This is good for the TD.
Should the curriculum have larger sized games earlier, or is it just a matter of player pool(though the scouting has always been atrocious)? Should there be a greater motivation for producing youth? would it make a difference, or would we see more Zak Walkers and Jason Hoffmans?


Edited by moops: 19/10/2015 08:36:58 AM

Bingo.

Our kids looked soft. Technically sound, but rarely made the hard chase or the tough tackle when required. Looked like a side that had been babied through the CoE whilst the Krauts honestly looked like a hardened, professional outfit.

I think the national CoE is a great idea, most of the world powerhouses have them, but it needs to compliment a professional structure, not replace it.

Actually just gone the other way with field sizes.


Pushing shit uphill unfortunately,

The wife asked why Germany is so good and I said just look at the numbers. 18 teams with academies and a full youth system.

So in round numbers you have 20 teams x 20 players in say 3 youth squads (15, 16, 17's) means you have 1200 players playing at a semi-professional elite level. (Not to mention the 2nd division in Germany has academies also so there's another 1200 odd.)

In Australia we have the CoE with a couple of dozen players.

It's chalk and cheese really.





Edited by munrubenmuz: 19/10/2015 08:41:35 AM

The Germans were failing at 1/4 finals stage, they did drop to bottom of pool in Euro 2000, but Germany were coming from a much higher base level to become world Champion in 2014, they started in 2000 & spent billions & getting their choice of the best most athletic, bigger, stronger, gifted players.

The FFA doesn't have the money, are competing with other sports for our best youngsters.
What I saw this morning was that the German defence was much better organised & their attack was far more clinical.
They were a difference class, but what I saw from the Aussies were some very confident touches & most of the Aussies were far more comfortable on the ball then seen in previous years (when in trouble we didn't just pump in long we tried to play out).

Now I agree, there is a time when taking the easiest option may be better, however, as a country we are still in the learning curve on the technical & tactical side of the game, as a country we need to continue to try to play this way until we are proficient enough, that allows us to have both options.

I disagree. At 16 years old a player should be instructed to play a quick pass forward or through ball when the situation demands it.

They're not mutually exclusive.

I understand that a team would go into a game with a philosophy based on possession and patient build ups and that fine but that doesn't mean other ways of playing, when required, shouldn't be attempted.



Edited by munrubenmuz: 19/10/2015 09:16:20 AM

For Germany, post-Euro 2000 was about changing philosophies as well as employing more full-time coaches and upgrading facilities. The DFB wanted to move away from playing in straight lines and relying on "the German mentality" to win matches. Instead coaches focused on developing fluid formations that required the sort of nimble, dexterous players who would previously have been overlooked because of their lack of physical strength.

"In the past there were a lot of big players. But look at our players now," Dutt says. "You realise that an important thing for a football player is technique and then the height of the player, ordinarily, will be small. [Diego] Maradona, [Andrés] Iniesta, Xavi – all little players. In the defence we think we need big players. Mats Hummels is big but he is very good with the ball. In 1982 Mats Hummels wouldn't have played in defence, he would have played at No10. In the 1970s, [Franz] Beckenbauer was playing football and [Hans-Georg] Schwarzenbeck was running after the English players – if he got the ball he gave it to Beckenbauer and the job was done. But now Schwarzenbeck is Hummels, and Hummels plays like Beckenbauer and Schwarzenbeck."

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/may/23/germany-bust-boom-talent

I think the implementation of club academies and NYL teams playing in the respective NPL's will see a huge development in junior football. You have to wonder how well selecting a group of kids and playing them in the local Canberra league actually prepares them for a world cup.

I watched this Joeys team get comprehensively beaten by the SFC NYL team and the issues I saw there were evident here, giving away a lot of cheap possession, often in dangerous places, and a lack of instinct in front of goals. All up there are some skilful players being produced, not just in the Joeys but in junior football all over the country but until we have a large pool of them playing more competitive football we will always be unprepared for tournaments like this.

Aurelio Vidmar, Paul Okon, and Tony Vidmar are sitting in a bar...

See Socceroos v Jordan, tactically we could have play a more defensive game & got a result, but we are a learning curve technicially & tactically wise, not just as a 16 year old but even in the senior team.

Modern Germany has so many more professionals playing than us it's not funny (one reason America is strong also, but they are more population based), Bayern Munchen has 500 youths, not to mention other clubs they sponsor. Bayern Munchen has a larger pool than the Aust U17

yes we have limited funds and (scouting)player pool.
I don't agree, this is the NC youths (from the inception) and they failed, Korea beat Brazil FFS.
So if organisation is critical, maybe the TD needs to change it up, let's learn and adapt.
I disagree, I think our U16 were more confident on the ball, the Joey's looked way to submissive, is that down to coaching? I didn't see anything to extraordinary to agree with you.

I agree (in part), we need conformity, though tactically we were way behind, there was a moment in Germany's box where there were guy's everywhere, it was so congested and still we got nothing and through our GK were lucky not to get another goal against. So what separates us from them, how can we improve?
SSG's are all good for learning skills and I do understand the Ajax way of coaching and I do see a difference (maybe Han berger is less than Cruyff in that department) between them and the FFA NTC, but why do they produce good players? Is It there coaching staff (should we get some consultancy, maybe we need to assk some Germans)? Evaluation/metrics to judge players or understand weaknesses and strengths to work with (do we lack in evaluation of skills and weaknesses and do we know how to combat or enhance them)?
The only thing I liked in the game was that the forwards had freedom, they just didn't know what to do with it. Unless you have flair players, don't go there, they will be better served with a good system imho.

Edited by moops: 19/10/2015 10:06:57 AM Added Modern and maybe a bracket, because I am so hard core.


Edited by moops: 19/10/2015 10:38:25 AM

Agree

I think if they are fairly compensated, your plan will benefit, I mean 5k is hardly an incentive for the NPL clubs to produce players for HAL teams.
Then how do you promote youth in the HAL? Hardly going to raise the standards now.......;)

Edited by moops: 19/10/2015 09:50:38 AM

wow Germany are scary good at even the u17 level, that team would have given the socceroos a hammering too.

Joice needs to start against Mexico.

The weird thing is that France smashed them in the euro final.

For all the talk about effective possession and structured build up we score our goal with a long ball over the top, where is the development there in line with the FFA NC?

Will happen from 2017 13s and up .... but you're right should be from 9s up ... seems we are happy in Australia to start getting serious from 13s up yet we are already 4 years behind by that stage .... the gulf showed this morning

Called that a couple of pages ago.

It was route 1 but I'd call that a vision pass like we've said earlier. Assessed the situation and went quickly forward. The fact it looked route 1 is by the by. It was an impressive pass and it shows we're capable of playing that way also.

result was never in doubt obviously. Streamed a bit of the under 17 euros france, germany, russia and croatia were standouts in that tournament. France are favourites to win it if it is the same squad from earlier this year.

Interesting comments from a lot of you forumites.

It does show what how far we got to go to reach the true world class level but we making improvements in the technical level.

Unfortunately we need to improve on decision making and for our players to aware position and tactical wise when we lose the ball, i guess this is the next level for us and to make adjust in the NC on that.

Also i hated how we attack, we went too narrow and everything was played in front of the German defensive, once they get the back ball they counter but we didn't close the spaces when countering the counter.

Everything was played in front not enough penetration.

Not enough forward runners or forward passes into dangerous areas where we could have hurt Germany, disappointing.

Lets hope they will be better in attack and counter the counter in the next game.

In most european countries they play SSGs up to under 13, so going big is not the way.

We just made that change in the five years, so going big is not the answer we need to produce more intelligent players who will make the right decisions and you need good coaches to let them make their own choices.

In fact in technique we are similar to the Germans but they are more smarter and incisive.

I'm all for SSG.

Sorry did not that see the earlier pages and while I agree it was a good long ball due to the German defender positioning and the forward getting between the defenders if we did that 5 years ago it would be called direct play not technical skill, no development and so on. If the German's scored like that against us we would call it direct play and we were unlucky it is about development and not results.

He also had wide player to build up the play and the first part of the FFA Vision for this age group talks about effective possession and creative individuals, but we are still scoring our only goal route 1 for this age group, no matter how you look at it. We were under pressure and it was the easiest way to score.

I am not saying it is wrong, just an opinion on the fine line between development and getting a goal. I would be happy to lose 4-1 and see some sort of build up play to score.

I like the earlier opportunity of pressing the opposition high which created the opportunity for our forward, that was more of what development is about in line with the FFA Playing Style as outlined in the FFA NC.

I did not watch the game just saw the WG highlights so cannot really comment on the overall performance but it sounds like we were outplayed easily.

Why is that weird considering France also smashed Australia ?

They pretty much rolled everyone at the Under 17 Euros. I was in awe watching them
5-0 vs Scotland
1-0 vs Russia - Semi Finalists
1-0 vs Greece
3-0 vs Italy
1-1 vs Belgium won on penalites - Semi Finalists
4-1 vs Germany Final

The next step in the NC, although a great start the next step into our revolution is create more intelligent players who understand positioning with and without the ball(i.e better incisiveness and intelligence) and are much more stronger in decision making as well, we have improved in technique but now we need to make the next step in this and as well as in tactics and others ways of being proactive in our play.

I'm all for NPL clubs being better compensated, but I also was advocating additional measures.

I was under the impression that Npl clubs were already developing youth under the NC methodology

The best bit for me, blue text on, was when our forward was one on one with their keeper but rather than hitting it immediately with his left foot he tried to pull it back onto his right foot. Of course he was dispossessed and a chance went begging.

That is fair dinkum rocket up the arse play.

I actually thought they played half okay. Germany took their chances well that was a large part of the difference between the two sides.

that being said, there is a major flaw in modern coaching which sees 4 fulbacks stand in a straight line across the back, without any attempt to stand goal side of their man. This also happens to a lesser extent in the midfield. Our defenders need to be taught to stand goal side of their player, and mark their player, rather than just stand in a certain position on the field in the hope that the ball or player will eventually come to them. It is clear to me that this is the fault of the way players are taught to play in the modern game, and it costs australian sides time and time again. Fix this up and i think we will improve 100%. It is no coincidence that we have no problems scoring goals, but we cant keep sides scoreless. I believe lack defensive nouse is the reason.

There is also a fault in the way the 4 3 3 is played. It is better described as a 4 5 1, as the Australian forwards usually have at least two players drop back into the midfield, most of the time. Contrast this to Germany who would have forwards breaking at pace and putting pressure on the last man in defence. WE play to narrow and it makes it to easy for them to play around our midfield.

Also, the 2 wider forwards do not play as wingers and they rarely get any wider than the 18 yard box, if they are lucky. This means that australia has no width to play around the defence and put the defence in two minds. Again, this seems to be with the way the 4 3 3 is coached in australia, as it is a common problem.

All that being said, i think you do sometimes need to acknowledge good play and the German's did very well today. Maybe they would have beaten us even if we did all of the above right. Hopefully these players will improve, win their next two games and make the next round.