Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BGG&YPOS

Coaching Badges

Recommended Posts

Just curious what with all that is being said, what posters on here has any Coaching Badges and at what level, studying/playing the game for x number of years do not count. As for me, I have none, that is why I trust our board on their choice.

OTBC 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doing coaching qualifications in another sport and know enough to know the average punter is clueless and that I kow nothing compared to someone who is fully qualified. The way people on here post as if they know more than a manager who is a fully qualified professional coach shows a great lack of self awareness. Posting your views is one thing but to come across as if you know more than the maanger just comes across as not being very bright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="T"]Doing coaching qualifications in another sport and know enough to know the average punter is clueless and that I kow nothing compared to someone who is fully qualified. The way people on here post as if they know more than a manager who is a fully qualified professional coach shows a great lack of self awareness. Posting your views is one thing but to come across as if you know more than the maanger just comes across as not being very bright.[/quote]

Nail-----> Head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="T"]Doing coaching qualifications in another sport and know enough to know the average punter is clueless and that I kow nothing compared to someone who is fully qualified. The way people on here post as if they know more than a manager who is a fully qualified professional coach shows a great lack of self awareness. Posting your views is one thing but to come across as if you know more than the maanger just comes across as not being very bright.[/quote]

 

Pretty much by definition no one on this board knows as much about professional football management as the worst manager in the history of the game. But that doesn''t mean posters can''t tell when a manager - no matter how qualified - is in error. You don''t have to be a banker to understand malpractice in that profession or a professional journalist to recognise bad writing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Purple, and how can posters tell a manager is in error then? Hughton was the second most successful manager in the premier league last season given his fnancial resources yet still received a signifigant amount of criticism which seems to suggests that a qualified Hughton knows a  lot  more more about football than his unqualified critics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="T"]

Purple, and how can posters tell a manager is in error then? Hughton was the second most successful manager in the premier league last season given his fnancial resources yet still received a signifigant amount of criticism which seems to suggests that a qualified Hughton knows a  lot  more more about football than his unqualified critics.

[/quote]

 

I don''t want to get into an argument about Hughton, but you are confusing the general and the particular, and the ability to do a job with the ability to be a critic of people who do that job. I have never acted and would almost certainly be hopeless if I tried, but I can tell the difference between what I might see in an am-dram production in a village hall and what you get from the Royal Shakespeare Company. And you don''t have to be a professional musician to be able to tell the first violinist of the London Symphony Orchestra from a busker on the Underground.I know vastly more about the profession I followed than an outsider, buy that doesn''t mean the outsider couldn''t sometimes spot the mistakes made by myself and fellow highly-qualified professionals.The logic of your argument is that no poster could ever criticise Bryan Gunn''s managemnent because Gunn knows far more about professional football than anyone here, and that is plainly nonsense. Gunn was a hopeless manager and you didn''t need to have professional qualifications to spot that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Purple while I take your point to some extent it is harder to know actually what a manager is doing. McNally has much greater insight and is better placed to make comparisons. I can and have made an objective assessment of Hughton''s performance based on facts. However, I am not a professional qualified football coach and therefore would never claim to know more about players selection or tactics than the manager does as some do on here. I think it is valid for someone to say that they enjoyed the football more under Lambert than Hughton as you can say you enjoy a play more but to say one is a more effective manger than the other is not bourne out by the facts. There are a few hundred highly qualified coaches in the UK compared to the many thousands on the continent and we are still waiting for one on this message board to announce themselves. Maybe if there were more coaches in the UK there would be something more meaningful than we need to play 442 even though no one else does. I also know in my work that outsiders may well be aware that there is a problem but that does not mean they understand what the problem is or what needs to be done to fix it. The internet gives people the opporunity to pontificate on things they know nothing about. To suggest that these people know more than the fully qualified people that they criticize is ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="T"]

Purple while I take your point to some extent it is harder to know actually what a manager is doing. McNally has much greater insight and is better placed to make comparisons. I can and have made an objective assessment of Hughton''s performance based on facts. However, I am not a professional qualified football coach and therefore would never claim to know more about players selection or tactics than the manager does as some do on here. I think it is valid for someone to say that they enjoyed the football more under Lambert than Hughton as you can say you enjoy a play more but to say one is a more effective manger than the other is not bourne out by the facts. There are a few hundred highly qualified coaches in the UK compared to the many thousands on the continent and we are still waiting for one on this message board to announce themselves. Maybe if there were more coaches in the UK there would be something more meaningful than we need to play 442 even though no one else does. I also know in my work that outsiders may well be aware that there is a problem but that does not mean they understand what the problem is or what needs to be done to fix it. The internet gives people the opporunity to pontificate on things they know nothing about. To suggest that these people know more than the fully qualified people that they criticize is ridiculous.

[/quote]

 

Good,. And of course you are not confusing me with posters highly critical of Hughton. A trawl back might - only might - produce the odd mild eyebrow-raising but if we are picking up sides then I am and have always been pro-Hughton. But that is not because Hughton knows more about football than I do. Of course he does. What I try to do (and it sounds as if you do the same) is to factor in what I know I don''t know and take that into account in making a judgment. But that certainly doesn''t exclude me or anyone making a judgment when the factors are all known.For example, the team we started with yesterday was unbalanced, but almost certainly because of injuries and some players - Snodgrass for example - not being fully fit. But suppose after the Bury game Snodgrass, Olsson and Elmander all are deemed match fit to start and there are no new injuries. If Hughton then started with the Hull team that would be a fair subject for criticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

given the state of english football at all levels, due to the coaches, is having an English coaching badge actually mean anything?

Parma hams gone mouldys story about new coaches being passed the charles hughes manual sums up our bereft state.

As is patently obvious I have no credentials at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also have a national level coaching qual in another sport (as well as football). I have used the world class start programme and been exposed to methodology in other countries. I am afraid that some on the problems in the UK stem from our lack of intellectual rigour applied to football. A fairly major factor - beyond that discussed in other threads - is that due to social structures in the UK ( that are less delineated in other countries) including social class, private education, lead to many intelligent people following other sports. Football has had a somewhat clicquey, closed shop, working class approach in England, whereby generations of coaches and players have simply passed on (fairly limited) received wisdom, which has propagated and become the canon of accepted truth. In other countries those who might play cricket, rowing, rugby all play football and such individuals have made the game in Spain, Holland and Italy (for example) far more technical, intelligent and intellectual. In England we still hanker after those making it from the streets, "football intelligence", battling to victory, "being up for it" and garbage like "players make systems" or "we''re going to just concentrate on our own game" I am afraid that most if the time this is simply to cover for the fact that some are not very bright, talking to others who are not very bright and all hiding behind a lack of coaching education, proper diligent analysis and no (real) acceptance that others ("foreigners") actually have a huge amount to reach us and have put systems and coach education structures, playing philosophies and a melting pot of shared development that we have still not accepted that we need to learn from and embrace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Completely agree Spartacus. Personally I have my Level 1 coaching badge and have a good relationship with my boys team and try to keep the coaching relevant to their age and make it fun. We have a coach in my club who is going through his UEFA B badge and has no personality, the kids get bored and some kids refuse to play for him.

Guess that''s a lot like the pro game then.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading this interesting discussion I totally disagree with T and am more inclined to support the views of Purple. I have played and watched local football and first saw the Canaries in 1948 !!! I do not have a clue as to how you coach a player or how you make him understand your tactics. But football is a very simple game and an individual Premiership player should be capable of being a good team player and having reached that level should perform with a bit of fine tuning and encouragement from the likes of Lambert/Culverhouse. When Lambert was in charge I invariably agreed with his team selection and tactics and he was successfull because he allowed young up and coming players to express themselves and give their all for 90 minutes.

Having now had the benefit of watching extended TV highlights of yesterday''s game I can only say the manager and his coaches decisions were very poor. As has been regularly stated, Howson is no right sided player and Fer is not suited to playing just behind the striker. It is blindingly obvious that The Wolf cannot play as a sole front man and will need someone up front with him. Most sides play with two big powerful centre backs and without continual support he will make little progress. I would have thought this was abundantly clear from reports from the pre-season games.

When a very, very average Hull side went down to 10 men, for the rest of that half Hughton made no adjustments. So time and time again we saw screen shots of our rigid eight man,two lines of defence, dealing with three Hull players. Clearly we needed more attacking intent in the second period but Snodgrass was not the answer. He is a good reliable player but he does not have the pace to get behind fullbacks which was needed in the circumstances. I cannot recall Whittaker, a good attacking fullback, barely supporting the attack. Why !!! Young Redmond is a promising player, but again if he is in a good crossing position with a top quality striker in the box, try and find him rather than come inside and lose the ball. Otherwise he will be another Wright-Phillips, Lennon etc.

I readily accept that a 10 man defence is not easy to penetrate. I believe not so long ago the great Barcelona had no idea. But with 30 minutes to go there was no real reason not to  push the likes of Russell Martin up front to ruffle the defenders and show more attacking intent. As the Sky commentator said we lacked any inventiveness and were far too predictable when it came to the last quarter of the pitch. Finally another non-coaching matter, we did not show sufficient desire to win the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hold an FA level 2 badge (you dont atually get a badge) and full member of the FA coaches club. work with 3 different sides, 1 youth, 1 adult mens and 1 ladies.looking to do the FA level 1 and 2 goalkeeping modules and in the next 5-10 years both UEFA B and A if possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But everybody knows that Chris Hughton obtained his Coaching Badges via an alternative UEFA programme, specifically aimed at awarding a licence to managers who deliberately set out to lose games and that anybody who has played FIFA, PES or Football Manager know infinitely more about the game of football than he does.

My remedy is for Chris Hughton to drink six pints of lager before each game, I base this suggestion on the number of "experts" I see around me at each home game........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="vos"]

Reading this interesting discussion I totally disagree with T and am more inclined to support the views of Purple. I have played and watched local football and first saw the Canaries in 1948 !!! I do not have a clue as to how you coach a player or how you make him understand your tactics. But football is a very simple game and an individual Premiership player should be capable of being a good team player and having reached that level should perform with a bit of fine tuning and encouragement from the likes of Lambert/Culverhouse. When Lambert was in charge I invariably agreed with his team selection and tactics and he was successfull because he allowed young up and coming players to express themselves and give their all for 90 minutes.

Having now had the benefit of watching extended TV highlights of yesterday''s game I can only say the manager and his coaches decisions were very poor. As has been regularly stated, Howson is no right sided player and Fer is not suited to playing just behind the striker. It is blindingly obvious that The Wolf cannot play as a sole front man and will need someone up front with him. Most sides play with two big powerful centre backs and without continual support he will make little progress. I would have thought this was abundantly clear from reports from the pre-season games.

When a very, very average Hull side went down to 10 men, for the rest of that half Hughton made no adjustments. So time and time again we saw screen shots of our rigid eight man,two lines of defence, dealing with three Hull players. Clearly we needed more attacking intent in the second period but Snodgrass was not the answer. He is a good reliable player but he does not have the pace to get behind fullbacks which was needed in the circumstances. I cannot recall Whittaker, a good attacking fullback, barely supporting the attack. Why !!! Young Redmond is a promising player, but again if he is in a good crossing position with a top quality striker in the box, try and find him rather than come inside and lose the ball. Otherwise he will be another Wright-Phillips, Lennon etc.

I readily accept that a 10 man defence is not easy to penetrate. I believe not so long ago the great Barcelona had no idea. But with 30 minutes to go there was no real reason not to  push the likes of Russell Martin up front to ruffle the defenders and show more attacking intent. As the Sky commentator said we lacked any inventiveness and were far too predictable when it came to the last quarter of the pitch. Finally another non-coaching matter, we did not show sufficient desire to win the game.

[/quote]

 

vos, T is actually two-thirds right, and one-third wrong. But the one-third bit is crucial. There are some widely-publicised jobs that the public thinks it knows. The law is one, journalism, the medical profession, the military, espionage, catering etc. Jobs that are in the public eye, with TV dramas and documentaries and supposed "real life". And football manager is another. Having worked in one of those jobs I know that what the public sees and understands is very superficial. It is like an iceberg, with the bulk of what goes on hidden.So when T says there are often unknown factors that fans don''t know about and so don''t take into account when assessing a manager''s performance and decision-making he is correct.He is also right that by definition any manager of a professional club knows more about what that job is really like than the vast majority of posters on a message-board.Put those two together and he will often have a point about various criticisms that fans make. But what that doesn''t add up to is justifying his iron law that if you haven''t been a footballer manager then you are in no position to comment - "a forum is for people to express their view but when they vehemently express their view as if they know better than CH when clearly they don''t..."Of course Hughton knows better in general tems about football than probably every poster here, but the idea that Hughton is incapable of error - and that no-one is allowed to point out these errors he can''t have made - is blatant nonsense. On that basis Bryan Gunn could never be criticised despite his obvious incompetence.It is like arguing that only prime ministers can have a sensible opinion on the job that David Cameron is doing, or that Margaret Thatcher did. Or that unless you''ve been a megalomaniac fascist dictator you are in no position to judge Adolf Hitler''s time in power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Cameron, Thatcher and Hitler in the same point. Impressive[Y]

 

 

[/quote]

 

Dear me, nutty. That almost looks like political bias on my part. And that would never do. Blair, Callaghan and Pol Pot work just as well as examples...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you trying to say there is a professional coaching qualification on being a facist dictator?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A better example might be having children or running your own business. Anybody may have a strong view on those two things, but if they don''t have their own children and have experienced the fundamental change in the human condition that brings, or the all -consuming, multiplicit threads of running a business 24 hours a day, then there a certain elements they cannot conceive of or accurately evaluate. This in no way means that they cannot have a view, but that view must be judged in its context. There is a tendency for vehemence or passion of someone''s view to be conflated with its merit. Social media magnifies this tendency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my last comment I said "When a very very average Hull side went down to 10 men, for the rest of that half Hughton made no adjustments. So time and time again we saw screen shots of our rigid eight man, two lines of defence, dealing with three Hull players"

In today''s Pink Un Hughton says "I''m very disappointed not to get anything out of the game and I think on reflection that was down to our first half performance. We let the tempo of our game drop and we didn''t threaten their goal enough for the amount of the ball we had"

Precisely - and why the hell did he not do something about it at the time. An old pensioner supporter saw the problem in 2 minutes but the manager and his abundance of coaches did not appear to see fit to do anything about it until it was far too late. Mind boggling !!!!

I rest my case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what is very clear from this thread is that the answer not surprisingly given the number of qualified coaches in the UK compared to the continent is that there are very few NCFC fans who have much of the way of formal techical knowledge of football. I can only say that having started to train to be a professional coach in another "simple" sport that before I started training I suspected that I did not really understand the sport and now I know I don''t really undestand the sport and have a lot more to learn. This is the standard human learning curve where you start off being unconciously incompetent and then progress to be conciously incomptent before hopefully becoming conciously competent. The majority of fans are naturally unconciously incompetent when it comes to their knowledge of football.  

On another point technical knowledge alone does not make you a good coach as the personal skills are also absolutely critical and there are a few that get there through with natural ability but generally a formal techincal training gives the vast majority of people a far better knowledge of the sport.

An example we may all know English to some extent but that does not mean we could teach someone else the language. We can subjectively assess a  film or football that we like but that does not mean we are qualified to direct a film or are more able to coach a football team than a qualified coach as many on here seem to think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="T"]

I think what is very clear from this thread is that the answer not surprisingly given the number of qualified coaches in the UK compared to the continent is that there are very few NCFC fans who have much of the way of formal techical knowledge of football. I can only say that having started to train to be a professional coach in another "simple" sport that before I started training I suspected that I did not really understand the sport and now I know I don''t really undestand the sport and have a lot more to learn. This is the standard human learning curve where you start off being unconciously incompetent and then progress to be conciously incomptent before hopefully becoming conciously competent. The majority of fans are naturally unconciously incompetent when it comes to their knowledge of football.  

On another point technical knowledge alone does not make you a good coach as the personal skills are also absolutely critical and there are a few that get there through with natural ability but generally a formal techincal training gives the vast majority of people a far better knowledge of the sport.

An example we may all know English to some extent but that does not mean we could teach someone else the language. We can subjectively assess a  film or football that we like but that does not mean we are qualified to direct a film or are more able to coach a football team than a qualified coach as many on here seem to think. 

[/quote]

 

I have given up trying to work out whether you keep misstating the argument because you really don''t understand it or because it suits your purpose to misrepresent it. I will try one last time. There may be the odd idiot (or the odd ex-professional football coach) on this board who thinks they could do a better job in general terms than Chris Hughton. But most know that is not true. But what they also know, which you keep denying, is that a rank amateur can sometimes spot mistakes made by a generally competent professional. You don''t have to be able to do a job to recognise error.The only sport I played seriously was cricket. At a very low level (albeit competitive league stuff), But although I couldn''t possibly captain or coach a test side I could look at some of the team selections and decisions by Australia and England this summer, judge them to be mistaken, and have those judgments validated by events and even admissions of guilt. It wasn''t just test coaches who knew beyond a shadow of doubt that it was a mistake for Lehmann to signal from the balcony to Clarke that his failure to call for an LBW review against Pietersen had cost Australia a key wicket. An absolutely crass mistake.Your film example is not terribly useful, because it confuses the issue between objective judgments and subjective taste in art. But you don''t need to be a director to decide objectively that if the film is shot out of focus (and not by design), the dialogue is incomprehensible (again not deliberately) and the scenic backdrops keep falling over it is a bad piece of work. The same can be said by someone who has never held a brush of a portrait in oils that is meant to be purely an accurate (as opposed to impressionistic or surrealistic) representation of the sitter but looks nothing like them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the vehmence of the attacks then I do think there is a lot of people who think they know better. It maybe that you are correct and a lot of views are just badly written without a certain level of humilty and awareness that was intended.

 

 In your Lehmann example there was objective evidence that a mistake had been made. In most cases here its speculative hindsight  that is used to criticise eg. we would have won if we had used a formation that hardly anyone else uses or if we had played wingers who were actually not available or if we had played players who also did not perform when they come on and then there the numerous ironic nattacks which all offer different solutions. There is also an element of chance e.g Fer missed header and Turner penalty which is also ignored (see Ed Smih''s recent BBC article). Furthermore, it has a lot more to do with the quality of the players than anything the manger does yet this is also ignored. I completely agree that sometimes there is objective evidence to amateurs that a professional has made a mistake but this is invariably not the basis of most of the attacks on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="T"]

Given the vehmence of the attacks then I do think there is a lot of people who think they know better. It maybe that you are correct and a lot of views are just badly written without a certain level of humilty and awareness that was intended.

 

 In your Lehmann example there was objective evidence that a mistake had been made. In most cases here its speculative hindsight  that is used to criticise eg. we would have won if we had used a formation that hardly anyone else uses or if we had played wingers who were actually not available or if we had played players who also did not perform when they come on and then there the numerous ironic nattacks which all offer different solutions. There is also an element of chance e.g Fer missed header and Turner penalty which is also ignored (see Ed Smih''s recent BBC article). Furthermore, it has a lot more to do with the quality of the players than anything the manger does yet this is also ignored. I completely agree that sometimes there is objective evidence to amateurs that a professional has made a mistake but this is invariably not the basis of most of the attacks on here.

[/quote]

 

I am not sure but I think you misunderstand the point I am making about that Lehmann incident. The only objective evidence was that if Clarke had called for a review Pietersen would have been out. But these review decisions are hard to make. Various factors have to be juggled, including how many there are left. And the captain in the slips or wherever has to take advice from the bowler and the keeper who often have a better view. So Clarke''s decision, although it turned out to be wrong, was not an obvious mistake created by ignoring objective evidence. He didn''t have that. He had his and his colleagues'' subjective views.No, the blunder I am talking about was Lehmann''s in then signalling to the Australian players, and so to the Engish players and the crowd, that Clarke should have called for a review. In one gesture he publicly humiliated and undermined his captain and cheered up the opposition. It was a blatant and inexcusable mistake (as anyone who read the Oz cricketing press afterwards would know). Yet according to your theory (although you seem slightly to be moderating it) even if it was a mistake, amateur watchers such as myself can''t have recognised it as such (even though we immediately did) because we have never coached a test side.But there was still no physical and objective evidence for saying Lehmann was in error. Not everything is a science, with, provable facts. That Lehamnn got it wrong is still a matter of opinion, but sometimes the subjective opinion is so overwhelming - and correctly overwhelming - that it counts as the next best thing to an objective view. I doubt you could have found any Oz supporter who thought Lehmann''s signal was a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst not wanting to get in the way of a rousing debate here, I have a level two in Football, and a level two in Cricket. As someone did mention I have the Charles Hughes "Soccer Tactics and Skills" book complete with photos of the England squad wearing outrageously short shorts, including one G Lineker. I did pass my "badges" a few year back so cannot say whether the Hughes Tome is still used.

Now carry on .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may eventually forgive GPB for actually being on topic and would have been interested in his informed views.

Purple, I thank you for your elaboration as whilst aware of the incident I''m not available to follow cricket as closely as I would like. I can see from your legalistic perspective then a punter is able to make a judgement on a professional just as a jurer I have scarily delivered a couple of quilty verdicts whilst not been a lawyer. Howeever, from a more commercial view of the world that is not what I normally see on this message board as most of it is not a balanced assessment of all the facts but a subjective assessment not based on either technical knowlege or actual evidence i.e. uninformed knee jerk rants.  There are a few with more considered views such as the likes orf Ricardo, Bethnal Yellow and Lavanche who make the messageborad worthwhile reading.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a coach or manager one of the key elements is to analyse the process, rather than the result. This tends to be opposite of a fans (understandably) emotional response. Building a unit requires a longer term "direction of travel" approach. Identify patterns of play you are trying to achieve and encouraging players to repeat these patterns at given (often fixed) points in games or in commonly occurring situations. Frustratingly you can do all of these things correctly and some luck, poor decision, random event can intervene that changes the outcome. The ultimate ambition is to load the odds (often just) in your favour. If you construct a 55% / 45% equation then you will lose games (perhaps even done you should win), but over a long enough period (say a season) you will come out ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...