| Greetings and welcome to The Football Net. We love talking balls, do you? You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. Therefore you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, take part in the banter, vote in polls and enjoy fun competitions such as fantasy football and the betting exchange. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join us today on our football forums to talk balls with us! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The Quiet Revolution | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 12 2011, 05:12 PM (250 Views) | |
| Monty | Jun 12 2011, 05:12 PM Post #1 |
![]()
I'm a naughty boy
|
Thanks to Dmac for contributing this to the blog from beyond the grave. A very good and interesting read ![]()
|
|
|
| Dotty | Jun 12 2011, 05:16 PM Post #2 |
![]()
Stuck up bastard
|
Fully agree. 11 a side shouldn't be brought in until U15/16. Going 11 a side at U13 makes the game more stamina based and puts actual footballing ability on the back foot. |
|
|
| Monty | Jun 12 2011, 05:24 PM Post #3 |
![]()
I'm a naughty boy
|
It is the right thing to do but it is still only the start. Compare it to the Dutch who invest 1bn euro every year into amateur football. There needs to be an investment in educating the coaches too, because that's just as important. |
|
|
| Dotty | Jun 12 2011, 05:28 PM Post #4 |
![]()
Stuck up bastard
|
I'd go with more re-education than education. In Holland and Spain style of play is far and away more important than results at just about every level, how many Real coaches have been given the white handkerchiefs for poor football? England, and to an equal extent the rest of the British Isles, are more results driven. Me and you have seen that even this year and we coach at a non-competitive level
|
|
|
| TheReturnOfTheKing | Jun 12 2011, 05:37 PM Post #5 |
|
Definitely NOT a Terrorist
|
while it is a good article and i agree with a lot of points, did he really have to use southgate to get his point across ffs, may aswell put a monkey quoted as saying.... I remember rafa saying once how he felt gerrard was taught to win games but not control games, he was taught to go everywhere, to tackle, to shoot and to play direct killer balls. He was saying how he wants the youth system to instead do less running and more intelligent movement to control games to make other teams run this is the problem with english football, they are taught to be very direct at club level, the only exceptions now are probably united, arsenal, liverpool and chelsea when they get to the international level, they wont be on par with teams who have been taught it since they were 15-16 or at times even younger guys like gerrard and more to the extent of lampard who isa perfect example of this are taught to just get in positions to score, not look for passes and control games wilshere looks an exception but thats because of how arsenal brought him up |
| no | |
|
|
| Jeffers | Jun 12 2011, 05:41 PM Post #6 |
|
Ginger Prince
|
The way the League money is distributed is down to why Britain is more result based than style I agree that 5/6/7 aside would be a better option for young kids, else its only really the quick/big players that get noticed as the ball has to travel a lot further in 11 aside the coaches stat is very bad |
| "I don't play against a particular team. I play against the idea of losing." - Cantona | |
|
|
| Monty | Jun 12 2011, 05:44 PM Post #7 |
![]()
I'm a naughty boy
|
Running is still very important LFC. But maybe it is more important to run when you don;t have the ball (for eg that is when Barca do their most running) You need/should be running and working and putting people under pressure when you don't have the ball. But when you have it, you make the ball do the work and make the other team run. |
|
|
| Monty | Jun 12 2011, 05:44 PM Post #8 |
![]()
I'm a naughty boy
|
11 a side just encourages people to hoof the ball the length of the pitch because they can't run around it all game because they aren't fit enough at that age. |
|
|
| TheReturnOfTheKing | Jun 12 2011, 05:46 PM Post #9 |
|
Definitely NOT a Terrorist
|
thats the point i was making tbf you always see guys like lampard bursting forward, looking for space near the box to get in a position to shoot, thats the way he was taught, instead it should be how to get in a position close enough to receive the ball, then give it and move to receive etc it will never change, its the style of the premier league and how they are brought up by clubs at a young age |
| no | |
|
|
| Monty | Jun 12 2011, 05:49 PM Post #10 |
![]()
I'm a naughty boy
|
Tbh football is always changing and throughout history every different culture has had a dfferent style of playing. Not everyone country/team will adopt that style but it is important that players are developed to a level that they are able to adapt and change. |
|
|
| Dotty | Jun 12 2011, 05:53 PM Post #11 |
![]()
Stuck up bastard
|
Bang on. And to be able to adapt to different styles a player has to be tactically adept and have a decent level of technical ability. Look at England and France for example, two countries were physical power and stamina are more important than technical ability (Although France has only been like this since circa 2000) how many players of these two nationalities do we see adapt to differnet styles and succeed abroad? |
|
|
| stacie | Jun 12 2011, 05:59 PM Post #12 |
|
Dipped in chocolate, bronzed with elegance
|
I agree with rob2 We don't encourage clever play at a young age, it's all about being solid, rough and gutsy.I'd add that England have put all their focus on having a competitive league, conveniently ignoring that all of our top teams will, every week, start with a mainly foreign team. English players are, with a few exceptions, backed up by foreigners who make them look good for their clubs, labelled world class and then look utterly clueless in a high pressure situation when they're on their own. Interest in our younger teams is low because as soon as we get an exciting looking youth team, it's pulled apart to fill the gaps in the senior team and players are then under pressure to perform with a bunch of players who, due to the ever changing starting line up of the England senior team, don't even play that well with each other. The U21s shouldn't be a dumping place for youngsters who aren't good enough to play in the senior team, it should be about the best young players in the country coming together, playing together and winning together for a couple of years. If England want a place to shove the average players, it should have a B team of players who work harder to make the A squad. Anyway, I need to think more about that theory ![]() The other day there was a thread about pretty football v winning. You look at Spain and they've tried to make the two go hand in hand. England will turn their nose up at attractive football if they can get a trophy, and that starts from a young age. |
|
flak and gary love stacie and weep sorrowful tears when she's not around | |
|
|
| manu22 | Jun 12 2011, 08:43 PM Post #13 |
|
Phorum Pimp
|
scholes is/was an exception too. |
| Rivaldo greatest player in my time | |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| « Previous Topic · Barclays Premier League · Next Topic » |






We don't encourage clever play at a young age, it's all about being solid, rough and gutsy.
8:08 PM Jul 11