Showing posts with label Youth Development. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Youth Development. Show all posts

Portugal’s Issues Run Deeper Than This Tournament


Portugal have been drawn in the dreaded "group of death" and it appears it is going to be very difficult for them to progress into the latter stages of the tournament. However, there are more issues for Portuguese football than just group qualification, and this is a worrying period for fans of the country.




Portugal scraped into the play-offs for the Euro's with a mediocre display in qualifying, they finished just ahead of Norway only on goal difference, to say it wasn't all inspiring is somewhat of an understatement. Now they are at the tournament some people believe they have a chance of doing well. In my opinion, they will be lucky not to finish bottom of their group. This Portuguese side lacks the quality of previous sides and an over reliance on Cristiano Ronaldo means they are in danger of being a one man team.

Issues affecting domestic game


In 2004 this side got to the final only to be beaten by the unlikely winners Greece; that game contained players like Luis Figo, Carvalho, Maniche and a young Ronaldo. It was a very good side and importantly had balance and depth. However, since then it has been a steady decline for this nation and this current squad indicates the problems affecting the Portuguese game today. With perhaps only a few players of real quality in Coentrao, Moutinho and Ronaldo, it is the depth in quality that worries me most. 

The issues comes from a similar problem which is affecting the English game; in England right now we are displeased with how we are developing our young players and importantly about how we are seeing less English players playing in the Premier League, which is clearly having an impact on the quality and success of our national team. There is no doubt that the money in the game today is affecting the decisions and reducing the patience of clubs to develop talent, over just buying it in. 


In the short term this may serve a club with success, yet in the long term there are serious repercussions which this philosophy may produce. In England there only 38% of English players in the league, an issue which is affecting the development of a larger group of English talent getting the required experience to develop. In Germany and Spain they have closer to 60% of domestic players playing in their top league. Is it a coincidence that these nations are developing more players and thus having stronger national sides? 

This foreign problem is just as pronounced in Portugal, and perhaps even worse. And it is this issue which is causing the most worry for the future of Portuguese football. Portguese football has been affected by an influx of foreign nationals who have restricted the development of their home grown players. Although the influx of foreign players has arguably improved the quality and standard of the game in Portugal,  the intake of predominantly South American players in the Primeira League, means that a large number of domestic players are not being given the opportunity to develop.

Top sides restricting growth

The issue in Portugal is that players between 17-21 are not being given a fair chance to break into the first team. Unless they are highly talented at their age, clubs will not utilise their youngsters. Sometimes, it takes 2 or 3 years for a player to establish himself, but clubs don’t want to wait, they expect instant success. There is a dangerous mentality across many of Europe's top sides where they prefer to buy talented foreigners than look within their own country or youth setup. Therefore, young players may never have the chance to play at the highest level as they are being ignored. Not surprisingly this issue is more pronounced with the top sides, most notably in Portugal Benfica. 

Although last season saw the Europa League final between two Portuguese sides in Porto and Braga, there is a worry in Portugal that the top sides are neglecting domestic players for the simplicity of bringing in South Americans at 17 years of age. Benfica had a good run in the Champions League this season, yet it came at the expense of Portuguese players. They have chosen to neglect the development of domestic players for the desire to be successful. This season they rarely played any Portuguese player, relying on the talents of Luisao, Emerson, Bruno Cesar, Witsel, Aimar, Gaitan, Cardozo, Saviola and Nolito. There is only one possible youth prospect in Oliveira, who has been selected in the Portuguese squad this summer. He played a few games for Benfica, and although a potential talent, at 20 years of age, he is not playing regularly enough to further his development. The fact Portugal have taken him shows the limited selection of which the national team has. 

The problem is the same with the Portuguese champions Porto, although there are a few Portuguese in Moutinho, Rolando and Varela, yet they are dominated with Brasilians such as Hulk, Kleber, Helton, Danilo and other South Americans in Pereira, Martinez and Gonzalez. Sporting too, who had a good run in the Europa League this past season have only a few Portuguese in their starting XI; goalkeeper Patricio, Daniel Carrico and Joao Pereria, yet it is players like Elias, Matias Fernandez, Capel, Jeffren Suarez and Van Wolfswinkel who are the key men. It is clear that the top sides in Portugal have decided that if they wish to be successful across Europe, then they do not believe that the talent in Portugal is good enough to achieve this. This is a worrying cycle where players who require patience and time to develop their potential, are not given this opportunity due to teams wish for immediate success. It is perhaps only Braga who are seeking to use domestic players, this is not good enough if Portugal wish to improve their international success. 


Stepping stone

The difference between Portugal and England particularly is the quality of the league, many young South American's come to Portugal to use it as a stepping stone to move into one of Europe's top leagues. You only have to look at David Luiz, Ramires, Di Maria, Falcao and now possibly Hulk who is set to leave this summer as to the quality that is developed and then sold on in Portugal. Yet, the worry is the lack of Portuguese replacing these departing foreigners. However, the principal problem is that the larger intake of foreign players has made it harder for home-grown players to break into the first team of a club. When Simao left Benfica it was Di Maria who took his place, when Di Maria it was Gaitan. 

In my opinion for the top players, moving to a better and bigger league is a natural consequence, yet the worry is that replacements come from South America and not Portugal. In the past decade young players like Ronaldo, Nani, Queresma and Viana have departed in order to further their development, yet out of these players who has actually improved? Viana was a flop at Newcastle, Queresma was supposed to be the next Figo, yet struggled at Barcelona, Nani has not become the next Ronaldo either. So it appears there is another issue which may be affecting the development of Portuguese players, of players leaving too young while inexperienced. 

These young players want to depart Portugal to play in a more competitive league, to further develop as a player and receive a greater salary. Yet this is not always the case, surely it would be better for many of these players to stay in Portugal and develop gradually. Young players with big money moves do not often fulfil their potential for the simple reason that the pressure, the change of environment and the fact they are only teenagers has the potential to stunt their development. A good example of a country who are developing their young players right is Uruguay. Currently 2nd in the FIFA rankings, they have quality all over Europe yet their players learnt and developed as teenagers in their home country before leaving, thus allowing the key period between 17-21 to be on the pitch and not sitting on the bench. This is the key for young players. 

Dual citizenship

The issue for Portugal is so pronounced that dual citizenship has been a key aspect of keeping the national team competitive. Deco, Liedson, Rolando and Pepe have all been given Portuguese nationality in order to play in the national side, yet when a national side requires the need to use foreign players to supplement their national side, surely there are issues which are not being addressed in the country. If there were less Brazilians and more home grown players in Portugal, wouldn’t there be more domestic options?  Of course there would be. As there are more foreigners playing in European leagues, the national teams are starting to suffer as there is less choice, this is a worrying trend which is not being rightfully addressed quick enough. 


FIFA rules

I have spoken before of the need to change the FIFA 6+5 ruling, the problem currently is that "home grown" is classed as a player developed in that country for 3 years, meaning these “foreign” players are being regarded as “home grown” and thus getting past the current FIFA 5+6 rule which will be rising to 6+5 for next season. This is no different to England, where it has become common in the past several years to see a side like Arsenal play with few or no English players. If the decision is down to the managers discretion then I am afraid most would not consider the need to play English or Portuguese players but to play their strongest side. If FIFA and UEFA do not implement stricter rules on the 6+5 rule, then sides will not be forced into developing and playing domestic players, which in the long term, will benefit the national sides of those countries.

I believe in the 6 + 5 rule, it protects home grown football players and gives them a real opportunity to accomplish their dream, become a football player. By implementing this rule, teams will have to start looking heavily into their youth teams. In the long run, it will allow national teams to have a greater national pool which gives them more choice in their selections. It won’t be easy to implement at first and many clubs will have to change, but it means that they will spend less on foreign players and start buying national based products. Also, instead of buying players, they can opt to promote youth players, which can save teams millions each season. Borussia Dortmund are a great example of how this approach can be utilized for the successful development of domestic players combined with success.

The issue of the 6+5 rule is that clubs will be genuinely worried about losing competitiveness. As Spain and Germany have the quality already, they could achieve this ruling while keeping competitive. For England, a 6+5 approach may really effect the quality of the football, one only has to look at Liverpool this past season to see what a predominately English side can produce. Yet their approach is much better for the future of England than Arsenal's.  

In conclusion, Portuguese football is in a state of decline and the worries and concerns are not being addressed enough to improve the standards early enough and effective enough. The top sides in Portugal are seeing more value in bringing in South American talent over developing their own players, meaning they are able to attain short term success more. For a club this is understandable for success reasons, yet for national bodies and FIFA, there must be a serious concern. The 6+5 rule must be altered in order for more domestic players to receive the playing time in order to develop. In the long term, this will ultimately benefit the national sides around Europe. Yet, many clubs will not wish to lose their ability to compete and it will be a difficult process to implement, yet it must be if we wish to progress national football.


Follow The Whitehouse Address for debate & opinion @The_W_Address

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS
0Comments

The Rise Of A New Generation



The shortlist of managers which FSG had put together indicated the new vision of many top clubs today. Clubs are now seeking a young man, a modern coach with the ability to be a great communicator between players and media. With the success seen in the past decade from coaches like Mourinho and Guardiola, we have seen the rise of the new generation of coaches in world football. 



The excitement which has surrounded the managerial merry-go-round of Villa and Liverpool has been a source of entertainment and excitement for 24 hour news outlets and social media sites. This summer the managerial merry-go-round is in overdrive and clubs know that success, relative to the side, is dependent on the man in charge. With the appeal of a young up and coming manager taking clubs' fancy, names like Rogers, Lambert and Martinez have become highly sought after people. 

It is not just in England that the young manager has become a sought after commodity. In Italy Inter Milan have confirmed Andrea Stramaccioni as their permanent head coach and Antonio Conte, at 42 has just taken Juve to the top of Serie A undefeated. Dortmund have won the Bundesliga for the second year running with their hugely impressive manager Jurgen Klopp. With Roma trying to emulate a Barcelona style they brought in Barca B coach Luis Enrqiue, although that project ultimately failed, similar to that of Villas-Boas at Chelsea, the truth is, clubs around Europe, and top ones at that, are seeking a new generation of young coaches to take their sides forwards.

Mourinho's legacy

There is no doubt that the rise of the young manager has come from the astronomical rise of Jose Mourinho this past decade and the truly amazing job that Pep Guardiola has done at Barcelona. Liverpool and Villa both sought to bring in a fresh, young, dynamic and progressive coach in order to take the sides forward, relative to their ambitions. Both sides under achieved this past season and both owners realised that the previous managers were not providing the necessary skills on and off the pitch suitable for the modern game.

Was Rogers the the best man for the job? When I hear people like Stan Collymore ranting about how Liverpool should be approaching the likes of Guardiola, Mourinho and Klopp, then it just highlighted the lack of realism about who Liverpool are now. None of these managers would be enticed by the current standing of Liverpool in terms of position and the quality of players and FSG were right to approach the managers of the ilk of Martinez, Rogers and Villas Boas. 

Rogers was the best of these options for many reasons; he is assertive & strong willed; the pressure of this job will be massive and I believe he can deal with that better than Martinez and Villas-Boas would have. Secondly, he has shown how effective he can communicate his ideas and thoughts of how to play the game. This Liverpool side is not that bad in all respects, they have played well this past season at times, yet had a manager who said simply to “go out and play” instead of a man like Rogers who knows what he wants and how to implement it. 

Finally what makes Rogers such a good acquisition is that he has learnt first hand from one of the best in the game.The best man manager in the game today is Jose Mourinho, a man who is able to get the best from the players he works with, Rogers worked under him for four years at Chelsea and it is clear he learnt a great deal from the Special One. All in all the owners have found their perfect candidate; a man who plays with a style they want to see and is the young and media friendly manager that FSG wish to have in order to make their “brand” appealing.  

Young and ambitious

Paul Lambert, who has been confirmed as the new manager of Aston Villa. In my opinion he has the ability to get the best from his players and his rapid rise to the top league has alerted many to his managerial abilities. More pragmatic and reserved than Rogers, it is understandable why he didn’t attract FSG for their need for marketing value. However, as a coach, I believe he would have been great for Liverpool. As it is, one clubs loss is another’s gain and Aston Villa appear to be the beneficiaries of Lambert’s expertise. 

The man who has seemingly missed out from the managerial shakup is Roberto Martinez; a man who appeared favourite for both jobs at Anfield and Villa, yet who is now seemingly staying put. It seemed very likely that Wigan were going down to this past season and if not for a remarkable finish with wins against sides like Liverpool, Arsenal, United and Newcastle, then relegation was beckoning. This remarkable turnaround in fortunes made Martinez a popular figure, yet he must have felt he was fortunate to survive this season. 

Right now he is regarded as part of this new generation of up and coming young managers, yet I worry for him though that he has missed his chance to further his ambition. Every club is effectively a stepping stone upwards and he should have taken his chance. No matter the loyalty he has to his players and importantly to his ideology, Wigan will always be at this area of the table and each season he will be fighting to retain his talented players.

When looking at these three managers we are seeing the new generation come into their own. Rogers and Lambert did a truly amazing job with their resources and apparent lack of quality in their sides, yet they both realise that although Swansea and Norwich have given them the opportunity to get to where they are, they must selfishly move on to bigger clubs where these managers can fulfil their ambitions. Unfortunately this is what managers careers are about, the ambitious ones, those who want to be successful will keep on moving up. Martinez may have missed his chance, I cannot see WBA being appealing to him and Chelsea would not consider someone like him. He may find that when his stock was highest he failed to take advantage of it.

Where is England's next generation?

It is refreshing to see a new generation of young, ambitious coaches coming through and moving onto big jobs, owners are seeing the value and taking risks in bringing in coaches who understand the modern game. Yet there is an issue which is not being addressed, the same problem which continues to be affecting the English game; Rogers is Northern Irish, Lambert is Scottish and Martinez Spanish. Where are the up and coming English mangers who are looking to move up to the top levels of the English game? Is it not amazing to you that no Englishman has won the Premier League, that no Englishman since Keith Burkinshaw in 1984 has won the Uefa Cup and importantly no Englishmen since Joe Fagan in 1984 has won the European Cup? The last European trophy won by an Englishman was the Cup Winners Cup in 1997 by Bobby Robson for Barcelona. What has happened to the state of English managers?

The greatest era for English managers in world football must have been from the late 70’s to early 80’s when an Englishman won the European Cup every year from 77 to 82. What an achievement. So what happened? Why have English managers become obsolete in the upper echelons of the game? It is a question which I do not believe has been given enough serious consideration and which especially has not been given the concern it warrants. For me, too many potentially good managers go into the role too early after playing and realise after that the pressures and importantly expertise required to manage at the top levels is seriously lacking in these individuals. 

Cultural problems

In England there is a blasé attitude to coaching which usually corresponds to the belief that the better a player you are, the harder you worked and the stronger you tackled, means the better manager you’ll be. This ridiculous misconception of what is required for top level management has been the reason Paul Ince, Tony Adams, Alan Shearer and Gareth Southgate have failed in management. They were fast tracked too quickly without the required knowledge or understanding of the job. They believe that just because they played for England they can command the respect immediately. In the lower leagues this may be so, yet they found that in the Premier League, players expect more and they were found lacking. Yet it is not all their fault; the chairmen of the clubs should have known better and the PFA should have done more to help them in their transition from player to manager. 

Yet, perhaps the truth is, they are just not good enough. Mourinho is clearly a natural, so too Guardiola, they show what is needed in the new generation of coaches. Shankley, Paisley, Clough, Saachi and Ferguson had it too, the ability to motivate and communicate with their players. Rogers, Lambert and Martinez all have this ability, they communicate well with their players and the media too. Do we have enough of these types of coaches who have the potential to be top managers? Where are the English Klopp’s, Conte’s or Stramaccioni’s?

Failure to communicate

The problem is, many English players want to manage but not coach, e.g. Paul Ince and Alan Shearer, however the modern game requires coaches. The biggest issue though for me is that English coaches struggle to communicate well enough, and with the influx of foreign players the ability to talk multiple languages is not just desirable but essential. Martinez speaks Spanish, as too does Rogers as well as Italian and Lambert speaks German from his Dortmund days. All three have learnt about different cultures, have developed an understanding and appreciation for the modern game and all its requirements. 

How many English coaches can say they speak anything but English? No wonder they struggle in the world of modern football. Yet what do they do about it? Seek to develop these skills or complain about the lack of opportunities and opt for the comfortable world of media. It is a crying shame to see the Premier League contain only four English managers this past season. We are the only top nation where there are more foreign managers coaching our clubs than home grown managers. 

A very short shortlist

The list appears quite short in terms of who we actually have who have who has potential to be a top manager. Steve McLaren is one of the best coaches to come out of England yet he is derided for his performance for the poision chalice which is the England manager’s job. He had potential to be one of the best yet last season he could not even get the job at Villa and ultimately failed with Forest. Quite amazing. Yet he is furthering himself with his development by being willing to go aboard and find work, how many others are willing to do that? Very few by the looks of it. He is the only English manager coaching in one of Europe's top leagues. 

Who else is there? Perhaps Paul Clements is one to keep an eye on, currently with Ancelotti at PSG, I am sure the experience will be great for him and do not be surprised to see him back in England in the coming years, yet the question is, will any team want him? Sammy Lee tried his hand at management and ultimately failed, as too did Phil Brown, whose career has been on a decline for several years. This a major worry, these men are given opportunities yet clearly are not good enough for the role. What about Gary Neville, a man who seems to be doing things the right way by furthering his development, yet does he want to manage or would he prefer the comforts of bing England coach and his work in the media? Where are the English managers with ambition? If they can't get work in England, why don't they try their hand abroad?

What needs to be done?

A
managers role is not easy, it requires many skills and much talent, yet above all it requires experience, not always positive ones, even the best suffer setbacks, and yet it is how you react to those which matter most. For an up and coming English coach seeking to be a manager there are many lessons to learn from the Jose’s, Rogers and Lambert's; there is a difference between being a player and manager; some were good players, others didn't play to a high level. Manager and player are two different roles, Sacchi was never a player, yet his quote about the jockey being a horse is something we have not learnt from in England.

We are now seeing more managers now who haven't played becoming highly sought after; Rogers, Mourinho, Stramaccioni with Inter, Villas-Boas with Porto, these men have shown that playing is not important. In England we need to change our mentality if we wish to develop world class coaches and managers. Coaching is a vocation yet is not regarded high enough in England, the belief of "I played the game, so I know how to coach" is too common in this country.  We need to give more coaches opportunities regardless of if they played or not. There is an art, a talent to being a successful manager, one we do not consider high enough in this country.

The time you put into the profession of being a coach is what matters; how many are willing to learn from others, go through an apprenticeship, work for qualifications and develop their communication skills and inter personal skills and which ones are willing to go abroad to learn new styles and languages.  If we are to see an Englishman lift the Premier League or even the Champions League, then English coaches must be willing to be creative and work hard to achieve their goals. In the coming decade will the next generation of up and coming managers contain English men, will we see an Englishman lift one of the top trophies in world football? 

When will a side with the potential to win the league next hire a manager who is English? Redknapp is the closest man to the top yet I cannot see Spurs challenging for the top prize and perhaps he should invest more into the Europa League this next season and aim to accomplish something at White Hart Lane instead of the apparent top four success. Who will replace Ferguson and Wenger, not an Englishmen I guarantee. Chelsea will not bring in an Englishman and Man City will look for a Jose than any English coach. So is there another problem to consider, that an English manager will never get the chance to manage a side which has the potential to win things? Perhaps the FA should be concerned by this, the England manager’s shortlist was far too short and lacked a world class manager, these are issues which need to be addressed sooner than later if we are serious about being regarded as a world class nation.

My worry is, that as always with this country, will we sit back and wait or can we look to do something about this serious issue affecting the future of the English game?

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS
0Comments

A Landmark Day for Youth Football in England

Today was a landmark day for youth football in England, where the youth development review was approved and in which has the potential to put in place a future where youth football can be progressed for the good of the players and the future of England’s national side in the coming decades.






In order for the new proposals to be approved, 75% of the representatives from each county FA had to vote in favour of the new proposal, 87% did. We may actually be in a position to develop more players capable of playing elite level football. However, the fact it has taken so long to put through and be decided on says everything about the continued issues plaguing youth football and thus the senior level, in England. 

In 2000, Germany had a similar performance to England in the Euro’s in which after they decided to address the problems which were plaguing their game and their future. Whereas they saw the development of youth football as a priority, England felt a change of manager at the top would suffice. We have believed that we live in a Golden Era where we possess the best players in the world, yet we are delusional, and for the past twelve years, while Germany have been developing youngsters who we are now seeing today in the top levels of the game, where we are witnessing a dominance of success from Spain, then we are only waking up to the belief that something needs to be done. 


Lay the right foundations

Let me address the stages of development needed for England in the coming decades. What is required is a joint approach from the government and the FA to improve levels of physical education in schools so that our children from 5-11 receive a multi-linear development of mobility and key multi-skills. If a child ONLY plays football and nothing else, then they will develop only uni-linear skills which as they progress, will stunt their development and restrict their mobility. The worry is that less time is being given to PE in schools, which is creating children with limited mobility and which may in fact be hampering the development of children in all disciplines, not just sport.

If a child is given the right learning environment to learn multiple skills, then perhaps the children we develop up to the age of 11 will have a broader range of skills and a larger potential to progress in multiple sports. As we focus on football we need to address what we can do to create more players of a certain level. These new plans will seek to change the structure of the games that young players partake in; U7/U8 will play 5v5, U9/U10’s 7v7, U11/U12’s 9v9 and U13+ 11v11. Amazingly, there are young children who are playing 11v11 on full size adult pitches, with goalkeepers playing in full size adult goals. 


It seems unbelievable, yet there are many who disagree with changing these rules. Below the age of U11 I would prefer to see small sided games taking place if there are structures to the games, the concept of “street soccer” is apparently lost now, mainly due to health and safety and issues of children being outside, as well as “no ball games” being a common sign in many communities. This loss of “free play” has restricted the development of children into decision makers for the simple reason that the child in structured games and coaching sessions is restricted and denied from making their own decisions; not just in the game itself, but on the rules, dimensions and time. 


The concept of “street soccer” is not just about freedom to express, but in fact freedom full stop.  If children cannot experience "street soccer" then we need to create ways of providing them with the right opportunities and guidance to improve their skill development; between 7-11 the window of opportunity is vital to lay down the foundations of techincal excellence. Thus, it is important that the football training given to children is done correctly, or their development will be hampered.


What is the FA doing?


The FA are seeking to make learning fun for the players and to give them more contact with the ball and to be more active in the game, this is all commendable and there should be no one who disagrees with this concept. At Man Utd the academy players between 7-9 play 4v4; more games, more balls and more contact for the players. If it’s good enough for United then why not the local Sunday league side? The issue then comes down to the most pressing concern for youth development in football, the coaching. 


The problem with “dads” who help out is that they have no idea what they are doing. A bag of balls and cones does not constitute a coach. I will make generalizations here which are wrong, as there are many good youth coaches out there, however there are many who use the same methods and thinking of when they were kids and how they were coached. Unfortunately, many of these methods are based on adult training and have no place or relevance for youth players. Fitness training for 8 year olds is something I have witnessed which made me cringe and I worry that there are far more damaging coaches out there than good ones and more clubs need to address these issues quickly. 


These “coaches” should not be working with young players, their intentions may be admirable yet they are damaging the kids they work with. Every club should ultimately be a charter standard club where coaches are monitored and their qualifications are suited to their role. The FA have a major role to play in making sure the right people are working at this level.


This is where the FA are accountable in their desire to improve the grassroots game. Listening to Nick Levitt, the FA National Development Manager at the grassroots show this past weekend highlighted that although the FA have good intentions, they are restricted in their desire to change the game. Instead of saying, this is how we will coach our kids, they have asked coaches what they believe needs to be improved, this seems ludicrous to me. Two years of going around the country asking questions seems like two years wasted. 


When you see models of Spain and Germany it is clear that we need to learn from them and not our own unqualified voices. For me the German model is exactly what we need to replicate, they started it 12 years ago and the new generation of players is being witnessed already. Many coaches and football experts know what we need to do, it is up to the FA to implement those changes, finally they have done it, yet as mentioned, it has come later than hoped. 


It all comes down to money


The implementation of the SSG's will be a major boost for children's football development, yet there are more issues to address if we want to develop players for the elite game. In Germany, what was key for them was the creation of 121 national talent centres which sought to improve 10-17 years old in technical skill development. Imagine if England had invested in something like that?! Well, Trevor Brooking sought to with the creation of the FA Skills programme; his vision was to have highly qualified coaches work around the country with the talented players from the grassroots teams in all the regions in order to develop more highly skilled players. 


Why was this not implemented? Because the FA chose to build Wembley and the funding for the Skills programme was cut. What does this say about the FA’s intentions? Imagine where £900 million could have gone; if the Burton centre, St George’s Park had been replicated in each county, then surely more youth players could have been developed? The Skills programme received funding from Tesco, however they insisted in this being inclusive for all which diluted the quality and the intention of the programme.

It is an issue we have in England particularly about elite development. Many view the word elite as dangerous and non-inclusive and often players with potential are held back too often, with coaches afraid of losing their “best” players. This mentality is preventing the development and progression of talented players, however the movement up from grassroots to academy lacks a middle area, where a Skills programme would have gone, where in Germany the centres built would support and further players with potential. 


Without this middle level, the pool of talent will be restricted and reduced and the FA need to produce these centres, with highly qualified and high quality coaches, in order to develop more players. It all comes down to cost however; the FA believe it is the job of Academies to go into clubs and develop better coaches, and the Academies believe it is the FA’s role to push talent up. Ultimately it is the job of both.


Academies and Centres of Excellence need to give more back to the local clubs instead of just taking the talent; coach education clinics would be beneficial for grassroots coaches, showing them drills and methods used within the Academy. Also they need to improve the quality of their “Development Centres” where it is often only average coaches who are working with players who have potential. The FA need to develop their own centres too, and the key to both being effective is putting in quality youth coaches who can improve the pool of talent. 


What is essential then is to have the money to entice qualified coaches to work at this level, as the unfortunate truth is that all the big money is at the top, in the senior game, so it is no surprise that the better qualified coaches go there. This is wrong and must be addressed if we as a nation wish to develop better players and more of them.


Collaboration of bodies

If these bodies worked together then we could really change the future of the English game; we could see more English players playing in the Premier League and hopefully more players challenging for the national side. We could be like Spain and Germany, yet it will take 10 years and more to see the benefits of a new programme. What is key is that more money is given to the quality coaches and investment is made in a number of developments all over the country in youth football. This way we can take potential players from the grassroots on to the next level without having to necessarily go into an academy immediately. This will mean a gentle movement into the elite levels which can produce more players and give them more time to improve.  


The issue many Academies face and which they are guilty for is that when they release players they are allowing them to drop back to the bottom level where the quality  of players and coaches is not as high. Imagine if an advanced development centre could cater for players moving up and also moving down, this way keeping them coached to a high level. Too many players who “drop out” of Academies are thus lost and with that comes the reduction in the pool of talent.


The final step

Finally, if as a nation we improve the quality of grassroots coaches, implement changes in the format of youth football and improve the quality of physical education in schools, then we still need to amend the issues of the senior game, where players between 17-21 are being lost too easily and the step between youth and senior is not being addressed well enough. As the Premier League has improved, as the money has increased, so too has the influx of foreign players and the restriction of England’s youth players progressing from youth football to the professional game. When only 38% of players playing the league are English, then there are clearly problems for the development of the national side. When Germany and Spain have around 60% of national players playing in their leagues, then we must consider this a key issue to address. 


This is the final step, and with the new A licence in 17-21, more quality and understanding at this age group can lead to more players going into the pro game and staying there. What must also change is the “home grown” rule in squads, right now that means any player developed in the academy system, regardless of nationality. In Germany the 6+5 rule means only players from Germany are eligible to play, this model enables the home grown players to play more, enabling more players to gain the necessary experience to improve and take their skills from their youth education into the senior levels. This will need changes from all bodies, notably the Premier League. 

Ultimately the progression from grassroots football to the senior game is unpredictable and so it is difficult to assume that any player can make it. Thus, if we increase the pool of talent across the country and improve the quality of players who are capable of playing in the modern game, then we may allow ourselves to have more English players in the Premier League and more choices for the National team manager to select. It will take time and patience, yet what is key is that everyone works together to improve the levels and quality of players and coaching in the country. 


An exciting time awaits and today is a landmark day for the future of England, yet the future is not all bright, there are many issues to sort out before we start producing a steady stream of world class youth players, the question is, can everyone work together to achieve these goals?


Follow The Whitehouse Address on Twitter @The_W_Address


Related articles



  • The Importance of Youth Development - click here
  • Why Germany is the best model for England to follow - click here
  • A crisis in the development of world class English players - click here
  • The need to change the culture of football in England - click here




  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS
0Comments

Why Coaches Should Be Wary of the Grassroots Show



Youth development in football in the UK is the single biggest factor holding back our national game. As we see countries like Spain and Germany excel in recent years with a new generation of skilful, creative players, when we see quality constantly being produced from Argentina and Brasil and the impressive nations of Holland and France producing good quality young players, then questions must be asked of the job that we in England are doing when we fail to see improvements being in our grassroots. 



This weekend there is the annual grassroots show, which is chance for adults and children to see expert speakers and coaches from the professional game. The grassroots football show this year will be the biggest football event of its kind in Europe.
However, having attended for the past several years I have to say that I have been disappointed in the overall achievement of the show and more worried about the impact the show has on our grassroots game.

In the past several years I have seen some ofsessions carried out by ex-England manager Graham Taylor, Iain Dowie, Les Reed and Alan Curbishley of which I have been quite shocked. These are men who have had relatively successful careers in football, they are understandably respected football people, yet they are conducting sessions with youth players, sessions which are aimed at youth coaches, with clearly no understanding of what youth coaching is in the 21st century.

England training session

Graham Taylor conducted a 1v1 drill where he did the “classic” one line shooting drill, where the players pass the ball to the coach, who sets it to the side and they then look to finish on goal. As Taylor wanted more “tempo” he then made sure the players were shooting faster and the turnover was quicker. It was a shame for the keeper therefore as he had not chance to get back up after making one save and drill, which was rather unsafe, became just a barrage of shots at the poor U10, who was according to Taylor “not working hard enough”. It got better though when Taylor wanted to introduce a defender; as I awaited the allocation of two teams and a simple but effective 1v1 drill being conducted, imagine my surprise when Taylor did the same drill yet became the defender himself!

The worrying thing is that I am sure you have all experienced this, by either doing it yourself or seeing coaches in youth football doing it. You may think it is a good drill for the players, yet take into account the realism of it. Why is there not an actual team mate playing the layoff, who then can run to look for the rebound. Or in a 1v1, why not use the players themselves? Why have a line of 10 players when you can use two goals and increase the turn over? This is the problem; it is being carried out by a man who has no real expertise in this age group or level of player, yet because he has a known name he is allowed to conduct an educational session for coaches. These coaches then see this session and copy it. It is no surprise to see this session do many times in youth football training sessions.

Taylor’s willingness to be “involved” and active in the session, assuming that this would show his quality of being a coach, was again another problem with his work. Having the coach be a “part of” the session instead of observing the session is a big problem we have in England. Coaches feel that it is their opportunity to be involved in the session, this is not the role of the coach at all. They are involved in the educating of the players, yet that does not mean playing in the session. It amazes me when I see coaches partake in the small sided games in their training; they need to consider who they are there for and why. A coaches role is to plan and deliver a session which will challenge the players and which seeks to improve their technical skills and decision making abilities. Too often though the coach makes those decisions for the players, often by shouting instructions telling the player what to or structuring a session which is very simple yet which looks “perfect”; believing that a “good” session is one where no mistakes occur, because if mistakes happen then the session is poor. It is these issues which need changing, the culture of grassroots coaching in the UK is too much Graham Taylor and the grassroots show is not improving standards, but continuing them.

The most worrying part of it all was when you see dozens, and at times over a hundred coaches, scribbling the session down on their notepads. For me, I dread to think of the following weeks which follow in which these newly “educated” coaches now go back into their clubs with this new ammo, which if it’s good enough for an England manager, then it’s good enough for me mentality. I cringe to think of the impact that these sessions are having on our grassroots game.

Zonal marking, with U11's

Another session with a group of U11’s incorporated Iain Dowie coaching zonal marking from corners. This was unbelievable! Not only was it a very poorly conducted session yet it was completely unnecessary in the context of youth development. For the 30 minute session the players barely touched the ball. It was classic case of an adult coach trying to coach children. His language, manner and obviously the theme, were too complicated and simply quite boring for the players. Was he able to put on a transition based game involving attacking and defending, which could be progressed from 1v1 to 2v2 onwards? It appeared not, relying on something which perhaps is not required till U15’s+. Another one of his was called “fun football”; now I am not sure what he means by “fun”, yet watching him play he has a distinctly different idea of the term than many, however this was session which was supposed to be fun was pretty much just carnage; Dowie kept belting balls into the oversized small sided game and when a player was hit he laughed it off and said “fun, ain’t it”. As I look around, I see the inevitable scribble on notepads and think, “oh no”.

Walking the dog

Finally, I went to see a session from Les Reed. Now this was one I was genuinely looking forward to. Creating creative players it was called and I was interested to see what Reed, who works at Southampton, one of the best academies in England, would be doing with the U12 players he had. What I saw embarrassed me. His take on grassroots football was aimed at 4/5 years old, which although the session perhaps would have been enjoyable for children of that age, meant that U12’s he had found it rather boring, immature and pointless. He conducted a warm up where to inspire their imagination, he had them walking their dogs (ball) and putting it on the lead (step on ball) and that if the park keeper (coach) found them without the lead on their dog, then they had to do some forfeit. It lasted 30 minutes, in which time the session didn’t progress past this elementary warm up box and where the players looked quite simply bored mindless. 

Now if this was with 4/5 year olds I would have been fascinated to see how he would have worked the session, whether he would have progressed it and importantly, how he would have dealt with issues that arose from the players. Yet when he realised they were U12’s why did he not do a session which suited their age and ability? Surely he would have got more from them and coaches could have learnt something too. It showed me that Reed was not a good coach, because good coaches must be adaptable and ready for eventualities. I took nothing from this session which I was initially intrigued to find out how to create creative players.

These are anecdotes from the past and with new owners this year is apparently going to be one of the best. Yet this is heard each year. The main event this year will be Phil Brown, who by all accounts is a good coach, yet with adults. I could see the quality of Chris Houghton last year too, yet the problem was it was sessions which were suited for 14’s upwards. I have no problem with these men speaking about their experiences, about their views. But conducting youth coaching sessions? Well, they are very much of out their depth. 

Quality and expertise over a name

The problem with the grassroots show is that there is a distinct lack of quality of genuinely top level youth coaches at the grassroots show, which is major problem to a show which calls itself the “the Grassroots show”. I understand the marketing value of certain names, although would still argue that the attendance of these “quality” coaches is because they are out of work ex managers whose careers have gone into the safe world of punditry. The best manager I’ve seen at the show was Ian Holloway; he was actually excellent and was a great example for coaches of how to coach players, not just what to coach. It is a shame he won’t be here this year. Yet the best sessions are those done by youth coaches, the problem is, there hasn't been enough of them. 

What the grassroots show need to do in order to make it a genuinely educational experience for youth coaches, is to bring in youth coaches from top academies in the country. These do not need to be top names, what they need to be able to do is show grassroots coaches sessions of which academies may use to educate their players. These sessions should then be age specific and coached by a youth coach who knows HOW to coach and not just WHAT to coach. Imagine a coach from each age group to U8-U16 from academies like Arsenal, United and Southampton? 

The youth coach could actually learn new ideas about the age level they coach, they could also pick up the key factors in being a good coach; manner, language – verbal/non-verbal, progressions to challenge the players and keep them stimulated, and the ability to make a session easier. It may be that the same coach does a different topic over the day; what and how does a U12 coach from Arsenal do for passing and receiving, attacking and defending. A grassroots coach can then take so much from this experience instead of just seeing a name without any substance, without any expertise. What they would see is a session made for kids and not an adult one adjusted, it is completely different. 

The FA are accountable

With the new St George’s park facility being built this year there is a real desire from the FA to improve coaching standards across the country. Peter Ackerley, The FA Senior National Game Development Manager, commented: “The FA is delighted to be supporting The Grass Roots Show 2012 in what is a particularly exciting year for grassroots football in this country.”  I am intrigued and interested to see what the FA will be doing at the grassroots show, whether they will be doing their own Skills sessions and talking to coaches about the needs and requirements of grassroots coaches? For me the grassroots game is an environment which is significantly unmonitored, but is the one where the most amount of players are. Surely something here is wrong?

If the FA wish to improve the standards of the players in this country then they need to improve the quality of coaching. Too many willing volunteers are ruining the potential of young players because of their belief that they are a “coach”. Would you go to a school and carry out a maths session because you can do the times table? An extreme case, yet why do people believe that football coaching is for everyone? There is an art to it and it should be seen as a vocation. The lessons taught to youth players will define who they are as they develop, which means the influence a grassroots coach has on a child is huge.

An event like the Grassroots show could be a great way of educating young grassroots coaches in the ways that children develop and learn. In reality there should not be anyone who works with a group of players who does not possess a Level 1 in coaching and more importantly, who has not been on the new Youth Module awards. Too many volunteer coaches are uneducated in the development of a young child, yet alone a young footballer. And without understanding “how” children learn and understanding the right environment needed to develop positive, creative footballers, then the FA and grassroots game is doing a dis-service to the young children in this country.

It is terrible what is happening at many clubs and the FA must be held accountable for what is being produced. Shows like the grassroots show need to assess their intentions; is it solely business or do they genuinely care about the grassroots game? If so, then they need to change the quality of coaching being displayed and bring in expertise of the youth game to educate grassroots coaches. 

A new generation is needed

As the new EPPP plans seek to improve the quality of coaching to Academy players, more needs to be done at the grassroots levels in order to increase the pool of talent of players which can be moved into higher levels of coaching. While the FA are anxious to develop a coaching culture, it will take time to improve standards. Yet the FA need to do much more to monitor coaching across the country. There needs to be more of a collective understanding of how to play the game, the win at all costs mentality is ruining many players and destroying potential. Creativity is killed because it may lead to losing the ball. 


In order to produce the quality required to compete with top countries then we need a new generation of coaches who can educate and teach young players. More needs to be done to produce technical, skilful and creative players, it will take a combined effort of all bodies working together to achieve that goal, it will take time and much patience also.

As for the grassroots show, I am eagerly anticipating seeing what is in store this year, I have been disappointed for many years, yet if the new owners mean what they say then hopefully this year can actually be beneficial for the grassroots game.  Although I am not holding my breath. 


Please feel to discuss your thoughts with me, you can find me on Twitter @The_W_Address

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS
0Comments

Roy Hodgson. The right man for the wrong job.

After much deliberation and media frenzy, the position of England national team manager, the “biggest” job in world football, has been handed to…Roy Hodgson. Underwhelmed?!






Since the day Capello left the job there has been an obsession in the media about who should replace Fabio. The overwhelming favourite in those days following was Harry Redknapp. It seemed like the coronation was ready; fans, players and the media appeared to be backing him for the job without any hint of considering other candidates and his current employers feelings of the situation. He clearly felt that the job was his, it was just a matter of time.

In the ongoing weeks and now months since Capello left the issue of the national job has been constantly in the media; with Alan Pardew impressing at Newcastle there was talk that perhaps he could be the man to lead his country. Amazing really when 18 months ago he was a sacked League 1 manager and when appointed manager of the Toon, was roundly greeted by jeers. How time can change one’s fortunes and so too how ridding your side of English players and replacing them with better foreigners can work a treat for your standing as the potential England manager. How funny football is.

Recently there has been talk of Pep Guardiola, seemingly only lying about his need of a rest if you believe the media who believe he wants to leave Barca to lead a country he has had no ties with except for a remark about wanting to coach in England in the future.  Of course he has found the job in Barcelona stressful, the constant media attention and pressures took their toll. Well, if he thought that was tough, what with the best team in the world, while being successful, then the England job, with all the unrealistic expectation, continual failings and a sinister media who await failure, then anyone with a history of stress should not consider the role due to health factors.

So who else has been touted, well of course anyone with a successful resume fits the bill; Jose, Scolari, Wenger. Top names in management who the media believe will bring success to this great nation. A media who portrays the fact that the reason we don’t win anything is because of the manager. They thought Sven was the one, yet didn’t think he gesticulated enough, he just wasn’t motivating the players to get further than quarter finals. And then there was Capello, a glittering history of domestic and European success, if there was a man to make England a winning side then he was it. It was worth the £6 million a year wasn't it if he could succeed. What the team needed was this man, this leader of men, to take England back to the top. But wait, he couldn’t talk to the players, he couldn’t speak English. Blast England’s luck that this Italian had all this knowledge; all these tactics to win trophies, yet it was hidden inside of him because he couldn’t communicate, that was the problem.

It's the players, stupid. 


The truth is, like you didn’t know, is that it is not the manager that matters, this side have been blessed with great managers, however the problem has been that these great managers have not been blessed with great players. 

If we believe the media then our players are the best in the world, capable of beating anyone. However, we struggled to beat Slovenia and could only draw with a very impressive, compared to England, Algeria. A thrashing by Germany awoke many to the problems plaguing this countries issues in international football. For once real questions were being asked of this “golden generation” of which none have played in at most a semi-final for England. The issue goes much deeper than that squad though, it goes to the quality of youth development in England compared to other countries.

The problem we have had when bringing in Sven’s and Fabio’s is that they have a remit, win something! Of course this is every national team managers target, yet each target is relative to each country. For some it may be qualification, others lifting the trophy. And so a team’s final position is relative to their expectations which is then deemed successful or not. The problem with England is that where expectations should be to qualify and reach the quarter finals, the media hype up this average bunch as potential winners. No wonder every England manager is deemed a failure. The expectations are simply unrealistic. 


And now the really worry is that England have declined when others have improved. The difference in quality between the top sides in the world and England who lie 7th in the world rankings is vast and it will be very difficult to catch up. Can England compete with Spain, Germany or Holland, no. Like Chelsea against Barcelona last week, it may be that against these sides, the only way to be successful is to defend and close down spaces. If you try to play open against these sides, they will destroy you, as Germany showed in the World Cup. In a one off game like against Spain, perhaps you could knick a win if you play the way they did. In my opinion at that level, you play to win and use the best tactic that will enable success. If it means doing it “ugly” then so be it. Winning should take precedence over all else.

In my opinion the focus is not the senior side. The players there are what they are, some excellent talent mixed with average talent. Ageing players who need replacing with young unproven talent. United have players like Jones, Smalling, Cleverley and Welbeck who could develop into good players, yet need the experience. Others like Walker, Sturridge, Wilshere and Chamberlain all show potential too. These players need experience to develop and become better; they need to play more Champions League and International football to achieve that. Yet, are there enough players coming through? When you look at teams like Bilbao in Spain or Dortmund in Germany, these are sides developing home grown talent capable of reaching European finals and winning leagues. Where are our sides achieving this, with home grown talent too?


So how can we improve our national side? For me, the key is youth development. This is where the foundations are set, where players are developed. England’s problem is that we have sought to develop top down far too often. The money goes from the top and trickles down, leaving barely anything to really improve standards of grassroots coaching. This is the first step to developing players suited for the modern game. Right now the pool of talent is too small because too many players are being ruined, and I really mean that, by uneducated coaches who have no idea what they are doing, both technically and importantly socially to the players they work with. Between the ages of 7-11 a young player needs to build a solid foundation, this is not happening well enough. 

The new academy plans for next season, the Elite PlayerPerformance Plan (EPPP) seeks to improve the quality of coaching in academies, with better facilities for players to develop in. While I see potential downfalls to this model, I do see what they are trying to achieve. Yet a major problem for me in all this is that if talent id is not done well enough, if the scouting of players is based on a player’s physicality over anything else including intelligence and technical ability, then how can academies look to develop potential world class players. There is still too much credence given to size and power in scouting, assets which give a player advantages over their peers in the short term because they are bigger than their peers. If scouting continues to stay this way then many players, those with genuine talent yet who develop later due to birth date or late puberty, those could have been special, are left behind due to a short term, subjective view on achievement and success. You only have to look at Germany, Spain and Argentina to see how great small players can be. Why are we not learning from the best?

Why does the England manager matter?


What does this have to do with the England managers job I am sure you ask. Everything. Trevor Brooking is a very influential man at the FA and reports appear to be that he chose Hodgson for the job over Redknapp. He did this solely because of the importance he sees in the England manager in the development of the grassroots game. 


There were many issues regarding Capello in terms of his reluctance to lay down the foundations for the future of English players and development,  and this caused many at the FA to believe that Capello was not the man they wanted or needed. For them, the next man had to be a part of their development plan.

This is why Hodgson has got the job, he ticks what the FA want in their manager. They wanted an English man, which I for one believed we should have. The national team of England should not have to go abroad to bring in a manager worthy of representing them. The issue of why there aren’t enoughEnglish coaches in football management is as important an issue as to why there are so few world class English players. Could it be that we are now at stage where these issues are genuinely considered. I believe so, in my opinion ten years too late compared to what Germany have done and twenty years too late compared to Spain.

The unfortunate truth is that a philosophy of how to playwas put down in the 80’s, however it’s flaws have been evident in the English game since then. Direct football required direct players, meaning those small, technical players were deemed surplus to requirements. It is all a shame really, as the modern game shows how those “little” players are quite invaluable and that by not producing enough technical, creative players, England has lagged behind many countries and not just the big ones.

So the FA wanted a man in place who would be their man, who would speak their voice and who would usher in a new period for English football. They wanted a man who would use their new National Football Centre to educate coaches and players of and for the future. They believed that Roy Hodgson as England manager would be their answer. Unfortunately, they were wrong.


Too much pressure restricts influence 

You see, the problem with the England manager’s role is that it is very much a poison chalice, in which the occupant of the role becomes scrutinised and ultimately vilified for his performance. History has been kind to men like Robson, Venables and Hoddle, yet their time as manager was slaughtered by the press and the fans. If the intention is to develop the future generation, then the manager of England is not the man for that job. 


Roy Hodgson has too many problems already before he has even been given the job. Most notably the press and their man Harry Redknapp. Because Redknapp was the media’s choice, and apparently some of the players too, then whoever was going to get it that wasn’t Redknapp was simply going to be slaughtered. I feel sorry for what lies ahead for Hodgson, I really do. The onslaught from the media on everything he does will be savage and menacing, his fashion, his speech, his tactics and his mannerisms will be questioned and mocked. For however long he stays in the job he will constantly be compared to Redknapp. The media will not stop till they get him out, they really are a brutal bunch.


The FA have brought this on themselves; has Hodgson got any chance of winning anything with England, probably  not. Does Redknapp. No. So why didn’t the FA just give Redknapp the job? It would have been the best solution to this mess. Why? Because by giving the media what they want, meant they could not argue. They would have struggled to criticise England and the manager because this was their choice. If he wins something,  then  they are vindicated. If he loses, then would they be forgiving or humble to admit it was a mistake? By giving him the job the FA would be seen favourably, the media would be happy and if it failed then the FA could say, we gave you what you wanted and it didn't work. By giving Hodgson the job it makes a martyr out of Redknapp and allows the media to ask what if. I am disappointed because I wanted Redknapp in the job in order for him to fail. What it would allow the FA to concentrate on also was matters more important.

Most important role - The Technical Director


The job of England manager should not be about the development of the national game, it shouldn't. It should be to manage the senior side while having a good relationship with the U21’s. The role which is the most important for the future of England, one which would lay the foundations for England to be competing in the coming decades, is the role of Technical Director. It is this position which Hodgson should be given the job, as it is this position which will matter more to the development of England.

Many names have been touted for this role, one being Gareth Southgate. I have no issues with his performance as a player, he was an excellent defender. Yet when I consider him to be the man to take this country forward, to lay the foundations, coach future coaches to develop world class players, then I feel a little worried. Where is his experience, how knowledgeable is he? 

Hodgson has a wealth of experience in different countries, with club sides and national sides. He speaks more than seven languages I believe, which is quite astounding and has a management career spanning 36 years.  The amount of knowledge and experience he has accumulated will be wasted on a group of over indulgent players who lack the intelligence to be successful.


The beauty of this role is that there is no media pressure, no constant attention and no judgements made on performances and results with the senior side. While Harry is managing the senior lot and more than probably failing, Hodgson could actually be working on the important issues needed to improve the standard of the national game without the glare or attention that the national manager brings.


I cannot fault Hodgson for his desire to manage his national side, yet would want to him question his reasons why. If he genuinely cared about the future of the national game, then he should refuse the manager’s job and take the role of Technical Director, thus taking the most important position for the future of England.

I fear that by him taking the manager’s position he will be taking a poison chalice in which those who have come before him now have a reputation based on failure, spending their time in the comfort of the media, instead of being a part of the development of the future of their country. 


Feedback always appreciated. Find me on Twitter @The_W_Address 
or at Football Speak.com

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS
0Comments
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...