By The Bear
October 11th 2008 @ 12:20am
Loading ...Baan’s last rites for the FFA
After being underwhelmed by The Graham Arnold Olyroo’s Finishing School, that was the Beijing Games, I opined that the FFA served the bad china in the wash-up. And now it appears that Baan has poured the tea.
Let’s hope that it is strong enough. And hot enough.
Congratulations must go to the FFA for appointing a Technical Director. It took some time, but the FFA actually did it.
Rob Baan has done his job, a small cameo role with long-term ramifications. Like most foreign imports, he stayed, kicked a few goals, and now is set to leave.
The poor retention is a shame, especially from a well credentialed and decently performing (albeit temporary) member of Football Federation Australia.
One of the last actions of his tenure was to compile an analysis of the Olympic Campaign. Heaven knows whether there was always going to be a report. But we got one.
So whilst Graham Arnold kept a low profile for the remainder of the Olympics, Baan was sweating over a smoggy keyboard, earning his guilders.
However, what was released to the public was never going to be the official report in it’s entirety. That much were be told.
One footballing website labelled it “College Street Confidential”, in reference to a sort of cops and robbers gangster-styled movie.
Being a board paper, it was privy only to Board Members, much to the disappointment of the PFA even.
The mood was that what we, Australian football fans, sharing stakeholders of this country’s footballing future, were not going to see the FFA being open and inclusive - or at least upholding the perception of translucent due process.
So if you missed it, the report is now in.
And the “media release” that was forthcoming for this report went something like this: well. it is very hard to find, so how about this, thanks to Matthew Hall.
It did get some media attention, usually from pundits that were looking for it. But don’t expect to find it on the FFA website.
It snuck into the media world with a tiptoe. It was duly avoided by anxious media sectors, which probably believed the “hush-up” was for the good of the game.
Find it if you can. It’s brief, and there is some mention of the Djite-Burns omission, too.
The main message was Australia simply “wasn’t good enough”. So who, or what, exactly was not good enough? And why? And what is now being be done about it?
In any case, I hope the real Baan Report had more to it.
And I hope the Board learn from the criticism.
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(26)
We were talking about the important things in life, mainly sport.
~~~~~~~~ KB
dasilva said | October 11th 2008 @ 10:38am | Report comment
The Bear I think you find a little bit more comprehensive article on THe Sydney Morning Herald titled Baan’s Olyroos verdict: Baan’s Olyroos verdict: we’re years behind rivals
AUSTRALIA’S Beijing Games football campaign flopped because the Olyroos simply “were not good enough”.
That’s the official verdict from Rob Baan, Football Federation Australia’s technical director, the expert veteran Dutch coach charged with overseeing all aspects of football across the country.
Baan’s bruising analysis is the first comment from FFA officials following an Olympic campaign that resulted in Australia being bundled out of the tournament without a win and just one goal in a group that included eventual tournament winner Argentina, Serbia and the Ivory Coast.
“In general, too many people in Australia underestimated the quality of the opponents,” Baan said. “But we were just not good enough.
“The difference [was clear] when we lost against Ivory Coast. Solomon Kalou made an unbelievable goal and Nikita Rukavytsya had two or three chances and didn’t score.
“But you can’t blame either Rukavytsya or [coach Graham Arnold] for not scoring because that is just the difference in level of the competition and education.
“We need another four or eight years to match with these countries - even the Ivory Coast, even Nigeria.”
In a wide-ranging interview, Baan said the media and public criticism directed at Arnold for omitting Bruce Djite and Nathan Burns from his squad was “fair”. But Arnold, he added, had been assured striker Archie Thompson would be fit enough to carry the team’s goal-scoring burden.
Thompson didn’t finish the first match against Serbia and limped out of the second group game - and the tournament - with an ankle injury.
“I think that criticism of Djite and Burns not being included was acceptable but, as a coach, you will often have to make a choice between players with very little difference,” Baan said.
“Graham was totally responsible for that choice and he was focusing on the scoring ability of Thompson. It just didn’t work out because Thompson could not get fit enough.
“At the time, he took that selection decision completely convinced that Thompson could do the job. The medical [department] gave him all the information that Thompson would be all right.”
Baan said the A-League must play a major role in developing players for the Socceroos and that players were better off staying in Australia rather than accepting contracts in lower-level European leagues.
“I do not see a new Harry Kewell or a new Tim Cahill but I see a general raising of the level of Australian players,” Baan said. “But they have to step up. [The questions are] how far will Mark Milligan go? Where will Stuart Musialik end up? Where will Mark Bridge and [Nikolai] Topor-Stanley end up?
“At the moment, Milligan has been focusing on going abroad for three or four months but not playing any competition football or training.
“That is stupid. That is what I mean when I say he should play regular competition in the A-League, get in top shape, and then go and sign for a European club.
“With the A-League getting better, we must try to keep the talent here for at least three years where they are well prepared and can then make the next step.
“Too many players are just disappearing and end up in the third or fourth division or Romania or Norway. The A-League is just as good, or even better, for their development at the moment.”
Straight-talking Baan will quit his post at the end of December after two years in the role. He claims his greatest legacy will be the establishment of the National Youth League and a national program to establish small-sided games for grassroots players aged six to 12.
“The National Youth League gives an unbelievable pathway for young talent,” Baan said. “Previously, if you weren’t picked up by one of the Institutes, what was your motivation to go on? Now the pathway gives you direct access to all the A-League clubs.”
Baan said he was surprised to find opposition to the concept of small- sided games. “We still find resistance in some various states,” he said. “They don’t even listen to the arguments … My dream would be that all kids from six to 12 would play on small fields, have good coaching, and good facilities and we could turn street football onto the parks.”
Koala Bear said | October 11th 2008 @ 11:11am | Report comment
The Bear,
that’s it in a nut shell .. The Olyroos were simply not good enough from top to bottem .. I think to add other reasons such as the lack of coaching prowess; that was obvious; the lack of quality of our players to compete against the likes of Messi and Ronaldinho ect was obvious.
I don’t think the FFA wanted to labour on the those points too much, and treat us like fools. So to do a detailed analysis is pointless IMO. Although it should be done and remain internally fair enough. We all new what to expect at the Olympics ie those who follow football knew it was backs to the wall when we were drawn in an extremely hard group.
As we all knew preceding the Olympics we had to select players who were either sitting on the HAL benches, playing in state leagues, and one or two who were lucky enough to be playing in lower divisions in Europe … Yes we have stayed static; since the Olympics in Spain and the rest of the world had moved on..
But take heart the next Olympics will no doubt be a better proposition for us in London; with the growth of Football in Australia. The talent that will be developed and nurtured from here on end .. It will be a new beginning with the youth league established and greater professionalism sweeping across the nation with more money; HAL expansion and success in Asia.. The future looks bright to me..
~~~~~~~
KB
The Bear said | October 11th 2008 @ 11:15am | Report comment
Thanks, dasilva. I noticed a few (only) articles around at the time, but really, what we were told is fairly tacit.
“Solomon Kalou made an unbelievable goal”… however, he had several attempts at scoring that day, if i recall correctly. Baan then turns his attention to Nikita…. rather than assess Nikita’s inclusion in the squad. It seems a timid critique.
In any case, my efforts here are meant to educate everyone how little publicity Baan’s comments received.
And how little response is been given to those few comments he actually made.
Graciously,
The Bear
dasilva said | October 11th 2008 @ 11:25am | Report comment
At least Baan recognise the criticism of Arnold about burns and djite were fair.
His main point was that youth development wasn’t up to scratch. May be true but I saw some good passing possession football in the first half of the ivory coast game. This perhaps is due to Ivory Coast sitting back and choosing not to pressurised Australia but it does raised the question that perhaps the players had it in them but couldn’t perform due to poor coaching.
In all honesty you can’t expect Baan to publicly slag Arnold as that will be completely unprofessional. So it is expected that Baan will gloss over some faults with Arnold decisions. So it’s up to us the fans and the media to hang and crucify Arnold muhahahahah
The Bear said | October 11th 2008 @ 1:15pm | Report comment
dasilva, yeah i saw what Baan felt more comfortable discussing. I agree KB, let’s all unite, for the future of our youth! Let’s hope the FFA take Baan’s words seriously. Not just want they want to hear (yes, you, Bonita et al).
Will we see Nathan Burns for Asian Cup 2011. Let’s use that for development, a bit…yeah? At the very least, future Olympics, to be used for development of youth, not “medals”, lol.
Graciously,
The Bear
Millster said | October 13th 2008 @ 7:58am | Report comment
My first reaction is hallelujah to a straight talking report, and I hope the FFA Board version is equally frank in the sensitive detail.
On a positive I do agree with his assessment of the worth of the Youth League. Just to see a couple of the juniors step up, for example the centre-back for QLD last weekend, who could not have been selected otherwise is testament to that.
But for me the real highlight of this report is that “we are 4 to 8 years from matching them”. Hanf on, did he say that? Only 1 or 2 Olympic / World Cup cycles? When we as a country have been languishing in world football terms and not taking the game seriously until just the last 5 years? I think that is an amazingly positive thing, and I hope it is not over-optimism. For if in fact we are under a decade away from a really sustainable respectable level of play in our national and club game, then it is going to be one fantastic ride for the fans of the beautiful game.
I wonder whether Bann left with any 10-year objectives. Should we aim to be in the top 20 for example? What is our ‘natural level’ all other things considered?
dasilva said | October 13th 2008 @ 8:05am | Report comment
Take 4-8 years to match countries who like Ivory Coast who are equally languishing in world football as much as Australia and nigeria who perhaps are one step above australia but aren’t world class isn’t that optimistic. Although to match them in a technical level in 4-8 years would still be a great achievement
The Bear said | October 13th 2008 @ 8:10am | Report comment
How does he suppose we “get there” tho? That is what concerns.
SSG and NYL? HAL expansion, and two tier comp establishment? What needs to change administratively, i wonder…
Graciously,
The Bear
md said | October 14th 2008 @ 8:57am | Report comment
Perspective is a great thing. Something I mentioned on the Flog, which Baan has also said is this: The 08 Olyroos have had the hardest road to professionalism of any Australian players in recent memory. Whilst the NSL was a flawed load of bollocks that we are all better off without, it provided a seamless transition from promising teenager professional footballer. Look at the list of the current Socceroos and then at the ages they were blooded in the NSL - all in their teens.
When the 08 Olyroos were just at the stage of being blooded in the NSL, the NSL was shut down and players either had to take their chances overseas or play state league. Trying to win your first professional contract in another country without a local support network is possibly the hardest thing to do in professional football. State league is amatuer and is no substitute for being paid properly to play. Effectively, the olympians are 2 years behind where they might have been, had there been a professional competition in Australia for them to play in when they were 17 - 20 years old. Unfortunately, they are the real sacrificial lambs of the revolution. But when the Craig Fosters of the world wonder why the Olyroos weren’t as good as the teams he played in were, someone should ask Craig (who’s first professional contract was for Sydney United aged 19) whether he would have fancied the invidious choices that the 08 Olyroos were faced with at the start of their careers, and how he thinks he would have fared overseas without the opportunity to learn the trade in Australia at United, Sunshine, Bonnyrigg etc.
There is a happy ending though: The A-League, the NYL and the brilliant environment that young players now have to develop in this country. The next Olyroos will have been in a professional competitive environment ever since they decided to turn pro, and some of them will already be superstars. One might also comment (without defending Arnold who made undoubted selection errors) that coaching them will also be somewhat an easier task.
Cheers
md.
Pippinu said | October 14th 2008 @ 9:33am | Report comment
To me, the NYL can only be of benefit if you’ve got lots of 16 and 17 year olds coming through it as their first taste of “senior” football. If it’s full of 19 and 20 year olds, I don’t see any benefit whasoever.
md said | October 14th 2008 @ 10:07am | Report comment
Pippinu,
Provided they are provided with a decent education as well.
Cheers
dd.
dasilva said | October 14th 2008 @ 10:18am | Report comment
Sure perhaps the cattle wasn’t there as Baan seems to
However it is suspicious that the style of football the olyroos played under Baan deteriorate when Arnold took over (I’m not just talking about the olympics but the qualifiers as well). It is no secret that in training sessions that Arnold wanted the side to become more direct then Rob Baans team. Lots of report of him telling Milligan off for playing from the back and specifically told him to kick it long.
Anyway about the NYL
Apparently Baan has the authority to intervene if the club are playing a style of football not conducive to youth development.
Mick of Newie said | October 14th 2008 @ 11:32am | Report comment
Pipp
I agree on the NYL. It is too old. An example. Tarek Elrich in his 4th season of A league is still eligible and he is 21. Meanwhile Ben Kantourovski can’t play in it because he is too young. My suspicion is that FFA decided with 2 expansion clubs the NYL could be used to get lots of state league younger players together so they get a year of preparation before the best of them go to gold coast, North Qld or back fill other A league sides. I’m hoping next season it goes back to at least under 19’s.
Bit of a worry from a development point of view for our under 16’s getting eliminated for Asian champs at quarter finals. They are our next 4 to 8 years. Doesn’t bode well.
md said | October 14th 2008 @ 12:37pm | Report comment
I think there is a problem with pulling kids out of the school system and putting them in a professional footballing environment. No other football code does it. Possibly the only other comparable sport is swimming, where kids start at at 15 or 16 years old, but that is generally done in a school or local club environment, not against the background of national mega-clubs.
Cheers
md.
Pippinu said | October 14th 2008 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
md
You are incorrect there. In the AFL, kids are drafted at the ages of 17-18 and they’re training immediately withi the big boys, many debut as 18 year olds, some become permanent fixtures immediately from the age of 18, e.g. Judd, Cooney, Sewell - and then the list of kids who debuted at the age of 16 or even younger are legendary: Harvey, Watson, etc.
I’ve always been of the opinion that the A-League should be replicating this, i.e. having the best 17 and 18 year olds in their ranks, and getting some game time as soon as is possible - we have seen it already - but there should be more of it.
Your point about education is well made - footy clubs these days are quite good at ensuring kids continue with their education, be that finishing Year 12 or commencing Uni degrees.
Mick of Newie
is that correct that someone can be deemed too YOUNG for a youth league?! That sounds arse about to me!
Vicentin said | October 14th 2008 @ 1:40pm | Report comment
Mick of Newie, with regards the U16s getting eliminated it is only a worry if they didn’t learn anything in the process. As disappointed as they no doubt will be, if they go on to be better players as a result - as a result of being exposed to better opposition, players with better technique or tactical nous etc it can be a very positive experience. It is now about the hard work (read intelligence) the players and the coaching staff put in that will determine whether they go on to something down the track. The younger age group competitions should always be seen as development opportunities and not just about the win - aren’t England for instance traditionally strong in competitions up to about 15-16 but then fall away?
On the subject of education I always admired the Germans who insisted that their players pursued tertiary education of some form or other - Lothar Matheus is apparentely a interior designer. Perfectly valid occupation but i just can’t image an interior makeover in the style of ….
Mick of Newie said | October 14th 2008 @ 1:46pm | Report comment
Pipp
check it out, Ben K is not too young to play in the A league as he has done with some acclaim, but is too young to play in the NYL. As my 8yo says “what the…”
Vincentin, I agree but I would prefer that learning occurred at the world u17’s not Asia’s u16’s. It just shows how far we have to go.
md said | October 14th 2008 @ 2:19pm | Report comment
Pips,
As I understand the AFL, you have to be 17 before 1 May of the year that you are drafted. There is a difference between a kid who is about to finish school having a club to go to as a pro the next year, and being pulled out at 16 and sent to train football full time. I’m in favour of the former (which I understand to be the AFL system) but not the latter.
Cheers
md.
Pippinu said | October 14th 2008 @ 2:44pm | Report comment
md
fair enough - you are right about the AFL minimum age for being drafted, which will mean that some will start pre-season training with their new club just as they are sitting their HSC.
But back to the NYL - surely a 16 year old should be able to play in the NYL?? They aren’t pro yet, and it shouldn’t impact on their education too much (although Vinnie Grella might disagree!)
Pippinu said | October 14th 2008 @ 2:48pm | Report comment
md
also, using the AFL example again, before they get drafted, most of the them are playing in the U18 comp, which is an elite comp as far as the AFL goes - so they 16 and 17 while playing in this comp.
And I would have seen the NYL as being an elite comp for 17-18s as well - but if the majority are 20+, I think the idea becomes less useful.
Bottom-line: you want your elite kids together as early as possible (16-17 years), and then you want them tasting senior football as early as possible (17-18 years).
Mick of Newie said | October 14th 2008 @ 3:07pm | Report comment
I think there are some rules about the NYL which are designed to ensure players are not precluded from continuing in education or employment. I think that transferrring elite development from the AIS to club and state based would increase the likelihood of players continuing thier education. Given the low strike rate of conversion from elite junior to elite senior it is essential that education and work training should be mandated for players involved in NYL.
Michael C said | October 14th 2008 @ 3:11pm | Report comment
one thing -
Australia often has ‘boys’ and ‘girls’ do well at the tennis ‘open’ ‘boys’ and ‘girls’ finals…………but where are they 4 years later? The reality, is most the real decent competition is already in the full open draw/circuit at this time - - - - playing too much ‘age’ competition can be a hinderance - that is no way to develop elite and international talent.
That’s why I still wonder about the who Olyroos thing - - all that does in my mind is a bit of experience at travel and the like for an effective ‘reserves’ squad……..but to come out crowing too much about winning a ‘reserves’ trophy can ring a bit hollow.
Dave said | October 14th 2008 @ 5:04pm | Report comment
MC
That reserves trophy is called an OLYMPIC GOLD MEDAL. Not too shabby.
The NYL serves 2 purposes;
1. to introduce and develop potential future players into a professional setting as well as allowing them to play against the best other youth players in the country
2. allows limited numbers of first team players some game time on the road to recovery from injury or return to form which previously they had none.
Each club can determine how they want to use the NYL and how many of the older players will participate (3 max per game)
The age restrictions are reasonable as players need to develop physically as well as mentally before being thrown into games vs some full time professionals. It is the first nationwide Youth League and is very expensive to run. It is also the first year and no doubt some adjustments will be made in coming years.
dasilva said | October 14th 2008 @ 5:30pm | Report comment
Michael C
The players at the youth league gives them an opportunity to have regular match game instead of sitting in the bench for the senior team.
Also they are not restricted to play in the “age” competition. They could perform well and be selected for the Senior team. If that doesn’t happen then at the end of the youth league the players then return to the State Leagues and play in a League that is not age restricted.
Midfielder said | October 14th 2008 @ 6:46pm | Report comment
MC
U 23 player can be 17 years old or younger and are often are under 20, its no real different to having a first and second team accept its on a international scale.
Kool played for the Socceroos at 17, but most Socceroos are picked from closer to mid 20’s ……….. In football the system works.
The Bear said | October 14th 2008 @ 7:42pm | Report comment
On the Olympic theme, would Baan have offered any thoughts to the FFA? That is, is the role of the Olympics going to be used for Publicity and Marketing … or should it be used for grooming future Socceroos, including home grown coaches?
Thoughts…?
Graciously,
The Bear