The Professionalisation of Coaching

The Football Association is trying to raise the bar by having qualified coaches register for the new FA Licensed Coaches Club and insisting that coaches, even grassroots coaches, embark on some form of CPD (Continual Professional Development). This CPD will be for a minimum of 3 hours each year (5 hours if you are a Level 2 Coach or above) – this in an effort to try to professionalise coaching, raise standards and achieve recognition for its members.

“IN DATE AND UP TO DATE”

Be “In Date and Up To Date” is the mantra.
The principle being that, if you wish to be recognised as a coach you should approach the role as professionally as possible. Update your knowledge, expand your horizons and try to take on new ideas.

After all, most professional bodies will expect its members to undertake some form of self-development through training whether it is through a higher level of knowledge or to refresh what you perhaps already knew or had been taught.

I have to say, in principle, I fundamentally agree with the idea and approach. Don’t stand still, don’t “sit” on a qualification – be progressive and develop yourself.

“VOLUNTEERS” ?

One of the issues, I feel, will be that the majority of grassroots coaches are volunteers.
Those volunteer coaches will be well meaning parents of players who have been recruited by the club to be a coach of a team, usually the team in which either their daughter or son plays.


Now it may well be that at least some of those volunteers will have been looking for an opportunity to get involved or, after having become involved, find they really enjoy the role.

They get bitten by the bug and now want to become the best they can be spending time and effort and money gaining more qualifications or attending County FA in-service workshops to improve their knowledge. For these coaches, I don’t think the requirement for a few hours CPD each year will be any kind of an issue.

BURDEN

However, for a great deal of others, this may become a burden; becoming onerous to find the time and money to attend courses, having to take time off work which can impact both family budget and valuable holiday time.

Now I know that there are a great number of clubs which support their coaches with development. Some pay for courses up front and others agree to either pay a portion up front with the balance paid once the coach has completed a number of hours or a season of volunteering.

But, for a lot of volunteers the question has to be asked; did they truly volunteer or were they “press ganged” as the club need someone to manage / run / coach a side? If they were a reluctant volunteer, will those people be as committed to self-development as other more intentional coaches?
If they aren’t as concerned with learning more, I think it is likely that those reluctant volunteers may just do the minimum required - such as get a Level 1 Coaching Certificate, perhaps because the club needs it for their Charter Standard status?

VALUE FOR MONEY

But if the club isn’t getting someone who is determined to be more ‘professional’, will the club actually get value for the money they may spend on the coaching course? If they then ‘send’ coaches on further courses, again perhaps because the club needs someone to do the course for its Charter Standard status, is it getting value and will the coach actually take on board all the learning offered?

What then happens to those coaches as time moves on? Either they get disillusioned or, perhaps, because they were recruited to coach because their child is at the club, if the child leaves, the coach gives up. Sometimes it may be a year or two – so did the club get value for money?

I know that some coaches follow their youngsters for a year or two and then feel that the child needs something extra that they can’t offer as the child moves up the age bands and, again, they drop out. That’s fine and understandable, but really, clubs need to do all they can to ‘re-cycle’ the coaches.

Moving theses re-cycled coaches back to the younger age groups, where they now have at least some experience, can benefit the new players and, potentially, remove the need to ‘persuade’ a new parent that they want to be a coach!

As a nation, we cannot really afford to lose volunteers who are often lost to the game through scenarios mentioned above as well as a host of other reasons.

So clubs spend lots of funds in getting people through courses only to see a good deal of those volunteers give up.

“INTENTIONAL” COACHES

Is it now time, even at the grassroots level, to truly professionalise coaching?

By that, I mean having a proper coaching hierarchy at grassroots clubs with a remunerated workforce, albeit it maybe only on a part-time basis.

Having a well-qualified and experienced Director of Coaching, with age specific coaches ‘reporting’ to the DoC, I feel, is definitely a way forward.
I would envisage the age group coaches being qualified and by that I mean being at least a Level 2 Coach with, preferably, a Youth Award Module 1 and 2 certificates as well.

QUALIFIED COACHES

Did you know that, officially, a Level 1 Certificate in Coaching Football only certifies someone as an Assistant Coach?

That being the case, whilst some people will undertake the course to expand their knowledge and try to better serve the players they coach and, perhaps, go on to take other courses and learn about the art of coaching (I think it is more of an art than a science), some will only do so because they ‘need’ to do it for the club to ensure they achieve criteria needed for the Charter Standard Status.

Nevertheless, is it correct that, at the MOST important ages that we are trying to teach children the game the LEAST experienced coaches are the ones trying to do that?

Now, I am not for one moment suggesting that the novice coaches are somehow at fault for this state of affairs, but is it right that it should continue that way?

Would it not be better for a club to formally recruit a coach with some years of experience and at least holding a Level 2 Coaching Certificate before they could be a Coach of an age group?
The Level 1 coach (whether or not a parent volunteer) can then work with the Level 2( or above) coach to build their knowledge, confidence and experience as well as accelerating their development rather than being left to their own devices as, I suspect, is the case in a lot of instances at the moment.

FORMAL STRUCTURE

Having a Director of Coaching with a UEFA B Licence, or above – responsible for part-time coaches and volunteers, defining a Vision and Philosophy and probably defining a development programme across the club would surely set a basis for the professionalisation of coaching in this country.

But now I’m talking about remunerating coaches for their time. Probably not a full time job, but paying a fee for hours committed. This allows the coach to pay for further development via attending courses and makes sure they aren’t out of pocket for travel and other costs (insurance etc.)

But where will the funding come from?

Well, there is lots of expense for some clubs keep sending volunteers on courses which they maybe don’t want to do and then they leave after a year or two.

How much do clubs spend on trophies for everyone at end of season presentation evenings? Wouldn’t we be better investing in true expertise to develop our young players?

Working to develop players who understand the game based upon expertise rather than well -intentioned but perhaps, sometimes misplaced ideas?

BACK IN THE USA

The framework of a DoC with assistant part time paid coaches works quite well in the USA where they value accrued knowledge, experience, formal qualifications and expertise. A similar model works in some European Countries where a similar structure works with a qualified Director of Youth overseeing the coaches and programme of development for the younger ages.

If facilities can be found to split practice times and/or days, it would be relatively straightforward to have a qualified coach in control of the development needs of several age groups. There may be some challenges around viewing all games but, possibly by delegating game day organisation to an assistant coach, we can still plan properly for the development of young players.



WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Can it work here in the UK? I understand that there is some movement towards this idea with a club not too far away from where I coach. An independent soccer school also provides coaches to the club from which their soccer students come and, I understand from the internet, that they are not the only ones to begin to work in this way.

After all, if you send your child to swimming lessons, gymnastics, golf or even piano – you expect that the coach or tutor should be paid for their time.

So why is it different for football?

ARE WE SEARCHING FOR A ‘HOLY GRAIL’ ?

ARE WE SEARCHING FOR A ‘HOLY GRAIL’ ? / IS THERE REALLY A “SILVER BULLET”?

There is lots of discussion and opinion voiced through the internet and traditional media currently, (in England especially, but now expanding to Scotland after the Hearts / Tottenham game) about Youth/Player Development.

WHAT CONSTITUTES “BEST”?

There is a general appreciation of Spanish football and particularly the way Barcelona play and whilst the English Premier League is generally regarded as the “most exciting league in the world”, there is a tacit acceptance that it is not the best league in the world. I guess that depends on your perspective…. What is ‘best’? Is it the league that scores the most goals (Bundesliga) or is it the “technically” (?) best league (Spain?) or is it the league that produces the most home grown players or is it the league that generates most international winning sides (Brazil, Italy, Germany, Argentina)?

SPAIN

Spain is, arguably, the ‘best’ team, internationally at the moment and if Heineken did football teams, Barcelona is probably the one they would ‘do’. However, there is a school of thought that suggests that Spain are really playing a derivative Dutch game based on the ‘Total Football’ of the 70’s and which owes a debt of gratitude to the vision of Rinus Michels and Johann Cruijff (who is now 64, would you believe – remember the first ‘Cruyff Turn’?).

NB As of 24 August 2011 new FIFA rankings officially place the Netherlands as number 1 in the World. - Ed




YOUTH DEVELOPMENT

There is a groundswell of opinion against the ‘Win At All Costs’ approach to grassroots football (at the potential Elite level, results have come second to development and performance for donkey’s years).
Coaches and managers are increasingly aware of their responsibilities to teach the GAME not just how to WIN

(“In England, you teach your kids how to win. In Portugal and Spain they teach their kids how to play” - Jose Mourinho)

That being the case, everyone is looking to the optimum way to develop players. Accepting that at Grassroots level you may have players once a week for an hour and a half this is a bit of a challenge.

A great deal of coaches accept that ‘Constant’ or linear, drill based practices are a thing of the past and that this approach doesn’t transfer well to the game.

Increasingly, ‘amateur’ coaches at the grassroots level are creating and using game related practices to teach the game – overloads, under-loads, 2v2, 4v4, 6v6, 5v5+2 and so on to recreate what happens in the ‘big’ game in order to allow the players to develop experience at an accelerated rate.

These “variable” and “random” practices help players to build game memories, which, in turn, transfer better to the ‘real’ game and makes it easier to recall and apply in the weekend match.

“The same thing NEVER happens TWICE in a game – but LOTS of SIMILAR things happen ALL the time” – Paul Holder, FA Staff Coach

CONTINENTAL APPROACHES

Of course, on the continent, game-like practices have been the norm for years. But now we are looking to replicate the best of what the world has to offer in football – Spain and Barcelona are the current ‘Gold Standard’ of football.

But, with a closer look, Spain have won one World Cup and two European Championships (the first in 1964), so, not consistent performers by any stretch of the imagination (although Barcelona and Real Madrid have won a ton of European Cups -Champions League and equivalent- between them over the years).

Most people will accept the Brazilians as probably the all-time greats (5 World Cups) but the Italians aren’t far behind with 4 wins and of course the Germans have 3 World Cups and 3 European Championships and are regular qualifiers in the last 4 of major competitions.

Various nations have tried to mirror the Dutch development, again, as they are recognised as producing some of the best players and coaches, with the exportation of their respective talents across the world as evidence.

Or is it a case of having a Vision and a philosophy of the way to play that is important? After all, if you have no collective vision, how can you plan a developmental programme to which everyone can subscribe and that is intended to provide gradual steps from the grassroots to the pinnacle of the elite levels? If we are all singing from different hymn sheets, do we really know where we are headed?

THE SILVER BULLET / THE HOLY GRAIL OF FOOTBALL SUCCESS

But, aside from the discussions about the merits or de-merits of ‘Variable – Random’ practices over ‘Constant’ practices, are we deluding ourselves that someone has “The Answer” as to the best / one right way to develop players?

With an acknowledgement to “10,000 hours of deliberate practice” to develop expertise and the coincidence of opportunity and desire is the rest of it perhaps cyclical?

Looking at incidences of World Cup and European Championships’ winners, only Italy and Brazil have won back to back World Cups and no team has won consecutive European Championships.

Perhaps the consistency of achievement at the latter stages of major competitions would be a more accurate gauge of success, in which case you’d be hard pushed to better the record of the Germans, but we rarely seem to consider replicating their development approaches / strategies – maybe we should?

But does anyone really have all the answers? Is it more a coincidence and combination of developmental approach/philosophy, the numbers of people available, the quality of coaches (another post, perhaps?), money available, deliberate practice and the cyclical nature of another (I hesitate to use the phrase) “golden generation”?

THE FA CUP FINAL

So, it’s FA Cup Final Day again. For me, it’s one of the magic days in the annual calendar. It’s up there with birthdays, Christmas and the first day of school summer holidays. For the true football fan it was ever, and will forever be, thus.

It brings to mind magic days with my mates as an older teenager and into my twenties where we would meet early on the Saturday to have a few quiet beers, maybe a game of snooker and to discuss the forthcoming game.

It was always sunny and warm, of course, as all Cup Final days are. Well, except for the ones that were a bit colder with drizzle in the air, but they were few and far between.

Black & White Football

I can think further back, to the games I used to watch with my parents; games in black and white in the earliest case, with the curtains drawn against the sun reflecting across the TV screen and obscuring the view of one of the few, and most times only, live game shown on television at the time.

The first Cup Final I can remember clearly, coincidentally enough, was the 1969 Final between Manchester City and Leicester City (1-0 to Manchester with Neil Young – not the singer – being the scorer of the solitary goal). I can vaguely recall bits of the 1968 Final but it’s the ’69 version that sticks in my mind.













All Day Event

I can remember an ‘all-day’ Cup Final, with “It’s a Knockout”, cameras on the team coaches to Wembley and much discussion and prediction from the experts ‘back in the studio’.

The immediately post-adolescent years sent us on a quest to find the most accommodating parents with which to watch the game as brothers in arms. Brothers in Arms, in some cases genuine brothers, who had all played the game at some level both at school and since we left to make our way in the world.

Excited by the coming match and choosing one team about which we had to be partisan – you just CAN’T watch a Cup Final as a true neutral, can you? Except, of course, for the games where OUR team was IN the Final, in which case we didn’t have to choose to be partisan, we just were.

The accommodating parents, having determined to accept this rather large gathering of youngsters, could generally expect us to arrive some 30 minutes before kick-off, traditionally carrying some variations on a theme from the nearest chip shop. Later in life, when we had secured our own abodes one of us in turn down the years would be the host for the afternoon.

It was my turn to be the host, at my flat near the station, for the Coventry City versus Spurs Final, the majority of us supporting the underdogs Coventry and cheering in unison, when they went ahead, whilst at the same time sharing the pain of the two Spurs fans in our midst.

1983

I can remember being fascinated by the tradition and emotion that was, and still is, Abide with Me. I recall how, when Brighton & Hove Albion met Manchester United in the 1983 Final, crass and ignorant journalists condescendingly castigated Albion fans for singing, with gusto, the Cup Final hymn. We were inexperienced and naive, some said, in the following days’ papers. Maybe we were, but it was OUR Cup Final to live – theirs only to observe and report as mere bystanders to the passage of history.

Oh, and for the record; Smith DID score !

Time moves on and the group of friends have gone their own ways – some live close by still, but some are in foreign lands. Some are still here in England and one, whom we miss and remember, is no longer here.

But wherever we are, though we may be apart, I hope we are all watching the game together and recalling the shared memories of the games and the fun, the joy when our team won and the disappointment when we lost. The nonsense we talked when we analysed the game and the cases we made for why the team we cheered had lost.

It’s a Kind Of Magic

A day in the calendar, that’s all it appears, but they live in the memory every year it comes round. And that, my friends is why they call it The Magic of the FA Cup.

TOO MANY CLUBS, NOT ENOUGH TEAMS?

It seems to me that there are lots of clubs, which have only one or two teams and which are based in close proximity to other clubs with a similar small number of teams.
The landscape of English Grassroots football, certainly in the corner of the South East where I live, seems to be one of parochial interest and almost tribal rivalry, at times.

HOLLAND

Having taken an educational trip to Holland around 3 years ago, I was delighted to see clubs local to a community (rather than a street or two) with huge numbers of teams and literally hundreds of playing members. The playing membership covered the full scale from young beginners to veterans’ teams providing football for both sexes of all abilities.

Some of the coaches were volunteers but at the ‘top’ end of the club, a semi-pro team with paid coaches showed the very professional approach they took to development of the club and its people.

I have a friend who has a similar tale to tell of France. Community based programmes with multiple teams, graded for ability within each age group which caters for the social or ‘recreational’ player and the more serious players with equal enthusiasm.

TIME FOR A CHANGE?

I understand that the evolution of grassroots and semi-pro/senior non-league football in England (I can’t speak for Scotland, Ireland or Wales but please post a response if you can add to the discussion) has been different to that on the continent but is it time for a conscious change to how we do things?

Senior non-league clubs often have a first team, reserves, U18 and maybe a U16 team but not often anything ‘below’ them. Conversely, junior clubs have lots of teams from, often, U6s and upwards to U15 / U16 but nothing else at the older ages.

Could all of football benefit from a specific combination of the two elements described to share resources? Resources in the form of funds, equipment, expertise, facilities and so on.

With multiple teams at the same age group and graded according to ability, I believe coaches and parents would be able to include MORE players at a competitive level suitable for the players’ point in their development at that time.

A FLAWED APPROACH?

At the moment, in recreational clubs with only one team at an age group, the temptation, certainly at least when teams get to 11 a side at U11 (don’t get me started !) is to give the less well-developed players less game time than their more developed team-mates.

The consequent result to that strategy, of course, is that the less well-developed players have their development and, sooner or later no doubt, their enthusiasm stunted. This is, of course, a flawed approach. Often, it is shown, that people (players) who take longer to learn something are better at that thing in the long term – it seems that the skill is better embedded. But with only one team, will the late developer get the chance to develop at all – or will they be lost to The Beautiful Game?

AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW

Now, with MORE teams in a club, we can start to play more players in games (as well as practice) more of the time. So everyone develops; they maintain their enthusiasm for and involvement and participation in the game for longer and which hopefully has benefits for society at large – contributing to a healthier nation. A by-product of keeping more people in the game for longer, of course is that the late developers come through and, you never know, may even become an international.

I believe we need to make a determined move towards the continental model I mentioned above.

MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS

Certainly in these recessionary times it makes fiscal sense to pool resources. But for volunteers it would mean spreading the load and getting personal and family time back in the weekend / evenings. It would help clubs to develop both the individual volunteers but also the collective and cumulative knowledge that the volunteers have and, I believe, provide a much more valuable resource for the community at large than does the fractured approach we take at present.

A bit like a company in the world of business which works to improve its service to customers and enhance its corporate knowledge it grows, develops and becomes stronger through mergers and sometimes acquisitions of smaller groups which are not so stable.

INVALIDATING HISTORY

I know that the feeling of people within clubs which merge or are taken over is that everything they strived for, everything that they achieved over the years is somehow invalidated or diminished.

I do not believe this to be so – if you have had any hand in fuelling the passion of a young person for football and helping them on the path to a healthy lifestyle, the fact that your identity as a club has changed absolutely does not diminish your positive influence.

History proves that change and evolution are all around us and will forever be the case. If your club merges with another for the benefit of its members then I firmly believe it strengthens the history of both. Surely better for a merger (or an “acquisition”) which perpetuates at least part of the history than to let a club wither and die?

THE WAY AHEAD

I hope this post has sparked some thoughts and if your club is one that has relatively few teams could you instigate a move to pool your resources with another local club? If you have a strong club in terms of teams and structure, could yours offer to help a less secure club by working together?

Please feel free to comment

In Praise of (or maybe Defence of…) Charles Hughes

Charles Hughes, former Director of Coaching at the Football Association, has long been attributed with and criticised for the introduction of the philosophy of “Direct Play” in football.

To people old enough to remember the phrase, it conjures up an image of “Route 1” football – a mental picture of a consistent barrage of long forward balls in the general direction of the opponent’s penalty box.

When the ball reached such areas, it was generally expected that a huge mountain of a centre forward would get their elbows out, lean in to defenders and try to get a flick on for a smaller man running forward into the penalty area to “gamble”.
If that didn’t work, then a box-to-box running midfielder would try to get on the end of the “second ball” – a situation where the ball was unsuccessfully cleared by the defender as a result of the aforementioned “attention” by the battering ram style centre forward. The midfielder would then try to get a shot at goal or create an opportunity for someone else.

Statistical analysis carried out by Hughes, at the top level of the game, tended to show that most goals were scored from moves involving 5 passes or less.

Potentially, this sole fact, taken out of context and adapted by some, led to a number of teams playing ‘biff-bash-fightball’ – an alleged strategy favoured by teams with limited resources and an even more limited imagination.


Now I don’t know Charles Hughes, personally, although I was in the room when he provided a brief introduction to the group when I undertook my Advanced Licence coaching course at Lilleshall in 1994. He seemed pleasant and unassuming enough.

I believe that, if you look at key statistical analysis from major tournaments (World Cup and UEFA Championships) his research and analysis of statistics is as valid today as it was when he did it.

MISREPRESENTATION ?





However, I feel that his work has been grossly misrepresented. His descriptions of direct play are NOT about biffing the ball in the general direction of the opposing penalty area - and he says as much in his book (The Winning Formula - 1990). On Page 8 in the Introduction he talks about the flaws in the theory of possession play as a general premise but goes on to say:

“To point out this flaw is NOT an endorsement of kick and rush tactics, with the ball being punted forward in the general direction of the opponent’s penalty area at every opportunity.”

He elaborates by adding:

“Success comes, as might be expected, in a balance of the extremes of possession play and kick and rush”

To close on this aspect, he goes on to make the point starting on page 9 and going to page 10:

“Some people see advocates of direct play as people who wish to sacrifice the fine skills and beauty of the game in order to win.

Critics of direct play say that it is all about playing long balls forward to the exclusion of all else.

This is simply untrue.

Certainly the ability to hit long, accurate forward passes is an essential weapon in the armoury of outstanding players, but so is the ability to control the ball, to turn with it, run with it, dribble with it and cross it; just as important is the ability to head or shoot for goal with accuracy, to say nothing of a wide range of defensive techniques. An outstanding player, in direct play, as in any other system, is one who has mastered all these techniques and who has the skill to know which technique to use in any and every situation.”

So, clearly NOT, in my opinion, an endorsement of what everyone assumes he was responsible for - “Route 1 Football”.

Whilst he looks closely at statistical analysis of games at the top level of the game (and again, in his book he asks what other industry in the world would determine its tactics and strategy without analysing relevant statistics) he also clearly states that without development of good technique( and ALL technique; not Just the ability to play a long pass), control, dribbling, turning, running with the ball, passing and an ability to create and then exploit space, you will not see any reward for your efforts (see above).

Sadly, in my opinion, a few professional managers and coaches hijacked his use of statistical analysis and thought 'Right, most goals come from 5 passes or less, so let's bash it forward, fight for it and perhaps we'll get a goal scoring opportunity from a regained possession (Again, I don't KNOW them personally, but that was my assessment of those tactics from some of those teams at that time - which was mostly a few years ago now).

Now you may think that there is some merit to that but I don't think you'll win too many championships that way (at senior level) and I can't imagine the players or paying spectators enjoying it too much.

Kids Football

Although in kids’ football, you still see some coaches / managers playing the big, strong, quick kid up front and having the less developed players smash it forward so he can score lots of goals.




On the subject of young players, in his “FA Book of Coaching Soccer Tactics and Skills” (1980 and reprinted in 87 which is when my copy is from) sometimes called “FACTS”, he says in chapter 1 regarding Systems Of Play on page 13:

“Sadly, the backlash of all this is in the schools with the result that too great an emphasis has been placed not only on systems of play, but also on the playing of 11 a-side football.

The development of young players would be better served by playing small sided games. It would be even better served if school masters would dedicate themselves to the task of teaching techniques and developing those techniques by simple progressive practices, leading to small sided games and eventually, when the players are technically and physically equipped, ending in the 11 a-side game”

This is all stuff we are told the FA doesn’t, or hasn’t until recently, done - which may well be the case but, if we have concentrated on trying to replicate, or maybe imitate (see my earlier blog post) the adult game, it definitely wasn’t Charles Hughes’ fault.

He goes on to say:

“We should be persuading schoolmasters, and others who coach young players, of the importance of their task. Should they fail in their task, should the foundations be less than sure, then a soccer superstructure will fail to arise.”

So, this would seem to be advocating a similar approach to what the Dutch have been saying and doing for so long. Whilst we may not have been doing it so well at grassroots, I believe that education, the internet and so on is now driving an enlightened view and allowing grassroots coaches to be the coach they would like to be.

More on Statistical Analysis

I believe if you look at FIFA's stats, they will STILL show that most goals are scored from 5 passes or less and from set plays, so certainly his analysis is not null and void.

However, we now see from FIFA that there are statistics to show that most successful sides, whilst their goals come in, broadly, Hughes' view, they also show that those sides have more possession than their less successful rivals.

Are these mutually exclusive views? No, I don't think so. As someone in management once said 'There is no one right way'. So, extrapolating the theory, there surely is no one wrong way, either, certainly not Charles Hughes'.

To be fair, I don't think he was ever given a proper platform on which to expand on his ideas and I can only recall seeing him interviewed once.

The press castigated him and his views without, in my opinion, ever truly investigating the issues (would you have expected anything else from the “popular” press?).

Sadly he got absolutely no support from any quarter and I'm fairly confident that in any conversation which comes up, I'm the only person I know who actively sticks up for what he stood for (or, more accurately, what I believe he stood for).

Additionally, he was not the only person to analyse, statistically, the outcome of games and come up with the conclusions he did. A gentleman by the name of Wing Commander Charles Reep carried out his own analysis (before Hughes) and came up with broadly the same conclusions.

I firmly believe that as the years pass and the mindset against Mr Hughes subsides, his work will be re-assessed and he will be recognised for the student of the game and opinion former that I believe him to be.

ANOTHER VIEW

As I’ve said, I don’t know Charles Hughes and have never spoken with him although there are people who do and have. I have been told by a third party, who knows someone who worked with Charles Hughes for a while, that he was indeed a ‘long-ball’ merchant.

But having read my post above and the extracts from two of his books, I’ll leave you to make up your own minds and see the attached links for another view.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/profile-the-professor-breaks-cover-charles-hughes-1507161.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/england/2326576/England-managers-need-direction.html