I just want to see some strategy around this whole age group, connecting from below to 'above'. Does anyone recall what the status of Youth league will be when new national league is introduced?
2017 National Youth League
just have a table of 'completed passes'?
I don't believe I am saying that winning is not important, just that it is irrelevant to player development. Care about building players for world class leagues, that will grow the all whites longer term, and sustainability for the local game. Getting players into good global leagues as a matter of habit, rather than exception will yield player transfer and youth development fees back to NZ.
I just want to see some strategy around this whole age group, connecting from below to 'above'. Does anyone recall what the status of Youth league will be when new national league is introduced?
wasn't it goneburgers? the theory being that your top level club winter leagues (NRFL, Central, Mainland, Southern) will be stripped of any National League players so in theory youth will be introduced at that level?
I am saying that winning is not important, just that it is irrelevant to player development. Care about building players for world class leagues, that will grow the all whites longer term, and sustainability for the local game. Getting players into good global leagues as a matter of habit, rather than exception will yield player transfer and youth development fees back to NZ.
How does winning in itself teach players to be better?
I am saying that winning is not important, just that it is irrelevant to player development. Care about building players for world class leagues, that will grow the all whites longer term, and sustainability for the local game. Getting players into good global leagues as a matter of habit, rather than exception will yield player transfer and youth development fees back to NZ.
How does winning in itself teach players to be better?
I am saying that winning is not important, just that it is irrelevant to player development. Care about building players for world class leagues, that will grow the all whites longer term, and sustainability for the local game. Getting players into good global leagues as a matter of habit, rather than exception will yield player transfer and youth development fees back to NZ.
How does winning in itself teach players to be better?
Have you ever won anything? How did it make you feel? Did you want to strive hard to do it again?
familar with delayed gratification?
Its easy to teach kids to win. Put the big lad up front, hoof it to them. That's how we ended up with Watson, after all. Does that process grow good footballers?
Perhaps winning isn't the focus at all, but gaining technical competency?
What if focusing on kids to win involves screaming 'no' at them, if they dare to pass in front of goal?
How do they learn to pass out under pressure?
What if fear of losing encourages the goalkeeper to hoof it long everytime the ball comes near them?
Does that grow good footballers?
What if wanting to win is the easy bit, but gaining the skill to do so at a high level is the real journey?
The majority of all of this is taught at the grass roots and adolescent level - e.g. the retreating line and so forth. Winning is a massive part of any game otherwise we wouldn't keep score..? As a past player I did everything I could to win, that's why you see CB's going forward at the end and a desire to get the goal. This teaches players to understand what it takes and teaches them how to win with desperation.
I 100% support that the H2H rule should not be in effect - we need to teach attacking and positive football and this is shown through goals and goal difference over the season. A team can have a bad game one weekend or be missing a whole lot of players (NAGT for example) and end up loosing to the team that wins it despite a better goal difference - evident this year. If you teach attacking football - the standard of defending raises with it! Just ask any of the Canterbury players or even other teams if winning the National Youth League and being recognised isn't important - I'm sure they would tell you different.
familar with delayed gratification?
Its easy to teach kids to win. Put the big lad up front, hoof it to them. That's how we ended up with Watson, after all. Does that process grow good footballers?
Perhaps winning isn't the focus at all, but gaining technical competency?
What if focusing on kids to win involves screaming 'no' at them, if they dare to pass in front of goal?
How do they learn to pass out under pressure?
What if fear of losing encourages the goalkeeper to hoof it long everytime the ball comes near them?
Does that grow good footballers?
What if wanting to win is the easy bit, but gaining the skill to do so at a high level is the real journey?
My argument is on teaching kids "how to win" this is very different from teaching them to knock the ball forward to a big lump at every opportunity.
From memory you are involved in Wests / Ole. Having watched them develop over the last few years the difference this year in the success they have had is they have learnt "how" to win. They have learnt how to close down a game while still playing with the same ethos. You can still play to a plan but avoid an attack at all costs mentality.
It is all about them figuring out when it is right for the GK to hoof it long, or that it is not always appropriate to pass the ball out when under pressure.
Honestly, I think it very naive to think that Ole's primary goal was to win the central league last year, if the competitive tension was long term player development, that would have over rid winning that league.
Honestly parts of this thread could be seen as suggesting that the reason the all whites didn't win in Peru was because they didn't want to win enough, rather than a clear gap in skill levels.
Talent and skill wins games, not unrefined desire
SHit you are good at dragging crap out of left field deflecting away from the actual conversation
The majority of all of this is taught at the grass roots and adolescent level
I've been involved as a coach and parent in junior football for the past 8 years and I can categorically state this is far from the case. I've lost count of the amount of teams, coaches and parents I've come up against who are only interested in winning.
But at what point do you think we stop teaching players how to play and shift the focus to winning, or learning how to win as so many of you have stated ? Is it 14, 17, 21 or never ?
Given some of the comments on this thread it's no wonder we deify players like Sigmund and Reid and watch players as limited as Watson at the Phoenix.
As far as I can tell, there are people in this thread who believe that who "wins" a development league actually matters, rather than where players are at in a few years post their participation.
10000 hours, if you subscribe to that belief, will typically take place around age ~22.
Triple post whammy!