Why can't they just say

[Peter R]

Karl,

IMO, Re: High Schools (the Jamaica model) a few things to consider why they are NOT the best place for football development:

1. As Paul said they start at age 11/12/13... the horse has probably bolted for the majority of players by then.

2. The season runs Sep to Dec: The really serious ones might have school training in August but it seems to me that the pre-season preparation is very short. After December it's relaxation and resting on laurels time.

3. Schools curricular and extra-curricular activities that relate to sport MUST present a wide variety of options to students; to focus on football is counter-productive in the development of the student; not all students are athletic and so those programmes IMO should cater to the lowest common denominator in terms of abilities.

4. Unless the student athlete has an objective or is given a purpose to train hard and long to develop the techniques required to excel in any sport, he /she will not have the motivation needed to give their best, regardless of the best efforts of their school-based instructors.

5. It is also my opinion that this is NOT the purpose of a high school with respect to the student's overall development... yes "mens sana in corpore sano" should always be the objective for the educational system but not the development of national team players of any sport.

Now, with respect to academies:
1. These run year round.
2. They are uniquley focused on one sport.
3. If they are properly organised, you will also see emphasis placed on academics as the instructors know that their will only be so many "diamonds in the rough" they are dealing with.
4. Academies start training of players as young as 3/4 years old.
5. Academies are not "free" and so this is a potential stumbling block for less privileged students; this is one area of concern.

Now there are "things" that both can give the student, like mentoship, guidance, support... however academies by virtue of their exclusivity will do a better job IMO at youth development than the school system.

[Gamma]

sound analysis, but all for nought!

[Paul Marin]

Karl,

IMO, Re: High Schools (the Jamaica model) a few things to consider why they are NOT the best place for football development:

1. As Paul said they start at age 11/12/13... the horse has probably bolted for the majority of players by then.

2. The season runs Sep to Dec: The really serious ones might have school training in August but it seems to me that the pre-season preparation is very short. After December it's relaxation and resting on laurels time.

3. Schools curricular and extra-curricular activities that relate to sport MUST present a wide variety of options to students; to focus on football is counter-productive in the development of the student; not all students are athletic and so those programmes IMO should cater to the lowest common denominator in terms of abilities.

4. Unless the student athlete has an objective or is given a purpose to train hard and long to develop the techniques required to excel in any sport, he /she will not have the motivation needed to give their best, regardless of the best efforts of their school-based instructors.

5. It is also my opinion that this is NOT the purpose of a high school with respect to the student's overall development... yes "mens sana in corpore sano" should always be the objective for the educational system but not the development of national team players of any sport.

Now, with respect to academies:
1. These run year round.
2. They are uniquley focused on one sport.
3. If they are properly organised, you will also see emphasis placed on academics as the instructors know that their will only be so many "diamonds in the rough" they are dealing with.
4. Academies start training of players as young as 3/4 years old.
5. Academies are not "free" and so this is a potential stumbling block for less privileged students; this is one area of concern.

Now there are "things" that both can give the student, like mentoship, guidance, support... however academies by virtue of their exclusivity will do a better job IMO at youth development than the school system.

Two things:

1. Even though they are not free, most academies offer scholarships - this however, only solves the fee problem for a handful of boys. Brazil is going through this very same issue where the sport is being accused of "becoming too white" as the mixed and black kids have lesser access to their top schools due to fees.

2. The high school model can augment academies but it requires clarity and communication between the two groups. For example, here in America, the route to college scholarships in American Football is decidedly through the high schools; however for soccer it is through the local clubs. The big difference is that the high schools have coaching staffs that are pretty much dedicated year round to the sport, and student athletes (with some exceptions) have programs designed to keep them engaged in the sport year round. The travel soccer clubs work with the local high schools to make sure that the boys (and girls) are not over stretched.

Can someone help me understand where the big premier league clubs stand on this issue? Fort Lauderdale Strikers just this year implemented a program where they invite kids from 3 clubs to play under the Strikers name in certain tournaments; it is a way for them to get the best players withouth threatening the local clubs. We'll see if it works. Manchester City also sponsors one of the clubs in Wellington (near West Palm Beach).

[Jangle]

My idea is utilising the facilities that are available at many high schools and some colleges and incorporate them at the national level to help develop our youth programs. Racers and MVP used UTECH and UWI facilities to get us to where we are now in T&F.

[Peter R]

Regarding your number 2... I agree on the collaboration between schools and clubs... and while the development works for American Football in US schools I am not sure that this is the best value for the beleaguered JA educational dollar. If the schools are the way to go in JA, the JFF should be funding the program or at worst subsidising it (if they aren't) and creating the off-season infrastructure for continued development.

[Karl]

Karl,

IMO, Re: High Schools (the Jamaica model) a few things to consider why they are NOT the best place for football development:

1. As Paul said they start at age 11/12/13... the horse has probably bolted for the majority of players by then.

2. The season runs Sep to Dec: The really serious ones might have school training in August but it seems to me that the pre-season preparation is very short. After December it's relaxation and resting on laurels time.

3. Schools curricular and extra-curricular activities that relate to sport MUST present a wide variety of options to students; to focus on football is counter-productive in the development of the student; not all students are athletic and so those programmes IMO should cater to the lowest common denominator in terms of abilities.

4. Unless the student athlete has an objective or is given a purpose to train hard and long to develop the techniques required to excel in any sport, he /she will not have the motivation needed to give their best, regardless of the best efforts of their school-based instructors.

5. It is also my opinion that this is NOT the purpose of a high school with respect to the student's overall development... yes "mens sana in corpore sano" should always be the objective for the educational system but not the development of national team players of any sport.

Now, with respect to academies:
1. These run year round.
2. They are uniquley focused on one sport.
3. If they are properly organised, you will also see emphasis placed on academics as the instructors know that their will only be so many "diamonds in the rough" they are dealing with.
4. Academies start training of players as young as 3/4 years old.
5. Academies are not "free" and so this is a potential stumbling block for less privileged students; this is one area of concern.

Now there are "things" that both can give the student, like mentoship, guidance, support... however academies by virtue of their exclusivity will do a better job IMO at youth development than the school system.

General response - Not geared to specific poster.

I must admit that I got drawn into the nonsense of "HIGH SCHOOLS" ...when my initial (years going now) argument was SCHOOLS - There were 2 main reasons: Competent initial introduction to the game; Exposure for all - giving every child a fair shot to fullfill 'football potential".

The child must have as good an introduction as each should at the earliest stages i.e. 'level playing field'...to have a fair shot & the child has to be seen to have any chance of judge of ability that shall warrant culling and on to academies or elsewhere There is no way the best talents can be selected if the talents are i) not seen...and ii) not have had equal quality introduction to the game.

Surely it should be easy for all to see that "schools"...or even academies cannot be the alpha and the omega in develpment of football talent? Each is but stepping stone.

Ignore the school system and we are setting ourselves up for failuret or at the least 'hit or miss' as it relates to developing our best talents. It will be limiting 'numbers' having a shot and not necessarily finding best quality = self-inflicted limiting of returns (top world class quality players, potential income - development of top quality clubs, coaches, technical experts in the various associated disciplines, administrators, national teams and other associated economic benefits as quality performances increase , earning opportunities for persons, institutions, communities and country...etc., etc.).

Response to Peter: "High Schools" - I will just say students have to make choices on direction with academic courses...so they make choices with extra-curricular activities.

The matter of specialization where sports is concerned...the high school of today has the truly gifted child concentrating on single sport. In my days you represented the school in as many sports as time and 'limited quality of the other students' allowed. Such that I ran track, played cricket and football. ...but then in those days of the '50s & '60s I have now come to realise that the coaches knew zilch about the sport which they attempted to 'teach'/coach and we students knew zilch about possibility of career as athlete. It was for example, - In all my days at school less than (as hours go) 3 months training on each sport. ...and for example I ran track (Class 4 through Class 1.


The coaching and training was a joke!!!
It is not so today in many high schools.

As far as talent goes - It is not by accident that a Bibi or Errol Stewart, Donald Quarrie, (forget the name of the most beutiful schoolgirl sprinter I ever saw...from Manchester High I think) and others could attain world standard as "High School" talents. The talent has always been there...spread across the entire island.

In a nutshell a nonsense strategy to not give all our kids competent teachers/coaches from earliest years! Surely the top quality from that lot who move on to higher levels would also have greater chance of becoming top world performers? ...and many from the 2nd tier (as per Brazil and other countries) would have a shot at earning a decent living? Right?