Ok so 'B' teams are out. Feeder clubs are out. What SHOULD we do?

[blues_r_best]

When I was a kid, we played street games. Yes, football included. Now, kids are on their arses with an Xbox. That, to me, says it all.

Game consoles are sold worldwide you know? Not just in the UK.

 

[Pubey]

When I was a kid, we played street games. Yes, football included. Now, kids are on their arses with an Xbox. That, to me, says it all.

I play football at Sheffield United academy. When I'm down there there's literally 100s of youngsters playing football. Not everyone is sitting on their arse playing Xbox.

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

I play football at Sheffield United academy. When I'm down there there's literally 100s of youngsters playing football. Not everyone is sitting on their arse playing Xbox.

True, some of us are sitting on our arse, talking about people sitting on their arse playing Xbox :smile:

 

[EastStandBlue]

My five year old had some trials yesterday. We didn't tell him they were trials because we didn't want him to panic, and also because they take everyone! The people that ran the trials also run the local league, and they assign each player to a team based on ability. That way they try to ensure the teams are balanced.

Because I was at Burton I didn't go, but my wife texted me to say that there plenty of fathers on the side of the pitch shouting instructions!

They're five years old for heaven's sake. Let them enjoy it!

I was pulled to one side by a parent the other week who demanded to know why we don't do any set-piece work in training. His argument was that they're a vital part of the game, that professional clubs work on them day-in, day-out and that our team had no idea what to do when we had one.

My argument was that the boys are eight years old, are just about beginning to learn positional sense, have no chance of comprehending set-piece moves, find it impossible to consistently deliver a ball into a desired location, and while professional clubs do indeed work on them daily, I coach them for a maximum of two hours a week and would prefer to spend that time working on their basic technique and understanding of the game, rather than confuse them with anything too advanced.

I'd never ban parents from watching - they're a focal part of the grass roots game and I certainly couldn't do my job if I didn't have parents ferrying kids across south east London and Kent and occasionally running the line/refereeing for me, but the FA RESPECT Code of Conduct needs to be stapled to a few of their heads.

When I was a kid, we played street games. Yes, football included. Now, kids are on their arses with an Xbox. That, to me, says it all.

Arsenal encourage their youngsters to play FIFA. According to them, and a number of hugely experienced coaches, there's no better learning aide for positional sense.

 

[Beefy]

I was pulled to one side by a parent the other week who demanded to know why we don't do any set-piece work in training. His argument was that they're a vital part of the game, that professional clubs work on them day-in, day-out and that our team had no idea what to do when we had one.

My argument was that the boys are eight years old, are just about beginning to learn positional sense, have no chance of comprehending set-piece moves, find it impossible to consistently deliver a ball into a desired location, and while professional clubs do indeed work on them daily, I coach them for a maximum of two hours a week and would prefer to spend that time working on their basic technique and understanding of the game, rather than confuse them with anything too advanced.

I really think that the problem is that we love football almost too much in this country. Even at Primary School level people want to see their kids playing matches and winning matches and that is all that the poor saps doing the coaching will be judged on by most of these people. It must be a thankless task trying to produce good footballers over a period of several years when all that many people care about is beating the school down the road next week.

 

[Uncle Leo]

Good to see our lads in the final of the U17 Euros tonight. If they win, does that mean this B team idea will go away?

(Chance would be a fine thing)

 

[EastStandBlue]

I really think that the problem is that we love football almost too much in this country. Even at Primary School level people want to see their kids playing matches and winning matches and that is all that the poor saps doing the coaching will be judged on by most of these people. It must be a thankless task trying to produce good footballers over a period of several years when all that many people care about is beating the school down the road next week.

Definitely. I've seen parents have full-on ****fits on the touchline when we've conceded and dance around the pitch after we've scored. It's counter intuitive. The FA has gone to great lengths to stress that kids shouldn't be exposed to too much competition at such a young age and have effectively removed league tables until U10s, but how can I relay that attitude to players when their parents are hellbent on making such an ordeal out of games?

You learn to block it out though. For every monstrous parent living vicariously through his son, there's another who's offering to help out with the half-time oranges or whatever. If the FA dedicated resources to educating parents then perhaps the environment these players are expected to express themselves in and learn from might improve, but as long as the FA seeks to leave that to the individual clubs then it doesn't stand to improve too much.

Good to see our lads in the final of the U17 Euros tonight. If they win, does that mean this B team idea will go away?

(Chance would be a fine thing)

This U17 side are phenomenal, really. Far better than the team which one the U17 Euros in 2010 which had Ross Barkley and Connor Wickham in starring roles. Solanke and Roberts are just outrageously talented for their respective ages.

 

[Blue_Wes]

Good to see our lads in the final of the U17 Euros tonight. If they win, does that mean this B team idea will go away?

(Chance would be a fine thing)

And win it on penalties as well. I know ideally, you want to win the game outright, not by a shoot out, but it's refreshing to see them not buckle under the pressure.

This U17 side are phenomenal, really. Far better than the team which one the U17 Euros in 2010 which had Ross Barkley and Connor Wickham in starring roles. Solanke and Roberts are just outrageously talented for their respective ages.

Let's hope we allow them to progress though. And not through our desperation to win something, fast track them into the first team at the age of 18 to sit on the bench. Playing in and winning this tournament is excellent experience and a vital part of their development, keeping this side and allowing them to grow through the age groups would be far more beneficial than rushing star individuals into the first team, and exposing them to the high profile status and the cauldren like pressure of the media and top level football at such a young age. Also, by not breaking up the team, and allowing them to compete against players in their own age groups, rather than against seasoned adult players in the first team, gives them a greater competitive edge, and gives them a greater chance of keeping the winning habit. Imagine a group of players having grown through and winnings honours at every international youth level together and breaking into the first team as a group, with the winning mentality already ingrained into them, having worked through progressively higher profile tournaments together rather than just chucked in at the deep end. Basically the class of '92 on an international level.

Short term pain for long term gain.

 

[united we stand]

Definitely. I've seen parents have full-on ****fits on the touchline when we've conceded and dance around the pitch after we've scored. It's counter intuitive. The FA has gone to great lengths to stress that kids shouldn't be exposed to too much competition at such a young age and have effectively removed league tables until U10s, but how can I relay that attitude to players when their parents are hellbent on making such an ordeal out of games?

You learn to block it out though. For every monstrous parent living vicariously through his son, there's another who's offering to help out with the half-time oranges or whatever. If the FA dedicated resources to educating parents then perhaps the environment these players are expected to express themselves in and learn from might improve, but as long as the FA seeks to leave that to the individual clubs then it doesn't stand to improve too much.



This U17 side are phenomenal, really. Far better than the team which one the U17 Euros in 2010 which had Ross Barkley and Connor Wickham in starring roles. Solanke and Roberts are just outrageously talented for their respective ages.

I manged a team from U8' to U13's so I feel for you . The only piece of advise I would give any coach is to sit sown with the parents at the start of the season and explain your ethos and what you will/will not be doing (especially on subs and starting line ups). As long as you stick to what you have told them you will and wont be doing it makes life a lot easier. Some parents are win at all costs and if you are (hopefully) not running the team in that manner they need to understand that. Believe me what you see with parents at U8's is nothing compared to the older age groups

 

[RobM]

True, some of us are sitting on our arse, talking about people sitting on their arse playing Xbox :smile:

Agreed but I'm 58 and useless at football!

 

[Uncle Leo]

And win it on penalties as well. I know ideally, you want to win the game outright, not by a shoot out, but it's refreshing to see them not buckle under the pressure.



Let's hope we allow them to progress though. And not through our desperation to win something, fast track them into the first team at the age of 18 to sit on the bench. Playing in and winning this tournament is excellent experience and a vital part of their development, keeping this side and allowing them to grow through the age groups would be far more beneficial than rushing star individuals into the first team, and exposing them to the high profile status and the cauldren like pressure of the media and top level football at such a young age. Also, by not breaking up the team, and allowing them to compete against players in their own age groups, rather than against seasoned adult players in the first team, gives them a greater competitive edge, and gives them a greater chance of keeping the winning habit. Imagine a group of players having grown through and winnings honours at every international youth level together and breaking into the first team as a group, with the winning mentality already ingrained into them, having worked through progressively higher profile tournaments together rather than just chucked in at the deep end. Basically the class of '92 on an international level.

Short term pain for long term gain.

Good shout. Hasn't done these German lads much harm...

http://www.uefa.com/under21/season=2009/matches/round=15089/match=2001198/index.html

 

[mrsblue]

I remember with horror the time I actually managed a kids team in a summer 5 a side comp,The team which had 14 kids were split into 2 sides with the then manager selecting the strongest and best for his team leaving me with his cast offs.The tournament involved a group stage of 5 games with the top 2 progressing to the semi final,My lot played their 5 games with the following results winning 1 0 1 0 drawing 0 0 1 1 and losing 0 3 we then played Westham in the semi and were soundly beaten 5 0,The comments I heard from nutty parents regarding my decisions were dreadful and made me realise that management was never going to be my thing.

 

[ms brush]

As someone heavily involved in grassroots football. It is obvious what I will say...

• More money is needed to improve facilities at grassroots level. There are not enough 3G pitches to cope with the crap weather. I think the report suggested there is ONE 3G pitch for every 23,000 players in England. Compared to ONE in 8,000 in Germany. If the kids are not playing regularly, how will they improve?

• The local councils need to stop mugging grassroots clubs off. The fee's they charge to use total toilet pitches, is bang out of order.

• More coaches are needed. And the FA need to make the courses much more affordable. £150 for a Level 1 course is a joke and you don't really learn a lot if I'm honest.

The FA seem to be forgetting that pretty much every single pro footballer in this country, will have played for a local youth grassroots club at some point. Before they moved into the pro game. More funding is needed to keep that supply line going and to improve it. Without grassroots youth football clubs, where the hell are the future England players going to learn how to even kick a ball?

The coaches at these clubs give up and huge amount of their time for nothing (I for example give up around 5hrs a week) to help kids learn to play the game and hopefully one day move into a Pro Academy. But the clubs are run on a shoe-string and are reliant on fundraisers to be able to keep supplying equipment, paying pitch fee's, ref fee's, registration fee's you name it. The out-goings are endless and keep rising and to get a grant for pennies is so difficult, a lot of clubs just don't bother.

Christ, just 1 day of someone like Rooney's wage, would sort out a few grassroots clubs for a whole season!

So I say bollox to all the FA plans. They need to start going back to basics and supporting the clubs that produce this countrys talent in the first place. Without them, there is no football.

Totally agree. My thoughts are:

- If every Premiership player were to give up 1 days ages a season, and plough this into grass roots level it would make a huge difference, and would give these clubs half a chance of just doing the basics like paying for pitches, refs and registration fees, but they really need to also give their time to pass on their experiences. In fairness, I know a lot of professional players do exactly this.

- coaching is an interesting one, because what is needed at grass roots level are people who can teach young players the techniques and hone the skills of players, and once they have mastered the core skills, a coach can help individuals and teams to improve and develop their game. What the FA call coaching, is more like mentoring / training, using coaching techniques, combined with teaching and developing technical skills of players, teams, running training sessions etc. I am fully qualified masters level executive business coach, and as such I am qualified to coach any individual or team from any industry who wants to improved their performance, because coaching is a psychological intervention, rather than physical. However, despite having the ability to coach at a high level, I have no doubts that the FA wouldn't let me, or any of my peers anywhere near football coaching. In reality, what is needed is an enlarged army of good old fashioned trainers and mentors, who are able to devote time and energy to helping young players develop, and they need to be educated in coaching practice, which is expensive, and it is time consuming to train people in coaching skills and to work with people. Money would help immensely, as many of the people who could do this cant afford to stop working to allow them to devote the time needed to make a big enough impact.

- the FA need to remember a few things. firstly, it is a team game, and is more effective where the team is more than the sum of its parts. hey would also do well to remember that a lot of English professional footballers play for the 72 football league clubs, and therefore they need to encourage all national team managers at the various age groups to look at players from the unfashionable lower league clubs, offer them the opportunities to buddy up with established England international players, and allow them to learn from each other. One of the main reasons I like Roy Hodgson is that he has taken some till recently unknown talent, like Ricki Lambert, to Brazil - a guy who up until a few years ago was playing lower league football, and whilst not the most technically brilliant player, has brought some humility and pride to pull the shirt on back into the England team.

-create an infrastructure where it is easy for a talented youngster to become the best he (or she) can be, because they are not being hindered by a lack of resources, money, or just blind ignorance of the governing body. Clubs should have access to funding to help players develop, and it needs to be the job of the FA to ensure that the wealth distribution in the game is fair and equal to all lower league and grass roots clubs, and not skewed to increase the gap between the top few prem clubs and everyone else. Don't know how, but that debate is long overdue!

 

[Beefy]

I think you're underselling Rickie Lambert a bit there. He's technically very good and is in the squad because his goals and assists in the last two seasons compared to his only real rival for the position (Andy Carroll) made that selection a no-brainer.

You're obviously right about money needing to go to grass-roots football. I doubt anyone would disagree with that. But the onus for funding shouldn't be on the players. The Premier League and the Clubs should be giving more back to the non-professional game.

 

[ms brush]

I agree with you, particularly about Rickie Lambert. Yes, he is technically very good, which is exactly my point! But he has spent most of his career in the lower leagues and is now a premiership player because of Southampton's promotion. What I am getting at is that players of his calibre are normally ignored by the England set up because they are playing at a lower level, or at an unfashionable club, when they actually have the talent, temperament and technical ability to be an England player, but what they don't have is the exposure, so are virtually unknown, or deemed not experienced enough on the big stage. How many other quality players are in the Championship, and in L1&2 who are too good to be where they are, but were either released by the big boys, or would rather play at a lower level than sit in the reserves?? The big problem is that there seems to be a glass ceiling for many players, when all it would take is better access to good coaching, training facilities and a willingness of clubs to nurture young English talent rather than buy in the finished products!

i take your point about players funding the re-distribution to grass roots, as it should be done properly through the FA, the FL and clubs. However, as someone pointed out before, almost every professional player would have started their footballing careers as young boys, and almost certainly in a grass roots local club... I suspect that there are players who help out in this sort of way, and we just don't hear about it.

My thinking is that if one player earning £100k per week could donate a relatively small set amount every year, that would make a massive difference to a grass roots club, and he probably wouldn't even notice it. There are probably tax breaks that they could take advantage of as well, so the impact to individuals could be minimal, but would make a huge difference systemically to the grass roots infrastructure.

 

[mrsblue]

Coaching at grassroots level requires coaches who know the game and can actually play the game and Defo no coaches who are so far up the own backside it's laughable.

Seen many coaches at Sunday level who will spend more time explaining their poncey drill than allowing youngsters to just get on with playing football,Training IMO should be fun and if the children can improve they will find their level .

 

[EastStandBlue]

Coaching at grassroots level requires coaches who know the game and can actually play the game and Defo no coaches who are so far up the own backside it's laughable.

It depends what you mean by grassroots, knowing the game and being to play it. Coaches at your typical Sunday League sides up until the U16 level don't need coaches who've played semi-professional football at all, they need people with a rudimentary understanding of the game and the very basic techniques, but above all they need good communicators. It's pointless being able to put the ball on a 50 pence piece from 60 yards away if you can't explain how you did it and when you'd do it in a game. Alan Shearer's a prime example of this. One of England's best ever centre forwards but couldn't communicate with players on a basic level and get his ideas across properly, so lasted a few months in charge of Newcastle before scarpering back to the BBC with his tail between his legs.

There's far too much importance placed on professional experience in this country. Good players do not necessarily make good coaches.

 

[Pubey]

It depends what you mean by grassroots, knowing the game and being to play it. Coaches at your typical Sunday League sides up until the U16 level don't need coaches who've played semi-professional football at all, they need people with a rudimentary understanding of the game and the very basic techniques, but above all they need good communicators. It's pointless being able to put the ball on a 50 pence piece from 60 yards away if you can't explain how you did it and when you'd do it in a game. Alan Shearer's a prime example of this. One of England's best ever centre forwards but couldn't communicate with players on a basic level and get his ideas across properly, so lasted a few months in charge of Newcastle before scarpering back to the BBC with his tail between his legs.

There's far too much importance placed on professional experience in this country. Good players do not necessarily make good coaches.

Well said.

As examples, Roy Hodgson is widely regarded as an excellent coach and an intelligent and thoughtful communicator. He barely played above non-league level. His teaching career probably benefited his coaching career significantly. He is probably better respected as a coach abroad than in England - again, communication is key.

Jose Mourinho is widely regarded as one of the best coaches and managers around. You only needed to see a glimpse of Soccer Aid to notice how he managed to get the attention and respect of (non) players and used basic concepts to get them organised. He also didn't really have much of a playing career and probably owes more to the fact he was an excellent (multi-lingual) communicator and translator and places a lot on communication skills.

 

[EastStandBlue]

Well said.

As examples, Roy Hodgson is widely regarded as an excellent coach and an intelligent and thoughtful communicator. He barely played above non-league level. His teaching career probably benefited his coaching career significantly. He is probably better respected as a coach abroad than in England - again, communication is key.

Jose Mourinho is widely regarded as one of the best coaches and managers around. You only needed to see a glimpse of Soccer Aid to notice how he managed to get the attention and respect of (non) players and used basic concepts to get them organised. He also didn't really have much of a playing career and probably owes more to the fact he was an excellent (multi-lingual) communicator and translator and places a lot on communication skills.

Mourinho's undoubtedly an excellent communicator, but I'd say a lot of his success derives from an uncanny ability to identify what motivates players and get every last drop out of them. He's well known to have had a rocky relationship with Ronaldo during his spell at Madrid, and that's largely down to Mourinho doubting his claims to be the best in the world from time to time. He wasn't being an arsehole for the sake of it, he was doing it to drive Ronaldo to new heights.

 

[mrsblue]

It depends what you mean by grassroots, knowing the game and being to play it. Coaches at your typical Sunday League sides up until the U16 level don't need coaches who've played semi-professional football at all, they need people with a rudimentary understanding of the game and the very basic techniques, but above all they need good communicators. It's pointless being able to put the ball on a 50 pence piece from 60 yards away if you can't explain how you did it and when you'd do it in a game. Alan Shearer's a prime example of this. One of England's best ever centre forwards but couldn't communicate with players on a basic level and get his ideas across properly, so lasted a few months in charge of Newcastle before scarpering back to the BBC with his tail between his legs.

There's far too much importance placed on professional experience in this country. Good players do not necessarily make good coaches.

I meant every coach male or female are capable of actually passing or trapping the ball.

To remedy the above every person applying for their level 1 should undertake a very basic test of ball skills such as being able to pass the ball in a reasonable accurate fashion and are able to control/trap the ball again to a reasonable level,I have witnessed well meaning mums and dads either trying to save a folding team or start one up yet they cannot trap a bag of sand and yet still obtain their level 1...That's no good for them or children they are coaching.

Shearer had a go but that Newcastle team were relegated weeks before AS arrived mainly because the team were in free fall and drained of all confidence,Shearer is a very wealthy chap and his salary at BBC is none too shabby either so why continue as the manager anywhere just to be abused.