Exiled in Texas

Depends on whether it gets anywhere or if it's just passing for passing sake. Barca vs Inter in CL Semi was very ineffective because it never progressed. It was lots of posession but only at 35yrds out and never penetrating. Sideways passing. However the more usual Barca incisive passing is very entertaining and to be admired. I just didn't see much of that during the Spain games this WC.

Pig Farmer (Litterally Pig Raiser)

The part that he is sitting on

Referees already struggle to get the fouls and handling calls right, which they do most of the time but it still leaves some missed or miss called. This would be putting too much emphasis on "ITOOTR - In The Opinion Of The Referee" Giving a referee the ability to award a goal when one wasn't scored - or requiring him to award one if the situation was right would turn into a huge mess. It's bad enough with all the players crowding the referees about decisions etc (yellow not red etc, last man etc). Imagine the scene at every hand ball in the area. This is a one-in-a-million occurance and you would be creating 999,999 problems to solve one.

Great comment from Jurgy Lowww in that Guardian article " "I've had a scenario in my mind for months: this is the kind of football I want to play at the World Cup. We've been aiming for that. I didn't just want to impose some tactics on the players. Rather, this is what I wanted to do, and I selected the players around that."

Julio Cesar's stupid baggy clown shorts that come down below his knees. Oh, and wearing a turtle neck and short sleeves.

Oh a penalty you say, yeah sorry you're right a pen is much worse then a certian goal.. As for a sending off, it only makes a difference earlier in the game, late in the game its 100% too a teams advantage to handle on the line if the ball would otherwise go in, they get a second chance with a keeper in the way to try to save the pen and the only punishement they get is that player missing the next match, meanwhile the opposition get no reward what so ever. What if this situation had been in the last 30 seconds of regular play. PK given, missed and now into Extra-Time. BUT now Uraguay are playing the additional 30 minutes with 10 men. Surely the fact that he denied a "Sure goal" is the same and he saved the match is the same, but now there are 30 mins more to play a man down. What if Suaraz was their main penalty taker? And red carding him and removing a 100% PK taker and making a "chris Waddle" take a PK surely changes the equation? I don;t see how you can define the parameters of granting a goal when it didn't cross the line.

If Ghana has scored it would have been a footnote to the world cup but nothing else. He committed a foul, was caught, was punished, opportunity was handed to Ghana. And they blew it. If Ghana score, then nothing would have been said.

Like Heinze?

Of course they are.....Dirk Kuyt is playing for the Dutch and they want a final look-see

That's peanuts to Barca based on what it produces, but imagine a club spending that for 10 years while the grow in the process starting with the current crop of U8s. Not hard to see why a club decides to buy a player for 15M rather than gamble on producing one.

I wonder what the Ajax academy costs to run on an annual basis - It can't be cheap, and if they are relying on selling a Wesley Sneijder every few years to break even that's quite a gamble. We can only dream about this long term view of player development - meanwhile, the U10s are playing the mackems today and we'd better beat them

Excellent article - it shows how a club funded academy can look long term (one big sale funds several years of production) and control the player development if they truely believe in the process and peak the players at older ages, compared to the US Pay-to-Play process where the parents and in control and demand short term results with each seasons results.

What South America has: millions of urban poor with no X-Box and but loads of footie which is also seen as an escape route from poverty (rightly or wrongly). But, that's just it......the game is the teacher, they spend all day/night playing small sided or 1-on-1 games with ball control and foot skills paramount over space, movement and tactics. I think back to all the time spent playing 2v2 in the alley with my mates shooting at the garage door as the goal. You try to curl the ball top corner, you try to nutmeg your mates, you try the cruyff, pele, helicopter, toe drag as much as you can without a coach yelling at you to chase back and win the ball that you just lost. No scores are kept in the informal games - only the bragging rights.

This is a problem in America as well. For one, our biggest youth league is just something to allow kids to have fun and learn sportsmanship. But, with kids serious about getting better, there's not a general training idea, there's no organization. The main thing that's stressed is team work and winning, most of our practices are spent working on tactics and dead ball situations. We might spend twenty minutes a day, if that at the older levels, working on foot skills, touch, trapping, etc. There's should be a set training philosophy that the country stresses, and it should mainly focus on working on foot skills and technical ability for kids under 13/14, with a little work on teamwork. And that point, once kids have developed enough you can start focusing on everything else. The problem here is that coaches (and youth teams) get rated on win/loss records and how they do in their leagues, not on how good their skills are. It's more effective to focus on tactics not skills. The clubs are a business (regardless of their profit status) and they need to be attracting the best players to their clubs, and the only way they do that is by winning games. If coaches don't put out winning teams, then players (and their $$$) go to the club that is winning games. Unfortunately there are no style points.

Hector Baldassi - Argentine referee and usually seems to get the Boca-River Classico's when I see them on TV. Great referee.

Aye, it looks like the Brazilians are taking the mickey: "we'll take the shittest team we can think of and still piss this" That was England's plan too, but without realising there was a sub-plot.

Thanks Obi, Small sided games are definitely the best way to start - more touches and less manic bunch ball. So what type of organisation would offer mini-soccer? Would that be the world famous Wallsend Boys club? What about if you lived in West end or coast etc?

The American sports might have a clue to how this could be managed. American Football has a fixed roster, so does NHL. Baseball has some sort of limit on players-home grown young players have more options to float up/down to first team than veterans. So perhaps some sort of fixed roster size would help distribute the players.....something like a 23 man roster (picked as WC roster size but could be anything) and only allow clubs to register that number of players for the competition. Allow them to have a second Reserves roster but limit the flow between the two rosters. Want to bring in a new player? - then one has to go. Either released as a free agent or has to pass through a "claim" system to get put onto reservers where other teams can claim them for their own team if they want to (and have roster room). Injured players?.....Short term, just make do from your roster. Long term, then allow players to be assigned to Injured Reserve status (temporary placement say max 6 weeks) where playing roster can be increased temporarily (with cap of number of temporary players. Why do I think this would be good? Take the example of Sturridge.....went to Chelsea with dreams of playing in Blue, but realistically went for the paycheck. But would he have gone there if he knew that he would not get one of the First Team roster spots and might be frozen out into the reserves permanently?? What if Chelsea decide that they just have to have some young startlet from the WC. Well, perhaps that puts Sturridge into the "Claim" system and some lower team can claim him (and his contract) for their roster. It seems to work well across the pond in keeping teams from stockpiling talent and making teams think twice before taking player A in case they must release player B, and makes players be realistic about where they can sign.

What's the path in Newcastle (or anywhere) for kids to develop? Say, you have a 5yr or 10 yr old who wants to play football in Newcastle .....what options do they have to play? I'm really interested to know how the UK develops kids as players and what options are there for them to play. So....In USA (Texas) you have Youth Recreation leagues (coached by a volunteer parent) starting ages 4 and up. It's up to the volunteer parent coach to teach them skills tactics (either from own experience or from going to coaching clinics) etc and perhaps for the parents to sign the kids up for a weekly (foot)skills program with a paid coach. At age 8/10 in addition to the youth rec leagues then have the option to join an academy with paid coaches (no commitment required - can be week to week), and then at age 11 players have to choose between playing in the rec (anyone can play/everyone plays) league or you go down the club path with paid coaches, yearly contracts, try outs and no playing guarantees. The club route is anything from $2K to $5k per year and is practice 4 nights a week plus 1-2 games per weekend. So what options are there in Newcastle (or other countries) for kids to play and develop?

England were crap......Germany looked good, and Schwiensteiger (sp?) is one of my fav players, so gonna cheer for the Jormans.

We were told that 15 years ago and really all that's come through since is a couple of average premiership players. Love the meaningless predictions. Same with the Pele one that an African team would win the WC by the end of the last century. True -easy to say. What I am saying is that soccer is growing in USA, and building deeper roots. Much deeper than in the 70 etc. While the USA will never be a Brazi or Argentina (pure samba skill) they will be a Germany (with Teutonic efficiency rather than skill)

I agree with this and disagree. You're right that basetballs is played more on the streets (just kids outplaying) because there are rims all over - city courts and sububan driveways, and you're also right that Football is king. Most American kids first organised sport is soccer, and then as soon as they are old enough to play football or baseball off they go. Often because the parents prefer that sport. BUT....the US soccer infrastructure is immense and I would estimate that there are more kids playing club soccer in Dallas than in Newcastle. The amount of teams, coaches, leagues that are set up in TX is huge. My suburban town on the edge of DFW has 38,000 residents and our local youth soccer association has approx 2,500 kids playing year round. Similar in the surrounding towns/suburbs too. And High School Soccer is very good in TX - with very few kids walking onto the team that do not play Club soccer (and that costs players $2K-5K per year depending on clubs chosen). The difference between soccer in america and basketball or even football, is that it's only ever really played as an organised sport. You don't see kids having a kickabout in the street or the park, only official team "practices" or team games. So the players learn formation and tactics but less so the personal skills developed by playing 1-on-1 with your mates. I see a very different style of play between the High School varsity teams that are Hispanic/Mexican vs the White/Suburban. Hispanic players are very "me"-centric, always wanting to take on a player, when a pass to a team mate is a better option. They see, culture and value the individual skill. The white/suburban player is all about teamwork and spreading the ball around, not as much close in skill. They value, team work and athletic ability. And the two team styles don't mix well. :-) But, the one thing that neither team does is the kick/run or Long Ball approach which is good to see. I predict that in 10-20 years, the USA will be a permanent fixture in the Quarter/Semi Finals as they will be churning out more quality players that end up in Europe playing for our top clubs.

It was. But surely the same anomaly (somebody being able to influence the game when they shouldn't be on the park) exists whether it's a second yellow or a straight red no? Google tells me; ''When a referee applies advantage and a goal is scored, the player cannot be sent off but can be cautioned'' I guess that means straight red card and what you say is just one of those risks that has to be taken, it is highly unlikely to happen. Need PM to clarify. This would be true for Red Card for DOGSO (Denies Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity) such as a deliberate handball or foul to prevent a goal because if the goal is actually scored, then the opportunity was not denied and then it's only a Yellow for the handball or foul. BUT, if there was violent conduct or some other reason etc for a straight Red, and the goal was scored then you would still dismiss the player for their action regardless of a goal being scored or not.