Okon: my job’s not over with the Young Socceroos

Da silva , why isn't he in the squad that went to Spain and what about the likes of some of our last team of Joeys- some real good players who can think. One being Josh Macdionald from sydney fc this is an example of a player that has football in his veins-he is very talented.

4. Okon was unable to react to events on the field. His subs were way too late even though it was clear as day his game plan wasn't working. Other than that I do think youth teams should on the whole be about development and should play out from the back. However I'd argue that our 90's teams usuxperienally did that, Okon started asweeper after all and at the same time Ivanovic was our NT sweeper. If it's about experience, well you get more experience getting past the group stage.

Very good post. Been a fan of Dutch and Spanish sides for over 20 years.. but Fozz is a pretentious wan... My problem with the U-20's is this: 1 Okon left out Amini for unknown reasons(not buying the fitness thing), never even been a big fan of Amini but the squad couldn'tve been worse with him on the bench. 2. Should a novice, no matter how good as a player, be coaching our nationaal youth team? 3. Okon showed himself to be completely immature with his Keeganesque tweets during the Italy Spain Confed game. For me this one pretty much answers the second point.

John.- This is a strange article for after reading it I don't really garner what you are trying to tell your reader.I watched the 3 Under 20 games (live) & like everyone else was happy with the way they performed against Columbia even though they only managed a draw.It was what happened in the other 2 games that showed up a naivety in our play, or our coaching, & this cannot be ignored.for at World Cup level.results do matter, there not being a lot of chances going if advancement is to be achieved. Our young lads are just like young lads the world over & they do like to win,so enough of the "we played well but????" frame of mind,it doesn't wash with defeat & that was what our boys got in the other 2 games. As you say they took the lead twice but could neither add to their advanage nor hold out their opponents & those 2 facts alone call for examination. In the first game young Da Silva was outstanding in mid-field setting up move after move but eventually getting the important goal himself.This would not have gone un-noticed & come game 2 the opposing coach set up his team to nullify this obvious threat. Da Silva struggled against the superior numbers with none of his team mates caming to his rescue so eventually he was substituted,& in my opinion that was a coaching error,for ,being recognised as a threat in the first place he could have been moved out wide first to see if his markers followed him thus creating space for others. It is called "countermanding an opposing coaches strategy" Game 3 was almost an exact replay of game 2, tactical naivety again saw a lead being squandered & defeat following a promising start. I thought Australia had a couple of players who could match it with their counterparts Da Silva,Brillante,& Chapman the obvious but all in all the lads seemed a bit vague in their thinking when it came to not only protecting their advantage but adding to it. Neither of the opposition's goalkeepers were exceptionaly busy on each night & this too points to a lack of penetration where & when it matters & penetration is much, much, more important then possession for possession's sake something Paul Okon should know from first hand experience,not as a coach but as a player.Time will tell. jb

Towser - It is called "coachspeak" & is designed to give the impression that the user has a somewhat deeper knowledge of the game than the reader or listener. We used to have skilful players with a bit of vision who were just grouped as "brainy" inside forwards, men who could create a scoring move out nothing just by using their talent. In recent years they have been christened "playmakers" & even that simple word throws up connotations of misuse for, is a goalkeeper a "playmaker" when he picks out an unmarked team-mate with a shrewd throw?? Technically he is starting a move so could be said to be a "playmaker". No???? Today we have an article that has come up with another descriptive word or two that I haven't seen before to descibe such a player, an "enabler" and a "pivot". "Enabler" leaves me totally "flummoxed" as to what it means even on a football field, & in past years the only use of the word "pivot" in football was usually referring to a centre-back. Don't worry friend,join the club & get out your Oxford dictionary,I'm sure you could find a word or two in there that you could spring upon us, & in doing so you may well gain the title "Expert". What a lot of ........!!!! Your mate jb ps How about "false nine", "deep 10" et al, since when did a jersey number affect a players role in a team?????jb

+1 exactly the point i have been trying to make without getting attacked. we are trying too hard!

Dont get this quandry about results & performance. In my book the aim of any competition is to have a winner. If Youth football at International level is all about development why bother with a winner? Surely the development of a footballer started way before U20's or under 17's for that matter. I ask you this question,we are lauding a 16 year old Daniel De Silva. How come this lad is more "developed" than lads 3 years older? Well some lads pick up the "Whats football all about vibe" because its in their genes,simple as that. The rest can be explained by analysing this line " Despite only recording one point and finishing bottom of their group, the Young Socceroos have been praised for the way they were able to play out from the back and compete at a technical level against strong opponents. " Personally I'm becoming somewhat pissed off with all this technical jargon espoused by Fozzie & the like. Lines like "he was a good technician" WTF does that mean ,he can pour a test tube better than the next lad. Too much analysis paralysis going on in Australia at the moment by football pundits,its a simple game ,about skill with the ball at your feet. The more comfortable you are with tha ball at your foot,the more chance of being an accomplished professional footballer.(yes heading afficionados there's that too,headed goals are great ,but you cant create with a header unless your a seal). So back to the above sentence. Yes they followed instructions to play out from the back ,but they did not compete at a technical level with their opponents. Forget technical level bulls*it jargon ,they didn't have the ball skills to make the most of that playing from the back,just like the Roar didn't when they played Tokyo FC in the ACL the other season. I noticed some attempts at very quick passing on occassions by the Young Socceroos, but because of their lack of instant ball control it came to nought. I've watched a few replays of other teams who advanced further into the Competition ,its a marked contrast in ball control compared to us including our neighbours in Asia Iraq ,South Korea. So two words are all that need to be emphasised in relation to the development of young kids "Ball Control". When teaching young kids repeat the mantra of ball control with all parts of the foot. Then encourage "creative football" from that. Also teach ALL kids how to use their feet to tackle its obvious at times in the A-League that some Australian players confuse crude tackling with tough tackling Not all kids can achieve the high level of "ball control" required,but some will as long as there's an environment in football that encourages that above the "stronger run longer " mentality. Sure the physically superior kid with "Messi ' skills will be better than the less physically blessed "Messi. However we want a mentality in Football that places the less physically blessed "Messi" above the more physically blessed but less skilful player.

Love the passion Okon has for the job. Hope he stays on to the next WC and then gets a job in Europe, NT 5-10 years.