Womens Football Forum

Women's Football => Girl's Centres of Excellence => Topic started by: Suoerbug on September 25, 2016, 08:43:37 PM

Title: RTC Standards
Post by: Suoerbug on September 25, 2016, 08:43:37 PM
What's everyone's opinions on the new tier systems and teams etc .
Heard varying reports/ rumours about not being massive differences between the tiers, suppose cup and friendlies will answer this.

Other than that one parent has moaned that going from under 15s to 14s has hindered her daughters development due to smaller ball and pitch.

Wonder if training 3 times a week is benefiting tier 1 players or not doing them any favours because of tiredness etc ?
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: croc on September 26, 2016, 03:43:39 PM
I guess if the FA thought U14s would progress better on big pitches and size 5 balls they'd have them playing on/with them.   

Heard one manager of a boys side moaning about all the U12 RTCs in their league  (Midland JP - think there are 5) - reckoned it was bringing down the standard of the football and they should have picked leagues of a suitable standard not aimed high.   
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: Boot cleaner on September 27, 2016, 01:18:54 PM
The standard in Tier 2/3 South at U16 level seems good although it looks like Chelsea, Essex, Millwall and Reading are going to be significantly stronger than Charlton, Gillingham and MK Dons.  My early impression is that is partly due to physicality and strength.  It may also be because some of these clubs have also been refining their squads for years.

I have heard of U10 and U12 sides being heavily beaten by the boys but when you have leagues of five or six divisions it may not be easy to pitch the girls in at the right level from the start.  These things can be adjusted fairly easily.

Our RTC trains two x 2 hours per week but with an additional evening training session this week for the county side I am half expecting a tiredness induced tantrum by the time we get to Friday.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: croc on September 27, 2016, 01:26:53 PM
I always wonder if the county sides should include RTC players.    I suppose it gives those non rtc players included in them a chance to see the level.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: Suoerbug on September 27, 2016, 09:51:54 PM
Most of the reports that I've heard is that the 16's leagues across the tiers are of a high standard with the exception it seems of Nottingham Forest. Also heard that Tier 1  South in the 14's section is a strong standard. Not seen or heard much about the 10s or 12s. Surely the FA would be better doing an under 18s league and getting rid of the under 10's purely so they can play local grass roots football until venturing into the under 12's or does that seem to sensible ?
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: croc on September 28, 2016, 12:45:06 AM
Did the director at Forest resign - thought I saw them advertising but on the internet you never know if it's current ?   

He was an odd character, real parade ground manner, I don't mind different styles of working but he was OTT.   Doesn't surprise me they are doing badly the trials were a joke imo - much worse than others I saw.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: Suoerbug on September 28, 2016, 11:17:49 PM
Not sure if he resigned from Forest but am pretty sure he has turned up at Sheffield which will be a delight for them.

Purely going on what some Lincoln parents said last year he doesn't sound like the best technical director ever especially not attending their end of season do and keep telling the players its pointless them trialing for tier 1 centres as they only take the best !
Apparently the ironic thing with this is that he hadn't seen many play due to his insistence of watching the under 17's all year !

I presume the quality/ personalities of the technical directors differ massively from club to club.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: coey on September 29, 2016, 10:57:16 AM
Most of the reports that I've heard is that the 16's leagues across the tiers are of a high standard with the exception it seems of Nottingham Forest. Also heard that Tier 1  South in the 14's section is a strong standard. Not seen or heard much about the 10s or 12s. Surely the FA would be better doing an under 18s league and getting rid of the under 10's purely so they can play local grass roots football until venturing into the under 12's or does that seem to sensible ?

Interesting comments about 14 south, was that after the recent national camp ?
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: Suoerbug on September 29, 2016, 11:52:26 AM
Hadn't realise there had been a national camp yet. Was going more in rumour.  Someone I spoke to had said there was either a lot of new players entering the system or there has been a few girls go from playing under 15s to under 14s thus looking quite strong.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: Welsh May on October 07, 2016, 03:28:36 PM
County teams are predominantly RTC players. Many are never seen in the county except for county games as they play for out of grassroots or local county teams?. I heard it was the second time Steve S had left Forest, but some fathers said he was really good, knows his stuff, depends on whether you like his style I guess?. Same as with nay manager/coach, some suit some players and others don't bring out their best. Made a difference with the Forest 1st team last season, so can't be all that bad?.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: croc on October 15, 2016, 06:01:11 PM
They lost 16-0 to Villa today - think there are teams in the local league could probably do better than that.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: Suoerbug on October 15, 2016, 09:38:06 PM
That can't be good for morale getting spanked week after week. They either picked badly in trials or the girls aren't interested.

Reports of England scouts checking out lots of southern /midlands games in last few weeks, although you often wonder what they see sometimes. I think it becomes to easy to watch the same old players,some blantantly don't improve but a bit like Rooney with the men it becomes almost unmentionable as your opinion is then considered crazy.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: ProudDad01 on October 17, 2016, 11:38:45 PM
Seen a few games in North Region now. At U14s, Man Utd very strong. At U16s, not seen anyone better than Liverpool. Man City years behind in both those age groups - they will need a very good recruitment process to catch up, albeit incredible facilities.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: pool47 on October 18, 2016, 07:31:59 PM
Believe the City trials and organisation was calamitous. Understand a coach left a different r t c & returned too weeks later. I'm sure their facilities will encourage players to go there and they will catch up. Money talk's!
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: interested on October 19, 2016, 01:04:56 PM
The standard in Tier 2/3 South at U16 level seems good although it looks like Chelsea, Essex, Millwall and Reading are going to be significantly stronger than Charlton, Gillingham and MK Dons.  My early impression is that is partly due to physicality and strength.  It may also be because some of these clubs have also been refining their squads for years.

I have heard of U10 and U12 sides being heavily beaten by the boys but when you have leagues of five or six divisions it may not be easy to pitch the girls in at the right level from the start.  These things can be adjusted fairly easily.

Our RTC trains two x 2 hours per week but with an additional evening training session this week for the county side I am half expecting a tiredness induced tantrum by the time we get to Friday.

Which County trains it's kids every week?
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: Boot cleaner on October 19, 2016, 09:21:30 PM
Not every week, just that week.  Usually once a month.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: ProudDad01 on October 31, 2016, 09:25:33 PM
Any feedback from 2nd U14s National Camp that took place this weekend ??
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: coey on November 02, 2016, 10:05:13 AM
Any feedback from 2nd U14s National Camp that took place this weekend ??

4 clubs provided half the players.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: ProudDad01 on November 02, 2016, 06:12:55 PM
Any feedback from 2nd U14s National Camp that took place this weekend ??

4 clubs provided half the players.

Heard similar. I know there were 3 from Liverpool, only picked up snippets from chatting with Parents at training last night. Standard apparently good though.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: Suoerbug on November 02, 2016, 10:03:30 PM
Don't think to many of the players will change, once they are in the system its extremely hard for other girls to in the mix, despite some girls developing into decent players and some not progressing as you might think.

Have heard there was 3 from Arsenal there, not sure about other teams but I would expect a couple from Southampton after hearing good reports about their team.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: pool47 on November 02, 2016, 10:44:58 PM
So what has changed? Has something been fixed that wasn't necessarily broken?
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: ProudDad01 on November 03, 2016, 10:06:00 AM
Don't think to many of the players will change, once they are in the system its extremely hard for other girls to in the mix, despite some girls developing into decent players and some not progressing as you might think.

Have heard there was 3 from Arsenal there, not sure about other teams but I would expect a couple from Southampton after hearing good reports about their team.

Heard slightly different. 5 from Arsenal, 4 from Chelsea and apparently of original 30 at first Camp, there were 14 or 15 changes at 2nd Camp
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: Suoerbug on November 03, 2016, 10:51:01 PM
Your info is probably more accurate that mine then, 9 is a decent amount between Arsenal and Chelsea.

What about other tier 1s representations such as Leicester, Brighton and as previously mentioned Southampton who are apparently good. Have heard conflicting reports about the Leicester under 14s seems to be a mixture of some good players and some not so good and heard similar things about Oxford.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: coey on November 21, 2016, 11:45:45 AM
Your info is probably more accurate that mine then, 9 is a decent amount between Arsenal and Chelsea.

What about other tier 1s representations such as Leicester, Brighton and as previously mentioned Southampton who are apparently good. Have heard conflicting reports about the Leicester under 14s seems to be a mixture of some good players and some not so good and heard similar things about Oxford.

1-2-1 for clubs u have mentioned.


Talent id is for regionals was a farce , so much so that the 2nd regional camp 10 players originally not ready were invited back.
When one club has a coach (on fast track with FA) making selections at the expense of other clubs players it brings into the credibility of said club and its talent id, one of the ten had alreay been selected for national camp as a regular.
Then again the talent id to get in the system is flawed, the club that has the most players ran a 30 min keep ball session as a trial last season, one year later one of their rejects is a regular at nationals , that player  also got the  knock back from the late Middlesex coe, and cfc not wanting to see the player in the first place.
Still the club with most players was pleased with their FA talent id certificate.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: Suoerbug on November 24, 2016, 09:37:19 AM
Your info is probably more accurate that mine then, 9 is a decent amount between Arsenal and Chelsea.

What about other tier 1s representations such as Leicester, Brighton and as previously mentioned Southampton who are apparently good. Have heard conflicting reports about the Leicester under 14s seems to be a mixture of some good players and some not so good and heard similar things about Oxford.

1-2-1 for clubs u have mentioned.


Talent id is for regionals was a farce , so much so that the 2nd regional camp 10 players originally not ready were invited back.
When one club has a coach (on fast track with FA) making selections at the expense of other clubs players it brings into the credibility of said club and its talent id, one of the ten had alreay been selected for national camp as a regular.
Then again the talent id to get in the system is flawed, the club that has the most players ran a 30 min keep ball session as a trial last season, one year later one of their rejects is a regular at nationals , that player  also got the  knock back from the late Middlesex coe, and cfc not wanting to see the player in the first place.
Still the club with most players was pleased with their FA talent id certificate.





I presume this is the under 14's section (lower year England under 15's)  you are referring to ?

Seems a bit like a dubious selection policy to me. If there is club coaches involved with England then they should be unbiased with their selections. When you say 1 2  1 is that how many players are from Leicester, Brighton and Southampton ?

From more recent conversations I have heard that Leicester have a stand out 2 or 3 players as do Southampton so will be interesting to see if they get recognition at any future camps.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: coey on November 25, 2016, 03:36:52 PM
Your info is probably more accurate that mine then, 9 is a decent amount between Arsenal and Chelsea.

What about other tier 1s representations such as Leicester, Brighton and as previously mentioned Southampton who are apparently good. Have heard conflicting reports about the Leicester under 14s seems to be a mixture of some good players and some not so good and heard similar things about Oxford.

1-2-1 for clubs u have mentioned.


Talent id is for regionals was a farce , so much so that the 2nd regional camp 10 players originally not ready were invited back.
When one club has a coach (on fast track with FA) making selections at the expense of other clubs players it brings into the credibility of said club and its talent id, one of the ten had alreay been selected for national camp as a regular.
Then again the talent id to get in the system is flawed, the club that has the most players ran a 30 min keep ball session as a trial last season, one year later one of their rejects is a regular at nationals , that player  also got the  knock back from the late Middlesex coe, and cfc not wanting to see the player in the first place.
Still the club with most players was pleased with their FA talent id certificate.





I presume this is the under 14's section (lower year England under 15's)  you are referring to ?

Seems a bit like a dubious selection policy to me. If there is club coaches involved with England then they should be unbiased with their selections. When you say 1 2  1 is that how many players are from Leicester, Brighton and Southampton ?

From more recent conversations I have heard that Leicester have a stand out 2 or 3 players as do Southampton so will be interesting to see if they get recognition at any future camps.

U14 as u have mentioned .
the issues were the regional camps where by clubs coaches look after their own interests first , hence the retrials
don't forget in the u14 some players are in the u15 setup due to school year for coe and not calander year
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: ProudDad01 on January 31, 2017, 10:57:41 AM
Was at a U14s Tier 1 vs Tier 2 fixture on Sat - referee deliberately ended game 7 minutes early - lets just say it was one-sided. Definite gulf in standard.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: mikeyfaz on January 31, 2017, 09:21:10 PM
whats the views on standard of leagues. I believe at u10 city are not in a league, United are, Everton are, not sure how its all panned out.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: Welsh May on February 02, 2017, 09:26:48 PM
This is interesting discussion. Having watched RTC players from across the country, the standard between some is very similar and in our team there are minimal weaknesses so why aren't all the girls being recommended to be viewed. Some go to camps etc others don't. It is clear from our club and other I hear about, that coaches have favourites and position and push their chosen players. One at our club always gets full games. At two others, where there are national selectors/coaches it is their 4 GKs only going to England camps, at another she gets accredited others goals. What has been great to hear is that new players have got to camps this year and not ones scoring goals as strikers are backed by good squads it doesn't happen in isolation. But if the selectors are in clubs is that true?, it creates bias and if selectors rely on coaches they will promote their favourites. It's what happens. So for me FA should keep the two separate ..........  all RTC1 players should go to a RTC1 camp to be viewed and same for the other RTCs .... it makes the RTC structure have purpose, then pull the ones with extra, to NPCs.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: pool47 on February 03, 2017, 11:42:16 PM
So has anything actually changed within this process? Is it any better? Reading some of these comments the cliques still remain. Is that a reasonable assessment?
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: coey on February 04, 2017, 09:20:38 AM
Was at a U14s Tier 1 vs Tier 2 fixture on Sat - referee deliberately ended game 7 minutes early - lets just say it was one-sided. Definite gulf in standard.

wasn't Charlton by any chance.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: coey on February 04, 2017, 09:23:16 AM
whats the views on standard of leagues. I believe at u10 city are not in a league, United are, Everton are, not sure how its all panned out.

the word on the street playing in the boys league has been a waste of time (boys to weak)  for the girls down on the coast way.
It is not challenging the players at all, waste of time comes to mind
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: ProudDad01 on February 04, 2017, 05:14:05 PM
Was at a U14s Tier 1 vs Tier 2 fixture on Sat - referee deliberately ended game 7 minutes early - lets just say it was one-sided. Definite gulf in standard.

wasn't Charlton by any chance.

No it wasnt. In the North...
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: croc on February 05, 2017, 01:07:21 PM
Yes but is that a pattern or just one game ?   If you look at how say Leicester are doing in the mjpl they are not as good as some of the supposedly inferior RTCs.    I'd be really surprised if there is a gulf in standard between the Tier 1s and the Tier2s as a whole  - why would there be because as he been said most players do not live within reasonable travelling distance of two RTCs. 
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: Welsh May on February 05, 2017, 04:20:29 PM
Absolutely Derby have delivered some great results for example as an RTC2, as have Aston Villa? and faired better against their FA opponents for example Leics (who are RTC1) only losing 2-0 which is better than other RTC1s who'd played that team?
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: croc on February 05, 2017, 06:39:19 PM
whats the views on standard of leagues. I believe at u10 city are not in a league, United are, Everton are, not sure how its all panned out.

the word on the street playing in the boys league has been a waste of time (boys to weak)  for the girls down on the coast way.
It is not challenging the players at all, waste of time comes to mind

Join a more competitive league would be my advice, if you look at the midlands and the RTCs in the MJPL they have been well beaten by nearly all the boys teams - I think it's the right idea but a few may have to rethink which league/division they play in.    At the older age groups I saw Derby u16 RTC play a boys u15 (reasonable but not top grassroots level) side and again the boys were reasonably comfortable winners so it shouldn't be hard to find competition in the boys leagues.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: growler75 on February 06, 2017, 04:59:51 PM
My daughter plays at Leicester under 14's and I haven't seen that much difference between tier 1 and 2's . they have played tier 2's in derby and Villa and there wasn't much in either game infact I think Villa won by the odd goal. They play each other in a couple of weeks so that will be a good pointer as I think Leicester have just started to improve quite rapidly.

Can't comment on tier 3's as not seen any but have heard that Forest are are reported to not be that great but other than them I think a lot of the tiers will be similar.

The best under 14;s side I have seen so far have been Southampton followed by Arsenal although Leicester have more than competed with both.

The biggest injustice I have seen so far in the stupidity of playing 11 a side football on 9 a side pitches, its an absolute joke !

Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: coey on February 07, 2017, 12:48:25 PM

The best under 14;s side I have seen so far have been Southampton followed by Arsenal although Leicester have more than competed with both.

The biggest injustice I have seen so far in the stupidity of playing 11 a side football on 9 a side pitches, its an absolute joke !

upcoming NPC for u14 has no soton players and six from the arse.
upcoming regional camp a number of soton players get only one day instead of two ( cos of numbers and maybe one selector has a bias towards own club ?)
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: coey on February 07, 2017, 12:51:55 PM
RAE (relative age effect) on NPC squad , 2 to 1 in favour of players born in first 6 months of calander year.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: growler75 on February 07, 2017, 10:14:28 PM
The relative age effect would be interesting across the board for the first 8 months of the year. I dare to estimate that as high as 75 -80% of players who regularly attend national performance camps are born between January and end of August.

I understand a lot of Arsenal girls attending camps etc as they are decent players but then so are a lot of girls from the other clubs. 

On a personal note I'm yet to be convinced that 3 nights a week has had any major bearing on the players. Perhaps my daughter is a little fitter but other than that the 3rd night is impacting my fuel consumption more than the team performances !
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: growler75 on February 07, 2017, 10:50:09 PM

upcoming NPC for u14 has no soton players and six from the arse.
upcoming regional camp a number of soton players get only one day instead of two ( cos of numbers and maybe one selector has a bias towards own club ?)
[/quote]





Does each centre have someone inside the National set up then ? Surely people would notice any bias. Like I said Arsenal have good players but from what I've seen Southampton have some equally as strong players and yet are not represented anywhere near as much. Leicester for me are also under represented from what I have seen.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: coey on February 09, 2017, 11:08:08 AM

upcoming NPC for u14 has no soton players and six from the arse.
upcoming regional camp a number of soton players get only one day instead of two ( cos of numbers and maybe one selector has a bias towards own club ?)





Does each centre have someone inside the National set up then ? Surely people would notice any bias. Like I said Arsenal have good players but from what I've seen Southampton have some equally as strong players and yet are not represented anywhere near as much. Leicester for me are also under represented from what I have seen.
[/quote]

The regional talent camps use coaches from RTC, for instance and u16 rtc coach will be involved in u14 at regional and will make selections , there is an FA coach overseeing the regional camp.
The regional camps are the feeders for national camp.
So  the talent id process is flawed at regional camp , less flawed if RTC coaches were used in another areas regional camp and not one where players from their club are involved.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: Suoerbug on February 21, 2017, 11:16:47 PM
Bit to much politeness going on around for my liking. From what I've heard a lot of clubs have massive favourite players which hinders others when it comes to regional and national camps. Some girls will never get a fair crack.

Whats the point of giving England camp regulars places on the Regional camps ? The camps are set up to give experience of camps to those who have never been to one so why invite the same old same old. They might get to see qualities in players they don't know much about if they invite different players rather than the same old favourites.  To many players get put forward by technical directors and coaches based on what they do at training as opposed to in matches.

Have heard the biggest culprits appear to be a couple of well know east midlands clubs  !!
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: sylvain on February 22, 2017, 09:12:10 AM
Bit to much politeness going on around for my liking. From what I've heard a lot of clubs have massive favourite players which hinders others when it comes to regional and national camps. Some girls will never get a fair crack.
I have heard it from players / parents before and I have no doubt that certain players are selected while other left out but I would not be surprised if the reason is just England wants players to fit certain criteria and those players don't fit in...

And just for those who wonder, it is not specific to England, the same accusation happens to be reccurent in the French set-up even from the u16  to the senior level...
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: ProudDad01 on February 22, 2017, 11:51:22 AM
Latest U14s NPC

Are Arsenal and Chelsea really that strong at U14s??

30 girls

6 from Arsenal
5 from Chelsea
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: growler75 on February 22, 2017, 02:18:48 PM
Not seen Chelsea at under 14's but Arsenal are decent. Having said that there is not mass differences between their players and any others from what I've seen. I do agree with Suoerbug however that there is a bit of favouritism going on within the clubs to push particular players forward, some with justice and others perhaps not.

The problem  to me is which I've heard someone mention before is there is a fashion to go with certain players because coaches/selectors etc state that one particular girl is quality, it then becomes politically incorrect to go against this opinion.

I do think there is occasional bias with clubs. One girl who was at Lincoln for years is now at Leicester is now in the international set up but wasn't particularly noticed till late last season when with Lincoln which is unbelievable as she had been standing out with Lincoln from under 11's onwards.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: Welsh May on February 23, 2017, 04:51:03 PM
Agree with others. Back to my point if they had all the players over the season at player camps then everyone could be assessed by national coaches. They are missing some excellent players, some have good and poor season but should be seen. Coaches we know are putting forward their favourites who may be good but no better than others. Best player I've seen all season was from Arsenal and outstanding and is in England though has temperament issues. If Leicester were able to beat Arsenal u16s then why only two Leics players in u16s squad yet 4/5 from Arsenal, that doesn't make sense?. Liverpool doing v well so where are their players?. If RTC2s doing exceptionally well, then the catchment is broader than is seen. Seems unfair, disillusioning for players especially those in RTCs a long time. Something needs to change as far as I can see. Eliminates bias to an extent at least and gives all players a fair viewing. Some players will grow in confidence being seen. If FA people read this change the system please?... too late for my daughter after 5 years of coe/rtcs, but opens it up for others....
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: croc on February 23, 2017, 08:17:51 PM
Football is subjective and it depends how you want to play - is Kane better than Welbeck - it depends how you want to play.     

There is a danger that the FA think they can pick a future womens England team from kids who have been identified in their mid teens as having England potential - it's not just that a lot of those girls wont push on but also that a lot of girls who aren't in that process and aren't even in RTCs will end up better players.    I was talking to a former CoE coach yesterday and she was on about if you want to play for England in the future you have to be in the system at this age - worrying if that is what people think.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: sylvain on February 24, 2017, 10:30:40 AM
Football is subjective and it depends how you want to play - is Kane better than Welbeck - it depends how you want to play.     

There is a danger that the FA think they can pick a future womens England team from kids who have been identified in their mid teens as having England potential - it's not just that a lot of those girls wont push on but also that a lot of girls who aren't in that process and aren't even in RTCs will end up better players.    I was talking to a former CoE coach yesterday and she was on about if you want to play for England in the future you have to be in the system at this age - worrying if that is what people think.

I think it is a very valid point, once you are in the system, you are on the motorway to the England team, obviously late bloomers will get a chance as well but less likely.
I have the example of the first international youth game I have ever wtached back in 2009 between France U16 and England U15

Angleterre : 13-Sophie Harris, 2-Grace Seely ©, 12-Megan Lawler, 14-Paige Williams, 15-Jennifer Wilkes, 6-Meaghan Sargeant (3-Aoife Mannion 47'), 19-Katie Ellis, 17-Brooke Nunn, 16-Charis Jones, 10-Freda Ayisi (9-Nakita Parris 70'), 11-Laura Mills (7-Inayah Robinson-Greenidge 52'), Entr.: Laura Harvey

Non utilisées : 1-Mary Earps, 4-Lillie Agg, 5-Jade Bailey, 8-Chloe Dale, 18-Julie Vass

France : 16-Stacy Riet, 7-Marion Leroy, 17-Marine Morel (8-Mélanie Daunas 41'), 5-Aline Liaigre, 2-Anaïs Arcambal ©, 12-Mégane Duval (10-Audrey Tabary 41'), 13-Julie Alix (4-Marine Le Diodic 65'), 18-Cynthia Viana (3-Milène Anstett 41'), 14-Cloé Faillant (9-Eva Sumo 41'), 15-Mégane Macret, 11-Viviane Asseyi (6-Marie Aurelle Awona 62'), Entr.: Gérard Sergent

Non utilisées : 1-Alison Rocchi

Many of the English players are still around with England seniors or youth, while one France player got a senior cap and another got capped at U19 level and that's it.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: RFA on February 24, 2017, 01:24:48 PM
Having watched several years of academy football I concluded some time ago that different centres have different mindsets - some centres will do their utmost to get their players into the England set up whilst others don't. If my memory is correct, my daughters team managed to win the 17s regional league without a single player in the England system that season. Other centres had several players, all very good but I think my daughters centre was almost looking for reasons not to send players. I could be guilty of being too cynical.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: coey on February 24, 2017, 02:10:45 PM
anyone know the score for u15 vs ze germans this week.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: Bananas on February 24, 2017, 06:43:52 PM
The match was cancelled because the Germans refused to play on the indoor 4G pitch, or outside in the bad weather.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: Suoerbug on March 02, 2017, 12:20:55 AM
I suppose the selectors can only pick who they rate but it would be nice if it didn't always come across as the old favourites especially with the regional upcoming excellence camps where neither the coaches or  majority ofplayers will Learn anything as they've all been there before.


Completely different point here but is any parents /players considering moving next season for logistical/ personal or footballing reasons ?  It would be interesting if any players are considering moving up or down tiers provided they are selected at trials of course !
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: Welsh May on March 04, 2017, 07:18:20 AM
For us, its her last year, hence her frustration at striving for excellence and never getting the chance to be viewed at a camp. Same players going again this next weekend. We're trying to make her feel ok but hard. Cos they're not giving, even the leaving players, the opportunity. Sadly she may have gone, if we'd moved to one of the lower tiers .... So personally I'd recommend dropping tiers to get the best chance of being recommended? (Given I've heard about local rtc3 players being sent who aren't anywhere near the quality of the players in her rtc1 team. And one rtc2 has played for England!!!). Lots of players being missed through current process. Again I would suggest having camps for all layers and all players so they are least feel they've had a chance and fulfils the purpose of striving for excellence in the RTC system ..... we and a number of other parents/players dispirited by this and has put my daughter off. This week she has said she isn't enjoying it, its pointless, would like a break and return again next season. Disillusioned by the coaches, club and approach ...... we did enter this process with great excitement and do not feel this way as we depart it ...... I do hope things will change in the future. Happy to hear from folks about really positive clubs and teams as we move forward as I hear mixed reviews about WPL and WSL reserves so all advice welcome... anywhere West and East Mids ......... many thanks
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: croc on March 06, 2017, 01:22:35 PM
It's easy to get caught up in it all I know but football is a great hobby and your daughter can obviously play at a decent level.  Not making a performance camp is a disappointment but it wont affect her ability as a player and if England think they can pick from a small pool they've identified at 15 or 16 then that goes against all the research available.   

Don't be negative about the future, the teams she has available are the destination of countless CoE graduates over the years.   Maybe she ends up playing County league as a hobby with a bunch of mates and a great social life or maybe she ends up in the WPL or WSL - unless she's one of the best of the best financially it'll make no odds and in terms of enjoying the sport there are other factors than the level you play at.    I was talking to a female coach the other day who is no longer playing, she can't be more than mid 20s and was a WPL player- I just find that sad if you are enjoying the sport you play as long as you can, if I could find an over 45s league near me I'd be playing now.  The level you play at is secondary.   
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: coey on March 06, 2017, 04:07:29 PM
At the 2015 world cup there was indignation from the English after the Japanese coach said English football was 'simple soccer'.
Not sure what the RTC that produces a lot of national players is doing technically in training , but recently witnessed two players ms lumpit and ms legit playing simple soccer. The parents post game debrief from coach was that they should get the ball forward early and into the space, hence the great performance from lumpit and legit. Recently Kelly smith espoused the technical virtues of continental football, hope she gets TD job at the club sooner rather than later.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: Boot cleaner on March 06, 2017, 10:04:43 PM
It is definitely true that the girls develop at different rates.  I was watching a girl on Saturday who used to be at Arsenal and unfortunately for her I think her early years physical strength has not been enough to sustain her progress.  Still at an RTC and still pretty effective on the pitch but no longer a stand out player.

Hopefully, most will go in the opposite direction and keep on improving each season.  However to do that they need to be playing regularly and enjoying themselves.

As for "lump it upfield" football I haven't seen much of that at the U16 South games but I did hear it from a parent of a girl who went to an England camp that it was alive and kicking at national level.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: Suoerbug on March 07, 2017, 11:48:12 PM
Welsh May its sad that it appears your daughter is to be leaving the system / process on a low. She certainly shouldn't get down about the fact that players in lower tiers have made some of the camps, afterall some of these girls may only have a chance to play at tier 2 or 3 logistically. Just cause they are there it doesn't make them any less of a player than a tier 1 player.  The clubs may have ideas of grandeur being tier 1's but surely all parents watching can't be sucked in by it all.

Your daughter sounds like a victim of some blind coaches or coaches with particular favouritism( certainly speaking to one of the parents at Leicester they are convinced this goes on ).  Don't let her get down and keep encouraging her to play , I'm a big believer that eventually the vast majority of players will play at the level that they are meant to.  Development is massively varying so some players that your daughter may be considered behind now may fall away in the future.  Anyone in the process would like some international recognition for their children but this can't happen number or quality wise but I do feel for the good players who tend to get overlooked.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: croc on March 08, 2017, 11:52:58 AM
At the 2015 world cup there was indignation from the English after the Japanese coach said English football was 'simple soccer'.


Hard to argue with the Japanese coach - the England team may be doing ok but they are hard to watch.  Very disciplined, fit, physical and hard to break down but they do lack creativity and fluidity.   They always seem to want to take a touch before playing a pass and the default tactic is to turn the opposition and play from there.   The WSL games I've watched have often been similar though I'm not a regular watcher partly because I don't find them great football so I may be doing them a disservice. 

How do the resources going into the womens game in the uk compare to Germany, France, Japan, Canada etc?   
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: Welsh May on March 09, 2017, 11:35:51 AM
Thanks for the supporting comments. Playing the county rep games has brought in interesting perspective on a whole range of clubs and all sound to have a similar take on it. Yeah seen good girls across the CoEs/various RTCs across the years. But they're not all in the Arsenal team! Coaches need to look beyond ..... lots of gems across the country who aren't able to shine if the mix they're playing with, isn't right but need to get the chance to .........

Would we have done it differently? Yes we'd would have in hindsight, great thing. Are now focussed on USA scholarship and playing in a team with positive vibes, enjoying the game, good fun, play as a team even if there are 'specials', etc, so the experience is positive not earnest and focussed on striving to be an England player but the best player she can be and having fun ...... just gotta get through the next few weeks.   
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: sylvain on March 09, 2017, 02:40:02 PM
At the 2015 world cup there was indignation from the English after the Japanese coach said English football was 'simple soccer'.


Hard to argue with the Japanese coach - the England team may be doing ok but they are hard to watch.  Very disciplined, fit, physical and hard to break down but they do lack creativity and fluidity.   They always seem to want to take a touch before playing a pass and the default tactic is to turn the opposition and play from there.   The WSL games I've watched have often been similar though I'm not a regular watcher partly because I don't find them great football so I may be doing them a disservice. 

How do the resources going into the womens game in the uk compare to Germany, France, Japan, Canada etc?

See the latest UEFA document here :  http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/OfficialDocument/uefaorg/Women'sfootball/02/43/13/56/2431356_DOWNLOAD.pdf
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: coey on March 27, 2017, 08:48:53 AM
Summary of The player debrief for last NPC
No mention of technical and tactical requirements for playing international football , just a strong emphasis on physical side.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: croc on March 27, 2017, 01:23:31 PM
Thanks, any more details, what kind of physicality are they talking about, specifically do they look much at agility or is it mainly about developing strength and power, interested in what kind of  approach they take ?   

Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: coey on March 29, 2017, 12:54:37 PM
worth a listen
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04ybrc5

forward to 27 mins to hear rubbish from finnis on physical attributes
forward to 31 36 for more enlightened us coach .
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: croc on April 02, 2017, 11:35:32 PM
When I listen to anyone connected to the FA talk about youth development it just reminds me of David Brent.   Proven failures in the mens game in the womens game we'll probably be able to do OK and steamroller the amateur countries but fall short against countries which can  match us in terms of fielding well funded professional players.   
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: coey on April 03, 2017, 09:57:09 AM
Thanks, any more details, what kind of physicality are they talking about, specifically do they look much at agility or is it mainly about developing strength and power, interested in what kind of  approach they take ?   

For me the FA are preparing to win the 1991 world cup and look to use the winning formula from that time , strength and power route one  but bereft of skill.
There a is tier 1 in midlands that fits that bill quite nicely.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: sylvain on April 04, 2017, 10:04:46 AM
Funnily enough, from what I see at U17 and U19 and have seen through the years the England teams are definitely getting better on S&C as it is needed at international level but the players are in general more skillfulls that say 5-10 years ago. The general  technical level has improved in the COE/RTC
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: coey on April 04, 2017, 06:40:17 PM
The general  technical level has improved in the COE/RTC

but when faced with an oppo that can play a bit revert to simple soccer,
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: sylvain on April 05, 2017, 09:39:32 AM
Do you mean at club or international level  ?
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: coey on April 05, 2017, 10:04:37 AM
Do you mean at club or international level  ?

club
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: croc on April 06, 2017, 05:44:38 PM
Half time, a goal up, RTC coach tells players this isn't the time to play fancy football get it up the pitch.   And that is how the players played - I'm not saying it's not effective but in terms of development is that what we want in a high level youth game?   
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: coey on April 07, 2017, 02:28:13 PM
The funniest/saddest training session I witnessed this season was as follows:

Small side game (on an old coaches site we  used to jokingly call this the Charles hughes games as spoof tribute not thinking that 10 years on an rtc session would use it) , half pitch. all restarts from goalkeeper , who lumps into the  air, players arranged for the knock down and coached where to stand when the ball comes down to earth. LOL

Simple soccer at its finest.

Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: sylvain on April 10, 2017, 09:48:52 AM
The funniest/saddest training session I witnessed this season was as follows:

Small side game (on an old coaches site we  used to jokingly call this the Charles hughes games as spoof tribute not thinking that 10 years on an rtc session would use it) , half pitch. all restarts from goalkeeper , who lumps into the  air, players arranged for the knock down and coached where to stand when the ball comes down to earth. LOL

Simple soccer at its finest.
Seriously, I really hope it is a U10 level not a U16 RTC session  :o
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: KRaw on May 19, 2017, 12:31:56 PM
Hi,

I'm new to this Forum and was hoping to get some advice regarding the RTC System!

My daughter is going to be attending open trials in June for various clubs.  I'm just unsure what the best option is going to be, I've heard so many mixed reviews about it.  She was approached by an ACC coach a few months back and I believe she has huge potential, but never had the chance to see her against other girls, as they're few and far between in our area.

She'll be trialling for Under 9's, she currently plays for a mixed Grassroots team, but I don't feel it's challenging/developing her enough.  On the other hand I've heard that playing against boys in their league can be a bit disheartening as the results seem very one sided. 

When I do ask her though she always says she would like to play with the girls and receive better/more advanced coaching etc. 

Also, can anyone tell us what to expect at the trials?  Is it various drills or mini matches?

Thanks in advance!  :) :)



Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: croc on May 19, 2017, 11:16:07 PM
The more I see of RTC players them more I think it's producing very limited players - suppose it depends on the RTC though.   At u9 I wouldn't even consider it unless she really wants to.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: coey on May 21, 2017, 11:15:41 AM
Go along to the U9 trials and just use them as an evaluation of where your daughter stands.
Then decide if that's the best option, as it depends on what else u have available, ie play mixed grassroots , train with acc/development program.
My view would be to stay in grassroots mixed as long as possible (even though the boys grassroots coaching will probably be average at best).
At that age one of my relos played mixed div 9 and was the bottom team , plays wpl now and off to states with scholarship.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: pool47 on May 21, 2017, 11:32:13 PM
Use the trial as extra training and to judge were she stands in relation to other girls of her age. At that age she can attend fa skills sessions when they come around and coaches involved in that are often involved with rtcs and if they recognise the talent they will point you towards the rtcs.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: KRaw on May 22, 2017, 09:34:56 AM
Thank you for all your advice, really appreciate it. 

We will take her along to the trials and get a feel for what we think is best, looking at it though it seems a lot of people think we should wait until she's a bit older, just don't want her to miss out on good opportunities!!

 
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: buttonmooner on May 22, 2017, 11:10:14 AM
I believe at U9 she will only train  at the RTC and she will still be able to play in her grassroots team,  it is not until U10 that she will need to choose between playing for an  RTC or  staying with her current team.

As for choosing which way to go,  now the girls are playing in boys leagues from u10-u12  and from what I have seen this season from my  daughters u12 RTC , was at first they really struggled , but the improvement in the girls play,  from the start to the end of the season was massive.

The one down side  would by playing time,  as the RTC have squads of 15 so when playing 7 aside at U10'S  in a league, players are only really getting 20min max each week which is really not enough.




Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: KRaw on May 22, 2017, 11:40:38 AM
I thought they brought the age down for next season, so under 9's will have to sign to an RTC exclusively, I may be wrong but I'm sure that's what I've read on the registration forms.

It's good to hear that although playing against strong boys teams is initially a huge challenge, at least by the end of the season it has done the job intended which is developing and strengthening the girls game.

That's another worry, an hour or so in the car for 20 minutes game time, is it worth it?  I like to think that the quality of coaching etc. makes up for this? 
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: croc on May 22, 2017, 04:21:38 PM
2 year age bands I think so it's probably a case of an u9 playing up at u10.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: coey on May 26, 2017, 04:58:46 PM
At easter time a touring u14 team from US on the equivalent to RTC came to play.
They played technical carpet football, not one punt from the keeper just controlled possession based football.
 So much for FA head of womens football wanting to play like US eg physical .
Once again English football is behind in its ideas and prolly its coaching.
Title: Re: RTC Standards
Post by: ProudDad01 on May 28, 2017, 02:00:30 PM
Liverpool u14s played 2 touring U14s US sides at Easter.

The US sides barely mustered a shot on goal in either game, and were passed off the pitch. 9-0 & 14-0 were the respective scorelines, I think...