Reply to: Football fans, an uninformed opinion for you

[snaw]

The argument about the youth system seems to break down when you look at the performance of the Engalnd U21's and down.

They generally seem to do better than the main squad and seem to have some good talent

anyway.

Heard criticism of that though, basically along the lines of we filed big physical sides who dominate, but a few years later aren't technically good enough still.

[original PM]

The argument about the youth system seems to break down when you look at the performance of the Engalnd U21's and down.

They generally seem to do better than the main squad and seem to have some good talent

I think the problme is the large premiership clubs will snap up the young talent -- and then leave it on the bench so for those formative years of say 16-21 they are not playing enough competitive football at the right level.

These kids need to be playing for if you like the 2nd/3rd tier prem clubs against the top tier to get experience of playing against world class players

well thats what I think anyway.

[snaw]

So where do they then put the coaching effort?

If they put the top coaching effort into the 4 or 5 who look like they're good at age 12, instead of the 30 or so who are basically OK, it's hardly suprising they end up with no more than one first class player. Put the effort into developing all of them and you'll get more good players with more competition pushing them to get better. Seems to work in other sports, why not footy?

There's first class players, then there's premiership class, then a few more degrees above that again. I'd say anyone who makes it to any kind of level in football is a first class player. They're rare beasts. Of all the boys I played with at school, in all age groups, and kids I played with at district level as well, I know of two players who came close. Both brilliant imo, and both only ever made it at best to squad players in the Scottish premier league briefly, before slipping away to lower league/juniors. I'd add one or two maybe who just never got spotted to that (The luck part - or having connections to get you the chance), but who knows how that'd hae worked out anyway.

You're judging it by sports where the bar is so much lower, cause quite simply the number of participapants is way lower. Football is incredibly tough to break through in.

Yes, there's something wrong with our systems at producing players, but as I said earlier it's our style of play that's wrong fundamentally in my opinion. The dutch are a great example, smaller country, similar weather (So we can't use the latin climate as an excuse), but keep producing quality players. They coach players for technique first and foremost, when our kids are running around getting stuck in etc. Or even worse, playing consoles, eating tulip food and chatting on social network sites etc. No wonder we're getting worse (eng, scot etc ).

Until we change the fundementals, from coaching at a very young age then imo we're always destined to be also rans or never qualifieds.

[darmstadt]

Conversely many technically gifted foreigners fail to perform in the Premier League. Diego Forlán springs to mind, but there are many many others.

I never rated him much at ManU but in this World Cup he's been pretty excellent and with his Spanish club he's also shown himself to be a good player.

[swamp]

It's a complicated issue (What isn't), but for me one of the biggest ones is simply down to our (Inc the scots, welsh, irish in this) style of football. Put simply it's all blood and snotters, with the emphasis on competition where the kids who get through are athletes first, whereas in other countries the focus is on technique, and the physical aspects come way way later.

Theo Walcott is quite a good example of this. Very quick player, but hopeless ball skills.

Conversely many technically gifted foreigners fail to perform in the Premier League. Diego Forlán springs to mind, but there are many many others.

The World Cup isn't the Premier League.

[Moscow Mule]

So where do they then put the coaching effort?

They all get coached. The club see it as a worthwhile overhead to get that one player.

[Mich the Tester]

One of Mrs MMs cousins is a coach at Aston Villa for the youth program. He reckons at around age 12 they can spot the 4-5 players out of 60 in the age group who have a shot. Out of those 4-5, on average less than one will make it to the Premier League. The others might make it to Junior / Semi Pro (Coke or Conference).

So where do they then put the coaching effort?

If they put the top coaching effort into the 4 or 5 who look like they're good at age 12, instead of the 30 or so who are basically OK, it's hardly suprising they end up with no more than one first class player. Put the effort into developing all of them and you'll get more good players with more competition pushing them to get better. Seems to work in other sports, why not footy?

[Mich the Tester]

Again naive.

If they're not spotted by the time they're in their early teens (probably before), then they've got virtually no chance of making it to the top. It's not just talent, it's dedication, connections and a bit of luck.

Ah, and there we have a problem. You need a pyramid or grading system whereby any child can make it to the top, regardless of connections, and every child gets the coaching and facilities, again, regardless of connections. Australia do that for cricket, NZ do that for rugby, and they’re successful with a relatively small player base. Why should footy be different?

[Moscow Mule]

If they're not spotted by the time they're in their early teens (probably before), then they've got virtually no chance of making it to the top. It's not just talent, it's dedication, connections and a bit of luck.

One of Mrs MMs cousins is a coach at Aston Villa for the youth program. He reckons at around age 12 they can spot the 4-5 players out of 60 in the age group who have a shot. Out of those 4-5, on average less than one will make it to the Premier League. The others might make it to Junior / Semi Pro (Coke or Conference).

[snaw]

How many of those players will bust a gut every week in training just to get a tiny bit better? How many of them are actually social players who like winning, but equally enjoy the beer, and are happy to just run along at whatever level they’ve found themselves playing? Nothing wrong with that at all, and arguably they put money behind the bar and into their local clubs, but you need quite a lot of very serious players competing to get to the top.

Again naive.

If they're not spotted by the time they're in their early teens (probably before), then they've got virtually no chance of making it to the top. It's not just talent, it's dedication, connections and a bit of luck.

[shaunbhoy]

You lot should read the book "Why England Lose" by Simon Kuper et. al.
It does say that one of the reasons for the poor showing of the footy team over the years is that it is traditionally a working class game and has been run by thickos.

Yeah, but Darts is a working class game, and we is brilliant at that innit?

[snaw]

Some truth in what Mich says, vis-a-vis facilities, but for me that's not the reason - plenty of poor countries, with even less facilities churn out talented players.

It's a complicated issue (What isn't), but for me one of the biggest ones is simply down to our (Inc the scots, welsh, irish in this) style of football. Put simply it's all blood and snotters, with the emphasis on competition where the kids who get through are athletes first, whereas in other countries the focus is on technique, and the physical aspects come way way later.

Entertaining, undoubtedly, but unlikely to produce world beaters, or even competitive at that level.

[Moscow Mule]

Well yes and no. They play other sports because that is what the schools and universities encourage, and the schools and universities encourage it because that is what they play. So it becomes a self perpetuating thing.

FWIW, I think they do play football, but in an informal "off to the park for a kickabout" way rather than a competitive league. Football may not have been the most popular sport club at my uni but it was the game most people would be playing in the park on a sunny day.

BUSA football is very competitive.

However, by the time you get to uni, if you're going to make it to the Premier League you'll already be signed and hence probably not at uni.

[doodab]

Is this not part and parcel of MTT's OP. Bright kids from good schools don't play football, so not much demand when they get to Uni.

Well yes and no. They play other sports because that is what the schools and universities encourage, and the schools and universities encourage it because that is what they play. So it becomes a self perpetuating thing.

FWIW, I think they do play football, but in an informal "off to the park for a kickabout" way rather than a competitive league. Football may not have been the most popular sport club at my uni but it was the game most people would be playing in the park on a sunny day.

[Pondlife]

Also, universities tend to care about Rugby, Rowing, and various Olympic sports and have top quality facilities and coaching, whereas this isn't usually the case for football.

Is this not part and parcel of MTT's OP. Bright kids from good schools don't play football, so not much demand when they get to Uni.

IIRC my uni had way more people in the Rowing Club than football. That may have been more to do with all the fit young sloaney ladies though.