By f1dave - 9 Feb 2012 2:52 PM
We've all heard about the so-called Dutch Mafia and the British Disease present in the world game in Australia and preached around the world.
But given the fact that since 1978 there have only been three world cup finals not to feature a South American team, why is so much of the 'fashionable' or 'current' football thinking based on methods from Europe (and specifically from countries that have not won at senior level for quite some time - countries like France and Germany have been far more successful, yet we are not after their coaches, methodologies, or strategies?)
Discuss.
(Note: Not a naive comment or Dutch/Brit-bashing post either, just a legitimate question)
|
By Decentric - 9 Feb 2012 10:01 PM
Recently Liverpool's Jamie Gaaragher was interviewd about coaching. He said that some years ago KNVB was considered best methodology. Then Clairefontaine, the French academy, was considered to be world's best practice.
Now he contends Barca Academy is considered world's best practice.
Given two of the above have a massive Dutch influence, it seems plausible Australia has gone down this road. Also, Germany has overhauled their system based on Dutch principles.
In 2006, if we had had a French coach and the Socceroos were successful, we may have gone down the French coaching track. Instead Hiddink had Dutch connections.
South American practice is probably based more on having large numbers of kids who have played enormous amounts of street football, which is probably a major reason for their success.
Conversely, the Europeans have probably produced more footballers through organised club/ national federation academy practices than South America. In Australia, given other distractions, being a western country, we are unlikely to replicate producing large numbers of good footballers through playing lots of street football. European practices probably best suits Australia.
The first three placed teams at the last World Cup all used Dutch practice.
|
|