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

[Beefy]

So the FA have come up with their master plan for improving the quality of the English game and as a result the England side. And predictably their suggestions have found themselves the victim of an almighty backlash.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...s-bteam-plan-branded-disgraceful-9341630.html

The backlash was predictable because 1) people fear any change and 2) the suggestions are rubbish.

However I do think that there is room to change English football for the better and that the FA should not be afraid of making radical changes if they can show that those changes will achieve what they are setting out to achieve.

If you assume the following objectives:

- Improve the quality of players being produced by English clubs
- Increase the number of English players playing in the Premier League
- Create an England national side capable of winning a major international trophy

What changes would you make in order to work towards these goals and what changes, as a Southend United fan, would you be prepared to make in order to work towards these goals?

 

[Uncle Leo]

Good thread. I want a more successful England team, but not at the expense of the integrity and history of the Football League.

As I mentioned in another thread, more focus on quality coaching and quality coaches seems an obvious one. Paying youth coaches £16,000 is hardly making it a tempting career. I am not suggesting six figure salaries, but a living wage would be a start.

I also understand - and ESB is better placed to comment here - that coaching courses run by the FA are more expensive than their counterpart courses on the continent? Bringing the price down seems another step in the right direction.

 

[Pubey]

Heavily subsidised coaching courses at all levels.

Support for 3G pitches/stadia (and lots of them built in towns and cities) - let them be used pretty much 24/7. Greater use of futsal at youth/school level (e.g. just get rid of school 11-a-side and have futsal in gyms/3G instead).

A 1% levy of football bets I saw mentioned. Put that back into grassroots.

Living wage for coaches (as mentioned).

A winter break.

 

[Jam_Man]

More English players playing at the highest level and not against Gateshead in the conference would be a good start.

Personally think we need to limit the amount of foreign players to 8 or so.

 

[EastStandBlue]

I also understand - and ESB is better placed to comment here - that coaching courses run by the FA are more expensive than their counterpart courses on the continent? Bringing the price down seems another step in the right direction.

The elite ones are, yes, but they're that expensive for a reason - because they're widely acknowledged to be the best in the world. Coaches from across Europe come to get qualified in this country because the education system is held in such high esteem. The German FA only weeks ago lavished praise on the course set-ups. A lot of fuss is made over the number of coaches in Spain, but their courses are dirt cheap and 60% theory, so they're quite easy to pass. Having a qualification has little bearing on your ability to carry out that job, especially when so much time is spent in the classroom. That hasn't gone unnoticed and some clubs (Chelsea are one that I know of) don't even recognise FAI coaching badges above a certain level. I was doing the Youth Award a few months back and it was full of a group of Irish lads that came over just to do the course even though it was ridiculously expensive in comparison and involved them staying for a week in London.

There's also a big fuss being made within the FALCC about candidate selection. Courses above the Level 2/YA3 calibre are only carried out at select centres to ensure they're conducted properly, and that's resulted in an almighty bottleneck and candidates are selected based on them hitting certain criteria. The waiting list is outrageous, particularly in the south. Those involved within professional clubs are fast-tracked through, while those doing semi-pro and grassroots stuff fight over the remaining places. There's a valid argument that this system ensures that those already in place to help are educated first, but it doesn't help swell the numbers of qualified coaches at our disposal.

There are ways around it, I'm hoping to volunteer as a support coach at either Millwall or Charlton next season to get onto the UEFA B course the year after and, according to the people I've spoken to, shouldn't have much trouble getting a space, the idea being that either club will vouch for me. It'll all be unpaid of course - football clubs are businesses, not charities - and it'll be done in my spare time, but it's what's necessary just to get on.

There's another big grumble about pass rates, which are fairly dismal on the UEFA B licence course but I fully back that. You can't run around handing out licences to coaches that scrape the barrel, or you end up with something akin to the University system at the moment - hundreds of people with the same grades fighting for a select few places, and mistakes will be made and the wrong people hired.

What I'd do:

- Keep the courses as they are. They're not the problem.

- Continue to be selective about who gets on, but make the courses slightly more accessible. Run more courses at more centres throughout the year, not just at the ludicrously expensive SGP.

- Subsidise the cost of coaching courses and run mentorship programmes. Have fledgling coaches work with more senior coaches on a more regular basis.

- Have each regional FA establish a pool of full-time coaches that can be leased out to professional clubs, grassroots clubs, schools and soccer programmes. You've got coaches on the pay roll and that might cost, but you can make at least some of that back from lease fees.

- Establish programmes to support part-time coaches during the off season. I know coaches who've had to get other jobs during the summer and have simply never gone back to coaching because they need the reliability of income.

 

[Shrimper2thecore]

Improving grass roots facilities.

There are less kids getting into football - focus on that.

You don't need 500 English players in the Premiership - you sill only need 50 quality ones, and we have that.

They keep banging on about the % of English players when the Premiership began, they don't keep mentioning the fact we failed to qualify for the next tournament!!

Having more English players in the Prem isn't the answer, it's improving the quality of those that come through.

 

[Pubey]

Improving grass roots facilities.

There are less kids getting into football - focus on that.

You don't need 500 English players in the Premiership - you sill only need 50 quality ones, and we have that.

They keep banging on about the % of English players when the Premiership began, they don't keep mentioning the fact we failed to qualify for the next tournament!!

Having more English players in the Prem isn't the answer, it's improving the quality of those that come through.

yeah i do genuinely believe that good english players will rise to the top, even if they're not a bargain compared to foreign players. Even if it takes a bit longer (a la Lallana (say that quickly!)) and they do ply their trade at the lower levels for a bit longer then that's not a bad thing IMO.

 

[Beefy]

Having more English players in the Prem isn't the answer, it's improving the quality of those that come through.

I think it is a combination of the both. Yes, England failed to qualify in 94 but that will happen along the way. Football is by far the biggest sport in England and there should be more English players playing in the top flight, in my opinion. But they should be there on merit and not by reducing the number of foreign players who are playing. The likes of Wilshere, Lallana, Barkley, etc, these players get hyped at a young age because they're so out of the norm for the type of players that England typically produces.

We should strive to be in a position where we have a dozen young English players at the level of those three.

 

[Pubey]

I think it is a combination of the both. Yes, England failed to qualify in 94 but that will happen along the way. Football is by far the biggest sport in England and there should be more English players playing in the top flight, in my opinion. But they should be there on merit and not by reducing the number of foreign players who are playing. The likes of Wilshere, Lallana, Barkley, etc, these players get hyped at a young age because they're so out of the norm for the type of players that England typically produces.

We should strive to be in a position where we have a dozen young English players at the level of those three.

Lallana is 25, and 2/3 years ago was never seriously being discussed as England class. The lesson about Lallana is that you can reach the top without needing to move to a top PL team. He rode promotions and relegations and improved all the time.

 

[Beefy]

Absolutely. I saw Southampton quite a bit in their promotion year and he never massively impressed me to be honest but he has got better the better quality players he has played with and against. Leon Britton would be a similar story.

 

[Pubey]

Absolutely. I saw Southampton quite a bit in their promotion year and he never massively impressed me to be honest but he has got better the better quality players he has played with and against. Leon Britton would be a similar story.

We definitely could look at Lallana (and Walcott, Shaw, Bale, Gallagher and Oxlade-Chamberlain) and try to work out how Southampton are generating good English/British talent.

 

[Pubey]

WC 90 - Semis (penalties)
Euro 92 - Group stages
WC 94 - Didn't quality
Euro 96 - Semis (penalties)
WC 98 - Last 16 (penalties)
Euro 2000 - Group stages
WC 02 - Quarters
Euro 04 - Quarters (penalties)
WC 06 - Quarters (penalties)
Euro 08 - Didn't quality
WC 10 - Last 16
Euro 12 - Quarters (penalties)

Ok so in the last 12 major tournaments, we've exited 6 times via a penalty shoot out loss. Including two semi-finals. We've lost 7 out of 8 in all time. We've only won one (Spain Euro 96 quarters).

Maybe if we looked to improve our performances in penalty shootouts then the team would be guaranteed to do a bit better.

IMO, penalties shootouts are down to 3 things:
1. Fatigue
2. Pressure
3. Technique

Fatigue
- So in cup competitions we can influence this by better coaching and tactics allowing us to keep possession better. If we want to play a high tempo/counter-attacking style then we need to bring on fresh legs to take 3 of the 5 penalties.
- Our players look tired before the tournament, so a winter break might help.

Pressure
- Not a huge amount you can do but it's refreshing that renowned psychologist Steve Peters will be working with the England team.

Technique
Definitely we can do better at this. Roy could encourage clubs to consider english penalty-takers, and incorporate more training. We could also introduce immediate pens after 90mins in domestic cups (or my idea is to have a shoot-out at the start which gives a 0.5 goal advantage - then you don't get teams playing for a draw/penalties).

 

[Beefy]

That's a topic of its own. I saw a stat a couple of years back which said that Premier League teams had only ever lost one penalty shoot-out to Football League clubs. I vaguely recall it being maybe Sheffield Wednesday who were the Premier League side in questiln. That to me says that the most important factor is technique. Better players are better at taking penalties.

For England there's definitely a psychological barrier when it comes to penalties but ironically I think as we lose more and more of them that should decrease - players didn't want to be the next Pearce, Waddle or Southgate but the notoriety of the penalty missers has decreased with every shoot-out.

I think the most telling stat when you look at England's record in major tournaments is that we have never beaten a former World or European champion in the knock-out stages of a tournament outside of Wembley. Every time we've come up against a decent side since 1966 we've lost or drawn (and then lost). It isn't just penalties and at some point you have to think that there's more to it than just bad luck.

 

[Uncle Leo]

That's a topic of its own. I saw a stat a couple of years back which said that Premier League teams had only ever lost one penalty shoot-out to Football League clubs. I vaguely recall it being maybe Sheffield Wednesday who were the Premier League side in questiln. That to me says that the most important factor is technique. Better players are better at taking penalties.

For England there's definitely a psychological barrier when it comes to penalties but ironically I think as we lose more and more of them that should decrease - players didn't want to be the next Pearce, Waddle or Southgate but the notoriety of the penalty missers has decreased with every shoot-out.

I think the most telling stat when you look at England's record in major tournaments is that we have never beaten a former World or European champion in the knock-out stages of a tournament outside of Wembley. Every time we've come up against a decent side since 1966 we've lost or drawn (and then lost). It isn't just penalties and at some point you have to think that there's more to it than just bad luck.

I think I know the Sheffield Wednesday game to which you are referring; they were 3-0 up in the shoot-out v Wolves and contrived to lose!

Technique definitely the key factor. Every time a pundit claims that 'penalties are a lottery' I'm screaming at the telly asking them to lay me 10/11 on the higher division team! If (say) Man City were facing Southend in a shoot-out, City would, rightly, be massive odds-on.

On a sort of related note, I read last night that 59% of shoot-outs are won by the team that goes first. So if we win the toss, choosing to shoot first rather than choosing ends would be a good start!

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Abolish the Premier League.

Make England the pinnacle.

 

[Clinton Baptiste]

Shootouts come down to attitude, I dont think there is much wrong with the technique. Too many players probably thinknig of the front page of the tabloids the next day if they miss.

 

[Blue_Wes]

I think it is a combination of the both. Yes, England failed to qualify in 94 but that will happen along the way. Football is by far the biggest sport in England and there should be more English players playing in the top flight, in my opinion. But they should be there on merit and not by reducing the number of foreign players who are playing. The likes of Wilshere, Lallana, Barkley, etc, these players get hyped at a young age because they're so out of the norm for the type of players that England typically produces.

We should strive to be in a position where we have a dozen young English players at the level of those three.

This doesn't happen though, because of the hype you mention. A young English player starts to show some promise, and the hype and value that surrounds the player sky rockets. All of a sudden a player who has shown a bit of promise is slapped with a £5million price tag, simply because he's English. It's no wonder Premisership clubs go abroad, they can buy established players for half the price, often internationals and with European experience. Also we are so guilty of hamstringing young players with expectation. We are so desperate for succes we lay all our hopes and dreams at the feet of any player with promise, and a young prospect, has to grow, develop, learn his trade all whilst carrying the unrealistic expectation's of the nation.

Edit: Missed a key point out. That by reducing the numbers of foreign players you are allowed in your squad, will force teams to look at English players, and give more the opportunity to progress, and as the pool of English players needed in a squad is wider, it should in theory drive down the price, giving bigger clubs less reason to look to foreign shores.

It would greatly benefit the National side and the younger players if we could restict media, or just tabloid access to them, especially during tournaments. The way they rile up the nation, putting the team on unrealistic pedastal's, waiting for them to fail, and then parading that failure like a prize trophy. It's no wonder the like's of Stickyblue and Mrsblue pour so much scorn on our national side. This popular culture of not liking national football, and villanising our best players because of the wages they earn needs to stop. Top players are revered in our respective rival countries, we attack ours, enjoy their failure, and look for ways to criticise them. We seem to enjoy scandal and failure more than victory.


We also need to stop rushing players into the National First team. The u21's and respective youth teams are there for a reason. To develop players, install a tournament mentality and prepare the players for a high pressure knock out environment. Now because of our desperation for succes, and lack of patience to actually earn that success, we seem to find a player and fast track them into the first team. There was a daft scenario where players were being withdrawn from the U21's tournament side to sit on the bench in a friendly half way across the world against Brasil. That's madness. Spain, Germany, Italy, etc, take the youth competitions very seriously. They allow their players to develop in an international tournament. Shaw is a great talent, but behind Cole and Baines. He should be playing for the U21's. They say there is no training for the high pressure environement. Not true. The U21's World Cup's and European Championship's are just that. They are on television now, and provide the perfect practise tournament environement. It might be if we take these tournaments seriously, our players will be better prepared when it comes to the real thing. Rather than fast tracking them into the pressure cooker of a major tournament, with all the world and pess watching, the majority wanting them to fail and the minority expectating they shouldn't.

 

[Pubey]

Nicked this from the Burton forum(!)....


Les Reed, who is Executive Director at Saints and who spent time overseeing the Youth Academy, scouting and recruitment there was interviewed by their local paper after the commission's findings were made public.

“There’s talk about a B league sitting between the Conference and League Two, in order that our young English players can get the experience of playing at the top level,” Reed told the Daily Echo.

“I don’t understand that definition.

“Why would we want to develop elite players for international and Premier League football by playing them in a league that sits just above the Conference?

“We’ve got a terrific conveyor belt of players coming through our under-16s, under-18s, under-21s – each of those age groups are the youngest age groups in the Premier League, so we’ve got the youngest under-21 team, the youngest under-18 team, and the reason is five of them are in the first team.

“That, to me, seems to be a much better model.

“James Ward-Prowse will tell you that playing against Morgan Schneiderlin in training every day, working with him, playing with him on the pitch, playing with Victor Wanyama, international players of that calibre, makes him a better midfield player.

“He’s not going to get that playing against teams at League Two level and the Conference, so I think the idea (that) another league playing lower than League Two is going to make our young players better, I just don’t see the logic in that.

“I think it’s laughable.”


Read more: http://burtonbrewers.proboards.com/thread/1091/proposing-big-changes-football-league#ixzz31Do7XTUo

 

[Beefy]

Technique definitely the key factor. Every time a pundit claims that 'penalties are a lottery' I'm screaming at the telly asking them to lay me 10/11 on the higher division team!

Exactly. The only sense that they're "a lottery" is that England's odds of winning are 14,000,000/1.

 

[Beefy]

Wes, do you not think that these players get so hyped and English players are so expensive because the number of genuinely quality footballers being produced is so small? It is just supply and demand.

On another forum I post on there's a fair number of people who have been critical of Jack Wilshere since he came through. They just don't see what he has done to justify the hype. To me it seems obvious why he was hyped and why he was fast-tracked into the England set-up - it is because whilst he might not have done anything yet he is so un-English in terms of his ability to take the ball under pressure and move it on. It is that sort of player that we don't produce.

Ideally we wouldn't be fast-tracking the likes of Wilshere and Barkley into the England team because we'd have the 25/26 year old Wilshere and Barkley already there. But we're not in that position.