A bird? A plane? No, a cardboard box!

"Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once he grows up" - Pablo Picasso

In a literal sense this quote carries little substance, but think of it as a metaphor for the power of creativity and how we lose it with age and it becomes rather more poignant.

Buy a child a toy and they will play, not with the toy but with it's box. A box is never just a box to a child, it is a spaceship, a castle, a horse; it's limitations are confined only by the imagination.

Ask a young boy a question and he will blurt out the first thing that comes to his head, relevant or not, with the conviction of an expert in the subject. He has no fear of being wrong, the thought does not enter his mind, he is only concerned with providing an answer to the problem presented to him.

At what point does this change? When do children fear the stigmatism of being wrong? And more importantly why does this happen?

Is it because children are encouraged to conform to society from the minute they enter education?

A pathway is outlined early in life: you go to school to go to college to go to university to get a good job to be happy and live comfortably. If you do not follow this model then you miss out on opportunities later in life. The problem with this is that it does not allow for mistakes or errors of judgement, it does not let you find your own path for fear of getting it wrong. It can make you adequate in several areas but suppress your talent in others.

Is it because children are not encouraged to think for themselves enough?

When teaching you often ask questions, but it is easier to ask a closed question in order to force the answer you are looking for as this takes less time and less patience; but ask a more open question and the variety of answers will differ greatly, some will think of the question and try to answer logically, others will answer with key words they have remembered from earlier information, some will say the first thing that comes to their head, and some will not say anything at all. The benefit of an open question is that it encourages children to think, to try, to experience being wrong, to experience being right, and ultimately that it is not always easy and persistence gets results.

When coaching you are a teacher, children look at you for answers. But simply giving them the answer can have more negative affects than positive, it does not allow them to probe and think, to create in their minds several ways of trying and letting them figure out which way works best. When coaching try not to force a certain issue, put in place the parameters which will get your topic out, but allow the children the scope to be creative and try their own way, and when needed coach their idea to help them improve it.

There are of course times when a more dictatorial approach is needed and you need to give the answers and you need to show the correct way. But it's also vital for development that you are allowed to work it out for yourself, to successfully find ways that do not work as well as ways that do. To use the information you have been given, but to find your own ways to implement it and maximise it's impact.

There is probably no definitive answer as to why we start to to lose our imagination and the ability to create something special from nothing but I'll leave you with a thought of my own: Children do not grow into creativity, they grow out of it. It is the job of those who teach to challenge their creativity to flourish!

ABC it's easy as 4-3-3

Evolve or be extinct. It is a simple fact that if you do not move with the times then you will get left behind, a fate that professional football in England is in serious danger of sucombing to.

Historically England is a nation who favour the 4-4-2, a formation which has been around since the introduction of the eleven player rule. The 4-4-2 is a very British formation; not too edgy, nice and reliable, solid defensively and efficient on the attact - but it also lacks style and flair, there is little room for fluidity. Yes, the 4-4-2 is very British, formal and rigid.

In Academy Football there is a different story altogether, players are being developed to produce a new breed of English player. Creativity, technicality, confidence and composure are becoming customary; guile is a more desireable trait than grit, determination, and brute force. Many Academies are no longer looking to produce players for the 4-4-2, the mission is create individuals who can master the 4-3-3.

The 4-3-3 rose to prominence with Ajax and has since been perfected by Barcelona, with a little assistance from one Johan Cruyff. The 4-3-3 is everything that the 4-4-2 is not, it encourages flair, fluidity, attacking through the middle, short and sharp intricate passes - it favours the technicians over the giants, all whilst maitaining the security of a back four. More over, the 4-3-3 is flexible and can be quickly adjusted to change tactically:

In Figure 1 you have a traditional 4-3-3 with a solid bank of four defenders, three midfielders and three central attackers. With a simple adjustment this can be converted to Figure 2, where you keep the security of four defenders but have a defensive midfielder for additional protection and play two attack minded central midfielders to encourage creativity. The shape of the forwards change so you have one focal point central attacker and two players pulling out high and wide - very useful for stretching the pitch and pulling opponents out of position. This variation of the 4-4-3 was favoured by Pep Guardiola during his extremely successful tenure at Barcelona. With some slight tinkering you can create a much more defensive formation, Figure 3, with one of the attacking midfielders being sacrificied for another holding/defensive midfielder, this type of 4-3-3 is favoured by Jose Mourinho and is effective at counteracting the formation used in Figure 2. And for those games in which your team is dominating play, the compact central midfield leaves space for the fullbacks to assist with the attack whilst keeping the insurance of two central defenders and at least one holding/defensive midfielder providing cover - Figure 4. The beauty of the 4-3-3 is that it is possible to make changes to your tactics without substitutions, but simply in the transition from defence to attack, for example when defending you could set up as Figure 3 and when you regain possession your team shape can adjust to Figure 2 and eventually Figure 4.

With the prevalence of 4-3-3 in Academy football it seems strange that so few Premier League teams use this formation.It is logical that the system played by a First Team should be the mould of an entire Academy set-up as the role of an Academy is to produce First Team players, so why do so few clubs enforce this ideal?

As time goes by more and more emphasis will be put on producing technically superior players, add that to the never-say-die mentality that is engrained on the English psyche and it is only a matter of time before there is a vast improvement on the standard of player we produce. To increase the speed of which this process happens there needs to be a philosophy in place that provides a natural progression from Academy football up through to International football and as Academies are focusing on the 4-3-3 it can only be a matter of time before more clubs and eventually the National team follow suit.

Evolution is a slow process and has it's victims and well as its victors; there is a slow and sure change manifesting in the way the game is being approached  in England, let us hope that it is not so slow that it creates a gulf between us and other leading nations that is simply too large to close.

Foundations are the Key

The tallest buildings in the world wouldn't stand if they didn't have the correct foundations, neither in fact would the shortest. When starting with a building project you have to start from the bottom and build up, and make sure you get the experts dealing with the appropriate stages; plumbers do the plumbing, electricians do the wiring and so on. Follow these rules and you will have a safe and reliable building, and when the planning and attention to detail is meticulous you can end up with something magnificent. Now replace this metaphorical building with a young footballer and the same rules still apply.

The general school of thought in football is that the best coaches work with the oldest players and the newest coaches have to do an apprenticeship with the younger players. I believe that this is a huge misconception; coaching u6/7 is completely different to coaching u18 and requires a different approach, something that not every coach can adjust to and expecting them to do so would be similar to hiring an electrician for your pipes and a plumber for your wiring.

Coaching a u6/7 age group can be frustrating at times, but the rewards far exceed the negatives. With this age group you have a completely blank canvas and can teach good habits and work on the foundations to build a solid technical footballer. Many people think that you have to over simplify things and treat them like infants, but speaking to and treating them as equals is a refreshing change for 6/7 year olds and gives them an extra impetus. Getting things right early on means you start to build a better and more intelligent footballer and you may even surprise yourself with how technical or complex you can be.

With older age groups the style of coaching is very different, the focus shifts from teaching to refining. You have to be able to notice subtle and slight faults with a player's technique and know what minor changes are needed to make the biggest difference. Football is a game of habits and it is unlikely you will completely reinvent a player at u18 so your focus is on making their strengths even stronger and their weaknesses less so. The latter age groups in youth football also become a lot more tactical, you need to teach players not only their roles and responsibilities but that of their teammates and how they must all intertwine to create a harmonic machine.

With the introduction of The FA's Youth Modules more emphasis is being placed on age appropriate coaching but there also needs to be an incentive to encourage the strongest coaches to stick with an age group if this is where their greatest skill-set lay. It is human nature to want to grow and develop and moving to a new age group gives you a new set of challenges, but maybe the stigmatism that often goes with coaching the youngest age group forces coaches to move to older age groups earlier.

Slowly and surely attitudes are changing in football, and new ideas come in thick and fast to help different aspects of the game improve. Hopefully we reach a point where we do not judge but show appreciation to those who are patient and inventive enough to get most out of the youngest age groups, without them there is a far greater task further down the line.

Show Racism the Red Card

In the run up to Euro 2012 there is growing concern about racial abuse. Theo Walcott's and Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain's families have decided not to travel to the tournament and Sol Campbell has advised fans to watch it at home. UEFA have tried to assure people that they have a "zero tolerance" policy on racism and that racism is "only a problem at domestic level".

I feel there is a lot of hypocrisy regarding racism in football. Europe's governing body declare they have zero tolerance but then in the same breath admit there are domestic racism problems in Poland and Ukraine. Fans will racially abuse players from opposing teams but will cheer a goal scored by one of their team's black players only a few moments later, seemingly ignorant to the fact that their abuse will be heard by and affect their own players too.

The problem does not lie solely with racism, but also with sexism and homosexuality. Kick it Out and The Justin Campaign are doing their bit to fight the problem but more needs to be done to by other organisations.

If UEFA are aware of racial issues at any level they should commit to their "zero tolerance" policy and enforce strict and severe punishments. Not only should fans be punished as individuals, but UEFA should punish the clubs and FA's in charge - maybe this would lead to clubs and national governing bodies tackling the problem head on instead of putting on a bravado.

There is no room for racism or any discriminatory behaviour in modern society, and especially not in a sporting environment. Athletes, and all people, should be judged on their merits not their race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Here's to a future when we finally have kicked it out!

Same Old Same Old

Alex Ferguson was once famously told "You'll never win anything with kids"....we all know what happened next. If you don't give untested players the opportunity to shine they never will. As the saying goes: if you don't bet big, you won't win big.

In my opinion the England squad selection shows a lack of bravery, but more importantly a lack of planning and ambition for the future. In the same way people choose an iPhone, or kids pick the new Nike boots, Hodgson has picked the same old trusted names even though there are better options available. I am not criticising Hodgson as a manager, but I think he could have made a statement of intent in his selection.

Many people will raise eyebrows to certain names being included, and more will raise their eyebrows to players who were excluded, but it feels as though Hodgson has taken the easy way out. Players such as Gerrard and Lampard have been fantastic servants for England and have played in numerous international tournaments, albeit in a disappointing fashion, but have they performed better this season than Britton or even Carrick?

Graham and Holt are the archetypal number 9; big, strong, good in the air, with good hold up and link up play. But both players have done something Carroll hasn't this season and that's score goals. If these players were at a more fashionable club would they have been selected?

England are unlikely to win the Euro's so maybe Hodgson could have had an eye on the next World Cup and given some more young players some experience at an International tournament. Germany did it at the last World Cup and they surprised everybody.

Only time will tell how the Euro's and ultimately Hodgson's England career will turn out. I just hope he doesn't make the same mistake as countless other managers and picks the best players for his system instead of building a system around England's so called best players.

Style over Substance?

"The great fallacy is that the game is first and last about winning. It's nothing of the kind. The game is about glory. It's about doing things in style, with a flourish, about going out and beating the other lot, not waiting for them to die of boredom." - Danny Blanchflower.

Blanchflower made it clear to all how he felt the game should be played when he was a part of Spurs' triumphant Bill Nicholson squad in the 1950's and 1960's, winning simply wasn't enough, it was about winning well. Gaining points was secondary to playing attractive and exciting football, a sentiment still held by teams such as Barcelona and Ajax to this day. But with the added financial pressure applied to managers and coaches, it is an ideal that is increasingly more difficult to implement.

Think back to when you was a child, or the moment you fell in love with the beautiful game. Was it an exciting passage of play or a magical piece of skill by a club hero that first captured your attention, or was it a gritty park-the-bus one nil win?

As a coach you have to decide on which side of the fence you sit; do you want to play attractive and exciting football and be patient in the knowledge that results will eventually follow, or is winning at any cost paramount.

Stoke City are a very well organised team and Tony Pulis uses the players at his disposal perfectly, but it is not a style for children to try and replicate if they want to develop technically. On the other hand they are a perfect example of tactical discipline and perform the roles assigned to them with little fuss.

Jose Mourinho's sides flirt with both possessional domination and settling for a narrow victory. First and foremost they outplay the opponent, but when that fails to break them down they turn to whatever means are necessary to steal the points.

Trying to get the balance between technical superiority and implementing a winning mentality is an extremely difficult task but there is a perfect model to follow. The German youth development programme has created extremely technical players such as Mesut Ozil and Mario Gotze, and they continue to play attractive football, but they also dismantle opposition with the ruthless efficieny you would expect from a German side.

Whatever your philosophy or your expectations from your players, try to remember what brought you into the game and ultimately remember that footballers should love the ball, not be afraid to have it for fear of making a mistake that could cost points.

It's a team game

Joga Bonito. The beautiful game. It brings us all together. It shows us the importance of working as a unit, how to compete within a collective, it is the ultimate team game…or is it?

At what point does football become a team sport?

In my opinion football is less of a team sport then many believe, especially at youth level. As a young aspiring player you cannot play the game based solely on fitting in to a team. Understanding how to operate as part of a team is essential, but without outstanding individual technical ability you can all but kiss goodbye to your dreams.

As a young player your game is about you. You need to improve your dribbling and passing techniques, you need to learn the roles and responsibilities of each position, you need to develop the tactical understanding needed to operate in a number of formations; in essence you need to progress to a level of dynamism that exceeds your teammates if you want to be noticed, and you need to continue to grow and shine in order become a professional footballer. However part of this process is to develop the intelligence and understanding of when to release the ball, to identify when a teammate is in a better position, that as creative and attack minded as you may be you still need to work on your defensive qualities. When the opportunity to become a professional has bypassed you, then the game is more – but not exclusively – about the team.

But what about the professional game?

Many times I have heard the phrase “the sum of the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” and it is something I agree with, but it helps when all of the parts are of such an exceptional ability that the weakest link is stronger than the opponent’s best player. Even in the greatest teams there is a stand out player, and when things are not going well this is who the rest of the team look at for inspiration and a match winning moment. Often you see players neglect certain responsibilities because they are aware that another member in the team will pick up the slack.

Maradona widely receives plaudit for “single handedly” winning Argentina the 1986 World Cup; he also brought a failing Napoli two Scudettos, one Coppa Italia, one UEFA Cup and one Supercoppa Italiana. Where are his teammates in the recognition of success?

Players’ that can bring championships alone are few and far between, Barcelona would often drop points without the consistent and undervalued Victor Valdes, Makelele’s defensive grit and ball winning was essential in Chelsea’s success under Mourinho; even the greatest players need support from the rest of the squad.  Football is the ultimate team game, but maybe it is more important to learn how to operate in a team than as a team.

Nature vs Nurture

"It's a funny thing, the more I practice the luckier I get"

Arnold Palmer, the great golfer coined the phrase that I heard as a young boy and carry with me to this day. Too much emphasis is placed on luck. I am not disagreeing that an element of luck can be instrumental in success; lucky to be in the right place at the right time, lucky that your boss likes you over your promotion rival, lucky that your team had a good day and your opponents didn't. Luck definitely has its part to play. But the key ingredients are talent and dedication.

Like luck, "natural talent" often tips the scales of importance in the mind. People believe Messi is such a good player because he is naturally talented, Ronaldo, Xavi and Iniesta too.

Natural talent definitely exists. Genetics mean Ronaldo has more fast-twitch fibres and therefore possess the explosive and electric speed he utilises so well. Xavi and Iniesta are intelligent men, as well as footballers, and this helps them read situations more quickly and identify space others do not see. From an early age Messi has been able to dribble with the ball seemingly glued to his feet. Without doubt some find the game easier than others, some need to train less but still improve, but the thing that distinguishes the good from the average and the great from good is their dedication, application and unwavering desire to improve.

From grassroots football to full time professional it takes around 10,000 hours of football. That is 10,000 hours of high exposure to the ball to improve technique, high tempo tatical and functional practices, friendlies, league and cup matches, and tourments. It also helps if you have a kick around in the park/street/school, try to compete against yourself in ball juggling, and kick a ball against a wall or uneven surface to improve passing, first touch and reaction time. Suddenly the talent does not seem so natural.

Maybe people do not know that Ronaldo goes to training early to work on stretching and breathing exercises, or that Beckham would spend an hour or so after training working on set-pieces. This extra commitment and hard work makes it look easy. Xavi and Iniesta are able to play one and half touch football because their football education at Barcelona's La Masia has conditioned them, making their widely admired style of play second nature.

Education is very important, receiving the correct imformation makes all the difference. Realism in training gives you the skills to take into games. A good coach teaches you not only how to play but also to understand instructions; and maybe more importantly, how to take criticism and how to develop the attitude to learn from it.

Like everything in life, to succeed in football you can not rest on your laurels. Natural talent will only get you so far, the rest is hard work, dedication, application, the right attitude, and desire to be the best you can be. And if all of these added together are not enough, you can at least rest assured you gave it everything and avoid a lifetime of regret.

Stat's not good enough

In American sports a player’s performance comes down to one thing, statistics. Stats are the story, they define a player’s game, and ultimately his career. In the NFL a single moment of game winning creativity can be overshadowed by the Quarterback rating; a complex formula where the number of attempted passes, completed passed, total yards gained, amount of touchdowns, and intercepted passes are multiplied and added together, divided by 6 and then multiplied by 100. Now please do not take this as me insulting American sport, I love NFL and have admiration for the attention of detail put into their statistics; but using only quantitative data to analyse a performance does not always give you an accurate portrayal.

Now on the flip side in our version of football, statistics are in relative infancy. We collect information on the distance a player runs in 90 minutes, how many shots he has on/off target, his goal per game ratio – these make for an interesting read and great ammunition when discussing which player is better, but what do we really learn from it?

I know that Lionel Messi has scored 228 goals in 311 games for Barcelona giving him an impressive ration of a goal every 1.36 games, I also know that Cristiano Ronaldo has scored 247 club goals in 449 club games giving him a fantastic record of a goal every 1.81 games. Impressive as these statistics may be and as wonderful as they are to know, how can they be used to help someone improve their game?

As a coach it is important to understand the game, it is vital to know the action areas, where goals are scored from, it is helpful to know the average breakdown of goals scored by position, and what percentage of goals are scored in open play or from set pieces.  Knowing this information can give you an edge, it helps in planning sessions and creating realistic situations.

For example, conducting my own research of Europe’s top leagues and the Champions League I know that 85% of goals are scored from inside the penalty area, and that over 70% of all goals are scored with a 1 touch finish. This information tells me that the majority of shooting practices should take place inside the penalty area and encourage high tempo, quick reactions, shooting early, and finishing in congested areas.

Trivial statistics have their place in football, they are interesting and create conversation; but as a coach it is important to look a little bit deeper and as with American sports, use the correct stats to give you the developmental and winning edge.

Football's Renaissance

In the wise words of a pessimist: You cannot prolong the inevitable. It happens to all of us, none of us look forward to it and some even try to deny, but age eventually creeps up on us all. Football is a relatively short career, in your mid to late 30s your speed starts to diminish, your muscle density starts to decrease, you feel the ache of the previous game/training session more than ever; at this point that nagging thought can creep into your head – is it time to call it a day?

With the improvements in training methods and advances in medicine and science, football is welcoming a new type of player – the resurgence man. Many players who are considered past their best and placed on football’s scrapheap are demonstrating that hitting 35 is not a career-ender. We can all think of at least one of these players, someone widely to be considered a has-been that did not accept that enough is enough.  

Ryan Giggs was labelled "finished" shortly after his 30^th birthday, with a transfer to Bolton Wanderers on the cards in the summer of 2004, few could have imagined what would happen next: over 300 games, over 40 goals, 4 Premier League winners medals, 3 League Cups, 3 Community Shields, 1 FA Cup, 1 Champions League, PFA Players’ Player of the Year, and a 1 year contract extension at the age of 38.

Giggs is not an anomaly – Clarence Seedorff continues to be instrumental at AC Milan, Raul has a new lease of live at Schalke, Frank Lampard is still scoring for Chelsea, Paul Scholes is showing that his decision to retire at 36 was very premature, Brad Friedel is as agile as ever, the list continues to grow year by year.

If players take advantage of the improvements in medicine and training techniques, if they allow themselves adequate rest for recovery, if they look after their diet then age loses the upper hand in the battle to end a career. Science and medicine can only do so much, two more ingredients are essential; determination and desire. Without the drive to want to carry on playing the battle is lost, but add these essentials to science and medicine and it will only be a matter of time before 40 really does become the new 30.

It appears you can prolong the inevitable!

The good, the bad, and the average

In football we love a superlative; great players are described as world-class, good goals are described as fantastic, and a routine save becomes unbelievable! It seems that when it comes to the game remaining objective is much easier said than done.

As a fan it is difficult keeping things in perspective, you naturally lean towards speaking favourably about the team you support and its players and this ultimately leads to overpraise. A fan favourite will often be overhyped when in reality he is little more than a good footballer; everything he does will be deemed incredible when in fact he has done little more than keep the ball. Now consider an opposing fan's opinion on the very same player; useless, overrated and profanities will often be used. When offering an opinion it seems that rationality is excluded.

There are different ways you can measure the quality of a player/situation: you can compare player against player, you can assess the impact a player has on games, you can consider a single situation and the effect it had on the outcome of the game. However in every case it is all relative, no single moment should be definitive. A save can only be as good as the shot, a tackle can only be as important as what happens next, and a goal can only be as good as the difficulty of its execution.

To be considered world class surely a player needs to be widely accepted as one of the best three in his position? It does not discredit a player to call him very good, but does calling a very good player world class not devalue the greats?

Goalkeepers are subjected to the overhyped praise and unfair criticism more than most. A relatively simple save is wonderful, but a conceeding a goal can be described as poor goalkeeping. Goalkeepers make saves because they have trained to do so, goalkeepers conceed goals because outfield players practice scoring - something has to give.

In our minds football is a game of intricate passes, world-beating dribbles and wonder goals; but in reality it is more keeping it simple, over hit passes and tap-ins.

Here's to another weekend of mediocre football with an abundance of average, a sprinkle of good, and hopefully a moment of class.

The Death of the tackle?

"Get stuck in son, let him know you're there" advice you hear from the grassroots pitch all the way through to the terraces of your favourite team. A bone crunching tackle excites the crowd and reaffirms the player's passion and dedication to give all for his team. But with referees seemingly clamping down on tough challenges and dismissals being issues for "intent", it appears the FA are trying to make tackling a much smaller part of the game - and in my opinion rightly so.

Tackling is a part of defending, and it should continue to be so, but that is all it is - a part. Tackling is a last resort, it is something that complements a good defender. Young players need to be able to tackle, but they need to have so much more to their defensive game than simply being able to get stuck in.

Young players need to understand how to defend without taking the ball, that slowing an opponent down and forcing them away from danger until frustration leads to a mistake still constitutes good defending. That applying pressure and making opponents panic in possession can lead to winning the ball. That reading the game and understanding the oppositions style of play, waiting to pounce at the opportune moment to make an inceterception is extremely effective. To summarise, they need to be more intelligent and less brute.

Paolo Maldini is the epitome of the intelligent defender; in his 24 year career at AC Milan he played over 900 games, yet only averaged a tackle once every two games. This was down two his superb positioning and superior understanding of the game. Maldini did not need to make tackles because he outplayed opponents, he frustrated them until they gave him the ball, he pressured them into going away from his goal. He is the type of defender young players should try to emmulate.

With the pace of the modern game, getting close enough to tackle is becoming more difficult; meaning greater understanding and the ability to read the game will become paramount for defenders of the future - and the way to encourage this to develop in players is high tempo, technique based work in small and tight areas.

Lets hope that we learn to appreciate the intricasies of defending instead of thinking it is simply a matter of tackling. 

Two-Footedness - the ultimate fairytale

Ghosts, fairies, monsters - many people claim to have seen them, people write books about them, maybe they exist. People enjoy the idea of the supernatural, they like to get lost in imagination; and why not, its a break from the tediousness of reality. In football we have our very own special creature that people claim to have seen, that are accepted as commonplace in the game: the two-footed player! Countless times I have heard people talk about world-class players such as Cristiano Ronaldo being two-footed, but in my opinion you have nearly as much chance of spotting a ghost, fairy, or monster as you do a two-footed player.

Now I am expecting lots of people to disagree with me here, but I think two-footed players are extremely rare. Before outright disagreeing, or disregarding this blog as utter nonsense, here is the logic behind this: many players CAN use both feet, and some with little difference between the two, but practically every player has a stronger foot - if he was to take a penalty he would use this foot, if he was to take a freekick he would use this foot, if he was to take a corner he would use this foot. Now for a player to be considered truly two-footed he would not have a preference, you would see penalties and freekicks taken with both feet, but ultimately most players will rely on their stronger foot.

The ability to use both feet does not make you two-footed, it makes you a better footballer, but being able to do EXACTLY the same things with both feet makes you two-footed. There are countless players who nearly fall into the bracket of two-footedness, for example the aforementioned Cristiano Ronaldo. Ronaldo has exceptional ability, and has a left foot better than a lot of left footed players - but without doubt he is a right footed player! Ronaldo has taken countless penalties and freekicks, and every single one has been with his right foot, surely if he was truly two-footed we would have seen him take one with his left foot if the angle dictated.

This would be my definition of a two-footed player: a player who is able to perform actions of equal measure with both feet, without preference.

Using this definition to identifiy a two-footed player I can think of only one - Wesley Sneijder - and for proof of this check out his YouTube videos where you'll see left and right footed free kicks and corners. Now if you still disagree, give me a better definition/logic of a two footed player.

Bad coaches or just bad customs?

A lot of criticism is placed on grassroots football coaches; and in my opinion a lot of this is fair, often a tough tackle is favoured over good technique and a win is more desirable than playing attractive football, but maybe its not as simple as bad coaching. I believe that the UK as a whole is miles behind when it comes to moving forward. 

Consider the following:

The UK's goverment is run by the wealthy and upper-class who have little in common with the average British person. Rules are made to benefit a political party rather than the every day Britton.

CEOs and top bosses float from company to company, with a great knowledge of business but not neccessarily the ideals for a particular field.

Teachers are using the same techniques as they used 20-30 years ago - many of which are outdated.

The FA is run by an older generation who have outdated views on tactics and development.

There seems to be a recurring theme... We don't identify the best person/people for the job

As a nation we are very rigid and things have to be done in a formal and "British" way, and here in lies the problem. Children are not encouraged to think outside the box, to challenge the norm, to get creative. It is common for older people to work with youngsters that they cannot associate with. The lifestyle of a child now is vastly different to that of a child 20 years ago, let alone 30 or 40 years.

In the UK we prefer an industrious performance to a mesmorising and sublime match winning piece of genius. But the two do not have to be exclusive. Imagine if all coaches taught Spanish technique but with British intensity/workrate, if creativity was preferred to victory, if development was first and foremost.

Children should be encouraged to dribble and hog the ball - the decision making of when to pass can be taught later. They should be encouraged to take players on and to use new skills/tricks. The enjoyment of being in possession should outweigh the fear of losing it. Mistakes help players learn, they should not be punished but used as inspiration.

Not all the blame falls on the shoulders of the coach. Parents and even players add to the pressure of points over performance. The lure of a medal and a trophy is sometimes hard to resist. 

I think a massive overhaul and some radical thinking is needed, people need to be outspoken and breathe new life not only into football but also the country. We cannot be afraid to upset the apple cart.

If anyone disagrees please form an orderly queue, after all we are British.

Redknapp - should he stay or should he go?


Few would argue against Harry Redknapp being the best candidate for the England hotseat. After all he is patriotic, declared his desire for the job, and has proved time and time again his abilty to get the best out of his players. But is the England job the best path for him to take?

Many times in the past has a coach been championed by the English press to take over as national manager. And after 1 bad performance or surprise loss the same man is vilified and hung out to dry - a fate that not even Sir Alf Ramsey, the man who brought the World Cup home, could avoid.

The fickleness of English press has a negative impact on whoever takes the lead role, and in order to fill column inches no place is off limits. Every stone will be unturned and every skeleton will be found in his metaphorical closet. Is this a necessary stress for a man of nearly 70 years with nothing to prove professionally?

At Tottenham Hotspur, Redknapp has taken the club to a new level and many believe he is on the verge of taking them to greatness - with some even daring to whisper the word "champions".


Redknapp has the potential to become an eternal hero in the white and blue side of North London, achieving the same undying love reserved for only the great Bill Nicholson. Can the England job offer such attractive prospects? As always, only time will tell!