Why Should England...

Does the same thing happen in Germany and Spain?

Glorifed training sessions is exactly what friendlies are but they are needed. The just should charge £90 for one.

I think the thing that often gets over looked is what the player wants. Gerrard will have wanted to play 90mins. Wilshere will have also wanted to play. If there are any fingers to be pointed it should be at the players.

Also to add...

Does teh EPL really do much in hrnessing young English talent??

Also, I think the money being pumped into teh EPL is also having an impact.

We need our players to play in different leugue, adapt to different styles of football etc... it woudl improve the national team. But with the wages these players are on....no club abroud woudl pay the Transfer fee...as well as the wage demands.

Take Rooney, Gerrard, Lampard etc... I personally thinlk all of these players would have been significantly better if they went abroud.
Agree its not always successful...but the ones that do make it, and I think those 3 I have listed would have, would take England to the next level

I disagree. The FA and the EPL are planets away from each other. Each has mutually exclusive objectives. The sole driving force of the FA is to win as many trophies in order to generate more money. That's exactly the same as th clubs, but there the similarity ends. The FA in effect borrow and insure club's players for the duration of a contest, friendly or otherwise, which can last from 90 minutes to a four week period. If a player gets injured in the ensuing period, back he goes to the club and he remains their problem, with the FA possibly picking up the tab during his lay-off period.

But for a host or reasons, some not all evident, many player slip in and out of the national squad; there is, with few exception, any regularity. The FA are therefore relying on someone else's players, at all times: the clubs are stuck with them for the season, with very little room for manoeuvre. So, why should the clubs entrust their valuable possessions to the FA, who can and do pick another layer at their whim?

JimmyTheRed

Certainly the Premier league is not doing much to help the England team, but then you could argue why should they?

And the clubs themselves have no real interest in creating English talent other than filling quotas, over any other countries talent.

I think a rule which restricted all U18 player movement around the world would be beneficial, maybe even U21's.

Then English clubs couldn't sign the best foreign teenagers, so would have no choice but to improve more British talent, likewise any other country their own talent (although we are the worst at it, arguably).

This would also strengthen other domestic leagues. The trouble is it would impact employment law and be difficult legally for FIFA/ UEFA to justify.

managers get upset because of the poor timing sometimes for internationals, especially friendlies. It's understandable, the potential for injuries is clearly increased, bottom line is, the club pays good money for a footballers services, fit or not, if someone broke your £20m asset, you'd be pi$$ed off to.

Righteous, I think that the only appeal to clubs for lending their players, and this I think will definitely happen with at least both Sturridge and Raheem is that the FA will say, "look, LFC, look what we've done. We've put your player/s on a stage greater than you ever could, and look at the interest/ value in the player that has generated".

JimmyTheRed

I must argue the point that Lampard and Gerrard would have benefitted from going abroad. Both have shined at Chelsea and Liverpool respectively and I doubt moving abroad would have aided when they suited these clubs to a tee.

Although I would however agree that younger English players especially would greatly benefit from moving abroad at some point in their career, where they would not have the spot light on them so heavily.

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator