♔ ♕ ♚ ♛ Australia U17/U20/U23 National Team Tournaments & Discussion Thread ♔ ♕ ♚ ♛

[JS96]

Honestly, making the final for this tournament feels so secondary right now. We just need to win this next one. I really crave an U20 WC.

 

[Quicky]

Welcome to the forum, Total Football.

In the Football Aus development system, since the changed curriculum and methodology, results of younger national teams are considered unimportant until adult level.

The main focus from FA Tech Dept is analysing the technique and game sense of Aussie players compared to the opposition. Football conditioning, communication, team tactics and organisation, can be improved at a later stage in players' development.

Many players aged 18-19 fail to kick on and peak early. Conversely, others develop later.

I'm not sure I agree with that approach, particularly with qualifiers and tournaments.

 

[verrelli]

Hopefully if we qualify we get New Caledonia in our group!

2025 FIFA U-20 World Cup - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Decentric]

Birighitti 0
Dylan Mcgowan 0
Brendan Hamill 0
Sam Gallagher 0
Jason Davidson 5
Ben Kantarovski 27
Kofi Danning 9
Rhyan grant 12
eli babalj 0
Kerem bulut 0
tommy oar 19
Mathew Leckie 26
Terry Antonis 0
Daniel Bowles 0
Ryan edwards 0
Matthew Fletcher 0
Matt Acton 0
Mustafa Amini 0
Nikola Stanojevic 0
Steven lustica 2
marc warren 0
Dimitri Petratos 0
Alex Pearson 0
Total: 100
Not quite comparing like with like mind you since it was u19s. There are some players in the young squad that are below the age threshold, so to compare like with like I'll look at their club appearances by 23/24 rather than by u19
Hall 4
Robinson 0
Hoefsloot 0
Inserra 2
Esposito 0
kikianis 5
Talladira 2
Herrington 0
Lisolajki 6
Okon 0
Bennie 26
Yull 29
Badolato 21
Pearman 0
Randazzo 0
Deli 0
Agosti 0
Bugarija 0
Jovanovic 35
Quintal 0
Toure 11
Bosjnak 0
Memeti 0
Total 141

Thanks for posting this, Grazor.

Looking back at the earlier squad, there are the usual precocious talented players playing well at this age who failed to kick on, or didn't live up to early high expectations. Kofi Danning, Ben Kantarovski, Kerem Bulut, and Terry Antonis, and arguably, Mustafa Amini, didn't fulfil early promise as senior players - or - only had a very short time peaking as adults.

Ditto the two number tens, mooted as Aus's two big things in Football Fed Aus National Conferences - Daniel Da Silva and Josh McDonald.

One can add Hagi Gligor too. HG looked like a slick technician in underage national team ranks, but didn't kick on in the AL. I asked a more senior coach in the FFA system, who had coached HG, whether he would become successful as senior? He wasn't sure?

 

[Decentric]

I'm not sure I agree with that approach, particularly with qualifiers and tournaments.

It was rammed home by the new FFA regime circa 2010 and subsequent years.

There was a lot made about the success of Aus underage success at tournaments by the Aus coaching hierarchy with Soccer Aus.

What Berger and Baan, et al, were emphatic about was nobody in European powerhouses cared what occurred with underage national teams. It only mattered at senior level.

They then went through all the players who had shone for some of the successful Aus underage teams who did not have successful senior careers. It was very convincing. You would have been convinced too.

The conclusion was that the players were very match ready for tournaments from playing in the old NSL national youth league and getting game time with NSL teams.

 

[Total Football]

Welcome to the forum, Total Football.

In the Football Aus development system, since the changed curriculum and methodology, results of younger national teams are considered unimportant until adult level.

The main focus from FA Tech Dept is analysing the technique and game sense of Aussie players compared to the opposition. Football conditioning, communication, team tactics and organisation, can be improved at a later stage in players' development.

Many players aged 18-19 fail to kick on and peak early. Conversely, others develop later.

Thanks, Decentric.

Results notwithstanding, I’d be interested to know what assessment tools the FA uses to measure improvement across successive generations.

It’s clear that our national junior teams have struggled over the past decade; we haven’t qualified for an u20 World Cup since 2013. Remarkably, that generation is now nearing the end of their careers.

That said, based on the eye test, this current group appears to be significantly ahead of those from 2013. I especially recall watching the James Holland and Jackson Irvine generations struggle to implement the (then) new curriculum, attempting to play out from the back but barely managing to string two or three passes together.

 

[Decentric]

Once again, only had limited access to the China game, through the 3 min highlights.

Both Aus goals were scored from gegenpressing or Full Pressing and intensive Squeezing forcing mistakes in the attacking half. They weren't the results of build ups from the back to the front of the pitch.

Later in the game I saw that Aus had 12 shots to China's 8. Any appraisals on possession and territory figures by both teams?

 

[grazorblade]

Welcome to the forum, Total Football.

In the Football Aus development system, since the changed curriculum and methodology, results of younger national teams are considered unimportant until adult level.

The main focus from FA Tech Dept is analysing the technique and game sense of Aussie players compared to the opposition. Football conditioning, communication, team tactics and organisation, can be improved at a later stage in players' development.

Many players aged 18-19 fail to kick on and peak early. Conversely, others develop later.

I wonder if there has been a change in fa's thinking about the importance of youth results. Anecdotally I've noticed those I'm in peripheral contact with in football australia's hiearachy seem to care more about results at youth level than a few years ago

in the netherlands you are a powerhouse, and u20s results probably matter as much as u20s results do for australian cricket (do we care?). They are surrounded with an elite competitive environment with champions league football on their door step, a top division that is one of the top in the world, constant good international football.

In Australia, football struggles for relevance and even today, international scouting is terrible (hence why the clubs who sign an aussie are ones that have had an aussie before). If we made a deep run at a youth world cup, that was rare newspaper inches and news time for football back in the day. It also amounts to roughly 1.5 extra players getting early game time in europe (usually europe's second tier) per tournament. There are 5 tournaments in a world cup cycle - 2 u17s, 2 u20s and the olympics, so that amounts to 7.5 extra youngsters in europe per world cup cycle of which on average 1-2 kick on to a higher level. If we make a deep run at the world cup that can also drive transfer fees up for a league clubs and drive up interest "our world cup stars are playing in the a league". Also, youth tournaments are probably the only truly competitive environment our youth will face. We don't have promotion and relegation or a domestic league where we are desperate to win. Our youth are often technically neat but lack that competitive edge to survive in europe or even the asian champions league

I doubt our youth will be technically ruined by trying to win two tournaments which amount to a dozen games over their career? So it seems the benefits of aiming for results on the international stage massively outweight the costs

 

[grazorblade]

Thanks, Decentric.

Results notwithstanding, I’d be interested to know what assessment tools the FA uses to measure improvement across successive generations.

It’s clear that our national junior teams have struggled over the past decade; we haven’t qualified for an u20 World Cup since 2013. Remarkably, that generation is now nearing the end of their careers.

That said, based on the eye test, this current group appears to be significantly ahead of those from 2013. I especially recall watching the James Holland and Jackson Irvine generations struggle to implement the (then) new curriculum, attempting to play out from the back but barely managing to string two or three passes together.

can't speak for the fa, but my barometer is number of players getting at least 25 games in a season in at least europes 2nd tier of clubs by the age of 24

 

[Decentric]

Thanks, Decentric.

Results notwithstanding, I’d be interested to know what assessment tools the FA uses to measure improvement across successive generations.

It’s clear that our national junior teams have struggled over the past decade; we haven’t qualified for an u20 World Cup since 2013. Remarkably, that generation is now nearing the end of their careers.

That said, based on the eye test, this current group appears to be significantly ahead of those from 2013. I especially recall watching the James Holland and Jackson Irvine generations struggle to implement the (then) new curriculum, attempting to play out from the back but barely managing to string two or three passes together.

It is really different now.

We've had 10 years of players getting coached in the NC from the age of about 10. Whereas there was no precise definition of what technique is, now it is broken down into;

first touch,

striking the ball,

running with the ball,

1v1 attacking and defensive skills,

handling speed ( the amount of time taken to receive and pass the ball on).

Game sense - of course some players will improve in this area as they age, but it will vary.

The generation of Irvine et al trying to play the modern possession game that most young Aussies play in the AL now, who are aged 23 and under, they might have had the tactical knowledge, but hadn't had day in day out, years of practice that the younger guys in the under 23 cohort have had.

Looking at the aforementioned checklist if we look at Aidan Hrustic, he does well in most technical areas apart from 1v1 defending. He is also quite weak in his game sense. Hrustic, despite his technical qualities often isn't on the same wave length as his Socceroo teammates.

Conversely, Irvine has really good game sense, but in two touch passing his handling speed is too slow in passing and moving sequences to move the ball as quickly as younger midfielders Valadon, Youlley, Segecic, Eames, Jake Hollman, Nieuwenhof, Zane Schreiber, Oscar Priestman, can. And of course, Daniel Arzani excels at moving the ball quickly.

Mark Natta and Trewin, plus Circati, have faster handing speed than older Aus CBs from a different era.

A successful player for Football Aus Tech Dept, is one who is an effective senior player. Some might take a lot longer to develop as seniors. Weirdly, Mark Milligan, Adrian Caceres, Sasha Ogegnovski, Ben Garuccio, Cam Burgess, developed late.

 

[Quicky]

It was rammed home by the new FFA regime circa 2010 and subsequent years.

There was a lot made about the success of Aus underage success at tournaments by the Aus coaching hierarchy with Soccer Aus.

What Berger and Baan, et al, were emphatic about was nobody in European powerhouses cared what occurred with underage national teams. It only mattered at senior level.

They then went through all the players who had shone for some of the successful Aus underage teams who did not have successful senior careers. It was very convincing. You would have been convinced too.

The conclusion was that the players were very match ready for tournaments from playing in the old NSL national youth league and getting game time with NSL teams.

Follow the leader? Just because a European Country doesn't pay youth football respect doesn't mean we should follow.

I see a lot of benefits in terms of being an important exposure to knock out tournaments and quality competition.

It's also a pathway to overseas leagues, we should be showcasing our players.

I'd question what relevance of highlighting youth selection, development, career success in the 90's/00's has to now? The environment has changed. It's a missed opportunity imo. I doubt I would have been convinced.

 

[Decentric]

I wonder if there has been a change in fa's thinking about the importance of youth results. Anecdotally I've noticed those I'm in peripheral contact with in football australia's hiearachy seem to care more about results at youth level than a few years ago

in the netherlands you are a powerhouse, and u20s results probably matter as much as u20s results do for australian cricket (do we care?). They are surrounded with an elite competitive environment with champions league football on their door step, a top division that is one of the top in the world, constant good international football.

In Australia, football struggles for relevance and even today, international scouting is terrible (hence why the clubs who sign an aussie are ones that have had an aussie before). If we made a deep run at a youth world cup, that was rare newspaper inches and news time for football back in the day. It also amounts to roughly 1.5 extra players getting early game time in europe (usually europe's second tier) per tournament. There are 5 tournaments in a world cup cycle - 2 u17s, 2 u20s and the olympics, so that amounts to 7.5 extra youngsters in europe per world cup cycle of which on average 1-2 kick on to a higher level. If we make a deep run at the world cup that can also drive transfer fees up for a league clubs and drive up interest "our world cup stars are playing in the a league". Also, youth tournaments are probably the only truly competitive environment our youth will face. We don't have promotion and relegation or a domestic league where we are desperate to win. Our youth are often technically neat but lack that competitive edge to survive in europe or even the asian champions league

I doubt our youth will be technically ruined by trying to win two tournaments which amount to a dozen games over their career? So it seems the benefits of aiming for results on the international stage massively outweight the costs

Given the players left at home in the AL, and young Euroroos in Europe, there are arguably some better players than some representing the U20s, I'm not sure how desperate Football Aus Tech Dept are to field the best team in the u20s?

Did Leonard opt not to go? Representing one's country is a big honour. It may never be offered again. Kane Vidmar is a quality young CB to replace him at Western.


I've been told that Archie Goodwin is too old.

Eames is a quality young player not to be selected.

I cannot believe Zane Schreiber has not been selected? He has really impressed me in the AL. Now Atkinson is back at Right Back, Schreiber is technically the best central midfielder that City has. Ugarkovic, is a better player, from experience, but Schreiber is the superior technician - already!

De Jesus?

There are some decent youngsters at Western U too - besides Leonard..

 

[Decentric]

Follow the leader? Just because a European Country doesn't pay youth football respect doesn't mean we should follow.

I see a lot of benefits in terms of being an important exposure to knock out tournaments and quality competition.

It's also a pathway to overseas leagues, we should be showcasing our players.

I'd question what relevance of highlighting youth selection, development, career success in the 90's/00's has to now? The environment has changed. It's a missed opportunity imo. I doubt I would have been convinced.

Berger and Baan said it was the case in most European countries.

That youth results aren't dwelled on.

They suggested Aus had the wrong priority. Of paramount importance, were not results at underage level, but imparting the skill set for players to succeed at senior level.

 

[Quicky]

Berger and Baan said it was the case in most European countries.

That youth results aren't dwelled on.

They suggested Aus had the wrong priority. Of paramount importance, were not results at underage level, but imparting the skill set for players to succeed at senior level.

It's one thing dwelling on the result, it's another thing to dismiss them as unimportant and not take them seriously. I don't see developing players to senior level and taking tournaments seriously as mutually exclusive. Why can't you do both? Was that addressed at all?

 

[Keeper66]

Developing the skills in players to succeed at senior level and achieving results at underage levels aren’t mutually exclusive.

Edit: Sorry Quicky, I see that you posted almost exactly the same comment at the same time as I did.

 

[grazorblade]

Berger and Baan said it was the case in most European countries.

That youth results aren't dwelled on.

They suggested Aus had the wrong priority. Of paramount importance, were not results at underage level, but imparting the skill set for players to succeed at senior level.

I'm aware of the argument I just think they are wrong to apply that to australia

you can have academies focusing on imparting skills and have youth tournaments be all about results without hurting players. The benefits for focusing on results for 12 games in a players life surely way outweigh the costs

Benefits
- better transfer money for clubs
- more likely to get scouted
- learn the competitive side and ruthless side of the game sooner
- more coverage of the domestic game

Costs
- 12 games in a youth's life where they are focusing on results rather than performance

 

[Keeper66]

I'm aware of the argument I just think they are wrong to apply that to australia

you can have academies focusing on imparting skills and have youth tournaments be all about results without hurting players. The benefits for focusing on results for 12 games in a players life surely way outweigh the costs

Benefits
- better transfer money for clubs
- more likely to get scouted
- learn the competitive side and ruthless side of the game sooner
- more coverage of the domestic game

Costs
- 12 games in a youth's life where they are focusing on results rather than performance

I would argue that in most cases you won’t achieve results unless you have the performance as well.

 

[grazorblade]

I would argue that in most cases you won’t achieve results unless you have the performance as well.

its a bit different at youth level where physical qualities can better disguise technical deficiencies more than they can at senior level
players can also athletically develop better when they are older but usually struggle to improve technically
having said that, we don't have the set up to athletically develop players with a good technical base who are remedially physically, which is another difference with europe

 

[Keeper66]

its a bit different at youth level where physical qualities can better disguise technical deficiencies more than they can at senior level
players can also athletically develop better when they are older but usually struggle to improve technically
having said that, we don't have the set up to athletically develop players with a good technical base who are remedially physically, which is another difference with europe

I think the physical v technical argument has value in younger age groups, but in older ages (18-20) I think it is less of an issue, particularly when you are talking about elite players who are in the top echelon in their country.

 

[grazorblade]

I think the physical v technical argument has value in younger age groups, but in older ages (18-20) I think it is less of an issue, particularly when you are talking about elite players who are in the top echelon in their country.

could be the case. By the time you get to u20 the world cup is dominated by your powerhouses

By contrast Nigeria dominates u17