I agree with a lot of your points TT, but I don't think that youth football needs to be non-contact. It's not in other countries that show far more progress at international level than England do, so why would it need to be here? Learning how to deal with a physical opponent is part of the game. The emphasis on fast, strong and tall youngsters needs to go, but I think that you're suggesting that we throw the baby out with the bath water, to some extent.
We'd be dumbing down the game by removing the physical aspect. But I do agree to an extent that there would be good value in concentrating on the skill aspects of the game. We should get kids to play futebal de salo alongside football, where they are forced to move the ball around skillfully using a heavy ball on a small pitch. This is how generations of Brazilians have honed their skills.
I was being a bit extreme to make a point. But "Dealing with a physical opponent" isn't the hardest thing to teach. C'mon we have all railed at the "wet" South American and Spanish refs calling the slightest contact. That's why they have the most skillful players, because they protect them. Plain and simple.
I disagree with you completely about the small sided football. I know I am in a minority, but 5-a-side football presents a completely different kind of challenge to 11-a-side. I'm not saying that it doesn't have it's good aspects, but (particularly with young players), they develop Denilson-syndrome and never see a pass over 10-yards. We also forget half the game which is defending. There is no defensive benefit to a 5-a-side game, and it does not promote game intelligence in any way, it actually promotes a lack of thought. Players focus completely on offence; positioning, passing decisions and marking decisions are much simplified.
How many players have we seen fall flat in this country just because of their inability to deal with being closed down, harried and pressed? Luka Modric emphasised his hard time out on loan to a league of cloggers as one of the reasons why he knew how to cope. Protecting players can easily go too far. You can't go near a Barca player in La Liga without the ref flaring up and that's just not part of the game. The Slovenian and Hungarian refs in their recent annihilation by Bayern might not have allowed them such an easy time of things, so perhaps that's not the way to go? The German game seems to allow for a more rounded and versatile approach. Tika taka is not the only way to play any more. I'm all for a skillful, technical game, but not at the cost of watching every side playing in the same style and no physical contact.
How many players have we seen fall flat in this country just because of their inability to deal with being closed down, harried and pressed? Luka Modric emphasised his hard time out on loan to a league of cloggers as one of the reasons why he knew how to cope. Protecting players can easily go too far. You can't go near a Barca player in La Liga without the ref flaring up and that's just not part of the game. The Slovenian and Hungarian refs in their recent annihilation by Bayern might not have allowed them such an easy time of things, so perhaps that's not the way to go? The German game seems to allow for a more rounded and versatile approach. Tika taka is not the only way to play any more. I'm all for a skillful, technical game, but not at the cost of watching every side playing in the same style and no physical contact.
Again, I'm not saying that it needs to be taken out of the game. But there is no benefit to having a 180lb player, in a U15 developmental game, knocking over everyone else who are 50-75lbs lighter. You can teach as much as you like, but there is nothing to be gained.
Considering his emphatic failure as England boss, Graham Taylor isn't qualified to talk on this matter. He was biased in his selection of players for England's 1994 qualifying campaign, so how can he complain about the selection of players by Premier League teams now? Utter hypocrite.
One of the problems in this country is that from an early age schoolkids play 11 a side on a full size pitch.In other countries such as Holland they play 7 a side on a half size pitch.I know the FAW were meant to be bringing this is some years ago but i don't know what became of it.
I am in a minority in that I don't like the small sided games for the reasons stated earlier. For me the things small-sided games teach are not the difficult things to teach. Players pick up ball-control and short passing easily almost without any instruction, teaching them wider vision, movement and positioning, as well as team defense is a much harder prospect. Particularly when you get handed a 15-year old that has never had to worry about whether he should joining the attack or not, whether he should press or not, whether he should clear the ball or not, whether he should go for a 50-50 ball or not etc.
I am just saying what I see. I have a group of 14/15 year olds that have grown up playing 5-a-side and 7-a-side. They all want to be 10 yards from the ball at all times. It is a complete disaster. I have to go back to basics coning off sections of the field for them and telling them that they have to stay in that area. They are absolutely vulnerable to a single long-ball over the top. Luckily, most of the teams we play against are the same and don't have any vision either. Most of the games we play degenerate into a 10v10 scramble in a 30x30 square in the middle of the field. We are slowly improving, but if you tell your players to play the ball long, you get disapproving sneers from the other managers. It is an absolute farce. I don't know the answer, but if small-sided games are the way forward, we need to fix this.
We used to play 40 mins each way on a 75 yard pitch in competitive games when I was at school. But to be honest the best games for learning new things and honing skills like being competent on the ball, passing, positioning and defending, were in practice 5-7 a side games, where you're not trying to look for a long ball forward and you always have to think of a way out instead of hoofing it when you're defending. In my opinion the better players learn close ball control and quick simple passing first and then they express their game through applying these basics to their position.
As I say, your view is the majority. I personally find that the short passing and control comes very easily to young players. Watch any playground game and the control and passing is pretty good. Move that to an 11 a side game and that control deserts them, because they suddenly have to look up, so that they can see further than 5 yards. A lot of my players are very skillful, but they simply have no concept of what to do with the ball when they are 50 yards from goal. Essentially in small-sided games there is no midfield, then people wonder why we can't produce midfielders, now that we play small-sided games.
I think the point is, that training should be incremental. You need to start matches with 11-14 year olds on small pitches 5-7 a-side in order for them to get to grips with the basics of ball control, passing, positioning etc and then work up to proper games 11 a-side, but on 75 yd pitches, 40 mins each way. If you through them straight in at the deep end, you just end up with everybody chasing the ball.
Obviously you don't want to put 7 year olds on a large pitch, and small sided games are always going to form some of your training, but my observation is the opposite to yours. It is the kids used to small sided games that chase the ball, or at least want to be 10 yards away from it. The players used to playing on a 100 yard pitch know that they can't chase the ball for 90 minutes and know how to play a position. They realize it is a big decision whether to go forward or not.
It seems to me that the reason we are **** is because we fear failure. We teach youngsters to not lose and play it safe rather than to take risks and express themselves. How many times do kids get screamed at to get rid of it rather than pass the ball or attempt to bring the ball out from the back? Winning at school kid level should be of no concern...technical skill, self confidence and an ability to learn are what is important at a young age. This goes right through football...players are slaughtered for taking risks...so they don't take them and the national team is poorer for it.
Actually I find this comes from the small sided games, players are so used to seeing the quick 10-yard pass, they don't even look for the 25-yard riskier pass. a lot of coaches will tell you that the 10-yard sideways pass is a "better" choice anyway, and don't even try to dribble the ball, you get twenty-lashes with the whip for doing that!
It's the like of Graham Taylor that had done British Football harm. The English game is not suffering because of foreigners. It is suffering because of our 'old school' attitude to the game. Just look at the lower leagues. Most teams are still playing the long ball game. Managers and academies have not embrassed the changes in football tactics or sport science. It's the conservative old school attitude that is holding us back.
