Producing young players.

[BensGrandad]

Did we not develope more young players and have less need for imports to keep our league going and may I add win the European Cup. How many imports did Forest Man U and Celtic have?

 

[Stat Brother]

Did we not develope more young players and have less need for imports to keep our league going and may I add win the European Cup. How many imports did Forest Man U and Celtic have?

How many would they have had if they had the financial clout to bring in the worlds best players?

 

[BensGrandad]

How many would they have had if they had the financial clout to bring in the worlds best players?

Thats totally irrelevant we are talking of bringing on young players in this country not winning Man U or Chelsea a trophy. or making their plc rich

 

[Stat Brother]

Thats totally irrelevant we are talking of bringing on young players in this country not winning Man U or Chelsea a trophy. or making their plc rich

OK then, how did the England team fair when playing Johnny Foreigner?

 

[BensGrandad]

I am not interested in England national team but would rather see Div 1 and 2 clubs not bringing in Johhny from Euope or Africa, who in the most cases are mediocre at best, and be using home grown and developed talent.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

The question was, how many schools are still insisting on that stupid idea that only non-competitive sports are acceptable?
Certainly not over-simplified; it happened. Schools did ban competitive sports for fear of damaging the self-esteem of the losers. If you, as a teacher, can assure us that the idea has been kicked into touch, that will be most welcome.

Maybe I interpreted it as over simplified because the way it was presented. It came across as something I'd expect to read in an article in The Sun or The Daily Mail perpetuating a complete fabrication, with little to no evidence to support the claim, to get people's blood to boil. I have never heard of any school banning competitive sports, thays not to say they don't exist just that I've never heard of one (from a source that I trust at least). The emphasis has changed on how you treat the winners and losers to promote good sportsmanship and, as you say, ensure that self esteem stays high, but in my experience the majority of schools certainly promote healthy competition within sport be it during P.E or after school clubs.

IMO supaseagull hits the nail on the head. Some schools are lucky enough to be able to afford to being in a specialised coach once or twice a week but many schools simply don't have the budget to do so meaning PE is largely taught by teachers who aren't a specialist and lack the proper training.

 

[BensGrandad]

I cannot be certain but I am reasonably sure that the ILEA banned competitive sport in schools in the 70s. A google search shows primary schools banned it in 1985 but some brought it back in 1990.

 

[BigGully]

Schools are no longer the place for children to develop as footballers. That stopped years ago. Instead, the rise of grassroots football run by clubs across the country is the place all pro clubs go now to scout.

The issue with schools that PE, especially in Primary schools is run by unspecialised teachers, often with no experience of coaching and the basic understanding of warm up excercises. In addition, a bare minimum of teachers have the most basic of football coaching qualifications.

As far as football is concerned, grassroots football is the primary area in where children learn and develop their footballing ability and it's from that that most kids are then picked up by the Albion and other pro clubs nowadays not schools.

It is a largely made up myth that schools aren't permitted to allow pupils to take part in competitive sport. All primary schools have the option to enter teams into various football, rugby & cricket leagues throughout the year and in addition, pretty much all enter athletics competitions during the summer

The irony is the academy system is particularly uncompetitive, so even if you feel that competitive football is key, well it is hardly done at the pro level.

There are many people within the game that think the imminent recruitment of a young 10 year old might then only experience a sanitised environment, perhaps coached by a school teacher that the academy system was trying to stop coaching kids in the first place.

Personally I think there needs to be a balance, a little bit of chaotic, competitive and unsupervised football for young players might offer some benefit.

 

[Albion 4ever]

The Academy system that is in place now is due to research that states that if a young person is exposed to 10,000 hours of high quality coaching, then they have the potential to be world class. This cannot be achieved in school or with local teams.
The only trouble with this is that clubs are hoovering up lots of youngsters and having an 'elite' squad and 'development' squad at each age group. So many will go through the system and never have any real hope of playing pro football, let alone be world class.

 

[BigGully]

The Academy system that is in place now is due to research that states that if a young person is exposed to 10,000 hours of high quality coaching, then they have the potential to be world class. This cannot be achieved in school or with local teams.
The only trouble with this is that clubs are hoovering up lots of youngsters and having an 'elite' squad and 'development' squad at each age group. So many will go through the system and never have any real hope of playing pro football, let alone be world class.

Although the 10 000 hours offers an insight to the practise needed, I think that particular statement got debunked some time ago.

 

[Indurain's Lungs]

Although the 10 000 hours offers an insight to the practise needed, I think that particular statement got debunked some time ago.

David epstein does a great discussion of this in the sports gene - it's based on sound research but is the mean it takes someone. Your talent dictates that this could be anywhere from 2 to 17,000 hours.

 

[Albion 4ever]

David epstein does a great discussion of this in the sports gene - it's based on sound research but is the mean it takes someone. Your talent dictates that this could be anywhere from 2 to 17,000 hours.

It depends on what research you listen to. If you read Bounce by Matthew Syed, then talent does not come into it.

 

[Indurain's Lungs]

It depends on what research you listen to. If you read Bounce by Matthew Syed, then talent does not come into it.

It's nonsensical that's it's the same for everyone, though.

Your aptitude massively affects your ability to learn new skills. If talent didn't come into it then we could all play for the albion if we just practiced long enough.

 

[Stat Brother]

It's nonsensical that's it's the same for everyone, though.

Your aptitude massively affects your ability to learn new skills. If talent didn't come into it then we could all play for the albion if we just practiced long enough.

Or riding for Cofidis

 

[Stat Brother]

Thats totally irrelevant we are talking of bringing on young players in this country not winning Man U or Chelsea a trophy. or making their plc rich

OK then, how did the England team fair when playing Johnny Foreigner?