Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Options

Excellent piece on England in the Times today

edited November 2007 in General Charlton
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/martin_samuel/article2926251.ece


An Extract

"Croatia did not win because of pride or passion, the famous red herrings of English football. They won because those two elements remain our greatest strength and faced with a team who have them, too — and plenty do in these days of new republics — it comes down to who is better at football; and the good continental team will triumph. "

Comments

  • Options
    Yeah read that on the train this morning, and agree 100% with it, especially the stuff about kids football.

    What the hell are coaches at that level thinking that there in a 'results business'?
  • Options
    [cite]Posted By: Rothko[/cite]Yeah read that on the train this morning, and agree 100% with it, especially the stuff about kids football.

    What the hell are coaches at that level thinking that there in a 'results business'?

    Tell me about it. It is very much about winning at kids level. Don't know how it is with academies but certainly is with run of the mill sides.
  • Options
    But it should be, got this email from a friend in Sweden talking about their coaching system, we could learn a bit from it.


    I've been through the Swedish system for educating coaches. It's excellent. It teaches you that the social side comes first for kids. It has to be equitable and fair. You don't push things too fast, you don't overdo the physical side. You keep it human. Focus on ball skills. They call it being friends with the ball. You encourage them to do their turns and feints. You can do it with a ball in a corridor, you don't need a million pound acadamey. Then there has to be progression for those who want to push themselves a bit further. You introduce stuff about physical strength and preparation and recovery and eating right, at the right ages. There's also a view that there's a set of tactics for the national team that can be copied at any level. They play 4-1-4-1 and the holding midfielder in the current team (Linderoth) was considered the player with the most potential as he was coming through.

    But these things are a bit easier for smaller nations with reasonably homogenous populations. They feel they're underdogs in more than half the games they play, so they'll pull together at grass roots very naturally. It's a healthy nationalism. It's also a healthy humility in relation to the sport. They don't consider themselves to have any God given right to be at the top table. They think the English assume this (although to be honest I think that's a bit of red herring. The English are passionate about football and that can come across as arrogance.)
  • Options
    When I ran an under 10 side, (and I hasten to add I dont have any qualifications) I inherited a team who had lost all of their games the previous season. Training had previously consisted of basically a 5 a side game....I changed this and put a lot more emphasis on ball skills and awareness of space and passing....we actually ended up having a lot of fun with this after meeting with a fair bit of resistance initially. The end result was 6 wins and 2 draws from the first 8 games, and after picking up their first ever win the kids celebrated like they had won a major cup final. Was really refreshing after seeing the dejection and a certain amount of humiliation the previous season when they had been getting beaten by 10's and even 20's. I think that the underlying thing that gets completely missed in the junior game, is the fun element...yes its nice to get a win and see the kids faces lit up, but more importantly its great for them to actually have some fun and actually enjoy it, whilst learning.
  • Options
    [cite]Posted By: Tel-in-Oz[/cite]When I ran an under 10 side, (and I hasten to add I dont have any qualifications) I inherited a team who had lost all of their games the previous season. Training had previously consisted of basically a 5 a side game....I changed this and put a lot more emphasis on ball skills and awareness of space and passing....we actually ended up having a lot of fun with this after meeting with a fair bit of resistance initially. The end result was 6 wins and 2 draws from the first 8 games, and after picking up their first ever win the kids celebrated like they had won a major cup final. Was really refreshing after seeing the dejection and a certain amount of humiliation the previous season when they had been getting beaten by 10's and even 20's. I think that the underlying thing that gets completely missed in the junior game, is the fun element...yes its nice to get a win and see the kids faces lit up, but more importantly its great for them to actually have some fun and actually enjoy it, whilst learning.

    I agree. Has to be some fun in the training. winning at least sometimes makes it more fun but that shouldn't be the be all and end all.
  • Options
    You got to wonder how much of the French system is used in the England? And Credit to Tel, that's exactly how football should be up to say age 13. BTW, the FA have to build a National Centre now.

    Youth development at Clairefontaine incorporates many principles on football with their students, such as:

    Making the player’s movements faster and better
    Linking movements efficiently and wisely
    Using the weaker foot
    Weaknesses in the player’s game
    Psychological factors (sports personality tests)
    Medical factors
    Physical tests (beep test)
    Technical skills
    Skill Training (Juggling the ball, running with the ball, dribbling, kicking, passing and ball control
    Tactical (To help the ball carrier, to get the ball back, to offer support, to pass the ball and follow the pass, positioning and the movement into space
  • Options
    The delay over building the national centre just shows how weak the FA is.

    One of the promises of the "blueprint for Football" that the FA used in 1990 to justify the Premier League was strenghtening the national team. Still waiting for it to happen.
  • Options
    [cite]Posted By: Rothko[/cite]You got to wonder how much of the French system is used in the England? And Credit to Tel, that's exactly how football should be up to say age 13. BTW, the FA have to build a National Centre now.

    Youth development at Clairefontaine incorporates many principles on football with their students, such as:

    Making the player’s movements faster and better
    Linking movements efficiently and wisely
    Using the weaker foot
    Weaknesses in the player’s game
    Psychological factors (sports personality tests)
    Medical factors
    Physical tests (beep test)
    Technical skills
    Skill Training (Juggling the ball, running with the ball, dribbling, kicking, passing and ball control
    Tactical (To help the ball carrier, to get the ball back, to offer support, to pass the ball and follow the pass, positioning and the movement into space

    Thing about that list is that at any decent level of football how could you NOT include these elements in a young footballers development.

    Will be interesting to ask Mark Robson about this on 11 December.
  • Options
    i'm not fully buying some of this to be honest.

    if anything, i think TOO much emphasis could possibly of been put on youth development in recent years. We realised in this country 15-20 years ago that were weren't developing youngsters the right way, and it seems that every effort has been made to change that since.

    Certainly no other country in the world could come close to the level of resources, facilities, coaches, players or the general seriousness that we give to youth development here in the UK.
  • Options
    The current England team have been through that system Afka, and they are in the main technically average compared to their rivals.

    I saw some park football last week and all I heard from the touchline were parents screaming "Lump it" and "hit it long", and winning being everything at a young age
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    and it wasn't too long ago about junior leagues moaning that they had to play football on small pitches, rather then on full size adult pitches
  • Options
    [cite]Posted By: AFKA Bartram[/cite]i'm not fully buying some of this to be honest.

    if anything, i think TOO much emphasis could possibly of been put on youth development in recent years. We realised in this country 15-20 years ago that were weren't developing youngsters the right way, and it seems that every effort has been made to change that since.

    Certainly no other country in the world could come close to the level of resources, facilities, coaches, players or the general seriousness that we give to youth development here in the UK.

    But the FA and PL own report says that we are still not getting it right. Where's Kiglia when you need him as I gave him my copy of the report
  • Options
    I agree that ball skils etc should be at the fore in kids football, but the majority of kids play because they want to play not because they want to be taught to be highly skilled adult footballers. only a ziliionth of them will ever need those skills for a career and the majority wont even play as adults. So let that vast majority use it as a means of fitness, be competitive and enjoy winning if they want and let the football education all the experts cry out for be visited on those few that are seen as having the potential to need to use those skills as paid players!
  • Options
    I'm wondering if we are losing kids from football due to 7 a side games.It takes a lot of time to run a kids football team.If only 7 kids can play at a time it means more boys would have to be substitues.For instance my son has starting training at under7's and have 20 boys.Probably 16 could play in friendly matches no problem,which is what we are now doing to prepare for next season when the leagues start.We decided to approach a league to join a friendly league.However you can only register 14 boys to play in the friendlies and which means you have 7 subs unless someone is prepared to start another team (which at present there are no takers).So you are going to get a lot of kids standing on the touchline not playing and being unhappy and disillusioned.Now the parents at my sons age group are pretty cool about this at the moment,but the kids may not be happy and in the end lose interest.I agree with the ethic of small sided football but after 10 years of it,I don't believe we are seeing any improvement and wonder whether we are losing some kids through it?
  • Options
    [quote][cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite][cite]Posted By: AFKA Bartram[/cite]
    But the FA and PL own report says that we are still not getting it right. Where's Kiglia when you need him as I gave him my copy of the report[/quote]

    i'm here but currently dealing with a leaking toilet waste pipe that is threatening lighting, electrics and our computer equipment, not to mention several environmental health violations.
  • Options
    I went to watch my friend play against Arsenal U13's about 4 years ago and they had 5 foreign kids that had been bought in their U13 side for god sake, I was speaking to the Dad of a Portugese kid who had been signed from Porto for £58k at the age of 11 and they had paid for the kids family to come over and live here and set up jobs, schools etc. everything on a plate. The kid looked good but not much better than any other kid out there, granted I noly saw him play once but just seemed madness to me. I was under the impression there were laws about kids and working etc. but Arsenal had managed to make this happen. As an aside the facilities at the Acadamy were absolutely amazing. Lovely place for kids to learn the game.
  • Options
    You have to live within an hour of the academy,as long as Arsenal moved his family to within this distance,no problem.
  • Options
    [cite]Posted By: northstandsteve[/cite]I'm wondering if we are losing kids from football due to 7 a side games.It takes a lot of time to run a kids football team.If only 7 kids can play at a time it means more boys would have to be substitues.For instance my son has starting training at under7's and have 20 boys.Probably 16 could play in friendly matches no problem,which is what we are now doing to prepare for next season when the leagues start.We decided to approach a league to join a friendly league.However you can only register 14 boys to play in the friendlies and which means you have 7 subs unless someone is prepared to start another team (which at present there are no takers).So you are going to get a lot of kids standing on the touchline not playing and being unhappy and disillusioned.Now the parents at my sons age group are pretty cool about this at the moment,but the kids may not be happy and in the end lose interest.I agree with the ethic of small sided football but after 10 years of it,I don't believe we are seeing any improvement and wonder whether we are losing some kids through it?

    Anymore than about 10 or 11 is too many. Better to have two teams if you can get someone to coach one of them.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!