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
LFC.
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
Zoltan, spot on and pretty much in laymens terms that I think AJF and others are trying to express in too much detail ????????? I agree entirely your pov and we all see it every week. Why are teams constantly trying to play tika tacka when you don't have the cattle across the park capable in doing so - yet I see the Coach who feels he's so important ranting and raving at errors but the facts are, some of his players do not have the abilities full stop. Hence this playing to by the book is questionable in games if you had any nouse what you have as a squad. Play to your strengths, if you can't play possesion game, park the bus, counter attack is your only avenue. You see many games where one team has great possesion skills but have NO finish as mentioned earlier. No finish is Australian football for the last 15yrs.
Love Football
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+xZoltan, spot on and pretty much in laymens terms that I think AJF and others are trying to express in too much detail ????????? I agree entirely your pov and we all see it every week. Why are teams constantly trying to play tika tacka when you don't have the cattle across the park capable in doing so - yet I see the Coach who feels he's so important ranting and raving at errors but the facts are, some of his players do not have the abilities full stop. Hence this playing to by the book is questionable in games if you had any nouse what you have as a squad. Play to your strengths, if you can't play possesion game, park the bus, counter attack is your only avenue. You see many games where one team has great possesion skills but have NO finish as mentioned earlier. No finish is Australian football for the last 15yrs. sorry LFC, but when talking to turkeys, sometimes you need to speak gobbledygook! 100% agree with what you guys are saying, easy to play tikka takka when you've got a team of messi's, but when there is mixed ability, what do you do, just keep the best 11 on and let the rest rot? as a coach your duty is to develop the entire team and so everyone gets a good run and we will adjust tactics and formations during matches depending on who's on the pitch at the time. when you play the tops teams, its easy to set up in kamikaze mode and try "take it to em" and get pumped 10 nil, what do you think that does to the kids confidence? we've gotten results against tikka takka teams where we have set up to nullify their threat and at the end of the game parents from the other side tell us we were lucky, or they had more possession and deserved to win, my standard response is scoreboard doesnt lie, if you deserved to win, you would have!
|
|
|
|
|
Zoltan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 444,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xDoes anyone really believe that the Socceroos should play a possession game vs say a France or a Spain?
Which is why the end of Ange's tenure shit me so much. Look I'm going to to say something in Ange's defence here which is why this is complex. Ange's 'thing' - the thing that makes him special is that he is able to instal self belief into his teams. So if we strip back the idea that only teams with good players should play possession - what Ange is saying to his team is that 'you are as good as anyone'. So maybe what Ange is saying is that the ability to keep possession is as much about self confidence as it is about 'perceived' ability. I like coaches who say 'fark em' - we are just as good, ozzies are underrated......take the game on...
|
|
|
|