Now before anyone rants about being racists or whatever, just read the point I'm trying to make ............ at the end of the day, it is only my opinion. Consider this .......... The Division 1 ( as it used to be known ) / English Premier league, seems to be moving off course. As an Aussie and a football fanatic, I've always reckoned that this league, with it's fast playing football, was the best in the world. Maybe it still is ............ BUT will it continue to be as exciting with such an influx of foreign players, each window transfer? The reason I make this post is having considered how many European players ( as an example ) Newcastle now have on their team. Now I have no issue with whatever foreign players that choose to play in the PL but I DO have concerns as to how such an influx of foreign talent MAY, over a period of time, change the whole structure of this great league. That is my main concern. European football is vastly different to English football, regardless of what we individuals think .................... so if you continue to load a team up with European talent, you will eventually get a European brand of football. I also have grave fears for the wealth of talent ( English Players and alike ) that are learning the trade in the lower divisions ............ Will they continue to get their chance to make it to the big time????????? Their opportunity, I'm afraid is dwindling. At the end of the day, I just want, regardless who plays, English football to stay as it is and for the youngsters to have their opportunity ......... nothing more.
IMO the backbone of a team needs to be English (or Irish, Welsh, Scottish). Look at what Hill, Derry, Mackie bring to the team, honest endeavour. Warnock struck on an excellent mix in the Championship winning season, grit and flair.
Nothing beats a local lad coming up through the ranks and playing for the club he watched as a kid and dreamed of stepping out onto it's hallowed turf!! But that will be a rare story indeed nowadays. Progress eh?!
The problem for several years now is that British players have been expensive compared to their foreign counterparts. Until the lower league feeder clubs learn the harsh facts of life and reduce their demands, the PL clubs will always look abroad as a first choice. The ones who are regarded as value for money are therefore the kids coming through the youth teams and then being snapped up for peanuts by the big boys to play in their second or third teams. waiting for the next tug of war between say Chelsea and Man Utd over the next prodigious 12 year old talent whose balls have not even dropped yet. It's a gamble for the clubs but at that price one worth making.
I think this concern is about 15 years too late The best team ever in the premier league era (arsenal c. 2003/4) regularly featured no players from the UK, with only Ashley Cole and Sol Campbell as regulars. Having no english players is hardly a sign of weakness, nor is it effecting the league (I think you will find that Newcastle back in the day of their successive 2nd places had only 3 or 4 UK born players, much like today). Its an entertainment business and you just need to look at the excruciating English national team to see why clubs shy away from players bereft of technique. Would you rather the EPL was like watching an England game every week? surely not! Any half decent young players get snapped up far too young by the same three or four big clubs, never getting a proper football education leaving them finished by the age of 21 and lost in League 2 somewhere. If you're telling me that the influx of foreign players in the 90s, the likes of Zola, Boksic, Carbone, Cantona, Bergkamp etc etc damaged the 'Englishness' of a league of overweight duffers like Ruddock and Micky Quinn, then I have to say you may be in the minority. Foreign players transformed the EPL into a global league and as such attracted the best players in the world to come and play here and no doubt helped the league and I would say 90% of the clubs in it make more money, play better football and attract more fans. Now if you're talking about the National team, then this is a different matter altogether because there are less homegrown players playing in the top flight, but one must remember the ridiculous prices quoted for home grown players these days. Just look at Swansea with Michu. £2m (and he was hardly a hidden player) in comparison with £35m for Carroll or £12m for Sturridge. But if home grown players are not getting the chance at top flight football in the UK, then why are there not more UK players playing abroad? Why do none of them take the chance to play in the Dutch or German leagues? Its hardly like going to the moon and their footballing education will no doubt be far better. I would suggest the main reason for this in modern football is that due to the massively outdated youth set up in this country, which basically means that UK players are much, ,much worse than those raised on the continent, that no foreign clubs really want English Players. Which is probably why no English clubs really buy them either.
Excellent post Kampala. I would have understood the OP 15 Years ago or so, but now the game in England has moved on miles for better and worse. Mainly better really as the level of skill and entertainment with many of the World's best players in the PL gives a huge variety of skill sets which we can see every week, all combined with the the traditional English style and unique atmosphere at games.
Don't think anyone has a problem with the so called "world class" talent gracing our shores. But it's gone way beyond that now, we're getting all the average and **** players now suffocating our leagues, snuffing out home grown talent!!
I don't accept this. There are plenty, plenty leagues in England for players to develop in, and as Kampala pointed out plenty more good leagues just across about 25 miles of sea. If home grown talent is getting snuffed out, then that talent was probably not so good after all, or was demanding too much money, or unwilling to move away to develop further.
There used to be more UK players playing in European Leagues but for some reason (probably wages) they seem to have disappeared. Those who played in Italy did well apart from Ian Rush who failed dismally and Luther Blissett who was allegedly bought by mistake thinking he was John Barnes. Blissett however lives on in Italian culture for some obscure reason: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sport/football/293678.stm
I think cream should raise to the top. If there were good young British players, really good, then they would get picked out and get given a chance, but there just are not many of these players about in this generation and any players even remotely good get hyped into the stars and as such they get ideas above their station, get lazy, get overpriced and ultimately fail to succeed. I would rather spend £3m on a lad from Turkey who has worked his way to the upper leagues, has a few caps and looks a real talent and a model pro, than £15m on someone home grown who lacks all of these except the caps. Players like Scott Sinclair come to mind. He is a young player, very good. But he has gone from a team where he played each week, to Manchester City, where he cannot possibly have hoped to get a game. Now one might forgive him this, but remember, he has already played for Chelsea in his career and suffered the same problems there. Now, if he (as MOST young english players are) was not tempted by money, then he could have probably gone to someone like PSV or Lille and had the chance to play week in week out and compete in European football while improving his football education. I wonder if our fortunes as England fans would have changed if more of our national players had moved abroad and gotten used to a slower, more continental game? I appreciate that we do get what might be called average players coming to the EPL these days, especially from the teams in the bottom half, but if an average player from country X cost £1m and an average player from England, or Britain cost £7m, £10m, £17m, whatever (people like Henderson, Joe Allen, maybe Aaron Ramsey) then what are those teams supposed to do? Look at Zaha, £15m? To sit on the bench? Back in the 90s, 00s etc, he would have gone to someone like Southampton or Forest (based on their positions at the time) for around £1-3m (again, for the times) and play for a few seasons, get stronger and learn the trade before moving for a larger sum to one of the big boys, and be a good player for it. But because there are now so few decent British players, the ones who show any talent at all, get hyped, raved and hawked about for fortunes, so only 2-3 clubs (in england) can buy them. If youth football, and I'm talking about all the way to grass routes, was improved to the standard that Holland, Spain, France and Germany had in the 80s or 90s, let alone today, we would see far more talent coming through, far more youngsters keen to keep playing football and then far more of a pool of British talent to choose from, thus lowering prices and resulting in more clubs being able to afford to buy good British talent.
I don't accept this. I'm pretty sure it costs these lower league clubs a damn sight more money to coach and nurture talent in England than one having the same attention in Burkina Faso! So why shouldn't they want more money?! Or deserve it. Young players here can't just say "I'll pop over to France with my boots and see if I can get a game." if there aren't any scouts from other countries recommending them it's not going to happen. You are over simplifying a complex process, talent is not enough sometimes.......
I didn't say it was simple problem! There are also countries like where I am where coaching and nurturing a talent will cost a lot more than in England.
I dont know about it costing more in England to raise young Players. The Ajax academy costs over £6m annually to run, that's before you look at the individual cost of each player which equates to some millions if they make the grade. Jan Vertonghen, 25, left Ajax for Spurs for 12m, with champions league experience and 30-odd caps for Belgium to his name. Man Utd Paid Fulham the same amount for the totally untried Chris Smalling, 23, (Fulham having not had a single hand in his development) and 17m on (the perhaps better prospect than smalling) Phil Jones who blackburn had had since he was 10. Now if a proven international and champions league performing player, from a club who spends more on youth than nearly any team in the world can cost same or less than two completely unproven players of a similar age. Then I know who I would be spending my money on. Now this is just one case I could think of in a moment, but I think its fairly good at showing why teams prefer to shop abroad when internationally experienced players in their prime can cost less than a risky young english prospect. English players cost more, most of them are not as good as their foreign counterparts or have certainly had less of a football education, why would you buy them if you didnt have to?
C Jones and smalling were teenagers when man utd "chose" to buy them for that price. They could have just as easily left them at their former clubs til they were 25. And I doubt a 19 year old vertonghen would've have got into the starting 11 at man utd. If you're asking me who'd I'd rather have in my team now for the same outlay, it's Phil Jones all the way.......
The extra outlay needs to justify the end result. If the coaching made the English kid better than the lad from Burkina Faso then he's worth more. If he's the same ability then they should be worth the same. I could spend a thousand pounds making a piece of art but it isn't worth what I put into it unless it's good.
Im pretty sure that the selling clubs demanded that figure, if I remember rightly, several clubs were looking at jones, including liverpool. Its not as if Sir Alex just turned up and plucked the 17m figure from the goodness of his heart. I would rather have a 25 year old experienced international at the peak of his powers than an injury prone player who is yet to excel at any one position alone. Jones could be a great player, but thats the crux. Could be. Most clubs are going to spend their money on proven players and if UNPROVEN players are costing 17m, then they have to go abroad. Also, would that be the same Torres who was one of the hottest properties in the world and became the best centre forward in the world when he moved to England? He's not been great for chelsea but you can hardly blame them buying a finished product of world value. If someone purchased Messi this week and he flopped, you could hardly say they should have bought Danny Welbeck instead. Veron also was probably one of , if not the best centre midfielder in the world when Utd bought him.
No one thought Torres was worth anywhere near £50m! And I'm afraid every player who comes here from abroad is unproven til they show they can cut it in the premier league. There have been just as many failures as successes, when so called "proven" players arrive here. Being a top player in France, Holland, Germany, Spain etc. Does not guarantee you'll thrive in another part of the world. There has also been a good number of players who have struggled abroad and been fantastic here, like Thierry Henry, so nothing is a given in the world of football.........
