He's only 17

[beechblade]

Coaches like to over analyse it and pull it to pieces imo.

Attractive, winning football can be achieved by applying common sense.

The difficult part is coaching discipline and understanding into players.

That is largely down to the individual and how they receive/use information.

The line between winning/losing, being good/crap is largely determined by the quality of your players.

True they do, but without the over analysis the game would never evolve and we'd still be stuck with the pyramid of 2-3-5.

And you've just made my point for me really, what's one of the most difficult things about coaching. Understanding the differing forms of learning and the individuals characteristics of players, a good coach has to know all that, plus the tactical and technical knowlegde of the game. Making it more complex than most actually think. As of common sense it only gets you so far otherwise we'd all be top rated coaches and managers.

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

True they do, but without the over analysis the game would never evolve and we'd still be stuck with the pyramid of 2-3-5.

And you've just made my point for me really, what's one of the most difficult things about coaching. Understanding the differing forms of learning and the individuals characteristics of players, a good coach has to know all that, plus the tactical and technical knowlegde of the game. Making it more complex than most actually think. As of common sense it only gets you so far otherwise we'd all be top rated coaches and managers.

The only aspect of the game that has evolved significantly for the better, is fitness and athleticism.

Sports science has allowed coaches to make players fitter, faster and more agile.

Players are technically no better than they were 20 or 30 years ago imo.

You can talk tactics and formations all day, only one thing works consistently....

Pass and move, pass and move, pass and move. Very simple. Pass it to someone in space, move into space.

The difficulty is getting players to do it well on a consistent basis and thats where quality comes in.

The better the standard of player, the easier it is to man-manage. The theory behind it is simple.

 

[bricktop]

Lets look at facts.

Simmo needed dropping as he had made a succession of mistakes that have cost us points, and his confidence looked shot.

Long was the only other keeper we had available on the book at the time, 17 years old, raw and untested but highly thought off.

We needed to drop Simmo, and bring in someone else and that player was Long which was a bit of a gamble, and he had a poor game on saturday.

All it says to me is that we need to bring a loan keeper in, keep Simmo out of the firing line, and let Long learn his trade in the reserve/youth team.

It was a gamble that had to be taken, and its not paid off. No point in lambasting Long as he is still a kid and his time will come.

 

[beechblade]

The only aspect of the game that has evolved significantly for the better, is fitness and athleticism.

Sports science has allowed coaches to make players fitter, faster and more agile.

Players are technically no better than they were 20 or 30 years ago imo.

You can talk tactics and formations all day, only one thing works consistently....

Pass and move, pass and move, pass and move. Very simple. Pass it to someone in space, move into space.

The difficulty is getting players to do it well on a consistent basis and thats where quality comes in.

The better the standard of player, the easier it is to man-manage. The theory behind it is simple.

I do understand your point as the game itself can be picked up and played with relative simplicity, but at this level and at a coaching level the game extends to a bit more than simplicity.

Your theory is very simple yes but the application is another matter all together, and if the game wasn't so complex or over analyised the English style would still be the one that was developed as the gentlemans game all those years ago.

Tactics and formations have changed far more than you obviously know, and that same over analysis was the thing that led to the basics of pass and move you herald as being the only thing needed to make the game simple.

The English game was solely developed on dribbling and the odd long ball to the wings from the backs. The Scott's developed the coaching style that lead to the modern way. The Hungrians built on it, the Southern Americans developed the skill game, thats evolved into parts of dribbling we see these days, the English adapted but to a W-M formation, the Hungrians further developed it and so on, tactics, formations and set ups have all had to evolve to the theory of pass and move. And as you say the game has now had to evolve with sports science producing the better athlete.

Pass and move has to over come the challenges of shape and set up, pressing of players, positioning of players and marking. Which makes it more complictated and complex than when first thought of.

And the theory of better standard of player should be easier to man-manage, is simply theory, players still have differing personalities and traits, players still learn different and develop at different ages, some learn quicker than others, others take time and when applying those conditions to a team game, it extends from simple to more complex, which is what Bergen was probably pointing at.

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

Interesting post but I still think you're over complicating it beech.

The game has changed I grant you that, but the principals remain the same.

Tactics and formations have indeed changed, I would have to be an idiot not to know that.

It doesnt alter the validity of my argument that simplicity is the way forward.

Unless you're dealing with world class players, I find players respond better to simplistic methods.

That theory is based on my own experience and advice from people much better qualified than myself.

I have gleaned from our debate that we both have experience coaching?

Yet we seem to disagree on methods, as most coaches do!

 

[Muttley]

I think Long must have shagged Ollie's and Maciljo's birds..

Come on, why have such an attack on the lad? What choice did we have?
seen the replays over again and whilst more experience might have resulted in fewer conceded, I can't and will not blame him.
The first, Williams fault
2nd....unstoppable
3rs hmmm....maybe George should have stayed on his line, as with the 4th
HOWEVER, the defence should have not let the keeper be so exposed, as they did on tuesday....in fact they should do that with ANY KEEPER IN EVERY MATCH!!!

 

[Micalijo]

1st, 3rd and 4th, in varying degrees, were to me awful bits of goalkeeping. They get worse everytime I see em regards to Long's contribution.

1st he looked scared of getting hurt - the ball had plenty of pace on it for the keeper, Willo did well imo, 3rd I think he could either read the situation and come out or stay at home - he did neither (on reflection the break was good and the cross was good I have to admit). 4th the angle he comes out at is beyond belief.

But, I accept it aint easy and he obviously should not be in.

What if Smmo had been OK but got injured or sent off? Would we have gone into loan markety, again? It is beyond belief that a serious club can go into a campaign with nothing between SImmo and a 17 year old.

 

[beechblade]

Interesting post but I still think you're over complicating it beech.

The game has changed I grant you that, but the principals remain the same.

Tactics and formations have indeed changed, I would have to be an idiot not to know that.

It doesnt alter the validity of my argument that simplicity is the way forward.

Unless you're dealing with world class players, I find players respond better to simplistic methods.

That theory is based on my own experience and advice from people much better qualified than myself.

I have gleaned from our debate that we both have experience coaching?

Yet we seem to disagree on methods, as most coaches do!

Yes I coach kids, so I keep it all as simple as possible, but plying my head into the broader aspect of the larger game, it takes me as being complex in some manors but simple in others.

I suppose it daunts me a little and I over analysis stuff myself at times, but coaching wise and the training I do at level I'm at it has to be structured to be simple and fun.

I don't actually disagree in anyones coaching methods to be honest, simple or complex, you can always find something to aid your own progression.

Under 8's, what about yourself?

 

[Hodgyman]

I agree with the comments from Browny

"Simmo needed dropping as he had made a succession of mistakes that have cost us points, and his confidence looked shot.

Long was the only other keeper we had available on the book at the time, 17 years old, raw and untested but highly thought off.

We needed to drop Simmo, and bring in someone else and that player was Long which was a bit of a gamble, and he had a poor game on saturday.

All it says to me is that we need to bring a loan keeper in, keep Simmo out of the firing line, and let Long learn his trade in the reserve/youth team.

It was a gamble that had to be taken, and its not paid off. No point in lambasting Long as he is still a kid and his time will come. "



I do not blame George for the situation leading to his premature exposure in the first team. There were warnings to Danny & co in the summer to find an experienced keeper but either went unheeded or vetoed by the board.

For George's sake, I hope that we can get him out on loan to gain experience as I still believe that he has a bright future.

As for the team, I hope that we can get an experienced keeper on loan and perhaps a new goalie coach soon.