New Zealand Men's U-17s

Agreed but our goal was route one. GK clearance, flicked on header, rogerson beat his man did well and set up mcgarry. Seems our defenders either don't know how to play into the midfield; or are under instructions not to.

I get a little bit intrigued by these comments, as they often pop-up after games like this (regardless of the age-group). It's much easier to play the ball on the ground and 'look better' when you're 5-0 behind at HT, and the opposition have already won the game and have literally no incentive to keep charging in and putting you under pressure.

Our biggest problem, at all levels, is that when pressure is on - or when the game is still in the balance - we can't pull the ground game off, and resort to the long ball. This is something that won't be rectified overnight, but is really a very long-term kind of shift that needs to happen. What the best vehicle for that is, I'm not sure - I have stated in the past that I'm not convinced by age-group football as a great pathway to developing quality footballers, but on the other hand we don't really have many other options either.

Anyway, rant over. If this was an actual rant, which I'm not all that sure it was.

Oh, and didn't meant to jump on you MLNZ, just that when a comment like that is made, it almost inevitably overlooks what (and why) the opposition is doing at that time.

looked through the squads and we have the equal tallest squad with Russia, with 13 boys of 1.80 m or taller.

We do have a one or two tiny ones, interestingly not the ones born in 99 though. France had some really big, strong professionals in their side, so up against a few smaller ones it did look a mismatch in places. But lets applaud France who play classy football across the whole park.

My concern is what appears to be the negative thinking of coaches... as mentioned earlier for all of our kick offs bar the last one we hit the corners straight away...

France could afford to push because they knew we'd kick it long, had we played and passed through them once or twice they would have sat back a little bit because they wouldn't want to create wholes in their shape for us to exploit etc.

Another example of us following instruction was how often we played back to the keeper at the expense of shifting it across the back line when players were free.

Knock it back and then push up and look for flick ons off the keeper.

We played knowing we were going to lose and were instructed as if to hold off the inevitable for as long as possible.

Guarantee that for the last game we will play a more attacking ball playing side when there is nothing left to lose / win which seems to be our standard approach at these age group games.

The news feed gave me a chuckle.

"NZ U-17s will be 'aggressive' in their U-17 Fifa World Cup opener with France"  Followed by "NZ U-17s thumped by France"

In the other match in our group, Paraguay beat Syria 4-1.

Import proper coaches.

They did. he was sacked. #alignment

I think long ball is the new #alignment...

Get aligned, it's "direct" football.

The frustrating thing once again is that our age group team have shown technical and tactical naivety.

France are european champions, demolished all that stood in front of them in the Euro qualifications and today especially in the first half (totally coasting in 2H) showed their class.

I understand their is an #alignment, I understand we want ALL our teams and players to play the same way, but surely the tactical nuances are just as important i.e. if your playing the Euro Champs (who dismantled Germany 4-1) why on earth would you press from the front? especially with a group of players of those who started today have only had 120mins of competitive international football under their belts??

In an opening game of the World Cup against one of the best teams in the world at your age group surely the sensible, smart and effective approach would have been to play on the break, use the speed/pace/trickery in the team (Rogerson, Probert, McGarry as shown in the goal), be defensively compact and frustrate the opposition? 

6-1 could have been 2/3-0 loss (I firmly believe that against that France side) and going into the final two more important games with a healthier goal difference...which is normally huge when deciding 2nd place in groups. I hope the boys dust themselves off and can step up against Syria (3points needed!) to gain momentum for final group game vs Paraguay.

The coaches came out saying "we would be aggressive & press high (naive - couldn't get close) and maintain possession better then any NZ team has done before (didn't see any glimpse of that today?)...lets hope they are not as naive in the next game and we can get some points on the board!

I know they're not popular, but well done to Sky for getting getting the missing minutes so they could show the entire game on the 5.30 replay.

Id rather we were less "aggressive" and lost by fewer...ie park bus.

Danny Hay and Chris Zoricich couldnt coach their way out of a wet paper bag. They have success at home because the respective setups they coach at attract the best players. Sharke coaches with the best players will still win. I have watched a number of both of their training sessions and they are both  doing things the way the rest of the world stopped doing 20 years ago. 

Sadly though they arent the root cause of this sort of loss, its our inability to produce extremely skilful and technically gifted players. Even the worlds best coach would still lose games with the quality of players we produce. We need world class junior coaches.

touchy subject but the u17's are still a continuation of our teams stacked full of white middle to upper class kids. I for some reason thought there was more cultural diversity in our younger age group teams. Given the schools Hay and Zoro are coaching at this is no surprise. 

Top footballers are top athletes. If be fascinated to know what the 100m and 20m sprint times are for the u17's vs say the back line of the school boy all blacks. Our players just look like kids with a good engine but limited pace. The clubs aren't attracting the different ethnicities so its up to the schools and development guys to find these kids in the schools who may not be in the academy structures at at Kents, MAGs etc. NZF need to address this asap as the pathway CANNOT just be through the clubs. 

Philosophically Id much rather see a young team trying to play than what I saw today. The coaches need to be telling the midfielders and AMs to show for the ball. They have to "want the ball". There's a big difference between players who are good "with the ball" and players who are good "without it". Watch our guys, they run very straight lines and don't demand the ball. It's a philisophical thing. Sure they will make the odd mistake but that's better than just running for 90 mins and hardly touching the ball because either as a midfielder the ball is going over your head or into the corners. Just tell the kids to "want the ball", "want it back" and move!!! 

Success at schoolboy level - meh. However if your assessment is accurate - and I note it's been backed by a couple of thises (sp?) - then it begs the question: are they Hudson's men (they don't seem to align to Hudson's talk regarding style of play); or are they actually a coupe of ex All Whites who happen to have schoolboy coaching gigs and were convenient after Hudson fell out with Figueira, who on the face of it would seem far more aligned to the modern coaching approach that Hudson espouses? And why the fall out I wonder?

As to your second point - sure but that requires a 10 year commitment to a long term vision. When has that ever happened in this country? Look at Welnix frustration on the license.

In terms of preparation, this team have had no chance. They changed coaches mid stream, they only were able to gather completely on the Thursday before they flew out on Tuesday, they were only announced on the Sunday before they flew, played only 2 local games together and then 2 in Chile, and started with a back 4 that had only played together once. The captain Mata did not play( dropped?) and then had to face the champions of Europe, who went unbeaten in the whole campaign leading up to it. There were issues of eligibility surrounding an unknown number of the players, and the coaches could not settle on any squad until these were finalised, some as late as the weekend before they flew.

France were outstanding, but l will pass judgement after the next two games as they will have at least had a game together now and be preparing for Syria and Paraguay knowing what they are up against.

Stop making sense and berate the team / coaches like the rest of us!!

Majority come from private schools or academies where money counts more than application

A very good point.

The great Brian Glanville said the same thing regarding English national teams recently in "World Soccer" magazine:

http://www.worldsoccer.com/columnists/brian-glanvi...

"Meanwhile it now appears that the FA’s new technical guru wants to impose the same pattern of play at every international level. Shades of the ineffable Charlie Hughes and his attempt to implement a new, if anachronistic, long ball orthodoxy.

Nothing quite as stringent or retrograde is now proposed and it was somewhat significant that in what proved their final game against the Italians [in the Euro u-21 finals, after scoring one goal in their previous two group games] England used Ings up front beside Harry Kane, who had previously been deployed there on his own."

Battle for the wooden spoon in the group - NZ or Syria?

Syria have done well just to make the finals considering all the problems in their country and problems the team and players have had to face.

But they won't be as strong with their one outstanding player and captain Mohammed Jaddou now a refugee in Germany.

http://www.worldsoccer.com/features/football-in-sy...

A player was killed in the Syrian conflict on the eve of the AFC finals.

In the AFC u-16 Finals last year, Syria were lucky to get out of their group after drawing with Qatar and the Saudis by upsetting group winners Iran in their final group game after Iran had already qualified as group winners for the quarters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_AFC_U-16_Champi...

Syria beat Uzbekistan 5-2 in their quarter with Jaddou influential but were thrashed 7-1 in the semi by South Korea with Jaddou suspended. 

The AFC final qualifying rankings: 1. North Korea 2. South Korea 3. Australia 4. Syria

In their only previous u-17 finals appearance in 2007, Syria drew with Argentina, lost narrowly to Spain and beat Honduras before going out 3-1 to England in the Round of 16. But things were much more stable in Syria then, so there's no comparison with the current team's situation.

huh?

This is an important and difficult issue that you highlight.  Here is the problem, football is increasingly becoming the domain of the middle class.  Its becoming a sport where having parents with a decent disposable income means you have a better chance of progressing. 

It starts early, as junior players kids who have parents who can afford to send their kids to paid skills academies etc get a head start.  Also because players now need to very early be in the "streamed" teams they are training far more than they did 20 years ago. its not uncommon for a really good 9 year old to be training 4 times a week. So the kids who have parents who have a decent disposable income and the ability to ferry these kids from training to training have an advantage.

As the players get older there are more demands on parents ability to pay for more academies, federation training and then school or club tournaments and trips. Add on that kids who are involved from 8 or 9 onwards in the higher end of their age groups are also having to spend more on gear, its not unusual for kids to have a couple of pairs of boots per season. Gear bags, training tops, playing strips, playing boots, tracksuits etc etc all add layers of cost and over time it makes it more and more difficult for those on average or lower incomes to provide for their kids footballing costs. Add in when some families have 2 or more kids playing.

The days of kids being able to become top footballers from street football are virtually over.

The cost of becoming a decent player is drifting away from the working classes.

Disagree. Me and my mates played five-a-side with a tennis ball on on concrete at school from age 10 morning playtime, lunchtime, after school and by the time we were playing rep football 5 years later our touch not to say fitness plus awareness was better than nearly every kid I've seen at the last 3 ACFC National U-17 tourneys. The only 'gear' we needed was tennis shoes/netball boots. 

[/quote]

Disagree. Me and my mates played five-a-side with a tennis ball on on concrete at school from age 10 morning playtime, lunchtime, after school and by the time we were playing rep football 5 years later our touch not to say fitness plus awareness was better than nearly every kid I've seen at the last 3 ACFC National U-17 tourneys. The only 'gear' we needed was tennis shoes/netball boots. 

[/quote]

Im not saying its not possible but I am saying its much more difficult. If what you are saying with respect to your ability compared with todays kids is true, then that  would be an exception.   How old are you?. I would bet that you are 30 or older guessed from the comments regarding football on a tennis court with a tennis ball.

94 and 1/4 :)

PS Two of us went on to play for NZ, one of whom trialled aged 17 for West Ham and was told he was 'good as their 15 yr-olds so now too old!.'

Let me rephrase for clarity.

The old truth of people being able to put a couple of jumpers on the ground for goals and play football whenever they want is still true.

If you think for even half a second that this in todays scene would be sufficient for the majority to end up as a top level player then you are horribly out of touch.

The cost to parents of their kids playing football and being involved in the various systems to get to the top is more than it was just 20 years ago. It is still very possible for working class families to get their kids to the top but its now become easier if you can afford all the things that go with playing at the top.

There were three points I was trying to make- 1) is the socio demographics of the team. They do not represent NZ's multicultural society. The pathway is biased towards kids whose parents can afford for them to attend the academies and pay the subs/boots etc for clubs. For some people $150 for subs and $100 for boots/socks etc plus the cost of transport to games and practices is a lot of money. Rugby subs are cheaper from what I see. We need more Maori and Polynesian players like Bill T and Winston. Many of the ethnicities don't join clubs but just play their own leagues. In Auckland some very good players play indoor and summer football and I have never seen them playing club football. The pathway is too prescriptive- we have to widen the net.

2) the players picked do not appear to be naturally athletic. Again Winston and Bill are great athletes. Football requires speed. Our players are not athletic enough. Again this comes back to the type of player we are producing and developing. NZF need to promote Bill and Winston to the Maori and Polynesian base and maybe seek SPARC funding to increase their participation. 

3) the alignment gig is up. The Emperor does in fact have no clothes on and he knows we know that!  We can probably agree on 1 and 2 above but 3 will always be a philosophical thing about performance v result. I respect both sides but hate seeing  team playing crap football also lose heavily. You many as well try and play if you are going to go down.

I think to jump to conclusions about how athletic they are is absurd after one game against the likely worrld champions. I chatted to the strength and conditioning coach at one of the schools that supply players to this team and to the NZ schools rugby team , and the footballers are right up there with the rugby players in terms of testing results . The issue he says is the schools control the rugby players and their programmes , but the footballers are pulled in every direction with club , rep and school demanding their bit . He says the result is over trained athletes and this diminishes their output .

Those French players looked more athletic than the Auckland City players the 17s played before they left , not surprising some have million euro plus fees already paid for them. Let's judge after the next two games 

I think the point around athleticism extends to all the NZF rep teams. 

The fact the u17's played the best team in the comp is irrelevant as to whether the u17's have the necessary athleticism. They weren't just the second best technically or tactically on the pitch but they simply weren't as sharp. So I have to disagree. No one is singling out the u17's per se as they are merely representative of all NZF men's teams. 

We still seem to be producing a conveyer belt of players who resemble the Tim Paynes, Tim Browns, Jeremy Christies of his world - midfielders who can run all day but are not sharp enough or technical enough to enable us to move the ball at pace. And I'm struggling to see where the next Chris Wood, Chris Killen is in the next group. We seem obsessed with playing AMs up front.

A few things...

While football can be an expensive participation sport for youngsters in New Zealand it doesn't necessarily have to be.

1. You don't have to be part of the FTC/NTC structure to represent your country - despite what the Federations are telling junior players and their parents. There's a bit of a history building of youth players who invest hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars into FTC/NTC only to find themselves nowhere near good enough to make an age group team when better players walk in from academies or clubs last minute and take the places. FTC and NTC seem for the most part to be more about cost-recovery and less about talent identification, otherwise why would the 'National Talent Centre' be restricted to ONLY those paying FTC players? 

2.  Lack of money isn't necessarily an issue if you have talent.  Do you honestly think a smart club will let a highly talented youngster walk away just because they can't pay their subs ? Fee write-offs do happen all the time. Private schools literally fall over themselves here in Auckland to snap-up the most talented youngsters  - Sacred Heart and St Kents both spring to mind as examples this year - both picking up a number of players from other schools with the lure of scholarships (and also no doubt using the carrot of having the current NZ U17 coaches). Wynrs sourced significant amounts of funds annually to advance under privileged kids in the sport.

And then you've got the parents who are constantly 'shopping' their kids around for the best deals.

Agree with the points you make about FTC/NTC. The current 17s have many who went other routes and it did not hamper their progress.

One thing we should also consider in terms of the choices young kids make in NZ, particularly our Polynesian players, is the pathways for rugby and league are so much easier and available. By comparison , the pathways to careers through football are so limited down here.

Are they... rugby still has set school you go to if you want to be noticed (HBHS) etc and players picked in the variety of different representative sides are normally looked at first... but there is not guarantee they are the best players.

There is also still a $$ component attached as well.

Athleticism is important and can give an edge... Polynesians and Maori are natural athletes and have huge potential. Perhaps NZF needs to look at ways of engaging their communities through funding schemes?

Okay.  So if it's not athleticism or a lack of inclusion maybe it goes back to what many said at the time and it's the coaches...

So what was the real reason behind Jose leaving?

Speaking of coaches, Tony Vidmar's Joeys have just drawn 0-0 with Mexcio, who beat Argentina 2-0 a couple of days ago. Vidmar has been head coach at AIS with all the facilities and sports science he wants on tap, a consistent programme of regular league and international competition in place; as well as his own considerable experience. Seriously, I do sometimes wish we could co-operate a whole lot more with Aussie than we currently do.

It's a bit of everything. 

We don't have the depth of players and with rugby a dominant sport we don't always get the best athletes, the level of coaching is not as high and deep and the technical ability of our players is not consistent. This all means that our players when going through the local age group leagues are not consistently put under pressure/properly scrutinised, so when they are their technique starts to fail or their composure goes. 

All we can do is try and improve areas we can control.

Obvious statement is obvious.