While it's all well and good asking why there's so few regulars in the U21 squad, it misses the point entirely: players who could be in the U21s are often fast-tracked into the senior side. For example, Sterling has 16 senior caps while 8 for the U21s, Barklay has 13 senior caps yet 5 for the U21s, Oxlade-Chamberlain has 20 senior caps yet 8 for the U21s, while Chambers' three senior caps matches his 3 U21 caps. It gets more ridiculous when you realise that Rooney never player for the U21s at all, while Walcott's first U21 cap came after his first senior cap.
The whole thing's pretty ludicrous. These players could be benefiting from full games at U21 level, but they're called up to the main squad for a few minutes in irrelevant friendlies, instead. Playing alongside their future teammates in competitive games would be good for both the individuals and the team. Southgate should've picked the best players available and told anyone that disagreed to **** off. Barkley, Wilshere, Sterling, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Jones, Shaw, Zaha and others could've easily added quality to the squad. Not sure how he managed to select Moore and Gibson ahead of Dier and Chambers, though.
Personally, I think that once players have graduated into the England senior side they shouldn't be picked for under 21s unless they've been dropped from the senior squad. However, we fast track through players far too much. If they're playing regularly at club level(likely PL level) then the youngsters have enough on their plate without getting put under the spotlight of playing for England. Players aren't failing to make the grade, they're just getting too hyped off a handful of performances. Young players are naturally going to be inconsistent because they don't have the experience so when Chambers goes from getting lots of praise at the start of the season to dropped from the Arsenal team and struggling it shouldn't be a surprise. Just let them learn at their own pace rather than trying to turn every decent youngster into an international star on the back of a handful of good games.
If they're regulars in the England team, then they shouldn't be picked at U21 level. Making the squad is something different entirely, though. Hodgson knows who he's going to select for 99% of his positions, so others are just filling up places. Picking players that are eligible for the U21s stifles them, as they're not getting international experience of any sort. It also prevents those that are older and doing well for their clubs from getting called up, so they're totally new to it if they're selected.
I agree with the players Southgate took (apart from the omission of Dier which looked so, so foolish after Stones got concussion and silly even before that), but not all of his selections during the tournament. Losing Berahino was a big blow too, his scoring record at U21 level is excellent. Overall though, a very poor showing from a group of players with genuine talent amongst their number. They were genuinely impressive in the lead up to the tournament, unlike the Seniors who just grind out boring wins. That team is capable of playing entertaining, winning football and something has gone very wrong at that tournament for them not to do that. The issue of progression from England U21 to the Senior side is a tricky one, compounded by the fact that as others have mentioned, players often go to the Seniors with little or no U21 experience. You have to avoid using the U21s as an England 'reserve' team IMO, so bouncing players back down to the U21s just to give them international game time is to be avoided, but unless the players in that team are playing regularly at a good level then it is hard to seriously consider them for the Seniors. I think a wider issue around the England teams over all the levels is the issue of the hype around big-name players - there seems to be great pressure on the management to pick certain players and keep them around the squad even if their performances drop off.
I think if a player starts a tournament prep (eg, qualifying) in the U21s he should remain in the U21s until after the tournament, unless there is a very pressing, dire need for him not to be. Calling Kane up for friendlies for example was not that case. That way the players get tournament experience. Then at the start of the next cycle you reassess your squad and decide whether players stay in the U21 (if they're still eligible) or they get bumped up (or neither). Why can't Hodgson manage the U21s too? I know sometimes the games are close to each other but everyone could train together in the same location (St George's) and there might be some continuity. Might.
Totally agree. The argument from journalists and pundits always seems to be that they see it as great experience which helps develop players. If that was the case we wouldn't have the likes of Crouch, Delph, Clyne, Lallana and Lambert earning call ups later in their career and doing far better than the vast majority of England prodigies that break into the England squad whilst still in their teens or very early twenties. Or do the think those players mentioned would all be much better if they'd been brought into the England squad as a teenager? I don't think a manager can coach 2 sides at the sametime, let alone evaluate them all for team selection and then take charge of games just days apart. Most England managers struggle enough just with one team to take charge of! There's a lot to be said for the way several of the German World Cup winners all came through the youth set up together, even winning a tournament. This is something the journalists all leapt on earlier in the season but then conveniently "forgot" about when it came to talking about whether Barkley, Wilshere, Chamberlain and Sterling should play in the under 21s this summer. Apparently that only applied to Kane(most said Stones and Chambers shouldn't go).
They could train and prepare as one though, then some assistant (eg, Southgate) could go off and actually manage during the game with guidelines on how best to do so in order to fit in with the overall game plan for the senior side.
We also suffer from the English problem - which is flogging the players in a physically demanding game for 10 months without a winter break and then expecting them to perform at their peak in June in tournament football every 3 days. Many of the squad are regulars in the Championship. 46 league games where every match is a contest. The Italians by and large played less games at a more leisurely pace and had a break. They were fresher. Where the margins in ability be slight (which may be the case against many opponents), fatigue makes a difference. Ings hasn't played well since January.
Southgate is getting a lot of flack, and I think he deserves at least some of it. But the best explanation I have is that nothing fails like failure. Why (to pick a random example) did Russia have an awful record in international ice hockey competitions, despite having the second best team? No real reason I could see, except they didn’t win either of the first couple. Fear of failure set in, and became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Surely fear of failure conditioned Southgate’s selection. Winning is closely related to confidence and relaxation. Lose a few, and the losing, tension and doubt become a vicious cycle which becomes harder and harder to break the longer it goes on. It’s been 107 years for the Cubs.
Not saying that players with a load of senior caps should then be "dropped" back to the U21s if they still qualify - though there is a good argument for that - but saying that they should have a lot of U21 games before being promoted to the senior squad. For a lot of players the world cup / euros is their first experience of tournament football, when they would / should have had a chance to play in the U21 tournament. I'd be interested to see stats on the number of U21 games played by the most successful senior players of all countries, and see if they have had previous experience of U21 tournaments before senior ones.
But what happens is you get players in the U21's who simply aren't good enough and will probably never get a senior cap-so why give them tournament experience? I love 'little Tommy Caroll' but will he make the step up? similarly Chalobah and Garbutt and Moore and those who didn't even play.So these players could have been on the bench whilst the likes of The Ox, Wilshere and Sterling could have got tournament experience which they will need ahead of Euro 2016.
If you honestly think you can tell which of those players will be regular internationals and which won't in the future then you should get yourself a job as a Director of Football/Chief Scout because none of those has anything much more than a 50:50 hit rate. Except Comolli of course.....
