Spurs well represented. It's a good squad but perhaps more notable for who has not been selected. If I were Southgate I would have selected the obvious missing ones then let the clubs squirm out of it. Otherwise either the FA have given in to the big clubs or have not even bothered to select the more senior players. Again, the opportunity to get championship experience is gone, and several players will be going to the Euros / World Cup without having experienced anything like it before - unlike the Germans and Spanish who will no doubt take a "full strength" team to the U-21s. The BBC article incidentally mentions the absence of Luke Shaw, but that misses a few others - Sterling anyone?
It pisses me off that many of the eligible players have been left out. Sterling, Wilshere, Jones, Oxo-cube, Barkley and Shaw have all been excluded. Surely it's in the best interests of the country to get all of these players playing together as early as possible so when they're too old for 21's and getting selected for the seniors, the bedding in process is pretty much non-existent? If we took all the players we could have possibly taken, we would've stood a good and dare I say great chance of winning the competition, surely having a (possible) winning mentality going up into the seniors is pivotal to any future success? You only have to look at previous winning squads to see that they select the best possible players that are eligible which results in creating a good basis for the senior side. Spain won it in 2013 and had the likes of de Gea, Moreno, Montoya, Illaramendi, Isco, Tello, Thiago and Morata, most of those played in the 2011 final as well which they also won and now many of these players have had time with the seniors and are at top European clubs. The Germany squad that won the 2009 final had Neuer, Ozil, Khedira, Hummels, Boateng and Howedes, all of those were part of the German squad that won the world cup final last year and a lot of them were playing in their respective first teams for about two years prior to that '09 win, so they were in similar siutations as the likes of Sterling, Wilshere, Oxo-Cube, Barkely and co were all in yet our country excludes them. Just makes no sense to me.
It's bollocks. Southgate's bottled the confrontation with certain managers. Some of the selections are down to fitness, but some are down to cowardice. How does Kane get selected, despite having featured for the main squad, scored and clearly looking completely knackered? Wilshere's left out, despite having played less than half as many games as him this season. Oxlade-Chamberlain and Sterling don't feature, despite being younger than him and having had less impact on this league campaign. Southgate's done a good job as the England U21 manager so far, but he's taken the easy way out on this one. Very disappointing.
http://www.thefa.com/news/england/under-21/2015/may/southgate-names-long-squad-for-euros-190515 Thats a link to the squad list by the way. I disagree with previous comments, I think that this U21 squad have developed into a great group and the last thing they need is the players like Sterling, Wilshere, Jones, Ox etc. coming back into the setup just when its time for the tournament and potentially disrupting them. Yes they've been involved in the setup in the past but bringing them back in when they've clearly now graduated to the seniors (something that Kane after 2 appearances hasn't done yet) isn't really fair to the other players IMO. They've got a good team right now who seem to know each other well and work effectively together and breaking up the combinations just to fit Wilshere (for example) into the side doesn't sit well with me. We talk about sides who play together over the years and 'grow up' together - well I think this is what this group are doing and bringing back the U21s from a few years back just because we can is something I'd seek to avoid. Its frustrating that Kane and some others might not get a lot of rest now but that comes with the territory I guess.
I think that the egos of Wilshere and Sterling will be a hindrance to the team. England won the World Cup because they picked a team to win, not necessarily the best players. Shaw is obviously struggling with fitness and Oxlade-Chamberlain is not as good as players in his position that have been selected. This squad has a very good chance of winning the tournament which I think would be lessened by the inclusion of the "big name " players.
" Gareth Southgate has performed a surprising U-turn by making the eleventh-hour decision not to select Luke Shaw in the England Under-21 squad for next month’s European Championship, accepting Manchester United’s wish that the left-back should be rested this summer. Southgate, who did choose Harry Kane against Tottenham Hotspur’s wishes" I see it as Southgate not even trying to maintain the semblance of fair play. He’s made everyone who has made their players available look like fools, weaklings, or both. I’d like England to win the U-21s, but my enthusiasm evaporates when I see the tournament turned into yet another method for tilting the field of play in favor of the biggest teams. And Liverpool.
Apparently, he sees no benefit in taking the players already established in the full squad. I'm not sure that makes sense, nor does it explain the selection of Kane and Stones.
I'm very likeable The logic is that the u-21s exists to help prepare promising players for the senior England team and therefore, does not exist for its own sake. If players have progressed to the full squad, then it's seen as regression for them to go back to the u-21s. Firstly, that's nonsense because that policy isn't applied consistently. Secondly, it's nonsense but it rules out the benefits to all if the u-21s are successful as a group as the chances are a significant number will play together for the senior team, not to mention the confidence boost. And it also assumes that it would be better a young player just makes up the numbers in the senior squad or worst still has no involvement in football at all during tournament rather than plays some international games at that level.
Bloody hell, looking at Luke's likes makes me realise how you lot must feel about me... I'll be leaving then
Kane and Stones are hardly established at Senior level now are they. 2 and 4 appearances respectively and not all of them starts. It makes sense to take them. Luke I think that group success can be a powerful thing at International level, where players so often have limited time to build up relationships with their team-mates before important matches and tournaments, having a successful group that are used to each other is a great bonus. But Wilshere and Oxlade-Chamberlain aren't part of this U21 group, you could make a case for Sterling but then again he's a pretty established part of the Senior setup now - he won't just be sitting on the bench if he gets called up, so it doesn't make sense to have him with the U21s this Summer.
I understand why one wouldn't want certain players in the U21 squad but surely a tournament is better experience than friendlies.
Bribery, hypnosis or the black arts. It can’t be that he’s twenty times more likable than I am...I’ll just keep telling myself that, anyway.
Just think of all the successful people who weren't liked - Henry VIII, Richard Nixon, Donald Trump, Madonna, Justin Bieber.......the list is endless
