San Marino v England Montenegro v England WC qualifiers

[Stevo985]

 

 

 

 

But you're assuming coaching at a young age has no effect on talent.

 

You're basically just relying on pure, raw footballing talent.

 

Who's to say that better coaching couldn't turn good players into excellent players?

It's not about turning any average kid into a world beater.

It's about turning those kids who will turn out to be good players into kids who will turn out to be great players.

Point out where i've said 'coaching at a young age has no effect on talent?'

 

If you go back through my posts i am clearly saying that no amount of coaching will make a decent player into a world class player. If that was the case then all national teams would have world class players.

 

Well, you've kind of just said it in your very next sentence.

How do you know that if, I dunno, Tom Cleverly had come through Barca's academy as opposed to whatever academy he came through over here he wouldn't be a damn sight better than he is now?

Are you saying that would have made no difference? Because he's only a decent player he could never be coached to be better than that?

 

So what your now saying is this. Cleverly may have been a better player if he had been coached through the Barca academy rather than through an academy overseen by arguably the best manager of young talent the world has seen? I sincerely hope your not saying that?

 

Cleverly has come through one of the best youth academies and yet he is no better than decent so there endith the debate!

 

Cleverly was a name I pulled out off the top of my head. That wasn't the point.

If you want a different example, let's go for Michael Carrick, or Scott Parker, or Leon Osman.

Are you saying if they'd gone through Ajax or Barca's youth system they'd be not better than they are now?

There's no chance that being coached the same way that Xavi, Iniesta, Messi, Pique etc etc could have made them any better?

Cleverly is exactly the point i'm trying to make. He has been through the Man U coaching system and has become a decent player but not world class. The very same with Carrick. The same principle actually applies to Parker and Osman who are good players but no amount of coaching is going to make them into world class. They just don't have anywhere near the same ability as Xavi, Iniesta and Messi. 

 

Take Ronaldo for instance. It was the Man U players who practically begged Ferguson to sign him after just one half of football against him. They recognised that he was a special talent and Man U then built on that.

 

Go right back to George Best. Learnt his skills on the back streets of Belfast and was already a brilliant footballer before he went to Man U. He certainly wasn't coached into being world class. The ability was already there.

 

Pele honed his skills without the use of a football.

 

I think there's actually a case for too much coaching nowadays with raw talent and flair actually being coached out of young players and making them into robots that must fit a particular system. Its a particular theory of mine which has left a dearth of flair players in today's football. 

So regardless of where they're coached or who coaches them, players will just be as good as they will be and that's it.

 

I don't think this is about making decent players world class. it's about raising the whole standard of everybody. Make the average players good, make the good players great etc.

 

What you seem to be saying is that regardless of coaching, players will just hit their ability and that's it. If player X is coached at Aston Villa or Walsall or Barcelona or Man United, they'll just end up the same.

[Morpheus]

 

 

 

 

 

But you're assuming coaching at a young age has no effect on talent.

 

You're basically just relying on pure, raw footballing talent.

 

Who's to say that better coaching couldn't turn good players into excellent players?

It's not about turning any average kid into a world beater.

It's about turning those kids who will turn out to be good players into kids who will turn out to be great players.

Point out where i've said 'coaching at a young age has no effect on talent?'

 

If you go back through my posts i am clearly saying that no amount of coaching will make a decent player into a world class player. If that was the case then all national teams would have world class players.

 

Well, you've kind of just said it in your very next sentence.

How do you know that if, I dunno, Tom Cleverly had come through Barca's academy as opposed to whatever academy he came through over here he wouldn't be a damn sight better than he is now?

Are you saying that would have made no difference? Because he's only a decent player he could never be coached to be better than that?

 

So what your now saying is this. Cleverly may have been a better player if he had been coached through the Barca academy rather than through an academy overseen by arguably the best manager of young talent the world has seen? I sincerely hope your not saying that?

 

Cleverly has come through one of the best youth academies and yet he is no better than decent so there endith the debate!

 

Cleverly was a name I pulled out off the top of my head. That wasn't the point.

If you want a different example, let's go for Michael Carrick, or Scott Parker, or Leon Osman.

Are you saying if they'd gone through Ajax or Barca's youth system they'd be not better than they are now?

There's no chance that being coached the same way that Xavi, Iniesta, Messi, Pique etc etc could have made them any better?

Cleverly is exactly the point i'm trying to make. He has been through the Man U coaching system and has become a decent player but not world class. The very same with Carrick. The same principle actually applies to Parker and Osman who are good players but no amount of coaching is going to make them into world class. They just don't have anywhere near the same ability as Xavi, Iniesta and Messi. 

 

Take Ronaldo for instance. It was the Man U players who practically begged Ferguson to sign him after just one half of football against him. They recognised that he was a special talent and Man U then built on that.

 

Go right back to George Best. Learnt his skills on the back streets of Belfast and was already a brilliant footballer before he went to Man U. He certainly wasn't coached into being world class. The ability was already there.

 

Pele honed his skills without the use of a football.

 

I think there's actually a case for too much coaching nowadays with raw talent and flair actually being coached out of young players and making them into robots that must fit a particular system. Its a particular theory of mine which has left a dearth of flair players in today's football. 

So regardless of where they're coached or who coaches them, players will just be as good as they will be and that's it.

 

I don't think this is about making decent players world class. it's about raising the whole standard of everybody. Make the average players good, make the good players great etc.

 

What you seem to be saying is that regardless of coaching, players will just hit their ability and that's it. If player X is coached at Aston Villa or Walsall or Barcelona or Man United, they'll just end up the same.

No what i'm saying is that each player has a threshold of ability.

 

If you take it back to grass roots, back to your very own school team. I can remember in our team we had one very special player who even at that level was head and shoulders above the rest of us. That difference of ability wasn't there due to him receiving better coaching because he received the same level of coaching as the rest of us, he was just born with more natural ability and you can attribute that principle right through to Premiership and national teams.

[The_Rev]

Yes, but we are wasting untapped potential with our current method of working in this country.  Is it really so difficult for you to see that Morpheus?  

 

An example I can throw out there is Frank Lampard.   In the nature vs nurture debate he is definitely a product of nurture. His dad was a pro, he was raised with everything he needed in order to make it in the game and he became incredibly successful.  Yes, there had to be an innate level of talent present for coaches to have something to work with and no he is not Leo Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo  but it's not about that.  If this country can get 30-50 players to the level of a player Frank Lampard then we go into every competition with a chance.  The England team has been built on sand for years and we need a solid base. It's pointless having a world class talismanic figure in the side if his team mates are all 6/10 and 7/10 payers.  You will always be beaten by countries who have their special talents in a team full of 9/10 players. 

[Stevo985]

No what i'm saying is that each player has a threshold of ability.

 

If you take it back to grass roots, back to your very own school team. I can remember in our team we had one very special player who even at that level was head and shoulders above the rest of us. That difference of ability wasn't there due to him receiving better coaching because he received the same level of coaching as the rest of us, he was just born with more natural ability and you can attribute that principle right through to Premiership and national teams.

No-one's denying that.

But if your whole team had top class coaching, then you'd all have been better. Yes that one guy would still have been the standout player, but the whole team would be better for it.

What we're saying is under our current coaching, that standout player you saw at grass roots will become, let's for argument's sake, a 7/10player if he went pro.

If we had better coaching then that player might turn out to be an 8/10 player.

If you do that to every player coming through england schoolboy level, then suddenly instead of an England team full of 7/10 players, you've got a team full of 8/10 players.

Yes a 10/10 only comes along every so often. And you need that born with talent to be that special, no-one;s denying that. But if you make everyone else a bit better, then the whole team gets better. And then when you get a Wayne Rooney or an Alan shearer, they're suddenly playing with a team full of 8/10 players that really compliment them rather than a team full of 6s or 7s that they have to carry through a tournament. This isn't about suddenly turning everyone into Lionel Messis.

It's abotu raising the standard of everyone. Even if you just turn the next Tom Cleverly into the next Michael Carrick, that might only be a tiny improvement. But if that happens to every or most good young player coming through the ranks, suddenly the standard is much higher.

What you seem to be saying is everyone will just hit their potential threshold regardless of how they're coached. Which is just wrong.

Edited March 30, 2013 by Stevo985

[Morpheus]

What has happened to France then?

 

They have a fantastic coaching structure in place but are no longer producing the top quality players needed to win trophies at international level. What about Holland? Top quality coaching at club level but are they bringing many young players through who are making a difference at international level at the moment?

 

I don't and won't subscribe to the view that if England improve their coaching structure it will automatically insure success at international level in the future because history has told us that quality players are born and not bred and no amount of coaching is going to change that. Indeed as i have stated before, in certain circumstances, too much coaching can actually take the flair out of the player when he is made to conform. 

[The_Rev]

 

http://theflatearthsociety.org

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

This line of argument is as coherent as an episode of the Teletubbies.

[Tomaszk]

I don't and won't subscribe to the view that if England improve their coaching structure it will automatically insure success at international level in the future because history has told us that quality players are born and not bred and no amount of coaching is going to change that. Indeed as i have stated before, in certain circumstances, too much coaching can actually take the flair out of the player when he is made to conform. 

Wouldn't say it'll automatically bring success, don't think people are saying it will. 

 

But Shirley better coaches will eventually lead to a slightly better team?

 

Doing the same thing we've been doing for 40 years has led to failures, so to me would be pointless to just carry on doing the same thing. I don't even know if St. George's Park will turn out any good in the long run, but I like that they're trying something.

[The_Rev]

But Shirley better coaches will eventually lead to a slightly better team?

.

 

http://youtu.be/0A5t5_O8hdA