Fairfax Stuff. Series on Youth Development (Wellington)
Here is part one posted yesterday As part of a week-long series, Stuff looks at what's going on with the development of young footballers in New Zealand.
Interesting they can't play for their schools and that Ole is looking at a girls programme to be coming soon. (Guessing they can't mean school term as term 2 just finished for 2017).
Does make an interesting arguement regarding playing at the World Cup but I would have thought getting the game time against higher oposstion is better than not playing the games. Maybe go to play a still rather than to play to try not get humped instead.
Ole has a bunch of young woman from across many Wellington Clubs and Schools on a Monday? Night i believe.
One of Declan's beliefs is that the current junior system is a complete nonsense.
One Coach for School
One Coach for FTC
One Coach for Club
(potentially an NTC coach as well!)
All of varying quality, and potentially all of very different abilities mindsets or styles. That can't be great for kids, and how do you manage player's physical loading?
Worth noting that some Ole players may not play for school, but are involved - coaching / kitman / organisation. Spoke to one Head last yearwho was supportive of this, given Ole are on his doorstep. Z Jr's college are much less open to that - he's felt the pressure to play at school, but chooses not to.
Interesting they can't play for their schools and that Ole is looking at a girls programme to be coming soon. (Guessing they can't mean school term as term 2 just finished for 2017).
Does make an interesting arguement regarding playing at the World Cup but I would have thought getting the game time against higher oposstion is better than not playing the games. Maybe go to play a still rather than to play to try not get humped instead.
Deklan is 100% right about youth World Cups. They offer next to no value as a developmental tool, and if the side effect is that the players who go to those think that they've 'made it', that just makes the entire exercise doubly futile.
Does make a good point about all the different coaches and also the overloading of players. Was reading what they do with Ole and was thinking 6 times a week is a lot but guess a lot of kids can do that when they have school, club and FTC anyway.
I still think it is good for NZ to be on the world stage and play quality opposition, we don't get many teams here to play anyway and would imagine we would get even less if we decided not to play in the world cups. So the kids opposition would just be Central League type level or National Youth League. Do think it is correct about a kid thinking they have made it, but to be honest some kids think they have made it when they make their schools First XI, they just need to be brought back down to earth by coaches (or getting smashed six nil by the US)
Does make a good point about all the different coaches and also the overloading of players. Was reading what they do with Ole and was thinking 6 times a week is a lot but guess a lot of kids can do that when they have school, club and FTC anyway.
I still think it is good for NZ to be on the world stage and play quality opposition, we don't get many teams here to play anyway and would imagine we would get even less if we decided not to play in the world cups. So the kids opposition would just be Central League type level or National Youth League. Do think it is correct about a kid thinking they have made it, but to be honest some kids think they have made it when they make their schools First XI, they just need to be brought back down to earth by coaches (or getting smashed six nil by the US)
The problem with age-grade World Cups is that they're not genuine in the sense of competing against the best that the world has to offer. Most of the squads there tend to be dribs and drabs of players who are eligible and made available by their clubs, rather than squads painstakingly put together with the aim of winning the competition. This is especially true of the U20 level, where a lot of mainly European countries see the tournament as an inconvenience more than anything else.
Admittedly the opposition is still better than what you would ordinarily get, but that has to be balanced with the cost, and additional negative side effects, including those Deklan talks about.
Interesting they can't play for their schools and that Ole is looking at a girls programme to be coming soon. (Guessing they can't mean school term as term 2 just finished for 2017).
Does make an interesting arguement regarding playing at the World Cup but I would have thought getting the game time against higher oposstion is better than not playing the games. Maybe go to play a still rather than to play to try not get humped instead.
Deklan is 100% right about youth World Cups. They offer next to no value as a developmental tool, and if the side effect is that the players who go to those think that they've 'made it', that just makes the entire exercise doubly futile.
Why would you want to have 'development' if you don't get to play against good players?
Interesting they can't play for their schools and that Ole is looking at a girls programme to be coming soon. (Guessing they can't mean school term as term 2 just finished for 2017).
Does make an interesting arguement regarding playing at the World Cup but I would have thought getting the game time against higher oposstion is better than not playing the games. Maybe go to play a still rather than to play to try not get humped instead.
Deklan is 100% right about youth World Cups. They offer next to no value as a developmental tool, and if the side effect is that the players who go to those think that they've 'made it', that just makes the entire exercise doubly futile.
Why would you want to have 'development' if you don't get to play against good players?
Because it's not playing against the best players in that age group. You're better off bringing best 18/19/20-olds straight through the senior ranks.
is the u20 World Cup a good shop window that has secured players opportunities for further development in good teams in good leagues?
Maybe we need to stop seeing success as playing for a pro team at any level? That some leagues and teams hinder development?
Age group competitions have to be good, even if the opposition isn't great you still get the experience and pressure of the thing - also it's a great carrot to dangle in front of someone.
This is providing the kids don't have to pay to go :)
is the u20 World Cup a good shop window that has secured players opportunities for further development in good teams in good leagues?
Maybe we need to stop seeing success as playing for a pro team at any level? That some leagues and teams hinder development?
It's been a long while since the U20 WC was a shop window. Players who are almost 20 and aren't already playing first team footy somewhere are not of much interest. Of course there'll be the odd exception, but it's not the chance to "make it" that it once was.
Age group competitions have to be good, even if the opposition isn't great you still get the experience and pressure of the thing - also it's a great carrot to dangle in front of someone.
This is providing the kids don't have to pay to go :)
Why would you want to have 'development' if you don't get to play against good players?
Because it's not playing against the best players in that age group. You're better off bringing best 18/19/20-olds straight through the senior ranks.
...which is exactly what Edge has done for some years now in a NZ context; and I'm sure Ole would argue that NZ national league is a stepping stone, not a destination; as opposed to NZF's view that it is "where All Whites are made".
The elephant in the room here is pathways to professional football. If we want our young talent to develop to their maximum potential then we need more obvious pathways to professional football, and for that professional set up to be a part of the overall plan for player development.
NZF should be pushing for a long term goal of at least 3 NZ A League teams. We can bargain away NZ team entry into the OFC champions league and hope that the A League governance issue results in an MLS style co-op system. OFC will be happy that the Island teams will get to go to the CWC. AFC might be a harder but to crack but it might not be insurmountable. Once we have more than one pro team we get competition for young talent and more of a push to scout and bring kids in at a young age. It also gives youngsters here a more visible tangible route to professional football than the US college system or random trials in obscure Euro leagues.
It might be a pipe dream but it needs to be part of the conversation at least.
Seems the most appropriate place to put this:
Stop shouting: how Sweden tackled misbehaving parents at kids’ football
Declan has a version of that article as well:
https://www.theoleway.com/blog/2017/6/28/parents-take-a-step-back-letter-from-the-technical-director
A couple of my thoughts:
While having a long background in the playing, coaching and administration of football, I actually form my development views based on my son and his basketball development.
Playing in World Cups is more likely to be a positive than a negative as it gives us a yard stick on how we are developing. Further, it gives our young athletes something to aim for at the elite level. Additionally it lets those that get there an idea of what is required to survive in that environment. For some it will drive them to be better, some will decide they can’t do it and others will just meander along. For the 1st 2 groups, very valuable learnings.
It is vitally important for players to play within different systems and under different coaches. The challenge is to make these different coaches good enough for the athletes to actually learn something. I think what Declan is alluding to is that there are not enough credible alternatives outside of him and therefore the athletes are not getting any benefit. Pretty egotistical but possible correct to a degree.
If athletes have an inflated opinion of their abilities and it is not warranted, then don’t change the system by not sending them to World Cups, work on the attitude with the individuals. For every kid that thinks the sun shines out of his own ass, there will be 5 kids that use their experiences to try and do better.
Coaching is the key, and Declan has probably demonstrated this. It’s not a matter of having every coach follow the Declan template but to provide a host of credible coaches with different ideas. The bottom line should always be the basic skills and everyone should coach these the same [and I think they do]. As the athletes get older, it’s much more than those skills and that’s the area that we need to do something about to get ourselves to the next level as a nation.
Of course it is not easy.
Here is the article on the nix academy:
Here is the article on the nix academy:
Glad they are realistic with their clients. I still buy lottery tickets though. Hope is universal.
Things I find interesting after what was in Declans article:
"And you can't help but get the sense from some of the players they think they've made it by making the academy. The coaches do their best to stop that, but things can quite relaxed at some training without senior players to push things along."
"Their football education includes exposure to different formations and tactics. Each academy coach is given leeway to change things up depending on the opposition, which helps prepare players for the type of planning which goes in at the top level, while also expanding their knowledge of different systems."
First, its knocking on the head that you've made it by being in one of these academies. Then as pointed out by Napier Phoenix, it is good that they get taught different tactics and change for the team they are playing against rather than the one structure still which was the impression I got from Ole.
is the u20 World Cup a good shop window that has secured players opportunities for further development in good teams in good leagues?
Maybe we need to stop seeing success as playing for a pro team at any level? That some leagues and teams hinder development?
It's been a long while since the U20 WC was a shop window. Players who are almost 20 and aren't already playing first team footy somewhere are not of much interest. Of course there'll be the odd exception, but it's not the chance to "make it" that it once was.
Smithy and I had this argument before when NZF tried to charge people to play in NZ teams. I said at the time there is an argument the majority of people going to U20 world cups are never going to make it so for them, actually, it's just a fun trip. I understand the resistance but there is an aspect to this (and implied but maybe unsaid in that Declan interview) is if we took the money we spent on junior World Cups and qualifying and just tried to create better players over the next 5 years would that be a better use of the money (if your goal is to improve the senior team, say, or get more players into senior club football). I don't know but I do see his objection to the tournaments which I also wonder about.
is the u20 World Cup a good shop window that has secured players opportunities for further development in good teams in good leagues?
Maybe we need to stop seeing success as playing for a pro team at any level? That some leagues and teams hinder development?
It's been a long while since the U20 WC was a shop window. Players who are almost 20 and aren't already playing first team footy somewhere are not of much interest. Of course there'll be the odd exception, but it's not the chance to "make it" that it once was.
Smithy and I had this argument before when NZF tried to charge people to play in NZ teams. I said at the time there is an argument the majority of people going to U20 world cups are never going to make it so for them, actually, it's just a fun trip. I understand the resistance but there is an aspect to this (and implied but maybe unsaid in that Declan interview) is if we took the money we spent on junior World Cups and qualifying and just tried to create better players over the next 5 years would that be a better use of the money (if your goal is to improve the senior team, say, or get more players into senior club football). I don't know but I do see his objection to the tournaments which I also wonder about.
From what I've heard since the 'paying' saga, I suspect this may well have been a part of the reason for it. Qualifying for those tournaments is an expensive exercise, and for a national football body that is not exactly cashed up, the cost/benefit analysis doesn't really come out on the benefit side. I'm not a big fan of asking kids to make a financial contribution to play for their national team at a World Cup, and don't think it should really ever have been done - but there definitely is a question of whether heavy investment in those tournaments is a best use of limited financial resource.
This thread is full of too much sensible debate. Mods, take control.
Here's the next piece.
A pathway to TW first team ft 34 girls
Things I find interesting after what was in Declans article:
"And you can't help but get the sense from some of the players they think they've made it by making the academy. The coaches do their best to stop that, but things can quite relaxed at some training without senior players to push things along."
"Their football education includes exposure to different formations and tactics. Each academy coach is given leeway to change things up depending on the opposition, which helps prepare players for the type of planning which goes in at the top level, while also expanding their knowledge of different systems."
First, its knocking on the head that you've made it by being in one of these academies. Then as pointed out by Napier Phoenix, it is good that they get taught different tactics and change for the team they are playing against rather than the one structure still which was the impression I got from Ole.
Is it different tactics, or just a different shape? Most teams in NZ play different shapes but similar tactics (direct, get it up to a big man, etc). Wests do different things depending on what the opposition do (looking for longer passes against a pressing team, full-backs don't push on as much against teams that leave men forward), but they are committed to a 1-4-3-3 shape because Declan Edge thinks its the best shape to use (and NZF seem to agree, see the WoF plan). There is absolutely an argument for using different shapes, like what happens when a kid who has played in a four-man defense their whole life is asked to play in a back three? But most NZ players are never asked to do that. As for a full-on commitment to possession football, if you are technically and mentally good enough to do that, then you will probably be able to adapt to a more direct style. Meanwhile, most Kiwi players can't do anything more than play hopelessly direct football.
Talking to an english youth academy coach (In WGTN) - a lot of bone density testing is now down after a lot epl teams turn youth players down for contracts on excess joint wear from over training.
That last article re NZF is so poorly written.... but anyhow, I think it shows NZF have really been treading water and its understandable that others are frustrated. The new hire looks like he has the right pedigree for the 'space' they are now wanting to develop.
Whole of Football was a great idea but the concern always was what would it turn into for the kids coming out the other end. If it wasnt for these academies there would be a bigger vacuum.
The other argument might be that the wider football community needs to pull their weight too and NZF only fill the gaps as needed.
one on Swifts (Karori)
All of the parents I know with kids doing Swifts rave about it. Just saying.
Think it's probably the perfect combo of not-too-serious but still-very-good appropriate for 98% of players and families.
schools one. Great read. Give Hyslop an award for this series.
School folk don't seem to realise that club senior football is fun - if there were any playing in my Cap2 team they'd be buzzing with our banter.
"A school's primary focus is developing the kids to be better human beings. Part of that is showing loyalty to, and pride in, your school."
That second sentence is absolute garbage.
That piece has reaffirmed my belief that School Football should disappear, and leave it up to the clubs.
surely just the top grade can be shifted to a Wed night?
That piece has reaffirmed my belief that School Football should disappear, and leave it up to the clubs.
Last time i checked, there were many differing grades of differing ability even in college football, and i see kids playing with their mates, some even across school boundaries in juniors and U17. Why wouldn't that continue in a club based program?
Take your point about fees for players, but some schools are already charging ($900) to be in their "elite programs'. (Coll).
Worth a read of the comment in the stuff piece by 'LarsvanBeusekom' - player in College/U17, and his views.