“That is going to be one of the big challenges. How do we
get talented kids, properly coached, into the top level of English football?”
Greg Dyke, Chairman of the English FA
Greg Dyke, Chairman of the English FA
The second half of the FA’s commission report has not
received the glitz and glamour on which the first report received. It
seemed that late on Friday evening the details of Dyke & his commission's follow up to the initial report were
released. Perhaps it was because of the ferocious backlash after the first
report that Dyke decided to be a little more cautious this time. Or perhaps it
was because this was seen merely as a 'follow up', and not, as it should have
been, the main focus of the commission.
To have wasted so much time and reportedly
£750,000 on this commission, the endless meetings, discussions and debates which have merely led to wasted time of actual implementation is laughable, but not surprising of this organisation. The “League 3” idea was embarrassingly
poor and alienated many who believed this commission may actually provide
something of worth. What that first report did was merely justifying decades of
dis-trust and disappointed with our Football Association. Yes there were good
statistics in the report, yet poor solutions to help solve those issues. To be honest It all
seemed as though the real problem at that level, the Premier League, was
conveniently ignored. The FA simply proved their place in the hierarchy. (For my detailed look at the first report click here)
Yet influencing
the elite level of the game has for a long time not been the FA’s role. They
passed on this responsibility to the Premier League and have allowed the beast
to grow. Now the beast cannot be tamed. However in fairness to the Premier
League they are a well ran company and have produced a great ‘product’. Richard
Scudamore should be commended for his vision and ability to get things done. If
only he was leading the FA perhaps the national game may be in a better
position.
A need to focus on what they can influence
Perhaps the FA cannot influence the ‘machine’ which is the Premier League yet they should look upon their role as leaders of the grassroots game with more drive and determination. There are significant issues which need addressing at the key phase of youth football. It is the foundation where the building blocks for future successes are laid.
What the commission needed to do was focus on the area in which they
could genuinely influence and thus invest and develop. This was always going to
be grassroots football. Now the fact their solutions, which aren’t bad I must
say, have taken this long to formulate is what frustrates the most. It didn’t
need a year to develop these ideas. And as Dyke seems inclined to do, he proposes these solutions and then puts the actual action and responsibility on to someone else. We should
have expected to see tangible results come from this report. Instead, as is the
case with the FA, we hear ideas for the future. This is merely a formula for in-action in the
present and the continued lagging behind other nations who are far more
pro-active.
Let us look at what Dyke has proposed.
What has been put forward is a ‘radical’ £230m overhaul of
grassroots football in 30 of England’s largest cities and towns in which new
“hubs” of 3G artificial pitches will be laid to facilitate year-round play. It
is hoped that the Premier League, government and local authorities will provide
the land for the new 3G pitches. This approach is to address years of neglect
in urban areas where pitches are often unplayable through the winter months,
and changing rooms are decrepit. Dyke believes that “If we can do the hubs I
think we can transform football,”
The commission found that England lags far behind other
European countries in its installation of 3G pitches. England has 639
full-size, public access 3G pitches compared to 3,735 in Germany. 3G pitches
are more durable and can withstand up to 80 hours playing time a week, compared
with the five hour maximum for a natural grass pitch. The aim is to increase
the number of 3G pitches in towns and cities by 130 per cent by 2020 to more
than 500. The Football Foundation, the Premier League’s charitable initiative
will continue to build 25 a year. The overall number will rise to more than
1,000.
Now the building of new 3G pitches is long overdue. Local council
pitches have been in poor states for far too long and the word ‘embarrassment’
is an under-statement when we consider what the majority of youngsters are
forced to play on during the season. There is a lack of care and a lack of investment in maintaining these pitches. The grassroots game has been short-changed
as the money in the professional game and Academies has risen. Accessible,
affordable and high quality 3G pitches will address the issues of pitch quality
and cancellations. The fact this has not been addressed earlier highlights the
problems English grassroots has faced in the past decade. However we cannot
ignore the work of the Football Foundation who have done a great job of
installing 3G pitches across the country for charter standard clubs and to
improve communities.
But here the comes the issues. Dyke has said “It’s time for
change”, however its been time for a long time and one cannot help but look at
this new scheme and wonder how long it will be till it is fully running? As he
says, “We will do two or three pilots, and then say to local authorities ‘OK,
who wants to come on board with this?” It is worrying once again that Dyke has
thrown out a proposal yet wants others to lead and support it.
Personally I
believe the FA should take more control and invest in these ‘hubs’ themselves.
But then here’s the reason, “in the end it's about money and we don’t control
the bulk of money in football.” Dyke throws the responsibility onto the Premier
League once more. But wait, there was £900m to build Wembley,(which now is
becoming unattainable to afford repayments which may lead to an NFL franchise?!
– why not have invested less into these hubs?!) if only the FA had shown
foresight and vision to see where their focus should have been. Grassroots,
youth football should be their main focus. Instead they throw money away at the
senior level.
And what about coaching? Yes it’s great to see focus being
put on facilities yet ultimately the influence of a coach on young players
could be the most important aspect for developing potential players. Well, these
hubs will apparently be be used for coaching courses also. There is however no indication of
cheaper courses for coaches. I believe that all youth coaches should have at
least the Youth Module 1 & 2, working towards 3. A Level 1 in coaching is
simply not good enough. So what the FA need to do is provide these foundation courses
at cheaper rates, or as part of a package. It is staggering how expensive
coaching courses are. This is especially the case at St George’s Park where I
felt this was a chance to reduce costs, instead prices have rocketed! It’s
ludicrous. Surely we want to educate a higher number of coaches in order to
influence a greater number of players? The FA have really let themselves down
with this area.
To say I have not been blown away by this report is an
under-statement. It has thrown out solutions which didn’t need 12 months to fathom
and put together, 12 months which could have actually been used to begin work
on the proposals. It all seems like a token gesture from the FA that they are ‘trying’
to make a difference and change things. And while there has been great work
with the implementation of the Youth Modules and the improved changes in small
sided games for young players, the disappointed with our football association continues.
So what could the FA and Dyke have really sought to address with this commission? Below are some of the key solutions which I proposed in TheWay Forward, published July 2013. I hope the FA considered some of these
solutions.
Solution 1 – Overhaul the FA council
It has been argued that a major problem with the FA is that
it has not been run by football people but by businessmen who value commercial
interests over their role as developers of the game.
The decision to invest in a new Wembley over the development
of England’s national training centre in the early 2000’s was proof enough
where the focus and interests lie. £900m which could have been spent on investing
in the future of players and coaches was instead put into a stadium which in
all honesty was not needed. A waste of money, time and resources which could
have gone elsewhere. Such a shame for England’s future.
Did we really need to build a new national stadium? We could
have followed the Germans, where there is no national stadium; games of the
national team are always in different cities. This allows more people to see
their team and allows more money to be put into key areas.
Imagine where that £900 million spent on Wembley could have
gone? If The FA were serious about improving the standards of youth development
we could have seen 80-100 ‘development centres’ run by the FA Skills programme,
right across the country, which would have meant more youth coaches and players
being developed. That money could also have gone to subsidising coaching
courses which could have meant cheaper courses, especially the 'A' and Pro
licence which would have meant the development of a greater number of ‘quality’
coaches.
The FA cannot say they do not have the money, what they do
not have is the desire to make significant changes at the foundation
level. Too much money at the top trying to fix problems that need addressing at
the bottom.
Why did they decide to do this? The truth is that the FA are
ran by men whose primary interests are not about football. Those men who run
the FA are businessmen whose interests are in the commercial part of football.
Having the wrong men in charge of our Football Association has been the reason
for the continuing issues and problems of English football. The FA cannot say they do not have the money, what they do
not have is the desire to make significant changes at the foundation level. Too
much money at the top trying to fix problems that need addressing at the
bottom.
For well over a century the English FA has been responsible
for coaching and development standards. Yet, one could argue convincingly,
their methods have failed to produce the necessary quality in home grown
coaching and playing talent: a lack of vision, a disastrous philosophy, and
poor planning illustrate how the FA has failed the country for decades. The concern now is that many coaches feel they cannot
‘trust’ the English FA to put in place a philosophy and style which is
conducive for English football to develop players and teams for the modern
game. This is worrying.
The FA were criticised heavily in July 2011 by the
government for their failure to introduce new financial controls or to increase
the influence of fans. The Culture, Media and Sport
Select Committee accused the Football Association, the
Premier League and the Football League of a “very disappointing” response to
its report published in July 2011, which followed a wide-ranging inquiry into
the governance of the game.
Allied to renewed concerns over home-grown talent, following
an abject showing at the 2010 World Cup, the embarrassing failure of the bid to
host the 2018 World Cup, and long-standing concerns about the dysfunctional
structure of the FA – the Sports Minister, Hugh Robertson, was prompted to say
that, “Football is the worst governed sport in this country, without a doubt.”
The report wanted the FA to “restructure its main board to
assert its independence, overhaul the FA Council to make it more representative,
introduce tough new rules on financial regulation, and increase the influence of
supporters on how their clubs were run.” The select committee has urged the FA to ‘reform its
structure’. As the committee says, “We urge the authorities to be more radical
and more urgent in addressing the problems faced by the game because of the
weaknesses in its governance structure, both at FA and club level.”
They believe that a “fundamental overhaul of the FA council”
is needed to help the FA improve standards and modernise the English game. They
believe that the council lacks “diversity” yet this is not hard to understand
when you consider that the council has 118 members, many of whom have served
for more than 20 years and two-thirds of them are aged 64 or over. Clearly, the
FA is in need of a change because, at this time, English football in the hands
of the wrong people. The FA needs a radical shakeup in order to improve
standards and the future of the English game.
For too long the same men have represented their county and
yet for too long the FA has failed to make the significant changes needed for
the country to improve. At this time the professional clubs have little respect
for the FA and its methods because there have been too many mistakes in the
past. Wilkinson knew that the clubs needed to take the power away from the
FA because he did not believe they could impose the necessary changes.
It is clear that the FA is in need of a change, performances
and comparisons with other nations highlight this. It is the same people
who have continued to control our national game, they were there during the
'dark years' are still there now. This is not progress. Quite simply English football in the hands of the wrong
people. The FA needs a radical shakeup in order to improve standards and the
future of the English game. It is clear that the organisation, which is
such an important part of English culture, needs to be renovated. The FA
council needs to be brought into the 21st century and new members need to
be introduced.
Solution 2 – Investment in school sport
If we wish to improve the standards of our
young footballers then we need to start with the foundation of learning.
Physical literacy is a vital component of any sport: the ability to run and
turn and cut. Agility, balance and co-ordination are basic elements for
football players. These skills should be learnt at school, through P.E., yet it
appears that these lessons are not being taught effectively.
Primary schools are suffering from a lack of quality P.E.
teachers and unfortunately many of the outside coaches, who come in to schools,
are not highly enough qualified to give young children the necessary physical
education. If this continues then children have little opportunity for physical
development before 11 years of age. As schools play such a key role in the development of
children’s physical literacy - the government needs to invest in school sport and
particularly in expert sport teachers in primary schools and lay strong
physical foundations for young children.
A joint approach between the government and the Youth Sports
Trust would lead to improved levels of physical education in schools so that
children from 5-11 would receive a multi-linear development programme of mobility
and key multi-skills. If a child only plays football and nothing else, then
they will develop uni-linear skills which will ultimately stunt their
development and restrict their long term mobility.
If a child is given the right learning environment to learn multiple
skills, then they will develop a broader range of skills with a greater potential
to progress across multiple sports. Investment in specialist P.E. teachers in
primary schools is therefore a necessity.
Solution 3 – Investment in facilities
England trails other nations like Holland, Spain and Germany
for investment into sports facilities around the country. If we wish to develop
more talented footballers then we need to give them a greater number of facilities
in order to provide them with the environments to flourish. Dyke has sought to address this area in his report and this is pleasing. Increasing the amount of 3G pitches will help provide more opportunity and hours of play for young players.
Yet what about local communities? This blog has spoken about the ‘death of street soccer’ and the
negative effects that has had on the development of young footballers. This
loss of ‘free play’ and practice time has restricted young players development. The reason? In structured
games and coaching sessions, is restricted and denied from selecting options.
This applies not just to the game itself, but the rules, dimensions, and time. If children cannot experience ‘street soccer’ then we need
to create ways of providing them with the right opportunities and guidance to
improve their skill development; the 7-11 window of opportunity is vital for
laying down the foundations of technical excellence.
The solution to this is simple. If children are not allowed
to play in the streets anymore then local councils need to invest in building
small sided football ‘cages’ similar to what is seen in Spain and Brazil. The
growing popularity of futsal can aid the future development of players and
these cages can be a great environment for players to practice their skills.
More futsal cages across communities can be the modern version of ‘street
soccer’. These Powerleague and Goals are great in terms of the quality of the facilities, but are pricing many out of using them. Business and profit has superseded opportunity.
As well as the creation of ‘football cages’, schools and
councils need to make their own sports facilities accessible at inexpensive
prices. Schools are closed thirteen weeks of the year and yet you rarely see
their facilities in use. This is a waste. Investment in new facilities, as well as a reduction in
costs for current facilities, is needed to give young players a place to
‘play’.
Solution 4 – Develop a national playing style
Dan Ashworth’s role at the FA will be to develop a national
playing style through which grassroots coaches can develop players. The FA
needs to cement a long-term player development strategy and make available a
core national coaching syllabus to assist clubs.
For too long the FA has failed to create an all-embracing
‘philosophy’ for youth development in the way Germany, Spain and Holland have
done over the past decades. There needs to be a core coaching strategy aimed at
delivering talented young English players to the national teams. How can
coaches be taught, and players produced to play, without first establishing a
suitable national playing style? A national style template would allow the
building blocks to be laid – we know teams should include individual skills but
we don’t produce appropriate players so we import them. Not a healthy prospect
for our football future.
The new youth modules are very good at teaching coaches to
develop a positive learning environment yet more could be done to teach the
importance of the FA Skills programme, and a style of play for coaches to
implement in their small-sided games.
If Ashworth can develop a national playing style which
focuses on the development of technically confident and skilful players in possession,
as well as tactically efficient individuals (both in and out of possession),
then the future can be brighter for English football. The FA needs to make sure
coaches are producing more creative players.
We have seen that the most successful club sides adopt a way
of playing that is insisted upon from the youngest youth players to the
first-team. The vision and philosophy put forward must be effectively communicated
at all levels of the game in order to achieve political and professional
support.
A recommendation would be to look at educating coaches on
the use of a three man midfield in a 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 formation. The use of
4-3-3 in youth teams has benefited Ajax, Barcelona, and has been introduced
with great success in Belgium this past decade. And it is not just at 11v11
where this can be introduced, the style and philosophy of this formation can be
adapted to suit the new small sided formats easily - vital for the development
of more creative players.
Solution 5 – Developing a coaching culture
England, the majority of coaching is still very amateur.
Archaic training and development sessions are still regularly used. The FA needs to stand up and do more to improve standards at
the foundation level where they can exert more control and direction over
coaches and players. What is needed is a visionary approach followed by forward
planning; it’s essential if our game is to survive.
Other nations have a clear philosophy and vision of what
they wish to produce and develop in their national game from youth to the seniors,
and the English FA needs to do more in this respect. Our national body needs to
improve its strategic thinking and be more courageous in its future planning
and investment. Yes, St George’s Park is now open, but can one national
football centre really be the change which England needs?
It was felt that the new national football centre will be the
catalyst for England’s future. And yet it is hard not to believe that this is
just going to be another false dawn. A new building is not going to change the development of our
players. The real changes will come from the quality of coaching that young
players receive across the country, from P.E. in schools, to the grassroots
level, and onto the elite academies.
The key for England’s future is to improve the foundations
of youth development. Quality coaching will make this happen but the question
is - are our coaches good enough to develop our young footballers?
There is no doubt that coaching has become more technical
and precise, and the truth is that English football is not equipped for the
modern game right now. While we have sat idly by - nations like Spain, Germany
and Belgium have been busy improving youth development.
If the FA wishes to improve the standards of the players in
this country then they need to improve the quality of coaching. Educating young
grassroots coaches in the ways that children actually develop and learn is being
seen in the youth modules - which is positive. The new youth modules for
football are much better than previous courses as they seek to educate coaches
on how to coach and how children acquire skills and information instead of
previous courses which taught what to coach. There is a big difference between
having a session plan and a bag of balls and being qualified to work with
children.
In reality there should not be anyone who works with a group
of players who has not attended at least the Level 1 and 2 Youth Module awards.
Too many volunteer coaches with a Level 1 award are regarded as coaches when,
in truth, they are uneducated in the development of a young child, yet alone a
young footballer.
The national playing style should be taught in the new FA
youth modules and a five year target period should be applied to every coach to
be working towards completion of the FA youth award (it involves attending the
three youth module courses and carrying out a final assessment). More qualified
coaches working under a national philosophy will be a positive step in
developing more talented players.
With coaching such a critical component to success, we will
need excellent coach educators. Unfortunately there are still cases of average
and mediocre educators who neither inspire, educate, nor prepare coaches particularly
well for their roles.
When considering quality coaching courses – they should not
be viewed as ‘buying the award’ such that ‘if you attend… you pass’. The assessment
procedure from Level 1 upwards should be harder and more intense to make sure
coaches put in the necessary work and commitment. Quantity is meaningless
without quality. Youth coaching should not be seen as a volunteer activity
but an important and essential part of building the foundation of our next
generation. The idea of coaching needs a culture change; it needs to be viewed
as an occupation similar to that of a teacher not just a helpful volunteer.
Finally, if the FA is serious about ‘coach development’ then
they need to reduce the cost of their courses to make them accessible and
affordable for many more grassroots coaches. Right now coach education courses
are far too expensive and elitist and are restricting the development and
understanding of many coaches.
Solution 6 – Increased support for grassroots football
A coaching culture which values player development will see
significant improvements and will increase the talent pool. The FA and county
FAs need to monitor and support the grassroots game, as this is where the
greatest number of players are.
The problem with ‘dads’ who help out is that they have no
idea what they are doing. As mentioned above, a bag of balls and cones does not
constitute a coach. I will make generalizations here which may be misplaced, as
there are many good youth coaches out there, but there are many who use the
same methods and thinking from when they were kids and how they were coached.
In turn, many methods are based on adult training and have
no place or relevance for youth players. Fitness training for 8 year olds is
something I have witnessed which has made me cringe and I worry that there are
far more damaging coaches out there than good ones. These ‘coaches’ should not
be working with young players, their intentions may be admirable but they are
damaging the kids they work with.
Every club should ultimately be a charter standard club
where coaches are monitored and their qualifications are suited to their role.
The FA has a major role to play in making sure the right people are working at
this level.
The FA has introduced the FA mentor scheme yet they need to
do much more to monitor coaching across the country. 350 coach mentors to work
with grassroots clubs and coaches across the country is a positive step but perhaps still too small.
The culture right now is that academies are taking players at a young age to ‘save’ them from grassroots. However, a player should not have to be ‘saved’ from grassroots in order to receive a better education. Grassroots coaching should be better, it’s as simple as that. High standards and the promotion of skill and creativity should be sought. The win at all costs mentality is ruining many players and destroying potential. Creativity is killed because it may lead to losing the ball. A change in the ethos for age groups 5-11 needs to happen so that much more emphasis is given to skill development and acquisition rather than results in matches.
It is also important to address the issue of relative age
effect and for coaches to understand the differences in the early adolescent
years when certain players are bigger or smaller depending on their date of
birth. Perhaps splitting the grassroots into a six month age banding may help
those players born May – August progress more than they do right now.
The grassroots game also needs a demarcation between
participation and enjoyment, and more elite levels of grassroots. This way,
players who wish to play football to simply enjoy it have the choice of
community or elite. The Midland Junior Premier League is a good example of a
higher standard of grassroots football that helps bridge the gap between
grassroots and academy football.
There are several million children who enjoy playing and
participating in football. They deserve a well organised, competitive, non-elitist
and inclusive football environment. This environment can help players move up
the levels of development.
Solution 7 – Academy support network
If academies wish to have a larger pool of players to choose
from then perhaps they need to do more to help the local grassroots clubs. If there
was a more competitive level in the grassroots game then those coaches and players should
receive more support from both the FA Skills programme and the local
professional academy.
Imagine if both these organisations were helping coaches in
the grassroots game. Standards and quality would certainly improve which would
benefit players and ultimately give the academy a larger pool of talent to
choose from. Therefore having a coach who works for the academy yet whose job
is to support the local coaches of grassroots clubs would be something similar
to the FA mentor scheme.
Clubs should look beyond the first team and their immediate academy system and look at the wider picture. Professional academies should provide free coach education courses to local coaches which would also provide an opportunity for the club’s philosophy to be embedded within a wider community framework. Academy coaches could carry out coach education and team
training for local clubs. This could be the job of the foundation phase coach
in academies who work with coaches for the Under-7 to Under-11 player levels.
If academies were restricted from using their pre-academies
and instead went into local clubs to train players, then the issue of increased
pressure and early specialisation would be limited. It would also help create a
strong community bond which is lacking at this time (academies are often viewed
negatively by locals). In a nutshell, academies and Centres of Excellence need
to give more back to the local clubs instead of just taking the talent; coach
education clinics would be beneficial for grassroots coaches, showing them the
drills and methods used within the Academy.
Solution 8 – FA led development centres
This is a key solution which Dyke should have pushed and suggested. For me, this is where the FA could help 'bridge the gap' between grassroots and academies.
Now as well as academies needing to improve their own
‘Development Centres’, where it is often only Level 1 or 2 coaches who work
with players, the FA needs to develop their own centres too. The key to both
approaches being effective is to put in quality youth coaches who can improve
the pool of talent.
The issue many academies face is that players coming in are
often way off the level of their current players, even though the new players might
excel in their grassroots environment. And when the academies release players
they become guilty of allowing them to drop back to the bottom level where the
quality of players and coaches is not as high.
If the FA introduced elite development
centres through their skills programme, then academies would have a more
talented number of players moving up to their level. In turn, players released
by academies would not be forced to move all the way back to grassroots but
have a level which provides them with continued quality coaching.
A football framework should be structured which enables
talented players to progress gradually whilst being continually challenged. The
movement up from grassroots to academy lacks a middle area, where a skills
programme should be. Without this middle level, the pool of talent gets restricted and
reduced.
Once again, Germany’s centres are a great example to follow. A lack of specialist coaches for younger age groups was addressed by the German FA who built 121 national talent centres in order to help 10 to 17-year-olds and who now employ more than 150 full-time coaches dedicated to working with younger children. These centres were supported by the 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.
It all comes down to cost, of course; the FA believes it is
the job of academies to go into clubs and develop better coaches, and the
academies believe it is the FA’s role to push talent up. Ultimately it is the
job of both parties.
Trevor Brooking initially looked to set up The FA skills
programme to work with elite players, to improve their technical skills. The
teaching of skills to master technique is precisely what has been missing from
English youth development for decades. The English FA says it simply doesn’t
have the money to make this kind of investment. What needs to happen is that the FA, working in conjunction
with the Premier League, needs to fund the creation of development centres in
order to ‘bridge’ the gap between grassroots and academies. If funding cannot
be found from a £5 billion television deal then serious questions need to be
asked.
The implementation of development centres in every county across
the country with selected gifted and talented players, working with expert
coaches on weekly basis, will improve the quality of players and increase the
talent pool.
Solution 9 – Move to a summer season
Looking at the solutions mentioned so far at the grassroots
level and in the academy set-up, then there
is an underlying issue affecting all levels and ages of football across
England: the weather.
There is no doubt that the climate in England has affected
the development of more talented players. If we consider that the season runs
from August – May then we have to be realistic and assume that players will
only have roughly 12 weeks of ‘good’ weather in that season. The autumn and
winter months bring bitterly cold temperatures which affect training and games
in terms of cancellations, what can be practised, and more. As well as this,
colder temperatures mean players need to be more ‘active’ which often results
in high tempo games, a reflection of the English style.
Now imagine if the season was moved. It ran from February to
November, and the winter months were regarded as the ‘off-season’. Would this
benefit the development of our players? Without question. There would be fewer
cancellations and less time training in freezing cold and dark sessions.
Football could be brighter and (slightly) warmer. This is not just for the
players’ enjoyment, this will allow more tactical development and teaching
because coaches and players will be afforded environments which allow more
rest, and temperatures which don’t require full-on high tempo football in order
to simply ‘stay warm’.
The time off period (when cancellations occur most often)
will benefit numerous groups, and for those who want to train during the
‘off-season’ then they can still hire pitches. Better still why not join a
winter futsal league and have players develop their skills in a ‘different’
environment?
The greatest benefit of a move to a summer schedule is for
academy players whom we wish to push to elite levels; they will be able to take
greater advantage of the summer holidays. Too often the six week summer period
is regarded as ‘down time’, yet this should be the time when the
most activity, coaching and education is happening.
One final benefit of playing in warmer temperatures would
see our players ‘learning’ how to play in warm conditions. This may help address
why we struggle in summer tournaments as we finally let our players play in
summer months! Taking advantage of the time and weather which summer provides
can be the answer for English players to compete with their foreign
counterparts.
________________
Greg Dyke has spent the past year hyping up his commission and having us believe that the FA can lead the change and develop a better future for English football. However after hearing his proposals I can honestly say I am unimpressed. If the FA were more forthright in their willingness to lead the change, to build these talent centres 'hubs' and to reduce their costs for coaches wanting to progress through the FA pathway then I would believe more in what they are seeking to do. However I cannot help but see a failed attempt to instil genuine change in the English system. For this I am disappointed once more in our Football Association. I eagerly await the FA conference in December in which 'Football's Future' will be discussed and perhaps we can finally get a sense of the DNA which Ashworth has been talking about and 'developing' since he arrived. I wait with bated breath.
I will end this article with the ending to The Way Forward, as I feel it is pertinent to this discussion;
"As we near
the end of this journey across England’s past, present, and future, it is important
that we realise that for too many years we have sat idly back waiting for change
to happen. This kind of breath-holding or apathy cannot continue if we wish to
see major change across our national game. It is important for us all to
realise that real change takes a combined effort and that it is not just the FA
or Premier League who hold the key to the future of English football. It is
also coaches, parents and fans of the game. Our influence and impact can be
just as important.
Yes, it
will take time and patience, but the current predicament is a broken one. What
is key is that everyone works together to improve the levels and quality of players
and coaching in the country, and that we take pride in doing our bit for the development
of England’s future."
The Whitehouse Address @The_W_Address
No comments:
Post a Comment