World Cup

[Bob Singleton]

MrTickle wrote:

> What about all the crap foreigners who are given a chance at
> the expense of young English players, especially by Foreign
> managers?


The "crap" foreigners given a chance ahead of young English players are nonetheless better than those young English players... that's why they get chosen ahead of them (for example, I'm a Chelsea fan. Much was made in some circles regarding Josh McEachran when he was around 17. He and Jack Wilshire of Arsenal were touted as a future England central midfield pairing. I saw McEachran many times playing for the youth and reserve sides and really couldn't see that happening. Carlo Ancelloti gave him a few games, including some in the Champions League. He looked OK, but nothing more and nothing that suggested he'd be a future super-star. Now 21, he has struggled at various clubs out on loan. He's an OK player, but nothing more. No surprise that other Chelsea managers since Ancelloti have preferred foreign players in his stead)

It's oh so easy to blame the number of foreign players in the Premiership as the reason why England are so poor (and I'm still waiting for Mr Johnson to answer the question I posed... when there were no German, Spanish, Cameroonian, Brazilian, South Korean etc., etc., playing in England, how does he explain not qualifying for two World Cups in a row if foreign players are the main reason for talented young English players not coming through?)

There is but one reason, and one reason alone... poor coaching from an early age. Nothing more. Nothing less. If you don't believe me, look at how many one footed players we have compared to those who are coached properly abroad who are comfortable with both feet. Look at how many so called "top" players we have who struggle to control a ball properly, let alone control it under pressure.

That the media turn some of these frankly average players (Steven Gerrard springs to mind here) into demi-Gods really doesn't help dampen the expectations of the fans.

There also needs to be a root and branch change at the FA. Too many decisions are made by out-of-touch committee men who have risen through the ranks on a buggins turn principle (did you know that, for example, the armed services have members on various committees, as do Oxford and Cambridge Universities)

[Sam Slater]

The foreign players aren't that crap.......unless you think managers and clubs deliberately pick inferior players because they want to lose games and discriminate against English players.

[David Johnson]

"It's oh so easy to blame the number of foreign players in the Premiership as the reason why England are so poor (and I'm still waiting for Mr Johnson to answer the question I posed... when there were no German, Spanish, Cameroonian, Brazilian, South Korean etc., etc., playing in England, how does he explain not qualifying for two World Cups in a row if foreign players are the main reason for talented young English players not coming through?)"

You don't seem to grasp my argument at all. To use a familiar Blackpool phrase, my argument is "a bit more nuanced" than your basic "it's not to do with foreign players at all, it's down to coaching".

1. I am not saying that the presence of so many foreign players is the only reason the England team is crap. Other factors e.g. coaching play a part.
2. I am not saying that if we stopped all foreign players from being in the Premier League we would have a really good national team. I don't think we would. It is important that English players play regularly against great foreign players.

Do you understand the above points? Yes? Okay then I will explain what I do believe.

1. The Premier League started in 92-93 and really took hold in terms of TV rights in the last 15 years or so with those TV rights being worth about a billion this season. At the same time we have witnessed an influx of billionaires taking over clubs e.g. Abramovich at Chelsea and the Quataris at Man City, spending enormous sums of money. The Premier League has become awash with money.

2. During this period of the Premier League you cannot deny that there has been a decline in the national side. In 1990, England were one victory away from an appearance in a World Cup final. In 96, likewise in the European Championship. How have England performed in the last 10 years as more and more money has come into the game? 2006 World Cup, crap in every way, 2010 World Cup, crap in every way. 2014 World Cup, first time an England side have lost the first two games in the group stage. More enjoyable attacking play, but no defence worth speaking of. 2008 European Championship did not qualify etc. etc.

So the question to ask is why despite all this money coming into the game, the England team has done so badly?

Clearly it is not impossible for Premier teams to produce England players. For example, lowly Southampton, who have none of the finances of a Chelsea or Man City have an academy that has produced England players such as Oxlade-Chamberlain, Lallana, Theo Walcott and prior to that Wayne Bridge. In addition, the academy produced one of the best players in the UK, Gareth Bale.

If every Premier League team produced the same number of similar quality players as the Southampton academy, competition for a place in the England team would be far higher and the team would be a lot more impressive than it currently is.

The next question you need to ask yourself, Bob is why if Southampton have produced all these England players in a short period of time, why have Chelsea not done the same with their vastly superior resources? Surely, they could have scoured the country for the best young talent, hovered them up and brought them on. But no, despite being one of the richest clubs in the world over the last 10 years, John Terry is the only Chelsea player who comes to mind who has gone through the academy and into the England team.

Why do you think that is, Bob?

The reason for this is that great players do need nurturing. They don't become great players over night. THey need to be given runs in the first team to develop and grow, make mistakes and learn from them. Unfortunately, the pressures are such that for the vast majority of Premier League teams this is a complete no-no. A run of between 5 and 10 games in which a team struggles can often result in a Premier League manager getting the boot. In the case of Chelsea, no major trophy usually means a P45. In that situation, there is a limited environment to bring on young, English players, take a chance on them, help them to develop and instead teams go for the finished article from overseas. Chelsea is a classic case in point for this approach.

The answer? Have a cap on the number of foreign players in a Premier League team. That way, English players need to be brought on and nurtured. And they have the advantage of playing against the best players in the world.

That together with other factors e.g. better coaching is the only way the England team will avert this steady decline.

[Bob Singleton]

David Johnson wrote:

... an awful load of bollocks as usual!!!


You say in 1990 we were one kick away from a World Cup Final. Yes indeed we were. The history books tell us that. What a mere almanac WON'T tell you is just how fortuitous England were to get as far as they did!!! I'm sure you can find on YouTube or elsewhere clips from those games and see how poorly we played, how lucky we were to get penalties against Cameroon, etc., etc. To use the 1990 World Cup as some sort of standard bearer for the great state of English football at the time is absolute nonsense. We were close to shite back then... just enormously lucky.

So, before all those nasty billionaires turned up and ruined English football and the England team, we were rampaging through tournaments, winning trophy after trophy... er, sorry, I forgot, we were shite then too!

So we were shite before the billionaires, and then shite since the billionaires. You'll have to come up with something better than Abramovich on which to lay the blame!

Don't be fooled into thinking that just because several players from Southampton have made it into the England team that they are any good. Of the list of players you mention, only Gareth Bale is worth talking about. The others have been hyped up by the media (and any young British player with an ounce of talent at 17/18 is hailed as the next Gascoigne or whoever), but how many of them would get into, say, the Bayern Munich side, or join Bale at Real Madrid? None.

Theo Walcott... yes, very impressive on a good day, but just how many of those has he had? Once against Croatia. That's it! On the basis of one outstanding performance he's suddenly "world class". BOLLOCKS!!! He's nowhere near good enough to turn in regular 7/10 or above performances for a top club side, let alone an international side. The same goes for all the rest of these supposedly brilliant Southampton youngsters. The fact they get capped shouldn't be held up as a shining example of the Southampton academy, but rather a dire warning as to how poor we are that such mediocre players can find themselves chosen to represent England at a World Cup.

There is nothing in the various Football Association, Football League or Premiership rules, regulations, etc., that say club academies are there to supply the next generation of England players.

From an employment law point of view, your idea of putting a cap on non-English players won't work. We're in the EC which allows freedom of movement with regards to employment. Look at the various academies and you'll see not just young English players, but lads from France, Holland and elsewhere. Academies take the best young players they can find, and if that lad happens to be Dutch instead of English, then for the good of that club, that's who they will choose.

If you want good English players, the standard of coaching kids of 8, 9, 10 etc has to be miles better than it currently is. Then, and only then, will you start to see an improvement in the technical abilities of young English players.

[David Johnson]

Thank you for your fact-free rant which addresses none of the points I made.

"So we were shite before the billionaires, and then shite since the billionaires. "

If you do not think the England team has declined in the last 10 years compared to the early to mid 90s than you are deluding yourself.

"Don't be fooled into thinking that just because several players from Southampton have made it into the England team that they are any good"

Again because you are so busy ranting, you miss the point.

I am not saying that Lallana is a world beater. What I am saying is that Southampton have produced three of the current England team, Walcott, Oxlade-Chamberlain and Lallana and a world beater in Bale. If all Premier League teams had put a similar concentration on their academies, the competition for places would be much stronger and then maybe Lallana and Oxlade-Chamberlain might not make the England team and other academies might produce English world beaters like the Welshman, Bale.

Instead of imitating your rant, let me use your own logic to destroy your argument.

You put it all down to coaching and that the coaching of 8, 9 and 10 year olds is nowhere near good enough. NOTE HOW I ACTUALLY ADDRESS ONE OF YOUR POINTS THERE, BOB. Well Oxlade-Chamberlain joined the Academy at 7 years of age. The Southampton Academy has an under 9s team. Gareth Bale came to the attention of Southampton when he was 9 years old. Walcott got a sponsorship deal with Nike when he was 14, having joined the academy at an early age.

Now to destroy your own argument. Chelsea have huge resources compared to Southampton. They have the resources to trawl the UK for all the best young 8 or 9 year old players of the age you mention. They have the resources to bring the best coaches of footballing skills in the world to Chelsea.

Why have they not done that or if they have, been almost completely unsuccessful compared to minnows like Southampton, Bob?

The reason is simple. Clubs like Chelsea are about short termism. Quick fix. Not wanting to give young talent frequent runs in the ist team - few games here, few games there. Long run, pul them out to rest and put them back in again etc etc. We know the answer. The pressure to win trophies is immense so the name of the game is getting the big foreign names in, the finished article.

If you are going to bother to reply, address my points rather than ranting on and on. It is very tedious!

[David Johnson]

"From an employment law point of view, your idea of putting a cap on non-English players won't work. We're in the EC which allows freedom of movement with regards to employment. Look at the various academies and you'll see not just young English players, but lads from France, Holland and elsewhere. Academies take the best young players they can find, and if that lad happens to be Dutch instead of English, then for the good of that club, that's who they will choose."

You haven't thought this through. First of all it is perfectly possible to have all sorts of caps on NON-EU players which would cut out many of the South Americans, Africans etc. playing in the Premier League. And this is already done in many countries. That would be a very big start to dealing with the issue.

Secondly, you could hardly call the current Financial Fair Play Regulations strictly in accordance with standard business practice, limiting as they do financial expenditure, could you? Despite that, Man City agreed to pay a substantial fine for breaking the rules. The threat of possible exclusion from the Champions League was sufficient!!

In short there are a number of options that can be used potentially to cut the number of foreign players playing on match day.

ANd to repeat I do not want a ban on foreign players, merely a reduction on the number that can appear on match day so that there has to be an emphasis on bring English players through into the first team.

[Essex Lad]

David Johnson wrote:


> ANd to repeat I do not want a ban on foreign players, merely a
> reduction on the number that can appear on match day so that
> there has to be an emphasis on bring English players through
> into the first team.

There is a limit on the number of foreigners allowed to play First Class cricket and until recently we were the number one Test, ODI and T20 side in the world. Coincidence?

[Essex Lad]

Bob Singleton wrote:

>
A
> win-at-all-costs mentality reigns. Losers are mocked.
>
Really? We have a win at all costs mentality? We mock losers? I think that you are confusing us with America. We are constantly told that we don't like people/teams that win all the time. We back the underdog... As for mocking losers, one example ? Eddie the Eagle.

[Sam Slater]

I can't believe David's blaming those immigrant workers, coming over here and taking our footballing jobs.

The Nigel Farage of bgafd.

[cockneygeezer2009]

There have always been lots of foreigners in the top league of English football. Before the advent of the Premiere League they were many Scots, Welsh, Irish and N.Irish in our top league.

So what was the excuse for failure in 1950, 1954, 1958 and 1962? In 1966 England had home advantage and the help of a lineman to win. England may have had a good team in the first half of the 20th Century but even then England were consistently beaten by a small nation called Scotland.

Facts are for whatever reason the modern England football team are good but not that good. The reasons why will be debated for ever.