Things I find interesting after what was in Declans article:
"And you can't help but get the sense from some of the players they think they've made it by making the academy. The coaches do their best to stop that, but things can quite relaxed at some training without senior players to push things along."
"Their football education includes exposure to different formations and tactics. Each academy coach is given leeway to change things up depending on the opposition, which helps prepare players for the type of planning which goes in at the top level, while also expanding their knowledge of different systems."
First, its knocking on the head that you've made it by being in one of these academies. Then as pointed out by Napier Phoenix, it is good that they get taught different tactics and change for the team they are playing against rather than the one structure still which was the impression I got from Ole.
Is it different tactics, or just a different shape? Most teams in NZ play different shapes but similar tactics (direct, get it up to a big man, etc). Wests do different things depending on what the opposition do (looking for longer passes against a pressing team, full-backs don't push on as much against teams that leave men forward), but they are committed to a 1-4-3-3 shape because Declan Edge thinks its the best shape to use (and NZF seem to agree, see the WoF plan). There is absolutely an argument for using different shapes, like what happens when a kid who has played in a four-man defense their whole life is asked to play in a back three? But most NZ players are never asked to do that. As for a full-on commitment to possession football, if you are technically and mentally good enough to do that, then you will probably be able to adapt to a more direct style. Meanwhile, most Kiwi players can't do anything more than play hopelessly direct football.