Organised youth football

With the advent of organised youth/kids football from around the age of eight years old these days, which I must say is very well organised by the relevant organisations.
Do you think this is taking the flair out of the game as these lads and lasses are being coached to play in a way that curbs the natural skill that some people are born with.
They are taught good first touch and pass, if they do try to take people on the coach will question them as to why they didnt pass.
Will we not see the likes of George Best, Jimmy Johnstone, Steve Neville again with this line of organised team play.
Any feelings on this?

bflockha said:

With the advent of organised youth/kids football from around the age of eight years old these days, which I must say is very well organised by the relevant organisations.
Do you think this is taking the flair out of the game as these lads and lasses are being coached to play in a way that curbs the natural skill that some people are born with.
They are taught good first touch and pass, if they do try to take people on the coach will question them as to why they didnt pass.
Will we not see the likes of George Best, Jimmy Johnstone, Steve Neville again with this line of organised team play.
Any feelings on this?

Click to expand...

Not really, I remember being in Amsterdam in the late 70's and looking out of the hotel window and seeing 50 or 60 pitches being used by Ajax to provide games for kids of all ages. This was at a time when they were producing Johan Cruyff, Neeskens and Van Basten, hardly players lacking in natural skill. The problem is in the lamentable quality of British coaches not the concept of teaching kids at a young age

I think the greater problem with kids football is the screaming parents from the touchline and the coach with a burning desire to win. It should be more about developement and understanding of the game, working as a team, all regardless of the result. With an increased understanding and knowledge of football from an early age will bring talent.

You can almost relate it to ECFC, you look at our starting 11 and who would you say 'bl00dy h3ll, they're a fantastic footballer'....maybe a few of the players but then ask yourself why they're a great player. The reasons I find are that they work well as a team, know each others strengths, weaknesses, all these things learnt and developed over time (Harley not getting into the team for 3/4 months is a prime example.)

Unfortunalty time, as a football supporter, is hard to come by. Us fans are fickle and like to see instand success, a winning formula, whether that be the ecfc first time, or 8 yr old kids.

I have often pitched up early for our meet time for Cricket and taken in some of the youth Footy at our club. It would appear that the emphasis is not so much on over-coaching but on developing the Sport as, above anything, a fun thing to do. They have some excellent coaches (at one stage was linked to the Watford academy) and one of the "enthusiastic Dads" who helps with the coaching is none other than ex-Chelsea player Andy Myers.

One kid there, the son of a mate, appears to be head and shoulders above the rest, and I'm sure he'll make the grade.

mammooman said:

It should be more about developement and understanding of the game, working as a team, all regardless of the result.

Click to expand...

To a certain point, but you try telling your ten year old that it's character building and for the greater good that his team's been spanked by double figures for the umpteenth time that season. The kids are fiercely competitive - even if it's only for bragging rights in the playground on Monday morning - and hate losing just as much as the parents and coaches.

IMO it's definitely not 'regardless of the result' at all, especially where the kids themselves are concerned.

Whatever the coaches are like & how pushy are the parents ,its got to be better for the kids than the alternatives.....drinking,smoking,taking drugs,vandalism?

When Steve Bruce was Birmingham City manager about 3 years ago I remember him
asking where there aren't more players coming through. He was complaining that
he could go to the Birmingham Academy and there wouldn't be one player he could
consider for the first team and he would have to spend heavily in the transfer market
probably on a player from abroad. I think the question still needs asking. The Academies
have been up and running for 10 years or more and children are getting coaching from
5 years and yet there is no real difference in the amount of talented players. In fact
it could be argued that the players were actually better in the 60's and 70's when
there was no formal coaching but the kids just turned up and played. It's worth noting
that Theo Walcott never even played football untill he was 10. It's also worth noting
that if I'm right young players in Holland are kept on by their Clubs till their at least
21 and fully developed. Law of averages dictates that if you have say 120 boys at
an Acedemy 1 or 2 will 'make it'. That IMO is the situation we have at the moment.
Why more don't 'make it' I don't know. Maybe it's just down to luck.

Interesting time to post the thread. It's just been confirmed to me that I'm taking the 3rd XI at school next year, which drawn from 200 boys across Years 7 and 8 is likely to actually include some very able footballers... leading to the questions about philosophy, approach and playing style.

I can't bring myself to consider hoofball. The question is how long can you push patient, passing football without results?

Poundstretcher said:

Interesting time to post the thread. It's just been confirmed to me that I'm taking the 3rd XI at school next year, which drawn from 200 boys across Years 7 and 8 is likely to actually include some very able footballers... leading to the questions about philosophy, approach and playing style.

I can't bring myself to consider hoofball. The question is how long can you push patient, passing football without results?

Click to expand...

Sometimes IMO it's not about the result but how you play the
game which is the most important. Nobody remembers the
German side who won the 74 World Cup (outside of Germany
that is) but everyone remembers the Dutch team that lost.
In a way it matters not that Holland didn't win that final but
how they played the game. Just play passing football. You'll
win some you'll lose some but you cannot win every game
anyway so how you play is the most important part of football.
Oh and remember to enjoy it.

I don't think it is down to luck as to who does/doesn't "make it". At the Prem Academy level the vogue is to sweep up the talent by the bucketload, diluting the true talent. To shine in a group of 200, where Lowest Common Denominator rules come in (progress made at the speed of the slowest learner), is very difficult indeed. Whereas, if the Academies were truly serious about bringing their youngsters through, they would be a bit more selective and pick, say, 20 of the very top youngsters - where there is a chance that 4 or 5 will fulfill their potential.

That way also Academies like ours (which flourishes anyway and is producing a lot of returns for the investment) can also develop some more seriously talented players instead of them being squirrelled away.