*Perhaps no-one 'stood out' to you because the tournament was so close and evenly matched? That's what I took out of this week. My opinion only.

*Did you watch all the games? (Not having a go at you, serious question). I saw several goals where teams managed to break down a 'set defence' after sustained possession. Eg. NNSW had a huge amount of possession vs Victoria and their winning goal started with the left fullback and was finished from close range by the right-winger without Victoria touching the ball during the move which lead to the aforementioned goal. That's just one off the top of my head. I do agree though, that a large number of goals came about through turnovers. WA struggled big time in this regard, I agree.

*Why does Berger 'hide' this tournament?

Good finish by NNSW then credit to the coach as must have been tough after a slow start.

From digging at halftime in socceroos match, which is similar by the way as we look much bigger faster stronger than chinese taipai, it seems as though these states had older kids

NNSW - 7 older kids
WA - 12 older kids
ACT - 7 older kids
TAS - 7 or 8 older kids and maybe even a couple older still, surely not allowed??
VICS - 0

Sorry couldn't find anything on NSW QLD SA NT or any others that I may have missed, someone else might know

The end of the tournament always throws up some surprises. Just shows that different coaches and observers see different things in players, rely on players' previous representative selections or feel the need to match numbers against where the teams ended up.

I must say the tournament was played at a decent standard, albeit with a limited (in variation) interpretation of the 4-3-3. Two teams played worse both technically and tactically, being VIC and WA, although WA did start off with a solid win against NSW. SA, QLD, NNSW and NSW did not appear to have improved markedly although they played some decent games. NT played some solid football with their standout being a skilled if relatively small number 10. ACTAS and Tasmania did indeed out-perform. ACTAS played some very attractive football and Tasmania were very solid in just about every game.

I agree with other commentators in that there were very few stand-out players in this tournament. There were some players who played some passes with good vision - ie. number 8 for NSW, 6 and 8 for ACTAS, 11 for NNSW - and some players who displayed energy and quickness - ie. number 10 for NNSW and 9 for Queensland. I did not think NSW had 7 players that were all stars. In my view most of their success came in transition. The VIC and QLD GK can thank a relatively weak field, although one of the ACTAS GK produced similar performances. The player of the tournament, the ACTAS left sided CB can probably also thank a relatively weak field for his selection. Only number 4 for Tasmania stood out to any extent in my mind. The ACTAS left back (5) and SA right back (2) also had very good tournaments, although the latter was given a bit of a touch up by the ACTAS winger in their game. In a system meant to focus on and enhance wing play I though there were not enough good performances out wide with any degree of consistency unlike last year. Number 6 for ACTAS was very unlucky to miss selection in my eyes. The only forwards I rated were number 14 for NSW and - ironically - number 9 for Victoria, who basically carried his team on his broad shoulders, scoring goals as required and working hard in defence when the team was down to 10 men on at least one occasion.

Again, all a matter of perception. A distinct lack of creativity overall but a decent standard of play in most games.

PS. Not sure who the number 10 for the all-stars was - I missed a few games - but he stood out a bit as well (as did the player of the tournament George the CB from ACTAS).

Bring on 2013.

It shouldn't be looked at that teams were using older kids. This is an under 16 tournament (with NT and TAS allowed a few 17s), Victoria stubbornly decided they would only bring 15s, I don't know what point they were trying to prove but they kept bringing it up as if they were the ones who were right and everyone else were doing the wrong thing. Most squads have always had a roughly 50-50 split between the age groups each year though the 16 year olds typically will get more game time than the 15 year olds.

Has the standard got better from previous years? Anyone know?

And this why ACTAS punch above their weight, with a small pool of players to choose from came 4th in the points table and could have been even higher and 2nd in the technical table. All this without 1 overage player. And I'll go as far to say that even with 3 losses no team dominated them for the whole of any game not NSW ( 1-0 loss) who won the points table not SA who won the technical table (who they beat 2-1) nor Qland (1-0 loss last kick of the game).

A touch up? He practically tore him a new one and scored the winner with the SA right back on his heels. Yet the SA right back gets an Allstars gig yet the ACTAS 11 goes away empty handed.

I think the best way to put it is that if the winners from 2007 played the winner's from 2012 it would be an even contest but if the last placed team from 2007 played the last placed team from 2012 the 2012 team would outplay them comfortably. The gap from top to bottom is as narrow as ever whereas a few years ago most national championships had 2-3 stand out teams who would dominate the rest and only have a couple of challenging matches between each other. Now every team is competitive and capable of outplaying any opponent. As an example this year WA's only win came against the winners NSW.

It shouldn't be looked at that teams were using older kids. This is an under 16 tournament (with NT and TAS allowed a few 17s), Victoria stubbornly decided they would only bring 15s, I don't know what point they were trying to prove but they kept bringing it up as if they were the ones who were right and everyone else were doing the wrong thing. Most squads have always had a roughly 50-50 split between the age groups each year though the 16 year olds typically will get more game time than the 15 year olds.

If you got to see a 16 year old Babalj, Oar or Antonis at this tournament then you would understand what I'm getting at. Same goes for a teenage Viduka or Kewell. When you see them you just knew that they were special and that in a few years they would be a Socceroo. 4 years ago everyone who watched Babalj play for WA knew they had seen a future Socceroo, same goes for Antonis with NSWIS that same tournament. Sure enough this past week Babalj, Antonis and Taggart are in the Socceroos squad just 3-4 years after they played in this tournament. Anyone who saw Antonis, Amini and Gameiro playing together for the NSW 14s in Coffs wouldn't be surprised to know that now one is a Socceroo, one is at Dortmund and the other at Fulham. Is there a player from this tournament that you could say with some certainty that they will be a Socceroo in 2016? I didn't see one. That's not to say there weren't some excellent players who will go onto professional careers and maybe there were some future Socceroos who will get there eventually (the Northern boy Spathi mentioned being one such player) but there wasn't that 1 or 2 players that you see every now and then at these tournaments who everyone agrees is going places.


I was there for every session, every day and I've been to every NTC tournament since it began in its current format 5 years ago. I stand by my comment that the most frequent mode of scoring was from a forced or unforced turnover. Given Australia's constant problem with producing no. 10s and great strikers I think more emphasis should be on developing our player's ability to unlock a defence. At the moment more emphasis is being placed on playing out from the back and pressing high in defence, which is why so many goals were scored from turnovers.



Basically he sees tournaments like this as purely talent id and only really the selectors and coachs should have an interest in this tournament. He doesn't seem to get that there are a lot of people like the ones on this forum who want to know what's happening with our best youth and how their state compares to others.

I’ve attended every NTC tournament since they started in the current format in 07, here are my thoughts on the week.
Positives

- Almost every state to an extent has embraced the curriculum and is focusing on the performance more so than the final result. There are some exceptions who are reverting to old habits when they lead by a goal late on but in the main teams are playing 4-3-3, attempting to play out from the back and keep possession. Victoria has copped a hiding in the technical points (highest daily score for them was 3/10) but every other state has embraced the FFA’s philosophy with varying degrees of success.

- The smaller states Tasmania and NT have been as competitive as they have ever been. They have probably been the biggest beneficiaries of the NC. It now gives them a guideline of how to train and develop their players and they also know how the other teams will play which would also help their tactical preparation. I hope the days of Tasmania and NT parking the bus in the hope of getting a gallant point or narrow loss are long gone.

- The referees in general have also improved, I know a lot of work has been done in making the nationals and NTC tournaments an important part of the development pathway for promising referees and it seems to be working. There’s still the odd howler or card happy ref but the general standard is better than a few years ago.

Negatives

- Unfortunately I will be leaving this tournament without seeing any individuals who really excite me. In particular the quality of strikers has been poorer than recent years. There hasn’t been that player or two who you just know in a couple of years will be gracing the A-League and wowing the country. In past tournaments there have always been one or two attacking players that have lit up the tournament, a couple of years ago it was Teeboy and Garuccio for SASI and they’ve already made it to the A-League, before that it was Babalj, Antonis, Oar, Taggart (all now Socceroos), Gameiro, Bulut. There has been some very good players but none of the quality of the aforementioned players when they were 15/16.

- I guess this is an extension of the last point but as some people have mentioned here a lot of the goals are coming from teams losing possession deep in their own half. Probably the next most prolific method of scoring has been through the wingers getting behind a high defensive line. There have been very few goals coming from creative interplay through the middle of the park against a set defence. A lot of teams have struggled to break down a good defensive unit, something Australian football has always had a problem with. I believe the main reason is because most teams are too structured in attack and stick to the mandated style too rigidly. Players are not being taught too think creatively and no one has really broken the mould. As an example, I watched Tasmania put 5 past WA but their goals were from turnovers by the WA defenders and midfielders, not from Tasmania breaking down the WA defence after sustained possession.

- There have been too many cases of teams receiving credit for attempting to play the right way but failing. They fail because either their technique was off or they are making a poor decision that has been pre-programmed into them. WA in particular in some games found the opposing midfielder more times than their own yet they seem to pick up a decent amount of technical points each day. Teams are given credit for attempting to play the FFA’s mandated style not whether they actually succeed at it.

- This has already been mentioned here but some of the technical points scores have been puzzling. Unfortunately most teams I think will go away surprised and disappointed with at least one of their day’s scores.

- This tournament still seems to be hidden from the public. I know Han Berger’s reasons but I still think there should be some reporting on this tournament from the FFA and even videos of the games uploaded online.

Anyway, that was a long post and some may agree and disagree with what I’ve written but that’s my perspective based on what I’ve seen over the years. A forum thread like this is good so people can share the results and their opinions but Berger would hate it.

It shouldn't be looked at that teams were using older kids. This is an under 16 tournament (with NT and TAS allowed a few 17s), Victoria stubbornly decided they would only bring 15s, I don't know what point they were trying to prove but they kept bringing it up as if they were the ones who were right and everyone else were doing the wrong thing. Most squads have always had a roughly 50-50 split between the age groups each year though the 16 year olds typically will get more game time than the 15 year olds.

Sorry about that I didn't realise the tournament was for u16s. Then why on earth would Vics would bring a younger u15 squad knowing they would get smashed, basically on a hiding to nothing!

Someone send the Vics the age group rules for 2013 please!

In 2013 it will be for players born in 98 and 99. These boys will playing for the opportunity to be selected to the next Joey's squad.

I think that many of the negatives that the.football.god espoused are also correct, particularly in relation to teams being too structured and mandated in attack and of course technique and decision making when trying to play out. This can only be put down to coaches (training methods and selections) and it has been said by some in the development program in QLD that the head coach at QAS turns up to identification days stating that he is “looking for mongrels”. Isn’t Australia supposed to be looking for technically gifted players?

I was there for every session, every day and I've been to every NTC tournament since it began in its current format 5 years ago. I stand by my comment that the most frequent mode of scoring was from a forced or unforced turnover. Given Australia's constant problem with producing no. 10s and great strikers I think more emphasis should be on developing our player's ability to unlock a defence. At the moment more emphasis is being placed on playing out from the back and pressing high in defence, which is why so many goals were scored from turnovers.
.

What Australia is trying to develop, is a Proactive style of football. This is where teams can play out from the back against teams who apply intensive squeezing and full pressing. This is a weakness identified by FIFA's Technical Committee when analysing Australia's play over time in tournaments.

If teams constantly try to achieve this style of football, under considerable pressure in time and space, eventually it should be achieved. At the same time, it is a shame that most goals seem to be caused from unforced and forced turnovers at the NTC Challenge.

What may occur, is that the best players selected from these tournaments, may ultimately be able to achieve this goal. Remember that even a team as good as Arsenal, struggles to achieve this against the highest level of full pressing and intensive squeezing that Barcelona applies.

I agree that playing out from the back and pressing high should be important parts of our game and what we teach our youngsters coming through, however I also believe that teaching teams to unlock a strong defence should be given equal attention and this is not the case at the moment. Queensland were very good at pressing and playing out but they were very poor in attack. Their wins were all 1-0 and they only scored 7 goals for the week.

At 3 national tournaments in the last 2 years for boys and girls the all star coach's team averaged a goal a game or less. Two years ago at Coffs only the Pool A winners in both age groups scored more than a goal per game, the other 5 Pool A teams in both age groups scored less than 5 goals total each for the week. These are supposed to be our best kids for their age in the country. I think it is concerning that we seem to be going backwards these last couple of years in producing goal scorers or goal creators. Judging by the FFA's all star coach selections and awarding of technical points, they have their focus elsewhere. It has shown in the way coaches are approaching this tournament, their job is on the line if the FFA isn't satisfied with their team's performance and application of the NC, so their main focus has been narrowed to playing out and pressing high.

[

@biped

The age group for the NTC is determined by the next U17 World Cup cycle so the 2013 and 2014 tournaments will be used for identifying players for the 2015 U17 World Cup so players born 98 and 99.

A few players are usually already identified before this tournament, usually from Coffs, which is why some players are given AIS trials regardless of performance at the NTCs. These players are often not put in All Stars because the All Star match is supposed to be one last chance for those players identified by the selectors during the week to show what they can do.

Nice to see an honest assessment from the people up at QAS, rather than the sugar coated garbage written by FFV for the whole country to read. Quite refreshing to see some honesty. Even though QAS finished 2nd only on goal difference, some of the games were lucky 1-0 wins.

The report was a bit of a spray on the 1996 boys and whilst it was probably an honest assessment you would have thought that the NTC Coach of the Tournament would know the strengths and weaknesses of his players who one would assume would have been in the system for a few years in most cases.

But then again he may be well aware and picked defensively minded players going by some of the other comments on this forum.