Burnie_man Posted October 18, 2019 Author Share Posted October 18, 2019 4 minutes ago, Malky3 said: Conversely, are you saying that if he was to attend nearby Dalziel High School, currently 29th best in the country - the catchment area for which he lives in - he would be incapable of achieving football success? What would you prioritise in your childs life? What do you think education should focus on? That's for each childs parents to decide, if their kid displays exceptional talent in football then it's a very good option to attend a PS. On the other hand if their child is exceptional in say mathematics, then another school may be a better option. It's not a black and white issue surely? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted October 18, 2019 Author Share Posted October 18, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Malky3 said: Really? Todays kids are better than Billy Bremner, Kenny Dalglish, Jim Baxter, Jimmy Johnston, Andy Goram, Willie Miller, Alex McLeish, Mo Johnston, Joe Jordan, Graeme Souness, John Wark, Alan Hansen, John Robertson, Frankie and Eddy Gray, Archie Gemmill, Jim Leighton, Ally McCoist etc. Exciting times then. Indeed it almost makes me wonder why Scotland keep getting rogered by any country with a population larger than Paisley What's your beef exactly with the PS system, and what is your solution to start producing players of the calibre you name above. Edited October 18, 2019 by Burnie_man 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albagubrath Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 7 minutes ago, Malky3 said: Really? Todays kids are better than Billy Bremner, Kenny Dalglish, Jim Baxter, Jimmy Johnston, Andy Goram, Willie Miller, Alex McLeish, Mo Johnston, Joe Jordan, Graeme Souness, John Wark, Alan Hansen, John Robertson, Frankie and Eddy Gray, Archie Gemmill, Jim Leighton, Ally McCoist etc. Exciting times then. Indeed it almost makes me wonder why Scotland keep getting rogered by any country with a population larger than Paisley Oh FFS, willfully misunderstanding a point is dull and does you no favours in your argument. All of the players you mention at what, in their 50s to 60s now at least. Billy Bremner would have been almost 80 by now! So you are talking about youth development in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. If it helps I'll amend my point to this: "I guess time will tell, but anecdotally in my opinion the quality of player currently being produced from the PS system looks far superior to those produced in the past 45 years (if we can assume all players likely to have represented us in a major tournament would have been at least 18 years old at the date of our last qualification in 1998)." I feel like 45 years is adequately covered by 'in years gone by', but it is now much more specific for you. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 21 minutes ago, Malky3 said: Conversely, are you saying that if he was to attend nearby Dalziel High School, currently 29th best in the country - the catchment area for which he lives in - he would be incapable of achieving football success? What would you prioritise in your childs life? What do you think education should focus on? Of course I wouldn't reach such an absurd conclusion. I do not however accept that schools whose pupils achieve less academic success than others, are necessarily worse at delivering that type of success. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 16 minutes ago, Burnie_man said: That's for each childs parents to decide, if their kid displays exceptional talent in football then it's a very good option to attend a PS. On the other hand if their child is exceptional in say mathematics, then another school may be a better option. It's not a black and white issue surely? The school which delivers ostensibly poor exam results, might well cater far better for pupils as regards Maths or any combination of subjects, than one much higher up the discredited league table. Malky has literally no idea how well, or otherwise, subjects are delivered in any of the schools. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malky3 Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Burnie_man said: What's your beef exactly with the PS system, and what is your solution to start producing players of the calibre you name above. I think the idea of determining a childs future at the age of 11 is futile and ridiculous and I think the best way the channel our limited resources in Scotland is to focus on improved facilities and improved coaching standards across all of the juvenile game. I have been involved as a volunteer in two different sports and I've been fortunate enough to spend time in the company of some of Scotlands highest sporting achievers and their coaches. Without giving away names one in particular came from a different sport but is a well paid consultant on coaching techniques at the SFA. I asked him once how you identify and train young participants and develop them into world champions. He said in his sport the answer was mass participation. The best emerge without elite coaching. He said it was a numbers game. If you focus from an early age on say 10 kids - 3 won't progress, 3 will develop 'bad habits' like partying, smoking or drinking, 2 might be attracted to a different sport, 1 might get a bad injury, and if the last one find they can't afford to participate at the top level you've got no income from mass participation to finance helping them. We are channelling too much into elite development, we are writing people off at the age of 11 and we're not looking for late developers. School should be about academic development. The fact that some people think we should be deliberately sending our children to a failing school whilst ramping up the pressure - with all the mental health issues this undoubtedly brings - on those kids to make it as footballers shows to me how fucked in the head we've become as a nation in my humble opinion. Edited October 18, 2019 by Malky3 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted October 18, 2019 Author Share Posted October 18, 2019 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Malky3 said: I think the idea of determining a childs future at the age of 11 is futile and ridiculous and I think the best way the channel our limited resources in Scotland is to focus on improved facilities and improved coaching standards across all of the juvenile game. I have been involved as a volunteer in two different sports and I've been fortunate enough to spend time in the company of some of Scotlands highest sporting achievers and their coaches. Without giving away names one in particular came from a different sport but is a well paid consultant on coaching techniques at the SFA. I asked him once how you identify and train young participants and develop them into world champions. He said in his sport the answer was mass participation. The best emerge without elite coaching. He said it was a numbers game. If you focus from an early age on say 10 kids - 3 won't progress, 3 will develop 'bad habits' like partying, smoking or drinking, 2 might be attracted to a different sport, 1 might get a bad injury, and if the last one find they can't afford to participate at the top level you've got no income from mass participation to finance helping them. We are channelling too much into elite development, we are writing people off at the age of 11 and we're not looking for late developers. School should be about academic development. The fact that some people think we should be deliberately sending our children to a failing school whilst ramping up the pressure - with all the mental health issues this undoubtedly brings - on those kids to make it as footballers shows to me how fucked in the head we've become as a nation in my humble opinion. I agree that the SFA/Govt should be putting in a lot more effort and resource into developing better qualified coaches particularly as the number of local community clubs rise, and therefore it falls to these people to coach the "mass participation numbers" you talk of. There's still too many unqualified and under qualified parents and helpers in the game. However I don't think that is mutually exclusive to elite development either. We can do both. Edited October 18, 2019 by Burnie_man 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted October 18, 2019 Author Share Posted October 18, 2019 1 hour ago, Monkey Tennis said: The school which delivers ostensibly poor exam results, might well cater far better for pupils as regards Maths or any combination of subjects, than one much higher up the discredited league table. Agreed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 47 minutes ago, Malky3 said: I think the idea of determining a childs future at the age of 11 is futile and ridiculous and I think the best way the channel our limited resources in Scotland is to focus on improved facilities and improved coaching standards across all of the juvenile game. I have been involved as a volunteer in two different sports and I've been fortunate enough to spend time in the company of some of Scotlands highest sporting achievers and their coaches. Without giving away names one in particular came from a different sport but is a well paid consultant on coaching techniques at the SFA. I asked him once how you identify and train young participants and develop them into world champions. He said in his sport the answer was mass participation. The best emerge without elite coaching. He said it was a numbers game. If you focus from an early age on say 10 kids - 3 won't progress, 3 will develop 'bad habits' like partying, smoking or drinking, 2 might be attracted to a different sport, 1 might get a bad injury, and if the last one find they can't afford to participate at the top level you've got no income from mass participation to finance helping them. We are channelling too much into elite development, we are writing people off at the age of 11 and we're not looking for late developers. School should be about academic development. The fact that some people think we should be deliberately sending our children to a failing school whilst ramping up the pressure - with all the mental health issues this undoubtedly brings - on those kids to make it as footballers shows to me how fucked in the head we've become as a nation in my humble opinion. Define "failing school". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malky3 Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 19 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said: Define "failing school". A school has one job. Its to educate kids to a standard where they pass their exams. A failing school is one that regularly under performs on that matrix. The league table might be crude but the one measure every one of these kids will have on them for the rest of their lives is their exam results. And you can attempt to excuse poor performance by local demographics but that ignores the intrinsict fact that a good school will drive up the demographics of its local area both by educating kids into good jobs and through attracting wealthier parents to the catchment area. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 59 minutes ago, Malky3 said: A school has one job. Its to educate kids to a standard where they pass their exams. A failing school is one that regularly under performs on that matrix. The league table might be crude but the one measure every one of these kids will have on them for the rest of their lives is their exam results. And you can attempt to excuse poor performance by local demographics but that ignores the intrinsict fact that a good school will drive up the demographics of its local area both by educating kids into good jobs and through attracting wealthier parents to the catchment area. That is quite honestly the most cluelessly ignorant post I think I've ever read on here. The only job of a school is exam passes - that is a genuinely staggering perspective. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 You guys actually believe Malky is having a genuine debate?! Have a word with yourselves. He's trolling, as that's all he does. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malky3 Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 On 19/10/2019 at 11:52, Monkey Tennis said: That is quite honestly the most cluelessly ignorant post I think I've ever read on here. The only job of a school is exam passes - that is a genuinely staggering perspective. It's the principle job of a school - one Braidhurst fails spectacularly at. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Malky3 said: It's the principle job of a school - one Braidhurst fails spectacularly at. Ok, it's core business - I'll give you that. That's very different from saying it's a school's only job though. I've no idea if it's something that the school in question fails at. A glance at League tables doesn't help me either. Information as to how it does with regard to comparator schools, both real and virtual, would be of more use. Either way though, it doesn't necessarily follow that a school that produces relatively poor results in national terms is doing a bad job, even in the narrow context of considering only exam results. Similarly, one that apparently does very much better in such terms, need not be better at what they do. Edited October 21, 2019 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falcor Roar Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 On 19/10/2019 at 10:51, Malky3 said: The league table might be crude but the one measure every one of these kids will have on them for the rest of their lives is their exam results. And you can attempt to excuse poor performance by local demographics but that ignores the intrinsict fact that a good school will drive up the demographics of its local area both by educating kids into good jobs and through attracting wealthier parents to the catchment area. Guys you can solve localised social deprivation with good schools and just ignore all other contextual factors. It's intrinsict or whatever. On 20/10/2019 at 13:30, DA Baracus said: You guys actually believe Malky is having a genuine debate?! Have a word with yourselves. He's trolling, as that's all he does. I think you're right he must be at it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 I thought it was clear he was trolling when he started listing off players from the 60's and 70's as examples that we used to do things better. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malky3 Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 7 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said: Ok, it's core business - I'll give you that. That's very different from saying it's a school's only job though. I've no idea if it's something that the school in question fails at. A glance at League tables doesn't help me either. Information as to how it does with regard to comparator schools, both real and virtual, would be of more use. Either way though, it doesn't necessarily follow that a school that produces relatively poor results in national terms is doing a bad job, even in the narrow context of considering only exam results. Similarly, one that apparently does very much better in such terms, need not be better at what they do. Other schools in the town are Dalziel High School is 1.5 miles away. It's 29th in the league tables Our Lady High School 2.6 miles away is 78th Braidhurst High School is 334th. Braidhurst isn't a good school in any context. The point I was making though in regard to this thread is that if you are a parent in the local area with an 11 year old child with all their life choices ahead of them, would you REALLY choose to send them to the 6th lowest ranked school in Scotland based on exam results just so they can swim on a Monday morning and spend a bit more time "doing" football at school? "Performance schools" are not where the SFA should be centring their resources. They should be improving standards across the grassroots levels by reducing the cost of coaching, ensuring the coaching courses that are advertised are not cancelled at the very last minute because it's not profitable enough, and enabling more training and playing time for kids everywhere by ensuring there are sufficient number of good quality, floodlit, facilities all around the country. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malky3 Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 6 hours ago, The Moonster said: I thought it was clear he was trolling when he started listing off players from the 60's and 70's as examples that we used to do things better. How is that trolling? What a ridiculous claim. It's fact. Scotland used to produce far better youth prospects than we do today and we did it without "performance schools" and "elite development clubs" funded by huge grants. Back when I played you played locally until you were 14 at which point a senior club may come in and sign you on S' Forms. Senior Clubs were restricted to the number of S Forms they could sign. And the SFA didn't squander £millions of sponsorship money on "elite" shirt fillers who are just there to make up the numbers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoBNob Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 On 11/10/2019 at 10:07, Ross. said: Never been sure what to make of Stephen Kenny. Took Dunfermline to the Cup Final and got them relegated on the way. His record at Derry and especially at Dundalk were tremendous. Kind of a low budget Steve Clarke, but with more trophies. He was absolutely fucking shite at us, got us relegated and had us 8th?in the championship despite having the largest budget in the league, was well on his way to relegating us the diddy. He was shite at Shamrock Rovers aswell, doesn't tend to do well at clubs where expectations are high. He'll undoubtedly have improved as a coach/manager since leaving, while he was with us his training methods and general running of the club were very much those of a man who was used to managing a part time side. Swathes of our fans were pulled in because he spoke well at a meet the managers night, then went 9 games in the league without scoring. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malky3 Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Grant228 said: He was absolutely fucking shite at us, got us relegated and had us 8th?in the championship despite having the largest budget in the league, was well on his way to relegating us the diddy. He was shite at Shamrock Rovers aswell, doesn't tend to do well at clubs where expectations are high. He'll undoubtedly have improved as a coach/manager since leaving, while he was with us his training methods and general running of the club were very much those of a man who was used to managing a part time side. Swathes of our fans were pulled in because he spoke well at a meet the managers night, then went 9 games in the league without scoring. He got you into Europe for the first time in how many years? Am I right in saying it was Jock Steins era? Sorry - apparently it was since 2004 when Jimmy Calderwood got Dunfermline into Europe through the same route. My bad. Edited October 21, 2019 by Malky3 To correct myself 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.