The Moment of Truth

Wednesday May 9, 2007 04:08 PM

Matthew Hall

Finally, someone at head office tells it like it is.

Late last week, I spoke with Rob Baan, Football Federation Australia's National Technical Director.

Baan, in his own words, has an enormous job. He sits at the top of Australia's football tree responsible for what happens on the park, whether that's a dusty suburban grass patch where seven-year-old kids play likes bees to honey or the glittery Olympic stadium at Homebush where World Cup dreams are fulfilled (or not).

Baan sees it all.

Importantly, the guy is Dutch. That's not significant because of any relationship with Guus Hiddink or a genetically disposed understanding of Total Football.

It's important because he can cast his eye over football in Australia with third-party indifference and independence. Plus, the Dutch are straight-talkers who get straight to the point.

I spoke to Baan on Thursday. This was almost exactly six weeks after Australia bowed out of the Beijing Olympics football tournament and the first time any FFA official has spoken publicly about Australia's performance.

Six weeks.

Baan has delivered an official report to the FFA board but that has yet to be made public.

Thankfully, Baan was candid. He quits his post at the end of December so perhaps he can afford to be.

In China, he claimed, Australia simply "wasn't good enough". There, he said it.

He thought criticism of the omission of Bruce Djite and Nathan Burns was justified but that Graham Arnold, like all coaches, made a decision where the difference between his selection choices was minimal. That's part of the job. You roll the dice, Sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose.

Remember, we're learning all this six weeks after the event.

Baan was also keen to talk up the National Youth League that kicked off this weekend. He's right when he says it's a key piece of the jigsaw between teenage dreams and potentially realising a professional career, whether in the A-League or even overseas.

But, as he prepares to pack his bags and return to Holland, there are concerns about Australian football's future. There's resistance to change. Not at the top level, however. While the frailties of the Olympic team were exposed to all - and may be fixed over the next four to eight years - it's grassroots football whose growth is stunted.

FFA introduced its small-sided games earlier this year. The idea is simple. Kids under the age of 12 - that includes under-six and -seven age groups - don't play 11-a-side. More involvement, more touches, more technique, more fun.

It has not gone down well everywhere, particularly in New South Wales.

"We still find resistance in some various states," Baan said. "Let's say people from the old days say that we did like this for 30, 40, 50 years so why should we change? They don't even listen to the arguments."

Telling like it is may make for more arguments but as football grows up to fulfill its potential as the most popular sport in the land, debate and discussion should be a core theme.

Even if it is six weeks after the event.

For those of you who know about these things, you can follow me aound the world on Twitter here.

COMMENTS

I coach U6 in NSW and I would love to try SSG (small sided games) but I have seen for myself at the District level there is a lot of resistance to introducing it.

The ccurrent generation of officials throw up their hands and say 'where will we get the extra volunteer parents to coach from - it is hard enough as it is'. I agree this is partially true. Parents register their kids and then turn up to the 1st training of the year to be asked who wants to be coach. Some would love to, but many don't have any experience or even knowledge.

Who will train the trainers, in this case volunteer inexperienced coaches?

FFA and the NSW FF and the Districts must provide more resources to train these volunteers - it's not enough to say "here's SSG, it's great". What is the plan to implement it and support the clubs through the transition.

Logistically, Districts are also saying, ok SSG for new kids but still 7-a-side or 11-a-side for those who started that way. This makes organising game time-tables that much harder. The District officials seem to have a lot of trouble as it is, organising the comp.

What is FFA doing to help implement SSG? At my level I see no support, nothing. (Of course there may be stuff I am not aware of but it is not filtering down.

by sg on September 28, 2008 at 09:01 AM

Who is going to replace Rob Baan? The battle of progresive coaches against those parents who want their kids to play the way that they played (or tried to play) is difficult enough; it has helped to have someone at the top to drive good, progressive and innovative coaching and playing policy down through the ranks. Who and where is Rob Baan number 2?

by EEW FC NUMBER 8 on September 28, 2008 at 09:14 AM

How Arnie after the Olympic failure has been able to avoid the media is simply unbelievable!

Where else in the world would this happen??

by Pete on September 28, 2008 at 09:17 AM

Baan is a fool. I could get the kids to play in the bathtub and they would have more touches.

His approach was that if small fields are good then smaller fields are better. For example, the field size recommended for U8 in Australia is half the size of that used by Germany, Scotland, Netherlands etc.

In 2007 the Northern Sydney Association lead the way with the small fields, in 2008 500 less players signed up in the junior ages, these are players who have tried it and hated it so voted with their feet. The association experiences a drop in player numbers for the first time in a generation.

by manners on September 28, 2008 at 03:34 PM

I was all in favour of the small sided game at the start of this season, but having watched my 7 year-old play under them this season I'm less sure about them now. He got much more out of the 2 seasons where he played roo ball, and a lot of the kids feel the same. Most of the parents I've talked are not happy with the new game - and these are not people who are necessarily wedded to the old way of doing things. Maybe the new rules just need some fine tuning, but maybe they're just not such a good idea.

I understand the theory behind bringing in the shorter game, but what seems fine in theory doesn't always work in practice. My feeling after the first years of the short game is that the benefits it promised - better development of skills, more involvement of the whole squad in the game - haven't eventuated and in many ways roo ball actually did this better. There are definitely things about the 'old' system that needed fixing - kids were playing on a full sized pitch far too young - but roo ball was not a bad start for the under 7s.

After 2 years in roo ball, and one season in the short game, my son was really looking forward to playing on a larger field with more players in the team next year. When he was told that it's probably going to be the same rules next year, he asked if he could play rugby instead.

by Cal on September 28, 2008 at 06:13 PM

Bravo FFA, for taking the view of reducing the numbers of young kids on a football pitch. Never mind the Youth League. The Poms have been trying to do this for years and still no action. No need to be so negative when real progress is being made in comparison to our foes.

by Tim on September 28, 2008 at 08:27 PM

Once again we focus on the littlies. The big issue is keeping all the kids playing from 10-16. Or are we only interested in the "best" kids at that age? I'm tired of the focus only being on the representative teams, and not on the "lesser" kids. I'd rather have twice as many young adults playing than have twice the money to focus on a few "special" ones. Football is for all to *play* and enjoy - it's not about elitism.

by Sandy on September 29, 2008 at 08:19 AM

The small sided games have been good for the under 6's but even by the end of the season the kids learnt that they can hang offside do a through ball and its a goal. The field is already very small for the kids with a decent kick. It sure does promote close in skills but to my mind the over riding goal should be fun not skills, if the kids have fun they will come, play and stick around.

by David on September 29, 2008 at 08:50 AM

I don't know what they do in Holland but each season in Australia parents ask their kids "what do you want to play?" All the parents are looking for is something active that helps social development.

If the kids didn't like football last year, they will pipe up with rugby, basketball or some other sport.

Playing in squads of 11 (breaking into two different teams each week), acts to prevent developing close friendships. The small fields mean that the kids get a lot of ball contact but very little running (except chasing the ball when it goes out).

The U9/U10 goal mouth is so large, almost full size on a field 40x30 that the game changes from close combate to target practice at a large target and is too small for U10 kids who want to stretch out.

Lets play
20x30 5-a-side in U6/U7
40x30 5-a-side in U8/U9 with futsal goals
40x60 9-a-side in U10/U11
100x60 11-a-side in U12 and up

This would also allow kids with ability who want a bigger field to play up an age group if they wish.

Lets treat the players as clients/customers and give them what they want and not consider them a raw material used up in the production of a socceroo with whatever is the current fad tool from management.

by local on September 29, 2008 at 08:52 AM

I always love the way that "head office" thinks it knows what to do. As a president of a very successful junior "soccer" club for three years, I found the role of the peak body was to tax the clubs and provide us with their silly advice. That they should have even the remotest clue of what works at "grass roots" level is ludicrous.

The head office notion seems to be that the kids clubs numbers should increase so as to provide an ongoing stream of resources to keep the elites in the game in their overpaid jobs. Whereas, at the club level, the unpaid volunteer's role is to provide fun for kids as well as adding in all the character building attributes of teamwork, etc.

So "strategies" from head office should always been seen as irrelevant, and if head office doesn't like it, break away. Head office doesn't own the game, they just make their living off it.

by Dennis Howard on September 29, 2008 at 09:26 AM

I am another vote against SSG. My children live on the Far South Coast of NSW where trips of over an hour are often necessary to get to a game. They have fun games every lunchtime at school. If they are are going to put up with over two hours of driving they want a 'proper' game of football with eleven players, a big pitch and a score that counts. I also endorse the comments about the problems in finding even more coaches and managers.

by Simon Blake on September 29, 2008 at 09:41 AM

It seems the 'small sided games' are an attempt to directly 'rip off' the AFL Auskick program.
Perhaps soccer just needs it own solutions.

btw - "as football grows up to fulfill its potential as the most popular sport in the land, "

the HAL might want to be drawing more than 45,000 to 4 matches around Australia and New Zealand...........it looks decidedly poor when the NRL might be disappointed with 60K to 2 finals in Sydney and the AFL present 100K at the 'G.

by Michael C on September 29, 2008 at 09:54 AM

I am a coach of a boys under 6 team and have welcomed the SSG rules this year with open arms. Having coached a girls team the previous 2 seasons and played what was then the "larger" of the Mini field, i can truely say that the SSG is far better suited to the younger players. Whats worse for a 5 or 6 year old to have to be in goals and sometimes not even get to touch the ball!! Most of the girls in the past 2 season hated being in Goals for starters as they didn't see much action. This year with SSG everyone's gets good time on the ball or around the ball, ie: tacking or kicking in from the goal line etc! And i know for a fact that next year the older kids 8 and up will play on bigger fields than this year to accommodate their ability to kick further. But the whole idea with SSG is to get the kids technique to a higher level at a younger age instead of HOOFING the ball up the park and hoping for the best! Its ball control and reading the play and team work that will create a better crop of footballers in this country for the future!
FORZA SSG and i hope that this initiative doesn't get disbanded. lets work with them and fine tune it if needed.

by Gianni on September 29, 2008 at 10:51 AM

Our association in Sydney introduced small-sided games this year and we were a bit apprehensive about how it might work with the smaller sides and needing far more parents to volunteer as coaches and managers. To help make things a little easier, we had squads of two teams that trained together and could also rotate the players for the games if needed. Each squad had a coach, assistant coach, manager and assistant manager which meant there were enough people on the sidelines at each game. Surprisingly, we had no trouble getting those volunteers (less so than previous years with just one coach and one manager) and, in fact, all parents seemed to get more involved in helping. The feedback from the teams was that small-sided games worked really well, giving each child much more contact with the ball and the chance to score goals. Our club runs co-operative training for U6-U8 where we pay a training to manage the sessions, but each coach is responsible for their own squad. There are a number of training stations, including ball skills, one-on-one and match play, and the teams rotate. This has helped guide any inexperienced coaches in training methods (on top of several coaching in-services run by our club) and has been very successful. I came to the game as a mum with no idea about soccer and I have now coached U6 and U7. I agree that more support by FIFA at the club level would be fantastic but I also think that each club needs to take ownership of the new system and do their best to make it work.

by Heather on September 29, 2008 at 11:05 AM

After one season of small side soccer we lost 4 out of 11 kids to rugby. My boy only wants to play goal keeper but this new version does away with the position.
I think the concept is good in theory but someone forgot to ask the kids who play it what they think.

by Andrew on September 29, 2008 at 12:40 PM

My U7 boy had a great year as did the whole team - well done to all! incl GHFA and our club/parents
The standard improved and all the kids got involved with better positional play etc.

by BiBBo on September 29, 2008 at 02:26 PM

It's really interesting reading the comments here. I must admit to thinking that the small sided games could possibly be a good thing, certainly compared to the game that involves a swarm of kids following the ball around, but maybe there is a case for those making those sorts of decisions taking the time to hear what the parents are saying and not just dismissing it as people from a different era wanting their kids to play the same way they did.

The justification given behind the small sided games was that it's sort of the natural way that you'd play if you got some friends together for a kick around and organised a bit of a game.

Which may be so, and I've done that with some of my friends, and it's fun, a good workout and probably a good way of developing skills.

But while that's a fun way to go when having a kick around with friends, that doesn't mean it is an enjoyable way to go for playing organised sport. With friends you play the cut down version, but then part of the idea of playing the organised game is getting to play a more full-version, rather than just having a kick-around with your friends.

So maybe there's a place for such things but not as the main game the kids play. Like using small sided games in training, and maybe even having something like a pre-season cup competition of small sided games before the main season starts.

But, even if in the long run these games might help develop some skills, if the kids don't find them as fun, then you lose kids to the game, as mentioned in some of the other comments here. And then you are hurting the game, not helping it.

And also, while it might help some parts of the game, it probably hurts others. It might help improve ball control and short passing, but completely removes the harder, more powerful kicks from the game altogether, including shooting, other than tap-ins, free kicks, corners, goal kicks etc...

So just as much as there can be an issue of resistence to change, there can also be an issue where the change isn't as good as those who introduced it though, and they are too proud to ever admit it, so they just say that those who resist it are in the wrong.

by Chris on September 29, 2008 at 03:54 PM

I think it is ridiculous that some of the comments posted on this article do not see the value in a smaller, more skillful and compressed style of football.

All great footballing nations play six/five a side football or Footsal for an extended period of time to negate the difference that especially teenagers experience as they reach puberty.

A lot of the South American nations do not play full pitch football until later in the teen years so that youngsters have a chance to perfect passing skills, accuracy and speed on the ball. The only people that full pitch football at an early age benefits are those that have hit puberty earlier than the others kids and can run faster, kick harder and not necessarily be more skillful. Completely pointless later on in life when the rest of the kids catch up.

by Gual Barwell on September 29, 2008 at 11:12 PM

Having grown up playing on full-sized fields from u-9's onwards, I applaud the introduction of SSG. It is ridiculous to have kids running the full pitch, attempting long-ball passes and holding positions until they are at least in their teens. In my generation, the biggest and fastest kids dominated the game. There was no scope for players with a deft touch or a passion for technique. We all learnt that the onl way to score was a long-ball for the fastest player on the team to run onto or a set piece. It shows in our national team now. We need to change.

To the parents who cry out against this change, I say wake up. Your children do not need to learn to win, to run fast or to tackle hard (as I was taught), they need to learn step-overs, back-heels and the cruyff-turn. This will only happen if we create the system for such skills to develop. SSG is the perfect approach. It's either that or we ban our kids from outdoor pitches and put them in futsal until they are fully-grown. Sound stupid? The Brazilians don't think so. But then again, what do they know?

by Stephen Anderson on September 30, 2008 at 02:41 AM

Resistance to SSG in NSW could be broken down if FNSW got off its arse and started putting substantial $ of its rich reserves into resourcing football development under FFA's blueprint but not to just feather the nests of a chosen few under its (FNSW) "mafia' like operations.

FFA need the co-operation of State associations as they are a closer link to the grass roots football community, and in most cases have much more $ and resources to support local districts. Its not FFA's job to get involved in the fine detail of implementation - they need to oversee at the big picture strategic level.

Unless FNSW get their act together and are open to accountablity and delivery of effective programs then they should be disbanded just as the old Soccer Australia were after the Crawford Report. Rob Baan's final report with recommendations and continuation of our football revolution must not be held back by the narrow self serving interests of a few visionless football senior officials and their cronies.

by Pablo on September 30, 2008 at 04:04 PM

We are talking about non-competitive level so why the need for national standardisation?

Here is an idea, instead of having the totalitarian imposition, let the Associations choose their configurations. Those that meet local needs whether parent expectations, limited fields, the challenge from other codes or even weather conditions will succeed.

I imagine Baan's experiences in Europe would not have prepared him for any of these Australian conditions.

What some might call resistance to change, I would call responsive to local conditions.

by Manners on October 01, 2008 at 08:31 AM

Its hard to grasp most of the reasons people have presented in criticising the attempts to introduce SSG.

Some have claimed more resources are needed for SSG. It seems to me SSG needs the same resources as full field.

Some have claimed young players don't like SSG and leave football. I don't know of any stats on this, but I know there is a constant flow of kids into and out of local football teams whatever the size of pitch. Kids switch for many reasons to a range of past times. I am not convinced that its soley because of the introduction of SSG.

Many of the issues raised sound simply like the old, "we did it this way last year, we should do the same this year". And players should still wear hob-nail boots and kick an inflated pigs bladder? Ho hum.

Unfortunately, the rather confused comments comparing the crowd figures of the major football codes seem to indicate where much of the thinking is coming from. It has little, if any relevence to what FFA are trying to do in introducing SSG.

The FFA are bravely trying to introduce improvements to the way junior football players learn the game. There can be little doubt that these changes create many challenges. However, they are much needed and long over due changes. It needs to be understood that FFA are acting in the interests of all involved in the game.

by Simon on October 01, 2008 at 09:03 AM

FFA, FNSW and the individual Associations need to focus on support for junior coaches. Improve their coaching skills and the game will improve along with the kids enjoyment level. Craig Foster had it right, they should not be treating the kids as a resource to profit from. Subsidise the costs to train the coaches rather than volunteer coaches having to pay $140 to gain a Junior Coaching licence would be a good start. The next level of formal coaching certification is a Youth Coaching licence, it's about $260, a prohibitive cost for many no doubt.

by Ivan on October 12, 2008 at 07:08 AM

Just quickly, I read one comment that players run less in SSG. The concept that a smaller field means less running indicates that the comment's author is not speaking from a place of experience. I can guarantee you that you run a heck of a lot more on a smaller field with less players.

by Gary on October 12, 2008 at 12:10 PM

If FFA force FNSW to make associations play SSG, my family of 4 players will leave the game. SSG is a training tool otherwise the Futsalroos would be playing in the 2010 World Cup instead of the Socceroos. Promoting Futsal is the answer and giving people the choice of the short game of Futsal and longer game version of Rooball. If SSG is so great, why not introduce it into the A-League? In SSG, I've seen the grading of kids in non-competitive football, the shots from 20m out and the oversized kid standing as a surrogate goalie to block shots. Cricket and Rugby League grade their kids and have competitve leagues from an earlier age, why have we given in to the politically left and those trying to feather their own nest? Most kids will only play club football in their life and want to emulate their idols on TV, SSG doesn't cut it as a playing format. Give us choice!!!!!!!

by Micky mouse on October 28, 2008 at 03:47 PM

by mick mouse on October 28, 2008 at 03:48 PM

Have a look at You Tube: enter "Football Mundial Australia" and see the difference!

by Louise Stevens on October 30, 2008 at 11:05 PM

Some interesting comments. My son plays U16 with the local club. They have 28 registered players - pretty good for that age.

2/3 0f the way through a 'grading game' - the first kick around of the season - the club 'head coach' strides onto the field and starts barking instructions and generally belittling any kid who did the wrong thing!!

Turns out this guy (with a strong Scottish accent - must be a pre-requisite - don't get me started...) gave a good coaching session to all age group coaches (mostly dads) at the beginning of last season, so if we discount is demeanour and timing - he probably has something to offer!!

At this coaches session the prior year, after instructing drills and skills with an assortment of poles, hurdles nets etc promptly advised the budding coaches that the equipment belonged to him and they would need to make do with whatever they could get!!

See what I'm getting at.....head coaches ...great...A-League terrific...World Cup qualification fantastic....but where are the basic resources and a strategy at grass roots level. Junior Rugby has it..a proper integrated pathways programme from U7 to the Wallabies with fully resourced support for coaches and officials......Ben, for Chrissakes have a cup of coffee with John O'Neill will you!!

As for my son....who knows where he goes next year.......

by Cav on March 02, 2009 at 01:35 PM

The Sun-Herald

Matthew Hall

The Moment of Truth

COMMENTS

POST A COMMENT

Comments Terms & Conditions

RECENT ENTRIES

ARCHIVES