The Way Forward | Time for The FA to Re-Open Lilleshall

The FA need to take an active role in elite development once again

This past decade appeared to promise so much for English football. Yet as we end another World Cup, the truth is that instead of making strides forward, we have gone backwards. Perhaps that is a little unfair, we have stood still. And those around us, who once were ‘behind’ are now ahead. We have been left behind by an evolving game in which we are only playing catch-up to. With Germany winning the World Cup England are made to look worse as we see the product of the work that German football have done this past decade in terms of developing modern players and systems in order to succeed in the modern game.

English players still appear to struggle to convince they have the nous and confidence of being comfortable in possession with the ball at both their feet. They appear to have a lack of awareness of their surroundings and options, which impacts on their decisions and look devoid of a strategy in their approach. Tactically is there an evident understanding of what they are doing? Do they know where they are going?

What is evidenced is that although not as rich as the league or players in it, many nations have overtaken us in terms of the key technical, tactical and psychological areas necessary to succeed in the game. And even the physical aspect on which we were famed has gone also. 

Chile out run and out work other nations and Germany look stronger, able to out-muscle their opponents. These physical traits used to be what set us aside before has gone. Ironically this is at a time when defensive pressing, athleticism, strength and hard work have come back (truth is, they never left – but we neglected these skills and failed to address or plan for the future game – we are now very much behind others). But those nations like Chile and Germany also possess skill, ingenuity and versatility in their approach and style both individually and collectively.

In 2010 England’s defeat to Germany awoke many to the problems plaguing England’s issues in international football. It is apparent that England cannot compete with other top Europeans nations like Spain, Germany or Holland. At the Euro’s we huffed and puffed through the groups playing functional football, at this World Cup we scraped a solidarity point after attempting to play a more open attacking brand of football. What these recent tournaments have indicated is that there is no plan or strategy for success. So how can we improve our national side? The key must be youth development.

The FA’s DNA

England’s failings go much deeper than the ‘Golden Generation’, they go to the root of youth development. Compared to other countries England is far behind in producing talent capable of playing in the modern game with the culture of English football heavily affected by the philosophies of the FA and their coaching methods.

After that defeat to Germany, after a decade of disappointment and failed hopes, real questions were finally being asked of youth development in this country. The development of the EPPP points to a need to modernise and improve, yet England’s problem is that we have sought to develop ‘top down’ far too often (just look at the FA commission report). The money goes from the top and trickles down, leaving barely anything to really improve the standards at the bottom, the ‘grassroots’. Grassroots is the first step for developing players suited for the modern game. This is where the foundations are set and where players for the future are developed.

With German football now the ‘model’ to admire, and before them Spain, there are certainly lessons we can take from these nations in terms of their long term development plans. Firstly they developed an idea on what they wanted to produce, they then educated the coaches on this, brought in the support of the professional clubs and let the seeds grow. 

The philosophy has clearly being evolved over time, understanding that adaptation and evolution are key to staying ‘relevant’ and in line or ahead of the game. These two nations are a great example for others. When we think that Spain did this twenty years ago, Germany re-invented themselves over a decade ago, and now England are merely in the process of developing their 'DNA' then we can see how far behind we are. 

The FA has a lot to answer for, in the late 90's they allowed the clubs to develop elite players with very little monitoring or a better word, support. The problem was that the clubs had a distrust of the FA, feeling that the ‘FA way’ was not conducive to developing modern players. So we had a decade of elite development which was fragmented, un-monitored and at times chaotic. Some clubs did excellent work, others not so. 

The EPPP has certainly enhanced standards which is only a good thing and now the FA have a new team of (hopefully) progressive coaches and experts who can lead the national game forward. However, the ‘DNA’ they speak about is still not evident, either as a document or on the pitch. Yes there has been much change in terms of personell but Dan Ashworth has been in his role a substantial time and there has been (from the outside at least) little progress. However I am informed there is ‘a lot’ of great things happening inside St George’s Park, that the plans are being put in place and that England will have a plan, a philosophy for the future. I genuinely hope so.

Re-open the Lilleshall model

But for all the talk of a philosophy and vision the key to anything is implementation. Yes we want our grassroots coaches developing creative and technically strong players, and the FA have a major role to play at this level, which in fairness they are seeking to address with the Youth Modules and the Mentor scheme. However, they appear reluctant or willing to accept that they cannot play a part in the development of ‘elite’ young players.

They have acquiesced to the clubs and their academies, put the burden of responsibility on to these and stepped away, effectively washing their hands of the development of professional footballers. This is insane that a governing body has no real influence or control of these players development. 

If the ‘DNA’ document is of a modern approach in terms of flexible systems and players, if there is a philosophy which not just seeks to develop for the modern game but the future game, then the FA need to push this forward with the ‘best’ players. Not since 1999 have the FA had a real control over the development of future English internationals. And this is what needs to happen again. 

From 1984 to 1999 the FA would select the best 16 schoolboys at 14 years old and educate them at the school of excellence at Lilleshall for two years. In many ways it was a positive step for England’s youth development. A ‘school’ of football where players would receive more coaching sounded good in principle. And it may have been a great idea which could have developed a new generation of players as well as coaches for the modern game.

But as we know, the philosophy of Charles Hughes and the FA was not about skill, creativity or individuality. They wanted workhouse athletes, players who could run all day and tackle hard. Thus the selection process centred around those requirements. Any ideas of skill, creativity and technical quality were not only ignored but actually treated with caution. As Jonathan Wilson wrote, about Hughes and philosophy, “Skill or anything that required thinking too much, was not to be trusted, while ‘physical toughness’ remained the ultimate virtue.”

John Cartwright was a former professional footballer and coach who was brought in to Lilleshall, as technical director in the late 1980s, to develop players’ ability with the ball. Yet he states he was never involved in the selection process, as the emphasis was on big strong athletes. As he pointed out in an interview with FourFourTwo, “The prevailing philosophy in English football at the time was about getting the ball forward as quickly as possible.” He saw how a premium was put on bigger players at 14 years old who possessed strength and athleticism. This saw players like Jamie Carragher, Sol Campbell and Wes Brown come through the school and interestingly saw a player like Steven Gerrard rejected because he was ‘too small’.

Towards the end of the school’s existence Cartwright did start to see a shift towards smaller players. Players like Michael Owen, Andy Cole, Nick Barmby and Jermaine Defoe were recruited. Yet as you can see from these players, and their careers in football, they were the perfect foil for the direct style; fast forwards who could feed off the flick-ons from their giant centre forward. They were finishers to ‘direct football’. It was not revolution but evolution.

Howard Wilkinson felt that the concept of Lilleshall was 'too elitist' and that 16 players a year was too small a sample to really produce a high number of professionals. He wanted the clubs take ownership, to replicate this model with 10-15, thus increasing the size of the talent pool. Yet it didn't work out like that as over 40 clubs embarked on 'elite' projects. Youth development thus went from being 'too elitist' to being 'too mediocre'. The talent was spread out too thinly.

The failings of the school at that time are clear. Recruitment was based on a flawed vision and philosophy. Size, strength and speed are all important components for football yet surely skill, vision and intelligence were more essential? 

Yet the basis of Lilleshall was not a flawed idea, the implementation was. It really should never have closed down, what it needed was a revolution. 

The idea of full time football, of having players daily to work with, develop and nurture was a key aspect and a reason why many players became professionals after going to Lilleshall, regardless of the type of player they were they were developed in an environment which sought to produce professionals. If it had focused more on ‘skill development’ and sought to develop players for a more technical and tactical game, England’s ‘Golden Generation’ may have achieved more.

Just look at what France did, the proof of this success is there.

Clairefontaine and elite standards

The Institut National du Football de Clairefontaine is up there with Ajax and La Masia in the world of football development. It is where France ‘produced’ their World Cup winning generation of players. In Philippe AuClair’s biography on Thierry Henry he discusses the ideas and philosophies of Clairefontaine and how it helped develop players like Henry, Gallas, Saha and Anelka. 

Not too dissimilar to the recruitment at Lilleshall but with a defined focus on technique and technical skill development, France would produce some of the finest players suited for 21^st century football.

When Henry was 12 years old he sat the entrance exam for the football institution. It was 1991 and the ‘project’ was three years in. The French FA decided to lower the age of their recruits to 12-15 years, perfect for Henry. As AuClair says, at this time “It was still a full-scale experiment, rather than the finely tuned production line it wold soon become.”

The writers of the project, notably Gerard Houllier believed that recruiting players at 12 gave them the best opportunity to develop elite footballers. “The arrival of youngsters who were – as extensive research had demonstrated – at an age where receptivity to coaching is at its highest, and motricity at the most crucial stage of its develooment, gave a new focus to the project.”

What the French sought to do with this initiative was to fill the ‘skills vaccum’ which was prevalent in youth football at that time, where “clubs priority was not to teach football but to train footballers.” As AuClair says “These two visions are not mutually exclusive of course, but a policy of which aims to produce results for a collective entity will not concern itself with the individual as Clairfontaine could. The new academy would never be an employer, it aimed to complement the work done by the clubs, not to be a substitute for it.”

A supplement to a programme? The additional development an elite player requires? The ability to focus on the ‘individual’ and develop their skills; technical, physical and mental to make them capable of succeeding in the professional game. This is what 'elite' is.

A strict recruitment process meant that the French FA felt they were recruiting the best players of that age who possessed the intellect, mindset and physical skills required to be coached and developed. The recruitment of the players, always a fundamental element to elite development programmes was in-depth and detailed. 

Christian Damiano – who was a key member of Clairfontaine’s technical staff from the academy’s inception built on the pyramidal system. At the head is the National Technical Director, who was assisted by seven or eight national coaches, below them were regional technical advisors, who themselves supervise the work of the coach based in the departements. The coaches at the district level make recommendations which are passed on to the upper echelons of the hierarchy. This process enabled the Institut National du Football to see the best young players who had been selected and who would then be invited to sit the entrance exam.

It was “a laborious selection process – entailing a series of physical and technical tests, followed by a trial game. A process which was repeated at every level of the pyramid from January onwards.” It was rigorous, focused and precise, ultimately leaving a shortlist of thirty to forty players who were drawn up in every departement  which covered the whole of the Paris region (remember this was happening across the country, 12 elite centres across France - the vision which Howard Wilkinson had - not just in Paris).

These 30-40 players were then invited to go to Clairefontaine, where from April to June they were submitted to further tests narrowing the group even more. A process of seeing over 50,000 players was now a final group of 22. As AuClair says “Is it that surprising that those who were successful felt that they were part of the ‘chosen few’? It was a heady notion for a thirteen year old like Henry, as it was for each of his new teammates. He derived great pride from his success.”

Of course no-one could tell how far the ‘chosen few’ would go, Henry himself soon found that his progress inspired envy and jealously as well as admiration among the players with whom he had grown up with. Yet this was the nature of an elite environment, ‘the more select the company they had to keep, the more competitive, the crueller the environment would be.’

A great quote from Thierry Henry is a poignant reminder to young players who are ‘selected’. Speaking to scholars at Monaco in 2009 “That’s the toughest thing in football, only one of you guys will make it as a pro. Maybe. When you arrive in an academy, you think you’ve made it. But you’ve achieved nothing yet. Nothing at all.”

The small the proportion of promising footballers who ‘make it’ in the end is shockingly low when you consider the amount of players who develop ‘in the system’. However this kind of environment, one like Clariefontaine was a perfect breeding ground for young professionals. 

This was a place for the best, the elite of Paris for their age group. They had the opportunity to progress quicker than any other player because they had the means to do so. The quality of the coaches and coaching, the focus on technical skill development. This was a production line for elite players. It was a tough and demanding world, yet it was necessary to produce players who can compete not just with the best France had but the world.

Was it right to take the kids at 12/13 away from their parents, their environment all week? Although Damiano points out that “we made sure they wouldn’t be more than ninety minutes away from their homes” he makes the key observation and justification for the ‘project’ “but these ninety minutes might as well have been light years.” 

And was this world of Clairefontaine a world of wonder. No, as AuClair says, "Clairefontaine (was) a fairly undistiguinshed pile of bricks, divided into offices, sleeping quarters and communal areas; a boarding school – and not one of the exclusive kind.”  It wasn’t aesthetically pleasing yet it was an environment of elitism. 

What was important was that the players had to fall in line with the standards and expectations of the institute, had to accept the rules in order to stay and continue to develop. In return they were gifted an opportunity many players will never experience. No wonder these players became so ‘talented’. 

The schedule was demanding, “Life within the chateau’s walls had the harsh predictability you could expect from such an establishment. Up at 7am, the boarders filed up to the classrooms an hour later, studied, lunched, resumed studying until 3.30pm and were only given a one-hour break before a team of three dedicated coaches worked on their football skills for ninety minutes. It is only from 6pm that they could truly play with the ball as children do. And all this they did in almost complete isolation from the world they have just left behind.”

We talk about mindset, of adversity and of being able to deal with these demands and difficulties when becoming a professional, well as AuClair says “The teenagers who had been plucked from the cosy environment of their families and their provincial clubs had to build self-defence mechanisms from the outset”. It would not be easy for a youngster to be away from their home (even if they were free to return on weekends).

For Thierry Henry the environment suited him perfectly. Burdened by the over-zealous and somewhat destructive nature of his father Clairefontaine allowed him five days a week the relief from his dad’s constant pressure. Although the coaches were demanding what they “pursued was technical excellence for the sake of it, not ‘success’ in the competitive sense.” It was a case of developing an exceptional footballer, with the skills required to succeed, not merely the skills to win games at the youth age. The aims at Clairefontaine were bigger than a league trophy at the end of the season, they wanted players who could help the nation win the World Cup.

Playing matches was not the focus, developing players was, ‘competition’ per se was anathema to its coaches. However when this group of players did play they were a huge success for INF Clairefontaine, they only played half a dozen times a year at the most, “but when they did, they invariably swept the opposition away.”

Germany’s lesson

Following Euro 2000, the German FA looked at why their team failed and concluded that there were not enough young players with the necessary qualities to make the German national team great. It was only four years earlier that Germany had won Euro 1996, in England, yet there were some serious questions being asked of that team and the future. This ‘new generation’ appeared to be lacking the necessary attributes for the contemporary game.

So what did they do? For Germany, the years following Euro 2000 were about investing in youth development and changing philosophies; the DFB (German Football Association) wanted to move away from playing in straight lines and relying on ‘the German mentality’ to win matches. The key aspects that would help them on their new project were to employ more full-time coaches and to upgrade their facilities.

Germany has always valued coaching and had a vast number of trained coaches before the new model was put in place, yet what was significant was that all these coaches were educated in the ‘new way’. Thus Germany had thousands of expertly trained coaches focused on German football’s future.

The key development was the introduction of 121 national talent centres which were built in order to help 10 to 17-year-olds with technical and tactical coaching. Each centre would employ two full-time coaches that, as Robin Dutt, the former sporting director of the DVB, made clear: were instructed to focus on, “…developing fluid formations that required the sort of nimble, dexterous players who would previously have been overlooked because of their lack of physical strength.”

These centres were, as Stuart James pointed out in The Guardian, aided by a talent development programme which was set up by the DFB in 2003 with “the aim of identifying promising youngsters and providing them with technical skills and tactical knowledge at an early age.”

So let us just highlight what Germany did and what England failed to do. Investment in coaching, a change of philosophy, improved scouting methods and investment in facilities. And now a decade later Germany are world champions and German football is being talked of as the best in world football and the ‘model’ on which others should follow. The German youth development model was based on long term sustainability and the decade has been one of patience for German football. Like Spain and France’s success it has come from addressing the root issues which are youth development and coaching.

A radical solution

English football has certainly started to lay the foundations for developing ‘better’ players, the youth modules and the EPPP address both grassroots and academies. Yet there is still a gap between our best and the rest of the world. The lesson from France and Germany is evident. Their FA took control of the development of players between 10-16 and sought to enhance their skills and knowledge. They took 'good' to 'great'. I feel we still struggle to do this. 

Here is my proposal;

The lesson of Clairefontaine shares similarities with Lilleshall. The only difference being that the focus of the school differed in terms of philosophies. France favoured technical skill development while England preferred to develop players who fit in line with the FA philosophies  (at that time) which was their apparent distrust of skill. While both schools developed professionals France appeared to develop ‘better’ ones. 

But the idea was the same; recruit the best players in the region and have them attend a boarding school style institute where the players are schooled, fed and coached to develop their skills and be prepared for a life as a professional footballer. This is no different to La Masia and what Barcelona do; ‘full time’ football for 12’s upwards. 

The issue will come of "Is it too young?" Well no, not if you recruit the players with the 'right' mindset. Will all make it? More than likely not, but the hope is that they are given the tools to succeed elsewhere, something the EPPP has stressed. 

When talking about developing top players then we need to consider what we are not doing. When we talk about producing players to be capable of performing at 16-18 years we need to make sure they are ‘ready’ for the demands of the game. More hours of development, more coaching to enhance their development, especially in these key years between 12-16 when as mentioned earlier “an age where receptivity to coaching is at its highest, and motricity at the most crucial stage of its development” points to the need for greater emphasis and coaching hours in these years. 

How can we say we have ‘elite’ academies across the country when they only train 2 or 3 times a week? Is that really enough for the development of elite footballers? And it is not just football, the psycho-social elements are just as important and at these institutes the players interact all day long, they bond, build relationships and grow together. A place where parents drop and pick up does not allow this kind of bonding to truly take place. Living together effectively makes these players better, as evidenced by graduates of Barcelona’s La Masia in recent years. 

This is what elite environments are, this is what our Olympians are doing. We say our football academies are ‘elite’ but they're not really. Some academies are striving to have their players all attend the same school, to ‘mimic’ the La Masia type model and to offer more coaching hours throughout the day. But for all the players in the 'system' this is why we are failing to produce so few from so many. 

And this is where the FA must take a role and responsibility. A great solution to helping the development of young English players is to develop the Lilleshall model once again, but this time develop 10-15 across the country, in each region. A long term recruitment process can help recruit the best 12 year olds who stay until 16 years of age at a converted country manor (like Lilleshall) or a more modern centre (something on a smaller scale to St George’s Park - this blog felt that the money put in to Wembley would have been better placed in developing regional talent centres for players and coaches.)

Now who would be selected? Would present Academy players be legible to join? The answer should be yes. Just like it was in France the players could stay Mon-Fri at the institute and return home and play for their clubs on the weekends. The week would be their chance to enhance their skills, to focus on their individual development, something most academies fail to offer in their ‘team focused sessions’. Or recruit 'raw' 12 year old's who have the potential in terms of iskill levels already, as well as intelligence, receptivity, athleticism to push on during a four year full time experience. 

A time for the FA to stand up

Greg Dyke spoke about 'League 3' being a 'radical' solution yet it doesn't impact the key years of development where our players are falling behind. This creation of FA led regional centres to house and school elite players is the ‘radical’ solution required to increase the coaching hours and enhance the development of truly ‘elite’ players. It will also be a chance to ‘control’ the environment of these players, notably values of discipline, respect and commitment as well as focusing on nutrition and physical development. 

If the FA wish to have a greater part in the development of young elite players, if they believe that their DNA philosophy is the key to producing better players and thus national teams, then a plan such as this is what Dan Ashworth should be seeking to implement. 

Imagine, over the course of 5 years, with 22 players for each group, from 12-16’s in 10-15 institutes across the country that will give the FA opportunity to work with over 1000 players. The hours, environment and level of coaching should allow the development of a greater pool of English players who by the age of 16 should be at a level to compete with the best players across the world. 

A key focus however must be on the development of technical and tactical development, which is why a man like Rene Meulensteen would be ideal to lead this project in the same way Gerard Houiller and Christian Damiano did so in France. 

Forget about ‘league 3’, allied with a greater Academy system thanks to the EPPP and with a new generation of coaches as well as a ‘new’ approach at the FA, English football does have a chance to produce players and a national team who can rival Germany. The FA need to stop making excuses, stop putting responisbility on to the clubs and work with these clubs to help develop better players. We've heard lots of talking from the new incumbents at the FA yet it what is required is planning and action, and now, not in 5-10 years time.

Do you agree? Is this a solution which can work? Email me at thewhitehouseaddress@gmail.com with your views and any solutions you think can help England progress.

For more on English youth development, coaching and the future check out my book "The Way Forward" from Bennion Kearny 

The Whitehouse Address @The_W_Address