Coaching Corner

[Bored Of Education]

I was interested in this on Monday. From a coaching point of view, I agree with a lot of what Ferguson says, especially as I know that Brian McClair has been very forward thinking from an academy point of view and, I am sure, Man Utd will reap rewards from this over the next decade. As he says, Barca and all Spanish clubs have advantages over British clubs as far as coaching time is concerned - an advantage that was seen on Saturday by the huge gap in ability and mentality between the teams.

However, from a parent and student of student of education point of view, I have reservations. Ferguson wants the kids from 10-18. Now, most 10 year old boys and, possibly, their parents, upon being told that they are entering the Man Utd academy, are going to have to be extremely committed and level-headed to keep their focus on education and I think that we know that footballers and their parents aren't known for these qualities.

I have heard that La Masia is quite good for providing good academic education for the children alongside the training and I understand that Crystal Palace and, I think, Tranmere are very good at linking their academy with local schools and having academic education at the club. However, I am not sure that I trust multi-million pound companies like EPL clubs to teach children and, in some way, why should they?

I see that there is an inference that they are looking to extend the 60-90 minute maximum travelling rules. I have said before on here how badly these are presently with kids from satellite academies only hooking up with their team-mates at matches, kids' parents having to drive their kids up to London for games from South West while the rest of the team travels by coach from the South Coast, Gareth Bale travelling to Bath from Cardiff to train at the Southampton satellite academy. Allowing extra travelling time will only exacerbate this.

I also am concerned that, when a child is taken to an academy at 10 or 11, they cannot play for their local club but they can play for their school team, often run by an unqualified if enthusiastic PE coach. Having said this local clubs aren't the greatest which, again, is why I don't blame the clubs. They are businesses and they are stepping into a vacuum caused by the FA.

The level 1 FA coaching badge that every coach has to take is, like it Club Charter Status, a box-ticking and rubber-stamping exercise. The level 2 that is not necessary to take is more technical but in the 150 coaching drills with cones that the boys end up standing in queues getting cold waiting for their turn. Either that or endless "tactical coaching" for set-pieces and off-side traps or whatever rather than skill reinforcing, team play and enjoyment. Also, the FA aren't bothered about changing the status quo of English players with bad technique. If they were, they would check up whether coaches were shouting "hoof it" "get rid" "Put your shoulder in" and "target that lad, he's good". Also they wouldn't have kids playing 11 a side on pretty much full-size pitches and nets in competitive leagues at 11 or 12.

Basically, the FA don't care about grass roots coaching, they care about Wembley, their 'brand', getting a chosen few into Burton very belatedly and that is it. I would respond to Ferguson et al by saying that letting kids go to academies before 15 is virtually Dickensian workhouse stuff but I can't blame them because the toothless ineffective FA, firstly, lets them get away with it and, secondly, created a vacuum that the clubs are looking to fill. Kids should be enjoying football for its own sake with their mates at local clubs or schools being coached properly so that they have great skills by 15 when the academies would have thousands of children with great technique to pick from

[Bored Of Education]

Coaching Corner

Just to point out that the names "Ged Roddy" and "Ravel Morrison" are not positive ones in that article either for different reasons.

This

Academy-licensed clubs are free, under the current regulations, to open developmental centres in which they can coach local children in areas without Premier League representations, such as the South West

is awful as well. It means that they can nick children from the Bristol clubs as well as others just because they are EPL clubs.

Scott Sinclair is from Bath and moved from my sons's club until he went to Bristol Rover where he played until he was 16 and signed for Chelsea. I have met him one and, from what extra I have seen in the media, he strikes me as not only a good player but a sensible lad (England U21 misdemeanours notwithstanding). I can't help thinking that if he had gone to Chelsea at 11 or 12, it may have been a different case.

[JM Footzee]

Coaching Corner

Your link's broken BoE, here's the article in question.

The relaxation in scouting distances is pretty worrying - another example of the Premier League seeking to asset strip the lower leagues. In many respects it'd be good if the FA provided youth coaching across the country up to a certain age, meaning there would be no inherent advantage to growing up close to clubs. This doesn't happen, unfortunately, and the solution isn't to let big clubs destroy the youth systems of teams in the Football League on the pretence they want to recruit more players from Cornwall.

But combining a improved education structure with increased coaching time is something I support. It's something Watford's Harefield academy are doing - I'm astonished they're not mentioned in that article - with good results. Good articles about it here and here. I bang on about it, but take a look at the number of youth teams players Watford have brought through, and the age make-up of our squad. And a lot of those boys came through before Harefield started - we're only just beginning to see the real fruits of the labour.

[Bored Of Education]

Coaching Corner

Cheers on both counts, JM. Watford probably weren't mentioned because it is all about Manu, the EPL and how to get great footballers to beat Barcelona rather than about lower-league clubs and good education policies.

You made my other point much clearer. Exeter, Torquay and Yeovil can get fucked because the EPL want all their kids. Mind you, Southampton have probably been nicking them for years anyway

[David Agnew]

Coaching Corner

Even kids arriving at Premier League teams academies at 11 and 12, means that the kids are behind their continental counterparts. The whole problem with coaching is that true coaching with qualified coaches only happens once the kids get picked up by the clubs, where kids need to be taught skills from a much younger age.

If anything, the kids shouldn't be anywhere near a professional club until they are 16. They should be getting education during the day, and taught how to play football by fully qualified coaches, on a county by county basis, unaffiliated to the clubs, and funded by the FA (who should pay for this by taking a small levy on transfer fees).

[Tactical Genius]

Coaching Corner

Bored, can i ask you a question please.

Do you have any formal football qualifications and what are they. If so, are they from the English or Welsh FA?

[Tactical Genius]

Coaching Corner

David Agnew wrote:

Even kids arriving at Premier League teams academies at 11 and 12, means that the kids are behind their continental counterparts. The whole problem with coaching is that true coaching with qualified coaches only happens once the kids get picked up by the clubs, where kids need to be taught skills from a much younger age.

If anything, the kids shouldn't be anywhere near a professional club until they are 16. They should be getting education during the day, and taught how to play football by fully qualified coaches, on a county by county basis, unaffiliated to the clubs, and funded by the FA (who should pay for this by taking a small levy on transfer fees).

David, it would also help if coaches training sessions bore a relation to how they want them to play in a game.

For example, it does not make sense doing two-touch in training and then instruct the players to lump the ball come game time.

[Bored Of Education]

Coaching Corner

Bored, can i ask you a question please.

Do you have any formal football qualifications and what are they. If so, are they from the English or Welsh FA?

No problem, I have the absolutely rubbish Level 1 qualification that every single Otfer could pass and I include those wierdos who only post on the peloton threads.

I had a look at the level 2 and decided against it as the FA don't know what the fuck they are doing. I end up having to look abroad for coaching tips but, to be honest, a fair bit about it is common sense that, hopefully, I know anyway.

What I do try and do is evaluate, review and criticise what I am doing with the lads fairly regularly. This is hard to as we have been relegated this year so I have a lot to think about. As it happens, the relegation means nothing. It would have been easy for me to play the percentages game, play kids in one position for the whole season, have one lad taking corners and free kicks, having a defender taking goal kicks as the goalie is a bit shit at them, only giving the shit kids 5 minutes at the end if anything. That way we would have been up the top of the table probably.

Amongst other things, Harry Truscott gave me a great book called You'll Win Nothing With Kids which was written by Jim White, the Telegraph football reporter. You may have read it but, basically, he is coaching his son's team and, after he has interviewed Mourinho about Chelsea, he would ask him what he should say to his under 11s team. Invariably, Mourinho (or whoever) would give him another hour about youth coaching that was completely different.

What struck me was the theme running through their advice

"Let the ball do the work. Every exercise should have ball play. Fitness, everything with the ball. You play with the ball so why not train with the ball" - Jose Mourinho

"Just tell them this 'Lads, go out and enjoy yourselves" - Sir Bobby Robson

"Football is its own best teacher. The best way to coach young players is to let them play as much football as possible. Don't spend hours on the internet looking for complicated drills., don't lecture for hours on end about formations. Chuck them a football and just let them play.The best form of training is just to play lots of football - Brian McClair, Head of Manchester Utd's academy

"Encouragement pays dividends" - Clive Woodward (!)

"Never in the history of sport has anyone improved by being made to feel miserable.Everyone feels better about themselves when you tell them they have done well" - Frank Dick, head of UK Athletics

[Bored Of Education]

Coaching Corner

The other thing is that I understand that the FAW are a bit more forward thinking that the FA in their youth coaching which is why, if I was going to take the next level up, I may research seeing whether the FAW qualification is better.

[Bored Of Education]

Coaching Corner

They should be getting education during the day, and taught how to play football by fully qualified coaches, on a county by county basis, unaffiliated to the clubs, and funded by the FA (who should pay for this by taking a small levy on transfer fees).

A hopefully pertinent aside - Scott Sinclair's transfers have meant money for Bristol Rovers but not for our club that he came from

[danielmak]

Coaching Corner

I like the way you, BoE, describe the tensions that exist in decisions to deregulate professional involvement in youth football. The reality is that very few of the kids who spend hours each day playing football will end up making a living playing football, and an even smaller number will become outstanding football players. Therefore, it seems to me that something else needs to be gained for the kids in this deal, something that will enrich their lives and prepare them for a non-footballing life. I can see a few ways that this could happen.

First, the football academies work with educational leaders to create something akin to what in the US are known as charter schools. In this way these kids will get a high quality education.

Second, although people are rightfully concerned about the trafficking of children for the purposes of football, the upside of such transnational movement among families is that kids are exposed to a world beyond their local lives. Some critics have argued that England are so poor in tournament football because English players aren't used to being away from home for so long, whereas other national teams have players playing in leagues outside their home country. I don't know how accurate this is given the fact that the reigning WC and EC champion is mostly made up of Real and Barca players and the previous WC champion was almost entirely made up of players playing in Serie A. But the point that resonates for me is that exposure to other ways of living, new cultural practices, different religions, etc. can broaden a kid's sense of the world in which s/he lives. Football is a wonderful multi-cultural context.

Finally, I completely agree with the notion that kids should just play and by playing they learn how to play. But there is also something that clearly happens in Spain and Holland in terms of a tactical education. That education stretches beyond football. That is, kids begin to contemplate movement, space, teamwork, speed, vision. A kid who truly understands these features of football but ends up not having the skills, *and* has a high quality education from a high quality academy school, would be set up for a range of career options with these skills: architecture, software design, graphic arts, engineering. And given #2 above, would be comfortable doing such work in a global context.

Taken together, I think these three features will benefit clubs who invest in their academies, but the by-product would be a more culturally sophisticated, better educated population.

But maybe this is all a bit too naive on my part. In reality the kids will be churned in and out.

[Tactical Genius]

Coaching Corner

It was pretty clear by your appraisal of the level 2 course that you had not done it.

I would suggest you would do the level 2 as I suspect you would learn a lot more than the vague soundbites you quote here.

[ChrisJ]

Coaching Corner

Well whatever the Level 2 course is teaching, TG, it's either wrong or being ignored at the grass roots level. It still appears to be standard practice to play with too many a-side, on pitches that are too big and to give under-11s size 5 balls.

I wouldn't have primary age kids travelling more than half an hour, I wouldn't let them play with more than 6-a-side (four-a-side under-9) and they'd have pitches, balls and goals that bore the same proportion to their body size as a full-size ball does to an adult's. They'd also play in size rather than age categories to age 14 at least.

The problem isn't just the 'enthusiastic but unqualified PE teachers' as these people at least care for the development of the children as much as simply the winning of games by whatever means. There has to be something wrong with a system which, even in under-11 leagues, has the best sides beating the others by double-figure scores (what does that teach either side?), but which fails to convert the winning players into anything approaching competent footballers at international level.

Good/bad habits are in place very early.

[Bored Of Education]

Coaching Corner

I like the way you, BoE, describe the tensions that exist in decisions to deregulate professional involvement in youth football. The reality is that very few of the kids who spend hours each day playing football will end up making a living playing football, and an even smaller number will become outstanding football players.

It is to do with getting kids playing football, improving and learning and, most importantly, having fun. I would be much happier if all 25-30 kids that I have coached over the years are still playing and enjoying football at my age rather than have one Premiership footballer amongst them. Not many other coaches at this level would say the same.

[Bored Of Education]

Coaching Corner

It was pretty clear by your appraisal of the level 2 course that you had not done it.

I would suggest you would do the level 2 as I suspect you would learn a lot more than the vague soundbites you quote here.

I am assuming, from the fact you use it a lot, that the condescending tone of your post is intentional but the specious nature of your point is, perhaps, not.

I don't have to do the Level 2 to know that it isn't good in a similar way that I don't have to have applied for the Charter Club Status personally to know it means nothing. I have seen the effects of both over the 5 years I have been coaching. I have seen many crap coaches who have done the level 2 and that badge, like the Level 1, has maintained the status quo that is ruining English football now.

As ChrisJ alludes to, why would I waste time going down the widely discredited route of FA youth coaching? The system is fundamentally wrong and, although they are starting to look forward a touch, it is going to be the same for the whole of the time I am coaching children.

I have, on the other hand, got an assistant coach who has done it and he is very good. Albeit, he is slightly better than me technically on warm-up drills, he isn't as good as me at the management of the kids in training and matches. Noticeably, he agrees with me on our ethos of coaching of the kids and has moved on, like me, to looking at coaching in Holland and Spain and what they do there for kids. He also was one of the few people I know who loved the Spain/Germany semi as much as me and, needless to say, was purring over Barca the other night.

Interestingly, his side have been bottom of the league for the whole season as well but, like me, he knows that he could easily do some pragmatic things, leave some crap kids out apart from 5 minutes at the end, play kids endlessly in the same positions etc, just to win more games and move up the league. The other level 2 coach that I know that I am impressed by is slightly more competitive "win at all costs" than me, perhaps, but he is a good coach. He is a also a deputy head and I think this, like my teaching experience, helps him to coach the boys more than his Level 2 badge.

One thing you may have noticed about me is that I think a lot about coaching kids. I review, analyse, evaluate and critique my coaching constantly. I certainly have done about whether to go on a Level 2 course and it is not going to improve me as a coach where I want to be improved and where I want to boys to be improved. Many coaches appear to get their level 1 and, indeed, Level 2 badges and see that as the end of the road. They don't think about how to improve their coaching after.

I mean, you may have been coaching kids for longer than I have and may have a different experience but I wonder if that is because you have inherited a core of kids who have a degree of natural talent and the right physical build to won game and based a team around them playing regularly in their strongest positions whereas I sacrifice results for all the kids being able to play and improve their game and playing in different positions.

Of note perhaps is that I have had several players that have turned up with natural talent (usually from playing with older brother from an early age) and/or have a physical build that helps them, e.g. height, strength, being fast or having a massive kick, and a lot of them have left my team for more competitive teams. I haven't seen one that has considerably improved their natural skills and, in some, have lost their team spirit which is something they would have learnt staying with me.

On the other hand, I have had crap kids become alright and I have quite a few of the better kids who have stayed improving and doing things like playing with both feet. This is what drives me up the wall about coaches that they let players stick to one foot. I have quite a few kids who are quite happy on both feet. Don't get me wrong, they aren't as good with both feet but they aren't scared of trying. My only bit of "competitive dad" coaching is that, from the age of 2 when we kicked a ball around, I get him to kick with both feet. He will happily take corners, free kicks and shots with his left now just for a change or a laugh. Others do as well and this is not only because I get them to train their left but because I have constructed an atmosphere where they are not afraid of trying stuff even in a match situation

[Bored Of Education]

Coaching Corner

I can't disagree with you on any of that, Chris. The

They'd also play in size rather than age categories to age 14 at least

idea is interesting but I can see two sides of that.

Although, it would negate the "big lads who can hoof the ball and run really really fast doing better" reality that kicks in again as soon as we started back at these big goals and pitches, kids learn better when they are up against challenges and it may help teach kids that they need passing and ball control skills rather than strength and speed. However, not many coaches would think like that.

It would be great to see a team of shortarses do a Barca over a team of Man Utd giants though.

[Bored Of Education]

Coaching Corner

Again, danielmak, some interesting ideas and you have hit the nail on the head on a couple of points.

This

First, the football academies work with educational leaders to create something akin to what in the US are known as charter schools. In this way these kids will get a high quality education.

goes completely against my educational principles but, given the current realities, is a more preferable alternative.

As far as the multicultural aspect is concerned, I would rather bring the international aspects of football coaching and playing to kids in their home context than, vice versa, again for general welfare reasons, rather than pure footballing reasons. Having said that, there are great international tournaments for kids even of this age and, also, through TV, kids are more exposed to international football and the accompanying culture. I am not sure how old you are but I learnt my geography and international culture a lot from the limited exposure to the old European cup and, obviously, WCs and kids see even more nowadays.

Yes, tactics can't be ignored but the kids have to have the technique, skills, team play beforehand (as well as the other things that you mentioned as far as vision etc which I wouldn't necessarily put down to tactics).

An interesting aside is that, before this season, I asked a coach of older kids than me what the deal was as far as coaching offsides was concerned - did he do drills or did he coach it in training games. He replied that he didn't bother. Everyone is starting off at the same level of lack of practice and attackers will be as unused to offsides and will get caught as defenders leaving a player offside. Also, as he pointed, offsides are as much down to how good or bad the Dad is that is running the line and whether he is from your team or not.

I loved this as it meant that I didn't have to get them standing in straight lines getting cold while I explained it to them. Also it meant that I don't get kids doing something I hate - standing stock still with their hands in the air looking over at the linesman, ref or me.

Sure enough, our team didn't get caught offside or have offsides sprung more than any other team. Well, dependent of the Dad's, of course.

As you infer in the last paragraph, the main point is enforcing rules with club Academies and coaches with the wrong ethos and the FA is particularly toothless in both.

[Tactical Genius]

Coaching Corner

ChrisJ wrote:

Well whatever the Level 2 course is teaching, TG, it's either wrong or being ignored at the grass roots level. It still appears to be standard practice to play with too many a-side, on pitches that are too big and to give under-11s size 5 balls.

That isn't the fault of the coaching course though is it?

The level 2 coaching course does have suggestions of various lessons and you ar assessed coaching a technique with a progression (what you would call drills) and coaching an aspect of the game in a 6v6 small sided area roughly the size of a penalty area.

An example would be creating space as a team where you teach players to make runs to:

1. Receive the ball.
2. To create space so that a teammate receives a pass.
3. To create space that the man on the ball can exploit.

Out of about 20 in our class, only 4 passed the first time and this shows you that many people did not grasp the concepts they were being taught.

Actually, football coaching reminds me of the IT industry i work in. Most people don't want to get certified becuase they are too lazy and stupid to educate themselves and claim that their experience and nous is enough. Then when the project messes up, they blame the software and claim its crap and full of bugs.

The level 2 coachin course does not have anything about teaching kids the offside trap nor does it advocate playing on full-sized pitches or balls that are too big for them to control.

Nor does it advocate drills where kids stand freeing for ages.

If the coaches attend the course and then disregard what they have learned then that strenghenes my claim that all coaches should be sacked.

I wouldn't have primary age kids travelling more than half an hour, I wouldn't let them play with more than 6-a-side (four-a-side under-9) and they'd have pitches, balls and goals that bore the same proportion to their body size as a full-size ball does to an adult's. They'd also play in size rather than age categories to age 14 at least.

Would not make much difference sadly. The explosion of Powerleague type organisations have not improved the touch and interplay or the average brit, the only improvement is to teach people to shoot low and hard into a crowd of legs from all over the pitch and watch the ball pinball around into the net.

The problem isn't just the 'enthusiastic but unqualified PE teachers'

As against the enthusiastic and unqualified coach that Bored is.

Good/bad habits are in place very early.

Indeed and they last a lifetime.

[Tactical Genius]

Coaching Corner

Bored

I am assuming, from the fact you use it a lot, that the condescending tone of your post is intentional but the specious nature of your point is, perhaps, not.

Well look at your remarks about a coaching qualification I and a few other OTFers have (or their equivalent)
Your remarks are completely wrong and just as condescending as anything i have replied with.

I don't have to do the Level 2 to know that it isn't good

How do you know this? You might be right, it may not improve you as a coach, but the sheer fact that you either have no idea what the course entails, or you know and came on her and completely misrepresented its content, either way, it does not put you in a bad light.

in a similar way that I don't have to have applied for the Charter Club Status personally to know it means nothing.

You cannot teach a man who already knows anything.

I have seen the effects of both over the 5 years I have been coaching. I have seen many crap coaches who have done the level 2 and that badge, like the Level 1, has maintained the status quo that is ruining English football now.

Nah, its the know-all coaches who poo poo qualifications or sit the courses, not to learn, but to have the certificate before lapsing into the kind of 1970's type coaching that they did when they were kids.

The first change has to be with the mindset of the coaches, secondly the mindset with the parents and supporters, thirdly you will have to make the facilities and equipment more relevant.

The level 1 is fit for purpose, it is for teaching 6 year olds and concentrates on making sure they are enjoying themselves and the playing environment is safe, what other skills do you think you need for that age group?

I have, on the other hand, got an assistant coach who has done it and he is very good. Albeit, he is slightly better than me technically on warm-up drills, he isn't as good as me at the management of the kids in training and matches. Noticeably, he agrees with me on our ethos of coaching of the kids and has moved on, like me, to looking at coaching in Holland and Spain and what they do there for kids. He also was one of the few people I know who loved the Spain/Germany semi as much as me and, needless to say, was purring over Barca the other night.

I enjoyed the Spain Germany game and said so here, it was a clash of two different yet highly technical and tactical setup. Those are the kind of games that do it for me as i sat there trying to second-guess the tactical setup of the two managers.

One thing you may have noticed about me is that I think a lot about coaching kids. I review, analyse, evaluate and critique my coaching constantly. I certainly have done about whether to go on a Level 2 course and it is not going to improve me as a coach where I want to be improved and where I want to boys to be improved. Many coaches appear to get their level 1 and, indeed, Level 2 badges and see that as the end of the road. They don't think about how to improve their coaching after.

If you are really serious about imroving your coaching, then I would do the level 2 course.

As for actual coaching Experience, I don't really have much, I have done some here and there and my longest stint was half a season at Spurs ladies, but due to work commitments, i have had to put it on the back burner.

[ChrisJ]

Coaching Corner

It is the fault of the course if coaches who have passed it still propagate the same failed culture. It (the course) clearly isn't addressing the problem. The people I'm talking about have passed the courses and have these certificates; yet...

A 'drill' is just the focussed rehearsal of a new skill so the learner is confident and fluent to try to apply it in a game situation. There's nothing wrong with drills so long as they have a purpose, are given a sensible time in proportion to playing and the kids have a ball each for dribbling or between 2 or 3 if it's a passing/moving/control drill. Any drill should be a game in itself anyway. By and large, in a proper set-up, kids are moving more while 'drilling' than playing as they get more touches.

The technical changes I proposed above are obviously not going to make a difference in themselves, but are about a cultural shift in English football. Powerplay leagues as far as I understood, are about compressing space for adults who no longer have the requisite fitness or motivation to play on full-side pitches. Nothing wrong with that per se, but I don't see it as relevant to the football education of 4-11 year olds.

I'm not sure why the personal attacks on Bored here. He's not struck me as either lazy or stupid, and he's clearly simpatico to trying to develop young players in the right way in a culture which doesn't make it easy.

[Tactical Genius]

Coaching Corner

ChrisJ wrote:

It is the fault of the course if coaches who have passed it still propagate the same failed culture. It (the course) clearly isn't addressing the problem. The people I'm talking about have passed the courses and have these certificates; yet...

The level two is just like any other Qualification, you do the course, you pass then exam and it is up to you whether you apply what you have learned on the course or if you dispense with it and teach the same old stuff you were taught.

An analogy is you teach someone to cut grass using a lawn mower, then when they get home the dispense with the lawn mower and use a scythe? who's fault is that.

There is nothing much the FA can do unless fund a team of inspectors to attend training sessions and evesdrop on teamtalks to make sure the "right message" is given.
Kinda like Ofsted.

A 'drill' is just the focussed rehearsal of a new skill so the learner is confident and fluent to try to apply it in a game situation.

OK, that's more or less right.

There's nothing wrong with drills so long as they have a purpose, are given a sensible time in proportion to playing and the kids have a ball each for dribbling or between 2 or 3 if it's a passing/moving/control drill. Any drill should be a game in itself anyway. By and large, in a proper set-up, kids are moving more while 'drilling' than playing as they get more touches.

A session should have tow parts, the first part would be a drill as you call it. The second part would be a game situation that is set up in a way that the players can implement that drill as often as possible. That way, they understand the purpose of the drill and how it can aid them in match situations and bring an extra dimension in their play. Else they will be about as much use as kick-ups or tricks like on soccer AM.

The technical changes I proposed above are obviously not going to make a difference in themselves, but are about a cultural shift in English football.

This triaining sessions already take place Chris and have taken place since i was a kid, the issue as you rightly point out is the cultural shift.
Its no use having your kids playing two-touch 5 a side in training only to instruct them to hoof the ball around come saturday which is what happens.

Powerplay leagues as far as I understood, are about compressing space for adults who no longer have the requisite fitness or motivation to play on full-side pitches. Nothing wrong with that per se, but I don't see it as relevant to the football education of 4-11 year olds.

It is relevant inso far as it should aid and improve the technical abilities of the participants as "they are getting more touches of the ball".

I'm not sure why the personal attacks on Bored here. He's not struck me as either lazy or stupid, and he's clearly simpatico to trying to develop young players in the right way in a culture which doesn't make it easy.

What is wrong with what i am saying, he is performing a role that he is not qualified to do, refuses to get himself qualified becuase he does not think the qualification will teach him anything despite not even knowing what the course entails instead deciding to rely on his common sense (which got his team relegated mind).
Does that not strike you as arrogant and somewhat ignorant?

This is part of the problem, all these coaches think they know it all, they all have these 1970's PE lessonCharles Hughes coaching ideas and will not budge.

Coaching should be simple.

When team is in possession
1. coach the man on the ball to pass to his teammate who is in space.
2. coach the man not on the ball to move into space to recive it.
3. when close to goal shoot.

when not in possession.

1. Get in position to block the most easiest forward pass.
2. Always attempt to force your opponent to pass backwards and sideways.

[ChrisJ]

Coaching Corner

If I do a cut and paste on all that it'll get very complicated, but basically I think we're agreeing on most things except that I think that there should be a greater emphasis on the culture (which we both see as the big problem here) in the basic courses, rather than "this is a drill for first touch, this is an exercise for improving defensive positioning, use them as you will", etc. It's a hearts and minds job first - which would obviate the need for teamtalk ofsted.

Bored may be unqualified but that doesn't make him unskilled. At kids' levels, the best sides are rarely the best coached, they're the ones who've attracted and retained the best players, and that's all about keeping talented kids (and dads; culture again) happy by regularly sticking a bucket-load past inadequate opposition - and never, ever threatening that status by playing silly buggers with the tried and tested formula. The 'worst' sides will rarely be improved much by better coaching; they'll improve because they go for pragmatism or somehow get new players in.

As it happens, I would actually encourage Bored to do the L2 course; he will find out new stuff and be able to apply it in his way, which is philosophically the right one. It strikes me as more the attitude of a busy bloke who's rightly not convinced by the results of the official route. He may be mistaken on this detail, but he doesn't strike me as arrogant.

The best school side I ever coached was 15 years ago now. We lost only one match all season, against a private school who put the game to their u-13 rugby pitch and played a team of giants against us - presumably the bloody rugby team - on the long grass. I haven't seen anything in kids' football to suggest that most club coaches wouldn't do exactly the same if they could get away with it.

When team is in possession
1. coach the man on the ball to pass to his teammate who is in space.
2. coach the man not on the ball to move into space to recive it.
3. when close to goal shoot.

when not in possession.

1. Get in position to block the most easiest forward pass.
2. Always attempt to force your opponent to pass backwards and sideways.

OK, that's more or less right.

[imp]

Coaching Corner

I did a three-day course here in the US to get my D licence, and it was certainly helpful as a starting point, but it's been largely over-shadowed by what I've learned in the three years of taking games and practices. So TG's parallels with IT technicians and lawn mower courses are nonsense (and yes, he does seem to be making unwarranted, personalised attacks on Bored). You're working with people, not machines that can only function in one particular way. My assistant coach hasn't done any courses, but grew up in the DDR youth system and comes up with great tactical and training suggestions all the time. Forty odd years of playing and watching the game can help you as much as a seminar. Having said that, we're not talking about a massively high level of football in my case. If I wanted to make a living out of this, I'd certainly do the intensive, seven-day C licence.

[Tactical Genius]

Coaching Corner

OK, point taken all.

Firstly, i would like to apologise to Bored for the arrgessive tone on my reply.

More later.

[Tactical Genius]

Coaching Corner

Chris J, I think 90% of the problem is the culture, the fansparents have grown up watching a certain type of football have seen this football succeed and close their minds to any other approach. It is the same as the coaches, they only know that getting the ball forward into the opposition danger areas is the way to go and will only slightly deviate from that mindset.

We have seen this with previously succesful managers like Sven and Capello come here and struggle with players raised with the English system.

This is why I have always said to sack the coaches as most coaches were raised with the Charles Hughes POMO system.
This was successful in the 70's and early 80's when British football swept all before it at a club level, but times have changed and the foriegners have caught up physically and a change in refereeing means that British teams can no longer employ the same level of physicality. At this point their glaring lack of technique begins to show.

Bored may be unqualified but that doesn't make him unskilled.

I have not attended any of his coaching sessions or watched his team play so can only go on what he has said, like this.

The level 2 that is not necessary to take is more technical but in the 150 coaching drills with cones that the boys end up standing in queues getting cold waiting for their turn. Either that or endless "tactical coaching" for set-pieces and off-side traps or whatever rather than skill reinforcing, team play and enjoyment.

I will try and say this nicely and say he is wrong and mis-informed.

There is not one coaching drill that boys stand in queues getting cold.

There is not one coaching drill where you are taught offsides or set-pieces.

All the drills (or sessions as they call them) are supposed to enhance your skill individually and as a team and supposed to be enjoyable, you are actually marked on that in your final practical exam and if you do not comply you will fail.

The 'worst' sides will rarely be improved much by better coaching; they'll improve because they go for pragmatism or somehow get new players in.

Sorry, i do not believe that.

As it happens, I would actually encourage Bored to do the L2 course;

So would I. The FA coaching courses have been overhauled since the days of Hughes and have taken alot of inspiration from the Dutch, the sad thing is that it is the same old coaches with the same old attitudes who treat it as a box ticking excersise.

He will find out new stuff and be able to apply it in his way, which is philosophically the right one.

His heart is in the right place, i'll admit that.

It strikes me as more the attitude of a busy bloke who's rightly not convinced by the results of the official route.

At no time has he said he was too busy to do the course, he refuses to do it becuase he thinks there is nothing in the coaching course that will broaden his football knowledge and his common sense will get him by.

He may be mistaken on this detail, but he doesn't strike me as arrogant.

Well he was pretty disparaging about a course he knows nothing about whilst claiming to know about the course content, boasting that his common sense is superior.

He wasn't too complimentary about "unqualified if enthusiastic PE coach" bearing in mind that that football coach would be more qualified than him.

Now he might be right, but I have yet to see proof of this.