And so I have! Thankyou and my apologies. I was being far to cryptic for my own good and in doing so led you astray. I'll fix that.
The ACT Under 14 team competed in Group B and came second. On that basis, you can list the ACT as having come in 8th place overall (there were a total of 12 teams). To move to Group A the ACT needed to secure first place in Group B. To be frank, this is better than I thought it would be a year ago and they came close to breaking into Group A. I have admired the hard work of the Coach, the players and time given by the supporting parents. So for myself, well done, they made a lot of progress and the objective for the NYC in 2011 is once again, to break into Group A. The nucleus of this group are well preared to campaign at the Under 15 level in 2011.
Now take this a step further in this age group ; your vision goes to the nucleus of the group that might contest the 2011 NYC - the 2010 Under 13 Boys. The first indicator is the qaulity of the ACT performance at the Under 13 NYC this year. Given the less than exhilarating preformance of our Under 13 Boys at the 2010 NYC (firmly stuck in Group B), 2011 NYC could be a big task, but of course, a year is long time in youth development. This group have also been retained as a HPP playing squad in the U14 Open local competition during the 2010 season. Has their progress been monitored by Capital Football (in a fornmal sense), are they proceeding on a detailed whole of year periodised program, have new players been identified and included, and so on and so on. The sort of thing that happens in a high performance environment. Hmmm! My concern here would be that if we do what we have always done, we will get what we have always got.
Now, the Under 15 Boys result. The ACT came last in Group A. See my previous post for comments on this result. The first objetive in the Group A is to stay in Group A. The results were painfully close and the unfortunate outcome for the ACT is that we drop out of Group A into Group B, while Queensland Country (first in Group B) take our place. This was the hard hit from this campaign for the ACT Under 15s. The ACT objective for the NYC in 2011 is to return to Group A. It's a hard road in this age group, that's for sure and it just got harder.
The NPL follower who drew my shortcoming to my attention, believes these outcomes are not good enough. I agree. That said, I have no doubt that the boys gave their best and I find it hard to be critical of our teams in these circumstances. But it's fair to ask a simple question - can we do better and if so how? If your answer is "no", then explain "why".
I have the feeling, speaking to the other States on various occasions, that they are getting ahead of the ACT in the "development stakes". I do not wish to imply that we are not not making progress, we are, I firmly beleive that, but the problem is that its not the full story. It's not just about the fact that we are smaller Football player / talent catchment area. That's a given! Some are quick to point out that in the past we were well up the list and now we are not. Good point. But the analysis can't stop there. Have we just got worse, fallen behind or have the others got better or, all of the above? I ask myself a variation on this question every time I see results at the NYC in recent times.
We have a review of our High Performance Program in progress at the moment. It's being conducted by Ron Smith (see previous NPL interviews on this Blog). Not much on the Football front will get past his notice and perhaps we will not necessarily like what we hear on some matters (and that's not to be read as a criticism of Capital Football) - but to quote Ron, when faced with decision around talented development - "Are you serious". Such a damn good question!
Consider some issues / factors which may impact on these NYC outcomes and give pausew to reflect on talent development in the ACT- somewhere between the number of players available at age; the number of players undertaking high performance training run by Capital Football; the ability to recognise emerging talent at age and be inclusive of it; the quality of coaching at the junior and PL 16 levels; the quality of HPP coaching; the resources made qvailable to HPP coaches, the availability of whole of year / pgram periodised programs; the resources made available to HPP coaches; does our High Performance structure / process represent best practice (by comparision to the States that are succeeding at the NYC); the cost imposed of families to support the HPP and additional cost associated with the NYC; are we giving ACTAS the sort of players it wants to be competitive (now remember their results at the 2010 NTC was excellent); with no established pathway beyond ACTAS (leave aside AIS) for talented players (boys) - is their less incentive going forward than their should be; does our smaller player base mean that we are likely to get greater variations in the standard of talented player cohorts; just to name a few - lies the truth of our situation.
I have concluded that the ACT has got itself squarely stuck in Group B at the NYC (across the age groups). That said, I think we have got better, while some other States have got a lot better faster! We are running faster and falling behind. We need to run smarter! (The notable exception in 2010 was ACTAS at the NTC. Makes you think.)
A further general observation; I doubt our HPP has the level of techncial detail or organisational sophistiation of say the Football NSW Project 22 or perhaps Football West. What does that say and what are we prepared to do about it? It would be a mistake to think that those at Capital Football with the responsibility do not comprehend these matters. They do. And everything comes at a price. Nevertheless, we are where we are.
The full picture for the NYC for the Under 14 and Under 15 Boys is as follows:
Group A and Group B at 14 year old levels are very close so to say that the ACT boys finished 8th is a bit of a fallacy.
ReplyDeleteI didn't see the games so I am unable to comment directly on the standard of play in both groups. Those that contacted me during the NYC made mention of the competivieness of some teams in both groups - not all.
ReplyDeleteThe ACT team being said to finish 8th is not a fallacy (ie A false notion), is just a simple fact of the outcome of the competition. What you may mean to say to me is that is just not the full story. If so, I agree. But the outcome has meaning going forward.
The teams line up in groups based on the previous season's performance, which of course is really nonesense because the boys (well the vast majority) that played in the U14s will not be contesting the U14 in 2011. In our case, that taks is left to the U13s (or some of them) who contested the NYC in 2010. State teams that did well in 2010, may have a less capable cohort of players in their HPP etc. Just because your team is in Group A doesn't mean that you are rated as less capable than a team in Group B (at the time you turn up to play), it simpley means the pecking order was based on a previous teams efforts. But that's the system we play under. The pressure is one the State organisations to keep the standard of players high and retain position in Group A or gain position in Group A.
In spite of a lot of hard work and good performances over time, the ACT is still in Group B. That's 8th position on the ladder. Simple as that and no "fallacy", just not the full picture across the entire tournament. I understand, but the outcoem stands. We move on and do better next time.
I think the "less than exhilarating" description of the U13 2010 ACT team is a bit unfair.
ReplyDeleteYes they were in Group B, yes they deserved to probably be in Group B, and yes they probably could have done better than they did, BUT:
1. They tried to play the football that FFA wants eg. play out from the back, no long balls, high pressure etc. (not all teams did might I say, even those that got technical points awarded).
2. The team had 3 players chosen in the Allstars Group B squad (and probably deserved to have at least 1 more chosen).
3. The NSW Metro2 team that was in Group B was with them were arguably a better team than the NSW Metro1 team in Group A (both of whom won their groups). Tasmania was also a very good team that probably would have coped in Group A as well.
4. That NSW Metro2 team that only beat ACT 2-0 (and it was a competitive game) had 7 (yes 7) players picked out of 22 in Ante Juric's Australia U13 team that went to Malaysia (more than any other team in either group).
So whilst you are absolutely right about the improvements that need to be made in the CF programs (you are being kind to CF I think in your assessment of where we are/not) maybe your assessment of that U13 squad is a bit unfair.
In general I wouldn't argue with your summary of the carious results / observations of the ACT U13 team at the NYC in 2010. I saw the NSW Metro 2 game but my recollection is not as glowing as yours. I do agree that the NSW Metro appeared on balance to be a better team than the NSW Metro 1. I wondered more than (and perhaps you did too) how NSW came to make their selections. In the end, Ante Juric sorted the talent out to reflect performance / potential at the time. I watched a number of his sessions at the AIS and it was a pretty dazzling array of talent. I also watched a bit of our U13 team in preparation prior to the NYC. My feeling at the time was that they would struggle. My other observation was that their was a couple of very talented boys in that group but they were likely to be over powered because of the level of physical resistance applied by other teams. Nothing I saw at the NYC changed my view on that observation. But that will change as they grow. They played the 1-4-3-3 and so they should. I think you will find that the Vic team may have paid a heavy price for being less inclined to do so. I still feel that we were a fair way off the required standard to claim to be an aspirant for Group A. Perhaps that will change with the next group. Your comment about Tasmania is a good one, in so far as Tasmania were very competitive and that is a point of reflection for the Capital Football HPP. The take away for me was - we need to do more than we are doing in the ACT. It seemed to me that we were walking on the development path while others were jogging or running. Tasmania is a case in point. I remind myself as well, that a lot of work needs to go on in the years before we get to U13. We have been on the SSG path for longer than most, so that puts the spotlight back on the specific selection and preparation of the U13 squad and just how flexible the selection process was (porous?) as the training / preparation unfolded, ensuring they had the best of the age talent at the time (I emphasis – at the time, not forever). The answer to one question tells the tale – how many boys were used in the 12 months leading to the NYC? How many boys were identified from the clubs in competition as they emerged and engaged in the HPP, played fixtures and how many were moved out of the playing group when more capable players emerged, leading to the final squad to contest the NYC? It’s a tough business, its good to keep good players engaged in the HPP, but it is another thing to keep them in a playing squad for the NYC if others can perform to a higher standard – at the time of the NYC. Everyone is going forward for sure - we are not moving quickly or as smartly as some. I suppose I just expect Capital Football's HPP regime to provide a more sophisticated and detailed periodised program, a program for the period they are under training (and they do not!), that will deliver greater outcomes for individual players, while reducing costs for parents. That's a lot to ask - but others are doing it. Thanks for the comment - good one.
ReplyDelete