T&T-Schoolboy football vs "pro" football

[Peter R]

Schools football is hurting the soca warriors.

http://wired868.com/2015/02/01/look-...soca-warriors/

[Karl]

Schools football is hurting the soca warriors.

http://wired868.com/2015/02/01/look-...soca-warriors/

Great!
He says school boy (school football is for the boy who is not good enough to play for a club)...and this segment ends with him alluding to the clubs having no environment for the school boy. In fact it is spelt out with:

we have to ensure that the clubs are structured and provide a proper environment and the TTFA has to introduce requirements for clubs depending on its level to ensure that if a boy says he is not playing for St Mary’s College (and) he is going to play for Maple, there is an environment there that is proper to ensure his football development.

http://wired868.com/2015/02/01/look-...soca-warriors/

So on its face all the beating around the bush and striking at the quality of football in his schools is 'horse ****'! ...

It is the same 'horse ****' being spoken by too many of our football leaders. It goes something like this - School football is no good! Take football development out of schools! Hand it to the clubs and academies! Clubs and academies are currently no good. However we shall ensure that one day they are good!


The piece of .... they are selling is: Schools cannot improve delivery of teaching of football...but clubs and academies can!!!

We are to believe either that the instructors in clubs and academies if competent would become incompetent if in schools or the competent instructor in schools would miraculously become super competent in a club or academy setting. If that is not what is being promote/sold then why would we be told improve instructions in academies and clubs...but nothing on doing same in schools?

Peter: Please post the first part of the interview and the concluding segment when it is published.
Thanks!

[Peter R]

See Part 1 here: he is talking about the T&T U20 campaign in Jamaica

http://wired868.com/2015/01/30/under...u-20-campaign/

[Paul Marin]

Karl - you keep missing the point. Maybe this will help. For each question, ask which is better? (Club/School) - assume the resources are there for a moment.

1. Long term football curriculum from age U6 - U18?
2. Age specific development for each age group? (U6 - U18)
3. Age appropriate playing season designed for player development?
4. Appropriately grouped skill levels - i.e. grouping players according to skill?
5. Focus and concentration on football-specific development?

Let's just start there.

[Karl]

Karl - you keep missing the point. Maybe this will help. For each question, ask which is better? (Club/School) - assume the resources are there for a moment.

1. Long term football curriculum from age U6 - U18?
2. Age specific development for each age group? (U6 - U18)
3. Age appropriate playing season designed for player development?
4. Appropriately grouped skill levels - i.e. grouping players according to skill?
5. Focus and concentration on football-specific development?

Let's just start there.

I will go further - I have missed nothing - Let us assume everything is perfect:
It must be the subject specific institution!!!

...and I think you have missed the point!!! ...considering I am all for academies...and additionally for maximizing use of our schools as development tools!

What you are promoting is - Academies for maximizing development...and schools for stultifying=hinder or render ineffective development!

I see no conflict in maximizing both paths! ..all I see is benefits of so doing!!!

You speak elsewhere of the 3 year old being exposed to good education - football education and so on in each succeeding year. Yet it appears you are blind to selected talents 'dropping out' of the private academies or club academies for various reasons or late developers or the overlooked child being 'discovered' later in his/her life. That failure to consider such leaves you unappreciative of need for good teaching in any other environment save clubs or private academies... Frankly, I just cannot understand it.

Not to trivialize but it, as concept, is equal to the GOP's failure to understand what 'cuts' in government spending means to the unfortunate in our society. ...unable to understand a two tract system ...the early recognized gifted/fortunate few and others...equally deserving...with equally gifted members. In football it is an art as well as science on the making of decisions at the earliest of stages on what the child's full development as adult player produces at 17 through 20 and above.

Hey...if you believe, you do believe!
...guess what I also do believe...just not as you do!!!
Nothing wrong with that!
Respek!

[Karl]

See Part 1 here: he is talking about the T&T U20 campaign in Jamaica

http://wired868.com/2015/01/30/under...u-20-campaign/

Thanks!

[Karl]

A lot of good stuff there.
...and some rubbish!!!

The comments on quality of TEAM play and preparation?
Good stuff.

The stuff about having U-17 players transition into U-20 players for national teams begs a belief that that necessarily shows good development. That is not good way to think. It could just as logically point to poor work.

Consider: The U-17 players he speaks of have U-18 players above them who transitioned from previous period as U-17 players? What occurred during their development such that their younger brothers overtook them in competence? This latter set had better teachers=coaches or the talent was of higher calibre? ...or there are still areas within that teaching=coaching development totem pole that needs attention?

Just saying...