Yes, these teams are many times more organized than the immigrant teams that you mentioned, but that doesn't make them more intelligent players.
I disagree, although the basics of a more English system taught are extremely rudimentary, even being a part of such a system at a formative age is vital to building a semblance game intelligence. The fact that the majority of the immigrant players who I have played with and have struggled entirely to adapt to a more team based approach seems to give credence to this. The main thing I have found which best describes the difference between the two different upbringings in footballs is that while the more English system is extremely basic and focuses more on athleticism, it still focuses on the team first and foremost whilst the immigrant school of thought seems to be more individually based. Like I said, skill wise and technically, as well as athletically, there are some fantastic players, it just so happens that when it comes to playing in and as a team they appear lost.
They are actually just as or more unintelligent when it comes to football, because they call only play long balls to look to run onto. You mentioned the immigrants as being technically fairly good, but not organized or intelligent. Well, they obviously aren't organized, because they have never played organized football like you said. You need to play organized football to understand things like that. That wouldn't completely mean they are unintelligent, it just means that they are not familiar with the systems often used by teams. Most of them play small sided games which encourages good technical play and quick thinking, so out of the ones that genuinely have good technique(most of them don't in reality, they just know a few tricks) they actually have at least a basic footballing intelligence. The freedom of play allows them to learn at least attacking aspects of the game mentally.
Once again, I disagree.
The basic point I was making was that even spending your formative years playing and being schooled in a regressive, more rudimentary system of play is in this case producing far finer footballers who are more adept at team play. The difficulty of technically very good players with great skill (not just a couple of fancy tricks) to adapt to playing a team game seems to, once again, give credence to the argument that it is better to have a more organised if rigid upbringing in terms of football than a more kickabout/tricks based one. Obviously, I am not saying this is ideal, far from it but in my opinion it is the lesser of two evils in terms of the optimum football upbringing for a youngster.
As for being unintelligent footballers, I do stand by it. It's not meant as a criticism of them at all but sadly when one misses their formative years being schooled in at least the basics of team football and possession of the ball then it is likely the only result or will be extremely difficult to overcome. The same comparison can be made between the more 'English' upbringing of young players and for instance the 'Spanish' style system where possession is the key aspect in youth development. Any person who is schooled in the former will have a near impossible time in adapting to the latter later on. It is largely what players learn in these formative years which shapes the player they will become.
Now, back to the three main aspects. The importance of them is different in some cultures, but there is one of them that is top in all. A good sum up of it would be 1.athleticism 25% 2. technique 25% 3. intelligence 50%. Intelligence is by far the most important aspect of football, and it's probably the hardest to teach a player. The best way to become a more intelligent footballer is to play with players who understand the game better than you. You should make your decisions in a similar fashion as they do. That is real football intelligence.
Agreed, although as I said above this intelligence must be developed while a player is still young. They need to understand the basics of possession in terms of movement and thought and the early these are developed the more they will be built on in years to come.
Organization isn't really football intelligence. That is listening to what your coach says. Unless there is just a mental block or a language problem, these immigrants could learn to play in a system just like the English school players. The biggest problem is the clash of styles, not them not understanding the game. The English school players are just the majority, so obviously they point the finger at the minority. The immigrant player is probably thinking, "Why do they always kick it long? Why can't they just pass it to my feet?" In reality, both are probably partly wrong.
Of course organisation isn't intelligence, that wasn't my point at all but what was my point is that even an upbringing in a poor organised system is superior to being brought up in an unorganised environment where the focus is on skill and being technically very good with a football but completely lacking game intelligence or even the basics of playing a team based possession game.
My thoughts on this are based on more than just kids in the playground having a kick like your example. In my opinion it is irrelevant whether it is an new immigrant or even when I have played with or watched 18-22 year olds who have been in the country for a number of years they genuinely struggle to play to a team game and not just a team game based around basic tactics - many teams from my area attempt to play a possession based passing game (the fact that is is played quite poorly largely due to our own upbringing during our formative years is by the by). I'm not talking about balls hoofed to run onto here - they genuinely struggle with playing a team game - their movement and knowing when to pass or dribble is on the whole absolutely atrocious and the amount of times when playing with them you tear your hair out at there being no pass, or them being caught dribbling when the pass was the correct option or simply not knowing where to move to receive a pass or give an option is countless. And this we are talking about from players who themselves have had an extremely lacking upbringing in such aspects. The thing is that if they weren't so technically good with the football and didn't have the skills they do you would simply write them off as being terrible footballers however the thing is they aren't individually they are excellent however when it comes to playing as a team they are largely poor. My point more lies at the heart that even a poor organised system is a better school as it still has some emphasis on playing football as a team rather than an unstructured system which focuses on the individual at the expense of both football intelligence and therefore playing a football in a team environment. As we both agree, intelligence is by far the most important attribute for a footballer and if this is built then players can largely overcome deficiencies elsewhere however in situations where the requisite game intelligence was not imparted at an early age it is extremely difficult to adapt even technically very good and very skillful players to the necessities of a team based game of football. It seems there is the same gulf between the immigrants and our own upbringing as there is to say the English to the Spanish or many other European nations (albeit all slightly differently) in terms of the later effects of the differences in the basics taught.
I also think youth players should start out playing smaller sided games to learn technique and basic attacking intelligence. They will learn basic passing patterns and runs through this style of game. Than at older ages move them to the 11 v 11 game to learn the full game. I will also tell you that many high level players would enjoy playing in smaller sided games to 11 v 11 games. 11 v 11 benefits the fans more than anyone. It is much better overall watching full-sided football than small sided. Small sided is often better for players, because they are more involved in the game. Their role is more important, and they obviously get more touches.
I fully agree with this but it seems for different reasons from yourself. You seem to emphasise technique being the main thing imparted whereas in my view it is only the secondary benefit. The basics of passing, movement and possession are for me the key and cornerstone aspects which must be learnt and built on. It is this basic building block where the building of an inherent second nature in a player can form and change the type of player from a young age for the rest of their life. In order to emphasise this I remember reading that in these small sided games the removal of goals and the focus on keeping the ball was a key element - like I keep mentioning it needs to be well structured to ensure such a focus as small sided games can lose such an emphasis and the net benefits lost (for example I remember myself being a chubby kid with a poor touch who in games such as that used to focus on being able to overcome this by having a good shot and being able to score - I completely missed the benefits and the point of it).
