Two interesting articles about youth teams/development from the Telegraph today: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ma...s12.xml&sSheet=/sport/2003/01/12/ixfooty.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ma...a12.xml&sSheet=/sport/2003/01/12/ixfooty.html
Somehow the second article is gonna work its way into a Paul Gardner column that raises the point that American soccer is too inundated with a British coaching philosophy of direct soccer that even the Brits are now saying is counter-productice to developing good players. Then he'll conclude that US Soccer needs a more Latin style... And then he'll admit he has a fetish for little brown boys. OK, perhaps he won't do that third part but the others will happen, guaranteed.
But Sandon you haven't stated that you would disagreewith PG? Hughe's philosophy sucks. Not going direct,as many Brazil teams will play long ball, but contantly as in the premier league play. .There is little deception.
I would take issue with Cartwright not calling Beckham a world class player. Obviously people's definitions of "world class" differ, but if Beckham isn't good enough to reach Cartwright's definition, then Cartwright's definition isn't useful in addressing his original point (how to develop young English players). After all, Beckham is certainly good enough to be used as a top target for how good you want your best players to be. If the fact that David Beckham is the best player their youth system could develop is supposed to be some sort of indictment of it, color me unconvinced.