Bigger Change Than Just The Manager?

[accies1874]

In fairness, Vogts was left with absolutely f**k all to work with by Brown.
We need to overhaul the complete youth development system to produce more technical players from primary school age upwards as well as a new National team coach.

Aren’t we in the midst of overhauling the youth system? Project Brave hasn’t been kicked off yet, McKay’s not long in his role and our best younger players aren’t ready yet, I’d imagine.

[sjc]

Just now, accies1874 said:

Aren’t we in the midst of overhauling the youth system? Project Brave hasn’t been kicked off yet, McKay’s not long in his role and our best younger players aren’t ready yet, I’d imagine.

Project Brave is as flawed as the current system, probably more so by ramping up the cost for the smaller Clubs who presently give more youngsters a chance in their 1st teams.

Also, other than a select few at a "centre of excellence" they offer nothing in terms of coaching development to the thousands of other kids throughout the Country. Not saying a centre of excellence is a bad thing but why not create them regionally and have them competing against one another? Make coaching badges part of the PE teachers required qualifications. 

[GiGi]

15 minutes ago, sjc said:

Make coaching badges part of the PE teachers required qualifications. 

That has to be a total non starter. Apart from the huge cost of putting every PE teacher through their badges, paying them more money and the fact they might not actually want to do it, football is not the only sport taught in school.

[sjc]

10 minutes ago, GiGi said:

That has to be a total non starter. Apart from the huge cost of putting every PE teacher through their badges, paying them more money and the fact they might not actually want to do it, football is not the only sport taught in school.

One of the fundamental problem we have and even the Football authorities agree on this, is that we don't have enough qualified coaches. If we're serious about calling football our "National sport" then wouldn't it make sense to make it part of the curriculum? Who better to teach this than the very people who have access to the kids on a near daily basis?

[GiGi]

6 minutes ago, sjc said:

One of the fundamental problem we have and even the Football authorities agree on this, is that we don't have enough qualified coaches. If we're serious about calling football our "National sport" then wouldn't it make sense to make it part of the curriculum? Who better to teach this than the very people who have access to the kids on a near daily basis?

Putting teachers through football coaching badges is not a decision for the 'football authorities' to make.

[Dunning1874]

Not this shite again.

The 'just chuck youngsters in' argument. No country does this. Yes, Gareth Bale was first capped by Wales at 16. Eden Hazard was first capped by Belgium at 17. They weren't just thrown-in because they were young and those countries made a conscious choice to only pick players under 25 though, they were selected because they were already the best players in their positions at that age. The idea that just flinging, say, Tony Ralston or John Souttar into the starting eleven now is going to benefit either the team or the players is baseless when we clearly have better players in their positions.

We should pick the best players available in every position regardless of age, and that applies to players over 30 as well as under 20. When a player does come along who is clearly the best in their position but isn't trusted purely due to being young - as Strachan was guilty of in the 2016 campaign in picking Whittaker, Mulgrew and even Forsyth ahead of the obviously superior Robertson - then it's absolutely right to criticise at that point, but the reality is that teenagers being better than established internationals just isn't that common. Does anyone seriously think we'd have done better in this campaign if we'd had Chris Cadden and Scott Wright starting?

The 'we just don't have the talent' argument. This is just utterly indefensible drivel. We have failed to make playoffs due to failing to beat Lithuania. Our players have enough talent to beat Lithuania, therefore the standard of player is not the reason we failed. Missing out because of dropping points to teams we have considerably better players than is the pattern of every qualifying campaign since we last made the playoffs.

2018 - missed out on the playoffs on goal difference, having dropped 2 points against 5th seeds Lithuania. Had we taken 12 points from 12 against the 5th and 6th seeds, we would have progressed.

2016 - missed out on the playoffs by 3 points, having dropped 3 points against 5th seeds Georgia. Had we taken 12 points from 12 against the 5th and 6th seeds, we would have progressed. 

2014 - missed out on the playoffs by 6 points, having dropped 8 points v 5th seeds Georgia and 6th seeds Wales. Had we taken 12 points from 12 against the 5th and 6th seeds, we would have progressed.

2012 - Missed out on the playoffs by 2 points, having dropped 2 points v 4th seeds Lithuania. Had we taken 12 points from 12 against the 4th and 5th seeds, we would have progressed.

2010 - Missed out on the playoffs by 2 points, having dropped 3 points v 4th seeds Macedonia. Had we taken 12 points from 12 against the 4th and 5th seeds, we would have progressed.

2008 - missed out on automatic qualification by 2 points, having dropped 3 points against 6th seeds Georgia. Had we taken 12 points from 12 against the 6th and 7th seeds, we would have progressed.

2006 - missed out on the playoffs by 5 points, having dropped 7 points against 5th seeds Belarus and 6th seeds Moldova. Had we taken 12 points from 12 against the 5th and 6th seeds, we would have progressed.

That leads us nicely onto Vogts and the revisionism that he was actually good. Yes, we made the playoffs and no manager since has done so, and you can only beat what's in front of you, but it was a ridiculously easy draw. Fine, that's the luck of the draw, but all we had to do was finish above Lithuania, Iceland who were still minnows at the time, and the Faroe Islands. He presided over a draw in the Faroes and a defeat in Lithuania and got away with it because it was such a weak group; that's akin to losing to Lithuania and drawing with Malta in this campaign and if we'd had any competent challengers for second we'd have been out. It's far too simplistic to say Vogts finished second, McLeish finished third so Vogts was better; you have to look at what we were up against and where Vogts finished 1 point ahead of Iceland, McLeish finished 7 ahead of Ukraine. When we didn't get such an easy draw in the following campaign, Vogts was found out immediately.

Additionally, you'll note there that we dropped 5 points v Lithuania and the Faroes. We finished 4 points off automatic qualification, so once again we missed out because of failing against teams we should have taken maximum points from. Vogts was a failure.

 

 

[sjc]

1 minute ago, GiGi said:

Putting teachers through football coaching badges is not a decision for the 'football authorities' to make.

I'm aware of that. The SFA are in a very prominent position within the ear of the Scottish Executive though. They could even push it on the "future health of the Nation"!

[the snudge]

We're a nation of fat lazy b*****ds. That's why we're shit at sport. It therefore most definitely falls on the Scottish Government to do something about it. 

[Insaintee]

1 hour ago, GiGi said:

That has to be a total non starter. Apart from the huge cost of putting every PE teacher through their badges, paying them more money and the fact they might not actually want to do it, football is not the only sport taught in school.

But it should be one of them. I don't think we're talking about pro licences but they should get coaching accreditation that's not expensive. 

[Gordopolis]

41 minutes ago, Melanius Mullarkey said:

Oi.  Not all of us are that fat.

Yeah yeah, you just retain water*

 

[spoiler]
*water = chips
[/spoiler]

ETA: ^^^ clearly I do not know how to use spoiler tags.

[forameus]

59 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

Not this shite again.

The 'just chuck youngsters in' argument. No country does this. Yes, Gareth Bale was first capped by Wales at 16. Eden Hazard was first capped by Belgium at 17. They weren't just thrown-in because they were young and those countries made a conscious choice to only pick players under 25 though, they were selected because they were already the best players in their positions at that age. The idea that just flinging, say, Tony Ralston or John Souttar into the starting eleven now is going to benefit either the team or the players is baseless when we clearly have better players in their positions.

We should pick the best players available in every position regardless of age, and that applies to players over 30 as well as under 20. When a player does come along who is clearly the best in their position but isn't trusted purely due to being young - as Strachan was guilty of in the 2016 campaign in picking Whittaker, Mulgrew and even Forsyth ahead of the obviously superior Robertson - then it's absolutely right to criticise at that point, but the reality is that teenagers being better than established internationals just isn't that common. Does anyone seriously think we'd have done better in this campaign if we'd had Chris Cadden and Scott Wright starting?

The 'we just don't have the talent' argument. This is just utterly indefensible drivel. We have failed to make playoffs due to failing to beat Lithuania. Our players have enough talent to beat Lithuania, therefore the standard of player is not the reason we failed. Missing out because of dropping points to teams we have considerably better players than is the pattern of every qualifying campaign since we last made the playoffs.

2018 - missed out on the playoffs on goal difference, having dropped 2 points against 5th seeds Lithuania. Had we taken 12 points from 12 against the 5th and 6th seeds, we would have progressed.

2016 - missed out on the playoffs by 3 points, having dropped 3 points against 5th seeds Georgia. Had we taken 12 points from 12 against the 5th and 6th seeds, we would have progressed. 

2014 - missed out on the playoffs by 6 points, having dropped 8 points v 5th seeds Georgia and 6th seeds Wales. Had we taken 12 points from 12 against the 5th and 6th seeds, we would have progressed.

2012 - Missed out on the playoffs by 2 points, having dropped 2 points v 4th seeds Lithuania. Had we taken 12 points from 12 against the 4th and 5th seeds, we would have progressed.

2010 - Missed out on the playoffs by 2 points, having dropped 3 points v 4th seeds Macedonia. Had we taken 12 points from 12 against the 4th and 5th seeds, we would have progressed.

2008 - missed out on automatic qualification by 2 points, having dropped 3 points against 6th seeds Georgia. Had we taken 12 points from 12 against the 6th and 7th seeds, we would have progressed.

2006 - missed out on the playoffs by 5 points, having dropped 7 points against 5th seeds Belarus and 6th seeds Moldova. Had we taken 12 points from 12 against the 5th and 6th seeds, we would have progressed.

That leads us nicely onto Vogts and the revisionism that he was actually good. Yes, we made the playoffs and no manager since has done so, and you can only beat what's in front of you, but it was a ridiculously easy draw. Fine, that's the luck of the draw, but all we had to do was finish above Lithuania, Iceland who were still minnows at the time, and the Faroe Islands. He presided over a draw in the Faroes and a defeat in Lithuania and got away with it because it was such a weak group; that's akin to losing to Lithuania and drawing with Malta in this campaign and if we'd had any competent challengers for second we'd have been out. It's far too simplistic to say Vogts finished second, McLeish finished third so Vogts was better; you have to look at what we were up against and where Vogts finished 1 point ahead of Iceland, McLeish finished 7 ahead of Ukraine. When we didn't get such an easy draw in the following campaign, Vogts was found out immediately.

Additionally, you'll note there that we dropped 5 points v Lithuania and the Faroes. We finished 4 points off automatic qualification, so once again we missed out because of failing against teams we should have taken maximum points from. Vogts was a failure.

 

 

There isn't really much to add to this, as it's already 100% spot on.  The blame for every campaign for years now, as you've just demonstrated, is purely down to consistently beating the teams in the pots below us.  It's not a last gasp draw with Poland or Slovenia.  It's not letting Harry Kane equalise.  It isn't anything other than shite results like getting beat in Tbilisi or not breaking down Lithuania.  If we break that habit, we qualify.

[forameus]

1 hour ago, sjc said:

One of the fundamental problem we have and even the Football authorities agree on this, is that we don't have enough qualified coaches. If we're serious about calling football our "National sport" then wouldn't it make sense to make it part of the curriculum? Who better to teach this than the very people who have access to the kids on a near daily basis?

"Why don't we have any books, Miss?"
"The SFA made us spend all our money on putting Mr "If-you-can't-do-teach-PE" through his SFA badges"

[the snudge]

6 minutes ago, forameus said:

"Why don't we have any books, Miss?"
"The SFA made us spend all our money on putting Mr "If-you-can't-do-teach-PE" through his SFA badges"

Kids are learning in a different way than just reading text books. Books are on the road out in learning. 

[Dunning1874]

It's absolutely correct that we need more coaches, but it's not the responsibility of schools to do the coaching or government to provide the funding. Those responsibilities fall to the SFA and they are genuinely implementing a system based on the logic that the solution to balance out the number of coaches v the number of players is to reduce the number of players rather than increase the number of coaches. It beggars belief, but it's the sad reality so we can't expect any progress in this area in the near future.

[sjc]

3 minutes ago, forameus said:

"Why don't we have any books, Miss?"
"The SFA made us spend all our money on putting Mr "If-you-can't-do-teach-PE" through his SFA badges"

No, you make it part of the Sports Science Degrees and/or their initial Teacher Education or Training course.

 

 

[dogmc]

The teaching thing isn't million miles off what's happening with rugby. My youngest is at a state school on the school of rugby programme. He opts our if pe to play rugby. They do skill sessions with qualified coaches n have strength n conditioning sessions. They also get guys from pro academy set ups coming in to assist (helps the young pros plus gives kids access to the experience of guys who are playing u20 international level). This is done in co ordination with local clubs and in last five years has seen a huge improvement in youth development. Oh and Scotland has had pink rugby kits in 7s.

[capt_oats]

1 hour ago, Dunning1874 said:

Not this shite again.

The 'just chuck youngsters in' argument. No country does this. Yes, Gareth Bale was first capped by Wales at 16. Eden Hazard was first capped by Belgium at 17. They weren't just thrown-in because they were young and those countries made a conscious choice to only pick players under 25 though, they were selected because they were already the best players in their positions at that age. The idea that just flinging, say, Tony Ralston or John Souttar into the starting eleven now is going to benefit either the team or the players is baseless when we clearly have better players in their positions.

We should pick the best players available in every position regardless of age, and that applies to players over 30 as well as under 20. When a player does come along who is clearly the best in their position but isn't trusted purely due to being young - as Strachan was guilty of in the 2016 campaign in picking Whittaker, Mulgrew and even Forsyth ahead of the obviously superior Robertson - then it's absolutely right to criticise at that point, but the reality is that teenagers being better than established internationals just isn't that common. Does anyone seriously think we'd have done better in this campaign if we'd had Chris Cadden and Scott Wright starting?

The 'we just don't have the talent' argument. This is just utterly indefensible drivel. We have failed to make playoffs due to failing to beat Lithuania. Our players have enough talent to beat Lithuania, therefore the standard of player is not the reason we failed. Missing out because of dropping points to teams we have considerably better players than is the pattern of every qualifying campaign since we last made the playoffs.

2018 - missed out on the playoffs on goal difference, having dropped 2 points against 5th seeds Lithuania. Had we taken 12 points from 12 against the 5th and 6th seeds, we would have progressed.

2016 - missed out on the playoffs by 3 points, having dropped 3 points against 5th seeds Georgia. Had we taken 12 points from 12 against the 5th and 6th seeds, we would have progressed. 

2014 - missed out on the playoffs by 6 points, having dropped 8 points v 5th seeds Georgia and 6th seeds Wales. Had we taken 12 points from 12 against the 5th and 6th seeds, we would have progressed.

2012 - Missed out on the playoffs by 2 points, having dropped 2 points v 4th seeds Lithuania. Had we taken 12 points from 12 against the 4th and 5th seeds, we would have progressed.

2010 - Missed out on the playoffs by 2 points, having dropped 3 points v 4th seeds Macedonia. Had we taken 12 points from 12 against the 4th and 5th seeds, we would have progressed.

2008 - missed out on automatic qualification by 2 points, having dropped 3 points against 6th seeds Georgia. Had we taken 12 points from 12 against the 6th and 7th seeds, we would have progressed.

2006 - missed out on the playoffs by 5 points, having dropped 7 points against 5th seeds Belarus and 6th seeds Moldova. Had we taken 12 points from 12 against the 5th and 6th seeds, we would have progressed.

That leads us nicely onto Vogts and the revisionism that he was actually good. Yes, we made the playoffs and no manager since has done so, and you can only beat what's in front of you, but it was a ridiculously easy draw. Fine, that's the luck of the draw, but all we had to do was finish above Lithuania, Iceland who were still minnows at the time, and the Faroe Islands. He presided over a draw in the Faroes and a defeat in Lithuania and got away with it because it was such a weak group; that's akin to losing to Lithuania and drawing with Malta in this campaign and if we'd had any competent challengers for second we'd have been out. It's far too simplistic to say Vogts finished second, McLeish finished third so Vogts was better; you have to look at what we were up against and where Vogts finished 1 point ahead of Iceland, McLeish finished 7 ahead of Ukraine. When we didn't get such an easy draw in the following campaign, Vogts was found out immediately.

Additionally, you'll note there that we dropped 5 points v Lithuania and the Faroes. We finished 4 points off automatic qualification, so once again we missed out because of failing against teams we should have taken maximum points from. Vogts was a failure.

[sjc]

3 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

It's absolutely correct that we need more coaches, but it's not the responsibility of schools to do the coaching or government to provide the funding. Those responsibilities fall to the SFA and they are genuinely implementing a system based on the logic that the solution to balance out the number of coaches v the number of players is to reduce the number of players rather than increase the number of coaches. It beggars belief, but it's the sad reality so we can't expect any progress in this area in the near future.

I agree its not the responsibility of the schools but given they "have" ALL the children Mon-Fri it would make sense to coach them there rather than a watered down number who's parents will take them out of school hours.  

[boulderdomb]

Rather than putting the PE teachers through their coaching badges, we should have the school teams coach go through all of the badges and make it mandatory for schools to offer a team in every year - I know in my school only 5th and 6th years had the option of joining the football team and the knob that hosted the training sessions didn't have any coaching qualifications or had very limited qualifications.

[George Parr]

2 hours ago, HibeeJibee said:

Every campaign since Vogts left, we've missed out on progression due to dropped points - usually in just 1 tie - versus the bottom or second bottom seeds. It's fine margins, and comes back to management?

 

The above is the key for me.

The change I'd like to see in future campaigns is treating every qualifier as life or death. Too often we settle for draws where wins were necessary. We all pointed out at the time - correctly as it happens - that a draw against Lithuania was going to lead to the same old story. 

Poor preparation rather than players has lead to non-qualification. It's been pointed out that other countries are just as shit as us but routinely rock up at major competitions. I'm firmly in the 'play more friendlies!' camp as well.