Ireland has an inability to produce technically proficient players: Discuss!

Theresalwaysone

I think we struggle big time on this front. Why is this?

Rarely in this country do we see players emerge who are technically superb. We produce players with grit, determination and spirit but I find it particularly hard to think of players who are truly comfortable with the ball at their feet.

Is it a case of the way our underage leagues are structured? Is it the abundance of "Daddy Coaches" with no real clue about the game? Is it a cultural thing?

If you think you can see where the problem lies, can you see a solution to it?

I was discussing this elsewhere on boards the other night and another poster posted what I'd consider the definitive answer to the question but I'd like to hear other opinions? I will post his opinion, or let him do it if he wishes when he see's the thread.


I know this forum is primarliy an Irish premiership supporters forum, and thats perfectly fine with me but I think we have enough actual football lovers here to debate this question properly. If nothing else, hopefully it'll open peoples eyes.

Paul Tergat

I agree and to a lesser extent the same applies with players from England and the UK as a whole.

I think it mostly comes down to youth level.

I remember playing footie when younger and training was mainly based on being physical and fitness and this is reflected in both the PL and the Ireland and England national teams. A much more physical approach is taken and less emphasis (generally) on the technical side of the game.

fulhamfanincork

Don't have time to post a proper reply but the answer is down to the GAA

Mushy

Small population, wide variety of popular sports, and then what the poster said in the 2nd post, lot more physical than technical.

Headshot

having a ****ing waster like Don givens as the manager of the u21's says it all

GavRedKing

Yes, down to clubs, coaches and other sports.

Theresalwaysone

Mushy wrote: »

Small population, wide variety of popular sports, and then what the poster said in the 2nd post, lot more physical than technical.

Population doesnt really make a difference. (I know where this is gonna go)

Population doesnt make a difference to the type of player we produce, only to the amount of them we produce. This is the same for coaches.

Wide variety of sports is the same principle as the population problem.

I agree with P_larkin when he mentions the underage training methods. I personally believe thats where it all lies and thats where it should be changed.

Aidric

It comes down to coaching at underage level imo. I played underage for 10 years and I don't remember much emphasis being put on passing drills. A midfielders role was primarily seen to be helping out their defence rather than being creative. Too much emphasis was put on physicality and fitness drills. If there was a physically strong guy with limited ability and a physically weak guy with decent skill it would be the former getting the call every time.
Formations rarely came in to play or were never discussed. It was a rigid 4-4-2 and that was it.
If I had a pound for every time I heard 'put it in the box' throughout my underage career I'd probably never have to work. The mentality was to hoof it in to the box and hope to pull something out of it. God forbid a passing movement would be put together. This in effect made the midfield rather defunct and attending to defending a lot of the time.
It's probably too simplistic an argument to put it down to long ball mentality but the fact is that mentality permeates every level of Irish soccer.

JPA

Talk about stating the bloody obvious. There's not enough focus on technical skills at youth level, the exact same problem as in the UK. Too much focus on physicality.

Paul Tergat

Headshot wrote: »

having a ****ing waster like Don givens as the manager of the u21's says it all

The problems begin wayyy before this level though. its unlikely that a player who is 19-21 will adapt the way they play. its at the youth levels where we need to rid the culture of doing laps of the pitch for half an hour. More needs to be done in training sessions with kids where we get them doing ball work rather than having them run around.


edit: forgot to mention this. From playing football from 7-14 I can only remember playing on one decent pitch. Every other one was cut up and muddy with games being played directly beforehand and then even more straight after. Bad pitches often lead to bad football. its very tough to play a passing game on your average boggy pitch. Im sure those in UCD (Theresalwaysone im sure you aming others are aware of this) will remember some bad pitches but the better games were ones played on the astros.

Solution - play more 7 a side games i think on artificial pitches? a smaller pitch means less hoofing and generally we saw better games played out on a nicer surface.

UnitedIrishman

All about coaching, coaching, coaching.

You'll see at clubs in Spain, France and laterly England that kids are being brought in from the age of 6-10 and being taught technically. If you don't lay that foundation, you're miles behind. It's only now we're copping onto that but we're years behind and still there are too many coaches out there that don't have a clue.

As an underage coach myself, there is no drill that is done without a ball whereas when I was 12/13 all we did was run laps all day and then play a game. Kids are fit and fast enough as it is without being made run mindnumbingly all day.

To be fair though, we're doing alright considering soccer isn't the biggest sport in the country and we have a population of just over 4m.

Nulty

fulhamfanincork wrote: »

Don't have time to post a proper reply but the answer is down to the GAA

I dont have too great an opinion so forgive my short response. The reason is quite obviously the GAA. I'm glad we have the GAA and gaelic sports. I'm not their biggest fan but I'd sacrafice a little bit (possibly a huge amount) of talent in soccer for the existence of the GAA.

It's quite impressive that we still produce the talent we have despite the competition from GAA.

Also -

the poverty in coaching isn't just down to Givens. Most of the coaches at all levels in this country are just like Givens. Irish people coaching soccer are **** in this country. We dont try to improve our players of potential, we just see whos playing best and put all the effort into them. If you know what I mean.

This is longer response than I had planned

kippy

Mushy wrote: »

Small population, wide variety of popular sports, and then what the poster said in the 2nd post, lot more physical than technical.

Small population being the key area. The best players in the world have generally come out of VERY large countries, where odds of getting gifted players is increased. We also have a number of other sports that real men play.
Population does make a difference.........think about it.



As an aside,
I would be much happier if players were coached two core items and not allowed progress to the next level until they had they mastered.
1. The ability to strike a dead ball. The amount of free kicks and corners that are absolutely absymal at every level of the game is not something that should be condoned.
2. The ability to use both feet.

These are most important for professional players, and to be honest, the amount of professional players that can do this on a consistent basis is very very low and considering football is all they do all day, its pretty poor.

Mushy

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

Population doesnt really make a difference. (I know where this is gonna go)

Population doesnt make a difference to the type of player we produce, only to the amount of them we produce. This is the same for coaches.

Wide variety of sports is the same principle as the population problem.

I agree with P_larkin when he mentions the underage training methods. I personally believe thats where it all lies and thats where it should be changed.

Sorry yeah, that is true alright, but it does limit the amount. I'd think of it as a contributing factor still though, albeit not too major.

Wide variety could swing bot hways, but when kids are younger, they tend to play multiple types of sport, and over here, these main ones are more physical, so would intrude on technical ability in other sports at times IMO.

Leiva

O.P ,
Please explain to me your idea of a technically proficient player ?

Theresalwaysone

UnitedIrishman wrote: »

To be fair though, we're doing alright considering soccer isn't the biggest sport in the country and we have a population of just over 4m.

Its the biggest participation sport in the country.

Nulty

We have Rugby to contend with also

Mitch Connor

training and weather has an effect imo. mainly the training though.

Go to any U8 or U9 game - and you will see a bunch of kids chasing after the ball,with one or two players dominating. as you move further up the age groups it doesn't change that much. Positions become more defined, but you still get one or two players dominating - the physically stronger kids. Playing U12 football on full size pitches as 11 vs 11 games just isn't right imo. That style of training and playing promotes strength, stamina ans size over technical abilities.
when we were training (again, U11 or U12) we spent most of the training session doing sprints and stamina work - with some basic passing drills and a game at the end of the session. The focus is on fitness and strength first, which is wrong imo.

The quality of pitches doesn't help in that they can be mud patches for most of the season so a passing game is discouraged, as the surface isn't good enough to support it.

This is the same throughout Ireland and the UK.

Some of the premiership clubs are changing - United (the club I would be most familiar with) are one of the leaders of these changes. They have removed their younger teams from the 11v11 competitions, and play a smaller matches, on smaller pitches, which mean all the players are more involved in the games, and their passing and contol has to be better. This results in more technically profecient players.

As the United coaches are saying - you can teach an older player tactics, you can increase their stamina and strength as they get older, but it is a lot harder to teach them dribbling skills and technique as easily.

That is the way forward imo - a concentration on technique and skill from a young age as opposed to physical attributes.

rossie1977

brady, giles, whelan (ronnie), and one of the most technically proficient players of all-time just happened to be born on this island

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nplemK3Y4ns

Theresalwaysone

mixednuts wrote: »

O.P ,
Please explain to me your idea of a technically proficient player ?

First touch: Ability to receive the ball on either leg, head or chest, in a variety of unbalanced positions and at varying speeds and stages in running/sprinting.

Heading: Ability to control the ball, judge ball flights, timing, cushion headers.

Dribbling: Ability to increase speed without decreasing control over the ball. Being able to use each foot independently and have enough deftness and dexterity to react to obstacles while remaining in complete control. Being able to beat a player.

Turning/Shielding: Abilty to shield the ball under pressure and to turn effectively with the least amount of touches on the ball.

I could go on and on and on but thats the jist of it.

cruiserweight

fulhamfanincork wrote: »

Don't have time to post a proper reply but the answer is down to the GAA

Nulty wrote: »

I dont have too great an opinion so forgive my short response. The reason is quite obviously the GAA. I'm glad we have the GAA and gaelic sports. I'm not their biggest fan but I'd sacrafice a little bit (possibly a huge amount) of talent in soccer for the existence of the GAA.

It's quite impressive that we still produce the talent we have despite the competition from GAA.

For people who are attributing part of the blame to the GAA, funnily there is a similar discussion over on the GAA forum http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055733504

A part of the problem might be the choice of sports that youngsters have, but personally I do not see this as a bad thing. IMO coaching and the emphasis on the basic skills is the key to producing technically gifted players

Headshot

p_larkin99 wrote: »

The problems begin wayyy before this level though. its unlikely that a player who is 19-21 will adapt the way they play. its at the youth levels where we need to rid the culture of doing laps of the pitch for half an hour. More needs to be done in training sessions with kids where we get them doing ball work rather than having them run around.


edit: forgot to mention this. From playing football from 7-14 I can only remember playing on one decent pitch. Every other one was cut up and muddy with games being played directly beforehand and then even more straight after. Bad pitches often lead to bad football. its very tough to play a passing game on your average boggy pitch. Im sure those in UCD (Theresalwaysone im sure you aming others are aware of this) will remember some bad pitches but the better games were ones played on the astros.

Solution - play more 7 a side games i think on artificial pitches? a smaller pitch means less hoofing and generally we saw better games played out on a nicer surface.

not just his coaching mate

he has fallen out with a number of players too

but I do agree about the young players

also with the EPL new rule coming in we could be even in bigger trouble for years to come

JPA

The best GAA players are much better than the best Irish soccer players, if you know what I mean. I know you can't compare GAA players to other GAA players in other countries so you might think I'm not making any sense but at a technical level GAA players are better than the soccer players.

Sure GAA coaching places importance on strength and fitness but there's also a lot of short passing, long passing, hand passing and movement training.

And this is all done constantly before a player reaches even 14. It becomes instinctive compared to soccer players. Of course in Spain and France etc where things are done right there is all this technical coaching at underage.

Theresalwaysone

kippy wrote: »

Small population being the key area. The best players in the world have generally come out of VERY large countries, where odds of getting gifted players is increased. We also have a number of other sports that real men play.
Population does make a difference.........think about it.

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

Population doesnt really make a difference. (I know where this is gonna go)

Population doesnt make a difference to the type of player we produce, only to the amount of them we produce. This is the same for coaches.

Wide variety of sports is the same principle as the population problem.

I agree with P_larkin when he mentions the underage training methods. I personally believe thats where it all lies and thats where it should be changed.

.

Nulty wrote:

We have Rugby to contend with also

We dont really. Its not played nearly as much as soccer. I think I read it has 2% of the participation (that could be wrong but its def very low on the list).

rossie1977 wrote:

brady, giles, whelan (ronnie), and one of the most technically proficient players of all-time just happened to be born on this island

Variance. Its bound to happen sometimes but why not more often?

Paul Tergat

I hate the apparent approach over here that from a young age a lot of the GAA types restrict someones ability to play both. Granted its just from what people have told me but its something else that needs to be looked at.

Paleface

I don't fully agree with the coaching argument as generally speaking our best players are over in England from a young age so they get the same coaching as them.

I think its there are just too many sports played in this country at a high level for the population we have.

GAA (two sports in this one), Soccer and Rugby are the big ones but there are obviously others.

Australia are the only country I can think of who manage to over achieve in all sports with a population of 20m. They have AFL which is comparable to GAA. They play Rugby League to a standard unequaled anywhere else. Their Rugby Union team has won a world cup and they always do well in certain events at the Olympics. They are arguably the best Cricket country of all time and now their Soccer team has qualified for the last two world cups and is ranked higher than us.

But they still have 4/5 times our population and a climate that suits outdoor sports.

Paul Tergat

Headshot wrote: »

not just his coaching mate

he has fallen out with a number of players too

but I do agree about the young players

also with the EPL new rule coming in we could be even in bigger trouble for years to come

well givens obviously has his faults but in relation to what we're talking about i just meant that its irrelevant who the manager is at that level of football (especially international where they meet only a few times a year) as the damage has been done at a younger level.

kippy

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

First touch: Ability to receive the ball on either leg, head or chest, in a variety of unbalanced positions and at varying speeds and stages in running/sprinting.

Heading: Ability to control the ball, judge ball flights, timing, cushion headers.

Dribbling: Ability to increase speed without decreasing control over the ball. Being able to use each foot independently and have enough deftness and dexterity to react to obstacles while remaining in complete control. Being able to beat a player.

Turning/Shielding: Abilty to shield the ball under pressure and to turn effectively with the least amount of touches on the ball.

I could go on and on and on but thats the jist of it.

Isn't being able to kick with both feet and kicking a dead ball far easier to train people to do and almost more important than any of the above?

Paul Tergat

Paleface wrote: »

I don't fully agree with the coaching argument as generally speaking our best players are over in England from a young age so they get the same coaching as them.

But the coaching in England at a very very young age (which is where I believe the problem lies) is the same. UK and Ireland at young levels concentrate on the physical stuff. By the time the players are picked to go over to England they are already going down the route of being more physical players and tbh it suits the English clubs too.

Paleface wrote: »

I think its there are just too many sports played in this country at a high level for the population we have.

GAA (two sports in this one), Soccer and Rugby are the big ones but there are obviously others.

As has been said, this will only effect the total number of players and should not affect the quality of those produced.

JPA

kippy wrote: »

Isn't being able to kick with both feet and kicking a dead ball far easier to train people to do and almost more important than any of the above?

Well it's all linked, it's a complete given that a player can use both feet and hit a dead ball.

kippy

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

.



We dont really. Its not played nearly as much as soccer. I think I read it has 2% of the participation (that could be wrong but its def very low on the list).



Variance. Its bound to happen sometimes but why not more often?

Name the best technical players in the world in your opinion and the countries they come from.
You'll find most of them hail from countries with populations far greater than our own.

Xavi6

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

First touch: Ability to receive the ball on either leg, head or chest, in a variety of unbalanced positions and at varying speeds and stages in running/sprinting.

Heading: Ability to control the ball, judge ball flights, timing, cushion headers.

Dribbling: Ability to increase speed without decreasing control over the ball. Being able to use each foot independently and have enough deftness and dexterity to react to obstacles while remaining in complete control. Being able to beat a player.

Turning/Shielding: Abilty to shield the ball under pressure and to turn effectively with the least amount of touches on the ball.

I could go on and on and on but thats the jist of it.

So Stephen Ireland then

drkpower

Coaching is obviously a massive reason as is the lunatic manner in which winning at all costs is encouraged in even under 10s football, never allowing kids to properly express themselves for fear of messing up. (see famous D'Unbelievables sketch for good illustration!).

But Im surprised noone has mentioned the climatic reasons. It is no surprise that Uk/Irl/Scandinavian footballers have traditionally less skill levels (with many exceptions, obviously). I think the Mediterannean weather historically favoured a slower more technical style of play while the Northern countries were less likely to play it on the ground due to poorer pitch quality and cooler conditions generally allowed for a more high pace fast and furious chasing style which discouraged long periods of possesssion football.

Paul Tergat

drkpower wrote: »

But Im surprised noone has mentioned the climatic reasons.

It has been mentioned.

We need to get more games played with smaller numbers in the team 5/7 a sides and also playing more on astro/artificial pitches where passing is encouraged and easier to do.

drkpower

p_larkin99 wrote: »

It has been mentioned.
.

Poor attention to detail is also a deficiency of the celts.:D

Leiva

Bad Climatic conditions lead to bad pitches ...Good climatic conditions lead to good pitches.

Good pitches will always promote "on the ground" play hence the Med teams game play , tech & ability

Try playing a 1 -2 with someone on a Council pitch , 2nd weekend mid Nov .:eek:..Getting the ball back is more difficult than the on rushing player .

This is why all Irish football leagues need to move to summertime.

No shortage of skilled kids , just aint got the infrastructure to display it.

Have a look at the same Sat & Sun players on a Astro Park ...chalk & cheese .

M

orourkeda

The solution here is simple.

In general the standard of coaching here is an absolute disgrace. Now there are good coaches who do a fantastic job but there are more bad than good from my experience.

Dublin has one of the strongest, biggest and best organised schoolboy set ups in Europe. This is proof positive that the players are there. Volunteers are essential to schoolboy football and it wouldnt exist without them but if we are serious about producing top quality footballers we have to make the best of whatever resources are there. To fulfil all the potential that exist requires top level coaching is required. We should look at a clairefontaine type set up.

Another difficulty is the mindset that getting to England is the be all and end all. Why limit it to just England? I'm not sure if this is happening already but perhaps links should be made with Academies across europe and America rather that simply The SPL, Premiership and Championship.

But the cynic in me believes that money dictates what happens even at this level.

noodler

4.5 million people

herbieflowers

It's a cultural thing, more specifically how the game is played at underage level. This applies to the UK as well.

Take Brazil, for example. They play on small basketball court-size pitches with a heavy ball that doesn't bounce up until the age of about 16 or so, whereas Irish lads play on full-size pitches and eleven-a-side from about the age of 13.

5-a-sides on small pitches improves touch, skill, balance. Requires one to be more intelligent with the ball in a small area, instead of hoofing it long. They don't even bother with the tactical side of the game till relatively late on, too. It's all about the football.

Xavi6

noodler wrote: »

4.5 million people

Slovenia tbh

noodler

Xavi6 wrote: »

Slovenia tbh

Fair enough.

4.5 million people spread over two main domestic sports and then Rugby.

Nevertheless, what Slovenia achieved was immense.

Theresalwaysone

Can people please realise population has nothing to do with it.

Theresalwaysone

kippy wrote: »

Isn't being able to kick with both feet and kicking a dead ball far easier to train people to do and almost more important than any of the above?

Not more important. But as important. Its all linked though. I should have included dead ball skills and profiency with both legs in that post.

kippy wrote: »

Name the best technical players in the world in your opinion and the countries they come from.
You'll find most of them hail from countries with populations far greater than our own.

It doesnt have anything to do with population. Look at the dutch 16million and pretty much every player that comes from there is better technically than his european counterparts. (even Ryan Babel)

Blaming it on population is either being misinformed, misunderstanding or a complete cop out.

Look at our Rugby team. They have LESS people to choose from than soccer, rugby is played far far far less yet they can challenge on all fronts.

noodler

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

Can people please realise population has nothing to do with it.

*Attack the post not the poster*

Okay, that is the stupidest thing I have ever read.

Nothing to do with it, at all?

Theresalwaysone

noodler wrote: »

*Attack the post not the poster*

Okay, that is the stupidest thing I have ever read.

Nothing to do with it, at all?

Not as far as I can see.

You arent born with technical skills. You learn them. They are not genetic traits like height, base strength, speed, suceptability to fatigue. You learn them.

Population will dictate how MANY we produce. Not the TYPE.

noodler

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

Not as far as I can see.

You arent born with technical skills. You learn them. They are not genetic traits like height, base strength, speed, suceptability to fatigue. You learn them.

Population will dictate how MANY we produce. Not the TYPE.

You are wrong. I will say that population isn't the only factor by a long shot but you said it has nothing to do with it at all and I strongly disagree.

Theresalwaysone

noodler wrote: »

You are wrong. I will say that population isn't the only factor by a long shot but you said it has nothing to do with it at all and I strongly disagree.

Explain it to me so. I am not so blockheaded to realise when Im wrong provided why Im wrong makes sense.

The only way, logically, I can see that Im wrong is if you think technical ability is something you are born with. Which, I dont think it is, but I'm open to being convinced.

Herbal Deity

Personally, I played soccer for 8 years, and then basketball for 2 years.

With soccer, our tactics consised of vague ideas from our manager (a dad) like "get the ball to X, he can run with it and thump it into the box for Y and Z". Our training was a run, a few random drills and a practice match.

With basketball, I was introduced to the notion of a "play". You had to do a bit of homework to learn them. It was all very structured. There was always a place for you to be and the idea was that the team functioned as a cohesive unit. I found this quite difficult to get used to, as years of soccer had taught me to essentially do my own thing, wing it essentially.

While I appreciate that with a larger pitch and more than twice the amount of players, you're not going to have "plays" in the same way there is in basketball, but I think that you can even see in some professional soccer an underlying mentality of "just knock the ball around a bit and go for it if there's an opening". There should be a much more disciplined, stricter and patient approach taught from an early age.

It's not so much about an inability to produce technicaly proficient players, it's about a suboptimal philosophy about the nature of soccer being implicitly taught to players from a young age.

Every young player should be shown this and taught to revere this kind of awesome team goal above all else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0O7KkZn4rk

_blank_

Sending kids aged 16 over to England and relying on them to develop our players plays a huge part in it, when they are now looking all over the world for young talent.

Ireland needs a proper school of excellence, and players need to have the "Kevin Doyle" experience.

Theresalwaysone

Herbal Deity wrote: »

It's not so much about an inability to produce technicaly proficient players, it's about a suboptimal philosophy about the nature of soccer being implicitly taught to players from a young age.

Good post. Agree.

But surely the bit above is essentially the same thing? The philosophy means we have unable to produce good technical players.

noodler

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

Explain it to me so. I am not so blockheaded to realise when Im wrong provided why Im wrong makes sense.

The only way, logically, I can see that Im wrong is if you think technical ability is something you are born with. Which, I dont think it is, but I'm open to being convinced.

Best ten nations in the world and their respective population please.

I am not backing you into a corner to say population is the be-all and end-all - all I am saying is that it clearly plays a part.