Coaching/Mark Wotte/Dutch system

[Burnie_man]

Do you think the SFA are still under the influence of Mark Wotte/Dutch system of play that our coaches appear to be getting schooled in, ie a technical approach, possession at all costs, sideways passing which appears good on paper until you realise we don’t have the players to play the system?

Under Strachan we were brutal to watch at times, pass, pass, pass, pass and not getting over the half way line before we gave the ball away. We saw a lot of that again against Russia and Belgium. The U21’s largely play to the same system. We also see it in the Scottish club game to an extent at some clubs.

What seems to have been removed from the game is spontaneity and the option to “mix it up” a bit when required.  Wales and Northern Ireland benefitted at the Euro Finals partly because of the ability to turn defences, play a long ball in behind now and again, run at defenders, do something different that they weren’t expecting, take a risk.  We seem to have lost that.  We’re pedestrian and predictable.

Is this what our coaches are being taught, is this what our youth players are being taught?  I don’t know, perhaps someone who does could enlighten us.

[skippy2015]

Do you think the SFA are still under the influence of Mark Wotte/Dutch system of play that our coaches appear to be getting schooled in, ie a technical approach, possession at all costs, sideways passing which appears good on paper until you realise we don’t have the players to play the system?
Under Strachan we were brutal to watch at times, pass, pass, pass, pass and not getting over the half way line before we gave the ball away. We saw a lot of that again against Russia and Belgium. The U21’s largely play to the same system. We also see it in the Scottish club game to an extent at some clubs.
What seems to have been removed from the game is spontaneity and the option to “mix it up” a bit when required.  Wales and Northern Ireland benefitted at the Euro Finals partly because of the ability to turn defences, play a long ball in behind now and again, run at defenders, do something different that they weren’t expecting, take a risk.  We seem to have lost that.  We’re pedestrian and predictable.
Is this what our coaches are being taught, is this what our youth players are being taught?  I don’t know, perhaps someone who does could enlighten us.

I’ve been to every home game since 1998 and the best football we played in my opinion was under strachan. Passing football but we also scored a lot of goals ( and a good quality of goals)

[Sergeant Wilson]

41 minutes ago, skippy2015 said:

I’ve been to every home game since 1998 and the best football we played in my opinion was under strachan. Passing football but we also scored a lot of goals ( and a good quality of goals)

Not as many as we let in though.

Edited September 16, 2019 by Sergeant Wilson

[Burnie_man]

2 hours ago, skippy2015 said:

I’ve been to every home game since 1998 and the best football we played in my opinion was under strachan. Passing football but we also scored a lot of goals ( and a good quality of goals)

Disagree on that point, some of what we witnessed was brutal.  McLeish's first spell in charge is probably as good as it got this Millennium (3-1 v Ukraine & Lithuania for performance, and of course Paris for result).  However that was pre-Wotte, and not the point of my post.

I'd like to understand if the SFA are still following the Wotte mantra.

[woof!]

The Performance Schools are greatly increasing contact time with the ball. This means the developing players can handle possession-based football, as evidenced by wins over an extensive list of top nations in the last year or so - all done without resorting to ruddy-faced, big boned-types that we used to deploy at youth level. 

[DiegoDiego]

Not as many as we let in though.

Not true. 58 goals for, 44 against.

[forameus]

1 hour ago, DiegoDiego said:

19 hours ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Not as many as we let in though.

Not true. 58 goals for, 44 against.

Technically correct, but if you take out the two Gibraltar results it looks a lot closer.  Still in the black though.  Doesn't really matter if you're conceding as long as you're scoring more than you're letting in.  Goal difference doesn't really solve the issues of one aberration ruining a campaign, as has been the issue for a while.  We could win games 5-1 all we want, but dropping points to the likes of Lithuania and Georgia undoes a lot of that effort.

[SpoonTon]

20 hours ago, Burnie_man said:

Do you think the SFA are still under the influence of Mark Wotte/Dutch system of play that our coaches appear to be getting schooled in, ie a technical approach, possession at all costs, sideways passing which appears good on paper until you realise we don’t have the players to play the system?

Under Strachan we were brutal to watch at times, pass, pass, pass, pass and not getting over the half way line before we gave the ball away. We saw a lot of that again against Russia and Belgium. The U21’s largely play to the same system. We also see it in the Scottish club game to an extent at some clubs.

What seems to have been removed from the game is spontaneity and the option to “mix it up” a bit when required.  Wales and Northern Ireland benefitted at the Euro Finals partly because of the ability to turn defences, play a long ball in behind now and again, run at defenders, do something different that they weren’t expecting, take a risk.  We seem to have lost that.  We’re pedestrian and predictable.

Is this what our coaches are being taught, is this what our youth players are being taught?  I don’t know, perhaps someone who does could enlighten us.

I don't think that's an accurate picture of what Strachan was trying to do and what he was influenced by. He talked about making sure that players made the extra pass to play the ball out in order to give players the opportunity to create decent attacks, and he also talked often about "long passes" as opposed to "long balls." Basically, he wanted to play the ball forward quickly but only in an accurate way. I don't think it was at all a technical approach which looked to possession at all costs. I actually think that he got the generally approach right, but at times got the personnel wrong (starting Chris Martin against Lithuania instead of Griffiths, for example). He would have been throwing balls forward quicker if we had a striker like Belgium have - that's what he said. 

Our best players are suited to high intensity, pressing, quick counter attack football. I think that was what Strachan aimed for, even if he didn't get the selections or balance right for a period. The worry at the moment is that Steve Clarke has been way off in trying to find the right balance for this. 

I don't think the Mark Wotte influence has ever really filtered through to the senior national side. I think the disconnect between that approach in areas of youth football and preparing players for senior football has been a major issue though. 

[Burnie_man]

2 hours ago, woof! said:

The Performance Schools are greatly increasing contact time with the ball. This means the developing players can handle possession-based football, as evidenced by wins over an extensive list of top nations in the last year or so - all done without resorting to ruddy-faced, big boned-types that we used to deploy at youth level. 

England at youth level are light years ahead of us, a bigger pool talent of course, but they appear to be getting something right.    What are they doing that we are not, it can't all be down to bigger pool talent.

At U21 level we used to perform well, semi-finalists twice and a 4th place in 1996, which was the last time we qualified for an U21 finals. We've rarely been close since.  Good win in Croatia last week, but previous campaign we had to rely on injury time equalisers away to Andorra and home to Latvia.

[Gordopolis]

1 hour ago, SpoonTon said:

I don't think that's an accurate picture of what Strachan was trying to do and what he was influenced by. He talked about making sure that players made the extra pass to play the ball out in order to give players the opportunity to create decent attacks, and he also talked often about "long passes" as opposed to "long balls." Basically, he wanted to play the ball forward quickly but only in an accurate way. I don't think it was at all a technical approach which looked to possession at all costs. I actually think that he got the generally approach right, but at times got the personnel wrong (starting Chris Martin against Lithuania instead of Griffiths, for example). He would have been throwing balls forward quicker if we had a striker like Belgium have - that's what he said. 

Our best players are suited to high intensity, pressing, quick counter attack football. I think that was what Strachan aimed for, even if he didn't get the selections or balance right for a period. The worry at the moment is that Steve Clarke has been way off in trying to find the right balance for this. 

I don't think the Mark Wotte influence has ever really filtered through to the senior national side. I think the disconnect between that approach in areas of youth football and preparing players for senior football has been a major issue though. 

It strikes me that Strachan would have done well with the current group of players. Back in his reign, we really only had Ikechi Anya in terms of blistering pace, and as fast as he was, he lacked in other areas (still one of my fave players though). Now, Strachan would have Fraser, Forrest, Burke (faster than Anya but nae skills apart from that) who are all speedy, as well as very mobile MFs like McGregor and Armstrong (although Strachan was rather dilatory in bringing these two in towards the end of his reign).

Not saying we should bring Strach back or anything, just making the observation.

[John Lambies Doos]

Best I've seen technically from Scotland was the Germany game in Dortmund 2014. I actually witnessed this one in person and our possession and passing was as good as the Germans. Unfortunately we got beat 2 1 as we've had shite central defenders since David Weir

[woof!]

1 hour ago, Burnie_man said:

England at youth level are light years ahead of us, a bigger pool talent of course, but they appear to be getting something right.    What are they doing that we are not, it can't all be down to bigger pool talent.

At U21 level we used to perform well, semi-finalists twice and a 4th place in 1996, which was the last time we qualified for an U21 finals. We've rarely been close since.  Good win in Croatia last week, but previous campaign we had to rely on injury time equalisers away to Andorra and home to Latvia.

Only players 19 and under can be judged in the context of the Performance Schools. 

[Burnie_man]

56 minutes ago, woof! said:

Only players 19 and under can be judged in the context of the Performance Schools. 

I wasn't commenting specifically on Performance Schools, however I'm not sure we're we're anywhere near England at U17 or U19 level either.  I don't think we've qualified for a U19 Euro Finals since 2006 when we were beaten finalists.

[DiegoDiego]

I'm not sure we're we're anywhere near England at U17 or U19 level either.

Of course not, they've ten times the population. It's countries like Denmark (similar GDP and population) that we should be comparing ourselves to, not England.

[Enigma]

I wasn't commenting specifically on Performance Schools, however I'm not sure we're we're anywhere near England at U17 or U19 level either.  I don't think we've qualified for a U19 Euro Finals since 2006 when we were beaten finalists.

Probably helps that they have millions and millions sloshing about their game and clubs can make real investments in youth development.

[Burnie_man]

Of course not, they've ten times the population. It's countries like Denmark (similar GDP and population) that we should be comparing ourselves to, not England.

I did concede that above, but we are still very poor at qualifying at age level tournaments. We used to be as good as England but have fallen way behind.

[Burnie_man]

Probably helps that they have millions and millions sloshing about their game and clubs can make real investments in youth development.

It probably does but money itself doesnt make good players. Serbia for example have performed well at u19/u21 level for a while.

[Malky3]

On 17/09/2019 at 10:23, woof! said:

The Performance Schools are greatly increasing contact time with the ball. This means the developing players can handle possession-based football, as evidenced by wins over an extensive list of top nations in the last year or so - all done without resorting to ruddy-faced, big boned-types that we used to deploy at youth level. 

I disagree. I don't know what age you are but I'm quite long in the tooth. What I see from Performance Schools and the Elite System is a reduction in game time for many of our kids. 

I do think technical skills have improved in recent years, but it's quite evident that match performances haven't. 

[craigkillie]

It's "quite evident" from a system where the oldest graduates are only 19?

[Malky3]

4 hours ago, craigkillie said:

It's "quite evident" from a system where the oldest graduates are only 19?

That's not true. The SFA arrangement with Performance Schools like Braidhurst in Motherwell has graduates as old as 24 now. Jai Quitongo was a graduate of the Braidhurst SFA programme and there were at least two more years above his. 

Edited to add - 2008 was when Braidhurst became a SFA School of Football. I've just checked. 

Edited September 20, 2019 by Malky3