Villa: good guys (again): Bryan Jones on young footballers/England & W.C.

[Monty]

Essentially, we need to do practically everything much better.

[Small Rodent]

You should listen to Bryan's contribution here. It's controversial vis-a-vis England. The rest of it is interesting, too.
Thanks for posting this, 'cuss.

What does he say for those that cannot listen?

[tomd2103]

It's never going to happen, but the masses of money generated by the Premier League should be distributed throughout all levels in this country and not just kept at that level.  Let's face it, one World Cup win on home soil and one semi-final suggests there problem is not a new one and something radical needs to be done to change things. 

I don't particularly subscribe to the calls to concentrate only on the "grassroots", as only a tiny percentage of those playing will go on to represent the national team.  What we really need is a concentration of the development of young "elite" players beyond the age of 16.  There needs to be a clear pathway through the England age groups (U16s, U18's, U21s) to the national team and players need to engage, even to the point of where I would like to see clubs punished if players routinely pull out of squads.

Having been there a couple of times, I'm still really not sure how a multi million pound facility down a country lane just outside Burton is helping the national game in any way.     

[tomd2103]

when I was at school some 40 years ago, school football was where it was at, if you were good enough to play for the school team that was quite possibly the only competitive football you got until you left school and went on to play for the local pub/club

there has to be more kids playing competitive football today then ever before, every Saturday and sunday there are thousands lining up for there local sides from ages 6 upwards
I'm not saying the competitiveness is a good thing, but there is more opportunity today than there was years ago
although playing football every single night on the street or local park seems to have gone, and that might play a part

what I'm saying is that whilst selling off school sports fields is an absolute tragedy, it cant be blamed for kids not playing football or having the opportunity to do so

Those competitive games for 6-12 year olds are a big part of the problem.  The key to coaching at that level is about getting lots of time with a ball and getting loads of touches.  a decent sized grass pitch with 7-11 a-side means a lot of those kids are 'playing football' without actually spending much time with a ball.  You get the 1-2 kids who are a bit special and are involved in everything and the rest of the team turns into a delivery mechanism for them.

Totally agree, which is why I would advocate totally changing how football is played at that age.  It might sound a bit too radical, but I wouldn't even have proper games to start off with.  I would simply have them playing small sided possession games in small areas, so they got used to getting on the ball and keeping it.  No goals, no pitch markings, no lumping the ball up to the best kid on the team while over zealous parents scream their head off on the sidelines.  Start with that and then gradually build the rest in as the kids get older.

   

[peter w]

My eldest will be attending a private school in the UK in September - not our first choice but missed the deadline for applyinmg for state schools. However, I 'nipped' back to the Uk last week for his induction day and the size of the playing field that they have was astonsihing. When I was at my comp we didn't even have one of our own. There really is a diminshing return on children's eductaion when it comes to sport. If you have the money the classrooms or smaller (i.e children to teacher ratio), they tend to be better equipped, and the playing fields available are also either shared, or non-existant.

Maybe not for the discussion forum but it's a valid point that our success at international level is of course going to be questioned when less children have exposure to playing the game with proper facilities.

[john e]

thing is sport in schools or sport for kids in general should not be first and foremost about building the future national team,
it should be about enjoying sports of all kinds, keeping active and fit, leaning the importance of being in a team unit, whether the children are ever going to be good enough to go on proffesionally is irelevent really,

private schools always put massive importance on sport because they know its beneficial to the overall education of a child, apart from being good exercise and good fun

what I'm saying is sport in schools should be right up there with maths, English science etc,
because it important to keep kids playing sports for many other reasons than just hope one or two of them make it into the England team

[tomd2103]

My eldest will be attending a private school in the UK in September - not our first choice but missed the deadline for applyinmg for state schools. However, I 'nipped' back to the Uk last week for his induction day and the size of the playing field that they have was astonsihing. When I was at my comp we didn't even have one of our own. There really is a diminshing return on children's eductaion when it comes to sport. If you have the money the classrooms or smaller (i.e children to teacher ratio), they tend to be better equipped, and the playing fields available are also either shared, or non-existant.

Maybe not for the discussion forum but it's a valid point that our success at international level is of course going to be questioned when less children have exposure to playing the game with proper facilities.

During the lunch break of the test match at the weekend, they had a chap in the studio who ran a company which linked schools with their local cricket club, so that they could use the facilities and the coaching there.  He was saying that it has been a success and with further funding they hoped to reach even more children.  I don't see why something like that could not be done with football, especially as most schools are within reach of a football club.  As I said before, the money is there to do something like this, it just needs to be distributed better.

[tomd2103]

thing is sport in schools or sport for kids in general should not be first and foremost about building the future national team,
it should be about enjoying sports of all kinds, keeping active and fit, leaning the importance of being in a team unit, whether the children are ever going to be good enough to go on proffesionally is irelevent really,

private schools always put massive importance on sport because they know its beneficial to the overall education of a child, apart from being good exercise and good fun

what I'm saying is sport in schools should be right up there with maths, English science etc,
because it important to keep kids playing sports for many other reasons than just hope one or two of them make it into the England team

I agree, which is why I feel discussions about the national team which focus on grassroots and schools are misguided.

[Simon Ward]

My youngest son is still at school! They are just building a sports centre on the playing fields so they can hire it out to the community!

[steffo]

Wayne Rooney or more to the point, his employers do not have to pay a 10% wage levy. He is qualified English.

Maths;

20 Premier League Teams

25 Squad Players per team

Average wage £1 millon per year

40% English qualified leaving 60% paying a 10% levy.

15 players (non English) x £1 million x 20 teams @ 10% = £30 million.

Thats £1.5M from each club on average - a small price to pay bearing in mind they get £60M before they start. £30M based on a £30K wage = 1000 new coaches.

Or we can continue down the same road..........

[peter w]

But it's the same argument that leads from to the other - regarding kids and available facilities.

It's unlikley that there are unknown football superstars because of the games worldwide audience and participation. There maybe the best cricketer ever born living and residing in Ulan Bator, Phnom Penh, or Gabarone but because they do not have exposure to the game, and may not have even seen it, it is unlikley that this world talent will ever come to the fore. The best ever cricketer might not be Australian, basketball player American, hurling player Irish etc etc but limiting access limits the pool of talent.

It's the same with children. Yes it should be about access to sport for all but this isn't a thread about kids enjoting sport unless we take it off to off topic. As it's about football I'll keep the point relevant to that. If we limit children's access at a young age it limits those that can to progress to school football teams, after school clubs, competitive teams at the right age, and so on. Yes most will get through if they are good enough, but if they aren't interested due to not having the appropriate time and equipmet devoted to them then we as a football nation will start to suffer.

This is somethiong that will take 20 years or so to see, and we've had 20 years or so of playing fields being sold, 20 years or so of teachers being stretched and not being able to devote time for sports, 20 years or so of teachers not being qualified enough to impart any knowledge on the sport they may be conducting at the school - i.e non-qualified basketball, cricket, football coaches. IOt is bound to have an effect sooner or later.

[Dave]

Having been there a couple of times, I'm still really not sure how a multi million pound facility down a country lane just outside Burton is helping the national game in any way.     

It opened at the end of 2012. I'm not sure what results you would expect to see from it at this point.

It's not going to suddenly mean that the current Danny Wellbeck or Jordan Henderson now play like Angel Di Maria and Toni Kroos, but it might mean that current eight year olds turn into better players than Danny Wellbeck and Jordan Henderson.

It could also turn into a giant, irrelevent white elephant - but I don't think the first 18 months of it's existence is the time to judge it.

[paul_e]

Wayne Rooney or more to the point, his employers do not have to pay a 10% wage levy. He is qualified English.

Maths;

20 Premier League Teams

25 Squad Players per team

Average wage £1 millon per year

40% English qualified leaving 60% paying a 10% levy.

15 players (non English) x £1 million x 20 teams @ 10% = £30 million.

Thats £1.5M from each club on average - a small price to pay bearing in mind they get £60M before they start. £30M based on a £30K wage = 1000 new coaches.

Or we can continue down the same road..........

I'd give it a day at most before one of these non-english players who is being forced to pay a 10% tax on the basis of their nationality start legal proceedings for what would be a clear case of discrimination.

The better solution, if money really is the problem, would be for 5% of the TV money which is given to the premier league (an subsequently to clubs) be held back and used for that purpose, basically get sky, etc to pay directly in to an improved coaching structure.  The key though is using those coaches correctly, as mentioned above, the absolute first thing they need to do is get rid of all competition (outside schools) for under 14s.

[peter w]

The 'problem' with that is that u-14 competitioins are sanctioned by the FA.

[dave.woodhall]

It would have helped if we hadn't spent £800 million on a stadium that wasn't needed.