Pull out that rule book where it says shoulder to shoulders are not allowed.

Cheers.

A heavy loss against one of the big u17 countries and suddenly the whole system is a failure. So typical of the people on this board.

Go back to page 108 and read from there.

Oh well.

wow this nigeria side are going to win heaps of senior world cups.

Ok but it wasn't shoulder to shoulder....

You're right. It's unAustralian to want to do better.

All criticism of coaching methods and technical aspects employed by Australia should be shut down right now.

FMD.

He thinks winning at U-17 WC level is causation for success at senior level and because we aren't winning at U-17 level we won't do well at senior level in the future.

Too bad for him that facts say otherwise.

Yep, had it been against a side like New Zealand I'd be worried.

Our deficiencies exposed.
Naive
Technique
Tactical

Too much emphasis on OUTSIDE players not enough on INSIDE players.

For me keep an eye on Thomas Prisven.

This is such a bullshit argument.

If Australia had won this game you'd be the first (with others) using the result as a validation of the current thinking and philosophy.

You can't have it both ways.

Read a couple of pages, didn't really tell me how you would change the system, just a drill they should be doing.

My video replay says otherwise.

Well if that's all you got out of it this conversation is over.

When have I ever said as much?

Again, another strawman's argument. Care about arguing with facts than hypotheticals? Or is that all you can cling on to as support for your flimsy argument.

the only reason we didn't win this game is because we did not use enough step-overs. We should concentrate more on 1 v 1s.

From watching the games, the technical level of the players has improved but there execution and how to use their technique need huge improvement, not just this game but the other games has exposed what australia has to work in youth development.

Which is become more smarter and how they should use space to create for your teammates, they didn't do no where near enough of this.

Here's a little taster.

And as you'd have observed our final third play (across all age groups at national level) is woefully inadequate. Plus against packed defenses like they have these days (often 2 lines of 4) a winning 1 v 1 duel often puts you into more traffic. (A player like Rogic attacking another player in a 1-1 will have a 2nd defender just behind the first should that player beat the first one.) Second man defending is stuff I learnt 30 years ago.

The slick pass, the quick 1-2, the third man runs, this is where Australia needs to concentrate their coaching in the final third.

and

Tricks, freedom of expression, creativity and game sense, tactical awareness and strategies are not mutually exclusive.

Look at how Japan play those intricate moves around in the final third. Barely a "creative" trick there.

Coach the creativity, go for it, just don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

and

My concern is you have a great 1 v 1 merchant who has no vision.

There are plenty of those blokes around and I would argue that this needs to be taught at an early age too. I would like to see you try and teach an 18 year old "vision". Too late for mine. Probably OK for an out and out striker to not be concerned with a through ball but your backs and mids should be all over it.

"Vision" is built up from years and years of experience that is taught, nurtured and encouraged. Constantly fixating on beating the player in front of you, to the detriment of other aspects of the game, is counterproductive IMO.

As I said there is no point engaging in a 1 v 1 duel unless you are then prepared to do something with the ball which 99 times out of 100 will involve passing the ball off to another player, hopefully in a better position than you.

A beautiful through ball will take out 3 players and make your 1 v 1 duel redundant.

A wall pass will take out the immediate player in front of you with 10 times less risk.

Do you honestly think players are born with "vision" or we need to actively train that into them. I believe they need to be taught that ASAP and from a young age.

I am concerned that "flashier" players may be selected ahead of other types of players when it's not the be all and end all.

Surely fullbacks would be better taught about seeing opportunities up field than beating the immediate player in front of them?

and

I tell my kids to jockey and wait it out. 90% of stepover merchants are waiting for you to commit. When you don't commit, they often don't know what to do. (I would say 9 out of 10 stepover merchants (at the younger levels) can't beat a player if the defender doesn't commit.

Meanwhile you show them towards the line and they're now not as dangerous as they once were.

One thing I rarely see taught to defenders is the fake commitment to the tackle. It is a completely ignored part of the defensive skill set.

To use the above as an example I tell my kids to jockey but if you're confident you can fake a commitment to the tackle and the player with the ball, who's been waiting for you to do just this, will make his move.

Of course you've been waiting for this also and dispossess him.

And that's just for starters.

Open your eyes and you might learn something.

I remember then the last joeys lost to Uzbekistan 4-0 in the under 17 world cup in 2011, the same comments were made.

There is not need to panic but its a good time evaluate what the NC has done well but it has exposed what improvements we can now make going forward.

A excellent learning tool for us.

Evaluate the problem rather than scrap and say start again.

It would have been validation as it would have meant we had beaten the current WC champions.

I agree we need to develop game sense. The only way to do this is for young players to get exposure to different systems/styles against too opposition.... Not in the sheltered COE world in Canberra

This is something Benda Parmer has said in regards to the 433 system as well. A parent of one of the Under 16 kids came on here and said they're instructed to play 433 and that's it. He then went on to dissect why it may not be the best way going forward.

Heresy of course.

I agree with the curriculum but the problem can sometimes be the implementation. The Joeys move the ball around well but there is a lack of imagination and the defending isn't great. I don't agree that the CoE has all the best Australian talent, yet most of the squad was selected from it. My question is why? Who's interests does this benefit?

Everything in regard to player development is heading in the right direction but we must continue to analysis (and be critical) everything in order to improve.

Agree with your sentiments.

Australias biggest problem is fitness, Nigeria were having a rest and taking it easy.
Then when the Australians got tired they attacked and got some goals.
I was much more impressed by the players Australia had at AFC, the rotation of attackers.
Armenakas should never have been taken even as a sub his lack of fitness was evident.
if a player is lazy and unfit at u17 there is an indication that will be a problem for the rest of their career.

They seem to be highly skilled individually that's for sure. Now they need to start getting some other the other aspects of the game into their heads.

results don't matter - ok you can deal with this if you see gains in other areas. But can anyone really say up to the u20s that players look like they're developing well, can hold the ball, pass well or know what to do with it?

That's no statement/troll, genuinely interested to hear from ppl who'd know more than me on it.

How much of our "bad" play was attributed to the great work by the Nigerians ?

Which overseas based would you have selected ? i wouldn't say that Brimmer and Armenakas were stand outs in this tournament

Right now I believe we are still well behind the European Gold Standard.

I have some beliefs opinions as to why?

Diminishing athletic pool in Australia. More and more kids are dropping out of physical activities and those that still are active are have a wider range to chose from.
Lack of street football, the natural successor futsal still under utilized.
The National Curriculum should have had SSG for U12 and U13 ridiculous that they are playing full pitch. At NPL level only encourages selection of early developers.
Lack of parental education that football is not a kicking game.
Early selection and identification is a waste of time money and resources. To often I see kids identified at 11 or 12yo and pushed through the system. To admit the player is not up to it at youth and early senior level is to admit that the system is not perfect and the selection/coaching process is fallable.