Anthony Hudson (FAT Technical Director | Thailand)

Given the number of Icelandic (sp?) players in the Scandy leagues it does beg the question why Hudson doesn't pick anyone playing there... 

I have been pretty vocal in at least giving Keat a run. I rate him as he is the type of player that wants/demands the ball and has a good passing range. I don't know enough about Henderson (other than his list of injuries). Old - well I think its best not to undermine the credibility of looking at Scandy based players by including him. We have enough players of better ability in the current squad. It's Keats omission I don't get. 

He was asked that on radio sports (or at least about Keat) directly after the OFC Nations Cup. 

He basically said that Keat is a solid professional, and a good player, and has also played for the AW's under Hudson. But that because of the Olympics they prioritised a squad of under 23 players as they will get more game time together and more face time with Hudson as it takes time to cement his system. Of course, he seemed to conveniently forget that that plan is gone because we didn't qualify for the Olympics and he doesn't get any time with the players and therefore played long ball which didn't suit the youngsters...

I assume many NZ clubs have already done this... but the position you talk of is also common in Australia at local park level teams...

At my club, we approached 3 over 35 players who themselves were certified coaches to run monthly a coaching course. So a typical season would go for say 6 months if pre season is added.

Each player would take certain coaches i.e U 6 to u 9, U 10 to U 12, and U 13 to U 16.

They would once a month run a coaching course for coaches, we found on balance it was supported, appreciated and had a good effect... of course their were issues at times and some people struggle to hear someone say something different to how they coach but on balace worked very well...

Hope it helps and I am sure some NZ would also do this. 

I did the NZF Level One course in Ch-Ch and thought most of it was terrible. 

It ran for 4 hours and only in the last 30mins when we went outside (and had to turn the floodlights on) did I get anything of practical use. 

For 3 1/2 hours we sat around and occasionally split into small groups coming up with answers to gems such as 'What qualities does a good coach have?'

The worst bit was when for 30 mins we were given a large piece of butchers paper and told to draw what a good coach looks like and specific features of said coach. For instance the coach should have large ears, because you know a good coach is a good listener. He should also wear a watch because a good coach is a good time keeper. 

We had 4 groups of about 3-4 people actually physically drawing stick figures with accessories like watches and whistles, and big ears etc...

Just complete drivel like that...

I'd greatly prefer a small section of theory, maybe an hour of the four and then actual drills to run, why they're run, lessons from each etc etc.

Looks like the All Whites where aligned to this at the OFC. I imagine a group of players drawing stick figures remembering what they told when they are five years old: Remember where your own goal is, boot the ball into the opposite direction when ever you can.

Note to myself: I should stop posting sarcastic comments in this section. Yes the performance was horrible and I lost all faith in the coach. Looks like that won't change before the team actually fails for the WC. I have to sit this out and support our players, who are not at fault for all this. I have to calm down, the Phoenix will have a great season and other national team I support is doing pretty well.

Some chat in here about the course. http://www.yellowfever.co.nz/categories/coaching-chat/topics

Level one if definitely a basics 101 and is kinda assumes no one knows anything. Level 2 is much better.

Do you have to do level 1 first or can you just go straight into level 2?

Ive done every coaching course available in NZ and have done them all twice.  I havent attended one course I thought was terrible. 

The vitally important thing with the early coaching courses is that there is a need to understand how to teach/coach.  Its great to have some football knowledge but how to coach is just as important long term as what is coached.

Whenever i have attended junior coaching courses there are always some attending  who look down there noses at whats being coached, they already think they know it all and usually couple up with some other big noter and quietly mock whats being done.

None of the stuff you mention relative to a level one coaching course is drivel. Its the same sort of approach all sports have for their respective courses for beginner level. try attending a junior rugby course and you get the exact same approach. I have done coaching courses via SPARC and GACU and they do the exact same thing. If you think its drivel then your ego has got control of your brain and isnt allowing you to think with any hint of intelligence.

There will be people on the coaching course who have never coached at all or have no knowledge of football. The courses at this level need to cater to a wide diversity of people and their varying knowledge and understanding so its perfectly natural and normal for them to be in many ways simplistic. 

These courses are based around worldwide best practice, proven suitability and research.

Judging by your response in this thread I would hate to have you as a coach or have you coach my kids. You lack the empathy to understand that these junior/beginner courses have to cater to everyone from experienced ex player to first time involvement in any sort of sport.

Its an interesting and important question.

There will be plenty who do the level one who could quite easily move straight to the level 2 course. They have enough base knowledge and understanding to do it.

However the whole process needs to work for everyone and there also needs to be transparency across all areas of coach education.

I attended a senior level 3 course a number of years ago. One of those attending the course was an ex international. The course was broken up into 3 blocks of 1 week each. At the first block this former player was one of those attending as a candidate like the rest of us.

At the 2nd week he was one of the coaching staff on the course. It was plainly wrong. 

There is also another bonus to doing all the coaching courses, even  if you are already familiar with the material and content. You get to meet and mingle with other coaches. You get to watch how they do things here new thoughts and ideas and you make connections. All valuable things so even if you find the course simplistic the new connections can be invaluable in your development as a coach. If anyone ever attends a course they are finding to be filled with things they already know they should divert some attention and energy into trying to learn from others on the course, either by observation or by conversation.

Thanks for the lovely reply...nothing like a personal attack..

There were first time coaches there and to a man (and woman) they found that piece especially grating. You have a bunch of grown adults drawing a stick figure with big ears - I mean really?

I said above some of the theory was fine, but it was in my opinion too heavily weighted on theory, and the 30 mins at the end most of the people found the most valuable as it was able to be immediately used in their next training session.

Maybe these courses are best suited to someone who likes sitting at desk for hours listening to someone speak.

I didn't look down my nose, and I definately don't know it all - i desperately wanted some skills and drills to teach. I have played football for 37 years and think i have a half a clue but it's a different situation when faced with 9-10 yr olds, you need drills to run, skills to teach and explanations for why you;re teaching it.

Every coaching course TWICE and ones run by SPARC and GACU? Is that you Mr Parris? You sound like my 5th Form maths teacher who obtained licenses for a hobby...

Sorry if these have already been posted

http://www.radiolive.co.nz/How-does-All-Whites-coach-Anthony-Hudson-respond-to-criticism/tabid/506/articleID/124156/Default.aspx

http://www.radiolive.co.nz/All-Whites-skipper-Winston-Reid---is-there-a-rift-in-the-team/tabid/506/articleID/124155/Default.aspx

This comes across as fairly harsh- it's the most frustrating thing in the world to be stuck in a classroom when you just want to get out on the football field. Something that has featured in a lot of our childhoods I'd imagine.

That said coaching is a lot of player management, group dynamics and so on. Though what we are mostly talking about on this thread and what seems to be a major deficiency in NZ is technique and skill.

On a related note kicked around on a great modern turf today, compared to some of the cheaper ones. If kids were playing and training on these kind of surfaces throughout winter that could only help. I remember playing on some terrible fields as a kid.

I don't think there's a problem with starting at the very basics of coaching for a level 1 course but from what I took away from Dougie's post the issue was more about the delivery of that content than the content itself.

Err can we get back on top please. There is a whole sub forum for coaching stuff.

Hudson out

"Being used to the cooler weather" doesn't have anything to do whether a coach is any good ...

Get rid of Hudson and Martin and bring in a dozen Icelandic coaches imo.

Would these do ?

Bevan, are you familiar with dry humour? "Cooler" & Icelandic.......

So we're the best mover in the new update of the FIFA World Rankings. We're now 93rd, going up 54 positions.

New Caledonia is much better than PNG, they just had a good tournament that's all. Although I do admit the FIFA Rankings aren't that good anyway.

2012/2013 still counting in New Caledonia's favour. Not much in placings between the 2 countries at the moment, those old results being the difference.

How can you take seriously a ranking in which American Samoa and the Cook Islands are better ranked than Tahiti, Fiji, Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands just for beating each other and Tonga?

Hudson should change the formation of the All whites. Currently we play 3-5-2. I reckon 4-3-3 would be the best, this formation would be great we can have kosta and rojas on the wing with their pace, tuiloma sitting above the defensive and 2 cm with could be mike and patterson. Defensive could be the same with roux-reis-themi-colvey/wyne.

because it comes from FIFA and they use it to determine seedings etc

also American Samoa & cooks may not be going up because they beat each other, it is done over a 5 year period so it may be a bad result dropping off that puts them up

Its definately not a great system, but its the one that FIFA use and it doesn't look like it will change any time soon

The only matches both those teams have played since 2012 are from the OFC Nations Cup qualification tournament. Seriously, check it out. But as FIFA rankings are an average from all the matches you have played, Samoa, as the winner of  that tournament, is behind them for loosing to Tahiti, NC and PNG. Is doesn't make sense at all. Maybe for better teams is a little more accurate, but for Oceanian teams (except maybe NZ) is shark.

I love the headline that Hudson is making a name for himself. Reading these forums, it isn't a good one.

What do you expect from the Dail Heil? They even picked the wrong side in WWII.

Just watched that Stuff interview with Hudson about the October fixtures and could not help but notice that he's put on weight.  

I'm guessing he's developed a soft spot for the one thing I miss from home, a good kiwi Steak and Cheese pie!!!

I'm guessing it's the fact that he trains with the team only once every two years.

So Hudson applied for, and is on the short list of, the ccm job...