|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xI am becoming more and more convinced that youth development and football in general is suffering from the stodgy one size fits all National Curriculum. I believe it is based on the Dutch system and the 443 playing formation. No one plays 443 at present. We need to modernise and show kids different and varying systems from about age ten on . These kids are smarter than we think and can handle it. We also need to let kids play and "show off a bit" if they have some flair...don't coach it out of them...encourage it . Also ....whilst we needed to get away from the "ethnic" image the old NSL had we have taken it too far . In the NSL days you had clubs playing varying styles of football. The Croations had free flowing individuals , the Italians a bit of everything , the Dutch were different again . Each team had varying nationalties playing and coaching . It made for some exciting football. When you went to NSL games you got different styles depending on who your team was playing . It was good to watch and play . Now we have teams all playing similar styles and no one wants to break out of the mould. Remember when Ange dared to do it ? "Roarcelona" were born and excited the league for a few years. We need both junior and senior clubs to be more individual and play different styles. Our playing style is stale and predictable. The crowds need to see players who do unexpected things ...to get that junior players have to be allowed to try things as they progress. What the eclectic approach showed though, was little success in international football. All powerhouses tend to have systems of play they adhere to. There is a lot of common ground in powerhouses, with Italy proving to be the exception. Italy tend to be the only powerhouse deploying a different approach. Can you explain how Brazil and Argentina have won so many WC's without a NC? The FFA football educators who have educated you in your C Licence, have argued they do, within a context of playing Proactive football.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Midfielder
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
the real answer or the start of the answer is 1973...
|
|
|
|
|
City Sam
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xI am becoming more and more convinced that youth development and football in general is suffering from the stodgy one size fits all National Curriculum. I believe it is based on the Dutch system and the 443 playing formation. No one plays 443 at present. We need to modernise and show kids different and varying systems from about age ten on . These kids are smarter than we think and can handle it. We also need to let kids play and "show off a bit" if they have some flair...don't coach it out of them...encourage it . Also ....whilst we needed to get away from the "ethnic" image the old NSL had we have taken it too far . In the NSL days you had clubs playing varying styles of football. The Croations had free flowing individuals , the Italians a bit of everything , the Dutch were different again . Each team had varying nationalties playing and coaching . It made for some exciting football. When you went to NSL games you got different styles depending on who your team was playing . It was good to watch and play . Now we have teams all playing similar styles and no one wants to break out of the mould. Remember when Ange dared to do it ? "Roarcelona" were born and excited the league for a few years. We need both junior and senior clubs to be more individual and play different styles. Our playing style is stale and predictable. The crowds need to see players who do unexpected things ...to get that junior players have to be allowed to try things as they progress. What the eclectic approach showed though, was little success in international football. All powerhouses tend to have systems of play they adhere to. There is a lot of common ground in powerhouses, with Italy proving to be the exception. Italy tend to be the only powerhouse deploying a different approach. But what they don't take into account is the resources and number of potential players in these countries. They can train and play against the best quality of opposition at their age groups all the way into top quality clubs. That's where the advantage is and by proxy of having the best players they will dominate games more and be more attacking by nature of being the better team. We aren't any of this, what we are closer too is the old English model of excluding players because they don't fit the mould of what they want. We want robots, not any flair and selfishness in players. Wrong. There is nothing about producing robots. You need to gain greater insight in order to pontificate. The point you make about greater resources in these countries is true though. The only reason you say it is wrong is because you way too involved from the inside. There's a reason literally everyone from the outside including very well respected people in the game say the same thing. The systems in place don't conduce creative thinking and individuality, what makes it worse in Australia than other countries is that elsewhere these kids will play a lot more football outside the systems they have in place. They get the higher quality training aswell as getting a bit of individuality. South Americans are so technically brilliant because they play on the street all day, they develop these technical skills and the sooner the NC realises we aren't the same as these countries and adapts we might actually start producing strikers again for example.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xI am becoming more and more convinced that youth development and football in general is suffering from the stodgy one size fits all National Curriculum. I believe it is based on the Dutch system and the 443 playing formation. No one plays 443 at present. We need to modernise and show kids different and varying systems from about age ten on . These kids are smarter than we think and can handle it. We also need to let kids play and "show off a bit" if they have some flair...don't coach it out of them...encourage it . Also ....whilst we needed to get away from the "ethnic" image the old NSL had we have taken it too far . In the NSL days you had clubs playing varying styles of football. The Croations had free flowing individuals , the Italians a bit of everything , the Dutch were different again . Each team had varying nationalties playing and coaching . It made for some exciting football. When you went to NSL games you got different styles depending on who your team was playing . It was good to watch and play . Now we have teams all playing similar styles and no one wants to break out of the mould. Remember when Ange dared to do it ? "Roarcelona" were born and excited the league for a few years. We need both junior and senior clubs to be more individual and play different styles. Our playing style is stale and predictable. The crowds need to see players who do unexpected things ...to get that junior players have to be allowed to try things as they progress. What the eclectic approach showed though, was little success in international football. All powerhouses tend to have systems of play they adhere to. There is a lot of common ground in powerhouses, with Italy proving to be the exception. Italy tend to be the only powerhouse deploying a different approach. You do realize that the vast majority of players who played in the teams that have qualified were NSL products? Do you also realise that neither Ange nor Arnie play the 433 depicted in the NC. Plus I would challenge anyone to describe Bert van Marwijk's tactics in the last WC as meeting the NC philosophy (below for those interested): A proactive brand of football, based on effective possession with the cutting edge provided by creative individuals.
Defensively the key components are quick transition and intelligent collective pressing.
The Playing Style is underpinned by a strong ‘team mentality’, capitalising on Australia’s traditional strengths. BVM played within the parameters of a 1-4-3-3. Ange did mainly until he deployed that 3 at the back experimental formation and a flirtation with 4-4-2. Arnie chops and changes his formations. Unlike Holland's' KNVB, there is no edict for senior national Aussie teams to play a 1-4-3-3.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xI am becoming more and more convinced that youth development and football in general is suffering from the stodgy one size fits all National Curriculum. I believe it is based on the Dutch system and the 443 playing formation. No one plays 443 at present. We need to modernise and show kids different and varying systems from about age ten on . These kids are smarter than we think and can handle it. We also need to let kids play and "show off a bit" if they have some flair...don't coach it out of them...encourage it . Also ....whilst we needed to get away from the "ethnic" image the old NSL had we have taken it too far . In the NSL days you had clubs playing varying styles of football. The Croations had free flowing individuals , the Italians a bit of everything , the Dutch were different again . Each team had varying nationalties playing and coaching . It made for some exciting football. When you went to NSL games you got different styles depending on who your team was playing . It was good to watch and play . Now we have teams all playing similar styles and no one wants to break out of the mould. Remember when Ange dared to do it ? "Roarcelona" were born and excited the league for a few years. We need both junior and senior clubs to be more individual and play different styles. Our playing style is stale and predictable. The crowds need to see players who do unexpected things ...to get that junior players have to be allowed to try things as they progress. What the eclectic approach showed though, was little success in international football. All powerhouses tend to have systems of play they adhere to. There is a lot of common ground in powerhouses, with Italy proving to be the exception. Italy tend to be the only powerhouse deploying a different approach. But what they don't take into account is the resources and number of potential players in these countries. They can train and play against the best quality of opposition at their age groups all the way into top quality clubs. That's where the advantage is and by proxy of having the best players they will dominate games more and be more attacking by nature of being the better team. We aren't any of this, what we are closer too is the old English model of excluding players because they don't fit the mould of what they want. We want robots, not any flair and selfishness in players. Wrong. There is nothing about producing robots. You need to gain greater insight in order to pontificate. The point you make about greater resources in these countries is true though. The only reason you say it is wrong is because you way too involved from the inside. There's a reason literally everyone from the outside including very well respected people in the game say the same thing. The systems in place don't conduce creative thinking and individuality, what makes it worse in Australia than other countries is that elsewhere these kids will play a lot more football outside the systems they have in place. They get the higher quality training aswell as getting a bit of individuality. South Americans are so technically brilliant because they play on the street all day, they develop these technical skills and the sooner the NC realises we aren't the same as these countries and adapts we might actually start producing strikers again for example. Agree with the second paragraph, but quote who with a depth of knowledge shuns the direction we've taken using the specific football criteria they argue against in your answer.
|
|
|
|
|
notarobot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 733,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xI am becoming more and more convinced that youth development and football in general is suffering from the stodgy one size fits all National Curriculum. I believe it is based on the Dutch system and the 443 playing formation. No one plays 443 at present. We need to modernise and show kids different and varying systems from about age ten on . These kids are smarter than we think and can handle it. We also need to let kids play and "show off a bit" if they have some flair...don't coach it out of them...encourage it . Also ....whilst we needed to get away from the "ethnic" image the old NSL had we have taken it too far . In the NSL days you had clubs playing varying styles of football. The Croations had free flowing individuals , the Italians a bit of everything , the Dutch were different again . Each team had varying nationalties playing and coaching . It made for some exciting football. When you went to NSL games you got different styles depending on who your team was playing . It was good to watch and play . Now we have teams all playing similar styles and no one wants to break out of the mould. Remember when Ange dared to do it ? "Roarcelona" were born and excited the league for a few years. We need both junior and senior clubs to be more individual and play different styles. Our playing style is stale and predictable. The crowds need to see players who do unexpected things ...to get that junior players have to be allowed to try things as they progress. What the eclectic approach showed though, was little success in international football. All powerhouses tend to have systems of play they adhere to. There is a lot of common ground in powerhouses, with Italy proving to be the exception. Italy tend to be the only powerhouse deploying a different approach. But what they don't take into account is the resources and number of potential players in these countries. They can train and play against the best quality of opposition at their age groups all the way into top quality clubs. That's where the advantage is and by proxy of having the best players they will dominate games more and be more attacking by nature of being the better team. We aren't any of this, what we are closer too is the old English model of excluding players because they don't fit the mould of what they want. We want robots, not any flair and selfishness in players. Wrong. There is nothing about producing robots. You need to gain greater insight in order to pontificate. The point you make about greater resources in these countries is true though. The only reason you say it is wrong is because you way too involved from the inside. There's a reason literally everyone from the outside including very well respected people in the game say the same thing. The systems in place don't conduce creative thinking and individuality, what makes it worse in Australia than other countries is that elsewhere these kids will play a lot more football outside the systems they have in place. They get the higher quality training aswell as getting a bit of individuality. South Americans are so technically brilliant because they play on the street all day, they develop these technical skills and the sooner the NC realises we aren't the same as these countries and adapts we might actually start producing strikers again for example. Agree with the second paragraph, but quote who with a depth of knowledge shuns the direction we've taken using the specific football criteria they argue against in your answer. Quite simple reason for all of this is we as a sport do not get the better kids from the beginning ,mostly due to the fact that Soccer is the fourth most popular sport in the country and also the cost to play the game are often 5 times more expensive than other sports. I have spoken to parents of a player who has been selected for a PYL u13s side next year ,the costs $2300 rego plus compulsory attendance to clubs academy training $1750 ,total cost for one kid to play Soccer at PYL level $4050 ,oh and also there may be a end of season tour to the UK. Maybe just maybe the best just can't afford to play?
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+x+x+x+xI am becoming more and more convinced that youth development and football in general is suffering from the stodgy one size fits all National Curriculum. I believe it is based on the Dutch system and the 443 playing formation. No one plays 443 at present. We need to modernise and show kids different and varying systems from about age ten on . These kids are smarter than we think and can handle it. We also need to let kids play and "show off a bit" if they have some flair...don't coach it out of them...encourage it . Also ....whilst we needed to get away from the "ethnic" image the old NSL had we have taken it too far . In the NSL days you had clubs playing varying styles of football. The Croations had free flowing individuals , the Italians a bit of everything , the Dutch were different again . Each team had varying nationalties playing and coaching . It made for some exciting football. When you went to NSL games you got different styles depending on who your team was playing . It was good to watch and play . Now we have teams all playing similar styles and no one wants to break out of the mould. Remember when Ange dared to do it ? "Roarcelona" were born and excited the league for a few years. We need both junior and senior clubs to be more individual and play different styles. Our playing style is stale and predictable. The crowds need to see players who do unexpected things ...to get that junior players have to be allowed to try things as they progress. What the eclectic approach showed though, was little success in international football. All powerhouses tend to have systems of play they adhere to. There is a lot of common ground in powerhouses, with Italy proving to be the exception. Italy tend to be the only powerhouse deploying a different approach. Can you explain how Brazil and Argentina have won so many WC's without a NC? The FFA football educators who have educated you in your C Licence, have argued they do, within a context of playing Proactive football. 
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xI am becoming more and more convinced that youth development and football in general is suffering from the stodgy one size fits all National Curriculum. I believe it is based on the Dutch system and the 443 playing formation. No one plays 443 at present. We need to modernise and show kids different and varying systems from about age ten on . These kids are smarter than we think and can handle it. We also need to let kids play and "show off a bit" if they have some flair...don't coach it out of them...encourage it . Also ....whilst we needed to get away from the "ethnic" image the old NSL had we have taken it too far . In the NSL days you had clubs playing varying styles of football. The Croations had free flowing individuals , the Italians a bit of everything , the Dutch were different again . Each team had varying nationalties playing and coaching . It made for some exciting football. When you went to NSL games you got different styles depending on who your team was playing . It was good to watch and play . Now we have teams all playing similar styles and no one wants to break out of the mould. Remember when Ange dared to do it ? "Roarcelona" were born and excited the league for a few years. We need both junior and senior clubs to be more individual and play different styles. Our playing style is stale and predictable. The crowds need to see players who do unexpected things ...to get that junior players have to be allowed to try things as they progress. What the eclectic approach showed though, was little success in international football. All powerhouses tend to have systems of play they adhere to. There is a lot of common ground in powerhouses, with Italy proving to be the exception. Italy tend to be the only powerhouse deploying a different approach. But what they don't take into account is the resources and number of potential players in these countries. They can train and play against the best quality of opposition at their age groups all the way into top quality clubs. That's where the advantage is and by proxy of having the best players they will dominate games more and be more attacking by nature of being the better team. We aren't any of this, what we are closer too is the old English model of excluding players because they don't fit the mould of what they want. We want robots, not any flair and selfishness in players. Wrong. There is nothing about producing robots. You need to gain greater insight in order to pontificate. The point you make about greater resources in these countries is true though. The only reason you say it is wrong is because you way too involved from the inside. There's a reason literally everyone from the outside including very well respected people in the game say the same thing. The systems in place don't conduce creative thinking and individuality, what makes it worse in Australia than other countries is that elsewhere these kids will play a lot more football outside the systems they have in place. They get the higher quality training aswell as getting a bit of individuality. South Americans are so technically brilliant because they play on the street all day, they develop these technical skills and the sooner the NC realises we aren't the same as these countries and adapts we might actually start producing strikers again for example. Agree with the second paragraph, but quote who with a depth of knowledge shuns the direction we've taken using the specific football criteria they argue against in your answer. Oops.... Australia is producing 'robots', says youth guru Smith BY DAVE LEWIS AIS Youth coaching kingpin Ron Smith, the man who nurtured golden generation stars like Mark Viduka, Vince Grella, Craig Moore and Lucas Neill, has added fuel to the furnace of the Socceroos’ FIFA World Cup exit by claiming the country’s development systems produce “robots” high on energy but short of goalscoring technique. With the recriminations over Australia’s impotence in the final third in Russia raging, the former chief of the now defunct Canberra-based AIS finishing school for budding Socceroos insists an "obsession" with producing players "who run about like lunatics" in adherence to a methodology put in place by Dutchman Han Berger during his five-year reign as the FFA’s technical director from 2009-2014 is partly to blame for what ails Australia. Link to thread: https://forum.insidesport.com.au/2674250/Australia-is-producing-robots-says-AIS-youth-guru-Smith?PageIndex=1
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+x+x+x+xI am becoming more and more convinced that youth development and football in general is suffering from the stodgy one size fits all National Curriculum. I believe it is based on the Dutch system and the 443 playing formation. No one plays 443 at present. We need to modernise and show kids different and varying systems from about age ten on . These kids are smarter than we think and can handle it. We also need to let kids play and "show off a bit" if they have some flair...don't coach it out of them...encourage it . Also ....whilst we needed to get away from the "ethnic" image the old NSL had we have taken it too far . In the NSL days you had clubs playing varying styles of football. The Croations had free flowing individuals , the Italians a bit of everything , the Dutch were different again . Each team had varying nationalties playing and coaching . It made for some exciting football. When you went to NSL games you got different styles depending on who your team was playing . It was good to watch and play . Now we have teams all playing similar styles and no one wants to break out of the mould. Remember when Ange dared to do it ? "Roarcelona" were born and excited the league for a few years. We need both junior and senior clubs to be more individual and play different styles. Our playing style is stale and predictable. The crowds need to see players who do unexpected things ...to get that junior players have to be allowed to try things as they progress. What the eclectic approach showed though, was little success in international football. All powerhouses tend to have systems of play they adhere to. There is a lot of common ground in powerhouses, with Italy proving to be the exception. Italy tend to be the only powerhouse deploying a different approach. You do realize that the vast majority of players who played in the teams that have qualified were NSL products? Do you also realise that neither Ange nor Arnie play the 433 depicted in the NC. Plus I would challenge anyone to describe Bert van Marwijk's tactics in the last WC as meeting the NC philosophy (below for those interested): A proactive brand of football, based on effective possession with the cutting edge provided by creative individuals.
Defensively the key components are quick transition and intelligent collective pressing.
The Playing Style is underpinned by a strong ‘team mentality’, capitalising on Australia’s traditional strengths. BVM played within the parameters of a 1-4-3-3. Ange did mainly until he deployed that 3 at the back experimental formation and a flirtation with 4-4-2. Arnie chops and changes his formations. Unlike Holland's' KNVB, there is no edict for senior national Aussie teams to play a 1-4-3-3. BVM played a 1-4-4-1-1 in every match, but since this also adds up to 11, I agree it is within the parameters of 1-4-3-3
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI am becoming more and more convinced that youth development and football in general is suffering from the stodgy one size fits all National Curriculum. I believe it is based on the Dutch system and the 443 playing formation. No one plays 443 at present. We need to modernise and show kids different and varying systems from about age ten on . These kids are smarter than we think and can handle it. We also need to let kids play and "show off a bit" if they have some flair...don't coach it out of them...encourage it . Also ....whilst we needed to get away from the "ethnic" image the old NSL had we have taken it too far . In the NSL days you had clubs playing varying styles of football. The Croations had free flowing individuals , the Italians a bit of everything , the Dutch were different again . Each team had varying nationalties playing and coaching . It made for some exciting football. When you went to NSL games you got different styles depending on who your team was playing . It was good to watch and play . Now we have teams all playing similar styles and no one wants to break out of the mould. Remember when Ange dared to do it ? "Roarcelona" were born and excited the league for a few years. We need both junior and senior clubs to be more individual and play different styles. Our playing style is stale and predictable. The crowds need to see players who do unexpected things ...to get that junior players have to be allowed to try things as they progress. What the eclectic approach showed though, was little success in international football. All powerhouses tend to have systems of play they adhere to. There is a lot of common ground in powerhouses, with Italy proving to be the exception. Italy tend to be the only powerhouse deploying a different approach. But what they don't take into account is the resources and number of potential players in these countries. They can train and play against the best quality of opposition at their age groups all the way into top quality clubs. That's where the advantage is and by proxy of having the best players they will dominate games more and be more attacking by nature of being the better team. We aren't any of this, what we are closer too is the old English model of excluding players because they don't fit the mould of what they want. We want robots, not any flair and selfishness in players. Wrong. There is nothing about producing robots. You need to gain greater insight in order to pontificate. The point you make about greater resources in these countries is true though. The only reason you say it is wrong is because you way too involved from the inside. There's a reason literally everyone from the outside including very well respected people in the game say the same thing. The systems in place don't conduce creative thinking and individuality, what makes it worse in Australia than other countries is that elsewhere these kids will play a lot more football outside the systems they have in place. They get the higher quality training aswell as getting a bit of individuality. South Americans are so technically brilliant because they play on the street all day, they develop these technical skills and the sooner the NC realises we aren't the same as these countries and adapts we might actually start producing strikers again for example. Agree with the second paragraph, but quote who with a depth of knowledge shuns the direction we've taken using the specific football criteria they argue against in your answer. Quite simple reason for all of this is we as a sport do not get the better kids from the beginning ,mostly due to the fact that Soccer is the fourth most popular sport in the country and also the cost to play the game are often 5 times more expensive than other sports. I have spoken to parents of a player who has been selected for a PYL u13s side next year ,the costs $2300 rego plus compulsory attendance to clubs academy training $1750 ,total cost for one kid to play Soccer at PYL level $4050 ,oh and also there may be a end of season tour to the UK. Maybe just maybe the best just can't afford to play? The bolded bit is a very general statement and I question its accuracy. In NSW there are more registered footballers than the other 3 codes combined and although League is more popular both Union and AFL appeal to niche markets in the state and the potential of football is way bigger than both. I think rather than generalising we really need to consider Australia as separate markets with some commonality but each at a different stage of development. The cost of playing in the development pathway is one of the negatives in our game and unfortunately it is found in all major markets.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xI am becoming more and more convinced that youth development and football in general is suffering from the stodgy one size fits all National Curriculum. I believe it is based on the Dutch system and the 443 playing formation. No one plays 443 at present. We need to modernise and show kids different and varying systems from about age ten on . These kids are smarter than we think and can handle it. We also need to let kids play and "show off a bit" if they have some flair...don't coach it out of them...encourage it . Also ....whilst we needed to get away from the "ethnic" image the old NSL had we have taken it too far . In the NSL days you had clubs playing varying styles of football. The Croations had free flowing individuals , the Italians a bit of everything , the Dutch were different again . Each team had varying nationalties playing and coaching . It made for some exciting football. When you went to NSL games you got different styles depending on who your team was playing . It was good to watch and play . Now we have teams all playing similar styles and no one wants to break out of the mould. Remember when Ange dared to do it ? "Roarcelona" were born and excited the league for a few years. We need both junior and senior clubs to be more individual and play different styles. Our playing style is stale and predictable. The crowds need to see players who do unexpected things ...to get that junior players have to be allowed to try things as they progress. What the eclectic approach showed though, was little success in international football. All powerhouses tend to have systems of play they adhere to. There is a lot of common ground in powerhouses, with Italy proving to be the exception. Italy tend to be the only powerhouse deploying a different approach. You do realize that the vast majority of players who played in the teams that have qualified were NSL products? Do you also realise that neither Ange nor Arnie play the 433 depicted in the NC. Plus I would challenge anyone to describe Bert van Marwijk's tactics in the last WC as meeting the NC philosophy (below for those interested): A proactive brand of football, based on effective possession with the cutting edge provided by creative individuals.
Defensively the key components are quick transition and intelligent collective pressing.
The Playing Style is underpinned by a strong ‘team mentality’, capitalising on Australia’s traditional strengths. BVM played within the parameters of a 1-4-3-3. Ange did mainly until he deployed that 3 at the back experimental formation and a flirtation with 4-4-2. Arnie chops and changes his formations. Unlike Holland's' KNVB, there is no edict for senior national Aussie teams to play a 1-4-3-3. BVM played a 1-4-4-1-1 in every match, but since this also adds up to 11, I agree it is within the parameters of 1-4-3-3 If that is what you thought, you'd have failed your C Licence under the assessors I had! BVM played a 4-2-3-1 in Ball Possession Opposition. He deployed a 4-3-3 with a defensive midfield triangle as the ball entered the attacking half and third in Ball Possession.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI am becoming more and more convinced that youth development and football in general is suffering from the stodgy one size fits all National Curriculum. I believe it is based on the Dutch system and the 443 playing formation. No one plays 443 at present. We need to modernise and show kids different and varying systems from about age ten on . These kids are smarter than we think and can handle it. We also need to let kids play and "show off a bit" if they have some flair...don't coach it out of them...encourage it . Also ....whilst we needed to get away from the "ethnic" image the old NSL had we have taken it too far . In the NSL days you had clubs playing varying styles of football. The Croations had free flowing individuals , the Italians a bit of everything , the Dutch were different again . Each team had varying nationalties playing and coaching . It made for some exciting football. When you went to NSL games you got different styles depending on who your team was playing . It was good to watch and play . Now we have teams all playing similar styles and no one wants to break out of the mould. Remember when Ange dared to do it ? "Roarcelona" were born and excited the league for a few years. We need both junior and senior clubs to be more individual and play different styles. Our playing style is stale and predictable. The crowds need to see players who do unexpected things ...to get that junior players have to be allowed to try things as they progress. What the eclectic approach showed though, was little success in international football. All powerhouses tend to have systems of play they adhere to. There is a lot of common ground in powerhouses, with Italy proving to be the exception. Italy tend to be the only powerhouse deploying a different approach. But what they don't take into account is the resources and number of potential players in these countries. They can train and play against the best quality of opposition at their age groups all the way into top quality clubs. That's where the advantage is and by proxy of having the best players they will dominate games more and be more attacking by nature of being the better team. We aren't any of this, what we are closer too is the old English model of excluding players because they don't fit the mould of what they want. We want robots, not any flair and selfishness in players. Wrong. There is nothing about producing robots. You need to gain greater insight in order to pontificate. The point you make about greater resources in these countries is true though. The only reason you say it is wrong is because you way too involved from the inside. There's a reason literally everyone from the outside including very well respected people in the game say the same thing. The systems in place don't conduce creative thinking and individuality, what makes it worse in Australia than other countries is that elsewhere these kids will play a lot more football outside the systems they have in place. They get the higher quality training aswell as getting a bit of individuality. South Americans are so technically brilliant because they play on the street all day, they develop these technical skills and the sooner the NC realises we aren't the same as these countries and adapts we might actually start producing strikers again for example. Agree with the second paragraph, but quote who with a depth of knowledge shuns the direction we've taken using the specific football criteria they argue against in your answer. Oops.... Australia is producing 'robots', says youth guru Smith BY DAVE LEWIS AIS Youth coaching kingpin Ron Smith, the man who nurtured golden generation stars like Mark Viduka, Vince Grella, Craig Moore and Lucas Neill, has added fuel to the furnace of the Socceroos’ FIFA World Cup exit by claiming the country’s development systems produce “robots” high on energy but short of goalscoring technique. With the recriminations over Australia’s impotence in the final third in Russia raging, the former chief of the now defunct Canberra-based AIS finishing school for budding Socceroos insists an "obsession" with producing players "who run about like lunatics" in adherence to a methodology put in place by Dutchman Han Berger during his five-year reign as the FFA’s technical director from 2009-2014 is partly to blame for what ails Australia. Link to thread: https://forum.insidesport.com.au/2674250/Australia-is-producing-robots-says-AIS-youth-guru-Smith?PageIndex=1 There is widespread agreement that goalscoring is an issue, but Ron is wrong about the production of robots. Ron was displaced from the old system, and sent on his way. He is angry he was discarded by the likes of Dutch FFA TDs Baan and Berger. As national TD he didn't establish a national holistic system with uniformity in coaching methodology across the country. Having said this, he advances interesting perspectives on a range of issues. Ron has also posted in the Performance section on this forum. Moreover, he assisted a mate of mine to write a book on the False 9.
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xI am becoming more and more convinced that youth development and football in general is suffering from the stodgy one size fits all National Curriculum. I believe it is based on the Dutch system and the 443 playing formation. No one plays 443 at present. We need to modernise and show kids different and varying systems from about age ten on . These kids are smarter than we think and can handle it. We also need to let kids play and "show off a bit" if they have some flair...don't coach it out of them...encourage it . Also ....whilst we needed to get away from the "ethnic" image the old NSL had we have taken it too far . In the NSL days you had clubs playing varying styles of football. The Croations had free flowing individuals , the Italians a bit of everything , the Dutch were different again . Each team had varying nationalties playing and coaching . It made for some exciting football. When you went to NSL games you got different styles depending on who your team was playing . It was good to watch and play . Now we have teams all playing similar styles and no one wants to break out of the mould. Remember when Ange dared to do it ? "Roarcelona" were born and excited the league for a few years. We need both junior and senior clubs to be more individual and play different styles. Our playing style is stale and predictable. The crowds need to see players who do unexpected things ...to get that junior players have to be allowed to try things as they progress. What the eclectic approach showed though, was little success in international football. All powerhouses tend to have systems of play they adhere to. There is a lot of common ground in powerhouses, with Italy proving to be the exception. Italy tend to be the only powerhouse deploying a different approach. You do realize that the vast majority of players who played in the teams that have qualified were NSL products? Do you also realise that neither Ange nor Arnie play the 433 depicted in the NC. Plus I would challenge anyone to describe Bert van Marwijk's tactics in the last WC as meeting the NC philosophy (below for those interested): A proactive brand of football, based on effective possession with the cutting edge provided by creative individuals.
Defensively the key components are quick transition and intelligent collective pressing.
The Playing Style is underpinned by a strong ‘team mentality’, capitalising on Australia’s traditional strengths. BVM played within the parameters of a 1-4-3-3. Ange did mainly until he deployed that 3 at the back experimental formation and a flirtation with 4-4-2. Arnie chops and changes his formations. Unlike Holland's' KNVB, there is no edict for senior national Aussie teams to play a 1-4-3-3. BVM played a 1-4-4-1-1 in every match, but since this also adds up to 11, I agree it is within the parameters of 1-4-3-3 If that is what you thought, you'd have failed your C Licence under the assessors I had! BVM played a 4-2-3-1 in Ball Possession Opposition. He deployed a 4-3-3 with a defensive midfield triangle as the ball entered the attacking half and third in Ball Possession. Best you tell the socceroos they got it wrong too as thats direct from their website......  https://www.socceroos.com.au/match/france-v-australia-world-cup-16-06-2018/958034#!/commentaryAlso if you actually did do a C-Licnce assessment you would know they dont ask anything about formations so please dont make up BS
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI am becoming more and more convinced that youth development and football in general is suffering from the stodgy one size fits all National Curriculum. I believe it is based on the Dutch system and the 443 playing formation. No one plays 443 at present. We need to modernise and show kids different and varying systems from about age ten on . These kids are smarter than we think and can handle it. We also need to let kids play and "show off a bit" if they have some flair...don't coach it out of them...encourage it . Also ....whilst we needed to get away from the "ethnic" image the old NSL had we have taken it too far . In the NSL days you had clubs playing varying styles of football. The Croations had free flowing individuals , the Italians a bit of everything , the Dutch were different again . Each team had varying nationalties playing and coaching . It made for some exciting football. When you went to NSL games you got different styles depending on who your team was playing . It was good to watch and play . Now we have teams all playing similar styles and no one wants to break out of the mould. Remember when Ange dared to do it ? "Roarcelona" were born and excited the league for a few years. We need both junior and senior clubs to be more individual and play different styles. Our playing style is stale and predictable. The crowds need to see players who do unexpected things ...to get that junior players have to be allowed to try things as they progress. What the eclectic approach showed though, was little success in international football. All powerhouses tend to have systems of play they adhere to. There is a lot of common ground in powerhouses, with Italy proving to be the exception. Italy tend to be the only powerhouse deploying a different approach. You do realize that the vast majority of players who played in the teams that have qualified were NSL products? Do you also realise that neither Ange nor Arnie play the 433 depicted in the NC. Plus I would challenge anyone to describe Bert van Marwijk's tactics in the last WC as meeting the NC philosophy (below for those interested): A proactive brand of football, based on effective possession with the cutting edge provided by creative individuals.
Defensively the key components are quick transition and intelligent collective pressing.
The Playing Style is underpinned by a strong ‘team mentality’, capitalising on Australia’s traditional strengths. BVM played within the parameters of a 1-4-3-3. Ange did mainly until he deployed that 3 at the back experimental formation and a flirtation with 4-4-2. Arnie chops and changes his formations. Unlike Holland's' KNVB, there is no edict for senior national Aussie teams to play a 1-4-3-3. BVM played a 1-4-4-1-1 in every match, but since this also adds up to 11, I agree it is within the parameters of 1-4-3-3 If that is what you thought, you'd have failed your C Licence under the assessors I had! BVM played a 4-2-3-1 in Ball Possession Opposition. He deployed a 4-3-3 with a defensive midfield triangle as the ball entered the attacking half and third in Ball Possession. Best you tell the socceroos they got it wrong too as thats direct from their website...... https://www.socceroos.com.au/match/france-v-australia-world-cup-16-06-2018/958034#!/commentaryAlso if you actually did do a C-Licnce assessment you would know they dont ask anything about formations so please dont make up BS I doubt it was a coach on the FFA website who reached that conclusion it was a 4-4-1-1. I don't know which year you did your C licence, but only the variations of 1-4-3-3 were discussed in 2013. For someone who has ostensibly completed a C Licence, you always seem to cut and paste secondary sources to validate your opinions, as opposed to being able to analyse directly from the source or matches.
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI am becoming more and more convinced that youth development and football in general is suffering from the stodgy one size fits all National Curriculum. I believe it is based on the Dutch system and the 443 playing formation. No one plays 443 at present. We need to modernise and show kids different and varying systems from about age ten on . These kids are smarter than we think and can handle it. We also need to let kids play and "show off a bit" if they have some flair...don't coach it out of them...encourage it . Also ....whilst we needed to get away from the "ethnic" image the old NSL had we have taken it too far . In the NSL days you had clubs playing varying styles of football. The Croations had free flowing individuals , the Italians a bit of everything , the Dutch were different again . Each team had varying nationalties playing and coaching . It made for some exciting football. When you went to NSL games you got different styles depending on who your team was playing . It was good to watch and play . Now we have teams all playing similar styles and no one wants to break out of the mould. Remember when Ange dared to do it ? "Roarcelona" were born and excited the league for a few years. We need both junior and senior clubs to be more individual and play different styles. Our playing style is stale and predictable. The crowds need to see players who do unexpected things ...to get that junior players have to be allowed to try things as they progress. What the eclectic approach showed though, was little success in international football. All powerhouses tend to have systems of play they adhere to. There is a lot of common ground in powerhouses, with Italy proving to be the exception. Italy tend to be the only powerhouse deploying a different approach. You do realize that the vast majority of players who played in the teams that have qualified were NSL products? Do you also realise that neither Ange nor Arnie play the 433 depicted in the NC. Plus I would challenge anyone to describe Bert van Marwijk's tactics in the last WC as meeting the NC philosophy (below for those interested): A proactive brand of football, based on effective possession with the cutting edge provided by creative individuals.
Defensively the key components are quick transition and intelligent collective pressing.
The Playing Style is underpinned by a strong ‘team mentality’, capitalising on Australia’s traditional strengths. BVM played within the parameters of a 1-4-3-3. Ange did mainly until he deployed that 3 at the back experimental formation and a flirtation with 4-4-2. Arnie chops and changes his formations. Unlike Holland's' KNVB, there is no edict for senior national Aussie teams to play a 1-4-3-3. BVM played a 1-4-4-1-1 in every match, but since this also adds up to 11, I agree it is within the parameters of 1-4-3-3 If that is what you thought, you'd have failed your C Licence under the assessors I had! BVM played a 4-2-3-1 in Ball Possession Opposition. He deployed a 4-3-3 with a defensive midfield triangle as the ball entered the attacking half and third in Ball Possession. Best you tell the socceroos they got it wrong too as thats direct from their website...... https://www.socceroos.com.au/match/france-v-australia-world-cup-16-06-2018/958034#!/commentaryAlso if you actually did do a C-Licnce assessment you would know they dont ask anything about formations so please dont make up BS I doubt it was a coach on the FFA website who reached that conclusion it was a 4-4-1-1. I don't know which year you did your C licence, but only the variations of 1-4-3-3 were discussed in 2013. For someone who has ostensibly completed a C Licence, you always seem to cut and paste secondary sources to validate your opinions, as opposed to being able to analyse directly from the source or matches. I know it is difficult when my sources always catch you out when you sprout your BS, but thats the thing about using sources, it adds weight to an opinion whereas you just have your KNVB wet dreams to rely upon when you dress your opinions as facts.. Unfortunately you are typical of the problem I alluded to in a different post with non-football people getting coaching badges and then sprouting crap about the NC. Your credentials and experience are highly dubious and been exposed on here and other forums in the past so I would not be trying to denigrate the qualifications or experience of others with your condescending remarks (cue offensive PM with threats of blocking.......again)
|
|
|
|
|
Midfielder
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
The catalyst and starting time was 1973... maybe slightly before in some cases and behind in others... but 1973 is the key date... when you analyse the importance of 1973 to Football's training and development in Australia it will change your mind about many of current arguments on both sides i.e. pro and con current methods...
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
@ AJF and Decentric. The FIFA Technical Study Group has an analysis of each teams play at WC2018 Russia. Have a read of it and then continue your "discussion". https://img.fifa.com/image/upload/xgwsmrcals5qku0nmrge.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
sokorny
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Personally I thought the NC laments the lack of creative footballers (an issue it wanted to address was pick up games, mentioned why countries such as Brazil are so strong... not just football in Australia struggling at this).
Furthermore 2 of the 4 core skills according to the NC are 1v1 and running with the ball (so if coaches are creating passing robots then they are not following the NC - passing is part of the striking skill which also includes shooting, crossing). The NC encourages creativity IMO, it is coaches who stifle it (esp those afraid to lose or worried about the win today rather than the title)
|
|
|
|
|
MarkfromCroydon
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThe catalyst and starting time was 1973... maybe slightly before in some cases and behind in others... but 1973 is the key date... when you analyse the importance of 1973 to Football's training and development in Australia it will change your mind about many of current arguments on both sides i.e. pro and con current methods... Why 1973? What was the major change?
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThe catalyst and starting time was 1973... maybe slightly before in some cases and behind in others... but 1973 is the key date... when you analyse the importance of 1973 to Football's training and development in Australia it will change your mind about many of current arguments on both sides i.e. pro and con current methods... Our exposure to Total Football through our qualification for the 1974 World Cup? It brought us in touch with what was happening with football worldwide rather than being hitched to the tactics and football heritage of the nations our coaches came from.
|
|
|
|
|
Midfielder
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xThe catalyst and starting time was 1973... maybe slightly before in some cases and behind in others... but 1973 is the key date... when you analyse the importance of 1973 to Football's training and development in Australia it will change your mind about many of current arguments on both sides i.e. pro and con current methods... Why 1973? What was the major change? Why 1973 In 1973, a number of events had already started that when combined with the 1973 event meant Australia’s Football Development would forever and ill-reversable change. I will fully explain why 1973 but first a bit of a preamble. After WW!! Europe lay in waste, and its well documented Australia had a huge influx of European migrants especially from major Football playing nations, Germany, Holland, Greece, Croatia, Italy, Turkey, Serbia etc. You could also add Scotland, England as well but they had always been coming. By the early 70’s Europe was different place to the immediate post war Europe and the massive influx of migrants slowed from these countries. The coaching of heaps of junior players was by the Dads from these Football understanding nations who passed both their love of Football but also they brought technical knowledge. Moreover by 1955 in the Sydney competitions migrant groups formed teams and competition that essentially took over from Regional Association rep sides. Many players who played in the NSL and many coaches in the NSL came through the training provided with love and free of charge and a genuine desire to improve Football by the migrant parents . In 1973, Gough Withlam, threw out the “””White Australia Policy”” which prior to 1973 essentially restricted our immigration policy to European. With improvements in European living standards and the withdrawal of the White Australia Policy, our migrant demographic changed slowly at first but massively. The new migrants arguably the first were the Vietnamese when Mr Malcom Fraser said they could come after the war. This was quickly followed by people from the Middle East, India, Asian in general and from the mid 80’s a huge Chinese intake. None of the new waves of migrants had either the passion or technical knowledge of the European migrants of the late 40’s, 50’s, 60’s and say to the mid 70’s By the mid 90’s that indescribable and base knowledge of Footballs migrant European Dads in our park teams was going. 1973 is a turning point when the Football passion, knowledge and technical skills was not coming in waves from Europe.
|
|
|
|
|
Midfielder
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Just to add a tad more .... the migrant Dads in those park teams and in the streets taught the 4 to say 12 year olds touch.
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Just to add a tad more .... the migrant Dads in those park teams and in the streets taught the 4 to say 12 year olds touch. This is just fanciful Mid. Makes a nice story but no, misses the point
|
|
|
|
|
Blew.2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 753,
Visits: 0
|
It can’t be to bad you got a draw against NZLu23 👋
Clear Contact There
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI am becoming more and more convinced that youth development and football in general is suffering from the stodgy one size fits all National Curriculum. I believe it is based on the Dutch system and the 443 playing formation. No one plays 443 at present. We need to modernise and show kids different and varying systems from about age ten on . These kids are smarter than we think and can handle it. We also need to let kids play and "show off a bit" if they have some flair...don't coach it out of them...encourage it . Also ....whilst we needed to get away from the "ethnic" image the old NSL had we have taken it too far . In the NSL days you had clubs playing varying styles of football. The Croations had free flowing individuals , the Italians a bit of everything , the Dutch were different again . Each team had varying nationalties playing and coaching . It made for some exciting football. When you went to NSL games you got different styles depending on who your team was playing . It was good to watch and play . Now we have teams all playing similar styles and no one wants to break out of the mould. Remember when Ange dared to do it ? "Roarcelona" were born and excited the league for a few years. We need both junior and senior clubs to be more individual and play different styles. Our playing style is stale and predictable. The crowds need to see players who do unexpected things ...to get that junior players have to be allowed to try things as they progress. What the eclectic approach showed though, was little success in international football. All powerhouses tend to have systems of play they adhere to. There is a lot of common ground in powerhouses, with Italy proving to be the exception. Italy tend to be the only powerhouse deploying a different approach. You do realize that the vast majority of players who played in the teams that have qualified were NSL products? Do you also realise that neither Ange nor Arnie play the 433 depicted in the NC. Plus I would challenge anyone to describe Bert van Marwijk's tactics in the last WC as meeting the NC philosophy (below for those interested): A proactive brand of football, based on effective possession with the cutting edge provided by creative individuals.
Defensively the key components are quick transition and intelligent collective pressing.
The Playing Style is underpinned by a strong ‘team mentality’, capitalising on Australia’s traditional strengths. BVM played within the parameters of a 1-4-3-3. Ange did mainly until he deployed that 3 at the back experimental formation and a flirtation with 4-4-2. Arnie chops and changes his formations. Unlike Holland's' KNVB, there is no edict for senior national Aussie teams to play a 1-4-3-3. BVM played a 1-4-4-1-1 in every match, but since this also adds up to 11, I agree it is within the parameters of 1-4-3-3 If that is what you thought, you'd have failed your C Licence under the assessors I had! BVM played a 4-2-3-1 in Ball Possession Opposition. He deployed a 4-3-3 with a defensive midfield triangle as the ball entered the attacking half and third in Ball Possession. Best you tell the socceroos they got it wrong too as thats direct from their website...... https://www.socceroos.com.au/match/france-v-australia-world-cup-16-06-2018/958034#!/commentaryAlso if you actually did do a C-Licnce assessment you would know they dont ask anything about formations so please dont make up BS I doubt it was a coach on the FFA website who reached that conclusion it was a 4-4-1-1. I don't know which year you did your C licence, but only the variations of 1-4-3-3 were discussed in 2013. For someone who has ostensibly completed a C Licence, you always seem to cut and paste secondary sources to validate your opinions, as opposed to being able to analyse directly from the source or matches. I know it is difficult when my sources always catch you out when you sprout your BS, but thats the thing about using sources, it adds weight to an opinion whereas you just have your KNVB wet dreams to rely upon when you dress your opinions as facts.. Unfortunately you are typical of the problem I alluded to in a different post with non-football people getting coaching badges and then sprouting crap about the NC. Your credentials and experience are highly dubious and been exposed on here and other forums in the past so I would not be trying to denigrate the qualifications or experience of others with your condescending remarks (cue offensive PM with threats of blocking.......again) I don't know why you keep alluding to extremely spurious sources describing me as a non- football person. The football milieu in Oz is not that big, and it is relatively easy to verify information. I was in a state squad as underage payer. I played youth football for two current Tas NPL clubs who played at the top level then and now. I played senior football games with one of these clubs, before I quit at an early age, due to the usual distractions for young men. I've also been the TD of NPL club for a short period usually ranked somewhere between 40 and 60 out of all clubs in Aus for a short time. Unlike many, I don't see other coaches like yourself as rivals. I take my hat off to you, and anybody else, willing to undertake the semi-professional and pro coaching pathway. Good on you for doing it. At an older age I felt it was a duty, even though it was hard on my body taking coaching and demonstrating. What surprises me is that most other trained pro-coaches on here, with a plethora over the years, respond quickly in proffering arguments to football based problems and argue the point without haven to resort to secondary sources to substantiate their position. In 2013 it was one of the last years before the FFA C Licence was ostensibly going to be spilt between a Senior C Licence or a Youth C licence. Many of the generic licence holders of C and B have spent a lot of time on tactical and structural work, which is similar to the KNVB. However, there is a far less technical component in what they've studied. I iid a lot of work with a precursor to the current junior or youth licences, that broke down technique into four groups - first touch, striking the ball, 1v1 attacking and defensive skills and running with the ball. Only four other coaches from my C Licence who were designated rep coaches pursued this extra course. We all found in invaluable - in a different way even though it was a tenth of the amount of time, it was as invaluable as the FFA Licence, and in my case the KNVB youth course. Unlike most other coaches in other states, I also did a lot of work with the head of state SAP, the state TD, and two assistant under 20 assistant Aus coaches, plus the state under 14s coach, on the training track as well as a plethora of courses. Sometimes it is hard to remember where one learns which part of one's acquired knowledge. Quite a few coaches on here who have pursued advanced coach education seem negative about their experiences. I wonder if it is due to having little ongoing and regular contact with coach educators in between courses? All the stuff you did on : *the four main moments * three thirds of the pitch analysis in BP and BPO * structure of teams - who says what to who when playing out; why triangles and diamonds incorporating ideal body shape; each line coaching the lines in front to keep shape; ideal distancing between and within the lines; ideal sizes of the whole eleven players on the pitch; how to impart shape with cones in small spaces; partial, half and full pressing; etcetera. * match analysis - who, when, here, why, how? Devising training programs based on identified football problem in match performances. * four phase training programs based around football problems idientified in the match appraisal template ( I think they are a bit too prescriptive), noting you often stick to the three phases as I did, were virtually unheard of in Australia at most levels prior to 2008. The big issue in Australia is we have tended to progress down thethe Loius Van Gaal version of KNVB coaching methodology, as opposed to the Johann Cruyff paradigm of the KNVB model. For Van Gaal the team model is paramount and he had more success as a coach than Cruyff. For Cruyff, developing players' technical level to be superior to the opposition was paramount. There is a lot of interesting football literature on Van Gaal, Cruyff, the KNVB, Ajax Amsterdam and Barcelona. It has significant implications for football methodology. Where this has impact on our development, is that we could probably do more of the Cruyff model than Van Gaal's. Germany adopted a 50 /50 approach of these two paradigms. In previous posts I thought you were a troll, AJF, with close links to some very shady characters who in another forum have stated how they are trying to destroy this forum. I can't prove any of it, but by co-incidence you seem to have infinite knowledge of what their spurious sources are . Given you've done a C Licence, you must be part of the current football milieu though. There are plenty of other coaches around who see other coaches as great rivals to their own careers. For mine, I want to see more coaches, pursuing what is currently expensive and consumes a lot of time to complete, FFA coach education. I don't participate on this forum to give other coaches a hard time. It is a shame you weren't around a few years ago. Another member posted the youth and senior models of Chelsea, Ajax Amsterdam and KNVB, Arsenal and PSV academies in the performance section for technique acquisition . It was invaluable to me on the training ground and I have shared it with a plethora of coaches and players, including senior NPL coaches and TDs. It has been taken down though.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
Thanks a bunch for the link, Gyfox. However, I'm quite capable of analysing games myself. The FIFA Tech Dept concluded the Aus formation was exactly as I stated it was - a 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3 manifestation. I've spent years doing this stuff and have spent months and months undertaking coach education studying it. There is a lot of other interesting data though. Australia had a possession ascendancy of 51% over the WC. This was despite deploying a Reactive approach against France, ceding possession.
|
|
|
|
|
localstar
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2K,
Visits: 0
|
Just a reminder, decentric. This is a forum for discussing football. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
Just shut up with your "only qualified coaches know what they are talking about" bullshit.
|
|
|
|
|
jas88
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.6K,
Visits: 0
|
only people who seem to be able to develop top class young players is Westfield sports high..
the AIS also developed many quality players killing that was a mistake
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+xJust a reminder, decentric. This is a forum for discussing football. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Just shut up with your "only qualified coaches know what they are talking about" bullshit. I've never stated that to be the case - that only qualified coaches know what they are talking about and are entitled to an opinion on football. I agree everyone is entitled to an opinion - and - football discussion can easily circumvent personal attacks.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+xonly people who seem to be able to develop top class young players is Westfield sports high.. the AIS also developed many quality players killing that was a mistake It is an interesting concept that doesn't exist here. When I saw a documentary on Aaron Mooy I loved some of the football training ground practices they used at Westfield.
|
|
|
|