The year ahead is set to be massive for our two national teams.
In January, our Socceroos will battle to hold their crown as kings of Asia at the 2019 AFC Asian Cup, aiming to go back-to-back for the first time in our history.
While in June, the Matildas will head to their sixth FIFA Women’s World Cup, hosted in France — aiming not only to compete, but to win the tournament. As a nation, this is unprecedented. Never before has there been more buzz surrounding our national set-up, and never before has their been a more confident group of footballers.
This could be our year.
These are stories that we look forward to seeing unfold, while they become faith driven tales to look back on fondly. Go you Aussies!
But in keeping with that same spirit of fondness and retrospection for the year to come, there will be an equally important milestone to celebrate, sitting quietly on the fringes—the 10th birthday of our National Curriculum, a philosophical and technical blueprint for the future of football in Australia.
Created in 2009 by then FFA Technical Director, Han Berger, the National Football Curriculum was—and remains—an indispensable guide for grassroots and professional coaches alike, belonging as a milestone in the evolution of football in this country. With its creation, Australian footballers, coaches and inquisitive supporters of the game finally had access to a set of principles and fundamentals that would shape our nation’s future in the sport.
With this text, Australia would finally have its foundation, and from it—could craft an identity.
With Berger’s appointment as FFA Technical Director, the Curriculum took further inspiration from Australia’s Dutch influence, stemming from direct and indirect influences: Guus Hiddink’s triumph as national team coach and the worldwide successes of integrated Dutch development programs.
But it wasn’t an imported piece of propaganda; nor was it a half-baked solution to a developmental crisis. The text was the first declaration that Australia would not remain a fringe nation on the global stage. Australia would finally commit to a national identity.
The Curriculum has always had its critics. And it seems that whenever one of our nation’s youth teams do not succeed on the world stage—the curriculum is to blame. After the Olyroos’ failure to qualify for the Olympic Games for the second time, in 2016, the Curriculum was blamed. As Les Murray put it, the performances had nothing to do with the Curriculum, frankly, because the players involved in the team were never ‘caught in the net of the new curriculum’.
This speaks largely for the current crop of footballers representing our country, which, although high achievers in Asia, are not examples of what the Curriculum is setting out to produce. To consider what we have already achieved, without the benefit of time, is quite astounding and very exciting for the future. In saying that, however, the Curriculum is not at all without its faults.
(Photo by Matt King/Getty Images)
Although a landmark text in terms of its depth, structure, philosophy and formation — to which FFA deserves enormous credit — it does present a unique set of obstacles and setbacks for its implementation at all levels. In some respect, I believe the introduction of the Curriculum and its program prescriptivism to be anathema to part-time, grassroots football coaches; its introduction has only made the job harder for a level that should only ever have been about fun.
For me, grassroots was always your point of entry, your first taste of the beautiful game, and to sacrifice that would be a travesty for the future of junior football.
In this respect, I consider the Curriculum to be a document that caters for the future — when our elite level is structured from the top down — and not the fragmentary present. The infrastructure required to deliver professionally accredited, thoroughly pre-conceived sessions, understandably, does not exist at local level.
Furthermore — from the top down — the Curriculum has been accused of being under-funded since its inception in 2009. Ten years down the line, I can say firsthand, having gone down the pathway as an accredited coach, that it still remains under-funded.
This is compounded by the fact that, at the grassroots level, most of the people involved at any junior set-up will be either volunteers, parents or part-time coaches. Furthermore, this constraint remains for elite football coaches — from advanced youth through to adult NPL level — who are often forced to work outside of football due to a lack of funding.
All the while, these coaches are both expected to deliver planned, analysed and pro-active sessions while maintaining full accreditation. If you’re a long-term coach, these require regular re-certification.
To my mind, I can’t quite understand what the incentive at the grassroots level — a level often run by volunteers — would be for a coach to go out on a limb. A question of practicality becomes a question of philosophy.
The gap in funding and expectations only becomes more profound when we look into women’s football, with the same conditions imposed upon elite female coaches, while salaries remain dreadfully below the physical cost of being involved in football. This isn’t at all a question of coaches wanting to be high-paid. As Sam Kerr said to The Women’s Game:
“It’s a subject that we’re never going to get away from.
“Some women are still earning below the minimum wage and anyone with a brain knows that it’s not right for the amount they give up to play football,” she said.
(Photo by Zak Kaczmarek/Getty Images)
Ms Kerr may be arguing for players’ wages, however, I believe it speaks of a greater concern surrounding the entire professional female ecosystem. Therefore, the situation is equally as concerning for coaches.
On the flipside, however, having more prepared and astute coaches at all levels can only be to the benefit of the sport. In this respect, the blame for a lack of funding falls not on the text itself, but upon the shoulders of the organisation responsible for its facilitation —FFA.
Therefore, at this stage, the Curriculum has only been realised to its full potential at the elite male level — where both the compensation and responsibility of running programs to this degree of excellence equally meet.
With all that being said, I remain cautiously in favour of the Curriculum and its goals. We need to be patient, and allow the processes already set in place to run their course. If we relinquish the current Curriculum, we risk running into the same problems as the current MLS.
In designing their curriculum, America took the quickest path to the top without even considering the ramifications of rushing. What they have now is a retiree league, where washed up ex-pros come for one final pay-cheque.
We don’t want a league that looks for a saviour in every signing; we want a league that will thrive on the strength of its own country’s talent. For that, we must wait patiently.
reuster75
Roar Rookie
You ask some really good questions and those questions are a source of constant debate world football. The only way I believe you can judge something like this a success is if it's consistent leading to the production of quality senior internationals in both mens with a demonstrated ability to play in the style set out in this document. The bigger question for Australia is who is ultimately responsible for this document and who do they report to? Is the technical director responsible and if so who do they report to? Do they report to the board? If so who on the board has the requisite skills and knowledge to be determining the success or otherwise of this program? We have consistently failed to both qualify for, and perform at a high level at under age tournaments at both boys and girls level for all ages since joining the AFC in 2005 but we don't seem to ever hear from the FFA about this and no-one seems to have been held to account. Now granted qualifying for these tournaments doesn't automatically equate to the fact our junior development programs are working but if we're constantly struggling to qualify and then performing badly when we do qualify then something isn't right and we need to be asking the right questions to be asked by the right people to get the answers we need.
reuster75
Roar Rookie
There is an episode of The Simpsons when Bart, Milhouse, Nelson and Martin have hired a car and at one point Bart is in the back seat with no-one at the wheel. Milhouse asks Bart who is driving the car and Bart replies "Cruise control, my good man. It's all taken care of". This is what springs to mind for me whenever I think of the FFA and the national curriculum - the mere fact it exists makes the FFA think that's all they have to do and everything else will just happen. Whereas the reality is it needs to be constantly refined based on broader trends on youth development around the world. We need to be constantly looking at what countries that are having consistent success at both junior and senior level are doing and adapting that to suit our needs.
Christian Fleetwood
Roar Rookie
Hi Paul, thanks for your comment. Let me backtrack: yes; we had an identity, but it was never one to see us through to the next century. Our game was reliant on reactive and direct football (one of the most unsuccessful styles of football in the world), therefore, not a style that would see us consistently competing at the world stage. For one, I’m glad for Australia not just to be know as ‘the Aussie battlers’. I totally agree with your points on individuality. Football in the modern day isn’t a game played with a single formation; the formation should reflect the situation. For one, I’m an advocate of total football, but that’s another argument entirely. Christian
Paul
Guest
Perhaps it's because they are all millenials and think that they are better than they really are. There is minimal effort for supposed maximum return. We need all our players in all levels in positions to be challenged. Add to that the cost of rep football is prohibitive for many. Hopefully, the new breed at FFA can weed out the NPL that funnel up Youth NPL fees to senior NPL players. This would increase our talent pool. At least 2 A-league academies are not charging the fees that most youth NPL are charging (Brisbane Roar and WS Wanderers). I have heard one NPL club charges $2,500 per player but does give scholarships in their defense. In addition to that, why should is cost $1500 for a player to represent their state for national competitions. Also, I can't see why the insurance costs to players across the board are so expensive from grassroots to Rep football. Why can't the FFA negioatate an Australia wide deal to have the premiums? A multitude of factors including attitude and cost means our juniors do not improve. Add to that coaching.....
Kangas
Roar Rookie
I did reply a while back I agree with you Paul about the need to focus on technical ability. I think we can see the kids coming through the popular sports like cricket rugby Aussie rules nowadays also have poor skill execution and techniques for their sport. It might be s systemic problem or a generation that takes the easier path to try to make it to the top .
Kangas
Roar Rookie
Frans Good point , but to more constructive ... is your team proposing to play in the second division? How will they fund it ?
Kangas
Roar Rookie
Evidence of what’s failing in Belgium football please ? The Dutch have turned it around and qualified above France a month ago. Ajax are back in business too Whatever the problem with the nc is ,it doesn’t correlate to failed Belgium Dutch football
Paul
Guest
I dispute your point that we didn't have a national identity before the NC. We did. As to Han Berger, I have heard him described as a fraud. We didn't need a a dutch/Belgian Mafia to succeed. Indeed, the Dutch and Belgians have thrown out what we have now. The only player of note to break the NC conformity is Arzani. You know he went to the u16 World Cup with Caletti and Rowles and didn't see a minute on the pitch. And you know why he didn't, because he played as an individual and was not seen as a team player. So I say, the NC should focus on technical ability not strict adherence to the failed Dutch/Belgian curriculum who basically were leeches to our growth. Until we shake the NC focus on formation essentially 4-3-3 and move to individual technical ability, Australia will never succeed against the biggest football nations.
Frans
Guest
We NEED promotion - relegation ASAP. Without it the A-League remains a joke, just like Cuckby League.
Fadida
Guest
A good discussion Christian. It's also nice to see polite and respectful comments, going both ways
jbinnie
Guest
Christian - yes, as time moves on and as different Directors of Coaching are appointed, just as surely will the contents of the original document be adjusted. However the Dutch Connection has to be examined as to why a country where professional football did not begin until the year 1957 suddenly attained world leadership in coaching methods in such a short period of time. (they played in the World Cup final only 17 years later),surely a minor miracle of education and application. An examination of Baan's & Berger's football CV's will show up an almost unholy movement for both between clubs in their native country, Baan holding 20 jobs in a 50 year career and Berger 17 jobs in 44 years. However if we want to get to the root of the Dutch methods we have to examine the teaching of a man called Wiel Coerver who some years previously had started a movement based on his observations into how football could be taught to kids. This system was widely accepted in the USA being run by 2 individuals Alfred Gaustian and Charlie Cooke,an ex Chelsea player. Just before his departure from the FFA Director of Coaching job Han Berger enjoyed a visit from these 2 individuals and it is thought they influenced his thinking that the NC was probably an idea for the waste basket,such was the magnitudes involved. The Coerver method of coaching has been in existence in Australia for many years but gets little or no publicity from our parent body, probably because it has as it's basis a franchise agreement. Cheers jb.
Redondo
Roar Rookie
Well maybe a general question for others then: are today's u14s noticeably better than 2008's u14s? The question can be applied to the age group in general, or just to the elite level in the age group.
Christian Fleetwood
Roar Rookie
Hi Redondo, that’s a great question. It’s one that I don’t think I’m adequately qualified to answer, but as someone who has represented their country at international schoolboys level and played in three countries all before I was 18, I would say part of the goal would be having fewer footballers like me: players forced to go overseas due to a lack of opportunity in this country. The emphasis of the curriculum is on the importance of better quality coaching. Good coaching equates to better player outcomes. As to the other part of your question, I would say that you can’t equate individual success over the course of a year. But with better quality planning and management, I’m sure we’ll see improved short-term outcomes. The whole endeavour is not to produce good quality juniors (although this is ofcourse a key aspect of it), but to create worldclass senior Matilda’s and Socceroos. As coaches, we’re playing a small yet important part in the overall process. Again, I must reiterate that this is just my own interpretation and opinion of the text, based on my interaction with it. I hope that helps. Christian
Redondo
Roar Rookie
Christian At what point will we be able to definitively judge the success or failure of the NC? What will the objective measure be? And how, year on year, do we assess progress? For example, does anyone rate this year’s u14’s skill levels compared to previous years’ u14s?
Christian Fleetwood
Roar Rookie
Waz, what a great comment. As a coach at juniors level, I hear this story everywhere I go, and it’s one that I tell others. The fact that we give our better players the pick of the tiny pool of qualified coaches is telling of a partly philosophical problem. We may as well say we’re giving up on the rest and focusing on a select group. In saying that, at least in SA, local clubs are implementing the curriculum and helping volunteers get their accreditation. Let’s hope the ‘pick one’ and ‘throw away the other’ philosophy gets thrown out!
Christian Fleetwood
Roar Rookie
Thanks for your input Kangas. It certainly speaks of a wider societal problem. Having a nurse for a mother and a teacher for a father, I hear where you’re coming from. That’s an interesting point: it’s been proposed that A-League teams finally implement a true top-bottom academy structure. It would certainly solve a lot of problems.
Christian Fleetwood
Roar Rookie
Hi JB, thanks for your input. You’re not wrong—Berger was not the only one involved (thanks for mentioning!) but you’re also not entirely right. The NC remains an ongoing editing and tightening project, thus there never was and never will be a single author. There are also a number of variations of the document: the WoFP and the FCP for example. However, you’ll find that Berger remains the leading architect of the whole philosophical process.
jbinnie
Guest
Christian - In the endless search for accuracy in these columns it has to be stated that Han Berger did not write the original NC. The original NC was penned over a two year period by one Rob Baan, who was employed to the task by the FFA ,and when finished,in 2008, announced his retirement from the Technical Director role,but not before being instrumental in setting up a long term prodigy of his,Han Berger, in the role of TD in Dec 2008. (Bann then proceeded to come out of retirement to take up the same position with the Indian FA.) Berger meanwhile, left with a document into which he had very little input (most of the "new" information was at least 30 years old in European Coaching Organisations) began the almost impossible task of trying to implement Baan's document across the length and width of Australia, a country vastly larger than their miniscule homeland ,Holland, and it is reported he then embarked on a re-writing of Baan's original in order to simplify it to Australian coaching standards. Did he succeed.? This is debatable for after completing the re- writing it became public knowledge that he was not happy with the way the NC was progressing and it came as no surprise when he quit the TD's job after his contract period (5 years) expired. In 2013 he joined Sydney FC as a director and in 2015 was promoted to Technical Director, and then in a "surprise" move re-located to his native Holland where it is said he took up a high position in the games's administration. So Christian, when digging into the past one has to be very careful in doing one's research. Most football pundits are aware of this need and just to add confusion,I have a photograph of my grandson's "small sided team" playing in a small sided league when he was 8 years old. That was in 2004 some 4 years before Rob Baan introduced the concept as an important part of his version of the NC. Cheers jb.
Kangas
Roar Rookie
There are many professions in society ( welfare , education, nursing). that are underpaid or lacking in wealth generation or funding where Australians are struggling to survive or achieve health services etc . So with that in mind, I don’t quite have the sympathy some do for those who chose some elite sports playing or coaching as a career and are finding themselves underpaid. Any sport beyond basic grass roots needs to be self funding in this current economic situation. As for the curriculum then , Private investors or A league academies will put money into elite coaching if they see value or it should be funded by the participants.
Waz
Roar Rookie
At grassroots level, at least at my club and several others I’m familiar with, the junior teams are graded and split. The best players get the qualified coaches who take them through SAP with the NC as a foundation; remaining players are graded again and given a “best effort” coaching (normally parents). They are not expected to follow NC.