retired_christy23

and how exactly does that contradict the idea that there are too many professional clubs?

retired_khabmth

England can sustain 100+ clubs with regards to fans/club finances and such.

But not playerwise whilst still keeping the current level of ability. That means that the best english players cost about the same as in other countries/leagues but those just below that are much more expensive than their foreign counterparts. And hence less english players getting an opportunity at top clubs in top competition.

As you said, it's all about the market...

runronnirun

Natural ability seems to be discouraged in youth football. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite simply the absolute worst of a series of terrible, cliched, ridiculous, ill-conceived statements by you in this thread. How much youth football training, coaching and matches are you involved in on a weekly basis?

Get your head out of the Daily Mail and take the English game for what it is. For BG, read Steve Curry. </BLOCKQUOTE>

in fairness he has a semblance of a point, albeit one that he hasn't conveyed well. 'natural ability' (awful phrase to use in the context of this discussion really) does tend to get overlooked in youth football these days, in a number of ways. not saying it's the same for every youth side, but plenty place far too much emphasis on 11-a-side from the earliest possible age and going all out to win games, at the expense of fun and player development. kids who can run all day and overpower their less physically developed peers are overly coveted.

then you've got the academies. i've personal experience of academy scouts for professional clubs watching youth football and making a beeline for the kids who are quick/strong for their age, completely overlooking far more talented lads who happen to be short, weak, frail, whatever. it's an absolute fact that it happens and it happens far too much. Paul Scholes is always a great reference point in this sort of discussion i find - he was written off by almost everyone at 15/16 as having no chance of making it because of his physique. the youth coaches at United saw beyond his dimunitive stature, his frailness and his other physical deficiences (asthma etc) and it paid off handsomely. how many kids of similar ability and similar physical stature have been lost to the game because of this obsession with athleticism? you could have all the talent in the world as a kid, but if you're playing on full-size pitches, getting overpowered by bigger, stronger kids and not seeing any of the ball, you're not going to have the love for the game that you need to make it. pretty depressing really.

and then you've got the training and matches in the academy system itself (sorry to keep going on but this is something i'm pretty passionate about). the majority of clubs focus on results, sending out teams packed with freakishly athletic youngsters who they're trying to coach some footballing ability into. one of the few clubs who don't are Man United - we've tried several times over the last few years to get the FA and the other professional clubs to follow the lead of foreign teams, with the primary aim being the introduction of smaller-sided games at younger ages (as low as four-a-side). the more time a young player spends with the football the better, and yet the clubs and the FA don't seem to care, as our proposals have been rejected/ignored repeatedly. the results of that are becoming pretty clear i think - new crops of players almost entirely made up of technically-deficient athletes. i don't think this is to blame particularly for the short-term problems with the English national team, but i definitely think it will have long-term repurcussions. and don't even get me started on the ludicrous 90-minute rule.


Merely changing it to five-a-side doesnt do anything as you're still going to have the same problems only on with less players on a smaller pitch. </BLOCKQUOTE>

erm, not really Gregg. five-a-side (or even four-a-side) means players seeing more of the ball while (to quote United's technique coach Rene Meulensteen) "still allow(ing) you to stick to the tactical principles of having enough width and depth to manipulate the opposition". as a kid i got a lot more technique-wise out of smaller sided games than i did from playing full games on full-sized pitches.

circlewalker

In short: take it away from the English until they learn to do it properly.

retired_derek

Nick i'd agree that it'd move it closer towards the technique side of things, however, my concern is that some coaches would just see it as a smaller scale version. I'd be happy for it to be done if it included more emphasis across the board on the technical aspects.

tonyas

How about setting up a system like they have used to great effect in Holland over the years.
IMO that is where the future lies even though it could be at least 5 years or even a decade before the international team see the benefit.

In fact Watford have already started doing that in conjunction with Harefield Academy. So about 35 11-15 year olds are now all going to Harefield and getting at least 20 hours of technical training a week. Compared to the 4 or 5 hours that most kids their age get that is a vast improvement.


We should be getting a couple of them into our U18 academy side next season and in fact several of the 15 year olds have already been involved in the U18 side this season and I know of 1 of them who has got international recognition with England U16s in the Victory Shield.

retired_Fit

He wasnt saying we should do that he was just pointing out that such an increase would be the equivalent dimensions that 10 year olds face - i.e. dont do this with 10 year olds, it doesnt benefit them or help them develop

retired_rmschaffer

Who was responsible for the youth development philosophy at Manchester United?

Was it an individual? Or was it part of the culture of the club to be fairly progressive in taking on newer ideas?