Les Reed talks Foreign Player Quota & Scouting Street Football

[SuperSAINT]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3808153/Foreign-player-quota-hinder-English-footballers-progress-warns-former-FA-technical-director-Les-Reed.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3808319/Southampton-tapping-street-football-inner-city-London-academy-scouts-search-prodigies.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

[Heisenberg]

Most BPL sides buy success, we breed it! Respect to Reed

[sambosa75]

Played in a work 6 a side at Westway a couple of years ago and was amazed at the technique and skill of some of the lads we were playing against. Came away thinking some of them must have had a shot at getting in to academies. Good that we are tapping in to it. Obviously they are rough diamonds and need to learn the difference between cage football and a full size pitch but the one thing they seem to have is technique which is sometimes the most difficult aspect to teach.

[positivepete]

I met Rasmussen Ankersen last week (Brentford and Midtjylland), and he was talking about spotting players that were undervalued, and he mentioned about street footballers often with poor facilities and how they get to a level of competence earlier than academy kids with better facilities and controlled hours of practice. One measure being that it takes 10,000 hours to reach a level of competence. The point about poor facilities was that those using poor facilities were hungrier and had a potential to improve when eventually training under better circumstances.

 

One interesting point he made was about the athletics club in Kingston Jamaica where all the sprinters come from, a grass track, and a coach who you would not pick out as being the coach, but who could spot the little things that make a difference that others cannot.

[Monk]

I met Rasmussen Ankersen last week (Brentford and Midtjylland), and he was talking about spotting players that were undervalued, and he mentioned about street footballers often with poor facilities and how they get to a level of competence earlier than academy kids with better facilities and controlled hours of practice. One measure being that it takes 10,000 hours to reach a level of competence. The point about poor facilities was that those using poor facilities were hungrier and had a potential to improve when eventually training under better circumstances.

 

One interesting point he made was about the athletics club in Kingston Jamaica where all the sprinters come from, a grass track, and a coach who you would not pick out as being the coach, but who could spot the little things that make a difference that others cannot.

 

10,000 hours has been adapted into bit of a myth, it's now considered as 10,000 experiences. Some might say tit for tat but books such as the talent code and sports gene explain it better than my post would.

 

My current role is around player identification in the 8-11's age group and you won't believe the split with 'scouts' ; some are your generic old school dinosaurs that claim to 'just know' if a player has something about them whilst you have a lot of young cocky out of uni who look into the psychological aspects of how much the player is a good learner

 

Some clubs look for athletes and look to develop them into footballers and some clubs look for good learners of any size as they believe they will be easier to develop with the clubs ethos (Barcelona being the main example).

 

It's a little bit naughty of Saints to claim they're the only club doing this, I've been aware of Sheffield United (who by the way have a fantastic academy and really do things the right way but that's a post for another day) have been doing this for a few years. I love the thought process behind it (academy kids can be real hit or miss in terms of grounded or arrogance.)

[Turkish]

10,000 hours has been adapted into bit of a myth, it's now considered as 10,000 experiences. Some might say tit for tat but books such as the talent code and sports gene explain it better than my post would.

 

My current role is around player identification in the 8-11's age group and you won't believe the split with 'scouts' ; some are your generic old school dinosaurs that claim to 'just know' if a player has something about them whilst you have a lot of young cocky out of uni who look into the psychological aspects of how much the player is a good learner

 

Some clubs look for athletes and look to develop them into footballers and some clubs look for good learners of any size as they believe they will be easier to develop with the clubs ethos (Barcelona being the main example).

 

It's a little bit naughty of Saints to claim they're the only club doing this, I've been aware of Sheffield United (who by the way have a fantastic academy and really do things the right way but that's a post for another day) have been doing this for a few years. I love the thought process behind it (academy kids can be real hit or miss in terms of grounded or arrogance.)

 

I suppose it'll depend on the position what they look for wont it. For the positions requiring pace and power they'll look for athletic black kids and team them how to play football. For the positions requiring intelligence and skill they'll look for the white kids of can learn quickly.

[Dangermouth]

I've met loads of normal kids who are/were good and a few of them got 'picked up' in their teens. I'd suggest it's the middle-class kids with the posh kits and the organised games who aren't any good. But they never were and never will be but fitness and strength/speed/organisation aside there are tons of kids who are skilful and that in many different ways. If this type of scouting ever stopped then clubs were stupid, to be frank.

 

I imagine the thing about kids' development is exactly the same as it is abroad e.g. South America where you have to learn close control in order to avoid cars, potholes, playing in the dark under dodgy lighting and because the focus is on style and fun as well as winning (you don't really win unless you do do it with style) and because it's natural: kids just copy bigger kids (often they play in mixed age groups etc) and because it's proper 'do or die' (if you're **** you get put in goal and the ball gets kicked at you hard or your brother/mates shout at you so you 'Get Good'. By the same token you get a lot of show ponies.

 

@ Monk. That sound intersting and more valid because patently 10k hours kicking a ball with your left foot teaches you very little. Can you provide any links or information as to what to look at? I don't think it will ever really do what it's intended to because I think there's too much emphasis on picking kids early, looking for tall players etc and even though it's dressed up differently I see little to no difference when you look below the surface at what was done a few years ago as to what is done now. Particularly as if the age group is say 8-9 and some kids may not start until later. I knew of a couple of people who were decent who both started later and I believe Fraser Forster played rugby up until 14.

 

What's your view on the talent v physique view? I would always tend towards talent i.e the Barcelona way. And what's your view on the newer technique vs the older? I don't think that spotting someone who's a good learner necessarily means much because they're unlikely to be the very best unless there is something more there i.e. I think we'll end up with capable clones who will need to be told what to do a bit more like American Footballers are rather than e.g. a Bobby Moore who apparently was very good at reading the game so could 'sniff out danger' before it happened.

 

Finally are those who make it at the top better because they have the skills that others don't or because mentally they're better?

[Wes Tender]

It's a little bit naughty of Saints to claim they're the only club doing this, I've been aware of Sheffield United (who by the way have a fantastic academy and really do things the right way but that's a post for another day) have been doing this for a few years. I love the thought process behind it (academy kids can be real hit or miss in terms of grounded or arrogance.)

 

Reed claimed that Saints were thought to be the only club in the PL doing this.

[suewhistle]

Presumably you're all at least looking for decent coordination? I had to play hockey at school and it wasn't until much, much later when I down-shifted and had more time and a local women's team that I actually started playing coached football (as opposed to random kickabouts with friends). But enthusiastic as I am I've never had great co-ordination, and although I've improved with practice and age have never been anything other than competent in any sport I've done.

[Monk]

Not in the age groups 5-16, players aren't considered as being position specific with the exception of goalkeepers which also opens another can of worms. A certain Championship club will only sign an academy goalkeeper if they have a current or projected height of 6ft 2. What is ludicrous with this is some goalkeepers maybe 5'11 but have a better jump reach than keepers that are taller than this (Navas at Madrid has a jump reach of over 9ft)plus projected growth spurts are never accurate. Academy kids up until the age of 13 will play a variety of different positions and in all three columns of the pitch, this will help lay the foundations of being an all rounded footballer, then in the older teens the traits are 'sculpted & tailored' to the players strengths. Put it this way if I'm a ten year old player that only plays centre back - I will only learn how to play with the game in front of me, receiving the ball square at most times and dealing with plain sighted runners (on the shoulder or a player running at me). If I also play as a CM I will learn how to play with 360 degrees capability, a number of receiving principles, overloaded situations. When that player is 22 and playing in a pro game hopefully they will now be confident enough to revert back to the experiences they had as a child and how to deal with it .. we want players that will be confident in any state of the game; in possession, out of possession and transition.

 

It really is an interesting world, so many aspects to consider, biological background, culture, current ability, personality traits and then the most important the scouts prejudice..

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-study-destroys-malcolm-gladwells-10000-rule-2014-7?IR=T

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26384712

http://changingthegameproject.com/the-10000-hour-myth/

 

I highlighted culture above as professionally I believe this is key to creating intelligent players. For those that read Dennis Bergkamp's autobiography, he talks about a culture where he would play with a ball and a wall and deliberately watch how the ball would rotate, react on certain parts of the wall - this effecitvely enhanced his shot/passing selection. We as a country have become so PC, we don't have children playing out on the streets/cul de sacs, adjusting to potholes, the improvised pitch markings, the uneven slope. We are (parents and majority of GR coaches) so keen to have players playing a mini professional version of the adult game, they demand better facilities and conditions. We now have a trade off...

 

Dangermouth, at the risk of me boring you to death, I would always pick talent over physique. Talent is more adaptable than physique (I can't find the paper that helps evidence this). As for older vs newer techniques, it has to be bit of both but I cannot emphasise how paramount the 'good learner' part is in young talent development and identification. Again prejudice falls into this, people assume a good learner is the clean cut, squeaky clean image, doesn't argue back and has their hand up at every opportunity - this couldn't be further from the truth. I will go into more detail later on as I have a session to go and deliver in twenty minutes.

 

Love the points you make about South America and Fraser Forster!

[Saint_clark]

Fascinating insight into it here Monk, thanks. I'd be interested in a blog of some sort if you ever had the time or inclination for it.

[Chez]

Why has Les revealed this to anyone outside the club thereby giving away a possible critical advantage? Or is it in fact a very clever way of promoting the club to street footballers and their parents that perhaps wouldn't look at the club in a good light, for whatever reason? I.e. Les attempting to give us more street cred (no doubt there are gangsta/blood type phrases that would work better here, but I'm too old for that ****).

[Chez]

I highlighted culture above as professionally I believe this is key to creating intelligent players. For those that read Dennis Bergkamp's autobiography, he talks about a culture where he would play with a ball and a wall and deliberately watch how the ball would rotate, react on certain parts of the wall - this effecitvely enhanced his shot/passing selection. We as a country have become so PC, we don't have children playing out on the streets/cul de sacs, adjusting to potholes, the improvised pitch markings, the uneven slope. We are (parents and majority of GR coaches) so keen to have players playing a mini professional version of the adult game, they demand better facilities and conditions. We now have a trade off...

 

You never see kids playing cricket or football on the street these days. Too many cars and fear of weirdos. Also is there anywhere these days that you can get away with smacking a ball against a building/wall (left and right foot) for hours on end as is kids used to do?

[Patrick Bateman]

You never see kids playing cricket or football on the street these days. Too many cars and fear of weirdos. Also is there anywhere these days that you can get away with smacking a ball against a building/wall (left and right foot) for hours on end as is kids used to do?

 

Exactly this! I grew up in a dead end road in the mid 80s, we used to play British Bulldog, ride bikes, play football & cricket, the lot ... all in the street, with no fear of being run over.

 

I wouldn't let my son do that now, too many HUGE cars being driven carelessly with w**kers on phones fiddling with controls and at speed. More deliveries too.

 

And yes, more awareness of weirdos rather than just the odd weird house you used to avoid going near.

 

Also, I saw some lads kicking the ball in the park though the other weekend, which made me smile as again, you don't often see it enough as presumably they're sat indoors playing bloody football manager instead of kicking the ball around!?

[Dangermouth]

You do see a few kids playing street footy still - probably more in the North. Standard's often poor: they look like they have very weak ankles (if you know what I mean). As for the Bergkamp quote: haven't we all done this? I did. It's part of how I taught myself to be two-footed and obviously I was never a pro. I also used to walk the ball towards the wall so that I could get used to the increased speed of pass (i.e. the ball coming back to me) and having to react when it hit a divit and didn't come back to me as anticipated as well as height of pass, etc. I'm sure a lot of kids do this or something similar. Bolasie said he did similar; playing in an unorthodox environment to test his skills and trying to come up with 'new' moves while playing (I think) in a playground with swings and a slide, etc.

 

As to Sue's point, I'm sure we all have known 'natural sportsmen - and women' those who can just play any sport well almost immediately and they have been ones who have been good at football. Interestingly enough, however, they haven't always been the best e.g. at reading the game. As you'll have gathered, things like that - I suppose it might now be considered 'game intelligence' - are ones I think are probably more important and I agree that having intelligent individuals is beneficial but I like to see that married with inherent talent. One of the best examples is, of course, MLT.

[suewhistle]

Yes, MLT! Was once in Guernsey on a sailing holiday and was chatting to a local in a pub. "Ah Le Tissier, the whole family are good at sports"..

[The Cat]

You never see kids playing cricket or football on the street these days. Too many cars and fear of weirdos. Also is there anywhere these days that you can get away with smacking a ball against a building/wall (left and right foot) for hours on end as is kids used to do?

 

A few years ago the cricket team I played for arranged a friendly. Turned out to be a team of kids aged 17-21, all of whom were from Indian families. They were incredible. Some of the most confusing spin and sweetest timers of the ball I'd seen. Afterwards I asked them if they played in a league because a few of them were better than pretty much anyone I'd previously played against. None of them did, said they weren't interested in it and pretty much spent their time playing in the park or on the street.

 

I've no doubt there are similar kids who have slipped through the system in football. For example my son plays with a kid whose Dad is from Afghanistan. He joined the team at 9 years old and is the most skilful player they have. His family have zero interest in football and he learnt by practising in his garden. In a couple of years and with the right coaching he will be absolutely brilliant.

[lloydie]

will only sign an academy goalkeeper if they have a current or projected height of 6ft 2. What is ludicrous with this is some goalkeepers maybe 5'11 but have a better jump reach than keepers that are taller than this (Navas at Madrid has a jump reach of over 9ft

As opposed to Forster, who is a giant but doesn't ever seem to jump when he dives!

[Chez]

do kids still play headers and volleys or three and in?

[The Cat]

do kids still play headers and volleys or three and in?

 

Wall ball seems popular amongst my son and his friends. They also spend a lot of time doing skills they copy off FIFA or playing crossbar challenge.

[Give it to Ron]

There are a lot more organised sessions now though than when I was a kid - all these academies, soccer schools, after school clubs and Brazilian soccer school type

places mean technically kids get better coaching - although Brazilian soccer school may not do that!

Like others said hours spent kicking a ball against a wall ****ing off the neighbour and over Green Park....jumpers for goalposts....marvellous.

I can't believe how the academy kids now get treated all the kit they get tracksuits, boots holdalls.....all we had was Perkins School team or Saints youth at Studland Road and you had to buy your own.

[positivepete]

Not in the age groups 5-16, players aren't considered as being position specific with the exception of goalkeepers which also opens another can of worms. A certain Championship club will only sign an academy goalkeeper if they have a current or projected height of 6ft 2. What is ludicrous with this is some goalkeepers maybe 5'11 but have a better jump reach than keepers that are taller than this (Navas at Madrid has a jump reach of over 9ft)plus projected growth spurts are never accurate. Academy kids up until the age of 13 will play a variety of different positions and in all three columns of the pitch, this will help lay the foundations of being an all rounded footballer, then in the older teens the traits are 'sculpted & tailored' to the players strengths. Put it this way if I'm a ten year old player that only plays centre back - I will only learn how to play with the game in front of me, receiving the ball square at most times and dealing with plain sighted runners (on the shoulder or a player running at me). If I also play as a CM I will learn how to play with 360 degrees capability, a number of receiving principles, overloaded situations. When that player is 22 and playing in a pro game hopefully they will now be confident enough to revert back to the experiences they had as a child and how to deal with it .. we want players that will be confident in any state of the game; in possession, out of possession and transition.

 

It really is an interesting world, so many aspects to consider, biological background, culture, current ability, personality traits and then the most important the scouts prejudice..

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-study-destroys-malcolm-gladwells-10000-rule-2014-7?IR=T

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26384712

http://changingthegameproject.com/the-10000-hour-myth/

 

I highlighted culture above as professionally I believe this is key to creating intelligent players. For those that read Dennis Bergkamp's autobiography, he talks about a culture where he would play with a ball and a wall and deliberately watch how the ball would rotate, react on certain parts of the wall - this effecitvely enhanced his shot/passing selection. We as a country have become so PC, we don't have children playing out on the streets/cul de sacs, adjusting to potholes, the improvised pitch markings, the uneven slope. We are (parents and majority of GR coaches) so keen to have players playing a mini professional version of the adult game, they demand better facilities and conditions. We now have a trade off...

 

Dangermouth, at the risk of me boring you to death, I would always pick talent over physique. Talent is more adaptable than physique (I can't find the paper that helps evidence this). As for older vs newer techniques, it has to be bit of both but I cannot emphasise how paramount the 'good learner' part is in young talent development and identification. Again prejudice falls into this, people assume a good learner is the clean cut, squeaky clean image, doesn't argue back and has their hand up at every opportunity - this couldn't be further from the truth. I will go into more detail later on as I have a session to go and deliver in twenty minutes.

 

Love the points you make about South America and Fraser Forster!

 

Thanks Monk, kicked off a decent discussion. I did hear recently that we dropped a ten year old goalie as we did not think he would make the required height which i think was over 6'2".

 

With regards to the other points about picking skill over physique, I watched many Tyro rep sides being picked as a result of a height line up. The one year I ran the rep side, instead of a match to decide the squad I first set up a round of six exercises with a group of coaches designed to test skill and awareness to eliminate contenders before a final trial match against a club side. It resulted in 60% of squad members who had never been picked for a rep side before, and a decent side who played good football.

 

So to answer the point, yes there a a lot of players who do not get the chance who are decent, it all depends on what you are looking for in a player, and often if you can do a job that the manager or whoever is looking for. Steve Guppy is probably the ultimate example of this, going from Colden Common to Wycombe and following Martin O'Neill to other clubs.

 

It is often a matter of luck as well as talent, much the same as the music business.

[The Cat]

Thanks Monk, kicked off a decent discussion. I did hear recently that we dropped a ten year old goalie as we did not think he would make the required height which i think was over 6'2".

.

 

That is true. I know him.

 

Another goalkeeper who signed to the Academy last year (he was one of the ones playing on the pitch at half time when they were introduced to the crowd at St Mary's) was invited to the development squad after being spotted playing for Eastleigh. The conversation between the scout and his mother went like this:

 

"Is that your son in goal? He's good"

"Yes it is"

"How tall is his Dad?"

 

That goes to show how much importance they place on height for a goalkeeper now. Speed seems to be an issue amongst players as it took Saints 2 years to invite the best player in his age group at Tyro to train with them. This kid was unbelievably good, the most professional player I have seen at a young age (I watched him regularly from age 8-10) yet despite signing a few of his teammates it seemed Saints weren't interested because they considered him too slow.

 

He didn't seem that lacking in pace to me but then I'm not a scout. I'm pleased he was offered the chance to train with them because he's got everything, plus it means his team is weaker so my son's team have a chance against them now!

[broken spoke]

I read somewhere, can't remember, that it's better that you play and train with your biological age when your in your teens, as we all develop at a different rates.

 

I thought that this was something UK Rugby are looking into, as it allows good techniques to be learn't and not lost from being physically disadvantaged.

 

As at 15 i was 5ft4 but but six months later i ended up at 6ft6. So I would have completely missed any scouting as I would have been considered too small.

Edited 27 September, 2016 by broken spoke

[positivepete]

I read somewhere, can't remember, that it's better that you play and train with your biological age when your in your teens, as we all develop at a different rates.

 

I thought that this was something UK Rugby are looking into, as it allows good techniques to be learn't and not lost from being physically disadvantaged.

 

Saints hosted a "biological age" tournament in the summer with a couple of other clubs, including Stoke I think. Not sure if it is true that their under 10's played our under 15's!

 

As at 15 i was 5ft4 but but six months later i ended up at 6ft6. So I would have completely missed any scouting as I would have been considered too small.

 

 

Saints did most a biological age tournament this summer i recall, including Stoke City I think. Not sure what age their players were compared to ours!

[Give it to Ron]

Saints did most a biological age tournament this summer i recall, including Stoke City I think. Not sure what age their players were compared to ours!

 

They have been doing it for a while as my lad was ref at it before he went to uni.

We do try biometrics and give them a chance I know one lad put down a year hoping he would grow but was released as too small.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited 27 September, 2016 by Give it to Ron

[slickmick]

Not in the age groups 5-16, players aren't considered as being position specific with the exception of goalkeepers which also opens another can of worms. A certain Championship club will only sign an academy goalkeeper if they have a current or projected height of 6ft 2. What is ludicrous with this is some goalkeepers maybe 5'11 but have a better jump reach than keepers that are taller than this (Navas at Madrid has a jump reach of over 9ft)plus projected growth spurts are never accurate. Academy kids up until the age of 13 will play a variety of different positions and in all three columns of the pitch, this will help lay the foundations of being an all rounded footballer, then in the older teens the traits are 'sculpted & tailored' to the players strengths. Put it this way if I'm a ten year old player that only plays centre back - I will only learn how to play with the game in front of me, receiving the ball square at most times and dealing with plain sighted runners (on the shoulder or a player running at me). If I also play as a CM I will learn how to play with 360 degrees capability, a number of receiving principles, overloaded situations. When that player is 22 and playing in a pro game hopefully they will now be confident enough to revert back to the experiences they had as a child and how to deal with it .. we want players that will be confident in any state of the game; in possession, out of possession and transition.

 

It really is an interesting world, so many aspects to consider, biological background, culture, current ability, personality traits and then the most important the scouts prejudice..

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-study-destroys-malcolm-gladwells-10000-rule-2014-7?IR=T

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26384712

http://changingthegameproject.com/the-10000-hour-myth/

 

I highlighted culture above as professionally I believe this is key to creating intelligent players. For those that read Dennis Bergkamp's autobiography, he talks about a culture where he would play with a ball and a wall and deliberately watch how the ball would rotate, react on certain parts of the wall - this effecitvely enhanced his shot/passing selection. We as a country have become so PC, we don't have children playing out on the streets/cul de sacs, adjusting to potholes, the improvised pitch markings, the uneven slope. We are (parents and majority of GR coaches) so keen to have players playing a mini professional version of the adult game, they demand better facilities and conditions. We now have a trade off...

 

Dangermouth, at the risk of me boring you to death, I would always pick talent over physique. Talent is more adaptable than physique (I can't find the paper that helps evidence this). As for older vs newer techniques, it has to be bit of both but I cannot emphasise how paramount the 'good learner' part is in young talent development and identification. Again prejudice falls into this, people assume a good learner is the clean cut, squeaky clean image, doesn't argue back and has their hand up at every opportunity - this couldn't be further from the truth. I will go into more detail later on as I have a session to go and deliver in twenty minutes.Love the points you make about South America and Fraser Forster!

 

Love to know more about this. I know a 10 year old who plays for a semi-pro club and a district team and has two different coaching techniques, one old school and one very modern who spends a lot of time working on visual awareness, but both try and drill in to the kids how important the game is when you don't have the ball (reading the game)

which proves a real challenge to a fair few of them (even the technically good ones).

Be interested how you set about identifying players. Is it a random visit to a game or do you get a heads up on someone.

There was a game I was at sometime ago where a kid from the other team played a blinder, a rumoured scout turned up only for that said kid to be put in goal unknowingly.

I guess that was his chance gone.

[Give it to Ron]

Love to know more about this. I know a 10 year old who plays for a semi-pro club and a district team and has two different coaching techniques, one old school and one very modern who spends a lot of time working on visual awareness, but both try and drill in to the kids how important the game is when you don't have the ball (reading the game)

which proves a real challenge to a fair few of them (even the technically good ones).

Be interested how you set about identifying players. Is it a random visit to a game or do you get a heads up on someone.

There was a game I was at sometime ago where a kid from the other team played a blinder, a rumoured scout turned up only for that said kid to be put in goal unknowingly.

I guess that was his chance gone.

 

Or you get the Pompey method who pay the scout on number of boys he gets to trials.....amazing how many average get trials. I know as happened at my lads club a few years ago.

You see them at every six a side tournament in summer

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[corky morris]

Monk.

What would you describe as 'talent'? Be interested in your definition.

Have 2 lads playing at Tier 3 academies, both been at level 1's before & have been let go. Older one for insufficient pace (physical) & younger one for 'not wanting it enough' (attitude). Neither of which has anything to do with talent.

Both have 2 feet.

Most lads I see in academies have only one foot.

I have come to the conclusion that I clearly know nothing about football........................

 

 

Not in the age groups 5-16, players aren't considered as being position specific with the exception of goalkeepers which also opens another can of worms. A certain Championship club will only sign an academy goalkeeper if they have a current or projected height of 6ft 2. What is ludicrous with this is some goalkeepers maybe 5'11 but have a better jump reach than keepers that are taller than this (Navas at Madrid has a jump reach of over 9ft)plus projected growth spurts are never accurate. Academy kids up until the age of 13 will play a variety of different positions and in all three columns of the pitch, this will help lay the foundations of being an all rounded footballer, then in the older teens the traits are 'sculpted & tailored' to the players strengths. Put it this way if I'm a ten year old player that only plays centre back - I will only learn how to play with the game in front of me, receiving the ball square at most times and dealing with plain sighted runners (on the shoulder or a player running at me). If I also play as a CM I will learn how to play with 360 degrees capability, a number of receiving principles, overloaded situations. When that player is 22 and playing in a pro game hopefully they will now be confident enough to revert back to the experiences they had as a child and how to deal with it .. we want players that will be confident in any state of the game; in possession, out of possession and transition.

 

It really is an interesting world, so many aspects to consider, biological background, culture, current ability, personality traits and then the most important the scouts prejudice..

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-study-destroys-malcolm-gladwells-10000-rule-2014-7?IR=T

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26384712

http://changingthegameproject.com/the-10000-hour-myth/

 

I highlighted culture above as professionally I believe this is key to creating intelligent players. For those that read Dennis Bergkamp's autobiography, he talks about a culture where he would play with a ball and a wall and deliberately watch how the ball would rotate, react on certain parts of the wall - this effecitvely enhanced his shot/passing selection. We as a country have become so PC, we don't have children playing out on the streets/cul de sacs, adjusting to potholes, the improvised pitch markings, the uneven slope. We are (parents and majority of GR coaches) so keen to have players playing a mini professional version of the adult game, they demand better facilities and conditions. We now have a trade off...

 

Dangermouth, at the risk of me boring you to death, I would always pick talent over physique. Talent is more adaptable than physique (I can't find the paper that helps evidence this). As for older vs newer techniques, it has to be bit of both but I cannot emphasise how paramount the 'good learner' part is in young talent development and identification. Again prejudice falls into this, people assume a good learner is the clean cut, squeaky clean image, doesn't argue back and has their hand up at every opportunity - this couldn't be further from the truth. I will go into more detail later on as I have a session to go and deliver in twenty minutes.

 

Love the points you make about South America and Fraser Forster!