Football Coaching or the UK Mafia?

[The Kop]

Time to import knowledge
By Les Murray | 4 November 2008 | 10:48

Outgoing FFA technical director Rob Baan gave some frank and revealing views recently on the quality of Australian coaching and coaches.

In an exclusive with Matthew Hall in Sydney’s Sun-Herald, Baan said ‘a top to bottom shake-up [of the coaching system] is required’ and called on FFA to send top coaches overseas to further their education.

He put grassroots coaching as the top priority which, he said, must be revamped if future generations of Australian footballers are to reach their potential. The era of benevolent parents, totally uneducated in football, coaching the kids in the suburbs must be put behind us.

Hate to say I told you so but it reminded of me of something I prattled on about as a young, wanna-be journo back in the ‘60s, forty years ago.

In the second article I ever had published, in the now defunct Soccer World weekly, I argued that importing second tier players from overseas had no future, and that Australia should instead turn to importing quality coaches who might educate our coaches, who in turn might educate our kids so that in the end there would be no need for imported players.

Since then we have had a sporadic rate of imported coaches but they either came to coach elite club teams (like Joe Venglos, Frank Arok, Tommy Docherty, Seki Sekularac, Bernd Stange etc) or they were brought in to steer the Socceroos (like Rudi Gutendorf, Terry Venables and Guus Hiddink).

None came with a remit to educate Australian coaches. None had the requirement to make our kids better footballers.

Jan Versleijen, now in charge of the football program at the AIS and who now steers the Young Socceroos, is the first coach imported in those forty years by the governing body for the purpose of fashioning our young talent. Believe it, for it’s true.

What we did in the early 1970s was to recruit Englishman Eric Worthington as our first director of coaching.

He was not our first choice. That was the German Dettmar Cramer, who in a similar job in Japan, lifted that country’s stocks to the level where, under his helm, Japan won a football medal in the 1968 Olympic Games, the first country to do so outside Europe and South America.

Though Cramer wanted the Australian job he was mysteriously overlooked in the last minute and the governing body, under the presidency of Sir Arthur George, chose Worthington. Cramer returned to Germany and went on to lead Bayern Munich to two European Cup wins.

The late Worthington, whose salary was paid by the Rothmans Foundation and was no drain on the Australian Soccer Federation’s finances, was a lovely man, a desk coach who spent his time tapping away at his typewriter writing curriculums. In those days the office of Australian football’s governing body was staffed by just three people: the CEO Brian LeFevre, Worthington and a stenographer/switchboard operator.

A child of the English school, doing things he best knew, Worthington devised an Australian coaching accreditation scheme which still stands today and is, by and large, unaltered. These are courses that are conducted over a number of days, on various levels, and presto – the pupils have a shining diploma.

Now governing Australia’s coaching apparatus, Worthington made two monumental mistakes during his long reign.

One was that he jealously guarded the integrity of the faculty he set up and refused entry into the Australian developmental coaching organism by foreigners with different, or even better, qualifications.

Over thirty years ago Richard Alagich, an Australian, went to Yugoslavia where he spent nine years in football coaching academia before finally getting his diploma as a development coach from one of the finest technical schools in Europe.

On his return he went to see Worthington and offered his services, only to be told that his Yugoslav diploma wouldn’t be recognised and that he’d have to do one of Worthington’s three-day courses before he could enter the Australian system.

Alagich told him to stick it and walked, and he’s been treated as a pariah by the Worthington-built coaching establishment ever since.

Much the same happened to dozens, even hundreds of other talented development coaches down the years who didn’t agree with Worthington’s ways and had other, more progressive, more ‘foreign’ philosophies and technical agendas.

Worthington’s second mistake was to create a nationwide network of coaches in the development area of like mind to his own. This meant planting Englishmen, or British men, or those who went along with him in terms of technical culture, in the most responsible coaching positions in the land.

He wanted uniformity of technical culture and the easiest way to do that was to appoint men to head up the national training centres (NTCs) who were all on his own wavelength.

It was thus that the stigma of the ‘British mafia’ was born.

In 1986 Jimmy Shoulder, an Englishman and a Worthington appointee, resigned as head football coach at the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS). The job was offered by the top brass at the AIS to Johnny Warren (a harsh critic of the Worthington network, who had got his FIFA coaching certificate under Dettmar Cramer 14 years earlier).

In the last hour Johnny was overlooked and the job went to Ron Smith, Shoulder’s assistant and an Englishman. Worthington had intervened and Warren was out. I remember interviewing Johnny on the story on his Canberra property at the time. He was ropable.

Now, over twenty years down the track, though things have changed at the AIS and Crawford has brought in Lowy and the FFA, our coaching standards, particularly at grassroots level, remain in a time warp.

It is curious that if the coaching standards are so low, Australia should still have been able to produce so many quality players for the international market.

But this is true only in small part. Those players were not produced by any system as they were by our culture, being sons of immigrants and being taught and inspired in a club system set up by the migrants with their own imported technical philosophies. This is the big legacy of ‘old soccer’ many now tend to ignore.
It is significant that while our players remain in demand in European markets, our coaches are not. Why? Because, as Baan implies, they are not good enough.

Baan departs with some words of wisdom but leaving regret that the coaching shake-up he now rightly demands didn’t take place on his two year watch.

It is surely for the next man then, for the matter has been overdue for some decades. And it can begin with a brand new curriculum and accreditation scheme modeled on best-practice European modes, and the old one shredded.

[harrycripps]

The era of benevolent parents, totally uneducated in football, coaching the kids in the suburbs must be put behind us.

These parents keep suburban clubs going, especially E & D clubs, and they will always have a place coaching kids that just want to play.

As for kids that have the potential to eventually play at the top level, they normally go to fed clubs with several ethnic backgrounds ( and some have their own mafias), and coaching styles. I agree that more coordinated specialised coaching is needed, but the insistance by Baan that SSG is going to revolutionise the junior game is fanciful and self indulgent.

[MegaBonus]

harrycripps

I agree that more coordinated specialised coaching is needed, but the insistance by Baan that SSG is going to revolutionise the junior game is fanciful and self indulgent.

youre right. what would the dutch a population of 6.1 million know about producing quality players!!!!!

[harrycripps]

time will tell

[TheWingBack]

I agree that coaching needs to be changed. When I was a junior and playing in rep teams the most coaching I got was do this drill, run this lap, kick the ball there and I developed mostly thanks to a parent who knew what he was on about and learning from playing. However the same situation as back then as now exists, finding willing and able coaches for juniors.

I have done the Junior, Youth and Senior License courses and I personally found the Junior one to be too simple. One of the coaches on that course didn't even understand what a lofted chip was and still passed and some other coaches had interesting names and interpretations for basic control and passing techniques. Not to take anything away from these guys though they were still willing to attend the course and coach the kids on the weekend.

What I would love to see is something that allows coaches to develop skills on a more granular basis rather than here's how we want you to do it and off you go. This would lead to coaches being able to continually learn and develop, outside of actually coaching, without going through a cram process which is what happens in the Youth and Senior Licenses, and being set free without follow-ups. Let's get rid of the current coaching titles (which are inappropriate in my opinion) and generate levels based on coaching experience and successful course completions. Theoretically I could go off today and get the C license from Canberra and be on the same coaching level as many of our A-League coaches, but there is no way that I would actually be capable of coaching at that level without having the same minimum experiences of those coaches (regardless of how good/bad you may think they are). Something based on course completions and coaching experience (maybe as a point system) would help coaches develop and "graduate". Personally after the Senior License a lot of what we went through has gone out the window for several reasons. If something like the Senior License was done over a longer period the information could be more easily retained, applied to the coaches club and the course properly assessed by coaches being able to come back and pass on their feedback, success/failures at implementing the course recommendations, etc.

Back to my biggest concern though that is across the board coaches are difficult to find and providing a better education stream that is not onerous on their already donated time will help them and the players (of all levels and ages - yes including adults) develop which over time will have the effect of improving player skills, coaching skills, game understanding etc. This is however not going to be any sort of overnight change.

[Roberto Ayala]

I agree that coaching needs to be changed. When I was a junior and playing in rep teams the most coaching I got was do this drill, run this lap, kick the ball there and I developed mostly thanks to a parent who knew what he was on about and learning from playing. However the same situation as back then as now exists, finding willing and able coaches for juniors.

I have done the Junior, Youth and Senior License courses and I personally found the Junior one to be too simple. One of the coaches on that course didn't even understand what a lofted chip was and still passed and some other coaches had interesting names and interpretations for basic control and passing techniques. Not to take anything away from these guys though they were still willing to attend the course and coach the kids on the weekend.

What I would love to see is something that allows coaches to develop skills on a more granular basis rather than here's how we want you to do it and off you go. This would lead to coaches being able to continually learn and develop, outside of actually coaching, without going through a cram process which is what happens in the Youth and Senior Licenses, and being set free without follow-ups. Let's get rid of the current coaching titles (which are inappropriate in my opinion) and generate levels based on coaching experience and successful course completions. Theoretically I could go off today and get the C license from Canberra and be on the same coaching level as many of our A-League coaches, but there is no way that I would actually be capable of coaching at that level without having the same minimum experiences of those coaches (regardless of how good/bad you may think they are). Something based on course completions and coaching experience (maybe as a point system) would help coaches develop and "graduate". Personally after the Senior License a lot of what we went through has gone out the window for several reasons. If something like the Senior License was done over a longer period the information could be more easily retained, applied to the coaches club and the course properly assessed by coaches being able to come back and pass on their feedback, success/failures at implementing the course recommendations, etc.

Back to my biggest concern though that is across the board coaches are difficult to find and providing a better education stream that is not onerous on their already donated time will help them and the players (of all levels and ages - yes including adults) develop which over time will have the effect of improving player skills, coaching skills, game understanding etc. This is however not going to be any sort of overnight change.

Oh my goodness me. What are you on about. Is this an educational essay or something?

Coaching should be back to basics. Keep it simple in my opinion. That is the best way to progress. A coach will usually have a gut feeling if he's not liked or his tactics are not working. The resolution is to throw away the text books and go for a walk in the park and think it over to yourself first and then with the TEAM. Too many coaches out there with their noses stuck in their text books and their faces glued to the BBC documentaries.

[Squizzy]

Roberto, I believe your final comments about text books, etc. is right on the money for a lot of Coaches (definitely not all though ).

But I think that if the "Powers That Be" took note of J5's comments/suggestions, it would considerably lessen. I like the idea of a course that is not crammed into a couple of weekends and week nights. You could go over more topics in greater detail and it would be retained a lot longer too.

My two cents worth. Ciao.

[MegaBonus]

no disrespect to a lot of you guys (and maybe gals) but you are confusing Methodology and Curriculum....

that is....

many of us have a reasonable understanding of the game eg: tactics, formations, role of players etc etc. this is the content or the curriculum that players must learn or get better at.


however,

many of us would have limited knowledge about how BEST to teach our players the content. will maradona make a great coach because he was once the best player?????? can a nuclear physicist teach a yr 12 physics class???? this is the methodology. what methods will the coach use to get his players to better understand for eg a 4-4-2 formation?

the coaching courses arent designed necessarily to teach content, they are designed to help coaches get a better understanding of the coaching process.

remember... it takes teachers (which is what a coach is) 4 years of full time study to get in front of a class.... and you know what some people think of teachers

[Nova]

no disrespect to a lot of you guys (and maybe gals) but you are confusing Methodology and Curriculum....

that is....

many of us have a reasonable understanding of the game eg: tactics, formations, role of players etc etc. this is the content or the curriculum that players must learn or get better at.


however,

many of us would have limited knowledge about how BEST to teach our players the content. will maradona make a great coach because he was once the best player?????? can a nuclear physicist teach a yr 12 physics class???? this is the methodology. what methods will the coach use to get his players to better understand for eg a 4-4-2 formation?

[quote]the coaching courses arent designed necessarily to teach content, they are designed to help coaches get a better understanding of the coaching process.

remember... it takes teachers (which is what a coach is) 4 years of full time study to get in front of a class.... and you know what some people think of teachers [/quote]


That's exactly what it is and why it's worth doing

[Nova]

I think I messed up that post