Here it is Ladies and Gents;

http://www.footballaustralia.com.au/site/_content/document/FFA_National_Curriculum.pdf

References
• Chris Sulley: ‘Youth Development - Best Practice in European Professional Football’,
Leaders in Performance
• ‘The Future Game – The Football Association Technical Guide For Young Player Development’,
The Football Association
• 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa – Technical Report and Statistics
• UEFA Euro 2012 Poland-Ukraine – Technical report
• Daniel Coyle – ‘The Talent Code’
• Malcolm Gladwell – ‘Outliers’
• Mathew Syed – ‘Bounce’
• Anders Ericsson – ‘The Road to Excellence’
• Geoff Colvin – ‘Talent is Overrated’
• Professor Carol Dweck – ‘Mindset – The New Psychology of Success’
• EPL statistics – Data of 2012/13 season, as at February, 2013 (Prozone)
• Paul S.A. Mairs & Richard E. Shaw –
‘Coaching Outside the Box: Changing the Mindset in Youth Soccer’
Acknowledgements
• Alfred Galustian – former Technical Skills Consultant
to FFA
• Raymond Verheijen - provider of Football Conditioning
expertise to FFA
• Professor A. Mark Williams - regular adviser to FFA on
Decision-Making and Skill Acquisition

reading through the documents now, have to say im a bit blown away by the content. A lot more detail than the previous one.=d>

The alarming thing is this Switters, Han Berger and his team had to provide this document because the vast majority of coaches were not taking nor understanding nor able to implement the NC, either the training or playing philosophy.



In effect it is a dumbing down Version.

But that's okay it is a necessary because even Han Berger didn't realise how far behind we are.

What i like about this version is the sheer depth of it. It goes through all the key stages in the development sides of things and backs it up with exercises too. Although i would to see some videos perhaps explaining them in more detail, but thats ok.

it seems the message is loud and clear to the FFA that any change you have to make is from the grass roots which is necessary when changing a football culture around.

Although its good to influence the top too when making a huge change just like what we have seen in the a-league and recently with our youth national teams it can show some promise and inspiration to which the grass roots can reach and maybe relate too..

But the reality is that a Bottom to Top approach is the best way for long term change for any business and not only for just the sporting side of things to which i can relate to.



Edited by Barca4life: 20/9/2013 07:44:26 PM

The Curriculum will continue to fail as long as the selection of elite players is a scam.It is getting better but still not right.

Actually to be truthful it has been a massive improvement which is no small way fully attributed to the dutch and other professional ppl who have helped design and implement our system. In my area Garth Edds and Paul Smalley to name only a few.

Edited by krones3: 21/9/2013 12:54:13 PM

Who will follow this, no one,, in NSW they have relegation at a young ages,this goes aganist the new Curriculum.

Maybe what's needed is separate state youth leagues that don't follow the seniors and therefore relegation isn't necessary.

Edited by thupercoach: 22/9/2013 07:10:25 AM

"Maybe what's needed is separate state youth leagues that don't follow the seniors and therefore relegation isn't necessary".
But that's the ridiculous thing. They have separated the youth premier league from the senior one, but in their infinite wisdom Football NSW have created a separate Club Championship for the junior tier. So, rather than be a small cog contributing to a club-wide club championship, the results of junior teams from u12s to u15s (the youth club championship)are crucial to gaining promotion/ avoiding relegation in NSW. Players go from the one extreme of non-comp (where performance not results are the intended focus)at SAP level u11s, to a comp where results are all that matters from u12s. You have to laugh at the technical feedback from Football NSW that some youth Premier league teams are too direct, unwiling to play out fom the back etc. when Football NSW are the ones that are encouraging these outcomes due to their own failed structure.

+1 Rod. It would take a very brave coach to stick to his principles of playing possession footbal if the kids are losing by 1 or 2 goals a match and especially if those goals were coming from defensive errors. My sons team coach was sacked because of poor results/parental pressure. The parents main grip I think was that the kids weren't direct enough and weren't shooting from distance (they conceded a lot of goals from long shots and free kicks outside the box).

I am a little confused, first it was win at all costs and now it is not to aim to win but to just develop. What is wrong with development with the aim to win? Why is winning such a dirty word at present in junior football.

Everyone talks about lack of "street soccer" well when I played in the street as a young kid I can assure you it was more important to win, than just developing skills. That meant we had to make forward runs and support each other and take on players, because our aim was to score more than we gave up.

While I agree with most of the NC and its aims, we should not lose sight that all the countries mentioned the most important thing is winning, have you ever heard ADP talk, it is all about we have to win no matter what.

I agree winning by just lumping it forward is not the way to go, but just passing the ball without the pressure to win is just a 360 turn to me, the ultimate outcome is win playing the right way, not just develop playing the right way or else we will become the Dutch, not much to show for it.

The New Curriculum states that Results for youth is damaging the development of players and FNSW will be forced to scrap the relegation for next year or run the risk of the department being overtaken by another organisation that is prepared to listen to the FFA

I do understand the argument, but you could also argue that playing to develop only and not win is also damaging the development of the youth as the pressure is reduced to achieve the one thing that we all aim for, to win the game.

I am not saying win at all costs old style lump it forward but surely the end result is to play from the back with the result being to score a goal. If we say oh no we are just developing players to pass a ball around without the pressure to score then how will we improve in the final third when it matters most?

Development should not be used to hide the result, if you are developing correctly then the results will come. Just passing the ball from the back and then losing and saying but we are developing the players is not development to me if you cannot achieve a result in the final third, they key area Australia has struggled in.

Sounds a bit like the Australian Oman game. One of the worst games of any sport that I have had the misfortune to watch. Noone in the thread has suggested this is the way kids should play. Kids are naturally competitive, but I agree with your concern about drumming the competitive nature out of our kids. But this is about coaching tactics and philosophies. If winning is achieved at the expense of individual and team development, then how can this be good for the individuals concerned or Australian football in general?

My son's coach is one who seems to get the balance right. All training sessions are high tempo, competitive and challenging. He loves to win, will adapt his tactics in response to game circumstances, but won't change his philosophies of playing possession-based attacking football regardless of the situation. But he is a SAP coach, and doesn't have to worry about club promotion and relegation. These are things that you can do without when in charge of junior player development in my opinion.

I hope you're right, but am not convinced this is going to happen.

It is more a question of development taking precedence over results.

In training ground SSGs and even 11 v 11 games at training, there is still a big element of competition.

It is a contemporary phenomenon, that the way teams play, is paramount over results. FFA wants teams paying out from the back, through the midfield. They wasnt goals ro be created through Proactive play rather than Reactive.

There are player cues and actions that facilitate this process.


The football intelligence is now being coached , certainly by coaches who have gone through the Advanced Coaching system.

Player actions and cues are integral now in coaching. The onus is on the coach to intervene and ask players:

"How can you support the player on the ball as s/he is receiving it?"

"What position to play forwards should you take up as your teammate receives the ball?"

"What is the best angled passing lane to support that player?"

"Can you pass the ball forwards to a player who can move or play forwards?"

"If you are tightly marked, how can you shake your marker?"

"How could you have changed your body shape to play forwards when you received the ball?"

"What are their problems with the straight ball you played to your team-mate?"

"Which player should you have passed to in the best position, in order to play forwards?"



Players are now getting this through the Skills Acquisition Program and Skilleroos, moving into the NTC as they age.

Ironically, some of our top coaches, still tell players, rather than use Guided Discovery - asking players to work it out for themselves.

If, and when, we can transfer the aforementioned cues and actions, to the grass roots and suburban grounds, we will have a first class football culture. In the past there was a culture of coaches blaming the payers. Now it is recognised that there is a massive onus on coaching the players to play intelligent football.

Edited by Decentric: 23/9/2013 07:03:45 PM

Good to hear about your son's coach.

One issue one can have as a rep coach, is parents and kids desperately wanting to win on the one hand, and on the other the state branch of the FFA Technical Department appraising one's coaching on whether chances on goal are created through Proactive or Reactive play.

No, winning at all costs is not the way to go.

Any coaching session and game still has a competitive element to it. Being competitive is not being drummed out of kids or coaches by FFA. All want to win!

ADP is talking about senior level, where results are paramount.

Actually if you read his book (only in Italian) he actually talks about winning and practicing for hours on hours to be the best even from a young age. This is the different mentality between Australia and those countries where it is a way to improve your life.

I am concerned that if we say oh winning does not matter at a young age then we are taking away that edge, I think we need to find the right balance.

To me a better technical team should be able to cope with the long ball game and be able to open up that defence (after all this is why we are teaching our kids this type of game) and therefore development should also result in more games won than loss. Hence relegation should not be an issue and if it is then maybe something is not right and those players are not developing the right way and we are hiding behind the development card.

That is my personal thoughts and I am really enjoying the contributors to this section.

Edited by justafan: 23/9/2013 08:16:24 PM

Winning from an early age maybe an accepted practice in Italy. I don't know. It may have been an accepted mode in previous eras.

Because ADP says it, it carries a lot less weight than national football Technical Departments in neighbouring European countries.

Practising for hours and hours is an agreed practice amongst top footballing nations.

Justafan:
The following is just one example of the issue of playing for points at an early age:
As mentioned in the quote from Neverwozza above, this problem of kids being encouraged to shoot from distance is an issue in the Youth NPL.
U12s is the first year that kids start playing full size fields with full size goals. But consider the height of the goal keeper at that age. All a team needs is a player capable of receiving the ball on or near the edge of the box and just floating it into the substantial gap between the height the average 12 year old keeper can jump to and the top of the net. No need for sophisticated passing or dribbling to unlock a defence using this technique. But by the time the goalkeepers are over 16 years old then this type of tactic will rarely work anymore.
Has excessive use of this tactic helped to develop team and individual skills in the junior years - most probably no.
Has it helped teams to win games and accumulate points across a season - almost definitely yes.
I agree Justafan, that the very best youth teams through their better organisation and individual skills can and should develop tactics to counter pressing, parking the bus, flooding of the midfield, route one, long range floating shots etc. And these better teams will generally win regardless of the tactics used against them. But what about other teams that arent as strong across the board? Will they be forced to kick long etc. to maximise their chance of winning but at the expense of the development of some of the more promising players in their team?

Good set of points, FFA has expressed their dissatisfaction about youth playing to win, look at the skilaroos no matter what happens the skilaroos can't get relegated and play out from the back for development many f the players play 1 or 2 years up an age, why ,,,,,because they don't care about the table its about developing the younger players.

Very good point, maybe it would be best to make these goals more realistic for the age group like SSG so that getting a goal is more difficult and requires better build up play and positioning to score. Works for SSG formats.

In regards to your comments about "Street Soccer" there are other components to it.
Firsttly in "Street Soccer" no ladders are kept.
Secondly there are no age barriers. So players are able to experiment and come up with stratergies to deal with varying abilities, sizes and capabilities.
Thirdly if a team is winning by too much the game is usually stopped and another one started.
Lastly there is no or very little adult interference.

Unfortunately in todays society in Australia and in most first world countrys there is very little "Street Sports' let alone "Street Soccer' any more.

But the key points are there to be used in organised sports.

It is disappointing that the FFA didn't have the courage of their convictions and kept the U12's in SSF as originally devised.
Only to remove this requirement to identify players for the U14 National Team.
Which can only mean that they (the FFA) will end up identifying the physical early developers any way.

Hi All

It's a document that has some good points, but also some major flaws.

You shouldn't be playing 11v11 at U12. That is a serious error. Oh well, the FFA had the chance to show some spine but blew it.

The best teams in the world didn't start playing 11v11 until 14 or 15. They're still playing 8v8 (9v9) until then. That's because a child needs a lot more space and time to play - 22 players on a pitch makes it far too crowded at U12. Too many factors to try to cope with.

Australia won't get better from implementing this programme. Little kids should be playing organised football with the smallest possible numbers.

Also, the formation layouts still show the backs labelled as 'defenders'. This is a foolish mistake. Defence and attack are NOT POSITIONS. They are moments on the ball!!!

When a back has the ball, and is making a pass toward the opponent's goal, how is he a 'defender'?
How is a forward without the ball an attacker? He's not, is he? He's in the defensive moment.

It's still so naive.

Agree with nearly all your points above. In particular, that a full side field is flawed for u12s. But not because its too crowded. There's too much space. U9s and u10s in SAP NSW play on a half-size field (across the field) with 9v9. They are forced to stay compact, play in traffic, master first touch or lose the ball, change direction, use the width of the field, play back under pressure etc. Midfielders can play a box to box role without having to be be future olympic middle distance runners. Good dribblers of the ball quickly learn to choose the right time to dribble rather than automatically run at the opposition.
The kids can get lost on a full sized field. The number of touches of all players declines. Fast players can kick forward into the spaces and chase rather than having to rely on quick feet in tight areas. The spaces between the lines are too wide and the short passing game suffers for it. Too much long balls from the back,and floated shots and free kicks from distance direct on goal.

Welcome to the forum, Dan.

They played 11v11 in Holland a few years ago. They may still do it.

Having said that, when Rob Baan was Aussie TD, he advocated 4v4 or (5v5 with keepers) until under 12s, like they do in Brazil.

I asked this question at last year's FFA Regional Conference, about the 4v4 being better for development. The response was that the current system placates the recalcitrants who still want 11 v11 from as early an age as possible.

Disagree the document is naive.

Overall the system is infinitely better than we had before. This can be exemplified when I put up my C Licence assessment plan on this forum. Some of the the coaches who had done it as late as 2008, thought it was very challenging for a C Licence.

I passed this on to our FFA course head instructor for the C Licence. He said a C Licence now is more like an A Licence of 8 years ago.

If I pose a lot of the methodology from the current C Licence and KNVB Youth Certificate to a number of ostensibly highly trained coaches of yesteryear elsewhere on the inter web, they can't answer almost any regulation methodological questions I pose to them about training ground practice . These guys are rabid cynics of the current system.

Empirically, our NPL in Tasmania, is already playing higher quality football than the previous regional leagues. The coaches are much better trained. It shows on the pitch.

Edited by Decentric: 25/9/2013 07:02:52 PM

Totally agree.