this, in my humble opinion, is the core of our problems. I have coached a team from 7's through to 11's and next year we are under 12's, and boy oh boy this is hitting the nail on the head. Maybe I should post a weekly blog about what I see and hear from players, parents and coaches. It really is the problem and is what stops us developing people though in the right way. We were invited to play our local professional side recently and they wanted to play 11 v 11. We play 9v9 and if I was at the top of FA youth football, we'd be playing 7 v 7.
I was going to write something here about England but while thinking about it I just got depressed so I'll just say I can't wait to see the Saints again.
Please write the blog Fatletiss, it would give a good insight into our problems as a footballing nation.
How do you feel about the upcoming youth football changes FLT? Are they a good idea, and will they make much difference to the future of the game?
They have actually been in place for awhile now. This last announcement is just a rubber stamping of what was put in over a year ago. I think it is a good start. I would have liked them to have gone further. I would have played 7v7 tu under 13, then 9v9 at Under 14 and 15. When they get to under 16, I would have played both 9 v 9 and 11 v 11; two mini seasons (one of each). The biggest issue the FA have is policing it. Coaches will go on a course and be told the way to go, and then get back to their 10 year old boys and play the big lad at the back, the quick one up front and get the rest to knock it forward as quickly as possible so the quick one can score a goal. On Thursday night I was helping one of our club's coachs walk through a coaching session for his level two badge with men as students. On the other pitch was our club's under 10's training. The coach had ten boys lined up one behind the other. They would lay the ball into the coach and he would lay the ball off for them to run in and shoot at goal. What's wrong with that? Well, it was how I was coached 30 years ago and probably how that coach was coached. Having the boys stand around waiting for their go is wrong. Get them on a ball each, or at wost one between two. Get the other players to lay the ball off. have two goals so there are two keepers and two rows of five (less if you have the extra goalie and two boys laying the passes off and not the coach). this gives you at least only two or three waiting a shorter period. There are also so many more modern coaching sessions available for the coach to do a shooting session. That coach would have been done his level one ( it is part of the requirements), but he's come away, put the certificate on the shelf and gone back to the good old days. The FA have made some good decisions, but they now need to enforce it.
Hahaha, the glass is half full not half empty. But seriously, looking at it from a political/geographical perspective, we have comparitively scarce human resources, yet we still manage to retain the status of being a footballing (and political) world power, and thus I see no problem. I'm happy with how the team did, and to think otherwise, to me, seems to be unwarranted negativity.
Just to add, that the Media don't help either. Remember two yeasr ago the Scottish FA announced that no league tables were going to be allowed to be published for young age groups? Well I remember that pratt Mike parry who used to be on TalkSport slagging them off becasue it was a sissy's way of doing it and taking the competitiveness out of the game. Well I phoned in and had a right old ding dong with parry. It was a month before the 2010 World Cup and I said that in 6 weeks time we'd all be moaning becasue we'd be on our way home after getting dumped out by a half decent team. I tried to call him back after that did happen, and even emailed him, but he never replied. his argument (and that of many) is that it taked the competitiveness out of the game - crap! Every kid in my team plays to win every single match. Some of them go home in tears when the lose. We don't need to teach kids to win and be competitive; it comes naturally to all kids. It is un-natural to not be competitive. I have a 11 year old and a 10 year old girl. They battle like hell when playing a game of anything, trying to win. I have never once had to say "listen kids, make sure you try and win"... they just do it. What we have to point out is the "how to" and the "why" to give them a chance to improve and be the best they can be.
I am 42. We have been playing the same way for most of those 42 years. We haven't tried to change anything (bar a couple of coaches in Venables and to a degree Hoddle). I am not giving unwarranted negativity. We have the richest league in the world. Football is our number one sport. Everyone starts to play it at some level. We introduced the game and have not moved forward with it, while others have. Political/geographic perspective has nothing to do with where England should be in the world rankings or ability in football.
Hi flt. I'd definately read a blog about your coaching experiences if you did write one. Few questions though: - How far are you willing to go to teach kids 'the right way'? Do parents give you much grief? - Have any of the kids you coach gone on to play professionally? - What do fellow coaches think about the way you operate? - Do you like the idea of using smaller, slower footballs like they do in Spain and South America to encourage patient play and close control? - How do you make training sessions fun?
Its easy to make coaching sessions fun but you do need the resources like (I think) fatletiss said above, at least one ball between two players. Coaches have to be to be inventive but do need the support of the parents and the FA. We could also learn a heck of a lot from rugby. In rugby, kids get proper coaching from the day they can walk but its not all about knocking the other guy down. Its developed slowly but correctly, no contact at the beginning etc. Also, the kids learn respect for the game, for the opponents and for the officials. It makes me laugh that when Redknapp had access to one of the greatest sporting managers of all time in Clive Woodward, he chose to bury his head in the sand in typical football fashion and learn nothing. I know for a fact that Johnny Wilkinson's kicking coach spent a few hours with our youth team and in a very short time they were shooting more powerfully and more accurately. But Harry had nothing to learn. Its sad but typical.
As far as I'm concerned anyone wanting Rooney in the team either knows nothing at all about international football or is a scared puppet that can't break away from the nonsense media hype and form their own opinion. Rooney is surely the most overhyped and overrated player in the history of English football. Absolutely embarrassing. This England team had potential to win the tournament had Rooney not returned in my opinion.. I think the one thing to take from the tournament is we have a great keeper and back 4. I'm not convinced at all about Parker who I think is average. The players that should retain their places are Hart, the back 4 and Gerrard. Everyone else's place is up for debate. The amazing thing about this competition is considering Gerrard's role in the tournament and Lampard's role for Chelsea in the champions league...the fact they are getting older and more disciplined it would have been the perfect time for them to play together but Lampard was injured!
Rooney was awesome when he arrived on the international scene and ManU are obviously still happy with him. This was the worst I have ever seen him...but why I have no idea. Perhaps life is too easy for him at ManU.
He was marginally worse in the world cup. I still haven't forgiven him for this; [video=youtube;YgLZ-XPa0pU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgLZ-XPa0pU[/video]
Hi Matt. Let me answer some of those questions; 1 - As far as I feel necessary and yes, some parents "grumble" at me, but they can't really moan as I write to them all each season to explain the approach of the next season. This includes things like; from 7-11, every boy that comes to a game is guaranteed to play at least 50% of each half (it is roll on roll off subs). I don't care if we are winning, drawing, losing or what the game is, no boy from 7-11 should stand on the side for all but the last two minutes of a game. Their ability does not come into it. In those early years, I rotate the players positions. I do not believe that you can say "johnny is a centre forward" when he is 7 or 8. I change their position so they understand other parts of the game. I also rotate who the subs are, so the best players don't start every game. Parents at my team, are aware that I follow the RESPECT campaign fully and that I won't tolerate any questioning of decisions by officials. 2 - I'm not that old and I have only been coaching these boys for 4 years!! 3 - What do other coaches think of me? That is a good one! Some say they admire me, but look at me as though I am crazy. I remember last summer standing outside the school to pick up my son, when there was a conversation going on with three Dads who were also coaches of teams in our league. We wre moving from 7 to 9 a side and they asked if I had signed anymore players. I had, two. They said are they any good and where did they come from. My reply stunned them: I said that I had no idea. They were two boys who had wanted to join when it was 7 a side, but we had no spaces (squad sizes are limited). They couldn't believe that I had two new players and I didn't know how good they were. I said it is simple. Fun first, develop them second. I will also speak to a coach after or during a game, if I believe they are being too aggressive in their shouting, particularly at the referee or the linesman. 4 - We have one "futsal" and use it in the winter when we train on an astro pitch. I wish I had one for each boy. Futsal is the way forward for coaching young kids. 5 - It is hard to keep it fun, but you must keep the kids moving. The old way I was coached is dated now, with boys stood in two lines passing or shooting. In four years, they have only done one session where they "ran". It always, always, always has to involve a ball. Minimum ball between two. I also ty and change the session each week, and prepare ahead. This can be hard with a day job, but variation is important. One of their favourite sessions is when I bring the space hoppers to training. They love that. Thre are zillions of coaching sessions available online for free or very cheap. When they are young, keep it simple, and keep the information they are given to a minimum. Boys have a very low attention span.
Le God, a couple of points on the above: 1. Firstly, you say England could have won the tournament if Rooney had not returned. I won't arguethat Ronney's return didn't work, but by making that comment you infer that England had played well in the first two games. I disagree. For thirty minutes against France we did quite well. Not brilliant. We didn't tear them apart, but we did well. Then from the moment we scored, we dropped deeper and deeper and deeper. We stopped passing the ball and just invited them on to us. The equaliser came, becasue our defenders were on our six yard box and the midfielders were level with the penalty spot - that is how far we had dropped. Do you honestly believe that the team and how they played against Sweden could have won the tournament? Wow. I could quote your first line about you, but I won't that it'd be rude We were very poor against Sweden and for twenty minutes of the second half, looked like a pub team. That would have taken a serious turn around from that to go and win the tournament. Don't let the result get in the way of how the performance was. The reuslt is important and they battled hard to get back in front, but they did not play well and that was against a very poor team. Secondly, you are singing the praises of the defense. I thought they were not a lot more than ok. Hart made some great saves, but his distribution (an important goalkeeping skill) was appalling. Maybe not his fault, maybe Roy told him to boot it. I also think this is where the defense were bad as not one of them wanted to get the ball of Hart. The CB's should be pulling wide like Jos and Jose to get the ball of the keeper. Lescott looked scared when he got the ball and anytime a ball went over Terry, he was exposed. These guys threw themselves on the line and made some great last ditch blocks, but this doesn't make them great defenders. It makes the fans roar and pump fists, but give me a CB that stops the ball getting to that situation any day please. There were several times when I pointed at the TV watching John Terry leave his man and go and try and win the ball that was going to Lescott's man, because Terry plays with pumped fists and not his head. Rooney proabbly is over hyped, but is still a very good player. He was poor in the two games he played and poor at the last world cup. Has he been poor for United? Dos he lose his cool for United? No, and that is becasue United don't sit deep and defend for their lives. When he gets the ball for them, there are players beyond him and around him to pass to. Englands two CM were sat just infront of Terry and Lescott. Tactically and how we played is what was wrong.
Woodward got criticized a lot at the time for his unconventional methods. Shame really as he had some good ideas, but a dinosaur like Redknapp was never going to like being told what to do. Fortunately now we have sports science anoraks like Nigel Adkins, Les Reed and Nick Harvey at the club who embrace this stuff rather than shun it. What is Woodward doing these days?
Adkins gets involved but is willing to devolve responsibilities to people he trusts. That's why when I refer to coaching at Saints, I always say Adkins and his team. This is the way forward...the right people in the right place.
Is Rooney still available?....if so maybe Hodgson could stick him in the forward line....may be worth a punt
