Coaching/Mark Wotte/Dutch system

[craigkillie]

These were not Performance Schools in the same sense that the current ones are. They were loose arrangements which allowed already signed players to attend specific schools which allowed them to spend more time on their football. Even if you include those, if the very oldest graduates (of which there aren't very many) are 24 years old then how can you possibly judge "match performances" based on it?

[Malky3]

57 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

These were not Performance Schools in the same sense that the current ones are. They were loose arrangements which allowed already signed players to attend specific schools which allowed them to spend more time on their football. Even if you include those, if the very oldest graduates (of which there aren't very many) are 24 years old then how can you possibly judge "match performances" based on it?

That's not true. The schools held open trials. Many of the kids they took on were already in the pro youth programme, but that was not a recruitment criteria. The only discernible difference between the programmes is back then the successful applicants got their own taxi costs paid for them to ferry them back and forward to school. These days they have to share a taxi with multiple pick ups. 

If it's been so successful where are the graduates? 5 players in the last Scotland squad were young enough to have come through the programme - not one did. 

[craigkillie]

The "School of Football" scheme, which was much less focused on elite performance and more on encouraging general participation in football - there was much more of an emphasis on the social and academic benefits to the children rather than a explicit focus on elite performance. It may have provided the inspiration for the Performance Schools, but it didn't have anything like the same sort of collective framework behind it and was much less of an integral part of the SFA's youth development programme. The idea that the only difference is who pays for taxis is ludicrous.

Pretty much every Scotland age group squad up to U19s is now packed with Performance School players, and I'd expect a lot of them to filter into the U21s soon. None of this is evidence that the programme works, but we aren't likely to know that for about another 6 or 7 years at most.

 

 

[woof!]

On 21/09/2019 at 10:33, craigkillie said:

The "School of Football" scheme, which was much less focused on elite performance and more on encouraging general participation in football - there was much more of an emphasis on the social and academic benefits to the children rather than a explicit focus on elite performance. It may have provided the inspiration for the Performance Schools, but it didn't have anything like the same sort of collective framework behind it and was much less of an integral part of the SFA's youth development programme. The idea that the only difference is who pays for taxis is ludicrous.

Pretty much every Scotland age group squad up to U19s is now packed with Performance School players, and I'd expect a lot of them to filter into the U21s soon. None of this is evidence that the programme works, but we aren't likely to know that for about another 6 or 7 years at most.

 

 

This is the truth of the matter. I am fairly long in the tooth and from the 80s up I’ve never seen youth players (i.e. our u17-18s) capable of dealing with the ball the way they can now. It doesn’t automatically mean they’ll be great players, but not being able to deal with the ball does guarantee you won’t.

[Malky3]

On 21/09/2019 at 10:33, craigkillie said:

The "School of Football" scheme, which was much less focused on elite performance and more on encouraging general participation in football - there was much more of an emphasis on the social and academic benefits to the children rather than a explicit focus on elite performance. It may have provided the inspiration for the Performance Schools, but it didn't have anything like the same sort of collective framework behind it and was much less of an integral part of the SFA's youth development programme. The idea that the only difference is who pays for taxis is ludicrous.

Pretty much every Scotland age group squad up to U19s is now packed with Performance School players, and I'd expect a lot of them to filter into the U21s soon. None of this is evidence that the programme works, but we aren't likely to know that for about another 6 or 7 years at most.

Come off it Craig, it wasn't about encouraging general participation. There was approx 20 places in each of the 6 schools, trials were held, the coaches selected the lads they thought were best off the back of two trial sessions, and the kids that were successful were offered a place at the school. Then those kids got time off classes to go soak in a swimming pool on a Monday, and time off classes to practice football. The rest of the school didn't enjoy those benefits. It was as elitist as it gets, and you are absolutely deluding yourself if you think it was about general participation. 

As for us not knowing the results for another 6 or 7 years - it's funny - I heard Mark Wotte say exactly the same thing, using exactly the same timescales when he took the job of Performance Director in 2011. 8 years on we're watching rancid international performances and we're even further away from qualifying for major international competition than we ever were under Berti Vogts and George Burley - and that's despite the number of qualifiers being increased. And here you say we're still 6 or 7 years ago from knowing if elite development at schools and at clubs works. 

On 22/09/2019 at 15:14, woof! said:

This is the truth of the matter. I am fairly long in the tooth and from the 80s up I’ve never seen youth players (i.e. our u17-18s) capable of dealing with the ball the way they can now. It doesn’t automatically mean they’ll be great players, but not being able to deal with the ball does guarantee you won’t.

Part of me wants to agree with you. I think I'm probably a bit older than you and having played as a kid and having been a parent, and now grandparent to kids who play football there is a notable difference in the way kids are coached these days. In my day training generally meant being ran to the point of throwing up and you taught yourself skills and tricks on the street, in the garden, or at the parks playing with your mates. Today's kids do far more ball work even at the lowest levels in grassroots football and to an extent I'd agree with what you are saying about youngsters being capable of dealing with the ball in a way that many, including me, couldn't back then. 

However then I consider the respective international squads. Would I rather have Miller, McLeish, Narey, Gough and Hansen to pick from, or McKenna, Hanley, Cooper, Bates and Mulgrew? Would I rather have McGinn, McGregor, and McTominay or Souness, Bremner, Wark, Strachan and Hartford? Would I rather have Griffiths, McBurnie, Phillips and Russell, or Dalglish, McCoist, Nicholas, Johnston, and Jordan? And would I rather have Morgan, Fraser, and Forrest, or the likes of Davie Cooper, Davie Provan, John Robertson, Jimmy Johnstone and Archie Gemmill? 

For me the whole Pro Youth and Football Academy nonsense has been an expensive drain on resources. There are far too many players in the "pro youth", "elite development" set up, most of whom will never make it as footballers. Yet the game funds an inordinate amount of paid "development" coaches - most of whom are in position because of who they know, rather than on merit. 

The SFA is very good at spending big on the top of the pyramid. We've dipped it in gold and encrusted it in diamonds, but what seems to have been forgotten is that what makes a pyramid tower above the rest is the number of building blocks you put in place from the foundations up. 

 

[Burnie_man]

Two performance school "pupils" in the U21 squad announced yesterday. Magennis and Billy Gilmour.

 

 

[Gordopolis]

4 hours ago, Burnie_man said:

Two performance school "pupils" in the U21 squad announced yesterday. Magennis and Billy Gilmour.

 

 

Gilmour and Kelly.

Tsk!

[Burnie_man]

1 hour ago, Gordopolis said:

Gilmour and Kelly.

Tsk!

Whooops, twas past my bedtime..........that's my excuse.

[woof!]

On 24/09/2019 at 02:42, Malky3 said:

Come off it Craig, it wasn't about encouraging general participation. There was approx 20 places in each of the 6 schools, trials were held, the coaches selected the lads they thought were best off the back of two trial sessions, and the kids that were successful were offered a place at the school. Then those kids got time off classes to go soak in a swimming pool on a Monday, and time off classes to practice football. The rest of the school didn't enjoy those benefits. It was as elitist as it gets, and you are absolutely deluding yourself if you think it was about general participation. 

As for us not knowing the results for another 6 or 7 years - it's funny - I heard Mark Wotte say exactly the same thing, using exactly the same timescales when he took the job of Performance Director in 2011. 8 years on we're watching rancid international performances and we're even further away from qualifying for major international competition than we ever were under Berti Vogts and George Burley - and that's despite the number of qualifiers being increased. And here you say we're still 6 or 7 years ago from knowing if elite development at schools and at clubs works. 

Part of me wants to agree with you. I think I'm probably a bit older than you and having played as a kid and having been a parent, and now grandparent to kids who play football there is a notable difference in the way kids are coached these days. In my day training generally meant being ran to the point of throwing up and you taught yourself skills and tricks on the street, in the garden, or at the parks playing with your mates. Today's kids do far more ball work even at the lowest levels in grassroots football and to an extent I'd agree with what you are saying about youngsters being capable of dealing with the ball in a way that many, including me, couldn't back then. 

However then I consider the respective international squads. Would I rather have Miller, McLeish, Narey, Gough and Hansen to pick from, or McKenna, Hanley, Cooper, Bates and Mulgrew? Would I rather have McGinn, McGregor, and McTominay or Souness, Bremner, Wark, Strachan and Hartford? Would I rather have Griffiths, McBurnie, Phillips and Russell, or Dalglish, McCoist, Nicholas, Johnston, and Jordan? And would I rather have Morgan, Fraser, and Forrest, or the likes of Davie Cooper, Davie Provan, John Robertson, Jimmy Johnstone and Archie Gemmill? 

For me the whole Pro Youth and Football Academy nonsense has been an expensive drain on resources. There are far too many players in the "pro youth", "elite development" set up, most of whom will never make it as footballers. Yet the game funds an inordinate amount of paid "development" coaches - most of whom are in position because of who they know, rather than on merit. 

The SFA is very good at spending big on the top of the pyramid. We've dipped it in gold and encrusted it in diamonds, but what seems to have been forgotten is that what makes a pyramid tower above the rest is the number of building blocks you put in place from the foundations up. 

 

Yes, but the current players you mention did not go through the Performance Schools. The oldest one is 19.  It’s that age and under that needs to be judged.

[Ross.]

On 24/09/2019 at 03:42, Malky3 said:

watching rancid international performances and we're even further away from qualifying for major international competition than we ever were under Berti Vogts and George Burley

Under Vogts we were 90 minutes from qualifying, before the Netherlands thoroughly dismantled us in the play off game over there.

Right now we are in the play offs for the next Euros, thanks to the nations league.

[Gordopolis]

36 minutes ago, Ross. said:

Under Vogts we were 90 minutes from qualifying, before the Netherlands thoroughly dismantled us in the play off game over there.

Right now we are in the play offs for the next Euros, thanks to the nations league.

Thanks to Alex McLeish

[craigkillie]

Under Burley, our only chance of qualifying was to win our last game at home to the Netherlands in order to maybe scrape into not being the worst runner-up so that we could get a play-off place. We already have a play-off place now.

[Ross.]

1 minute ago, Gordopolis said:

Thanks to Alex McLeish

I'd say in spite of McLeish, but that's irrelevant in this discussion. The point is we are not really that much further from qualification  than we were under Vogts.

[DiegoDiego]

Also worth noting that the amount of nations that qualify for the Euros has substantially increased since Vogts' time.

[Burnie_man]

9 performance school graduates in the U19 squad.

[Binos]

56 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

9 performance school graduates in the U19 squad.

And yet some at the sfa want it scrapped

[Stellaboz]

Thanks to Alex McLeish

Despite McLeish in fairness.

[Savage Henry]

And yet some at the sfa want it scrapped

Do they? Other than red tops spinning things in that way, I’m not convinced. There’s a world of difference between performance review and scrapping the whole thing.

The Under 19s have a dinosaur as a coach, so having 9 “graduates” is neither here nor there. Would those nine players be in the squad despite the system?

[DukDukGoose]

On 22/09/2019 at 15:14, woof! said:

This is the truth of the matter. I am fairly long in the tooth and from the 80s up I’ve never seen youth players (i.e. our u17-18s) capable of dealing with the ball the way they can now. It doesn’t automatically mean they’ll be great players, but not being able to deal with the ball does guarantee you won’t.

They learn how to look after the ball. then they make it to first team level and are told to play it long or spend most the game watching the ball fly over their heads.

[BukyOHare]

We can discuss the merits of coaching this way or that, keeping possession, formations or playing long "passes".

The truth is that for too long Scottish players have made a simple game look very very difficult.

Everything's done too slowly, deliberately and safety first.

Possession's all good and well but there has to be a purpose to it, there have to be players in advance of the person with the ball and options for that player as well.

Sadly tonight's game will in all likelihood, give some sort of indication of where we are lacking.

You need players who have the football knowledge, confidence and ability to know where to be two or three passes away from where the ball should be, for too long the tempo of play is too slow and deliberate, the opposition can quickly deal with a ball upto a lone striker, we need tempo and a general liveliness to how we play the game.

Scoring goals should be equally about whats done when you have the ball but also what attacking players do when they haven't got the ball, whether it be an off the ball run or unselfish movement that creates opportunities to score.

On that note, most of the failings for me seemed to be around the mid 90s when teams began playing with one person up front in favour of packing the midfield.

Let's get back to playing with two out and out strikers and letting the opposition worry about us, rather than the other way round.

Pro youth players generally spend more time passing to cones and running round mannequins than actually gaining match related experiences. It's generally pass, pass, pass but with no end product or purpose.

They become robotic and predictable footballers. Thats not going to benefit them as players or the country as a whole.

Edited October 10, 2019 by BukyOHare