Please go now, Artell

[somersetcrewe]

Timmy. Its not that I'm against 'coaching' per se but the evidence can be twisted to suit opinions. In my day there was none and so how did we produce a world cup winning team? How did we produce a Frank Lord or thousands of others? It was because they had talent or natural ability.

And people talk about the academy being an out-dated concept.
Harping back to the 60s definitely is.
We won the World Cup in 66 with a large slice of luck, home advantage, some world class players of their time and the fact that other countries were no better at developing their players than we were. It wasn't just England who didn't run academies, it wasn't just England who (allegedly) did not focus as much on coaching. It was everyone else too. So that cancels that one out.

That World Cup winning team wouldn't have a sniff against the best of today. The only "high press" they were aware of would be those journalists in the expensive seats!!

How did we produce a Frank Lord? (and are you really sure there were "thousands" of others?). We probably didn't. We just got lucky that he played for us at the time. Could he do the same in today's game? The old romantics would like to think so but we will never know. Chances are if he were THAT good, he'd either be tightly marked and less effective OR sold on to a team in a higher league. How come he never was?

And AL, do you really think we are "stuck" with Artell? Do you not see the progress that others see? Do you not think it is fair to give him time to develop a team of his own? I tell you what, if he retains the core of the present side next season that he has put together (although I fear Jones and Ainley may not be part of it), I can see us in the top 10 and challenging. There's a lot of natural talent in that squad. I hope to god it isn't coached out of them!

[MikeSB]

And people talk about the academy being an out-dated concept.
Harping back to the 60s definitely is.
We won the World Cup in 66 with a large slice of luck, home advantage, some world class players of their time and the fact that other countries were no better at developing their players than we were. It wasn't just England who didn't run academies, it wasn't just England who (allegedly) did not focus as much on coaching. It was everyone else too. So that cancels that one out.

That World Cup winning team wouldn't have a sniff against the best of today. The only "high press" they were aware of would be those journalists in the expensive seats!!

How did we produce a Frank Lord? (and are you really sure there were "thousands" of others?). We probably didn't. We just got lucky that he played for us at the time. Could he do the same in today's game? The old romantics would like to think so but we will never know. Chances are if he were THAT good, he'd either be tightly marked and less effective OR sold on to a team in a higher league. How come he never was?

And AL, do you really think we are "stuck" with Artell? Do you not see the progress that others see? Do you not think it is fair to give him time to develop a team of his own? I tell you what, if he retains the core of the present side next season that he has put together (although I fear Jones and Ainley may not be part of it), I can see us in the top 10 and challenging. There's a lot of natural talent in that squad. I hope to god it isn't coached out of them!

Its all relative. The fact that Frank Lord didn't play much higher is testament to how good many many footballers were in that day and there was no point moving on that often as the wages were capped. Frank Blunstone the ex Alex Player who played for Chelsea and England got just ten pounds a week and worked in a newsagent before he went to training. He told me that personally when we played golf together.

People argue that football and other sports have moved on for the better? I say not because being fitter or faster does not in itself produce 'better' visual enjoyment. Packed defences suppress individual skills and probably true that Jimmy Greaves or Bobby Charlton would not have scored the goals they did. So people then say that is improvement? Nah, its the opposite imo. I used to love watching tennis with the likes of Illie Nastasi flicking his wrist to dip the ball over the net and the excitement of players moving around the court and now what we see is men and women staying on the base line bashing the ball over the net with 20 rallies etc...Boring boring boring and so is that an improvement? Its not supposed to be a sport of who can hit the ball the hardest, again imo.

Its probably why football was far more enjoyable to watch as a spectator sport back then and like tennis, its now boring because defensive tactics dictate so that sometime we see only one or two attempts at goal in 90 minutes. Is that progress? Over to you!

[Red and White Crusader]

Its all relative. The fact that Frank Lord didn't play much higher is testament to how good many many footballers were in that day and there was no point moving on that often as the wages were capped. Frank Blunstone the ex Alex Player who played for Chelsea and England got just ten pounds a week and worked in a newsagent before he went to training. He told me that personally when we played golf together.

People argue that football and other sports have moved on for the better? I say not because being fitter or faster does not in itself produce 'better' visual enjoyment. Packed defences suppress individual skills and probably true that Jimmy Greaves or Bobby Charlton would not have scored the goals they did. So people then say that is improvement? Nah, its the opposite imo. I used to love watching tennis with the likes of Illie Nastasi flicking his wrist to dip the ball over the net and the excitement of players moving around the court and now what we see is men and women staying on the base line bashing the ball over the net with 20 rallies etc...Boring boring boring and so is that an improvement? Its not supposed to be a sport of who can hit the ball the hardest, again imo.

Its probably why football was far more enjoyable to watch as a spectator sport back then and like tennis, its now boring because defensive tactics dictate so that sometime we see only one or two attempts at goal in 90 minutes. Is that progress? Over to you!

That's a good post.
Food for thought there.

[somersetcrewe]

Its probably why football was far more enjoyable to watch as a spectator sport back then ............

On that we can agree ......although I can only go back as far as the 70s!

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, I have never said football is more enjoyable nowadays - indeed , I say quite the reverse!!
The advent of the Premier League and the huge influx of foreign players saw to that!
And are Man City that great to watch? Where's the fun in watching a team retain possession for 80% of the game?
They slowly but surely stifle the opposition into submission.
Give me high tempo, end-to-end any day.

My point though was things change, it happens, it's unavoidable - not necessarily for the better, not necessarily progress but what used to work then doesn't always work now. And just because we won the World Cup in our back yard with no (or little) coaching and no academies, it doesn't mean we could do the same now. Not unless every other footballing nation does the same. Can't see that happening!

[out0lunch]

Sir Bobby needed no coaching then or now. Instinct, awareness and natural ability and confidence is all he needed. That cannot ever be 'coached' and people that believe in all this stuff will believe in Fools Gold as well or *******!

In actual fact I don't think modern players have the same level of skill as they did and so in that sense, football has gone backwards. I saw Greaves and White and Blanchflower personally and Charlton and Best...so I can compare players of today. if we are so good an the game has moved on...How come we fail so miserably at throw ins and corners. Does it not make sense to have two or three players up at the half way line that means they have to too and that gives the GK more room to get the ball? It does seem as though football managers are not the brightest people around...

Dario hated players shooting from distance and wanted the ball walking into the net and one academy lad scored a goal from midfield by doing just that and got *******ed by Dario for not passing the ball earlier. The lad and his Dad thought that was stupid and he left the academy soon after...His Dad told me that story..Coaching means do as we tell you son or you don't get picked for the next game..we know that happens..That can destroy natural ability and confidence and why so many passes go astray...

Didn't that 'academy lad' go on to play for another local club?

[Gobstopper]

I think the fact we won the world cup in 66 is neither here nor there, it was a different time and a different era, the players back then were not coached less or more than anyone else. We did have some naturally gifted players but other countries did also its just that ours performed better when it mattered. I doubt we will see that again, the setting up of the premier league settled that one, the premier league and sky have a vested interest in a premier league that is devoid of English players. personally I am not interested in the premiership or the dire football they come up with, I have always watched Crewe and always will. I have seen the good and the bad, but it was Dario who changed things and it was the academy he set up that started to develop the players we needed to compete and that took us to the championship and the huge list of footballers that came through our academy. Many of those probably had natural ability and Dario was not perfect but he introduced the coaching methods to produce players who could go on to bigger things. Dario presided over our most successful period ever and you could not say his brand of football was boring, he achieved that by coaching he didn't just throw players out there who he thought had natural ability. He knew how he wanted to play football and he developed the players to do that, you only go so far on natural ability alone.

[Furberstreet]

Everyone looks back and sees some part of his/her life with rose-tinted spectacles. My memories of 1970s football were that it was exciting but the tackling was horrific at times and players did not get the protection they do now to display their skills. I certainly agree that, for years, Crewe have been awful at throw ins, and I have never understood why we always brought everyone back to defend free kicks and corners. I fully agree with Gobstopper on Dario's influence. He achieved great things at Crewe and you played his way or you were out of the first XI.

[MikeSB]

Everyone looks back and sees some part of his/her life with rose-tinted spectacles. My memories of 1970s football were that it was exciting but the tackling was horrific at times and players did not get the protection they do now to display their skills. I certainly agree that, for years, Crewe have been awful at throw ins, and I have never understood why we always brought everyone back to defend free kicks and corners. I fully agree with Gobstopper on Dario's influence. He achieved great things at Crewe and you played his way or you were out of the first XI.

Yes, we all see things differently and that is good, that is how it should be. The tackling was just how it was and why academy kids just could not compete with that style of play and even have difficulty now and men vs boys is said on occasion. I wouldn't go to any PL game for free and most of them are big buggers aren't they. Oddly my next door neighbour is a ManC ST Holder for years and years and even he said that's it, there is no fun in watching it anymore. I've told him, get to Gresty Road as I have never understood how anyone can have ST in other areas even PL ones....If someone gave me a ManU ST for free, I wouldn't go as I said..

I actually asked Dario personally at a match why all the players go back for corners when that makes no sense? His reply may surprise you, he just shrugged his shoulders and said.."Everyone does it"....Its true that one time the emphasis was on attack with 5 forwards and scoring goals and then the Don Revie era with Leeds started the 'Don't let them score philosophy and just put one Striker up front and that has lasted what 40 odd years or more? I forget now? Don't be surprised if it changes back again!

Players don't need 'coaching' re basic skills, they have that in spades and why you can see that in ten year olds, what Dario did was simple. It was to recognise natural ability and then, the word is not coaching but 'developing' them by giving them competitive games ie the OPPORTUNITY to play league football. IF coaching is so good then why oh why is not throw ins practiced, developed or 'coached'? There are certain players and Vale had one who can throw the ball into the six yard box and so how do they do that? We struggle to throw it five yards and maybe the reason is physical capability where youngsters in the academy are not strong enough and so its never practiced...

I still say that coaching or developing 8 year olds is not sensible for a club our size. I think 15 year old's is about right just as they are coming into adulthood. I'm not sure what financial savings that would mean though? There must be hundreds of players at that age and older in amateur football who are as good if not better than many coming through our academy system because for the very simple reason is we are stuck with what we can get locally and most won't be good enough when they get to 17...that is a lot of money down the drain when its not necessary anyway....IMO of course.

Now here one that few would recognise today. Some old timers will here though!

In the old days they allowed shoulder charging when players could heave their shoulders at the body of another player INCLUDING the goalkeeper and goals were actually awarded if you could force the GK over the line by doing that and was in the rules...Could you see some of our lads and goalkeepers in that situation today? I thought it was good, Nat Lofthouse scored many a goal doing that and Ray Wood got his collar bone broke in a ManU FA cup final...Bert Troutman too I think?

Not exactly rose coloured spec, more than it really was a 'man' game and maybe, just maybe, why I have never taken to watching academy graduates until they start shaving!

[AstonAlex]

Well if you want to go back to the ‘good old days’ when physical assaults were part and parcel of football then, quite frankly, you’re welcome to it. Jimmy Case, for one, may have been a hard man, but he can’t walk without the aid of sticks now as his ‘style’ of play wrecked his own knees, never mind those he assaulted on the pitch. And if your idea of entertainment is going out to watch centre forwards bundle goalkeepers into the back of the net at will, or kick them in the head as happened to Bert Trautmann (he was German, that’s why he spelt his name that way) then that is your prerogative.

I would rather see those players with talent, be they Bobby Charlton, Martin Peters, Lionel Messi or one of our Academy lads, protected from such physical battery. Have things swung too far? Possibly. Do I want to see a return to what you describe as a man’s game? No I don’t, because it was closer to a thug’s game at times.

As you may know, I’m not local and have only lived in the area for 30 years so don’t remember these players of whom you speak. However, I do know that I support the Alex not just because they’ve been my local team for half my life, but also because they play the sort of attractive attacking football I enjoy - or at least they try to! If their style of football resembled that offered by Newport, Wycombe, Lincoln or the like week in, week out I would long since have stopped my season ticket.

Although what this whole debate has to do with the topic of this thread god knows. Somehow it’s always twisted back to the Academy and the so called Good Old Days. I assume Mike will be donning a frock coat, top hat and tickling stick next and giving us 5 hours at the Lyceum next!!

[MikeSB]

Well if you want to go back to the ‘good old days’ when physical assaults were part and parcel of football then, quite frankly, you’re welcome to it. Jimmy Case, for one, may have been a hard man, but he can’t walk without the aid of sticks now as his ‘style’ of play wrecked his own knees, never mind those he assaulted on the pitch. And if your idea of entertainment is going out to watch centre forwards bundle goalkeepers into the back of the net at will, or kick them in the head as happened to Bert Trautmann (he was German, that’s why he spelt his name that way) then that is your prerogative.

I would rather see those players with talent, be they Bobby Charlton, Martin Peters, Lionel Messi or one of our Academy lads, protected from such physical battery. Have things swung too far? Possibly. Do I want to see a return to what you describe as a man’s game? No I don’t, because it was closer to a thug’s game at times.

As you may know, I’m not local and have only lived in the area for 30 years so don’t remember these players of whom you speak. However, I do know that I support the Alex not just because they’ve been my local team for half my life, but also because they play the sort of attractive attacking football I enjoy - or at least they try to! If their style of football resembled that offered by Newport, Wycombe, Lincoln or the like week in, week out I would long since have stopped my season ticket.

Although what this whole debate has to do with the topic of this thread god knows. Somehow it’s always twisted back to the Academy and the so called Good Old Days. I assume Mike will be donning a frock coat, top hat and tickling stick next and giving us 5 hours at the Lyceum next!!

You are being so naive its unbelievable. If you haven't see those days then you are in NO position to judge are you.

There were some serious injuries but very very few and can't think of any Alex player from that era getting seriously injured. If you want to watch ballet dancing that's fine but it was a really great time to be watching the really great players of the time and many were ours too...

You are too timid and as I said, its a matter of opinion and the teams you mentioned or even ours now could not live with the players I watched. They also could not play on the pitches and most of the academy kids we see would not have made it back then.

It was not a thugs game at all, it was a MAN'S game for men and if you really want to see academy kids, then go and watch them at RH for free...23 quid for ballet is far too much for me and tens of thousands of others that used to watch those MEN's games. I have to say that when I do go to Gresty Road, all I hear is a load of moaning. Its not somewhere you will find me that many times and so keep paying to watch the girlies play...

The academy has to come into every discussion because we are an academy team mostly and that costs a cool one million pounds per season to be where? Check the league tables for the last few years..