This has to be part of the reason why England are ****e at international level. Players who are competing to get into the senior side should not be put in the u21s. There are may other players who could benefit from that experience, instead you have players like oxo Barkley Kane ect, who get regular PL football and European experience as well as getting into the senior side playing in the u21s. Pointless. The desire to win something with the u21s means there is a lot of players not getting experience at that level that could otherwise be getting the experience. Oxo in particular has been in the senior side, he learns NOTHING from being in the u21s and is in there to try win something, this is not what the u21s is for, it's there to bring players from no experience to some experience and hopefully prepare them for the senior side. That's my take on it anyway, just looked at the England u21 side, that the very least if you have played for the senior side you should be disqualified from playing the u21 side, for the benefit of the senior side like. As is the u21s is currently the senior B team. A lot more players could be given this expereince at international level.
The converse opinion is that those lads could benefit from the experience of playing in a major international tournament as they've got little or none at senior level. I think you should take each case on it's own merits, and players like Sterling and Kane who've played shed loads of games this season should maybe not be called upon. Whilst others who've played less either through injury or lack of selection could maybe get more from it.
There's mixed messages from the selectors isn't there? Southgate says he won't pick those in the senior side, Hodgson says he's open to sharing, ex boss Pearce thinks the summers U21 finals should be a priority. Pearce does have a point in that players like Kane, Shaw and Barkley can gain good tournament experience. ''"Look at Ross Barkley. Over the last two years, I think he's played one 90 minutes for the U21s and hasn't started for the seniors. He's in international no-man's land. He's in the senior squad but he doesn't actually play." - is a valid point. Get the international experience actually playing rather than watching.
Wait are you saying that England are ****e cause u21 players who have played full international are being forced to play with the u21's? I don't buy that, England players who make it to the senior squad rarely go back down to the u21's. The current under 21 players in the senior squad have a hand full of u21 caps between them and almost no tournament experience. We expect these lads to go straight into the World Cup or Euros and win the thing, when they've had no idea of what it's like to play in one of these. The u21 tournaments can do this, you just have to look at the German team to see how its done properly, highly thought of youth players play in the u21s before the senior team and try and win things, that's what they're supposed to learn, how to win the dammed thing.
True I guess I am asking if with the experience they get in the PL and Europe.. how much are they really gaining compared to say Championship u21s or other u21s who have been nowhere near the senior side AND u21 side. I guess I am saying that for trading what little these lads get out of this, others might gain a lot more experience. The u21s are heavily loaded with senior players, u21 years of age or not they are still senior players Would you have a situation where you then have twice as many players with international experience/
Barkley would be an exception, oxo on the other hand gets regular PL CL and senior int experience, he's certanly a senior player, Sterling, senior player, Kane is a senior player too, he's going to be in the senior side often by the looks of things
Just for comparison: the line-ups in the 2009 Uefa U21 final, see what's happened to the players involved. Couldn't tell you who was senior at that point and who wasn't though. Germany (4-1-4-1): Neuer; Beck, Hoewedes, Boateng, Boernisch; Hummels; Johnson (Schwaab 68), Castro, Khedira, Ozil; Wagner. Subs: Fromlowitz (g), Aogo, Ebert, Marin, Grote, Adlung, Ben-Hatira, Schmelzer, Ede, Sippel (g). England (4-1-4-1): Loach; Cranie (Gardner 80), Richards, Onuoha (Mancienne h-t), Gibbs; Muamba (Rodwell 77); Milner, Cattermole, Noble, Johnson; Walcott. Subs: Lewis (g), Taylor, Stearman, Tomkins, Driver, Rose.
Yeah the germans look loaded with senior players there or "to be" senior players. Many of them were also the senior starting 11.
Kane's only had 45 minutes as a senior though and they could probably do with him in the U21's - he will get lots of chances with the senior side.
I don't have anything against putting senior players in the u21 side, it provides continuity for players who make the step up, having played with some of the senior players in u21 already as well as passing on experience. I guess I was surprised at the amount of senior side probables.in there that are currently fighting for places bar barkley for the minute and Jenkinson, everyone else is in with a shout one one way or another, some less than others but all possibles bar 2 players, cos really Barkley will get picked for the senior side sometimes. Hardly bring players through is it? Just practise for the players who can't really get in. I guess that has it's advantages but it puts a wider gap between groups brought through, there should be a crop being tried out, 5 or 6 at least with some experience in there too. It's 5 or 6 more potential replacements of 18 and 19 year olds with a significant international tournament under their belt.
What does it say about the English players in the 19-30 age bracket, that we are relying on the youngsters. On the other hand it means we have a good, talented bunch coming through.
I think over age players playing u21 internationally for tournaments is a marginal call. if they were underage at start of qualifying and just went over age or something fine but taking along players who have no place there is wrong. this is international though..... at club level i feel its vital that young players experience bigger, nastier more tough games and if you play all u21s then they dont get it..
See I think players play for under 21s until they aren't eligible anymore then you dont get players flicking between both and arguments over if they should play in 2 major tournaments in consecutive years. After they aren't eligible for under 21s do they get promoted to full team might help ell players come through together and by time they reach the full side 3 or 4 have played together frequently and have an understanding of each others games.
i think if you are good enough to go up you go up myself... i think once you go up you stay up and should be made ineligible.. people seem to think that will block developement but i nthe old days there were less caps and less flavor of the month. why the fecking hell are england playing such a ****e team v italy and whats the point?
Maybe there should be a ruling that says a player can't return to the u21s once they've made their full debut. afterall, the u21s is supposed to be about player development, if they've already played for the senior tean then what more develop can the u21s really offer? Its done its job already.
They were claiming Wilshire could still play for the u21s which I find ridiculous because didn't he feature in the last World Cup? Sterling started also so what's the point in downgrading him? Kane and Barkley should be definates. If Barkley is meant to be this quality player we all hear abiut then let's actually develop him right.
So, are we all saying that if a team promote a player from the under 21s to the first team he should never be allowed back?
I think its harsh if a player only gets 1 senior cap before they are 21 and they cannot play an under 21 match again. How about if a player gets 5 caps for example they cannot go back.
Was talking about all teams, not just internationals. Why should a player who has been given some time in the first team be excluded from the U21s regardless of league or international.
