Marquee
1.2K
·
5.5K
·
over 13 years

MAINLAND JUNIOR FOOTBALL: WOF, rep teams and junior/youth tournaments, coach and player development & philosophies, FTC, NTC, private academies, in-house academies, teams playing up, playing down, playing around, schools v clubs, player/coach poaching, mainland junior competition grading and re-grading, junior subs and levies costs, any other JUNIOR gossip and innuendo,  U18 & BELOW OK? Keep Mainland Premier thread for senior football. 

Marquee
1.2K
·
5.5K
·
over 13 years

Boys High seeking 1st XI coach. Not sure what quality is like in next years group but SBHS had a pretty poor year by their standards. Bedes looked to be the big mover this year. STAC and Christs will have better teams next year. 

Stage Punch
2.1K
·
11K
·
over 16 years

Is school football a big deal down there?

Marquee
1.2K
·
5.5K
·
over 13 years

Oldest chestnut in the village! Clubs complain they lose good players developing nicely in club environment to generally poor school coaching and then when schools spit them out at 18 the players aren't what they could have been and/or don't return to the clubs. A number of schools play in Mainland Saturday leagues so players can't play for their clubs. Mainland won't bite the bullet & ban them to a Wednesday school competition. Kids end up trying to do it all and development suffers. 

Marquee
1.3K
·
7.4K
·
over 15 years

No schools football on Saturday. Sooner the better.

Coastal have sent out invites to the training groups for the sides they wish to send to Auckland for the U-17 comp.

looking forward to Nike Cup 2014, should be some good games. 

Paul Bateson has kindly set up some free coaching education over the summer. Good job from the new Eastern FDO

Winter 2014 would like to see Mainland put some blanket rules on player movement , age grades, grading games, get rid of the ridiculous automatic promo/relegation,. appoint Rep Coaches in March ( appicants must be minimum of Youth Level 2, no Parents/Kids ties, no club coaches from same grade)


WeeNix
68
·
520
·
almost 11 years

I will be recommending that my team next year abstain from school football comps, given that they have academy, FTC, team training and goodness knows what else on. Too many different ideas mess with their young developing minds. Also I think they might burn out a bit too.

Marquee
260
·
5K
·
over 16 years
Smithy wrote:

Is school football a big deal down there?


I don't get your stance against school football. Is it not a big deal in Wellington?
WeeNix
68
·
520
·
almost 11 years

I am a bit concerned with what a couple of people on here have raised regarding the quality/management of the rep program here in Christchurch. Admittedly, one/two person/s have taken it to a personal level, and I am guilty of having responded which demeans me as well,but the issue may well be a genuine concern with more than a few parents.

 I hope the feeling is not a common one, and that what I believe is true, which is that this person/persons are in fact an aberration making far more noise than necessary about this issue, because they have children who didn't get selected/attend for one reason or another, and are bitter rather than proactive. 

Stage Punch
2.1K
·
11K
·
over 16 years
Luis Garcia wrote:
Smithy wrote:

Is school football a big deal down there?


I don't get your stance against school football. Is it not a big deal in Wellington?


Not so much, no.

I'm not against school footy. I think it's great fun. But, it's not elite. The reason it's not elite is that kids are stuck with the school they are at, so the best players don't play against the best players. Club football has freedom of movement, which allows the cream to rise to the top. At least in theory.

Wellington is a classic example of that. There are some tremendous players at Hutt Valley High School, St. Bernard's College. Newlands College. But if you looked at the school football leagues you'd think all the good players are at Wellington College and the two St Pats' schools. 

School footy is heaps of fun, but isn't set up right to be the elite competition that talented young players should aspire to.
Starting XI
650
·
4.1K
·
almost 17 years


Please pass that on to Mainland Football.

Stretford's summary was well put too.

Marquee
260
·
5K
·
over 16 years
Smithy wrote:
Luis Garcia wrote:
Smithy wrote:

Is school football a big deal down there?


I don't get your stance against school football. Is it not a big deal in Wellington?


Not so much, no.


I'm not against school footy. I think it's great fun. But, it's not elite. The reason it's not elite is that kids are stuck with the school they are at, so the best players don't play against the best players. Club football has freedom of movement, which allows the cream to rise to the top. At least in theory.


Wellington is a classic example of that. There are some tremendous players at Hutt Valley High School, St. Bernard's College. Newlands College. But if you looked at the school football leagues you'd think all the good players are at Wellington College and the two St Pats' schools. 


School footy is heaps of fun, but isn't set up right to be the elite competition that talented young players should aspire to.

 

Fair enough. I think school football has its place at the national tournament. In Nelson for example, Nayland College players are mainly alligned to Nelson Suburbs and play all their club football with them. Then they join together for national qualifying against Nelson College, Waimea College, Marlborough Boys College etc..  and then go off to the week long tournament. Then return to their clubs. I think this works a lot better. It's kind of like the world cup and club football leagues and you can just take the result of how they go in that tournament.

 

 

Trialist
39
·
140
·
almost 11 years

So who is excited about the National Tournaments coming back?!

All the FTC kids anyway!  Mum and Dad will be able to flick another few hundy out of the wallet for their son or daughter to attend a tournament along with all the other kids who can afford to pay!  Oh well - I suppose a few of them missed out on playing in the South Island tournaments, where they couldn't actually be compared to kids who can't afford it.  Phew - that could have been embarassing.

Should it be called a National Federation Tournament or a National FTC tournament?

I hear a few families of very good players suggesting that by the time they have forked out for FTC, then NTC, then National tournament, and then maybe a NZ agegroup team tournament or world cup, they could be in debt more than their kids student loan will be!!  Sound like some thinking private providers who hook them up with colleges for a free education is the way to go.  At least it's only one debt.

Thoughts?

First Team Squad
75
·
1.3K
·
about 14 years

Oldest chestnut in the village! Clubs complain they lose good players developing nicely in club environment to generally poor school coaching and then when schools spit them out at 18 the players aren't what they could have been and/or don't return to the clubs. 

Lets look at some points you have spelt out as being wrong with school football.
So which schools have or had coaches that are worse than what you find in clubs? 
If you can answer that then list the good school coaches so I know you have some idea of what happens in and around school football.
How many senior coaches PDL/MPL get involved with Juniors at a club?
How many clubs sent the best 16 kids to tournaments yearly for the last say just 15 years?
Some of these drop out kids that schools destroy also make National Sec School teams that travel overseas, how many clubs give that sort of opportunity to play and travel?
You will always have kids at 17 18 years old that get jobs, drugs or girls all all three and give up no matter what.
The better players will in most cases still play but not always at the top club level, some are happy with Div5 [think FC2011] Pressies or Sunday League [sorry Vim not putting all SSL down to that level] grade it's no training and turn up for a kick around.
Stage Punch
2.1K
·
11K
·
over 16 years

Let's just get something straight. The "NZ Secondary School" team is just another private tour team. The only requirement is that you have to be at a school. It's not a true national team. Loads of good kids don't go anywhere near it.

Marquee
1.2K
·
5.5K
·
over 13 years
WeeNix
390
·
900
·
almost 11 years

agree smithy think they are lucky to get away with calling it a NZ team.

Marquee
1.2K
·
5.5K
·
over 13 years

Scottie, school football has it's place but the best football development is found at clubs.

Traditionally CBHS and SBHS have been the 2 strongest schools - as you would expect because they have the biggest rolls. Just because they beat Christs, STAC and Bedes on a regular basis doesn’t mean their coaches are any good. In fact at National Schools tournament the last few years they’ve failed to make top 8; or in Shirley’s case this year - failed to get anywhere near it; finished 31st I think. Good coaching? Embarrassing, more like.

Bedes have been better this year; Shirley have been worse. STAC and Christs appear to be getting better.

The real measure is not whether they get play in a tournament for 15 years or not; it’s 1) the quality of players when they finish school; 2) whether they continue to play the game.

A good 16-17 yo will play PDL at club level - training with older, more experienced and better players; whereas the same kid in the school system will play with younger and less skillful players. Which do you think is better for that kid’s football development? At club level there are many more resources to turn to in terms of players and coaches who have been there/done that.

How many players playing 1st XI in 2013 would make their club PDL or MPL team? Not many. Off the top of my head, only the following:

Christs - Tom R
SBHS - Connor L, Ryan S
Bedes - Jo B
Boys High - Tom P, Zac G, Jayden B, Sean Z, Mitch H
STAC - Henry F, Tom M

But if all those 1st XIs had developed in the club system since they were 14 I bet there would be more who are able to play PDL/MPL club footy.

MPL/PDL coaches who get involved at junior level:
NO: Cashmere, Bays
YES: Coastal, FC20
Not sure: Halswell, Nomads, Western
What’s your point? All those clubs (well not Bays or Western because they don’t have any teams) have junior coaches at 14, 15, 17 and 18th grades - who all learn from other senior coaches around the club - formally and informally.

Oh, and by the way Scottie, the only Chch kid who made 2013 NZ secondary schools is a club player - Hamish Cadigan who has played at Nomads, Mainland School of Football and Western.

If schools played in a Wednesday schools league, the kids would have their fantastic schools experience; but they would develop more as footballers by playing club footy on a Saturday.

Trialist
0
·
1
·
over 10 years
shushy6 wrote:
I am a bit concerned with what a couple of people on here have raised regarding the quality/management of the rep program here in Christchurch. ...but the issue may well be a genuine concern with more than a few parents.

 I hope the feeling is not a common one...


Why doesn't Mainland survey the parents then?  Plenty of free survey tools out there.  Parents who are disappointed at the quality on display will not respond to direct questions and will fudge answers if asked by a Mainland employee.  I predict an anonymous survey would be enlightening for Mainland and that is the reason it will never happen.  Many I spoke to at tournament would not dream of complaining to Mainland, in case it counted against their child.  Many stated that their club teams were better and had better coaching.  They would have preferred to enter the tournament with their club teams, once they had seen the quality of the teams and the coaching on display.

WeeNix
68
·
520
·
almost 11 years
Round Ball wrote:
shushy6 wrote:
I am a bit concerned with what a couple of people on here have raised regarding the quality/management of the rep program here in Christchurch. ...but the issue may well be a genuine concern with more than a few parents.

 I hope the feeling is not a common one...


Why doesn't Mainland survey the parents then?  Plenty of free survey tools out there.  Parents who are disappointed at the quality on display will not respond to direct questions and will fudge answers if asked by a Mainland employee.  I predict an anonymous survey would be enlightening for Mainland and that is the reason it will never happen.  Many I spoke to at tournament would not dream of complaining to Mainland, in case it counted against their child.  Many stated that their club teams were better and had better coaching.  They would have preferred to enter the tournament with their club teams, once they had seen the quality of the teams and the coaching on display.



Firstly, which tournament were you at?
The coaches that Mainland appoint ARE club coaches. As for a survey, well thats out of my hands, but its certainly a better idea than some of the ego centric, reactive moaning thats been going on here of late. Your prediction that it will never happen is a bit negative however. Stay positive, you just never know!


First Team Squad
75
·
1.3K
·
about 14 years
Scottie Rd wrote:

Oldest chestnut in the village! Clubs complain they lose good players developing nicely in club environment to generally poor school coaching and then when schools spit them out at 18 the players aren't what they could have been and/or don't return to the clubs. 

Lets look at some points you have spelt out as being wrong with school football.

So which schools have or had coaches that are worse than what you find in clubs? 

If you can answer that then list the good school coaches so I know you have some idea of what happens in and around school football.



Stratford thanks for the reply but as of yet you have not answered the question.

I'm not all pro school football on a Saturday but while Mainland have the schools playing there then we will always get the chestnut re clubs do it better.

That is having a blinkers on attitude as it is not the case, or not at 1sX1 hence the question above.

The kids you put forward as being good enough for a starting spot in MP or PDL I wouldn't know without seeing them play.

The lad from St Bedes Jo B, he would not have started in the Nomads PDL team at the start of the season just finished. 

So would have been a bench player getting 10 to 15 mins per game for say half of the season plus 3 or 4 starts near the end of season.

At school he got as good or better coaching plus starting all games [if not injured] playing as one of the team leaders.

We have some clubs that do a very good job with the same age group but if you look at those clubs on the map what schools play Saturday Mainland leagues in that area.

Look at Cashmere Techs catchment and you would expect them to have a large number of players of that age not at schools which play Saturday, Coastal, Bays and Halswell much the same. Maybe this is the way to go about hitting on Mainland.  

Compare that to Western or Nomads. Only Papanui High in that part of the city year on year have not had Saturday teams with St Bedes, Boys High, Burnside and Shirley. then you have the Stac and Christs which can have players from all clubs.

Some of these schools are taking kids from 13 onwards away from clubs so we are not always looking at 1st X1s.


Stage Punch
2.1K
·
11K
·
over 16 years

Do schools in chch just play in regular leagues against clubs? Can they be promoted/relegated etc? How does that work down there?

Marquee
1.2K
·
5.5K
·
over 13 years
Scottie Rd wrote:
Scottie Rd wrote:
[quote=Stretford End]

Oldest chestnut in the village! Clubs complain they lose good players developing nicely in club environment to generally poor school coaching and then when schools spit them out at 18 the players aren't what they could have been and/or don't return to the clubs. 

Stratford thanks for the reply but as of yet you have not answered the question.

The lad from St Bedes Jo B, he would not have started in the Nomads PDL team at the start of the season just finished. 

So would have been a bench player getting 10 to 15 mins per game for say half of the season plus 3 or 4 starts near the end of season.

At school he got as good or better coaching plus starting all games [if not injured] playing as one of the team leaders.

We have some clubs that do a very good job with the same age group but if you look at those clubs on the map what schools play Saturday Mainland leagues in that area.

Look at Cashmere Techs catchment and you would expect them to have a large number of players of that age not at schools which play Saturday, Coastal, Bays and Halswell much the same. Maybe this is the way to go about hitting on Mainland.  

Compare that to Western or Nomads. Only Papanui High in that part of the city year on year have not had Saturday teams with St Bedes, Boys High, Burnside and Shirley. then you have the Stac and Christs which can have players from all clubs.

Some of these schools are taking kids from 13 onwards away from clubs so we are not always looking at 1st X1s.



Scottie THE QUESTION is about player development. 
I don't have a blinkered approach to school football. It's good fun, build good values etc. all I'm saying is for developing better football players, clubs do it better. School football should be played exclusively midweek. 
Jo B and Hamish C are is the classic comparison. Couple of years ago they were both great young players; first defenders picked in any rep team. At 15, JB started playing first XI footy with and against other schools. HC started training in a senior club environment. 
Now at17 JB would be a fringe PDL player at Nomads, whereas HC is an MPL regular at Western and will likely be picked for Canterbury Youth. Has school or club environment developed the better footballer? I hope JB kicks on but he's playing catch up to his old mate HC now. 
The problem is that as it currently stands mainland (with no balls whatsoever) are forcing kids to choose one or the other. Excluding schools from Saturday leagues would allow players to do both - have the enjoyment and bonding of playing with schoolmates (and school could still use first XI football success as a marketing tool); AND develop as better footballers by playing in senior club environments. Obviously I'm talking about the better players here. 
As to different clubs being affected by school catchment area, bays don't have youth teams because most of their kids are not at the local high school. Every club in town has this issue - it's Christchurch for chrissake!
Marquee
1.2K
·
5.5K
·
over 13 years
Smithy wrote:

Do schools in chch just play in regular leagues against clubs? Can they be promoted/relegated etc? How does that work down there?

Every season, first XI school teams play a schools-only league in first part of season - on a Saturday. This determines  qualification for entry into the various divisions of schools nationals (unless you bend the rules, but I digress ). At completion of that jockeying position league, top 3-4 school teams play the equivalent U18 club teams in 2nd part of season in a newly created 'combo' league . 
At younger age groups (13,14,15,17s), schools enter directly into the mainland club leagues and are promoted/ relegated on merit. Like any sport, the club or school with the greatest number of players to pick from tend to perform best. So at U18 Chch boys high and Shirley boys high (as the biggest schools) are generally the strongest U18 teams BUT AND IT'S IMPORTANT, the talented kids who have stayed in club environments - by 16 or 17 - spend their last 2-3 years of school playing football in the first or reserve club team - which is a much higher standard of football than first XI school football, so those players tend to do better. Because it's Chch there is HUGE social, educational pressure to play for the school. Horror stories abound every year. 
Marquee
1.3K
·
7.4K
·
over 15 years
Round Ball wrote:
shushy6 wrote:
I am a bit concerned with what a couple of people on here have raised regarding the quality/management of the rep program here in Christchurch. ...but the issue may well be a genuine concern with more than a few parents.

 I hope the feeling is not a common one...


Why doesn't Mainland survey the parents then?  Plenty of free survey tools out there.  Parents who are disappointed at the quality on display will not respond to direct questions and will fudge answers if asked by a Mainland employee.  I predict an anonymous survey would be enlightening for Mainland and that is the reason it will never happen.  Many I spoke to at tournament would not dream of complaining to Mainland, in case it counted against their child.  Many stated that their club teams were better and had better coaching.  They would have preferred to enter the tournament with their club teams, once they had seen the quality of the teams and the coaching on display.



I think this approach will be forwarded at the club delegates meeting.

If Parents will not speak up they have no one to blame but themselves. But as you raised "the fear of my kid missing out" could  be removed by having an anonymous survey.

Some Parents are also waylaid by self-appointed experts undermining 90% of what the Rep Coach is trying to do. If some of these negative influences were able to pull their heads in then I'm sure the process would be more rewarding for the groups.
Marquee
1.3K
·
7.4K
·
over 15 years

So who is excited about the National Tournaments coming back?!

All the FTC kids anyway!  Mum and Dad will be able to flick another few hundy out of the wallet for their son or daughter to attend a tournament along with all the other kids who can afford to pay!  Oh well - I suppose a few of them missed out on playing in the South Island tournaments, where they couldn't actually be compared to kids who can't afford it.  Phew - that could have been embarassing.

Should it be called a National Federation Tournament or a National FTC tournament?

I hear a few families of very good players suggesting that by the time they have forked out for FTC, then NTC, then National tournament, and then maybe a NZ agegroup team tournament or world cup, they could be in debt more than their kids student loan will be!!  Sound like some thinking private providers who hook them up with colleges for a free education is the way to go.  At least it's only one debt.

Thoughts?



1. there is some avenues for families who may struggle to met Rep, FTC, Club costs. The one run from Mainland is (was?) called Scorching Goal (?)

2. players are not selected on who can afford to pay. The financial part of the deal is after trials/ nominations/ TOL. Have people chosen to not do FTC becasue of $? I know of one family who couldn't commit the time due to having 3 "high-performance" children.

3. to the best of my knowledge 2 boys grades (B14 1999/B13 2000)  and one girls grade (G14 1999/2000) had players missing from the South Island Tournament due to the NTC date clash. Hardly embarrassing , and FWIW the cost difference from SIT to NTC is next to nothing. In fact once the rep training is included clearly the SIT is more expensive.

4. as far as player comparison is concerned the criteria for NTC selection may not be specific to the actual "game value" of individuals currently. I understand people may not agree with this but cannot understand people who seem to willfully misrepresent it. If you don't like it then don't do FTC. (as NTC intake is from FTC). As for some players an argument can be made they are doing reps this year only because the "best" players are not there. Maybe they should be grateful? They are not going to be picked ahead of the NTC players.

5. Yes, looking long term it seems the process has a number of costs which cumulatively will be in 5 figures. Anyone with a basic grasp of maths can work this out. It again highlights the "pay to play" issue. Why moan about U-17 WC costs? There has already been bills for club, rep, FTC, NTC. Either the philosophy itself is erroneous , or hypocritically people only complain when it is their financial strata that is affected.
I paid whatever it was for NTC , if that irks me  then why pay my Coastal subs? What about all the kids at primary school who could play but can't afford to pay those subs?

You seem to infer that it's a closed shop. I think it is better than what it has been. Yes there is some areas that remain very problomatic. After a 2012 tournament when I did my player reports I made it clear to Mainland that 2 players at SIT had to be certs for FTC and should be considered for NTC. They were both automatic picks for NTC October 2013. So that says to me players can be identified and make progression due to their own football ability.
Starting XI
120
·
2.7K
·
almost 17 years
Trialist
39
·
140
·
almost 11 years
foal30 wrote:

So who is excited about the National Tournaments coming back?!

All the FTC kids anyway!  Mum and Dad will be able to flick another few hundy out of the wallet for their son or daughter to attend a tournament along with all the other kids who can afford to pay!  Oh well - I suppose a few of them missed out on playing in the South Island tournaments, where they couldn't actually be compared to kids who can't afford it.  Phew - that could have been embarassing.

Should it be called a National Federation Tournament or a National FTC tournament?

I hear a few families of very good players suggesting that by the time they have forked out for FTC, then NTC, then National tournament, and then maybe a NZ agegroup team tournament or world cup, they could be in debt more than their kids student loan will be!!  Sound like some thinking private providers who hook them up with colleges for a free education is the way to go.  At least it's only one debt.

Thoughts?



1. there is some avenues for families who may struggle to met Rep, FTC, Club costs. The one run from Mainland is (was?) called Scorching Goal (?)

2. players are not selected on who can afford to pay. The financial part of the deal is after trials/ nominations/ TOL. Have people chosen to not do FTC becasue of $? I know of one family who couldn't commit the time due to having 3 "high-performance" children.

3. to the best of my knowledge 2 boys grades (B14 1999/B13 2000)  and one girls grade (G14 1999/2000) had players missing from the South Island Tournament due to the NTC date clash. Hardly embarrassing , and FWIW the cost difference from SIT to NTC is next to nothing. In fact once the rep training is included clearly the SIT is more expensive.

4. as far as player comparison is concerned the criteria for NTC selection may not be specific to the actual "game value" of individuals currently. I understand people may not agree with this but cannot understand people who seem to willfully misrepresent it. If you don't like it then don't do FTC. (as NTC intake is from FTC). As for some players an argument can be made they are doing reps this year only because the "best" players are not there. Maybe they should be grateful? They are not going to be picked ahead of the NTC players.

5. Yes, looking long term it seems the process has a number of costs which cumulatively will be in 5 figures. Anyone with a basic grasp of maths can work this out. It again highlights the "pay to play" issue. Why moan about U-17 WC costs? There has already been bills for club, rep, FTC, NTC. Either the philosophy itself is erroneous , or hypocritically people only complain when it is their financial strata that is affected.
I paid whatever it was for NTC , if that irks me  then why pay my Coastal subs? What about all the kids at primary school who could play but can't afford to pay those subs?

You seem to infer that it's a closed shop. I think it is better than what it has been. Yes there is some areas that remain very problomatic. After a 2012 tournament when I did my player reports I made it clear to Mainland that 2 players at SIT had to be certs for FTC and should be considered for NTC. They were both automatic picks for NTC October 2013. So that says to me players can be identified and make progression due to their own football ability.
Scorching goal - $50-100 off. I guess in say mid canty where FTC is cheaper that's pretty good. Doesn't everyone who applies get a little something?
Lol - yes lots of kids don't trial becos families can't afford it.
Correct 3 clashes but seems a few kids were actively discouraged frm attending others.
Oh yes sorry Canterbury rep teams are expensive. I meant compared to cost other mainland districts pay eg nelson Marlborough Selwyn etc. I have a relative who has paid $45 for their child to go this year. Not bad eh!!
My concern is what does nzfootball (if it is their decision) or mainland if it is theirs have against private providers be it club academies or the likes of apfa? If a kid is good enough to attend a national tournament , or I am guessing in years to come,  an nz age group team, but hasn't come thru FTC, why not pick them?? Why not have an open selection and take the best kids to represent your federation?
And along with that why not open NTC up? So players outside of FTC can be monitored. Wouldn't that be beneficial?
There are many many reasons why players (parents) opt not to do FTC. Are we saying that's it for them?  As I say, I know a family who cannot be part of FTC. I believe the kid has the potential to play for nz. They have been told their child never will whilst not doing FTC/ntc. Seems a cruel message and the kid is talented in other sports so can you guess the decision they making?
Trialist
39
·
140
·
almost 11 years
foal30 wrote:

So who is excited about the National Tournaments coming back?!

All the FTC kids anyway!  Mum and Dad will be able to flick another few hundy out of the wallet for their son or daughter to attend a tournament along with all the other kids who can afford to pay!  Oh well - I suppose a few of them missed out on playing in the South Island tournaments, where they couldn't actually be compared to kids who can't afford it.  Phew - that could have been embarassing.

Should it be called a National Federation Tournament or a National FTC tournament?

I hear a few families of very good players suggesting that by the time they have forked out for FTC, then NTC, then National tournament, and then maybe a NZ agegroup team tournament or world cup, they could be in debt more than their kids student loan will be!!  Sound like some thinking private providers who hook them up with colleges for a free education is the way to go.  At least it's only one debt.

Thoughts?



1. there is some avenues for families who may struggle to met Rep, FTC, Club costs. The one run from Mainland is (was?) called Scorching Goal (?)

2. players are not selected on who can afford to pay. The financial part of the deal is after trials/ nominations/ TOL. Have people chosen to not do FTC becasue of $? I know of one family who couldn't commit the time due to having 3 "high-performance" children.

3. to the best of my knowledge 2 boys grades (B14 1999/B13 2000)  and one girls grade (G14 1999/2000) had players missing from the South Island Tournament due to the NTC date clash. Hardly embarrassing , and FWIW the cost difference from SIT to NTC is next to nothing. In fact once the rep training is included clearly the SIT is more expensive.

4. as far as player comparison is concerned the criteria for NTC selection may not be specific to the actual "game value" of individuals currently. I understand people may not agree with this but cannot understand people who seem to willfully misrepresent it. If you don't like it then don't do FTC. (as NTC intake is from FTC). As for some players an argument can be made they are doing reps this year only because the "best" players are not there. Maybe they should be grateful? They are not going to be picked ahead of the NTC players.

5. Yes, looking long term it seems the process has a number of costs which cumulatively will be in 5 figures. Anyone with a basic grasp of maths can work this out. It again highlights the "pay to play" issue. Why moan about U-17 WC costs? There has already been bills for club, rep, FTC, NTC. Either the philosophy itself is erroneous , or hypocritically people only complain when it is their financial strata that is affected.
I paid whatever it was for NTC , if that irks me  then why pay my Coastal subs? What about all the kids at primary school who could play but can't afford to pay those subs?

You seem to infer that it's a closed shop. I think it is better than what it has been. Yes there is some areas that remain very problomatic. After a 2012 tournament when I did my player reports I made it clear to Mainland that 2 players at SIT had to be certs for FTC and should be considered for NTC. They were both automatic picks for NTC October 2013. So that says to me players can be identified and make progression due to their own football ability.

 And I too have nominated players for ftc and was pleased their selection matched my scoring. However I know at least another 3 players who are better or similar ability as scored but did not trial due to cost. Fortunately they are continuing their development in other programs and I would still rank them similar to last year. FTC players not at the top. 

Marquee
1.2K
·
5.5K
·
over 13 years

Any South Island tournaments results in?

Marquee
1.3K
·
7.4K
·
over 15 years

The families not doing FTC trials due to cost are making this aware to both Mainland and their respective clubs? I'd be mortified if Coastal had players not in FTC becasue of personal finance reasons. I'm not sure who qualifies for Scorching Goal or what they may or may not pay out. Can't speak for Mainland but I bet Alan would get something happening if he knew of A grade talent not participating due to resources.

There is another charity place that pays for clothes and boots for players at club level. I'll find out the name.


NTC is via FTC. I think 2013 it also included APFA as an approved training provider (?)  Not sure what happens now that APFA seems to be shifting.

Also heard some people sold their houses in Chch and moved to Lincoln / Rolleston for their kids APFA... 


Why is it not open up to more providers/trainers? I don't know. Some reasons could be economic self - interest, the training quality at other operators, that the "best method" is tagging NTC to FTC. ie: clear/ uniform  training methods.

First Team Squad
280
·
1.3K
·
almost 17 years

Any South Island tournaments results in?



Follow Waimak on FB, they have updates 3 or 4 times a day on the various tournaments around the country their teams are playing...
Marquee
1.3K
·
7.4K
·
over 15 years

14's Boys Canterbury = 1st and 3rd

played each other in semi's.

13's Boys QTown finals day tomorrow

Marquee
1.3K
·
7.4K
·
over 15 years

13 Boys lost final to Otago on penalties

not sure if it was Paul or Xavier's side.

Marquee
1.3K
·
7.4K
·
over 15 years

Selwyn 6th , Nth Cant 7th , Central Otago 8th.

EB
Trialist
0
·
14
·
over 10 years
foal30 wrote:



1. there is some avenues for families who may struggle to met Rep, FTC, Club costs. The one run from Mainland is (was?) called Scorching Goal (?)

2. players are not selected on who can afford to pay. The financial part of the deal is after trials/ nominations/ TOL. Have people chosen to not do FTC becasue of $? I know of one family who couldn't commit the time due to having 3 "high-performance" children.

3. to the best of my knowledge 2 boys grades (B14 1999/B13 2000)  and one girls grade (G14 1999/2000) had players missing from the South Island Tournament due to the NTC date clash. Hardly embarrassing , and FWIW the cost difference from SIT to NTC is next to nothing. In fact once the rep training is included clearly the SIT is more expensive.

4. as far as player comparison is concerned the criteria for NTC selection may not be specific to the actual "game value" of individuals currently. I understand people may not agree with this but cannot understand people who seem to willfully misrepresent it. If you don't like it then don't do FTC. (as NTC intake is from FTC). As for some players an argument can be made they are doing reps this year only because the "best" players are not there. Maybe they should be grateful? They are not going to be picked ahead of the NTC players.

5. Yes, looking long term it seems the process has a number of costs which cumulatively will be in 5 figures. Anyone with a basic grasp of maths can work this out. It again highlights the "pay to play" issue. Why moan about U-17 WC costs? There has already been bills for club, rep, FTC, NTC. Either the philosophy itself is erroneous , or hypocritically people only complain when it is their financial strata that is affected.
I paid whatever it was for NTC , if that irks me  then why pay my Coastal subs? What about all the kids at primary school who could play but can't afford to pay those subs?

You seem to infer that it's a closed shop. I think it is better than what it has been. Yes there is some areas that remain very problomatic. After a 2012 tournament when I did my player reports I made it clear to Mainland that 2 players at SIT had to be certs for FTC and should be considered for NTC. They were both automatic picks for NTC October 2013. So that says to me players can be identified and make progression due to their own football ability.

nepotism isn't "their own football ability"
Trialist
4
·
8
·
over 10 years

ha ha -  not a truer word spoken.

The uprising has began.

Marquee
1.3K
·
7.4K
·
over 15 years

please provide examples of nepotism. Other wise one line cheap shots isn't really a serious form of analysis or commentary.

I'd especially like to see this extended into NTC selections. Given the 3 Age groups of FTC  I can think of all have no Parent coaching any player.

IMO a far more common occurrence is  selection issues with Rep coaches with a club team in the same grade.


Marquee
1.2K
·
5.5K
·
over 13 years

Unsubstantiated rumour (heard from 2 different sources in the last week): some sort of new private academy is brewing, to be located in Yarldhurst (?). Seems a certain Eastern European coach and his millionaire backer have seen APFA's imminent departure as an opportunity. Anyone able to add, or subtract, anything to this?

Phoenix Academy
78
·
450
·
almost 11 years

Unsubstantiated rumour (heard from 2 different sources in the last week): some sort of new private academy is brewing, to be located in Yarldhurst (?). Seems a certain Eastern European coach and his millionaire backer have seen APFA's imminent departure as an opportunity. Anyone able to add, or subtract, anything to this?


Been rumoured for a while now, well before APFA have decided to close it's doors. Might be easier for them to simply take over the lease at Lincoln University. 
EB
Trialist
0
·
14
·
over 10 years
foal30 wrote:

please provide examples of nepotism. Other wise one line cheap shots isn't really a serious form of analysis or commentary.

I'd especially like to see this extended into NTC selections. Given the 3 Age groups of FTC  I can think of all have no Parent coaching any player.

IMO a far more common occurrence is  selection issues with Rep coaches with a club team in the same grade.



As you said before, you as a Rep coach put names foward for FTC and apparently NTC. Now Rep coaches usually (9 out of 10 times) have their kids playing in their team and what parent wouldn't want their kids to excell even if it's not deserved. Thats nepotism.

You’ll need an account to join the conversation!

Sign in Sign up