Hi guys, a slightly cheeky/shameful plug for something I tried to put an article together about. Hoddle's recent comments on England. If you have any spare time, please do read and let me know your thoughts on: a) the topic / b) the article itself. Link: http://www.givemesport.com/357727-glenn-hoddle-english-development-stunted-by-lazy-coaches Thanks DTLW
To be honest I couldn't give a **** about what Hoddle thinks. So forgive me if I don't read the article.
Topic: Not one that interests me, even putting aside my dislike for Hoddle. All really been said before and its empty words from a "busted flush". Much like the England side itself, talk about coaching methods are a bit tedious. But it was professionally put together and was in a readable format.
I am afraid every time I go to that website it closes my internet down so I am unable to read/review. I work as a Senior Bid Manager writing and reviewing tender responses for my company - am happy to review for you if you copy the info here!
Sorry, the hot weather and the huge noise the builders are making outside my window are making me a bit ratty.
The central point about the young player's technical development is not new. What would make the article more interesting would be an interview with a coach who has an apparently different approach. Mr Warnock for instance who is employed by clubs to get instant results rather than develop young players. Pragmatism versus a long term view..
A few problems with this bit. First of all there is a mistake in the second sentence. It doesn't make sense. Secondly, it hasn't been forty years since he said this - so I think you probably mean to say this may well turn out to be true?
1) Yeah, that's annoying. I must've meant "That has" or "This is" and ended up with some strange mixture. 2) That's a bit of a logic fail right there. Not good.
DTLW as this is a personal hobby horse of mine, I will give it a good read later in the day tomorrow.
If you want feedback on your journalistic style, then it's all fine and dandy and reads better than most. As for the content ... oh when will we ever learn? The England team will continue to slide into oblivion as long as we don't address the single most important point - the national team isn't a priority for the FA or for football fans who follow the clubs that should be providing us with the top internationals. Every World Cup humiliation and Euros failure brings the same cry that we must change. We don't and we won't.
Pretty much sums up my feeling (on the writing and on the issue). It does not help that England Managers pick on the basis of reputation rather than ability and form. To be honest most clubs fans will have more interest in international football if they see their own players there from time to time. As for Hoddle... good coach (don't get why he gets so much abuse from saints fans - he was one of our more successful managers) but he needs to be clear about what solutions will work rather than harping back to the good ol days. You could do a lot worse than comparing the development of young players to what is happennig at Southampton. But I guess the real issue is coaching at grass roots level before even we get hold of them.
Good read. On the subject I think this is only half the issue. I agree with everything written/said by Hoddle in that article and we must, must, must spend more time with boys technical development; teach them to master the football. The second half of the issue is the parents/youth coaches will to win. If I had my way, I'd have the parents stood watching from a raised view point at least 50 yards from the pitch and/or tell them they must not shout anything during a game; better still, ban them from the games altogether. Young boys panic and stop making their own decisions with a ball because an adult, be it parent or coach, is screaming an instruction at them. Let them decide and learn.
100% disagree. He's talking rubbish there. He's saying those who give the ball away are luxury players??? No they aren't at all. Luxury players keep the ball and pass the ball better than, or as well as, anyone else on the pitch. True luxury players are technically very good players but the problem is they don't defend or have the ability to defend when your team loses the ball. If a highly technical player can pull his weight defensively and knows how to defend/press etc then he isn't a luxury player, he's an extremely good all-round player. These days most teams like to defend with 9 outfield players when they lose the ball. Only the top sides that are excellent defensively can afford to carry true luxury players in their side. Teams with technical/luxury players have very high possession as these players are good at keeping possession by dribbling and/or passing. Hoddle is talking nonsense.
I think you entirely missed the meaning of that statement. What he is saying is that in England we consider the highly technical creative player a luxury. He is saying that a non technically gifted player who always gives the ball away is actually a "luxury" as you end up losing the ball a lot. He is being a little ironic possibly. I think you just missed this entirely, from reading your post. Edited to say, that your section on technically gifted players "pulling their weight" is exactly why England have wasted the talents of Rodney Marsh, Stan Bowles, Glen Hoddle and Matt Le Tissier. You have the English disease. Instead of leaving that type of player out of a team because they don't "pull their weight", we should build the team around them. Ever seen Michelle Platini make a tackle or run in the direction of his own goal?
Simple solution: mandate that all of the most-talented youngsters sign with Saints Academy by age twelve. Mandate that those who do not quite make the grade sign with Crewe at the same age. Bam, there's your national team sorted.
Not a bad shout that. The key bit is that there could be hundreds of hidden gems out there not being spotted who are having their ability knocked out of them before they are spotted.
Not at all. He doesn't understand the meaning of the expression 'luxury player'. His analogy doesn't work since luxury players are highly technical. Your edit proves my point that his statement is rubbish. It doesn't work in any context. Yes, that is the English disease (having an over-emphasis on pulling your weight defensively or dominating the opponent physically). What he should have said is that their needs to be more emphasis on good technical ability and less emphasis on defensive work rate, getting stuck in, height and build. All I was doing was explaining what a luxury player was. How to use them depends on the team, formation, opponent and how many of them you have.
I still think you have missed his point and interpreted it incorrectly. I think you have jumped in with a slightly 'aggressive' stance and not understood his use of 'luxury' and not prepared to see that or attempt to; my opinion not a fact. He clearly thinks there should be more emphasis on good technical ability.
