|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+xIt seems to me that: 1) The AIS was a pretty good finishing/development school for our young players of the NSL generation. 2) That the AIS was axed by the FFA to save money. 3) Nothing equal or better has replaced the AIS as a finishing/development school for our talented young players. So what is the solution?? Football has changed since that era. The AIS was good in the late 90s and early 2000s for developing players individually - in relative terms- compared to what was occurring in other countries. However, most countries now develop through clubs, as they always have, with players in places like Germany , also spending time in national centres like Clairefontaine in France. The theory espoused by FFA Tech Dept is that the extra NSL Youth football that players played, plus being in clubs where they had exposure to senior players, made them match ready for underage international comps. However, few of these players amounted to much as senior players. This is because they weren't good enough technically. isAll players need to do extra training from their 3-4 days at NTCs etc, often in their own time. Tim Cahill and Mark Viduka have always done extra training to hone striking skills, through their youth, as did Archie, Nathan Burns, Marko Jankovic. If players won't do this, as is probably more the case with the technozombie/geek generation, it isn't the fault of coaches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+xYep. Rather than trying to copy the Dutch we need to be ourselves. The golden gen was influenced by a melting pot of styles including Italian, British, Eastern European, etc and our own unique Australian twang which consisted of high fitness and strong physicality. Now we have Han Bergers and the FFAs shitty Dutch model which fucked everything, we’ve developed nothing close to the era of the golden gen. I guess this is what happens when you bean counters posing as business people hijacking the creative process by mandating their own shitty guidelines and systems. The Dutch manual has clearly failed and we need to fuck it off and take the responsibility for development off the suits and give it back to the grassroots. There is no manual. Designing training sessions is hard work requiring a lot of cerebral planning using current practices. The FFA NC is predicated on Germany, Spain, Holland and France's curricula and methodologies. If you think they are unsuccessful nations, you have an interesting definition of what constitutes failure. There is also a lot of homogeneous content that extrapolates from country to country. Dutch practices have heavily influenced Spanish development through Johann Cruyff. Recently, Ed Ten Cate from the Dutch KNVB, has conducted an overview of what has failed recently in Dutch methodology and has headed to France and Germany to acquire what they are doing well. Football practices constantly change and evolve. ATM we desperately need a FFA TD to re-design how we approach finishing and attacking interplay.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x[quote]
The likes of Guus, Pim, Berger, Baan, Versleijen, had great difficultly coaching our players because unless they had played in Italy or Holland, and to a lesser extent, England, because the tactical senior coaching in the NSL and early HAL was abysmal.
You sprout a lot of garbage. Of the 23 man squad Guus took to Germany in 2006 there were 3 HAL players (Archie, Miligan & Beauchamp) and none of them played any minutes. In 2010 Pim only took 2 HAL players, Culina who recently returned from an extended stay in Europe and Galekovich who was called up because Jones's kid was sick. With so few HAL players participating not sure how they had any difficulty. Pim coached Socceroo teams comprised of all Aussie domestic HAL players in some qualifiers, it may have been Asian Cup, when Euroroos were unavailable, like playing Kuwait at home. He said it was difficult because of most of the HAL players lack of tactical knowledge. Pim also commented how much the HAL has improved in recent years. Source or is it your normal sauce? Pim said the the A League was a like a Bundesliga 2nd Division training session. In recent visits to Oz, Pim has commented how much the HAL has improved tactically since he lived here.
|
|
|
|
|
Arthur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.1K,
Visits: 0
|
There is a reason why we are where we are in football terms at the moment. This year I've met Tom Byer and James Galanis having an indirect hand in getting them to Melbourne to present their methodologies. Someone said to me now they've presented their philosophies what now? And they're right what now? The FFA, State federations and Clubs don't know what to do or how to implement their methods and philosophies. The only problem I have with NC is everyone is doing it to the word. This quote from Zenon Caravella is a good starting point on whats happening but I would suggest he has it wrong in that even ex-players at a high level are also doing the wrong things; There is nothing wrong with this at the very core; coach education is paramount and the fact they’re willing to up-skill themselves is admirable. Is there a place for them in the development chain? Absolutely. Should we be allowing them to coach our elite juniors on the base of a freshly printed degree? No way.For these newly “qualified coaches”, many who have little to no experience playing the game, the National Football Curriculum – a 292 page textbook – becomes their mentor. After all, without it, what else do they have? Ultimately, the ability to draw upon real experiences, nuances and finer details acquired over many thousands of hours of being in the game as a player is simply not there and that insight is priceless as a coach. And so, devoid of free thinking and unwillingness – or genuine lack of knowledge – to break out of the rigid framework, the new Curriculum Fundamentalist is born and along with that, the inevitable happens and his son, the curriculum robot is born. I have to say I'm running out of answers and the only one I'm clinging to at the moment is we lack a strong football culture, this no more evident than the people running the game and a core reason Ange Postecoglou threw his hands in the air in resignation. Right now any decent young footballer I would be saying to them get out of this country now. do yourself a favour if your interested in being the best you can be.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThere is nothing wrong with this at the very core; coach education is paramount and the fact they’re willing to up-skill themselves is admirable. Is there a place for them in the development chain? Absolutely. Should we be allowing them to coach our elite juniors on the base of a freshly printed degree? No way.For these newly “qualified coaches”, many who have little to no experience playing the game, the National Football Curriculum – a 292 page textbook – becomes their mentor. After all, without it, what else do they have? Ultimately, the ability to draw upon real experiences, nuances and finer details acquired over many thousands of hours of being in the game as a player is simply not there and that insight is priceless as a coach. And so, devoid of free thinking and unwillingness – or genuine lack of knowledge – to break out of the rigid framework, the new Curriculum Fundamentalist is born and along with that, the inevitable happens and his son, the curriculum robot is born. Playing the game for a long time helps enormously, but is only useful if these players have had good coaching themselves, otherwise they can pass on poor practices. Former players also need to be upskilled in contemporary coach education. Look at the deficiency of knowledge amongst Ned Zelic, Robbie Slater and Mark Bosnich on the one hand, compared to recently trained coaches like John Aloisi, Craig Foster, Mark Rudan, Craig Moore, et al. Byer is also correct that all elite players need to be coached by people with a decent, long term pro background in the game, but it is important to be able to communicate. Often a communicator/ planner works well in conjunction with a long time pro. What I haven't known, I've sought advice from those who do.
|
|
|
|
|
theFOOTBALLlover
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xThere is nothing wrong with this at the very core; coach education is paramount and the fact they’re willing to up-skill themselves is admirable. Is there a place for them in the development chain? Absolutely. Should we be allowing them to coach our elite juniors on the base of a freshly printed degree? No way.For these newly “qualified coaches”, many who have little to no experience playing the game, the National Football Curriculum – a 292 page textbook – becomes their mentor. After all, without it, what else do they have? Ultimately, the ability to draw upon real experiences, nuances and finer details acquired over many thousands of hours of being in the game as a player is simply not there and that insight is priceless as a coach. And so, devoid of free thinking and unwillingness – or genuine lack of knowledge – to break out of the rigid framework, the new Curriculum Fundamentalist is born and along with that, the inevitable happens and his son, the curriculum robot is born. Playing the game for a long time helps enormously, but is only useful if these players have had good coaching themselves, otherwise they can pass on poor practices. Former players also need to be upskilled in contemporary coach education. Look at the deficiency of knowledge amongst Ned Zelic, Robbie Slater and Mark Bosnich on the one hand, compared to recently trained coaches like John Aloisi, Craig Foster, Mark Rudan, Craig Moore, et al. Byer is also correct that all elite players need to be coached by people with a decent, long term pro background in the game, but it is important to be able to communicate. Often a communicator/ planner works well in conjunction with a long time pro. What I haven't known, I've sought advice from those who do. I completely agree. Elite players have an advantage because, in theory, they would have played under great coaches. However, I've seen plenty of elite footballers who don't know how to coach because they were good players and expect players to be at the same level.
|
|
|
|
|
New Signing
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xThere is nothing wrong with this at the very core; coach education is paramount and the fact they’re willing to up-skill themselves is admirable. Is there a place for them in the development chain? Absolutely. Should we be allowing them to coach our elite juniors on the base of a freshly printed degree? No way.For these newly “qualified coaches”, many who have little to no experience playing the game, the National Football Curriculum – a 292 page textbook – becomes their mentor. After all, without it, what else do they have? Ultimately, the ability to draw upon real experiences, nuances and finer details acquired over many thousands of hours of being in the game as a player is simply not there and that insight is priceless as a coach. And so, devoid of free thinking and unwillingness – or genuine lack of knowledge – to break out of the rigid framework, the new Curriculum Fundamentalist is born and along with that, the inevitable happens and his son, the curriculum robot is born. Playing the game for a long time helps enormously, but is only useful if these players have had good coaching themselves, otherwise they can pass on poor practices. Former players also need to be upskilled in contemporary coach education. Look at the deficiency of knowledge amongst Ned Zelic, Robbie Slater and Mark Bosnich on the one hand, compared to recently trained coaches like John Aloisi, Craig Foster, Mark Rudan, Craig Moore, et al. Byer is also correct that all elite players need to be coached by people with a decent, long term pro background in the game, but it is important to be able to communicate. Often a communicator/ planner works well in conjunction with a long time pro. What I haven't known, I've sought advice from those who do. It's unfortunate that I was able to predict this post coming. You dont need to defend yourself at every turn. As we have discussed time and time again your knowledge of the text book is impeccable. I actually doubt anyone has spent as much time studying the written word surrounding the curriculum and while you may have some benefit as a communicator from your teaching background that will never put you in better stead to coach footballers than someone who has played the game themselves at a decent level. When you play at higher levels you tend to be exposed to better coaches and with each new coach you pick up a little something extra from them, good or bad. You also learn in game what works and what doesn't work. Honestly the best coaches will more than likely come from ex pro's who go about learning the game through coach education. Certainly some exposure to other countries curriculums and coach education would also be of benefit
|
|
|
|
|
theFOOTBALLlover
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xThere is nothing wrong with this at the very core; coach education is paramount and the fact they’re willing to up-skill themselves is admirable. Is there a place for them in the development chain? Absolutely. Should we be allowing them to coach our elite juniors on the base of a freshly printed degree? No way.For these newly “qualified coaches”, many who have little to no experience playing the game, the National Football Curriculum – a 292 page textbook – becomes their mentor. After all, without it, what else do they have? Ultimately, the ability to draw upon real experiences, nuances and finer details acquired over many thousands of hours of being in the game as a player is simply not there and that insight is priceless as a coach. And so, devoid of free thinking and unwillingness – or genuine lack of knowledge – to break out of the rigid framework, the new Curriculum Fundamentalist is born and along with that, the inevitable happens and his son, the curriculum robot is born. Playing the game for a long time helps enormously, but is only useful if these players have had good coaching themselves, otherwise they can pass on poor practices. Former players also need to be upskilled in contemporary coach education. Look at the deficiency of knowledge amongst Ned Zelic, Robbie Slater and Mark Bosnich on the one hand, compared to recently trained coaches like John Aloisi, Craig Foster, Mark Rudan, Craig Moore, et al. Byer is also correct that all elite players need to be coached by people with a decent, long term pro background in the game, but it is important to be able to communicate. Often a communicator/ planner works well in conjunction with a long time pro. What I haven't known, I've sought advice from those who do. It's unfortunate that I was able to predict this post coming. You dont need to defend yourself at every turn. As we have discussed time and time again your knowledge of the text book is impeccable. I actually doubt anyone has spent as much time studying the written word surrounding the curriculum and while you may have some benefit as a communicator from your teaching background that will never put you in better stead to coach footballers than someone who has played the game themselves at a decent level. When you play at higher levels you tend to be exposed to better coaches and with each new coach you pick up a little something extra from them, good or bad. You also learn in game what works and what doesn't work. Honestly the best coaches will more than likely come from ex pro's who go about learning the game through coach education. Certainly some exposure to other countries curriculums and coach education would also be of benefit Coaches learn from working under good coaches. There are different ways of becoming a better coach and you don't have to be an ex pro.
|
|
|
|
|
New Signing
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xThere is nothing wrong with this at the very core; coach education is paramount and the fact they’re willing to up-skill themselves is admirable. Is there a place for them in the development chain? Absolutely. Should we be allowing them to coach our elite juniors on the base of a freshly printed degree? No way.For these newly “qualified coaches”, many who have little to no experience playing the game, the National Football Curriculum – a 292 page textbook – becomes their mentor. After all, without it, what else do they have? Ultimately, the ability to draw upon real experiences, nuances and finer details acquired over many thousands of hours of being in the game as a player is simply not there and that insight is priceless as a coach. And so, devoid of free thinking and unwillingness – or genuine lack of knowledge – to break out of the rigid framework, the new Curriculum Fundamentalist is born and along with that, the inevitable happens and his son, the curriculum robot is born. Playing the game for a long time helps enormously, but is only useful if these players have had good coaching themselves, otherwise they can pass on poor practices. Former players also need to be upskilled in contemporary coach education. Look at the deficiency of knowledge amongst Ned Zelic, Robbie Slater and Mark Bosnich on the one hand, compared to recently trained coaches like John Aloisi, Craig Foster, Mark Rudan, Craig Moore, et al. Byer is also correct that all elite players need to be coached by people with a decent, long term pro background in the game, but it is important to be able to communicate. Often a communicator/ planner works well in conjunction with a long time pro. What I haven't known, I've sought advice from those who do. It's unfortunate that I was able to predict this post coming. You dont need to defend yourself at every turn. As we have discussed time and time again your knowledge of the text book is impeccable. I actually doubt anyone has spent as much time studying the written word surrounding the curriculum and while you may have some benefit as a communicator from your teaching background that will never put you in better stead to coach footballers than someone who has played the game themselves at a decent level. When you play at higher levels you tend to be exposed to better coaches and with each new coach you pick up a little something extra from them, good or bad. You also learn in game what works and what doesn't work. Honestly the best coaches will more than likely come from ex pro's who go about learning the game through coach education. Certainly some exposure to other countries curriculums and coach education would also be of benefit Coaches learn from working under good coaches. There are different ways of becoming a better coach and you don't have to be an ex pro. I didn't say you HAVE to be an ex pro but it will certainly provide you with a better base to be complimented by coach education
|
|
|
|
|
ErogenousZone
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.6K,
Visits: 0
|
I think the word "robots" is a bit harsh & a massive generalisation.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xThere is nothing wrong with this at the very core; coach education is paramount and the fact they’re willing to up-skill themselves is admirable. Is there a place for them in the development chain? Absolutely. Should we be allowing them to coach our elite juniors on the base of a freshly printed degree? No way.For these newly “qualified coaches”, many who have little to no experience playing the game, the National Football Curriculum – a 292 page textbook – becomes their mentor. After all, without it, what else do they have? Ultimately, the ability to draw upon real experiences, nuances and finer details acquired over many thousands of hours of being in the game as a player is simply not there and that insight is priceless as a coach. And so, devoid of free thinking and unwillingness – or genuine lack of knowledge – to break out of the rigid framework, the new Curriculum Fundamentalist is born and along with that, the inevitable happens and his son, the curriculum robot is born. Playing the game for a long time helps enormously, but is only useful if these players have had good coaching themselves, otherwise they can pass on poor practices. Former players also need to be upskilled in contemporary coach education. Look at the deficiency of knowledge amongst Ned Zelic, Robbie Slater and Mark Bosnich on the one hand, compared to recently trained coaches like John Aloisi, Craig Foster, Mark Rudan, Craig Moore, et al. Byer is also correct that all elite players need to be coached by people with a decent, long term pro background in the game, but it is important to be able to communicate. Often a communicator/ planner works well in conjunction with a long time pro. What I haven't known, I've sought advice from those who do. It's unfortunate that I was able to predict this post coming. You dont need to defend yourself at every turn. As we have discussed time and time again your knowledge of the text book is impeccable. I actually doubt anyone has spent as much time studying the written word surrounding the curriculum and while you may have some benefit as a communicator from your teaching background that will never put you in better stead to coach footballers than someone who has played the game themselves at a decent level. Some have fabricated I have never played football to denigrate any opinions I hold. I don't talk about it much , but I have played at these levels: * Under 14 state squad * Underage youth football with two Tassie NPL clubs. * A few senior games with a Tassie NPL club. I quit at 18, so I didn't have a long career. I, like most people who participate on football forums, never played pro football. Only about 0.1 percent oft population do - 1 out of a 1000 players. Nearly all the coaching we had was about physical conditioning ( running laps, sprinting, push ups, sit ups, sand dune runs with sand bags), being harder and tougher than the opposition, and winning th physical battles. It was always our fault for losing, according to our coaches, because we didn't try hard enough. So the training was the antithesis of technical and tactical football, no matter how high a level we played! I've coached concurrently with three former pros, in three different scenarios. They've always left it to me time to plan and organise sessions with me being the head instructor and the main coach. They've done a lot of fine tuning. I've also learnt a lot from their fine tuning too. All three pros didn't really know how to develop ball control sequentially and systematically, like I do. So any coach, in any scenario, can learn from others. Few have learnt more than I have from other more experienced coaches in FFA. So basically I learnt very little from my football coaches, as a player, compared to other sports I've played, like modern karate and tennis! I've learnt a lot about football since I stopped playing and started coaching.
|
|
|
|
|
Arthur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.1K,
Visits: 0
|
If there is a reason for calling the kids robots it’s because everyone is learning football the same way.
This is a problem.
The deficiencies appear when we cannot breakdown opponents who play differently.
Our Clubs should have their own Curriculums.
But don’t know if they’re ready for it.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xThere is nothing wrong with this at the very core; coach education is paramount and the fact they’re willing to up-skill themselves is admirable. Is there a place for them in the development chain? Absolutely. Should we be allowing them to coach our elite juniors on the base of a freshly printed degree? No way.For these newly “qualified coaches”, many who have little to no experience playing the game, the National Football Curriculum – a 292 page textbook – becomes their mentor. After all, without it, what else do they have? Ultimately, the ability to draw upon real experiences, nuances and finer details acquired over many thousands of hours of being in the game as a player is simply not there and that insight is priceless as a coach. And so, devoid of free thinking and unwillingness – or genuine lack of knowledge – to break out of the rigid framework, the new Curriculum Fundamentalist is born and along with that, the inevitable happens and his son, the curriculum robot is born. Playing the game for a long time helps enormously, but is only useful if these players have had good coaching themselves, otherwise they can pass on poor practices. Former players also need to be upskilled in contemporary coach education. Look at the deficiency of knowledge amongst Ned Zelic, Robbie Slater and Mark Bosnich on the one hand, compared to recently trained coaches like John Aloisi, Craig Foster, Mark Rudan, Craig Moore, et al. Byer is also correct that all elite players need to be coached by people with a decent, long term pro background in the game, but it is important to be able to communicate. Often a communicator/ planner works well in conjunction with a long time pro. What I haven't known, I've sought advice from those who do. It's unfortunate that I was able to predict this post coming. You dont need to defend yourself at every turn. As we have discussed time and time again your knowledge of the text book is impeccable. I actually doubt anyone has spent as much time studying the written word surrounding the curriculum and while you may have some benefit as a communicator from your teaching background that will never put you in better stead to coach footballers than someone who has played the game themselves at a decent level. Some have fabricated I have never played football to denigrate any opinions I hold. I don't talk about it much , but I have played at these levels: * Under 14 state squad * Underage youth football with two Tassie NPL clubs. * A few senior games with a Tassie NPL club. I quit at 18, so I didn't have a long career. I, like most people who participate on football forums, never played pro football. Only about 0.1 percent oft population do - 1 out of a 1000 players. So to summarise, quit playing football 43 years ago (1975) and has NEVER played as an adult. BPO and transition the shit outta that.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xThere is nothing wrong with this at the very core; coach education is paramount and the fact they’re willing to up-skill themselves is admirable. Is there a place for them in the development chain? Absolutely. Should we be allowing them to coach our elite juniors on the base of a freshly printed degree? No way.For these newly “qualified coaches”, many who have little to no experience playing the game, the National Football Curriculum – a 292 page textbook – becomes their mentor. After all, without it, what else do they have? Ultimately, the ability to draw upon real experiences, nuances and finer details acquired over many thousands of hours of being in the game as a player is simply not there and that insight is priceless as a coach. And so, devoid of free thinking and unwillingness – or genuine lack of knowledge – to break out of the rigid framework, the new Curriculum Fundamentalist is born and along with that, the inevitable happens and his son, the curriculum robot is born. Playing the game for a long time helps enormously, but is only useful if these players have had good coaching themselves, otherwise they can pass on poor practices. Former players also need to be upskilled in contemporary coach education. Look at the deficiency of knowledge amongst Ned Zelic, Robbie Slater and Mark Bosnich on the one hand, compared to recently trained coaches like John Aloisi, Craig Foster, Mark Rudan, Craig Moore, et al. Byer is also correct that all elite players need to be coached by people with a decent, long term pro background in the game, but it is important to be able to communicate. Often a communicator/ planner works well in conjunction with a long time pro. What I haven't known, I've sought advice from those who do. It's unfortunate that I was able to predict this post coming. You dont need to defend yourself at every turn. As we have discussed time and time again your knowledge of the text book is impeccable. I actually doubt anyone has spent as much time studying the written word surrounding the curriculum and while you may have some benefit as a communicator from your teaching background that will never put you in better stead to coach footballers than someone who has played the game themselves at a decent level. When you play at higher levels you tend to be exposed to better coaches and with each new coach you pick up a little something extra from them, good or bad. You also learn in game what works and what doesn't work. Honestly the best coaches will more than likely come from ex pro's who go about learning the game through coach education. Certainly some exposure to other countries curriculums and coach education would also be of benefit Coaches learn from working under good coaches. There are different ways of becoming a better coach and you don't have to be an ex pro. I didn't say you HAVE to be an ex pro but it will certainly provide you with a better base to be complimented by coach education Yes. It's hard to take someone seriously if they haven't played since Adam was a boy about how to take a cushioned touch away from trouble if they've never done it themselves. If they're explaining a full press or a half press or how to structure themselves in defense then they're on a more solid footing.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
City Sam
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xThere is nothing wrong with this at the very core; coach education is paramount and the fact they’re willing to up-skill themselves is admirable. Is there a place for them in the development chain? Absolutely. Should we be allowing them to coach our elite juniors on the base of a freshly printed degree? No way.For these newly “qualified coaches”, many who have little to no experience playing the game, the National Football Curriculum – a 292 page textbook – becomes their mentor. After all, without it, what else do they have? Ultimately, the ability to draw upon real experiences, nuances and finer details acquired over many thousands of hours of being in the game as a player is simply not there and that insight is priceless as a coach. And so, devoid of free thinking and unwillingness – or genuine lack of knowledge – to break out of the rigid framework, the new Curriculum Fundamentalist is born and along with that, the inevitable happens and his son, the curriculum robot is born. Playing the game for a long time helps enormously, but is only useful if these players have had good coaching themselves, otherwise they can pass on poor practices. Former players also need to be upskilled in contemporary coach education. Look at the deficiency of knowledge amongst Ned Zelic, Robbie Slater and Mark Bosnich on the one hand, compared to recently trained coaches like John Aloisi, Craig Foster, Mark Rudan, Craig Moore, et al. Byer is also correct that all elite players need to be coached by people with a decent, long term pro background in the game, but it is important to be able to communicate. Often a communicator/ planner works well in conjunction with a long time pro. What I haven't known, I've sought advice from those who do. It's unfortunate that I was able to predict this post coming. You dont need to defend yourself at every turn. As we have discussed time and time again your knowledge of the text book is impeccable. I actually doubt anyone has spent as much time studying the written word surrounding the curriculum and while you may have some benefit as a communicator from your teaching background that will never put you in better stead to coach footballers than someone who has played the game themselves at a decent level. Some have fabricated I have never played football to denigrate any opinions I hold. I don't talk about it much , but I have played at these levels: * Under 14 state squad * Underage youth football with two Tassie NPL clubs. * A few senior games with a Tassie NPL club. I quit at 18, so I didn't have a long career. I, like most people who participate on football forums, never played pro football. Only about 0.1 percent oft population do - 1 out of a 1000 players. Nearly all the coaching we had was about physical conditioning ( running laps, sprinting, push ups, sit ups, sand dune runs with sand bags), being harder and tougher than the opposition, and winning th physical battles. It was always our fault for losing, according to our coaches, because we didn't try hard enough. So the training was the antithesis of technical and tactical football, no matter how high a level we played! I've coached concurrently with three former pros, in three different scenarios. They've always left it to me time to plan and organise sessions with me being the head instructor and the main coach. They've done a lot of fine tuning. I've also a lot from their fine tuning too. All three pros didn't really know how to develop ball control sequentially and systematically, like I do. So any coach, in any scenario, can learn from others. Few have learnt more than I have from other more experienced coaches in FFA. So basically I learnt very little from my football coaches, as a player, compared to other sports I've played, like modern karate and tennis! I've learnt a lot about football since I stopped playing and started coaching. You definitely know your stuff but some of the stuff you say really highlights your lack of experience. Such as when you were acting how penalties are a formality and it doesn't matter who takes them because apparently everyone in the team would take them at a high enough level.
|
|
|
|
|
grazorblade
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
We may not be producing robots but there is an argument that we are producing super technical midgets
caletti: 5ft 4
arzani 5ft 7
mcgree 5ft 10
pasquali 5ft 9
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI think the word "robots" is a bit harsh & a massive generalisation. Of course it is. I referee NPL and there's loads of young gun players. Are they at a high enough level? Probably not but we're definitely on the way there. These kids at 13 and 14 (not to mention 15 and 16) play at a level so far above the dross we used to play as kids it's amazing.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
grazorblade
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI think the word "robots" is a bit harsh & a massive generalisation. Of course it is. I referee NPL and there's loads of young gun players. Are they at a high enough level? Probably not but we're definitely on the way there. These kids at 13 and 14 (not to mention 15 and 16) play at a level so far above the dross we used to play as kids it's amazing. good to hear sounds like the 13-14 year olds are a step up from the crop we have at 15-19 which are already technically impressive?
|
|
|
|
|
juniorcoach
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 55,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xJust for an interesting observation the FFA NC got released in mid 2009 and the roll out of the first year of the new system with it would have been in 2010, the kids from 6 or 7 would be 15 or 16 of today.
Not sure if you have read the NC, but 5-9 is "discovery phase" is about kids having fun and not coaching, U9 to U12/13 is skills acquisition so that means the youngest of the first batch is now U17. Easiest way to directly compare the NC impact versus previous generations is to look at performance of the Joeys squads and these are easy enough to find, but if the NC was superior to previous methods then surely results should be better, unfortunately they are not. There will be boneheads on here that will sprout crap about under age results not mattering, its all about the development, yadda yadda, but that is just BS by politically correct "every ones a winner and gets a ribbon" arm chair experts, but anyone who has any real experience with football with tell you, strong juniors lead to strong seniors. The below interview with Matt Crocker who is the English FA’s Head of development is really interesting, particularly in light of their recent success. https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/74879/england-youth-on-the-rise-the-fas-matt-crocker-o.html Lol, this hasnt worked with englands junior females . u17 recently lost 8-1 to germany. Lol, wish our U17's made the Quarter Finals like the U17 English Girls did at last world cup in 2016. Shit I'd be happy if ANY of our junior teams just made it to a junior world cup full stop! Even when I've coached under 12 and under 14 rep teams that feed into state rep teams, the fade out is high to senior level. Unexpected kids often make it to senior NPL level. Precocious stars often fade out. Particularly ones with with big egos and who think they know it all. This is a huge point that I feel is missing within the current make up of the sport! So much emphasis is placed on these early age prodigies and as cliche as it may sound from what I see they are advanced purely due to athleticism in the early stages. Quite a number of great decision makers playing that have not been identified by the State TIDC and therefor the aleague clubs as their scouting method is to purely look at players from the TIDC. In my opinion a large % of the wrong players are getting through the system
|
|
|
|
|
Derider
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xThere is nothing wrong with this at the very core; coach education is paramount and the fact they’re willing to up-skill themselves is admirable. Is there a place for them in the development chain? Absolutely. Should we be allowing them to coach our elite juniors on the base of a freshly printed degree? No way.For these newly “qualified coaches”, many who have little to no experience playing the game, the National Football Curriculum – a 292 page textbook – becomes their mentor. After all, without it, what else do they have? Ultimately, the ability to draw upon real experiences, nuances and finer details acquired over many thousands of hours of being in the game as a player is simply not there and that insight is priceless as a coach. And so, devoid of free thinking and unwillingness – or genuine lack of knowledge – to break out of the rigid framework, the new Curriculum Fundamentalist is born and along with that, the inevitable happens and his son, the curriculum robot is born. Playing the game for a long time helps enormously, but is only useful if these players have had good coaching themselves, otherwise they can pass on poor practices. Former players also need to be upskilled in contemporary coach education. Look at the deficiency of knowledge amongst Ned Zelic, Robbie Slater and Mark Bosnich on the one hand, compared to recently trained coaches like John Aloisi, Craig Foster, Mark Rudan, Craig Moore, et al. Byer is also correct that all elite players need to be coached by people with a decent, long term pro background in the game, but it is important to be able to communicate. Often a communicator/ planner works well in conjunction with a long time pro. What I haven't known, I've sought advice from those who do. It's unfortunate that I was able to predict this post coming. You dont need to defend yourself at every turn. As we have discussed time and time again your knowledge of the text book is impeccable. I actually doubt anyone has spent as much time studying the written word surrounding the curriculum and while you may have some benefit as a communicator from your teaching background that will never put you in better stead to coach footballers than someone who has played the game themselves at a decent level. Some have fabricated I have never played football to denigrate any opinions I hold. I don't talk about it much , but I have played at these levels: * Under 14 state squad * Underage youth football with two Tassie NPL clubs. * A few senior games with a Tassie NPL club. I quit at 18, so I didn't have a long career. I, like most people who participate on football forums, never played pro football. Only about 0.1 percent oft population do - 1 out of a 1000 players. BPO and transition the shit outta that. This is perhaps an embarrassing question in a thread like this, but can someone please tell me once and for all what BPO stands for? I'm pretty sure BP means big penis from the way decentric proudly mentions it in every topic, but I'm stumped on the O.
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+x+x+x+xThere is nothing wrong with this at the very core; coach education is paramount and the fact they’re willing to up-skill themselves is admirable. Is there a place for them in the development chain? Absolutely. Should we be allowing them to coach our elite juniors on the base of a freshly printed degree? No way.For these newly “qualified coaches”, many who have little to no experience playing the game, the National Football Curriculum – a 292 page textbook – becomes their mentor. After all, without it, what else do they have? Ultimately, the ability to draw upon real experiences, nuances and finer details acquired over many thousands of hours of being in the game as a player is simply not there and that insight is priceless as a coach. And so, devoid of free thinking and unwillingness – or genuine lack of knowledge – to break out of the rigid framework, the new Curriculum Fundamentalist is born and along with that, the inevitable happens and his son, the curriculum robot is born. Playing the game for a long time helps enormously, but is only useful if these players have had good coaching themselves, otherwise they can pass on poor practices. Former players also need to be upskilled in contemporary coach education. Look at the deficiency of knowledge amongst Ned Zelic, Robbie Slater and Mark Bosnich on the one hand, compared to recently trained coaches like John Aloisi, Craig Foster, Mark Rudan, Craig Moore, et al. Byer is also correct that all elite players need to be coached by people with a decent, long term pro background in the game, but it is important to be able to communicate. Often a communicator/ planner works well in conjunction with a long time pro. What I haven't known, I've sought advice from those who do. It's unfortunate that I was able to predict this post coming. You dont need to defend yourself at every turn. As we have discussed time and time again your knowledge of the text book is impeccable. I actually doubt anyone has spent as much time studying the written word surrounding the curriculum and while you may have some benefit as a communicator from your teaching background that will never put you in better stead to coach footballers than someone who has played the game themselves at a decent level. All three pros didn't really know how to develop ball control sequentially and systematically, like I do. So any coach, in any scenario, can learn from others. Few have learnt more than I have from other more experienced coaches in FFA. So a person who quit at 18 in 1975 knows how to develop ball control better than 3 ex-pro footballers. . 
|
|
|
|
|
bigpoppa
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xThere is nothing wrong with this at the very core; coach education is paramount and the fact they’re willing to up-skill themselves is admirable. Is there a place for them in the development chain? Absolutely. Should we be allowing them to coach our elite juniors on the base of a freshly printed degree? No way.For these newly “qualified coaches”, many who have little to no experience playing the game, the National Football Curriculum – a 292 page textbook – becomes their mentor. After all, without it, what else do they have? Ultimately, the ability to draw upon real experiences, nuances and finer details acquired over many thousands of hours of being in the game as a player is simply not there and that insight is priceless as a coach. And so, devoid of free thinking and unwillingness – or genuine lack of knowledge – to break out of the rigid framework, the new Curriculum Fundamentalist is born and along with that, the inevitable happens and his son, the curriculum robot is born. Playing the game for a long time helps enormously, but is only useful if these players have had good coaching themselves, otherwise they can pass on poor practices. Former players also need to be upskilled in contemporary coach education. Look at the deficiency of knowledge amongst Ned Zelic, Robbie Slater and Mark Bosnich on the one hand, compared to recently trained coaches like John Aloisi, Craig Foster, Mark Rudan, Craig Moore, et al. Byer is also correct that all elite players need to be coached by people with a decent, long term pro background in the game, but it is important to be able to communicate. Often a communicator/ planner works well in conjunction with a long time pro. What I haven't known, I've sought advice from those who do. It's unfortunate that I was able to predict this post coming. You dont need to defend yourself at every turn. As we have discussed time and time again your knowledge of the text book is impeccable. I actually doubt anyone has spent as much time studying the written word surrounding the curriculum and while you may have some benefit as a communicator from your teaching background that will never put you in better stead to coach footballers than someone who has played the game themselves at a decent level. Some have fabricated I have never played football to denigrate any opinions I hold. I don't talk about it much , but I have played at these levels: * Under 14 state squad * Underage youth football with two Tassie NPL clubs. * A few senior games with a Tassie NPL club. I quit at 18, so I didn't have a long career. I, like most people who participate on football forums, never played pro football. Only about 0.1 percent oft population do - 1 out of a 1000 players. BPO and transition the shit outta that. This is perhaps an embarrassing question in a thread like this, but can someone please tell me once and for all what BPO stands for? I'm pretty sure BP means big penis from the way decentric proudly mentions it in every topic, but I'm stumped on the O. Ball Possession Opposition Essentially when your team is defending.
|
|
|
|
|
grazorblade
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xThere is nothing wrong with this at the very core; coach education is paramount and the fact they’re willing to up-skill themselves is admirable. Is there a place for them in the development chain? Absolutely. Should we be allowing them to coach our elite juniors on the base of a freshly printed degree? No way.For these newly “qualified coaches”, many who have little to no experience playing the game, the National Football Curriculum – a 292 page textbook – becomes their mentor. After all, without it, what else do they have? Ultimately, the ability to draw upon real experiences, nuances and finer details acquired over many thousands of hours of being in the game as a player is simply not there and that insight is priceless as a coach. And so, devoid of free thinking and unwillingness – or genuine lack of knowledge – to break out of the rigid framework, the new Curriculum Fundamentalist is born and along with that, the inevitable happens and his son, the curriculum robot is born. Playing the game for a long time helps enormously, but is only useful if these players have had good coaching themselves, otherwise they can pass on poor practices. Former players also need to be upskilled in contemporary coach education. Look at the deficiency of knowledge amongst Ned Zelic, Robbie Slater and Mark Bosnich on the one hand, compared to recently trained coaches like John Aloisi, Craig Foster, Mark Rudan, Craig Moore, et al. Byer is also correct that all elite players need to be coached by people with a decent, long term pro background in the game, but it is important to be able to communicate. Often a communicator/ planner works well in conjunction with a long time pro. What I haven't known, I've sought advice from those who do. It's unfortunate that I was able to predict this post coming. You dont need to defend yourself at every turn. As we have discussed time and time again your knowledge of the text book is impeccable. I actually doubt anyone has spent as much time studying the written word surrounding the curriculum and while you may have some benefit as a communicator from your teaching background that will never put you in better stead to coach footballers than someone who has played the game themselves at a decent level. Some have fabricated I have never played football to denigrate any opinions I hold. I don't talk about it much , but I have played at these levels: * Under 14 state squad * Underage youth football with two Tassie NPL clubs. * A few senior games with a Tassie NPL club. I quit at 18, so I didn't have a long career. I, like most people who participate on football forums, never played pro football. Only about 0.1 percent oft population do - 1 out of a 1000 players. BPO and transition the shit outta that. This is perhaps an embarrassing question in a thread like this, but can someone please tell me once and for all what BPO stands for? I'm pretty sure BP means big penis from the way decentric proudly mentions it in every topic, but I'm stumped on the O. bp is ball possession bpo is ball possession opposition bpo basically means the other team have the ball and aren't in transition (say making a counter attack)
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+x+x+xThere is nothing wrong with this at the very core; coach education is paramount and the fact they’re willing to up-skill themselves is admirable. Is there a place for them in the development chain? Absolutely. Should we be allowing them to coach our elite juniors on the base of a freshly printed degree? No way.For these newly “qualified coaches”, many who have little to no experience playing the game, the National Football Curriculum – a 292 page textbook – becomes their mentor. After all, without it, what else do they have? Ultimately, the ability to draw upon real experiences, nuances and finer details acquired over many thousands of hours of being in the game as a player is simply not there and that insight is priceless as a coach. And so, devoid of free thinking and unwillingness – or genuine lack of knowledge – to break out of the rigid framework, the new Curriculum Fundamentalist is born and along with that, the inevitable happens and his son, the curriculum robot is born. Playing the game for a long time helps enormously, but is only useful if these players have had good coaching themselves, otherwise they can pass on poor practices. Former players also need to be upskilled in contemporary coach education. Look at the deficiency of knowledge amongst Ned Zelic, Robbie Slater and Mark Bosnich on the one hand, compared to recently trained coaches like John Aloisi, Craig Foster, Mark Rudan, Craig Moore, et al. Byer is also correct that all elite players need to be coached by people with a decent, long term pro background in the game, but it is important to be able to communicate. Often a communicator/ planner works well in conjunction with a long time pro. What I haven't known, I've sought advice from those who do. Honestly the best coaches will more than likely come from ex pro's who go about learning the game through coach education. Certainly some exposure to other countries curriculums and coach education would also be of benefit This is 100% correct. The higher the level a player has played at the better the coach he will be as textbooks and Youtube can never replace real world experience and understanding. The problem we have right now is that too many people who have no idea about football pick up coaching credentials and become experts, sprouting crap about milieu and nebulous BPO to BP concepts. .When I did my C License, there was a cricketer who had never played at any level and he is out there now teaching kids.I know of another club that had a B-Licence TD who also never played and watching him in action made me cringe, surprisingly he was sacked after 12M but can you imagine the damage he did. It was mentioned earlier, because these guys dont' have any real world experience their only reference is the FFA NC so they naturally teach kids to be robots as they dont know anything else.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xThere is nothing wrong with this at the very core; coach education is paramount and the fact they’re willing to up-skill themselves is admirable. Is there a place for them in the development chain? Absolutely. Should we be allowing them to coach our elite juniors on the base of a freshly printed degree? No way.For these newly “qualified coaches”, many who have little to no experience playing the game, the National Football Curriculum – a 292 page textbook – becomes their mentor. After all, without it, what else do they have? Ultimately, the ability to draw upon real experiences, nuances and finer details acquired over many thousands of hours of being in the game as a player is simply not there and that insight is priceless as a coach. And so, devoid of free thinking and unwillingness – or genuine lack of knowledge – to break out of the rigid framework, the new Curriculum Fundamentalist is born and along with that, the inevitable happens and his son, the curriculum robot is born. Playing the game for a long time helps enormously, but is only useful if these players have had good coaching themselves, otherwise they can pass on poor practices. Former players also need to be upskilled in contemporary coach education. Look at the deficiency of knowledge amongst Ned Zelic, Robbie Slater and Mark Bosnich on the one hand, compared to recently trained coaches like John Aloisi, Craig Foster, Mark Rudan, Craig Moore, et al. Byer is also correct that all elite players need to be coached by people with a decent, long term pro background in the game, but it is important to be able to communicate. Often a communicator/ planner works well in conjunction with a long time pro. What I haven't known, I've sought advice from those who do. It's unfortunate that I was able to predict this post coming. You dont need to defend yourself at every turn. As we have discussed time and time again your knowledge of the text book is impeccable. I actually doubt anyone has spent as much time studying the written word surrounding the curriculum and while you may have some benefit as a communicator from your teaching background that will never put you in better stead to coach footballers than someone who has played the game themselves at a decent level. Some have fabricated I have never played football to denigrate any opinions I hold. I don't talk about it much , but I have played at these levels: * Under 14 state squad * Underage youth football with two Tassie NPL clubs. * A few senior games with a Tassie NPL club. I quit at 18, so I didn't have a long career. I, like most people who participate on football forums, never played pro football. Only about 0.1 percent oft population do - 1 out of a 1000 players. Nearly all the coaching we had was about physical conditioning ( running laps, sprinting, push ups, sit ups, sand dune runs with sand bags), being harder and tougher than the opposition, and winning th physical battles. It was always our fault for losing, according to our coaches, because we didn't try hard enough. So the training was the antithesis of technical and tactical football, no matter how high a level we played! I've coached concurrently with three former pros, in three different scenarios. They've always left it to me time to plan and organise sessions with me being the head instructor and the main coach. They've done a lot of fine tuning. I've also a lot from their fine tuning too. All three pros didn't really know how to develop ball control sequentially and systematically, like I do. So any coach, in any scenario, can learn from others. Few have learnt more than I have from other more experienced coaches in FFA. So basically I learnt very little from my football coaches, as a player, compared to other sports I've played, like modern karate and tennis! I've learnt a lot about football since I stopped playing and started coaching. You definitely know your stuff but some of the stuff you say really highlights your lack of experience. Such as when you were acting how penalties are a formality and it doesn't matter who takes them because apparently everyone in the team would take them at a high enough level. I used it in the context for not recruiting import strikers to the HAL to take penalties. At one point last season the imported strikers had scored a lot of goals, a high percentage being penalties.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xThere is nothing wrong with this at the very core; coach education is paramount and the fact they’re willing to up-skill themselves is admirable. Is there a place for them in the development chain? Absolutely. Should we be allowing them to coach our elite juniors on the base of a freshly printed degree? No way.For these newly “qualified coaches”, many who have little to no experience playing the game, the National Football Curriculum – a 292 page textbook – becomes their mentor. After all, without it, what else do they have? Ultimately, the ability to draw upon real experiences, nuances and finer details acquired over many thousands of hours of being in the game as a player is simply not there and that insight is priceless as a coach. And so, devoid of free thinking and unwillingness – or genuine lack of knowledge – to break out of the rigid framework, the new Curriculum Fundamentalist is born and along with that, the inevitable happens and his son, the curriculum robot is born. Playing the game for a long time helps enormously, but is only useful if these players have had good coaching themselves, otherwise they can pass on poor practices. Former players also need to be upskilled in contemporary coach education. Look at the deficiency of knowledge amongst Ned Zelic, Robbie Slater and Mark Bosnich on the one hand, compared to recently trained coaches like John Aloisi, Craig Foster, Mark Rudan, Craig Moore, et al. Byer is also correct that all elite players need to be coached by people with a decent, long term pro background in the game, but it is important to be able to communicate. Often a communicator/ planner works well in conjunction with a long time pro. What I haven't known, I've sought advice from those who do. It's unfortunate that I was able to predict this post coming. You dont need to defend yourself at every turn. As we have discussed time and time again your knowledge of the text book is impeccable. I actually doubt anyone has spent as much time studying the written word surrounding the curriculum and while you may have some benefit as a communicator from your teaching background that will never put you in better stead to coach footballers than someone who has played the game themselves at a decent level. All three pros didn't really know how to develop ball control sequentially and systematically, like I do. So any coach, in any scenario, can learn from others. Few have learnt more than I have from other more experienced coaches in FFA. So a person who quit at 18 in 1975 knows how to develop ball control better than 3 ex-pro footballers. . If you've seen some of the lower league youth programs for ball control, essentially dribbling and running with the ball in English football, they are not that good. Comparatively, at Chelsea, PSV, Ajax, Barca and Arsenal they are outstanding. Some former pros, don't know how to impart a few of the Brazilian techniques. All these three pros had finished by the time they were 25, either through injury or because of low wages. Unless in the top leagues, football pays poorly. One scout/agent on this forum states that many experienced NPL players in Oz, knock back HAL contracts for 12 months, because of lower wages than their professions /trades.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xThere is nothing wrong with this at the very core; coach education is paramount and the fact they’re willing to up-skill themselves is admirable. Is there a place for them in the development chain? Absolutely. Should we be allowing them to coach our elite juniors on the base of a freshly printed degree? No way.For these newly “qualified coaches”, many who have little to no experience playing the game, the National Football Curriculum – a 292 page textbook – becomes their mentor. After all, without it, what else do they have? Ultimately, the ability to draw upon real experiences, nuances and finer details acquired over many thousands of hours of being in the game as a player is simply not there and that insight is priceless as a coach. And so, devoid of free thinking and unwillingness – or genuine lack of knowledge – to break out of the rigid framework, the new Curriculum Fundamentalist is born and along with that, the inevitable happens and his son, the curriculum robot is born. Playing the game for a long time helps enormously, but is only useful if these players have had good coaching themselves, otherwise they can pass on poor practices. Former players also need to be upskilled in contemporary coach education. Look at the deficiency of knowledge amongst Ned Zelic, Robbie Slater and Mark Bosnich on the one hand, compared to recently trained coaches like John Aloisi, Craig Foster, Mark Rudan, Craig Moore, et al. Byer is also correct that all elite players need to be coached by people with a decent, long term pro background in the game, but it is important to be able to communicate. Often a communicator/ planner works well in conjunction with a long time pro. What I haven't known, I've sought advice from those who do. Honestly the best coaches will more than likely come from ex pro's who go about learning the game through coach education. Certainly some exposure to other countries curriculums and coach education would also be of benefit The problem we have right now is that too many people who have no idea about football pick up coaching credentials and become experts, sprouting crap about milieu and nebulous BPO to BP concepts. .When I did my C License, there was a cricketer who had never played at any level and he is out there now teaching kids.I know of another club that had a B-Licence TD who also never played and watching him in action made me cringe, surprisingly he was sacked after 12M but can you imagine the damage he did. It was mentioned earlier, because these guys dont' have any real world experience their only reference is the FFA NC so they naturally teach kids to be robots as they dont know anything else. If you don't know the concepts of BP and BPO you must have done your C Licence a long time ago - well before 2008. They are fundamental and integral parts of the four main moments of the game in France, Germany, Spain, Holland and Belgium. They are not 'crap' concepts, but an integral part of modern football. To do a C Licence now, one has to have a senior Licence or a Game Training ( former youth licence) certificate at least. One current FFA coach educator claims the current FFA C Licence is a much higher coaching accreditation than the former A Licence in the 90s.
|
|
|
|
|
LFC.
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xJust for an interesting observation the FFA NC got released in mid 2009 and the roll out of the first year of the new system with it would have been in 2010, the kids from 6 or 7 would be 15 or 16 of today.
Not sure if you have read the NC, but 5-9 is "discovery phase" is about kids having fun and not coaching, U9 to U12/13 is skills acquisition so that means the youngest of the first batch is now U17. Easiest way to directly compare the NC impact versus previous generations is to look at performance of the Joeys squads and these are easy enough to find, but if the NC was superior to previous methods then surely results should be better, unfortunately they are not. There will be boneheads on here that will sprout crap about under age results not mattering, its all about the development, yadda yadda, but that is just BS by politically correct "every ones a winner and gets a ribbon" arm chair experts, but anyone who has any real experience with football with tell you, strong juniors lead to strong seniors. The below interview with Matt Crocker who is the English FA’s Head of development is really interesting, particularly in light of their recent success. https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/74879/england-youth-on-the-rise-the-fas-matt-crocker-o.html Lol, this hasnt worked with englands junior females . u17 recently lost 8-1 to germany. Lol, wish our U17's made the Quarter Finals like the U17 English Girls did at last world cup in 2016. Shit I'd be happy if ANY of our junior teams just made it to a junior world cup full stop! Even when I've coached under 12 and under 14 rep teams that feed into state rep teams, the fade out is high to senior level. Unexpected kids often make it to senior NPL level. Precocious stars often fade out. Particularly ones with with big egos and who think they know it all. This is a huge point that I feel is missing within the current make up of the sport! So much emphasis is placed on these early age prodigies and as cliche as it may sound from what I see they are advanced purely due to athleticism in the early stages. Quite a number of great decision makers playing that have not been identified by the State TIDC and therefor the aleague clubs as their scouting method is to purely look at players from the TIDC. In my opinion a large % of the wrong players are getting through the system A very very good point the last 10yrs at least. Having been around the traps on the sideline at PL3 YL trials in Sydney and observing next level up I stagger at who's picked and not. A taller physical kid with less technical skill most times gets in compared to a shorter more skillful kid, its been size over matter so as the club can win games the coming season. The talented kid and parents obviously annoyed walk away wonder WTF. May go to another club as long as spaces are available for most Trials are set similar times, may get in or even goes back to Club. juniourcoach this is what I'm understanding on your post ?. grazorblade, I'd like to see theFootballlover's POV for he has been around my traps and carrying on from juniourcoach's post when SFC/WWW went around plucking what they consider the best YL and up for their YL teams etc they could have looked also at PL2/3 for the potentials I've watched over the years have been impressive. Even up to current U18's their skill and play level is way above the times I was in Rep back in the bitter days as some suggest let alone just 10yrs ago. I get excited watching these kids nearly every match weekend. There is some really dangerous potential players that IF they ever could get spotted with better coaching/philosophies/guidance we don't know otherwise. Some might end up at PL1 sooner or later or just go back to State/SL levels for trying to make Trials in Sydney is so challenging, most clubs hold them similar times, club TD's have their agendas, maybe they should open their blinkers a little more at times as well. Its a melting pot and very disappointing imo for we do have the youth talent, were not picking them up.
Love Football
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xThere is nothing wrong with this at the very core; coach education is paramount and the fact they’re willing to up-skill themselves is admirable. Is there a place for them in the development chain? Absolutely. Should we be allowing them to coach our elite juniors on the base of a freshly printed degree? No way.For these newly “qualified coaches”, many who have little to no experience playing the game, the National Football Curriculum – a 292 page textbook – becomes their mentor. After all, without it, what else do they have? Ultimately, the ability to draw upon real experiences, nuances and finer details acquired over many thousands of hours of being in the game as a player is simply not there and that insight is priceless as a coach. And so, devoid of free thinking and unwillingness – or genuine lack of knowledge – to break out of the rigid framework, the new Curriculum Fundamentalist is born and along with that, the inevitable happens and his son, the curriculum robot is born. Playing the game for a long time helps enormously, but is only useful if these players have had good coaching themselves, otherwise they can pass on poor practices. Former players also need to be upskilled in contemporary coach education. Look at the deficiency of knowledge amongst Ned Zelic, Robbie Slater and Mark Bosnich on the one hand, compared to recently trained coaches like John Aloisi, Craig Foster, Mark Rudan, Craig Moore, et al. Byer is also correct that all elite players need to be coached by people with a decent, long term pro background in the game, but it is important to be able to communicate. Often a communicator/ planner works well in conjunction with a long time pro. What I haven't known, I've sought advice from those who do. Honestly the best coaches will more than likely come from ex pro's who go about learning the game through coach education. Certainly some exposure to other countries curriculums and coach education would also be of benefit This is 100% correct. The higher the level a player has played at the better the coach he will be as textbooks and Youtube can never replace real world experience and understanding. To a point. The biggest part of coaching is communication. It depends on the communication skills of the former pro. It also depends on their coach education and who coached them. It also depends on their predisposition to seek advice to find solutions to problems they don't know how to solve.
|
|
|
|
|
juniorcoach
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 55,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xJust for an interesting observation the FFA NC got released in mid 2009 and the roll out of the first year of the new system with it would have been in 2010, the kids from 6 or 7 would be 15 or 16 of today.
Not sure if you have read the NC, but 5-9 is "discovery phase" is about kids having fun and not coaching, U9 to U12/13 is skills acquisition so that means the youngest of the first batch is now U17. Easiest way to directly compare the NC impact versus previous generations is to look at performance of the Joeys squads and these are easy enough to find, but if the NC was superior to previous methods then surely results should be better, unfortunately they are not. There will be boneheads on here that will sprout crap about under age results not mattering, its all about the development, yadda yadda, but that is just BS by politically correct "every ones a winner and gets a ribbon" arm chair experts, but anyone who has any real experience with football with tell you, strong juniors lead to strong seniors. The below interview with Matt Crocker who is the English FA’s Head of development is really interesting, particularly in light of their recent success. https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/74879/england-youth-on-the-rise-the-fas-matt-crocker-o.html Lol, this hasnt worked with englands junior females . u17 recently lost 8-1 to germany. Lol, wish our U17's made the Quarter Finals like the U17 English Girls did at last world cup in 2016. Shit I'd be happy if ANY of our junior teams just made it to a junior world cup full stop! Even when I've coached under 12 and under 14 rep teams that feed into state rep teams, the fade out is high to senior level. Unexpected kids often make it to senior NPL level. Precocious stars often fade out. Particularly ones with with big egos and who think they know it all. This is a huge point that I feel is missing within the current make up of the sport! So much emphasis is placed on these early age prodigies and as cliche as it may sound from what I see they are advanced purely due to athleticism in the early stages. Quite a number of great decision makers playing that have not been identified by the State TIDC and therefor the aleague clubs as their scouting method is to purely look at players from the TIDC. In my opinion a large % of the wrong players are getting through the system A very very good point the last 10yrs at least. Having been around the traps on the sideline at PL3 YL trials in Sydney and observing next level up I stagger at who's picked and not. A taller physical kid with less technical skill most times gets in compared to a shorter more skillful kid, its been size over matter so as the club can win games the coming season. The talented kid and parents obviously annoyed walk away wonder WTF. May go to another club as long as spaces are available for most Trials are set similar times, may get in or even goes back to Club. juniourcoach this is what I'm understanding on your post ?. grazorblade, I'd like to see theFootballlover's POV for he has been around my traps and carrying on from juniourcoach's post when SFC/WWW went around plucking what they consider the best YL and up for their YL teams etc they could have looked also at PL2/3 for the potentials I've watched over the years have been impressive. Even up to current U18's their skill and play level is way above the times I was in Rep back in the bitter days as some suggest let alone just 10yrs ago. I get excited watching these kids nearly every match weekend. There is some really dangerous potential players that IF they ever could get spotted with better coaching/philosophies/guidance we don't know otherwise. Some might end up at PL1 sooner or later or just go back to State/SL levels for trying to make Trials in Sydney is so challenging, most clubs hold them similar times, club TD's have their agendas, maybe they should open their blinkers a little more at times as well. Its a melting pot and very disappointing imo for we do have the youth talent, were not picking them up. Good post LFC From my observations its the ultra short and the ultra tall that are missing out in the early stages. The average size who are fully in tune with their bodies at young age are at peak condition in the early stages and show best athleticism. The ultra short obviously have physical limitation and the ultra tall are gangly and quite slow and weak (growth spurt stage). But I have seen some class players that fall in to these two brackets being overlooked due to physical issues. The decision making with some of these players is quite excellent though as they need to think quicker and smarter whilst dealing with these physical in-capabilities. I have seen a number of players in TIDC/Aleague academies who are able to cover up flaws due to an extremely high physical and athletic capability rather than decision making and technical. I think this goes back to Decentric post where we see a lot of these "early adopters" fade away and the unlikely shine later down the track. Big difference to how clubs overseas tackle this important issue. You also need to remember that VIC/NSW want to beat each other at nationals every year to show which state is doing things better so in the meantime the ultra short/tall do not fit into state federations achieving that. Hope this makes sense
|
|
|
|