CHRIS SCHOFIELD, director of youth football at the Guernsey Football Association, says the sport is coping without a development officer and that there is still too much emphasis on winning not learning. With many a youth coach criticising the GFA for their development procedures, including the disappearance of the School of Excellence and their restrictions on the number of matches juniors can play, Schofield agreed to answer selected questions relating to youth issues.
They make for interesting reading and, in some areas, he clearly puts the ball back in the clubs’ half.
1: Do the GFA accept that further up the youth age scales the pool of talent is forever diminishing and that in the current local climate more and more youngsters are being attracted to other sports. Is football responding fully to the challenges it now faces from other developing sports?
Clearly the growth and retention of players at youth level are critical to the development of the senior game and this has been identified as a national issue which is why one of the Key Goals of the FA National Game Strategy is increasing the number of players and addressing retention.
I would suggest that in Guernsey, while we must be wary of this, the issue at this time is possibly more one of player distribution rather than numbers.
At Youth Three level there is a net loss of one registered player over 2006-07. In terms of individual club numbers, four have reduced and three increased.
The smallest squad is 17 and the largest 33. Another club has 27.
At Youth Two level there is a net increase of four registered players. In terms of individual club numbers, three have reduced and four increased. The smallest squad is 16 (two clubs) and the largest 26.
At Youth One level there is a net increase of 11 eligible registered players (this includes eligible Youth Two players).
In terms of individual club numbers, two have reduced and five increased. The smallest squad of eligible players is 22 and the largest 37. Four clubs have 30 or more.
From a youth development perspective I believe that the GFA is responding to the challenges it faces.
The 40-game rule was brought in not only to protect the most talented from overplaying, but by doing so to give a greater opportunity for fringe players to gain more match exposure and hopefully remain within the game.
We are always looking to review game formats to aid retention, for example the introduction of rolling substitutes at Youth Two level.
We plan to gauge the appetite for further format changes, some of which will no doubt prove controversial, through our National Game Strategy consultation.
2: It has been suggested by one respected GFA club president that the GFA should look to impose a ceiling on the number of players any club can sign on at any of the three main age groups. Is this being looked at?
This will certainly be considered through our consultation exercise. When this has been raised in the past, the arguments against were usually that by restricting freedom of choice we would run the risk of driving more players from the game and there are financial issues (primarily reduction in income from subs).
Personally, I think these arguments are sustainable only in the short term and should not hinder longer-term objectives.
From a player-development perspective, one would have to question how at Youth Three level 60 players at two clubs can in the shorter term be appropriately developed and in the longer term retained.
3: It is some months now since Chris Pringle (development officer) left office. Is it not damaging for a sport that perceives itself as the island’s number one not to have appointed a successor?
It’s not ideal but I don’t think it’s very damaging at this point in time.
Forward planning has ensured that our development programmes were established and venues secured well in advance for the 2007-08 season.
We have a very hard-working and conscientious team ensuring delivery. Garry Cortez and Neil Laine are doing a fantastic job with the mini/small-sided programmes. Paul Wheatley and Annie Machon have started the Soccer School programme for girls and we have a full programme of coach-education courses.
The search for a successor to Chris is ongoing, but it must be recognised that as the principal source of funding for the position, the FA determines the key skills and experience required for the job.
With the implementation of the National Game Strategy the football development officer role has changed markedly over recent years.
There is now a far greater emphasis on the development of strategy and less on personal delivery. We are, therefore, currently exploring with the FA a number of possible alternative job structure arrangements.
4: Former GFA development officer Phil Corbet says there is too much focus on participation rather than excellence. Why is there no longer a Soccer School?
I think Phil is absolutely right and I would go further and say that there is too much focus on ‘winning’ rather than excellence.
As explained above we do now have a soccer school for girls.
The Soccer School for boys under 12 is about to start.
The youth Soccer School was discontinued primarily through a lack of sponsorship but other contributory factors included the reduced availability of coaches (at level 2 or above) and venues.
I personally believe that the Soccer School had effectively become a training centre for a select band of ‘representative’ players which, while not in itself inappropriate, was clearly elitist, which runs contrary to developing a wider talent base.
What we would like to achieve in the near future, subject to the availability of coaches, venues and funding is a two-tier development base: a Centre of Excellence for ‘elite’ players run under the control of our representative coaches delivering programmes based upon transition through the representative age groups and a Soccer School delivering a development coaching programme, for the benefit of the more talented players from all the clubs.
By affording this opportunity to all clubs, this would, we hope, encourage players to stay where they are thereby assisting to aid retention and to improve standards across the leagues while also providing a feeder system to the elite centre for improving players and late developers.
5: Phil Corbet says that while there is a need to cap the number of games youngsters play, the current system is penalising those who have left school or are no longer in full-time education.
Should not the CI Schools’ League games be taken into consideration?
I think my argument to Phil’s point would still be the same as when we originally discussed this prior to the implementation of the rule.
We think a maximum of 40 games is the right number of competitive matches at this age group and it could therefore be argued that it is those playing the additional games who are being penalised.
However, as the rule stands we must be even-handed to all clubs regardless of whether their players are involved in school matches or not. Otherwise we are similarly, taking Phil’s point, potentially penalising those clubs who may have a predominance of CI Schools’ League players.
I would think also that the introduction this season of the College of FE to the league will have had an effect on the balance of players affected.
The 40-game rule was introduced as a pilot for the 2006-07 season and there was an opportunity to remove or revise it at the 2007 AGM.
6: Youth coach and former Muratti man Carl Le Tissier, for one, has complained that some youngsters can be restricted to a maximum of 14 games per season. Surely this is too low a figure and football risks losing them to other sports?
Carl is incorrect.
We don’t restrict the number of games youngsters can play. Indeed, I would support them playing as many games as they like provided they are the right games in the right format.
What we do is restrict the number of ‘must-win’ games (where the result is more important than the quality of performance) which, regrettably, while acknowledged as being counter productive by numerous development professionals, is still the preferred format for some of our clubs/youth coaches.
Games should not be viewed in isolation.
We believe that the GFA match programme should be used by coaches to reinforce the key aspects of a player’s individual technical development.
While the development of technique is of paramount importance, it can be achieved only through constant repetition. Skill on the other hand is the player’s ability to choose and perform the right techniques at the right time, successfully, regularly and with a minimum of effort.
Clearly this is best achieved by playing games that are match-related and involve competition and, most would argue, the right form of ‘pressure’.
There is nothing to stop coaches getting together and agreeing to participate in ‘coached games’.
They involve competition and prepare players to perform under pressure in ‘match’ conditions and at ‘game speed’.
All that is required is two teams and a pitch. We would be happy to assist with facilities if asked.
The coaches decide how long to play before stopping the game to review with their players (possibly every 15 or 20 minutes). In the meantime the youngsters are learning by simply playing the game and possibly actually having fun. This format also means that far more players can be involved, more regularly, in a match situation than can occur within the formal GFA game programme.
To the observation.
Croatia produces a stream of good players despite having far fewer resources than those available in England. Why?
Croatia’s head of youth football said: ‘The most important thing is taking care over technique and making steady progress. Our boys do not play in real competitions until they are 12 or 13 and even then the result is not everything. Creativity is what matters.
‘We are always teaching them to be creative. They will know how to shoot, play one touch and dribble. But choices are left to them.’
Article posted on 3rd January, 2008 - 12.00am
Loading ...
Most Commented: