There is so much to say when it comes to the "effective" development of young players under the age of 17 years of age.
The FFA National Football Curriculum and Development plans embrace the period from when our players start particpation in the game till the time those talented few get to play in Australian Under 17 mens team, otherwise known as the Joeys.
At the Capital Football level, all development responsibility, within the current FFA National Curriculum, stops at the age of 15 years of age. The ACTAS responsibility is really all with ACTAS, Capital Football have next to nothing to do with it (leaving aside a financial contribution). After ACTAS, it's hands off at the ACT end of things at this point in time.
But the focus of this Post is the performance of the Joey's ( Australian Under 17 Mens) at the current U17 Mens World Cup. Nevertheless, member Federations have a big input, via the FFA NAtional Curriculum) into the technical competence of the players that find their way to the AIS and Joeys squads. They are supposed to the best of the best at age.
And this is where the drama begins!
The Joeys appear to have under achieved at this Under 17 World Cup, I say "appeared" because I am not so sure this is true. I am yet to be convinced and its one band wagon I would not get on in a hurry. Depends very much on how you measure success and what you are able to articulate as teh underlying problem(s).
The suggestion that the Joeys have under performed opens up a pandora's box of Football youth development issues that go to the very core of the FFA National Curriculum and Developments plans - and then to each member Federation with regard to their respective efforts in delivering quality development programs at age, performances at the National Junior Championships and later at the NTC Challenge (ACTAS).
The raw data from the last few U17 Mens World Cups looks like this:
2003 Round 1
2005 Round 1
2007 Did not qualify
2009 Did not qualify
2011 Qualified - Round of Sixteen.
Looks to me that on the face of it, the Coach and the supporting processes got them further than anyone other effort since 2003. But is this a reliable measure of "development"?
Read on, this is an interesting story and one that should give us pause for thought in repsect of two things - what we are doing for development of all players under Under 16 players in the ACT and what we might hope to do for ACT players from 17 to 20 years of age.
The SBS World Game commentary team, a very thoughtful bunch of Footballers, all of whom have achieved in the game to the elite level, have been making a lot of sense when they got the time to talk. Their discussion in the lenghty break during the game against Denmark, was absolutely fascinating - worthy of a program in its own right. They agreed amongst themselves what would be the criteria they would adpot to assess the Australian performance. But you got the feeling they had a pretty good idea where this might end up, in terms of winning and loosing. So what do they know the we don't.
Their discussions reflected the tensions between development and winning, which are so often hard to separate at the very elite level. For myself, the "development " is in the experience, but you go there to win!Its hard enough for most parents to make these distinctions at the Under 14 Div 2 game I watched today, and the Under 14 Div 1 game I watched last week was all about winning.
You don't "develop" to look pretty, you "deveop" to win. Anything else and you just short change everyone involve and delude yourself as to the real purpose of competition, certainly at the World Cup level.
At the highest level for this age group, a group of young men who are predominantly from the AIS, on a world stage that is all about winning, tolerance for the "development" arguement is near impossible when they do not play well. If in the end you think they might just not be good enough by comparision to the other national teams that beat them - well that raises a hole lot of other issues.
I find it impossible to believe the Joeys were not well trained and prepared at the AIS for the World Cup. Only a fool would suuggest they did not go out to win. But that is not to say that somehting is not amiss - but what?
The Head Coach has been interviewed on the NPL in the past, listen to it, you can't fail to conclude that this Coach understands what must be done. he has a truly "international" perspective. The subject of my interview with the AIS Coach was the visit by that sensational Japanese High School team, Nara Ichijo. They were the 12th ranked High School team in Japan at the time they played the AIS. The AIS battled to a draw as I recall, then the Nara Ichijo team turned around and twenty minutes later played ACTAS whom they beat. In a nutshell - our best Under 17 team at the premier sports institution in Australia was no better than the 12th ranked high school team in Japan on that day. The Coach knew exactly what was in front of his team that day - he had worked as a Coach in Japan. The AIS play in the A League Youth league and came 5th this season past. So what does all that say about this cohort of boys at the AIS at this time by comparision to other nations we played in this World Cup? And does it say about the general standard of football in Australia at this age? I think it says a lot and most of that happens before the AIS gets hold of them. That was what the AIS Coach undersstood that day about the japanese high school team the AIS played - the young Japanese players had a much finer tehcnical education from a much younger age, played and trained so much more than Australian players of that age in the preceding years. Time at the the State NTC's and AIS could only go so far, and do nothing for what did not happen, in what the Japanese prefer to call "the golden years" and others the magic "10,000 hours" in the younger years.
here in the ACT our season is ridiculously short. You can't produce much in that time.
There is much more to the quality, system and style of the performance by the Joeys than meets the eye. National Curriculum and Development plans take generations to take effect. We are still at the front end of our journey.
I am not close enough to the Joeys or the AIS to know the full story. Problem for me is that I don't hear a lot of solutions just at this time - save one - SACK THE COACH! If it were that easy the next World Cup would be in the bag now.
All that said, some very experienced and knowledgable football people are saying things that must be considered. Craig Foster has come out and laid it on the table. Read below for his Blog on the World Game. As ever, its thought provoking and passionate.
Versleijen has to go
01 Jul 2011
00:00-Craig Foster
It was fascinating to see the range of reactions to Australia at the FIFA U-17 World Cup. From satisfaction that the team reached the knockout stage out of a difficult group, to resignation about the circumstances surrounding the Denmark replay, to sheer frustration at the way the team was eliminated by Uzbekistan.
I believe the campaign raised serious concerns about coach Jan Versleijen and the AIS program under his management.
Before making an objective evaluation, we must resolve the issue many neutral observers are struggling to overcome: the difference between performances and results in youth football.
The National Curriculum states that winning is the purpose of football, but the manner and importance differs with age. Age is a key factor in the way we assess performance.
We can’t judge the Joeys the same way we would judge the Socceroos.
Up to 20 years of age, the imperative is for players to learn how to play effectively as adults. The focus must be on style and manner of play rather than results.
If certain elements of individual and team performance are executed well enough, the result will likely take care of itself.
In youth football, the result must be viewed as the consequence of the performance.
At Under 23 level, the importance of results takes on a greater significance, although the Olyroos should be gaining them playing in a manner consistent with the senior national team they will inherit.
Consistent results, which are what Australia must work towards, are achieved through demonstrated ability to solve tactical problems and take control of the ball and thus the match. While the Socceroos are achieving results in Asia, serious concerns linger over the team’s level of play.
During the qualification for the 2010 World Cup, the Socceroos were consistently outplayed by weaker teams, but relied on one or two moments of inspiration or experience to prevail. Sure enough the team had serious issues rising to the level of teams at the big show a year later.
The performance level over time is a fundamental concern for any strong football nation, let alone a nation evolving as we are. Thankfully this has become part of our national football debate in the last few years, which shows we are growing as a football nation.
As fans of club football, we live for the result. We love to feel the rush of three points and for our beloved team to win trophies.
We invest a great deal of energy in the team we love and are justified in expecting results. But this expectation is unhelpful when applied at youth national team level, because the players are still learning the game.
When we watch the Joeys and Young Socceroos, we should be studying the process, not just the outcome.
My job is to look at the play, not the points. My only concern is what the Joey’s will be like in five to 10 years’ time, not whether they beat Ivory Coast or Uzbekistan now.
To win a few games at a junior World Cup means nothing in an overall career, apart from some fond memories, unless it is a valuable part of a player’s education in how to play at international level and to solve the problems that arise.
I was a part of the first ever Joeys that participated in the 1985 U-16 World Cup in China, alongside David Barrett, Paul Trimboli, George Jolevski, the Naven twins and many other fantastic guys.
We went with the mindset to fight our way to as many results as possible, like every national youth team prior to and following, up until recently.
We had some memorable wins, beating both Argentina, (which had Hugo Maradona, Diego’s younger brother, and the imperious Fernando Redondo) and West Germany. But if I went back and viewed the games I’d guarantee you we would have been largely outplayed.
We achieved outstanding results courtesy of a moment or two of magic and a whole lot of guts, and went out in the quarter-finals.
I concluded that at Under 17 and 20 level the result has no relevance to the understanding or progression of the players, unless it is gained in a way that proves the group is competent and ready to move to the next level.
Some years ago, France withdrew its Under 17 side from the tournament because it was concerned the players weren’t ready to apply what they were learning and would resort to ‘results based football’, meaning kick and rush or simply fighting for the points.
The same thought process must apply to our teams.
Before this year’s tournament, Jan Versleijen said the team needed to exhibit the basic building blocks of the National Curriculum, based on three fundamentals: possession, building from defence and combination play in attack.
Australia failed badly at all three for the majority of the four games.
Consider that fifteen of the 21-man squad are based at the AIS. All the players have been there for the past six months and most of them for the preceding year. Of all the teams in Australia, these kids are the ones that should exhibit these qualities the most and the first two should by now be automatic.
Something is amiss.
Football is about patterns over time, allowing us to assess a coach’s qualities. The major concern is that in the last U-20 tournament in Egypt, the same thing happened with a Versleijen team.
The pattern between that under Under 20s side and this Joeys side is the same. They both attempted to play a proactive game, to pressure the ball earlier and to maintain possession through good positional play, but both failed to demonstrate the necessary competence level.
In all aspects of the Joeys’ play in Mexico, from the lack of systematic movement off the ball to create passing options into midfield, to the inability to play safely from the defence, this tournament was a mirror image of Versleijen’s Egypt campaign.
Of particular concern, is the inability to play from defence. This should be the starting point of the AIS program, and is the fundamental requirement necessary to play safely in possession.
I am not talking about the individual technique of the players, rather the tactical concepts that Australia has adopted and that Versleijen is being paid as a development coach to produce, which are largely independent of the brilliance of individuals. I raised this same issue two years ago during the Egypt tournament in a letter to captain James Holland, to express how pleased I was that Australia had finally committed to and been brave enough to play football, demonstrated in each match for short periods.
The major concern is Versleijen, whose contract is up for renewal after the U-17 and U-20 World Cups.
Prior to Egypt, he had over 40 games with that team. He has had this Joeys team every day for half a year or more. The players should know better, if only Verselijen knew how to relate to them.
This crop of Joeys was selected by Versleijen, trained by him and based at the most important football facility in the country. It is, in fact, the first team we have seen that he is directly responsible for and the manner and quality of play were unacceptable.
Appointed by Rob Baan, whose contribution here is also questionable, Versleijen is a man with lots of senior team experience who doesn’t appear to know how to relate to youth players. Just look at the way he screams himself hoarse on the sidelines.
Versleijen’s inability to connect with his charges is indicative of Australia’s past, where we misinterpreted youth development requirements and generally appointed coaches with senior credentials to youth roles, where dynamics of player management and guidance are entirely different.
Teenagers maturing into adults require an educator, part skilled in managing youngsters, part coach. A senior coach tends to be the latter.
During Versleijen’s tenure at the AIS, some players have left the program and FFA will meet with the Sports Commission to discuss its future.
The question that should be put to FFA’s head of national teams John Boultbee, who has supported Versleijen’s role at the AIS and is responsible for renegotiating his contract later this year, is what now?
An Australian Technical Committee should provide oversight at all times. Boultbee is from rowing and is not equipped to make any technical judgements whatsoever.
Forget the result against Brazil, Ivory Coast, Denmark or Uzbekistan because this is simply no longer the primary requirement.
We’ve moved on.
Now, we’re looking to gain a result playing in a manner consistent with the future of our sport. Irrespective of the outcome of the Under 20 tournament, the AIS should be looking for a new candidate.