Had we had him on our usual 2 -3 year deal it is likely we may still have had him? but would he have been appreciated as England potential? doubt it..
We used to have numerous good English keepers. Be honest how many is there to choose from these days. Hart is far and away our best keeper and Butland may be the future but Heaton playing for England ? We must be desperate.
By my reckoning, only 5 prem teams have English keepers- (Not sure if Schmicheal qualifies as well?)- Hart, Butland, Forster, Foster and Ruddy- Then you have to go into Championship-
Yes, but Forster and Butland are showing world class form this season, so Hart has pressure to maintain his own excellent form, and for a couple of friendlies it hardly matters. In fact it is a good thing because it allows Hodge to view the other keeper talent. Heaton will only get to sniff Forster's gloves I guess.
We did have him on an option for another year. Not sure who terminated but bearing in mind where he went, I am guessing it wasn't us...
We signed him on that option because he was only Cardiffs number 2 at the time, and if I remember rightly was not getting positive comments in the first few games even though we was winning. I think Burnley came sniffing round towards the end of the season when relegation was certain.
We are, and have been for years due to waves of foreigners coming in. When I was a kid there were no foreign keepers and very few foreign players aside from the usual sprinkling of Scots, Welsh and Irish. There were the odd exotic players like Colin Viljoen of Ipswich, Clyde Best of West Ham So from the late 60's/early 70's onwards there was a huge choice of English keepers in Gordon Banks, Peter Bonetti, Gordon West, Springetts (2 Ron & Peter) Peter Shilton, Ray Clemence, Joe Corrigan, Phil Parkes x 2 (QPR & Wolves) etc All were good solid keepers, and I believe most were capped at some point aside from the obvious names who got bucket loads. Now we're down to Hart, Green (no thanks), and Butland. And it's no better with outfield players. The so called Golden Generation were all a huge let down, because it was more about hype, what they were earning, and who they were married to rather than them having the true international class to back it all up.
That's why England enjoyed such a glorious time circa 1972 - 1980... Too many foreigners in our game is an excuse - I think there should be quotas, but only as much as saying there must be three English players in any match-day squad, or something similar, simply to protect an English 'identity'. Much more would be little more than simply rewarding mediocrity. Are you seriously suggesting that Peter 'the cat' Bonetti was indicative of superior quality, afforded by lack of foreigners in the league? Those are some pretty rosy glasses you're wearing. If anything, by having top international talent in and around our players, they can learn from them and pushes them that much harder to succeed - and if they can't make the first team squad at any particular club, there are plenty of others out there - they could even (God forbid) play for a Championship side. Back to the keeper situation, England are actually fortunate to have great options right now - Hart is excellent, Butland one of the star performers of the season, Forster similarly (barring injuries), then Ben Foster is a decent understudy. You may bemoan Heaton being in the squad as an indication of lack of depth, but realistically, it'd take an extraordinary set of circumstances for him to be selected for a competitive game.
I'd say that too many average foreigners throughout the English game in the last 30 years has adversely affected the performances of national team is a fact, not an excuse. But part of the blame has to be laid at the doors of lazy clubs who by and large preferred to buy rather than develop English talent. I'm not saying Bonetti was world class, he wasn't. I said he was a good solid keeper and aside from his very costly mistake in Mexico he was just that. He'd never have even played against West Germany had Banks not been ill. The lack of foreigners at the time of Bonetti and co was just how it was. There were better keepers than him like Pat Jennings, David Harvey and possibly Bob Wilson playing at the top level, but obviously they weren't English. I wont mention Gary Sprake... Hart aside, IMO Butland and co are all ok but are frankly no better than Bonetti was at this level all those years ago.
I don't agree - as I alluded to before, in the 70s, English clubs dominated Europe, with teams filled with British players, yet it coincided with England's worst period of performance at International level. People like to use 1966 as the shining example of English football, when we ruled the World and men were men, not like the soft, spoiled prima donnas of today, but I'm of the opinion that you don't change things for the better by looking to the past, but planning for the future. If you could persuade a top flight team of today to adopt all the same approaches of your standard 60's side (including tactics, training, diet, including attitude to smoking & drinking), then I don't think they'd be successful. I see your point about foreign players who aren't of the highest standard being signed, however it's hard to argue that they don't often offer better value than English players. We only spent £2m on Kodjia, whereas signing an comparatively talented English striker would likely have cost significantly more (and that's before wages). It's a romantic idea to suggest that if clubs nurtured their young English players more, that they would develop into superstars, but there also needs to be a certain amount of 'raw material' to work with. For example, I think no matter how much top class, expert guidance I might have received as a youngster, I don't think I ever would have reached a high level. To their credit, more clubs do seem to be investing in their academies - for all their splashing of cash, Manchester City have spent a fortune on theirs, so it'll be interesting to see what players come from there in the next decade. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm - debatable at best. I think the game has changed so much that comparing players of different eras is very difficult, though by and large I'm of the opinion that standards have risen and that players are stronger, faster and fitter.
You contradict yourself ... too many foreigners in our game is an excuse .. I think there should be quotas.. must be three English players in any match-day squad .. so for every English player there are at least 4 or 5 non English! must be three English players in any match-day squad Much more would be little more than simply rewarding mediocrity basically confirms to many foreign players are cramping English players from opportunities... .. your previous argument to many is a joke/ sorry excuse = 3 players per squad are being brought on by 15 others who are non English! as for #15 post contradictions and witterings odd good point money attracts money .... premiership is the football money cow .. get there and finish bottom with no real effort and that is close to £100m ..... and back down to try again .... with more money to hike up wages and transfer fee's .. so yes academies will bring on youth .. if there were 92 academies then each year they all produced 1 player who were equal to a regular spot in a team in their division would that mean 92 less foreign players? no just that a large percentage would finish up in the lower leagues ... in sub standard football Big examples of that is how many English players under 30 play for top teams abroad .... and why do the nations of Wales Ireland Scotland Eire HAVE TO PLUNDER THE lower English leagues for international class players! You want or believe? quotas .... then try on the pitch at any game a minimum of 6 national players ...
I'm sorry, but I can barely understand a lot of what you've said, but it seems like you've twisted my words: There are two separate statements: one, saying that too many foreigners is having a negative impact on the national team is an excuse. Two, I think there should be quotas in order to protect an English identity within our teams. It's not being contradictory; I'm simply stating that I believe there should be a quota, but for reasons other than the well-being of the national team. No it doesn't - if anything the point is the opposite. I'm saying that if you had strict guidelines saying you needed a large number of English players in your team, what it would result in, is players of poorer quality being in higher ranked teams, simply because of their nationality. Instead of 'cramping English players from opportunities', it would be giving opportunities to a lot of players that otherwise wouldn't deserve them. It'd also further inflate their transfer value, which exacerbates the problems of money in the game. I think for the majority of clubs, if they had an academy player of the same ability as a potential foreign signing, they'd more often than not rather have the academy player. This is a subjective point though, as the quality of players is debatable. Trying to quantify it though, say you had a player that was good enough to play in the English top flight 20/30 years ago, who is now only good enough to play for a second tier team nowadays; is that a bad thing? If you're suggesting that development could be stifled by not playing against as good opposition, then that's at least partially offset by the increased ability/difficulty of the lower tiers. I'm not sure how much this is related - you make the point of 'money attracts money', and it's in England where players make the most money more often than not. You hear quite a few examples of English players with offers from foreign clubs that turn them down because they find staying here the easier option, which is as much cultural as it is a lack of demand for their services. Do you think quotas would increase the attractiveness of English players to foreign clubs? I think the only example in history of English players regularly playing abroad would be the late 80s early 90s, where the ban of English clubs in Europe after Heysel and increased wages made it more attractive. As for the example of other UK nations, Wales has it's strongest side for generations right now, so is the fact that they are 'PLUNDER(ing) THE lower English leagues' to imply that they are worse off than before? I think their success is more down to having a number of highly talented players at the same time (a fabled 'golden generation' if you will) and it's another debate about whether that's simply down to chance, or whether the opportunities/coaching they received was superior to before. I'd say a bit of both, leaning slightly towards the former, but if you were to say the latter, then it would be contradictory to say that their development was stifled by the presence of foreigners.
you seem to have done a good job of understanding, in trying to qualify the various points to make your original comments feasible and non contradictory .. one bit of help for you:- 3 English players in a squad = 15 non English players = taking the prem where the biggest gulf already lies = 72 English players and 360 non English so potentially 360 prospective ENGLAND players WONT GET A GAME ... you stated the above, and by virtue of it you disagree that there are to many players from abroad ..... you confirm your statement by giving 3 from 18 on a matchday should be English, agreement by stating 15 non English in a matchday squad is acceptable = you don't think to many players ARE non English ... wriggle as much as you want ... I've said my bit and done.
You clearly haven't bothered to read and understand my response - you've taken a single line out of context and then stuck your fingers in your ears, so like you said, probably best to leave it there. BTW, a handy link for you in future http://www.edufind.com/english-grammar/english-grammar-guide/
Because of free movement in the EU you can not restrict the number of foreign players, like you can't stop the number of foreign workers in costa coffee. You and I can go to work anywhere within the EU rather than outside when visa etc needs to be approved. Where the English prem falls down is Brazillions claiming to have Spanish or Portugese passports because their aunties cousin's dog is from there. But back to your own arguement boys it's funny
