IMO they are playing the way they have been and are being instructed to.
There is too much emphasis on results at a younger age for them to be trained correctly. Too many coaches and perants would rather see an elite group slay an inferior opponent than remove a player from the field and play with a possible loss or draw.I have and am watching it every week. I on the other hand make 4 teams with different players play the same style and win draw and very occasional lose. (nuestro estilo no es negociable) i make the kids yell this before each half. When the players development from U6 through till U17 is the most important thing and not the coaches ego we will have got there as a country and a sport.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdIb5RPabjw

Interesting article by Craig Foster in the aforementioned thread.

From that group of under 16s was it only Foster and Trimboli who progressed to senior Socceroos?

Young footballers of this age make a lot more mistakes than senior footballers.

They also make a lot more poor decisions.




Edited by Decentric: 27/10/2015 04:24:11 PM

I'm no zealot.

I have a few small areas that concern me in the FFA NC.

There are two points where you, or somebody else, has been facetious in criticising the curriculum for the wrong reasons. There is nothing wrong with criticising curriculum, but in these cases they are wrong.

1. One poster further back in this thread belittled playing out from the back and building up through the midfield being aspects of discussion of the Oz under 17s using diamonds and triangles.

Diamonds and triangles are integral to playing through the midfield.

I'm asking you discuss their value playing through the midfield, Munrub? This is in light of you finding it so funny.


2. Another poster, who could've been you, made a comment ridiculing step overs in a genuine football discussion.](*,)

Any player needs a range of evasion techniques on both sides of the body to be an effective footballer, particularly in attack. Some players find some types of step over to be useful 1v1 evasion skills. Some don't feel comfortable with them.

I'm sure it was you Munrub, who listed the Rabona and the Elastic as being show tricks. The Rabona is, the Elastic isn't.

I've seen many pro players beat players using Elastics. Cristiano Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Ronaldo, Denilson, Garrincha have all done it effectively in games. I'm pretty sure I've never seen an Aussie do it in a match .

FWIW Munrub, I enjoy the points that you make in these discussions. You are a lot smarter and posit far better arguments than the cretinous Bitters who post on Forum Anarchy.

Your points create the preconditions for further discussion.

I'm also more more careful in analysing players of the past. They made good contributions. However, some don't like them being appraised using modern football criteria.

Fair play to you.:)








Edited by Decentric: 27/10/2015 04:34:14 PM

I want to see the stats on passes completed and unforced turnovers. If they dare ?

Any program that focused on lifting standards such as the NC or in any field its all about see what your done well and what further you could improve on, you never stand still.

The current Joeys have shown the benefits of SAP working well in terms of technique and 1v1s attacking and in defending but we need to work on making our players more intelligent in terms of how they use the ball, how they create more space etc.

That's just an example that the FFA should do when doing their evaluation, but in general i hope the FFA will use this is excellent data to evaluate the FFA NC and the national team performance.

it is there to be judged, belittled and criticised. If it cant be modified and challenged it is not worth having.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't belittle the curriculum.

I could ask you to point out where you think I belittled the curriculum but you are a zealot that has formed an opinion and cannot be shaken from it so I won't expect you to find any sort of quote I've made that proves your assertion.

I note with interest you made no comment on your first exposure to the FFA curriculum.

Condescension can be used as a weak argument for someone else to posit a more persuasive argument, than the one making the accusatory claim of 'condescension.'

You keep saying you are not against the FFA NC , yet you belittle aspects of it.:roll:

If you keep belittling aspects of the National Curriculum, which is based on FIFA Technical Committees previously finding flaws in Aussie players, then the logical conclusion is that you don't understand the tenets of the curriculum, and why they are in it.

Condescension. Every. Single. Time.

I am fully aware thanks very much.

And enough of the history lessons. I wouldn't mind betting, unless you were through the very first intake, that I was inculcated before you in the FFA curriculum and the methodology behind it.

You are not the only bloke on here with coaching badges. (You're probably the only bloke with A KNVB badge I'll give you that.)

Gross simplification of what I've mooted, Munrub.

Various FIFA Technical Committees in tournaments pre 2005 concluded the same flaws in Australian players at major tournaments. Given these flaws, Australia didn't/ hasn't had the capacity to improve as a football nation on a regular basis.

A National Curriculum has been prescribed, within parameters, to remedy the areas of play FIFA Technical Committees identified in our teams of yesteryear. From what we are observing in the under 17s and under that age, these technical shortfalls appear to have been redressed.

A diversity of 1v1 techniques were not being addressed on the training track in order for players to acquire them as skills to the quantity of quality that are being exposed in a holistic system that we have now. The points you've made about other areas being addressed too have validity. We are developing more rounded players by developing a multi-faceted one.

I think you'v e alluded to two footedness and shooting technique as being paramount too. I agree with you.

In the past though we didn't have the capacity to play in neat triangles and diamonds and build up from the back. We now have sound coaching methodology that assists players to think proactively as to how to do this following the principles of European powerhouses .

I'm also not sure you understand the priority of why which areas of the game are coached as a priority in the golden age of learning though.

Have I once said I am against the FFA philosophy? Have I once said things were better in the old days?

The only thing I vehemently object to is the constant running down of teams pre-2005 who, despite decentrics recollection, could play a wall pass.

My argument in the previous pages can be distilled into one line.

Playing out from the back and 1 v 1 duels aren't the be all and end all.

For that I got all sorts of grief like a 16 year old kid is not capable of knowing what a through ball is, stepovers are the greatest thing since sliced bread and a 1-2 should never be attempted when you can pull of a kleberson or whatever the hell decentric calls them.

I wasn't annoyed I just thought you were wrong, still do.

You mention how we made the semi's and the final the other times but I those circumstance we were playing a vastly different style of play and one that wasn't producing a great number of elite footballers. It was great for juniors in terms of getting results but in seniors it lacked the cutting edge we needed to take the next step up. Look at the team that made the final vs Brazil, only 3 players went on to play for the senior team and apart from Kennedy none of them did that well.

Reminded me of this........

[youtube]BmTUOuXPlnA[/youtube]

Incredible improvement in your written English in such a short time.

All you "h8ers" in the anti immigration thread in ET can go and get fucked.

Look at the enormous strides our new boat people can make when they put their mind to it.

Very good idea. In the game against germany I thought we were better in the first half which is all i watched against germany. They killed us on the counter with their lethal finishing, but in the general play we matched them.

The official match stats for that game confirm it was a closer game.

http://resources.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/02/71/88/30/eng_05_1018_aus-ger_fulltime_neutral.pdf

And the Argentina:
http://resources.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/02/72/16/57/eng_31_1024_arg-aus_fulltime.pdf

I went over this, much to the annoyance of jonsnow, capac and others, in great depth with quickflick so I won't again.

You'll need to go back to page 108 and go from there.



Edited by munrubenmuz: 27/10/2015 11:29:07 AM

Just like those times we made the semis and the final.

That was my subjective perception about how the game went

Many of their shots were close. When teams outnumber your shots on goal by nearly 3:1, there are issues, all over the park. The team is not creating enough up front, and is under siege down back. Genc's comment in the second half was telling "nearly all the defending is in our back third."

It was 27 shots to 11. Though both had 4 on target from memory.

The other one was corners Decentric. And 3 of our corners came in the last few mins.

Maybe we need to start introducing a new stat like in tennis. "Forced errors" and "Unforced errors". Might be a grey area but we would have had a huge amount of unforced turnovers, where on the other hand we forced a number of turnovers from the Argies.

That is what I thought, or was it balls played into the penalty box?

I think its 27 shots off target to the joeys 11

It is showing our growing maturity as a football nation.

If we had been in a group with opponents, Germany, Mexico and Argentina, we would never have expected to qualify in the past in such a tough group.

Thanks for this.


The two stats I'm not clear on according to the icons are the second one down that had Argentina 27 to Oz's 11, and the 4th one down that favoured Argentina 10 to 4.

I think I know what they are but the icons don't make sense to a non-nerd like me.

Such as?

end of this video has some stats of the game. 49% possession, fewer total shots but same amount on target, fewer corners and fewer fouls

[youtube]?v=Nq7i7SY6AKY[/youtube]

We lose, but play well, we don't play to our strengths, we win & get a result without playing well, we get criticised as well, can't win, except we did.

i'd like to see some stats as I thought we were totally out possessed, out tackled, and basically out-played for much of this game. So many stray passes, poor decison-making, takimg opponents on when its not on.

And that's the good thing. We're progressing as a nation where simply beating sides isn't enough. The way we beat them is just as important.

We scraped through this time, but hopefully next tournament we'll have a deeper squad, better rotations, less reliance on particular players, and a better technician on the sidelines. And with all this hopefully we can be at a stage where we beat Argentina or Mexico by a few goals, and limit their possession and chances too.

Nz beat brazil ? wake up to yourself