With several less than stellar performances from the Socceroos over the last few matches, the background noise has grown around the need for change.
Lack of opportunities in the A-League for young players and number of games being played by our teenagers are both areas that have been touted as possible reasons for a perceived lack of talent making its way through the pathway.
One area that is increasingly attracting criticism though is the National Curriculum and its implementation.
When the FFA launched the National Football Curriculum (NC) back in May 2009 its intent was to provide a blueprint for youth development within our country. At its heart the blueprint emphasized a small sided football approach to development and borrowed heavily from the Belgium National Curriculum.
A second revised version of the curriculum was released in 2013 to better articulate the implementation of the approach after feedback that the originally document lacked the clarity required to implement it successfully.
Since the launch the Skill Acquisition Program (SAP), a key plank of the NC at the 10-13 age group, has slowly rolled out across the country and all states. The introduction of the national Premier League (NPL) has also helped embed the SAP program at the elite level.
But has it been a success? Criticism of recent performances of the Socceroos seems intent on tying several problems to the NC, a lack of defending nous, inability to adjust to different tactical approaches due to the mandated 4-4-3 system key among them but this targeting of the curriculum off the back of the Socceroos performances seems off the mark.
With the majority of the starting Socceroos over 23 years of age and thus only exposed to fringe elements of the curriculum in their formative years, it is a stretch to point to the curriculum for the cause of their perceived failings.
(AAP Image/Paul Miller)
This is also true of the Olympic (Under 23) and Under 20 National teams. Their performances in recent years have continued to decline? Our Under 20s who consistently managed to make it out of their group in the Under 20 World Cups in the late nineties/ early 2000s have failed to even qualify for the World Cup in the last two attempts. Though these players like the senior Socceroos also have only had limited exposure to the NC.
However most concerning is our Under 17 National team. They are a team that would have been constantly working with the National Curriculum in their teenage years and probably the first generation that we can start to assess the results of the program. However, they failed to even win a match at the 2016 AFC Under 16 Championship. Scoring only two goals across three matches, the young Joeys were outclassed by Japan, Vietnam and Kyrgyzstan.
Many advocates of the curriculum and its implementation have maintained the line that it’s too early to judge the results. This is most likely true overall however does this mean we should refrain from measuring progress and offering critical assessment of the results so far?
I would argue that there are many elements of the National Curriculum have either missed the mark or the implementation of them at state level has not had the desired effect. I feel this is especially true at the Skill Acquisition Phase. It is widely acknowledge that the 10-13 age group is the most critical time for a players development.
One of the key principles of the revised 2013 edition of the National Curriculum is that too much emphasis on results is bad for development. However the document also highlights that in the Skill Acquisition Phase one of key attributes of players at this age group is they are competitive. Have we gone too far in removing the principle of competition in our player’s development? In my opinion yes we have.
Miniroos has done away with any focus on competition. In Victoria clubs nominate what level they wish to play at. No results are recorded, no ladders are kept. The rationale seems to always come back to the players don’t need them. But is this really true? It is quite accepted at senior level that friendlies are not played to the same intensity as competitive fixtures, yet we are expected to believe this is not true of junior players.
One of the common justifications for doing away with results, leagues and ladders is the argument that Holland, Spain, Germany and other elite countries within Europe also follow this approach. But this ignores that fact that many of the elite junior teams of Europe often travel and play in many cup competitions outside of their normal “friendly” leagues. This allows them to test their development against other elite players. This is something that conspires against us here in Australia with our large distances.
(AFP PHOTO/GLYN KIRK)
FFA and the state leagues may need to look at introducing a similar approach here. An introduction of several elite youth cups may enable teams to truly pit their development against similar level players. However we seem to be moving in the other direction. There are now discussions taking place about whether to extend this principle of non-competition to Under 13 in NSW NPL.
Another area that the FFA and State Federations need to look closely at is the continuing broadening of the talent base.
Currently in the VNPL Under 12 competition there are 34 teams all at the same level. That means approximately 680 players all at the same standard. This completely flies in the face of the principle of pitting the best kids against the best. The justification used for this ridiculously broad level is that promotion/relegation places too much emphasis on winning.
I would like to see three graded leagues and two short seasons at this level with promotion and relegation. This would allow the more skilful kids to be pitch against their peers.
The news is not all bad, in March last year the FFA announced a pilot of a High Performance program at Westfields High School in NSW. One of the ongoing criticisms of the NC is that it focuses too much on club development and ignores that fact the vast majority of time that a player spends working on their skills is done outside of the club training environment. More programs that target players into non-structured playing time can only be a good thing.
Next month may just bring a tipping point in terms of the National Curriculum and the implementation of it. Our next generation of Joeys will be competing in the AFF Under 15 Youth Championships, with the squad made up of boys born in 2002 this will be a significant test of players who have gone through the full implementation of the National Curriculum.
If the results continue to show no sign of improvement the calls for change are only going to get louder.
boxingkoala
Roar Rookie
This is absolutely the case in Tasmania re money required. So many talented kids at u12/13 who won't go on because of money. And on a side note, I know of a boy playing u13 who is outstanding. But unless as an amateur coach I pursue vigorously with his parents to push them to take him sometime during u13 to the FFT national training centre course (can't remember the new name), he won't be seen. Meanwhile AFL have made the effort and got him for their State team training every fortnight so no doubt he will go the AFL path now. AFL/League get in a bit earlier from my experiences with talented kids and their pathways to enticing the families are easier for parents than soccer. What are FFA and their states doing. They are rarely seen scouting talent or talking to say small to mid sized clubs and getting out of their office????
Footoverhand
Guest
Where I live the council put in up temporary small sided courts totally free near the train station so they were easily accessible, there were kids in there every day. They are planning to put some permanent ones somewhere, they are going to convert a few cricket and AFL ovals into football specific grounds because there isn't enough players for those sports, it's nice to see they realise the growth of football and want to cater to it.
punter
Guest
Touch, vision, ability to beat opponents in tight spaces, short passing, team work.
Redondo
Roar Rookie
Yes Pacman - experience with my kids' teams showed the same thing. The ones who spent their free time passing to walls, slaloming around weeds, and dinking balls through Netball rings improved their game performance way faster than anyone else.
Redondo
Roar Rookie
I was always bitter that I didn't find out about Futsal until my knees were shot. I learnt more playing Futsal for a couple of seasons than in 20 years chasing long balls playing football outdoors.
Redondo
Roar Rookie
Kaks It might happen way earlier than that. It's not like we started at ground zero in 2009. There were good coaches and skilful kids before the NC. But since the NC came in, lots of coaches and kids who might have stagnated will have started improving. So standards at all age levels should already be improving. I guess the improvement will be most obvious and widespread in age groups that have learnt everything under the NC. But hopefully they are not the only ones who benefit. I guess what I'm saying is that over the next few years we should start to see more pockets of excellence, and in 10 years - hopefully - widespread excellence.
pacman
Guest
Yes Redondo, you are correct, my bad. As an ex banker, I should have checked my iPhone calculator calculation, or better still, have used my brain. So a little over 30 years then. Your correction highlights even more the necessity for considerable homework. And this does work - going on for 30 years ago, I had a group of 11-12 year olds doing homework 5 days a week for 6 months. The improvement at the end of that period was quite noticeable.
punter
Guest
I agree, I spoke to a guy from Argentina recently & 2 things he noticed here. When people complain about poor pitches here in Australia, you should see Argentina. No-one plays outdoor fields until age of 16 (maybe due to lack of fields), they all play Fustal & hence why so many have the ball skills.
Redondo
Roar Rookie
Wouldn't that only be 2200 hours? Are you including team training and games on top of that? Also, Futsal barely gets a mention in the curriculum. If isolated training is unpalatable, then 4 or 5 hours of Futsal a week would be a great alternative. Nobody can hide in Futsal so all the skills get a workout. It's a great motivator for a kid to go home and practice skills on their own.
pacman
Guest
Yeah, I am reading the online version Redondo. Haven't yet found it necessary to refer to any video demos. Like you, I found it astounding that the Curriculum states 10,000 hours of practice as a requirement of skill acquisition, then discourages isolated practice. At a stretch, 7 years of year round 2 hour training sessions 3 times a week would do it, but after all other phases of training, how much ball skill development would take place?
j,binnie
Guest
Brendo 51- The writer of the "summation" I sent you was not ahead of his time suggesting small sided games on smaller fields,he was in fact a manager of a club with 15 junior teams who, having just attended one of the first "live in" coaching seminars held in Australia,,and, having an obvious interest in junior development, managed a long, long session with the then National Director of Coaching ,the man who introduced those ideas into the Australian coaching manuals in 1974. I have a picture taken with my grandson around 2006/7 when he was playing junior football in a small sided team on a small pitch. I had the pleasure of coaching that team. (Note the date. The present NC was not published till 2009!!!!) All this is provable history of course but in view of what happened then, I fear for what is happening now. Blind faith in a system simply because it happens to be there is a dangerous "hope" to follow in Australian football. jb.
Brendo51
Roar Pro
Yes yes and yes The NC itself and the principles that it endorses are great and as you say not new (though I must say the writer of the document you have was way ahead of their time if they we suggesting small sided games as a development tool back in 1976). It is the implementation of it that is important. The tools and processes you put in place to execute on the desired outcome.
Kaks
Roar Guru
Dont read much into it. In 2009, England U21 came 2nd in the U21 UEFA competition, the winners were Germany. We both know how both nations are going at senior level. England has always done well at junior level, however their junior player's dont live up to the expectation.
Midfielder
Guest
HHHmmmmm impossible ... to many players in to many different locations. The present structure has over 130 academies Australia wide which includes the 10 A-League clubs. Certainty the A-League clubs should be the best and hopefully have the best players but many players would fall throught the cracks. I think the structure is quite sound, how its funded is a separate issue,. The hope is for 150 + academies Australia wide all teaching the NC, thus available, descend coaching and hopefully affordable.
j,binnie
Guest
Nemesis and Brendo 15. I have in my possession a football magazine produced in Brisbane. In this publication there is an article which is rather long to reproduce here,but concerns this subject you are both debating The writer of the article does however make a summation of the content and I would like you to read the summation and make comment. The writer heads his summation up "Things I'd like to see happen in junior soccer." 1 Abolishment of premiership trophies and points tables up to 10 years. 2 No pressurised coaching up to 10 years. 3 Seven -a-side teams up to 10 years. 4 Use of small pitches up to 10 years. 5 Introduction to larger teams and pitches 10-12 years. 6 Introduction to teamwork and positional coaching 10-12 years 7 Introduction to physical work 12-15 years. 8 Introduction to premiership aims 12-15 years. 9 All this done across the nation as soon as possible Does this roughly reflect the core samples on the National Curriculum?. THE DATE ON THE MAGAZINE IS 18TH SEPTEMBER ----1976,---- 41 YEARS AGO. I mention this to you both for it is obvious from the reproduced "summation" that the ideas behind the NC are not exactly new, but the way in which it is administered is very ,very, important. Could I put it to you both that for a Curriculum we are told was only written between 2007/8 by one Rob Baan, it has somewhat stalled in the best of it's intentions, some would even say abandoned, after 5 years, by Baan's successor Han Berger, who more or less admitted, in 2014,when vacating his position, it may well be in the "too hard " basket . Hope you find this of some interest. Cheers jb
RBBAnonymous
Guest
The heavy lifting and the development of our best players should rest with the A-league clubs not the NPL.
Redondo
Roar Rookie
Pacman - The print version is a bit of a slog but the online version has video demos of the drills. Way better than the static diagrams in the print version. I'm still at a loss as to why the curriculum references the 10,000 hour theory but then discourages isolated training. Perhaps each child's rego fee should give them access to some of Tom Byer's material on training at home.
Nemesis
Guest
If we're looking for the best pathway, it should be something that is repeatable & dependable & has high chance of producing positive results. If only 1 kid succeeds every yr that's not a successful development pathway.
Swanny
Guest
It's not given to go overseas and achieve success but it will work for some Richard Johnson. Weston bears in Northern nsw. Headed over to Watford at age 14 A few Socceroos appearances too Worked hard .and succeeded for 15 seasons as a pro in a division we celebrate Aron mooy playing well in now . There are benefits for our national team if we some Richie Johnston and some homegrown talents like viduka
Midfielder
Guest
RBB Maybe I can't write but I actually throught I posted the NPL clubs should be given transfer payments at least twice in the post. I actually posted this ""' Issues unsolved as many have said is if NPL team develops player X, why should they not get a transfer fee."""' & """However leaving aside these there does need to be some reward for an NPL side to develop a player.""" On the academy to the best of my knowledge the only A-League team to run an academy type structure has been the Mariners ... I fully agree the A-League clubs should have been running academies a lot longer and way way way back maybe hal 3 I think I wrote an article on it for the Roar, have been saying it reasonably constantly for years now. Yes the Mariners have gained a lot from not having to pay transfer fees. So on these aspects we agree and I have been saying the same now for about 10 years. Now to the other question, and to the article my understanding is the NPL clubs to met requirements need to appoint a coaching director qualified to a certain level. The coaching director is to be responsible for the development and oversight of the coaching programs run by the NPL clubs. The objectives of this was threefold, to get standardised coaching at NCC level Australia wide, to make coaching at this level widely available and finally to be at a reasonable cost to parents to have their children coached at this level. I actually think its a reasonable structure to spread the NCC, and as new sides are added and with the addition of private schools and government it means over 130 and growing academies. Leaving aside compensation issues which we both fully agree, I think its not a bad structure, welcome your thoughts on the structure.