[Archived] Sam Allardyce

[Majiball]

Unfortunately, modern coaching methods and requirements of most top clubs, are that ball retention are of the most important!

Yes, you will get the odd Ronaldo, these are few and far between, the coaching courses I have been on have all illustrated, if you have the ball, the other team cant play!! So we are encouraged to keep the ball and look to open the opposition, if there is no route forward, go back and start again!

With my teams I had a rule, in 2/3 of the park we do not lose the ball, in the oppositions 1/3 we can look for the killer ball or take men on, this gives the team time to regroup and get men behind the ball if we lose it!!

Under ince, we would lose the ball in the wrong areas, the midfield never recovered and the defence were left with 4 or 5 on our four!! That is not good. As for players being able to run with the ball, yes, to a degree I accept that, but they must have an end product to what they do, ie. a cross or a shot, not many players do that and as you rightly say, lots of acadamies, sacrifice skill for strength.

Firstly I'm enjoying this debate.

To retain a ball in football "skills" are required. But how do you aquire these skills? This is my issue.

So I'll ask you a question, now if I told you how to do something do you think you would remember how to do it?

What about if you figured it out for yourself, instead?

In which senario do you think you stand the best chance of remembering?

[joey_big_nose]

I am not sure i buy this "English football is in deciline" business. I would say the squad today is far stronger than it was four or eight years ago - I mean the only players of real value we have lost in that period are Beckham (essentially finished), and, at a real stretch as he was nearly 40 in 2002, Teddy Sheringham. The top flair players are still young enough (Gerrard, Rooney, Joe Cole) to play at least two more tournaments. We also have exciting prospects in Walcott, Ashley Young, Ablanghor.

I would say England's problem over the last decade and a half has not really been down to not possessing "good enough" players. Rather we have tried to accomodate too many stars without the "workers" to tie the team together, and without the shape that suits the styles of those who do pull on the jersey. However the emergence of Barry as a lynchpin, and a recognition that we need to try new formations has addressed this somewhat.

I would personally just look to include three of the attacking minded flair guys (Rooney, Gerrard and Cole) playing off a powerful target man (Heskey or Crouch) and pack the rest of the side with hard working, tactically astutute guys to win the ball for them and support them. In the last four or five tounaments the sad thing is England play a lot like Spurs or Newcastle. All gung-ho attacking agression (fulled by fans who have unrealistic expectations about how we should play) which leads to a team which seems very flimsy right through the middle. Fortunately Capello seems to be onto this and not willing to put out a powder puff midfield of the likes of Downing-Gerrard-Lampard-WrightPhillips which we have ludicrously seen before under the last two managers.

I am not saying England have as much talent availabe as Brazil or Argentina. But we could use what we have much much better, and maintain a much better shape. Capello is addressing this.

The one thing that does worry me is that we have struggles for years to fill the left wing slot - and there seems no respite to that. But now we seem to also be developing real problems in finding a good goalkeeper and a "proper" target man striker of the right quality (Heskey and Crouch are good but not quite good enough).

[Kelbo]

Firstly I'm enjoying this debate.

To retain a ball in football "skills" are required. But how do you aquire these skills? This is my issue.

So I'll ask you a question, now if I told you how to do something do you think you would remember how to do it?

What about if you figured it out for yourself, instead?

In which senario do you think you stand the best chance of remembering?

I agree with what you say in many respects, which player is going to tell his manager or coach F**** off, I want to do it my way??

The manger will tell the lad to collect his P45 on his way out!! Unless it was Ronaldo.

Managers/coaches must dictate the way the team plays and the role each player plays, if they dont do this the whole shape and game plan goes wrong!!

Skills are aquired by practice, OK you need the basic skills, those are inbuilt, as are those of 'reading a game' but in general

'Practice makes Player'

Ronaldo didnt inherit his dead ball work, he practised for hours and hours, was taught the principles of how to address the ball and worked and worked until perfected!! Just as Arsenal do with the one touch, the only problem Arsenal have at the moment is that they are a young side and it is well documented that with young sides, good as they may be, you dont get consistency, another year or so they will do.

as for young players, the two lads at Villa, Young and Abgwhatever, Sturridge at Man City, Wilshire at Arsenal are four and the Rooneys and Gerrards are excellent talents playing at the moment.

Biggest problem is, to develop talent, you need time and in the premiership one is given very little time, get it wrong and you are relegated!! lots of money lost and thats the key, Money!! totally ruined the sport.

[LeChuck]

To retain a ball in football "skills" are required. But how do you aquire these skills? This is my issue.

So I'll ask you a question, now if I told you how to do something do you think you would remember how to do it?

What about if you figured it out for yourself, instead?

In which senario do you think you stand the best chance of remembering?

I don't understand your point, are you saying some form of 'self-learning' is best for footballers?

Your question doesn't really apply to the situation by the way, aquiring the skill of controlling a football is about far more than just memory.

What if I put a guitar in your hands and told you to go away and learn it?* You wouldn't learn more fumbling around on your own** than you would spending the time with a guitarist showing you what to do. That's a far more apt comparison of skills, because it's nothing to do with 'remembering'.

*Assuming you can't play

**With the guitar...

[thenodrog]

What if I put a guitar in your hands and told you to go away and learn it?* You wouldn't learn more fumbling around on your own** than you would spending the time with a guitarist showing you what to do. That's a far more apt comparison of skills, because it's nothing to do with 'remembering'.

Some people would be able to learn to play the guitar to a high standard in a few weeks, some to a much lesser standard in the same time whilst others may as well dig the garden. Silk purses and pigs ears.

The outstanding things about top players is first touch, speed, balance and vision. The first three are physical attributes and only the first two of those can be improved to any degree by training, the latter two are God given.

[Majiball]

My worry is simple before we had a great influx of players making it to our top leagues. Now we don't. People always talk about a lack of talent, with reference to the kids but yet our population is on the rise. So is it a lack of talent or is it that their not taught in the most effective manner. Its not as if the gene pool is on the decline.

FA style would have you encourage constantly always telling players what to do, how to do it. Scientific research has proved this method of teaching to be obsolete it is not effective at retention of the task. So what do they do when their on their own on the pitch, can you still spoon feed them like you have done in training??? No.

So why use a technique to train them that means they become dependent on you the coach. You need the kids to figure it out for themselves, then it will be retained. Its not about leaving the kid on his own and saying there's a ball go figure out how to be the next Messi. He needs to be guided to learn what you the coach need him too but on his own, with out you saying when this happens do this. You need to instill an ethos in the child in that he thinks about what he is doing. if his first attempt fails why did it fail, what could he have done differently and then he tries it.

But the next factors the design of the session. I see a lot of sessions and some of the parts make me laugh. Who else has seen two rows of kids practicing different touches in a pair?? I see/have done it a lot. Do you think that would challenge a child always making the same touch the same pass over and over. When have you ever seen that in a match?? Can the child take that session and relate it through to a game? No. Its called Blocked practice and has been proven to be a poor learning environment. Instead place the kids in a small sided game or a drill that is representive of the match so that the kids can relate what they do in training to what they must do on the pitch. If you want lots of touches do a two on two yes they will get less touches but all of their touches will be transferable to a match.

There are three major components that must be trained, technical, Perceptual and Cognative. All of these skills can and need to be trained. When designing a session you need to make sure all of these are trained because they will be required on the pitch. The session I described invloves no decision making its fixed you do the same thing again and again. Does it train perception, yes in a way you have a partner you need to know where he is, but in the same breath do you always need to look he's only ten yards away and isn't moving. So can he relate what he sees on the training pitch to a senario he may come across in the match?? No I've never seen two players pass a ball back and forth over a fixed distance and without pressure.

The amount of money invested into learning methodology is immense well up in the hundreds of millions per year globally. Teaching and learning are two requirements for everyone on the planet, it amazes me that coaches are still encouraged to use a style that was cutting edge over 20 years ago.

Ince old school, old school coaches as well, Knox was a god coaching wise 20 years ago. Hughes is at the fore he uses modern techniques. If you take our last 3 managers the Hughes = success, Ince = failure, Sam = success so far(but proven in his methods at this level. Two who advocate a scientific approach cut the mustard in the premiership, the one who thought what he knew was enough, did not. But yet he had great success in the lower leagues, so what does that say about the coaching at those levels?

Brazil always turn out good players constantly, holland the same, france as well and spain. Guess what style they use?

If we stand still we'll only fall further behind.

If there's no problem with coaching in our country why do we have no coaches working in europe??? (maclaren advocates this method) Why do we have so few british head coaches, why do we not have an english man in charge of the national team? Why do we have so few players plying their trade abroad? Why are our lower league coaches always over looked?

Simple, in general we are not considered good enough.

If a system of learning could be introduced at Our Club along these lines from development start to finish, the benefits would be immense.

I know I drone on about this but I wouldn't if I wasn't 100% in my statements. All the players people on here keep mentioning have been through a similiar environment to the one I'm on about above. No-one on here has mentioned a single player from the lower leagues, not one. If you could take the style's of coaching and methodology that are used at the academies that are producing players capable of making the grade imagine how many there would be, if you had it as a standard across the board. It doesn't require large amounts of money.

Along time ago there was a saying in football in this country "the best teacher of the game is the game itself" we need to heed those words. The amount of time Messi spent with a coach during his formative years does not even make up ten percent of the amount of time he spent playing each week, the rest was spent playing on the streets, think about it.

The fact this methodolgy is available in published book means its been around for years. The time from research end to its appearance in a book is 4-6 years, thats how far behind it is.

[Majiball]

I agree with what you say in many respects, which player is going to tell his manager or coach F**** off, I want to do it my way??

Sorry Kelbo I don't remember advocating a player telling a manager he's an idiot. I'm talking about placing a player in a conclusive development environment that enables him to acquire and retain a skill.

The manger will tell the lad to collect his P45 on his way out!! Unless it was Ronaldo.

Managers/coaches must dictate the way the team plays and the role each player plays, if they dont do this the whole shape and game plan goes wrong!!

Skills are aquired by practice, OK you need the basic skills, those are inbuilt, as are those of 'reading a game' but in general

'Practice makes Player'

Style of play is completely different I'm not on about tactical training, Set plays are the same.

Now you hit the nail on the head, yes skills are acquired by practice, but do all forms of practice give the same results, no. If your really interested look up Schema theory.

Ronaldo didnt inherit his dead ball work, he practised for hours and hours, was taught the principles of how to address the ball and worked and worked until perfected!! Just as Arsenal do with the one touch, the only problem Arsenal have at the moment is that they are a young side and it is well documented that with young sides, good as they may be, you dont get consistency, another year or so they will do.

as for young players, the two lads at Villa, Young and Abgwhatever, Sturridge at Man City, Wilshire at Arsenal are four and the Rooneys and Gerrards are excellent talents playing at the moment.

Biggest problem is, to develop talent, you need time and in the premiership one is given very little time, get it wrong and you are relegated!! lots of money lost and thats the key, Money!! totally ruined the sport.

Yes I agree I know he did. But hitting a dead ball is not the same as when the balls live. Ronaldo's technique of hitting a dead ball is unique especially the well documented one against Bolton. Now do you think a coach told him how to do it? Or do you think that because he's been in a controlled environment where he has to figure it out for himself (lisbon). Has contributed to his ability to develop his own technique of hitting a ball?? As you said he learnt the basics and then figured the rest out himself. He's been analytical of himself and acted upon his conclusions to better himself and increase his success rate, through a form of guided discovery.

It would not cost much to change it all it just has to come from the top the FA all the monies already been spent on the research all the information is out there already, it just needs to be put into practice.

The trouble is it basically means admitting we've got it wrong for 20 years or so, do you see that happeneing? How would you react to being told what your doing is crap. 5 years ago it seriously ###### me off, 5 years later I'm glad I stuck with it.

When looking at it its fine to say this kid will make the grade, however consider all the players that don't they amount to thousands upon thousands, why?

Science has proven that natural talent is a myth no-one is genetically pre-disposed to excel at anything what we do have however are differing abilities to learn, nature or nuture. Now that part still doesn't convince me but the evidence is pretty strong, however the only way to prove it one way or another is highly unethical twin studies are frowned upon.

Research was done in sprinting using Jamican's who consistently turn out top level spriters from a very small population, a gene was found in 100% of all tested, so you could say they are gentically pre-disposed to produce better sprinters. So they tested people in europe guess what 80% tested had the same gene, so nature or nuture

[Majiball]

I don't understand your point, are you saying some form of 'self-learning' is best for footballers?

Your question doesn't really apply to the situation by the way, aquiring the skill of controlling a football is about far more than just memory.

What if I put a guitar in your hands and told you to go away and learn it?* You wouldn't learn more fumbling around on your own** than you would spending the time with a guitarist showing you what to do. That's a far more apt comparison of skills, because it's nothing to do with 'remembering'.

*Assuming you can't play

**With the guitar...

Memory plays such a part you cannot believe two organs have memory the brain and the muscles. When you go to pick up a coffee cup do you think raise arm, move hand to handle, close fingers round handle, lift cup to lips, tip cup, You don't do you, memory.

You need him to figure it out but in a controlled environment that guides him in the direction of the skill you wish him to acquire.

[tonyoz]

Science has proven that natural talent is a myth no-one is genetically pre-disposed to excel at anything what we do have however are differing abilities to learn, nature or nuture. Now that part still doesn't convince me but the evidence is pretty strong, however the only way to prove it one way or another is highly unethical twin studies are frowned upon.

It doesn't convince me either. If i was genetically disposed to have bigger feet/hands, I would expect to be a better swimmer. If i had a "big lungs" or "long-leg" gene, I would expect to be a better runner. Selective breeding makes use of this idea all the time.

If Maradona and Pele had been in my primary school class, I think they would have stood out on the footy field from day one.

[Majiball]

It doesn't convince me either. If i was genetically disposed to have bigger feet/hands, I would expect to be a better swimmer. If i had a "big lungs" or "long-leg" gene, I would expect to be a better runner. Selective breeding makes use of this idea all the time.

If Maradona and Pele had been in my primary school class, I think they would have stood out on the footy field from day one.

Ian Thorpe??? his unique self-coached six kick finish???

The maradonna and Pele one is tricky TBH, I personally believe a lot was down to their environment street football is played by so many kids in those countries with anything ranging from a can to a tennis ball. they would have played so much more in South america, I don't doubt they would stand out but perhaps not to the same degree as they did.

Brazil has been a focus of great study over the last ten years or so due to their constant production of top players. I can't think of another country that has always been at the top level internationally every generation has produced stars, why?

Physhical attributes are the only ones we can't influenece( not ethically anyway), we can predict it all very accuratly but can't improve height etc. Strenght easy, speed (yes within constraints of physhical attributes), perception, pattern recognition, cognative and technical can all be improved. Now the other day I said that a top clubs policy is based around physhical attributes, now whilst I disagree completely with it, it does show that they are confident in their methods to develop the player to the level required, the chap in charge funnily enough used to be part of our university and practices these techniques.

Arsenals current crop of youngsters are the perfect example they are the first generation to come through pretty much from day one (age 8) in this sort of environment, they are quite some sight.

[tonyoz]

Ian Thorpe??? his unique self-coached six kick finish???

More to do with his size 17 feet I think! Here is an old but interesting article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/front_page/831211.stm

Quotes from the article:

He said: "I've got fairly big feet and I've got fairly big hands."

"You only have to look at his mother and father to understand where he got his build from."

[Majiball]

"He was known for his trademark six-beat kick to power away to victory in the closing stages of races, attributed to his unusually large size 17 feet."

He developed a technique to best take advantage of his attributes, its impressive.

But he's only suited to mid range swimming events. sprints he's no good, bronze in the 100M freestyle in 2004 after the rest had four years to adapt and improve.

[Eddie]

Brazil has been a focus of great study over the last ten years or so due to their constant production of top players. I can't think of another country that has always been at the top level internationally every generation has produced stars, why?

Populations:

Brazil roughly 188 million

UK roughly 61 million

Italy roughly 58 million

Germany roughly 82 million

France roughly 61 million

Argentina roughly 40 million

Spain roughly 40 million

Now it isn't the only factor...but does anything stand-out there to you?

[jim mk2]

Brazil has been a focus of great study over the last ten years or so due to their constant production of top players. I can't think of another country that has always been at the top level internationally every generation has produced stars, why?

Poverty. The kids play football in the backstreets in the slum areas of the cities like British kids used to a few generations ago.

The best footballers have always been street footballers : ask anyone who saw Bryan Douglas, just one smashing footballer who came from the back streets of Blackburn.

[Majiball]

Populations:

Brazil roughly 188 million

UK roughly 61 million

Italy roughly 58 million

Germany roughly 82 million

France roughly 61 million

Argentina roughly 40 million

Spain roughly 40 million

Now it isn't the only factor...but does anything stand-out there to you?

Good point, Yes its a huge difference.

Interesting though that if you go back to the 50's their population was 50M ours 40M. And yet they where still challenging still turning out fantastic footballers, the difference now is they produce even more.

Look at the number of Brazilians in Europe there every where far more than any other country.

Its the history thats been looked at, the sociology but most importantly the consistency of success Brazil are untouchable at international level they've been consistently successful. Even in their slums they've had world class players. Its the frequency with which its happening.

Even when you look at modern history of world class players (thats a big label) the ballon D'or is a great represntation of this. look at the last 20 years since its really become a global game.

England 1

Brazil 5

Prior to Owen it was keegan in 79. 78 but it wasn't really a global game then so its difficult.

look at modern day success between the two is it a 2.5 ratio no not even close.

Poverty. The kids play football in the backstreets in the slum areas of the cities like British kids used to a few generations ago.

The best footballers have always been street footballers : ask anyone who saw Bryan Douglas, just one smashing footballer who came from the back streets of Blackburn.

Dead right.

Its their way out.

Now add it into the population Brazils has gone through the roof so the number of kids playing street football has dramatically increased and in turn so has the number of top quality players they are producing.

Now look at ours, population has gone up but we had somewthing come along that they still don't have in every home in brazil, the TV then the Computer. Do you still see kids playing on the streets here?

So now lets go right to the other end of the spectrum Holland. 16M people so if its all down to numbers they should be rubbish, the same population as Borats home land. Would you say holland persistently produce good quality players? Perhaps too many for their population? They have great development programs structures and so on most coaches in england make it up on the day. They also use the game to teach.

Not many clubs except the top ones have a structured program, I doubt we do.

Our FA says 10,000 hours practice/game time from 8-18 makes a prem footballer its interesting that in and Brazil they average around double that. Trouble is its not spent with a coach most of its spent playing on the streets, the amount of time players in both countries spend with a coach is about 4000. So who's teaching them the game or the coach? I'd say the game.

[Harrier7]

Some people would be able to learn to play the guitar to a high standard in a few weeks

Oh really? It doesn't sound like you have ever tried - or are you a genius?

Substitute the word "certain" for "high" and I would agree.

[Mr. E]

Populations:

Brazil roughly 188 million

UK roughly 61 million

Italy roughly 58 million

Germany roughly 82 million

France roughly 61 million

Argentina roughly 40 million

Spain roughly 40 million

Now it isn't the only factor...but does anything stand-out there to you?

populations don't mean a thing.

India + China = each 1 billion +

Croatia = 4 million

Sweden = 9 million

Czech republic = 10 million

[Eddie]

Of course population means something. Football isn't as established or popular in China and India as it is in the countries I listed, which means, combined with the difficulty for a player to be discovered, poor coaching, poor resources, etc..., mean that their chances of producing a large quantity of top quality players are reduced. Conversely, a small population might have a large percentage of the population playing football and have the facilities, coaching and opportunity to allow those players to develop.

I wouldn't say lots of football players means you'll have a good national team, but it does greatly increase the chances. Brazil's population is basically three times larger than any of the other major footballing nations, now that doesn't guarantee quality players, but more people playing football means that they stand a pretty good chance.

[Kelbo]

Majiball wrote

"So now lets go right to the other end of the spectrum Holland. 16M people so if its all down to numbers they should be rubbish, the same population as Borats home land. Would you say holland persistently produce good quality players? Perhaps too many for their population? They have great development programs structures and so on most coaches in england make it up on the day. They also use the game to teach."

How many Dutch players are top premiership players??? Very few, indeed the best defender in the world cup for them was Oijer yet he has struggled to hold the centre back spot at Rovers!!

Apart from Oijer, How many Dutch midfielders have we?

How many Dutch strikers have we ?

And Dutch teams at the moment are not doing well in Europe!!!

As for coaches not planning??

Tell you what, do the UEFA B badge and then come back and tell me, you wouldnt get it without a structured plan!!

I agree about the poverty bit, thats why the African nations have made great strides but you do need proper coaching today, there cant be prima donnas who play a good game in three, thats why City are a mess at the moment, you need consistency, its a team game and despite all the abilities of Ronaldo etc, Man U win through people such as the Vidic, Scholes, Neville etc great pros. Over the years, rovers have had great pros, Mark Atkins, Tony Parkes, Derek Fazackerley

Graham Hawkins, Don Martin, Jason Wilcox etc, not great players but great pros and teams cant exist without them!!

At the moment, Dirk Kuyt looks a fabulous proffesssional, they are my kind of player, we need the Ronaldos, but week in week out the good pros put in there shift, they are a Managers dream!

[thenodrog]

Poverty. The kids play football in the backstreets in the slum areas of the cities like British kids used to a few generations ago.

The best footballers have always been street footballers : ask anyone who saw Bryan Douglas, just one smashing footballer who came from the back streets of Blackburn.

Glasgow produced a veritable production line of players in the mid 20th century. It produces virtually none now.

Lets not forget though that all the top players in the world play in virtually 3 /4 countries nowadays.

[jim mk2]

Glasgow produced a veritable production line of players in the mid 20th century. It produces virtually none now.

Liverpool and Manchester too. Look at the Lancashire town teams in the old First Division in the 1950s - nearly all home-grown local lads who grew up kicking a ball in the backstreets. And they stayed too, because there was a maximum wage. But that's another argument.

Rooney is throwback to the street footballers of old and Gascoigne too, but they are few and far between.

[Majiball]

Sorry not enough time to reply have to go.

Kelbo I'll respond later.

[thenodrog]

Liverpool and Manchester too. Look at the Lancashire town teams in the old First Division in the 1950s - nearly all home-grown local lads who grew up kicking a ball in the backstreets. And they stayed too, because there was a maximum wage. But that's another argument.

Rooney is throwback to the street footballers of old and Gascoigne too, but they are few and far between.

Talking of him you can add the North East to that list.

[Majiball]

How many Dutch players are top premiership players??? Very few, indeed the best defender in the world cup for them was Oijer yet he has struggled to hold the centre back spot at Rovers!!

Apart from Oijer, How many Dutch midfielders have we?

How many Dutch strikers have we ?

And Dutch teams at the moment are not doing well in Europe!!!

As for coaches not planning??

Tell you what, do the UEFA B badge and then come back and tell me, you wouldnt get it without a structured plan!!

I agree about the poverty bit, thats why the African nations have made great strides but you do need proper coaching today, there cant be prima donnas who play a good game in three, thats why City are a mess at the moment, you need consistency, its a team game and despite all the abilities of Ronaldo etc, Man U win through people such as the Vidic, Scholes, Neville etc great pros. Over the years, rovers have had great pros, Mark Atkins, Tony Parkes, Derek Fazackerley

Graham Hawkins, Don Martin, Jason Wilcox etc, not great players but great pros and teams cant exist without them!!

At the moment, Dirk Kuyt looks a fabulous proffesssional, they are my kind of player, we need the Ronaldos, but week in week out the good pros put in there shift, they are a Managers dream!

How many dutch players leave holland to play for the top teams, its not just about our country. Look at the top teams in europe. There's dutch players in the top teams in every league, we may not have many at Rovers but I'll wager there's a lot we would like. Ooijer is a centre half not a full back so here's a thought why don't you judge him in that role, because I thought we did well when he went back there on saturday. Would you judge derb's on his performances on the wing? I wouldn't why because he's not a winger.

Firstly well done on getting your B licence, its a big step up from level 2 isn't it, should you progress to your A its not such a big step up but you'll finally do 11 a side.

If you wish to discuss qualifications thats fine, I have plenty. This is a debate not a cock measuring contest.

Planning one session is not a structured training program, I'm talking about a plan for longer than 1.5 hours, its not about correcting mistakes during games, its about development, skill acquisition, progression especially with kids. A sllyabus if you like, Ajax have a plan from the day a 4 year old (yes 4) sets foot in the academy. A + B must be learnt by C, its based around learning and maturation research into what children can and cannot learn at different stages of life. Its most impressive, given there constant production line over the last 20 years or so you have to think their getting it right.

[Billy Castell]

Whatever the future is for the reserves and youth set-up, Sam should be praised for organising the teams tactics and giving the players more confidence. Under Ince, we'd have crumbled under the 1st half pressure against the geordies.

I just hope Sam can sort out the youth coaching and get us producing decent youngsters again.