|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xPretty sure most AL clubs already do You'd think so but apparently not. Which ones? I believe the Roar this past season decided to play the academy teams back in their age groups after previous years of playing up an age group. Naturally enough all the academy squads have won their comps apart from the U16's who unfortunately, finished 3rd after their performance drastically plateaued towards the end of the season. It is also worth mentioning that the academy players pay no fees, thereby giving club unrestricted access to the best players, as should be the case. Strange that the new academy boss seems to have adopted the opposite approach to other clubs, for what benefit? So, do you think it wasn’t good year for BR academies then? Sure, they might of won across their age groups but they certainly didn’t dominate. In fact, in our age group I think they were lucky to win. I think it has been a competitive competition all round and it only makes it stronger for the future. Of course, It would of been different if they were flogging everybody and it’s not like they weren’t playing kids up. They were still playing kids up, just not the whole team. For me, if they were focusing on players individually like physical, mental readiness etc then that is better approach to development than just playing the whole team up. What determines a successful season for a jnr academy team? I don't think you'll get the answer for a couple of years yet. It's a shame Coffs got cancelled, it's not a bad barometer. Was just interesting to see the new philosophy this year and contrasting comments from Sydney FC, nothing else. Sorry but isn't a successful season one where your team finishes on top of the table? Is there another measure of success for a team? Yes. For development teams they should NOT focus on table position. So what would define success then? I'm baffled by this. Is this development methodology common in other sports? Do swimming coaches throw the kids in the pool and say "f%ck winning the race just as long as you don't drown" ? Sport by it's very definition is the competitive outcome of a result between two players or teams. Everything lyou do to make you competitive for that game-match-bout or whatever is just training. You’re either just baiting the conversation or you know nothing about development coaching?
The purpose of an Academy is to develop players, not win titles. The measure of an Academy should be the quality of players it develops, the number of quality players it develops, not whether it finishes 1st or not.
No need to be so condescending I have mentioned previously that I have no coaching experience. My question however still stands, you say that academy players are being developed for free by, in this case, Brisbane Roar.... Why? I assume a squad of say 23 each year "graduates" out of this system or is too old to play in the NPL setup. What happens to them? What does Brisbane get back for its investment into these players? With the average career for a professional footballer being 8 years and a squad size of say 24, theoretically on average 3 new players are required each year. Those players can be bought in or promoted from the academy. From this it is obvious that most of the players in the academy will move on elsewhere. Clubs normally run academies to find the players that will make it to the higher level. Some of the exceptional ones can make them "big" dollars by eventually selling them overseas, lesser ones they keep in house and other players they might be able to sell on to other clubs in Australia. It can be quite lucrative in a more normal league that allows transfers between clubs. Even if they are not making money out of selling on players top tier clubs have a responsibility to be developing players for the wider good of the game. " It can be quite lucrative in a more normal league that allows transfers between clubs." I agree with this that's why I am asking about their purpose here in Australia. Depending on which side of the divide your opinion sits, I believe our playing pool for the Socceroos is fairly shallow at the moment and am wondering if one of the reasons is that these players who are developed "for the good of the game" don't have any professional destinations to play for? Not asking about what happens in the rest of the world. I know why Ajax has a youth academy or why Red Star Belgrade or what La Macia is for etc etc, but why do the A-League teams? The A-League clubs run academies for the same reason as everyone else... to develop players. They obviously produce more players than they can use themselves so the extras get moved on to get picked up by clubs that are generally in the lower standard leagues like NPL1, NPL2, NPL3 etc. Not many tend to filter through in Victoria from what I can observe but ok I'll let that part slide as I'm sure it will get pounced on by the number crunchers.. So how many ifvthwirvoqn products do the actual franchise's use? No one wants to give a straight answer? Watching Marconi and now Sydney Croatia get stripped of players this week I'm wondering why they don't use their own academy players? Why would kids stay at Marconi or Sydney United if they can get a gig with one of the A-League academies? I'm not sure about Sydney FC but at Wanderers they don't pay for their spot in the academy unlike at the NPL clubs. The A-League is the pinnacle of club football in Australia so the clubs are always scouting to get the best young players into their system so its a pretty cutthroat environment. The average career for a professional footballer is about 8 years so with squads of 24 a club would need on average 3 replacement players each year but the academy players have to compete for those spots against players from everywhere. No I am referring to senior squad NPL players (two that just played in the NSW final yesterday) signing for a league first teams and these ( I assume the franchise's are paying their players these days but I'm sure Sydney Croatia got sweet f all) A league teams NOT signing players directly out of their own world class, 10000 times better than the wog NPL clubs, free academies????
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xPretty sure most AL clubs already do You'd think so but apparently not. Which ones? I believe the Roar this past season decided to play the academy teams back in their age groups after previous years of playing up an age group. Naturally enough all the academy squads have won their comps apart from the U16's who unfortunately, finished 3rd after their performance drastically plateaued towards the end of the season. It is also worth mentioning that the academy players pay no fees, thereby giving club unrestricted access to the best players, as should be the case. Strange that the new academy boss seems to have adopted the opposite approach to other clubs, for what benefit? So, do you think it wasn’t good year for BR academies then? Sure, they might of won across their age groups but they certainly didn’t dominate. In fact, in our age group I think they were lucky to win. I think it has been a competitive competition all round and it only makes it stronger for the future. Of course, It would of been different if they were flogging everybody and it’s not like they weren’t playing kids up. They were still playing kids up, just not the whole team. For me, if they were focusing on players individually like physical, mental readiness etc then that is better approach to development than just playing the whole team up. What determines a successful season for a jnr academy team? I don't think you'll get the answer for a couple of years yet. It's a shame Coffs got cancelled, it's not a bad barometer. Was just interesting to see the new philosophy this year and contrasting comments from Sydney FC, nothing else. Sorry but isn't a successful season one where your team finishes on top of the table? Is there another measure of success for a team? Yes. For development teams they should NOT focus on table position. So what would define success then? I'm baffled by this. Is this development methodology common in other sports? Do swimming coaches throw the kids in the pool and say "f%ck winning the race just as long as you don't drown" ? Sport by it's very definition is the competitive outcome of a result between two players or teams. Everything lyou do to make you competitive for that game-match-bout or whatever is just training. You’re either just baiting the conversation or you know nothing about development coaching?
The purpose of an Academy is to develop players, not win titles. The measure of an Academy should be the quality of players it develops, the number of quality players it develops, not whether it finishes 1st or not.
No need to be so condescending I have mentioned previously that I have no coaching experience. My question however still stands, you say that academy players are being developed for free by, in this case, Brisbane Roar.... Why? I assume a squad of say 23 each year "graduates" out of this system or is too old to play in the NPL setup. What happens to them? What does Brisbane get back for its investment into these players? With the average career for a professional footballer being 8 years and a squad size of say 24, theoretically on average 3 new players are required each year. Those players can be bought in or promoted from the academy. From this it is obvious that most of the players in the academy will move on elsewhere. Clubs normally run academies to find the players that will make it to the higher level. Some of the exceptional ones can make them "big" dollars by eventually selling them overseas, lesser ones they keep in house and other players they might be able to sell on to other clubs in Australia. It can be quite lucrative in a more normal league that allows transfers between clubs. Even if they are not making money out of selling on players top tier clubs have a responsibility to be developing players for the wider good of the game. " It can be quite lucrative in a more normal league that allows transfers between clubs." I agree with this that's why I am asking about their purpose here in Australia. Depending on which side of the divide your opinion sits, I believe our playing pool for the Socceroos is fairly shallow at the moment and am wondering if one of the reasons is that these players who are developed "for the good of the game" don't have any professional destinations to play for? Not asking about what happens in the rest of the world. I know why Ajax has a youth academy or why Red Star Belgrade or what La Macia is for etc etc, but why do the A-League teams? The A-League clubs run academies for the same reason as everyone else... to develop players. They obviously produce more players than they can use themselves so the extras get moved on to get picked up by clubs that are generally in the lower standard leagues like NPL1, NPL2, NPL3 etc. Not many tend to filter through in Victoria from what I can observe but ok I'll let that part slide as I'm sure it will get pounced on by the number crunchers.. So how many ifvthwirvoqn products do the actual franchise's use? No one wants to give a straight answer? Watching Marconi and now Sydney Croatia get stripped of players this week I'm wondering why they don't use their own academy players? Why would kids stay at Marconi or Sydney United if they can get a gig with one of the A-League academies? I'm not sure about Sydney FC but at Wanderers they don't pay for their spot in the academy unlike at the NPL clubs. The A-League is the pinnacle of club football in Australia so the clubs are always scouting to get the best young players into their system so its a pretty cutthroat environment. The average career for a professional footballer is about 8 years so with squads of 24 a club would need on average 3 replacement players each year but the academy players have to compete for those spots against players from everywhere. No I am referring to senior squad NPL players (two that just played in the NSW final yesterday) signing for a league first teams and these ( I assume the franchise's are paying their players these days but I'm sure Sydney Croatia got sweet f all) A league teams NOT signing players directly out of their own world class, 10000 times better than the wog NPL clubs, free academies???? Wanderers have 8 players in their A-League squad that "graduated" from their academy and NPL squads so theirs seems to be working fine. That the NPL clubs also produce some good players that get picked up by A-League clubs is great for the game. I wish the NPL and State League competitions were much stronger so that they were producing better players more often. Every part of the game need to become stronger.
|
|
|
|
|
LFC.
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xPretty sure most AL clubs already do You'd think so but apparently not. Which ones? I believe the Roar this past season decided to play the academy teams back in their age groups after previous years of playing up an age group. Naturally enough all the academy squads have won their comps apart from the U16's who unfortunately, finished 3rd after their performance drastically plateaued towards the end of the season. It is also worth mentioning that the academy players pay no fees, thereby giving club unrestricted access to the best players, as should be the case. Strange that the new academy boss seems to have adopted the opposite approach to other clubs, for what benefit? So, do you think it wasn’t good year for BR academies then? Sure, they might of won across their age groups but they certainly didn’t dominate. In fact, in our age group I think they were lucky to win. I think it has been a competitive competition all round and it only makes it stronger for the future. Of course, It would of been different if they were flogging everybody and it’s not like they weren’t playing kids up. They were still playing kids up, just not the whole team. For me, if they were focusing on players individually like physical, mental readiness etc then that is better approach to development than just playing the whole team up. What determines a successful season for a jnr academy team? I don't think you'll get the answer for a couple of years yet. It's a shame Coffs got cancelled, it's not a bad barometer. Was just interesting to see the new philosophy this year and contrasting comments from Sydney FC, nothing else. Sorry but isn't a successful season one where your team finishes on top of the table? Is there another measure of success for a team? Yes. For development teams they should NOT focus on table position. So what would define success then? I'm baffled by this. Is this development methodology common in other sports? Do swimming coaches throw the kids in the pool and say "f%ck winning the race just as long as you don't drown" ? Sport by it's very definition is the competitive outcome of a result between two players or teams. Everything lyou do to make you competitive for that game-match-bout or whatever is just training. You’re either just baiting the conversation or you know nothing about development coaching?
The purpose of an Academy is to develop players, not win titles. The measure of an Academy should be the quality of players it develops, the number of quality players it develops, not whether it finishes 1st or not.
No need to be so condescending I have mentioned previously that I have no coaching experience. My question however still stands, you say that academy players are being developed for free by, in this case, Brisbane Roar.... Why? I assume a squad of say 23 each year "graduates" out of this system or is too old to play in the NPL setup. What happens to them? What does Brisbane get back for its investment into these players? With the average career for a professional footballer being 8 years and a squad size of say 24, theoretically on average 3 new players are required each year. Those players can be bought in or promoted from the academy. From this it is obvious that most of the players in the academy will move on elsewhere. Clubs normally run academies to find the players that will make it to the higher level. Some of the exceptional ones can make them "big" dollars by eventually selling them overseas, lesser ones they keep in house and other players they might be able to sell on to other clubs in Australia. It can be quite lucrative in a more normal league that allows transfers between clubs. Even if they are not making money out of selling on players top tier clubs have a responsibility to be developing players for the wider good of the game. " It can be quite lucrative in a more normal league that allows transfers between clubs." I agree with this that's why I am asking about their purpose here in Australia. Depending on which side of the divide your opinion sits, I believe our playing pool for the Socceroos is fairly shallow at the moment and am wondering if one of the reasons is that these players who are developed "for the good of the game" don't have any professional destinations to play for? Not asking about what happens in the rest of the world. I know why Ajax has a youth academy or why Red Star Belgrade or what La Macia is for etc etc, but why do the A-League teams? The A-League clubs run academies for the same reason as everyone else... to develop players. They obviously produce more players than they can use themselves so the extras get moved on to get picked up by clubs that are generally in the lower standard leagues like NPL1, NPL2, NPL3 etc. Not many tend to filter through in Victoria from what I can observe but ok I'll let that part slide as I'm sure it will get pounced on by the number crunchers.. So how many ifvthwirvoqn products do the actual franchise's use? No one wants to give a straight answer? Watching Marconi and now Sydney Croatia get stripped of players this week I'm wondering why they don't use their own academy players? Why would kids stay at Marconi or Sydney United if they can get a gig with one of the A-League academies? I'm not sure about Sydney FC but at Wanderers they don't pay for their spot in the academy unlike at the NPL clubs. The A-League is the pinnacle of club football in Australia so the clubs are always scouting to get the best young players into their system so its a pretty cutthroat environment. The average career for a professional footballer is about 8 years so with squads of 24 a club would need on average 3 replacement players each year but the academy players have to compete for those spots against players from everywhere. No I am referring to senior squad NPL players (two that just played in the NSW final yesterday) signing for a league first teams and these ( I assume the franchise's are paying their players these days but I'm sure Sydney Croatia got sweet f all) A league teams NOT signing players directly out of their own world class, 10000 times better than the wog NPL clubs, free academies???? Wanderers have 8 players in their A-League squad that "graduated" from their academy and NPL squads so theirs seems to be working fine. That the NPL clubs also produce some good players that get picked up by A-League clubs is great for the game. I wish the NPL and State League competitions were much stronger so that they were producing better players more often. Every part of the game need to become stronger. yes it is good to see - I wonder IF they all get to play more than off the bench. The 2 notables with game time of the 7 I see is Baccus 20 games obviously and Russell @ 15. Thats not looking deep into the stats and see if start up or sub. The others aren't even into double figures maybe subs more than start up BUT it is better than nothing. Being I'm a regular PL spectator I see alot talent be it PL1/2 and 3. It could be stronger easily but its been left on the side more than anything imo due to the focus is all on the AL Clubs and their academies. PL1 Snr players are not getting a look in general enough otherwise we'd be seeing more given the chance. Jordan Murray if I recall right is about (Sydney wise) the only or last one plucked out in recent times. What are you seeing Gyfox ?
Love Football
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xPretty sure most AL clubs already do You'd think so but apparently not. Which ones? I believe the Roar this past season decided to play the academy teams back in their age groups after previous years of playing up an age group. Naturally enough all the academy squads have won their comps apart from the U16's who unfortunately, finished 3rd after their performance drastically plateaued towards the end of the season. It is also worth mentioning that the academy players pay no fees, thereby giving club unrestricted access to the best players, as should be the case. Strange that the new academy boss seems to have adopted the opposite approach to other clubs, for what benefit? So, do you think it wasn’t good year for BR academies then? Sure, they might of won across their age groups but they certainly didn’t dominate. In fact, in our age group I think they were lucky to win. I think it has been a competitive competition all round and it only makes it stronger for the future. Of course, It would of been different if they were flogging everybody and it’s not like they weren’t playing kids up. They were still playing kids up, just not the whole team. For me, if they were focusing on players individually like physical, mental readiness etc then that is better approach to development than just playing the whole team up. What determines a successful season for a jnr academy team? I don't think you'll get the answer for a couple of years yet. It's a shame Coffs got cancelled, it's not a bad barometer. Was just interesting to see the new philosophy this year and contrasting comments from Sydney FC, nothing else. Sorry but isn't a successful season one where your team finishes on top of the table? Is there another measure of success for a team? Yes. For development teams they should NOT focus on table position. So what would define success then? I'm baffled by this. Is this development methodology common in other sports? Do swimming coaches throw the kids in the pool and say "f%ck winning the race just as long as you don't drown" ? Sport by it's very definition is the competitive outcome of a result between two players or teams. Everything lyou do to make you competitive for that game-match-bout or whatever is just training. You’re either just baiting the conversation or you know nothing about development coaching?
The purpose of an Academy is to develop players, not win titles. The measure of an Academy should be the quality of players it develops, the number of quality players it develops, not whether it finishes 1st or not.
No need to be so condescending I have mentioned previously that I have no coaching experience. My question however still stands, you say that academy players are being developed for free by, in this case, Brisbane Roar.... Why? I assume a squad of say 23 each year "graduates" out of this system or is too old to play in the NPL setup. What happens to them? What does Brisbane get back for its investment into these players? With the average career for a professional footballer being 8 years and a squad size of say 24, theoretically on average 3 new players are required each year. Those players can be bought in or promoted from the academy. From this it is obvious that most of the players in the academy will move on elsewhere. Clubs normally run academies to find the players that will make it to the higher level. Some of the exceptional ones can make them "big" dollars by eventually selling them overseas, lesser ones they keep in house and other players they might be able to sell on to other clubs in Australia. It can be quite lucrative in a more normal league that allows transfers between clubs. Even if they are not making money out of selling on players top tier clubs have a responsibility to be developing players for the wider good of the game. " It can be quite lucrative in a more normal league that allows transfers between clubs." I agree with this that's why I am asking about their purpose here in Australia. Depending on which side of the divide your opinion sits, I believe our playing pool for the Socceroos is fairly shallow at the moment and am wondering if one of the reasons is that these players who are developed "for the good of the game" don't have any professional destinations to play for? Not asking about what happens in the rest of the world. I know why Ajax has a youth academy or why Red Star Belgrade or what La Macia is for etc etc, but why do the A-League teams? The A-League clubs run academies for the same reason as everyone else... to develop players. They obviously produce more players than they can use themselves so the extras get moved on to get picked up by clubs that are generally in the lower standard leagues like NPL1, NPL2, NPL3 etc. Not many tend to filter through in Victoria from what I can observe but ok I'll let that part slide as I'm sure it will get pounced on by the number crunchers.. So how many ifvthwirvoqn products do the actual franchise's use? No one wants to give a straight answer? Watching Marconi and now Sydney Croatia get stripped of players this week I'm wondering why they don't use their own academy players? Why would kids stay at Marconi or Sydney United if they can get a gig with one of the A-League academies? I'm not sure about Sydney FC but at Wanderers they don't pay for their spot in the academy unlike at the NPL clubs. The A-League is the pinnacle of club football in Australia so the clubs are always scouting to get the best young players into their system so its a pretty cutthroat environment. The average career for a professional footballer is about 8 years so with squads of 24 a club would need on average 3 replacement players each year but the academy players have to compete for those spots against players from everywhere. No I am referring to senior squad NPL players (two that just played in the NSW final yesterday) signing for a league first teams and these ( I assume the franchise's are paying their players these days but I'm sure Sydney Croatia got sweet f all) A league teams NOT signing players directly out of their own world class, 10000 times better than the wog NPL clubs, free academies???? Wanderers have 8 players in their A-League squad that "graduated" from their academy and NPL squads so theirs seems to be working fine. That the NPL clubs also produce some good players that get picked up by A-League clubs is great for the game. I wish the NPL and State League competitions were much stronger so that they were producing better players more often. Every part of the game need to become stronger. Totally agree. Every part of the game is important
|
|
|
|
|
Zoltan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 444,
Visits: 0
|
Some good points all around
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xPretty sure most AL clubs already do You'd think so but apparently not. Which ones? I believe the Roar this past season decided to play the academy teams back in their age groups after previous years of playing up an age group. Naturally enough all the academy squads have won their comps apart from the U16's who unfortunately, finished 3rd after their performance drastically plateaued towards the end of the season. It is also worth mentioning that the academy players pay no fees, thereby giving club unrestricted access to the best players, as should be the case. Strange that the new academy boss seems to have adopted the opposite approach to other clubs, for what benefit? So, do you think it wasn’t good year for BR academies then? Sure, they might of won across their age groups but they certainly didn’t dominate. In fact, in our age group I think they were lucky to win. I think it has been a competitive competition all round and it only makes it stronger for the future. Of course, It would of been different if they were flogging everybody and it’s not like they weren’t playing kids up. They were still playing kids up, just not the whole team. For me, if they were focusing on players individually like physical, mental readiness etc then that is better approach to development than just playing the whole team up. What determines a successful season for a jnr academy team? I don't think you'll get the answer for a couple of years yet. It's a shame Coffs got cancelled, it's not a bad barometer. Was just interesting to see the new philosophy this year and contrasting comments from Sydney FC, nothing else. Sorry but isn't a successful season one where your team finishes on top of the table? Is there another measure of success for a team? Yes. For development teams they should NOT focus on table position. So what would define success then? I'm baffled by this. Is this development methodology common in other sports? Do swimming coaches throw the kids in the pool and say "f%ck winning the race just as long as you don't drown" ? Sport by it's very definition is the competitive outcome of a result between two players or teams. Everything lyou do to make you competitive for that game-match-bout or whatever is just training. You’re either just baiting the conversation or you know nothing about development coaching?
The purpose of an Academy is to develop players, not win titles. The measure of an Academy should be the quality of players it develops, the number of quality players it develops, not whether it finishes 1st or not.
No need to be so condescending I have mentioned previously that I have no coaching experience. My question however still stands, you say that academy players are being developed for free by, in this case, Brisbane Roar.... Why? I assume a squad of say 23 each year "graduates" out of this system or is too old to play in the NPL setup. What happens to them? What does Brisbane get back for its investment into these players? With the average career for a professional footballer being 8 years and a squad size of say 24, theoretically on average 3 new players are required each year. Those players can be bought in or promoted from the academy. From this it is obvious that most of the players in the academy will move on elsewhere. Clubs normally run academies to find the players that will make it to the higher level. Some of the exceptional ones can make them "big" dollars by eventually selling them overseas, lesser ones they keep in house and other players they might be able to sell on to other clubs in Australia. It can be quite lucrative in a more normal league that allows transfers between clubs. Even if they are not making money out of selling on players top tier clubs have a responsibility to be developing players for the wider good of the game. " It can be quite lucrative in a more normal league that allows transfers between clubs." I agree with this that's why I am asking about their purpose here in Australia. Depending on which side of the divide your opinion sits, I believe our playing pool for the Socceroos is fairly shallow at the moment and am wondering if one of the reasons is that these players who are developed "for the good of the game" don't have any professional destinations to play for? Not asking about what happens in the rest of the world. I know why Ajax has a youth academy or why Red Star Belgrade or what La Macia is for etc etc, but why do the A-League teams? The A-League clubs run academies for the same reason as everyone else... to develop players. They obviously produce more players than they can use themselves so the extras get moved on to get picked up by clubs that are generally in the lower standard leagues like NPL1, NPL2, NPL3 etc. Not many tend to filter through in Victoria from what I can observe but ok I'll let that part slide as I'm sure it will get pounced on by the number crunchers.. So how many ifvthwirvoqn products do the actual franchise's use? No one wants to give a straight answer? Watching Marconi and now Sydney Croatia get stripped of players this week I'm wondering why they don't use their own academy players? Monoethnic social club - you make some good points. There is a big q mark around what are the major drivers that turn a good youth player into a great senior player (a-league etc). The very fact that some of the players never made an a-league academy as juniors could be the 'major driver' that turns them into great senior players. It could be the parents who make that final difference. It could be the kids best friend. It could be the kids technical coach. And yes it could be the club. All will try and claim credit and the truth is very murky. Every talent id person in the world is trying to figure this out. West Hams Mikael Antonio got rejected from every second rate academy in England and had to come up through the amateur leagues. Personally I think being at an a-league academy is preferred but the kid, the coaches, the parents shouldn't be complacent. Its not enough. BTW I also agree with you that A-league academies should be aiming to win. Yes they need to develop players but unless they have clear metrics as to what this means (develop players) its a bit fuzzy. Sounds like a good excuse for mediocre performances. If the metric is 'players that graduate from u19's to senior football' - are they really sure they can claim that if they signed the player at 18 years of age? The only metric that counts in football is winning....give me another one and ill mount an argument why its fluff... It is anything but fuzzy. There are clear measurements you can put on individual players from month to month that will determine their development progress .... none of which are related to ladder position.
If an Academy sides aim “is to win” then you recruit, select and retain players to win games. Even if you know a player isn’t going to be good enough in a few years time you keep them, because they help you win this weekend.
Winning games is not wrong for an Academy team (by definition it should consist of good players and therefore should win plenty of games) but winning games is not the right measure for development and is contrary to (pretty much) all coaching wisdom
|
|
|
|
|
Zoltan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 444,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xPretty sure most AL clubs already do You'd think so but apparently not. Which ones? I believe the Roar this past season decided to play the academy teams back in their age groups after previous years of playing up an age group. Naturally enough all the academy squads have won their comps apart from the U16's who unfortunately, finished 3rd after their performance drastically plateaued towards the end of the season. It is also worth mentioning that the academy players pay no fees, thereby giving club unrestricted access to the best players, as should be the case. Strange that the new academy boss seems to have adopted the opposite approach to other clubs, for what benefit? So, do you think it wasn’t good year for BR academies then? Sure, they might of won across their age groups but they certainly didn’t dominate. In fact, in our age group I think they were lucky to win. I think it has been a competitive competition all round and it only makes it stronger for the future. Of course, It would of been different if they were flogging everybody and it’s not like they weren’t playing kids up. They were still playing kids up, just not the whole team. For me, if they were focusing on players individually like physical, mental readiness etc then that is better approach to development than just playing the whole team up. What determines a successful season for a jnr academy team? I don't think you'll get the answer for a couple of years yet. It's a shame Coffs got cancelled, it's not a bad barometer. Was just interesting to see the new philosophy this year and contrasting comments from Sydney FC, nothing else. Sorry but isn't a successful season one where your team finishes on top of the table? Is there another measure of success for a team? Yes. For development teams they should NOT focus on table position. So what would define success then? I'm baffled by this. Is this development methodology common in other sports? Do swimming coaches throw the kids in the pool and say "f%ck winning the race just as long as you don't drown" ? Sport by it's very definition is the competitive outcome of a result between two players or teams. Everything lyou do to make you competitive for that game-match-bout or whatever is just training. You’re either just baiting the conversation or you know nothing about development coaching?
The purpose of an Academy is to develop players, not win titles. The measure of an Academy should be the quality of players it develops, the number of quality players it develops, not whether it finishes 1st or not.
No need to be so condescending I have mentioned previously that I have no coaching experience. My question however still stands, you say that academy players are being developed for free by, in this case, Brisbane Roar.... Why? I assume a squad of say 23 each year "graduates" out of this system or is too old to play in the NPL setup. What happens to them? What does Brisbane get back for its investment into these players? With the average career for a professional footballer being 8 years and a squad size of say 24, theoretically on average 3 new players are required each year. Those players can be bought in or promoted from the academy. From this it is obvious that most of the players in the academy will move on elsewhere. Clubs normally run academies to find the players that will make it to the higher level. Some of the exceptional ones can make them "big" dollars by eventually selling them overseas, lesser ones they keep in house and other players they might be able to sell on to other clubs in Australia. It can be quite lucrative in a more normal league that allows transfers between clubs. Even if they are not making money out of selling on players top tier clubs have a responsibility to be developing players for the wider good of the game. " It can be quite lucrative in a more normal league that allows transfers between clubs." I agree with this that's why I am asking about their purpose here in Australia. Depending on which side of the divide your opinion sits, I believe our playing pool for the Socceroos is fairly shallow at the moment and am wondering if one of the reasons is that these players who are developed "for the good of the game" don't have any professional destinations to play for? Not asking about what happens in the rest of the world. I know why Ajax has a youth academy or why Red Star Belgrade or what La Macia is for etc etc, but why do the A-League teams? The A-League clubs run academies for the same reason as everyone else... to develop players. They obviously produce more players than they can use themselves so the extras get moved on to get picked up by clubs that are generally in the lower standard leagues like NPL1, NPL2, NPL3 etc. Not many tend to filter through in Victoria from what I can observe but ok I'll let that part slide as I'm sure it will get pounced on by the number crunchers.. So how many ifvthwirvoqn products do the actual franchise's use? No one wants to give a straight answer? Watching Marconi and now Sydney Croatia get stripped of players this week I'm wondering why they don't use their own academy players? Monoethnic social club - you make some good points. There is a big q mark around what are the major drivers that turn a good youth player into a great senior player (a-league etc). The very fact that some of the players never made an a-league academy as juniors could be the 'major driver' that turns them into great senior players. It could be the parents who make that final difference. It could be the kids best friend. It could be the kids technical coach. And yes it could be the club. All will try and claim credit and the truth is very murky. Every talent id person in the world is trying to figure this out. West Hams Mikael Antonio got rejected from every second rate academy in England and had to come up through the amateur leagues. Personally I think being at an a-league academy is preferred but the kid, the coaches, the parents shouldn't be complacent. Its not enough. BTW I also agree with you that A-league academies should be aiming to win. Yes they need to develop players but unless they have clear metrics as to what this means (develop players) its a bit fuzzy. Sounds like a good excuse for mediocre performances. If the metric is 'players that graduate from u19's to senior football' - are they really sure they can claim that if they signed the player at 18 years of age? The only metric that counts in football is winning....give me another one and ill mount an argument why its fluff... It is anything but fuzzy. There are clear measurements you can put on individual players from month to month that will determine their development progress .... none of which are related to ladder position.
If an Academy sides aim “is to win” then you recruit, select and retain players to win games. Even if you know a player isn’t going to be good enough in a few years time you keep them, because they help you win this weekend.
Winning games is not wrong for an Academy team (by definition it should consist of good players and therefore should win plenty of games) but winning games is not the right measure for development and is contrary to (pretty much) all coaching wisdom As I said I think the kids should be playing at the highest level possible and academies are that. This is more an intellectual discussion about metrics. Im not sure its that clear. I reckon they look at who is impacting games (at the end of the day) In your reasoning you said 'even though you know the kid won't be good enough in a few years time'. How do you know that? A big strong kid can turn into a big strong adult. How do you know which kids are not so great now but will be? They are difficult things to answer. Tough job talent ID
|
|
|
|
|
WAHammer
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 31,
Visits: 0
|
Interesting that ECU Joondalup here in Perth has dropped all fees for its junior boys teams and has also done the same for newly established girls teams.
Was some good coverage on this weeks back and has followed the involvement of new coach Kenny Lowe.
They have a good record of players going to Europe, UK mostly given the expat makeup of the area, and Kenny has a tremendous record with the youth set up in WA. So putting the two together now and without any fees could be the start of something very special for even better youth development at ECU.
Aso see that ECU have players 'playing up' as a matter of if they are good enough then do it. Has been a number of 16 year olds regularly in their NPL WA first team and doing well.
ECU came first in the NPL WA this season too, coinciding with the introduction as Kenny as coach and a large contingent of young hungry talented players in their NPL WA first team
|
|
|
|
|
kaufusi
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
SFC does it well. In their recent u20 grand final team there i believe there was 1 19yo, 5-6 18 yo, 6-7 17 yo, and a couple of 16 yo.
It's not as if the u20s is exclusively 18-19 yos. Players are picked based on their development level, not their age. Several 16 year olds played NPL this year.
The main problem is with aleague rules around squad sizes, scholarships, and the salary cap. All players under the age of 20 should be excluded from the cap and roster limits (or scrap these entirely - but that discussion is for another thread). Had SFC been able to contract all of our top academy prospects to long term senior contracts, without being in a position where they have to play Aleague due to squad limits, we could have made several million in transfer fees in recent months. Instead prospects leave for 5-100k as a training development fee as their not on pro contracts.
When aleague clubs can get to the point where they have talented prospects who either join the first team or earn big money o/s transfers the league will be in a much better shape.
|
|
|
|
|
Waz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xPretty sure most AL clubs already do You'd think so but apparently not. Which ones? I believe the Roar this past season decided to play the academy teams back in their age groups after previous years of playing up an age group. Naturally enough all the academy squads have won their comps apart from the U16's who unfortunately, finished 3rd after their performance drastically plateaued towards the end of the season. It is also worth mentioning that the academy players pay no fees, thereby giving club unrestricted access to the best players, as should be the case. Strange that the new academy boss seems to have adopted the opposite approach to other clubs, for what benefit? So, do you think it wasn’t good year for BR academies then? Sure, they might of won across their age groups but they certainly didn’t dominate. In fact, in our age group I think they were lucky to win. I think it has been a competitive competition all round and it only makes it stronger for the future. Of course, It would of been different if they were flogging everybody and it’s not like they weren’t playing kids up. They were still playing kids up, just not the whole team. For me, if they were focusing on players individually like physical, mental readiness etc then that is better approach to development than just playing the whole team up. What determines a successful season for a jnr academy team? I don't think you'll get the answer for a couple of years yet. It's a shame Coffs got cancelled, it's not a bad barometer. Was just interesting to see the new philosophy this year and contrasting comments from Sydney FC, nothing else. Sorry but isn't a successful season one where your team finishes on top of the table? Is there another measure of success for a team? Yes. For development teams they should NOT focus on table position. So what would define success then? I'm baffled by this. Is this development methodology common in other sports? Do swimming coaches throw the kids in the pool and say "f%ck winning the race just as long as you don't drown" ? Sport by it's very definition is the competitive outcome of a result between two players or teams. Everything lyou do to make you competitive for that game-match-bout or whatever is just training. You’re either just baiting the conversation or you know nothing about development coaching?
The purpose of an Academy is to develop players, not win titles. The measure of an Academy should be the quality of players it develops, the number of quality players it develops, not whether it finishes 1st or not.
No need to be so condescending I have mentioned previously that I have no coaching experience. My question however still stands, you say that academy players are being developed for free by, in this case, Brisbane Roar.... Why? I assume a squad of say 23 each year "graduates" out of this system or is too old to play in the NPL setup. What happens to them? What does Brisbane get back for its investment into these players? With the average career for a professional footballer being 8 years and a squad size of say 24, theoretically on average 3 new players are required each year. Those players can be bought in or promoted from the academy. From this it is obvious that most of the players in the academy will move on elsewhere. Clubs normally run academies to find the players that will make it to the higher level. Some of the exceptional ones can make them "big" dollars by eventually selling them overseas, lesser ones they keep in house and other players they might be able to sell on to other clubs in Australia. It can be quite lucrative in a more normal league that allows transfers between clubs. Even if they are not making money out of selling on players top tier clubs have a responsibility to be developing players for the wider good of the game. " It can be quite lucrative in a more normal league that allows transfers between clubs." I agree with this that's why I am asking about their purpose here in Australia. Depending on which side of the divide your opinion sits, I believe our playing pool for the Socceroos is fairly shallow at the moment and am wondering if one of the reasons is that these players who are developed "for the good of the game" don't have any professional destinations to play for? Not asking about what happens in the rest of the world. I know why Ajax has a youth academy or why Red Star Belgrade or what La Macia is for etc etc, but why do the A-League teams? The A-League clubs run academies for the same reason as everyone else... to develop players. They obviously produce more players than they can use themselves so the extras get moved on to get picked up by clubs that are generally in the lower standard leagues like NPL1, NPL2, NPL3 etc. Not many tend to filter through in Victoria from what I can observe but ok I'll let that part slide as I'm sure it will get pounced on by the number crunchers.. So how many ifvthwirvoqn products do the actual franchise's use? No one wants to give a straight answer? Watching Marconi and now Sydney Croatia get stripped of players this week I'm wondering why they don't use their own academy players? Monoethnic social club - you make some good points. There is a big q mark around what are the major drivers that turn a good youth player into a great senior player (a-league etc). The very fact that some of the players never made an a-league academy as juniors could be the 'major driver' that turns them into great senior players. It could be the parents who make that final difference. It could be the kids best friend. It could be the kids technical coach. And yes it could be the club. All will try and claim credit and the truth is very murky. Every talent id person in the world is trying to figure this out. West Hams Mikael Antonio got rejected from every second rate academy in England and had to come up through the amateur leagues. Personally I think being at an a-league academy is preferred but the kid, the coaches, the parents shouldn't be complacent. Its not enough. BTW I also agree with you that A-league academies should be aiming to win. Yes they need to develop players but unless they have clear metrics as to what this means (develop players) its a bit fuzzy. Sounds like a good excuse for mediocre performances. If the metric is 'players that graduate from u19's to senior football' - are they really sure they can claim that if they signed the player at 18 years of age? The only metric that counts in football is winning....give me another one and ill mount an argument why its fluff... It is anything but fuzzy. There are clear measurements you can put on individual players from month to month that will determine their development progress .... none of which are related to ladder position.
If an Academy sides aim “is to win” then you recruit, select and retain players to win games. Even if you know a player isn’t going to be good enough in a few years time you keep them, because they help you win this weekend.
Winning games is not wrong for an Academy team (by definition it should consist of good players and therefore should win plenty of games) but winning games is not the right measure for development and is contrary to (pretty much) all coaching wisdom As I said I think the kids should be playing at the highest level possible and academies are that. This is more an intellectual discussion about metrics. Im not sure its that clear. I reckon they look at who is impacting games (at the end of the day) In your reasoning you said 'even though you know the kid won't be good enough in a few years time'. How do you know that? A big strong kid can turn into a big strong adult. How do you know which kids are not so great now but will be?They are difficult things to answer. Tough job talent ID You’re not wrong in there is uncertainty at any age, but a coach at some point has to have an opinion on every player and take action accordingly if a coach believes a player won’t make the Senior grade then s/he needs to act on that and not retain that player just because it helps them win matches and improves ladder position this season.
As an example - if an U16 coach’s figures out the RB has reached his peak then that player should be dropped and replaced, often by the U15 RB, even if that weakens the U16 and U15 sides. Winning is not the goal - player development is.
i accept that any coach can get these decisions wrong, and in an Academy situation multiple coaches should be involved in a decision but that can often make it worse, but the reality is a teams results do not factor in to these decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
thekingmb
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xInteresting that ECU Joondalup here in Perth has dropped all fees for its junior boys teams and has also done the same for newly established girls teams. Was some good coverage on this weeks back and has followed the involvement of new coach Kenny Lowe. They have a good record of players going to Europe, UK mostly given the expat makeup of the area, and Kenny has a tremendous record with the youth set up in WA. So putting the two together now and without any fees could be the start of something very special for even better youth development at ECU. Aso see that ECU have players 'playing up' as a matter of if they are good enough then do it. Has been a number of 16 year olds regularly in their NPL WA first team and doing well. ECU came first in the NPL WA this season too, coinciding with the introduction as Kenny as coach and a large contingent of young hungry talented players in their NPL WA first team ECU have always pushed through youth, regardless of who was coach, which is why the haven't won any trophies. That changed this year when Kenny was able to sign some very good players, but they do still have some youngsters. Funnily enough, I remember playing against Howard Fondyke (he played for ECU) in under 15's...by the end of that year he was playing first team.
|
|
|
|
|
Zoltan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 444,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xPretty sure most AL clubs already do You'd think so but apparently not. Which ones? I believe the Roar this past season decided to play the academy teams back in their age groups after previous years of playing up an age group. Naturally enough all the academy squads have won their comps apart from the U16's who unfortunately, finished 3rd after their performance drastically plateaued towards the end of the season. It is also worth mentioning that the academy players pay no fees, thereby giving club unrestricted access to the best players, as should be the case. Strange that the new academy boss seems to have adopted the opposite approach to other clubs, for what benefit? So, do you think it wasn’t good year for BR academies then? Sure, they might of won across their age groups but they certainly didn’t dominate. In fact, in our age group I think they were lucky to win. I think it has been a competitive competition all round and it only makes it stronger for the future. Of course, It would of been different if they were flogging everybody and it’s not like they weren’t playing kids up. They were still playing kids up, just not the whole team. For me, if they were focusing on players individually like physical, mental readiness etc then that is better approach to development than just playing the whole team up. What determines a successful season for a jnr academy team? I don't think you'll get the answer for a couple of years yet. It's a shame Coffs got cancelled, it's not a bad barometer. Was just interesting to see the new philosophy this year and contrasting comments from Sydney FC, nothing else. Sorry but isn't a successful season one where your team finishes on top of the table? Is there another measure of success for a team? Yes. For development teams they should NOT focus on table position. So what would define success then? I'm baffled by this. Is this development methodology common in other sports? Do swimming coaches throw the kids in the pool and say "f%ck winning the race just as long as you don't drown" ? Sport by it's very definition is the competitive outcome of a result between two players or teams. Everything lyou do to make you competitive for that game-match-bout or whatever is just training. You’re either just baiting the conversation or you know nothing about development coaching?
The purpose of an Academy is to develop players, not win titles. The measure of an Academy should be the quality of players it develops, the number of quality players it develops, not whether it finishes 1st or not.
No need to be so condescending I have mentioned previously that I have no coaching experience. My question however still stands, you say that academy players are being developed for free by, in this case, Brisbane Roar.... Why? I assume a squad of say 23 each year "graduates" out of this system or is too old to play in the NPL setup. What happens to them? What does Brisbane get back for its investment into these players? With the average career for a professional footballer being 8 years and a squad size of say 24, theoretically on average 3 new players are required each year. Those players can be bought in or promoted from the academy. From this it is obvious that most of the players in the academy will move on elsewhere. Clubs normally run academies to find the players that will make it to the higher level. Some of the exceptional ones can make them "big" dollars by eventually selling them overseas, lesser ones they keep in house and other players they might be able to sell on to other clubs in Australia. It can be quite lucrative in a more normal league that allows transfers between clubs. Even if they are not making money out of selling on players top tier clubs have a responsibility to be developing players for the wider good of the game. " It can be quite lucrative in a more normal league that allows transfers between clubs." I agree with this that's why I am asking about their purpose here in Australia. Depending on which side of the divide your opinion sits, I believe our playing pool for the Socceroos is fairly shallow at the moment and am wondering if one of the reasons is that these players who are developed "for the good of the game" don't have any professional destinations to play for? Not asking about what happens in the rest of the world. I know why Ajax has a youth academy or why Red Star Belgrade or what La Macia is for etc etc, but why do the A-League teams? The A-League clubs run academies for the same reason as everyone else... to develop players. They obviously produce more players than they can use themselves so the extras get moved on to get picked up by clubs that are generally in the lower standard leagues like NPL1, NPL2, NPL3 etc. Not many tend to filter through in Victoria from what I can observe but ok I'll let that part slide as I'm sure it will get pounced on by the number crunchers.. So how many ifvthwirvoqn products do the actual franchise's use? No one wants to give a straight answer? Watching Marconi and now Sydney Croatia get stripped of players this week I'm wondering why they don't use their own academy players? Monoethnic social club - you make some good points. There is a big q mark around what are the major drivers that turn a good youth player into a great senior player (a-league etc). The very fact that some of the players never made an a-league academy as juniors could be the 'major driver' that turns them into great senior players. It could be the parents who make that final difference. It could be the kids best friend. It could be the kids technical coach. And yes it could be the club. All will try and claim credit and the truth is very murky. Every talent id person in the world is trying to figure this out. West Hams Mikael Antonio got rejected from every second rate academy in England and had to come up through the amateur leagues. Personally I think being at an a-league academy is preferred but the kid, the coaches, the parents shouldn't be complacent. Its not enough. BTW I also agree with you that A-league academies should be aiming to win. Yes they need to develop players but unless they have clear metrics as to what this means (develop players) its a bit fuzzy. Sounds like a good excuse for mediocre performances. If the metric is 'players that graduate from u19's to senior football' - are they really sure they can claim that if they signed the player at 18 years of age? The only metric that counts in football is winning....give me another one and ill mount an argument why its fluff... It is anything but fuzzy. There are clear measurements you can put on individual players from month to month that will determine their development progress .... none of which are related to ladder position.
If an Academy sides aim “is to win” then you recruit, select and retain players to win games. Even if you know a player isn’t going to be good enough in a few years time you keep them, because they help you win this weekend.
Winning games is not wrong for an Academy team (by definition it should consist of good players and therefore should win plenty of games) but winning games is not the right measure for development and is contrary to (pretty much) all coaching wisdom As I said I think the kids should be playing at the highest level possible and academies are that. This is more an intellectual discussion about metrics. Im not sure its that clear. I reckon they look at who is impacting games (at the end of the day) In your reasoning you said 'even though you know the kid won't be good enough in a few years time'. How do you know that? A big strong kid can turn into a big strong adult. How do you know which kids are not so great now but will be?They are difficult things to answer. Tough job talent ID You’re not wrong in there is uncertainty at any age, but a coach at some point has to have an opinion on every player and take action accordingly if a coach believes a player won’t make the Senior grade then s/he needs to act on that and not retain that player just because it helps them win matches and improves ladder position this season.
As an example - if an U16 coach’s figures out the RB has reached his peak then that player should be dropped and replaced, often by the U15 RB, even if that weakens the U16 and U15 sides. Winning is not the goal - player development is.
i accept that any coach can get these decisions wrong, and in an Academy situation multiple coaches should be involved in a decision but that can often make it worse, but the reality is a teams results do not factor in to these decisions. How do you know the right back has reached his peak? If his/her performance drops off thats fine - but you cannot decide that when the kid is playing well and deserving to be in the team. So we are back to square one - the kids that perform stay and the kids that don't - move on. Smaller players need to adapt to a larger game in adulthood too. The average height of an EPL player is above 6'ft. So if you are going to be between 5'6 and 5'9 then learning how to be effective in games against bigger kids is an important skill I totally get where you are coming from but it sounds like conventional wisdom (which isn't always the best thing) The one metric I will concede to you is SPEED... This is the new black. If a kid is raw and fast my guess is he gets picked over players who might be performing better.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+xInteresting that ECU Joondalup here in Perth has dropped all fees for its junior boys teams and has also done the same for newly established girls teams. Was some good coverage on this weeks back and has followed the involvement of new coach Kenny Lowe. They have a good record of players going to Europe, UK mostly given the expat makeup of the area, and Kenny has a tremendous record with the youth set up in WA. So putting the two together now and without any fees could be the start of something very special for even better youth development at ECU. Aso see that ECU have players 'playing up' as a matter of if they are good enough then do it. Has been a number of 16 year olds regularly in their NPL WA first team and doing well. ECU came first in the NPL WA this season too, coinciding with the introduction as Kenny as coach and a large contingent of young hungry talented players in their NPL WA first team Hey that's great for Joondalup and agree it seems to be a good little nursery for talent in the West. I watched the Athena vs Perth Azzuri final the otherweek btw and was thoroughly entertained. If you know could you give me an insight as to how Joondalup can manage to not charge players fees and still provide c level coaches, boys and girls squads at every age group, insurance ground hire, equipment, ref wages etc etc etc every season? Who funds it? And why?
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xPretty sure most AL clubs already do You'd think so but apparently not. Which ones? I believe the Roar this past season decided to play the academy teams back in their age groups after previous years of playing up an age group. Naturally enough all the academy squads have won their comps apart from the U16's who unfortunately, finished 3rd after their performance drastically plateaued towards the end of the season. It is also worth mentioning that the academy players pay no fees, thereby giving club unrestricted access to the best players, as should be the case. Strange that the new academy boss seems to have adopted the opposite approach to other clubs, for what benefit? So, do you think it wasn’t good year for BR academies then? Sure, they might of won across their age groups but they certainly didn’t dominate. In fact, in our age group I think they were lucky to win. I think it has been a competitive competition all round and it only makes it stronger for the future. Of course, It would of been different if they were flogging everybody and it’s not like they weren’t playing kids up. They were still playing kids up, just not the whole team. For me, if they were focusing on players individually like physical, mental readiness etc then that is better approach to development than just playing the whole team up. What determines a successful season for a jnr academy team? I don't think you'll get the answer for a couple of years yet. It's a shame Coffs got cancelled, it's not a bad barometer. Was just interesting to see the new philosophy this year and contrasting comments from Sydney FC, nothing else. Sorry but isn't a successful season one where your team finishes on top of the table? Is there another measure of success for a team? Yes. For development teams they should NOT focus on table position. So what would define success then? I'm baffled by this. Is this development methodology common in other sports? Do swimming coaches throw the kids in the pool and say "f%ck winning the race just as long as you don't drown" ? Sport by it's very definition is the competitive outcome of a result between two players or teams. Everything lyou do to make you competitive for that game-match-bout or whatever is just training. You’re either just baiting the conversation or you know nothing about development coaching?
The purpose of an Academy is to develop players, not win titles. The measure of an Academy should be the quality of players it develops, the number of quality players it develops, not whether it finishes 1st or not.
No need to be so condescending I have mentioned previously that I have no coaching experience. My question however still stands, you say that academy players are being developed for free by, in this case, Brisbane Roar.... Why? I assume a squad of say 23 each year "graduates" out of this system or is too old to play in the NPL setup. What happens to them? What does Brisbane get back for its investment into these players? With the average career for a professional footballer being 8 years and a squad size of say 24, theoretically on average 3 new players are required each year. Those players can be bought in or promoted from the academy. From this it is obvious that most of the players in the academy will move on elsewhere. Clubs normally run academies to find the players that will make it to the higher level. Some of the exceptional ones can make them "big" dollars by eventually selling them overseas, lesser ones they keep in house and other players they might be able to sell on to other clubs in Australia. It can be quite lucrative in a more normal league that allows transfers between clubs. Even if they are not making money out of selling on players top tier clubs have a responsibility to be developing players for the wider good of the game. " It can be quite lucrative in a more normal league that allows transfers between clubs." I agree with this that's why I am asking about their purpose here in Australia. Depending on which side of the divide your opinion sits, I believe our playing pool for the Socceroos is fairly shallow at the moment and am wondering if one of the reasons is that these players who are developed "for the good of the game" don't have any professional destinations to play for? Not asking about what happens in the rest of the world. I know why Ajax has a youth academy or why Red Star Belgrade or what La Macia is for etc etc, but why do the A-League teams? The A-League clubs run academies for the same reason as everyone else... to develop players. They obviously produce more players than they can use themselves so the extras get moved on to get picked up by clubs that are generally in the lower standard leagues like NPL1, NPL2, NPL3 etc. Not many tend to filter through in Victoria from what I can observe but ok I'll let that part slide as I'm sure it will get pounced on by the number crunchers.. So how many ifvthwirvoqn products do the actual franchise's use? No one wants to give a straight answer? Watching Marconi and now Sydney Croatia get stripped of players this week I'm wondering why they don't use their own academy players? Monoethnic social club - you make some good points. There is a big q mark around what are the major drivers that turn a good youth player into a great senior player (a-league etc). The very fact that some of the players never made an a-league academy as juniors could be the 'major driver' that turns them into great senior players. It could be the parents who make that final difference. It could be the kids best friend. It could be the kids technical coach. And yes it could be the club. All will try and claim credit and the truth is very murky. Every talent id person in the world is trying to figure this out. West Hams Mikael Antonio got rejected from every second rate academy in England and had to come up through the amateur leagues. Personally I think being at an a-league academy is preferred but the kid, the coaches, the parents shouldn't be complacent. Its not enough. BTW I also agree with you that A-league academies should be aiming to win. Yes they need to develop players but unless they have clear metrics as to what this means (develop players) its a bit fuzzy. Sounds like a good excuse for mediocre performances. If the metric is 'players that graduate from u19's to senior football' - are they really sure they can claim that if they signed the player at 18 years of age? The only metric that counts in football is winning....give me another one and ill mount an argument why its fluff... It is anything but fuzzy. There are clear measurements you can put on individual players from month to month that will determine their development progress .... none of which are related to ladder position.
If an Academy sides aim “is to win” then you recruit, select and retain players to win games. Even if you know a player isn’t going to be good enough in a few years time you keep them, because they help you win this weekend.
Winning games is not wrong for an Academy team (by definition it should consist of good players and therefore should win plenty of games) but winning games is not the right measure for development and is contrary to (pretty much) all coaching wisdom But doesn't the "performance" for lack of a better word of the academy or club affect its reputation and standing up against any other competing academies if nothing else. What you describe is fine as the function of a federation run academy run for the benefit of creating players for the national team and the pro division in general however club academies not caring about the table would only still attract the best talent if they where the only academies with a direct link to pro soccer.... oh f#ck now I get it.....
|
|
|
|