I think one of the more obvious reasons is that if you look at the strongest European nations:
- France
- Germany
- Italy
-Spain
You'll notice that their domestic leagues all boast around 65-85 % of homegrown players
In England it's over 50% foreigners.
So any half decent English player will probably get an international cap sooner or later because the competition is so poor.
I also think England managers need to buck up. They always seem to pick english players as soon as they sign for United, Liverpool, Spurs etc
"I also think England managers need to buck up. They always seem to pick english players as soon as they sign for United, Liverpool, Spurs etc"
I actually think they should do that more. Part of the reason Spain are so good is due to the vast majority of their players coming from two clubs, they know each others games inside out because of it. We don't get anywhere near the same level of continuity and yet expect the team to gel straight away, it just isn't going to happen.
More players from one or two clubs will always give you better team cohesion.
I think one of the more obvious reasons is that if you look at the strongest European nations:
- France
- Germany
- Italy
-Spain
You'll notice that their domestic leagues all boast around 65-85 % of homegrown players
In England it's over 50% foreigners.
=======================================
I find the most imbecilic arguments in football to be the most 'durable' and the old 'foreigners blocking English talent', 'the competition is poor' or other silly derivative is just defeatist drivel, IMO or
People are looking at correlation and calling it causation.
The percentage of indigenous players is calculated at around 45: not much different from the 48 per cent estimated in Italy, whose national team OVERALL outperforms England internationally.
Football, for all its faults, is a meritocracy. If you are good enough, you will shine.
Whilst there is no singular reason for the moribund state of the English national team's fortunes, the amount of foreigners in the league has very little, if any, to do with it.
England's footballing peers are Sweden. They should stop comparing themselves to the likes of Germany and Italy and start comparing to the Swedes. Things will look a bit better if they do that and maybe they'll be happier.
Agreed Red Cog
Like I said in the OP, England were terrible in the 70's. Didn't even make a World Cup and yet there must have been close to a 90% rate of English people playing (with the rest being Scottish etc)
Dunc
To be fair to Roy, he only came in just before the Euros and didn't have a chance to build a certain style. He just had to go with what he had and many players were injured (Wilshere, Cleverley and Cahill) or suspended (Rooney).
Give him next years world cup before properly judging him.
The mentality has changed now though with England.
Between 96 and 2010.....we went into tournaments thinking it could be our year with a bit of luck. Those days are well and truly over.
NOBODY actually believes we have a cat in hells chance in Brazil 14 and France 2016 and they are right to think so....we don't. We'll be there (if we make it) to make up the numbers.
Good article Robbster
We are drama queens with our excessive expectations. We don't have a right to be world champions or close contenders every time. However, there is an element of justified grievance in that we know we could do better if our game were run more intelligently. The main issue is the pitiful youth development and culture surrounding it - whereby numerous countries that are actually less football-mad than we are churn out more technically accomplished players. (And RC is quite right that this is the crux of the lack of home-grown players in the Premiership.) Your point about a winter break is another example. England aren't among the best few teams in the world but our players are better than e.g. the performances of the last WC implied.
One thing:
"your club sides full of English players were cleaning up in Europe"
...we shouldn't understate the importance of Irish, Scottish and Welsh players during that era when English clubs were dominating Europe. Liverpool's great teams, to my memory, were fantastic British teams but less than 50% of the players were eligible to play for England. In this respect, the decline of Scottish football has been more marked than that of English.
Between 96 and 2010.....we went into tournaments thinking it could be our year with a bit of luck. Those days are well and truly over.
---------------------
Things aren't looking great now but balances of power fluctuate quickly. In 1988 England were abysmal. In 1990 we were unlucky not to make the final (where we'd have had a decent chance of winning). In 1992 we were epitomised by Carlton Palmer. In 1994 we failed to qualify. In 1996 we were again unlucky not to reach the final.
Right now England look weak and unconvincing. But among the emerging generation Wilshere and Will Hughes could turn out to be our Xavi and Iniesta. Smalling and Jones could become a world class defensive partnership with an understanding honed at their club. Luke Shaw could turn into one of the world's best attacking right backs. The reforms to youth coaching and relaxation of restrictions on elite clubs recruiting youngsters from all over the country could start to bear fruit within a few years. Nothing is inevitable. Our past isn't an unbroken golden age and our future may not be so bad.
I find the most imbecilic arguments in football to be the most 'durable' and the old 'foreigners blocking English talent'
----
or maybe its durable because there's merit in the notion.
I'm not talking decline as in failure to win an international tournament. There's only 5 per decade so there aren't many to be won by a generation of players.
But merely in terms of technical ability - english players just can't keep hold of a football. The composure levels are diabolical.
How could the decline of English players in the Premier league not lead to a drop in quality. If they're not playing at the top level then they certainly won't compete.
Metro
Back to RC's point about correlation / causation. Artificially reducing the quality of the league through quotas mean we will have more but worse English players getting more experience in a league of diminished quality. Perhaps it's actually better to have fewer players getting experience playing at a higher level among better players. That argument can work both ways.
What I don't think anyone can argue against, and what is surely the fundamental thing that needs to improve, is that if we start to coach players more effectively from a much younger age, the quality of players competing for opportunities in the Premier league will be raised.
I'm not against mild measures which encourage clubs to include home-grown players in their squads. But the key developmental phase is much much earlier and that's where there is a chance to make much more progress.
and last i checked, only 36% of players in the Prem were English - a third
Italy at 48% is half their league
Germany and Spain have improved greatly in recent years and their leagues both boast over 60% of homegrown
Metro_1
The key distinction is that Germany and Spain have extremely good youth development systems.
Do either of those leagues have quotas for domestic players? I don't know the answer to that but I'd guess they don't need them because the quality of home grown players is so high it makes economic sense.
Sign in if you want to comment
Too negative about England.
Page 2 of 2
posted on 20/6/13
I think one of the more obvious reasons is that if you look at the strongest European nations:
- France
- Germany
- Italy
-Spain
You'll notice that their domestic leagues all boast around 65-85 % of homegrown players
In England it's over 50% foreigners.
So any half decent English player will probably get an international cap sooner or later because the competition is so poor.
I also think England managers need to buck up. They always seem to pick english players as soon as they sign for United, Liverpool, Spurs etc
posted on 20/6/13
"I also think England managers need to buck up. They always seem to pick english players as soon as they sign for United, Liverpool, Spurs etc"
I actually think they should do that more. Part of the reason Spain are so good is due to the vast majority of their players coming from two clubs, they know each others games inside out because of it. We don't get anywhere near the same level of continuity and yet expect the team to gel straight away, it just isn't going to happen.
More players from one or two clubs will always give you better team cohesion.
posted on 20/6/13
I think one of the more obvious reasons is that if you look at the strongest European nations:
- France
- Germany
- Italy
-Spain
You'll notice that their domestic leagues all boast around 65-85 % of homegrown players
In England it's over 50% foreigners.
=======================================
I find the most imbecilic arguments in football to be the most 'durable' and the old 'foreigners blocking English talent', 'the competition is poor' or other silly derivative is just defeatist drivel, IMO or
People are looking at correlation and calling it causation.
The percentage of indigenous players is calculated at around 45: not much different from the 48 per cent estimated in Italy, whose national team OVERALL outperforms England internationally.
Football, for all its faults, is a meritocracy. If you are good enough, you will shine.
Whilst there is no singular reason for the moribund state of the English national team's fortunes, the amount of foreigners in the league has very little, if any, to do with it.
posted on 20/6/13
England's footballing peers are Sweden. They should stop comparing themselves to the likes of Germany and Italy and start comparing to the Swedes. Things will look a bit better if they do that and maybe they'll be happier.
posted on 20/6/13
Agreed Red Cog
Like I said in the OP, England were terrible in the 70's. Didn't even make a World Cup and yet there must have been close to a 90% rate of English people playing (with the rest being Scottish etc)
posted on 20/6/13
Dunc
To be fair to Roy, he only came in just before the Euros and didn't have a chance to build a certain style. He just had to go with what he had and many players were injured (Wilshere, Cleverley and Cahill) or suspended (Rooney).
Give him next years world cup before properly judging him.
posted on 20/6/13
The mentality has changed now though with England.
Between 96 and 2010.....we went into tournaments thinking it could be our year with a bit of luck. Those days are well and truly over.
NOBODY actually believes we have a cat in hells chance in Brazil 14 and France 2016 and they are right to think so....we don't. We'll be there (if we make it) to make up the numbers.
posted on 20/6/13
Good article Robbster
We are drama queens with our excessive expectations. We don't have a right to be world champions or close contenders every time. However, there is an element of justified grievance in that we know we could do better if our game were run more intelligently. The main issue is the pitiful youth development and culture surrounding it - whereby numerous countries that are actually less football-mad than we are churn out more technically accomplished players. (And RC is quite right that this is the crux of the lack of home-grown players in the Premiership.) Your point about a winter break is another example. England aren't among the best few teams in the world but our players are better than e.g. the performances of the last WC implied.
One thing:
"your club sides full of English players were cleaning up in Europe"
...we shouldn't understate the importance of Irish, Scottish and Welsh players during that era when English clubs were dominating Europe. Liverpool's great teams, to my memory, were fantastic British teams but less than 50% of the players were eligible to play for England. In this respect, the decline of Scottish football has been more marked than that of English.
posted on 20/6/13
Between 96 and 2010.....we went into tournaments thinking it could be our year with a bit of luck. Those days are well and truly over.
---------------------
Things aren't looking great now but balances of power fluctuate quickly. In 1988 England were abysmal. In 1990 we were unlucky not to make the final (where we'd have had a decent chance of winning). In 1992 we were epitomised by Carlton Palmer. In 1994 we failed to qualify. In 1996 we were again unlucky not to reach the final.
Right now England look weak and unconvincing. But among the emerging generation Wilshere and Will Hughes could turn out to be our Xavi and Iniesta. Smalling and Jones could become a world class defensive partnership with an understanding honed at their club. Luke Shaw could turn into one of the world's best attacking right backs. The reforms to youth coaching and relaxation of restrictions on elite clubs recruiting youngsters from all over the country could start to bear fruit within a few years. Nothing is inevitable. Our past isn't an unbroken golden age and our future may not be so bad.
posted on 20/6/13
I find the most imbecilic arguments in football to be the most 'durable' and the old 'foreigners blocking English talent'
----
or maybe its durable because there's merit in the notion.
I'm not talking decline as in failure to win an international tournament. There's only 5 per decade so there aren't many to be won by a generation of players.
But merely in terms of technical ability - english players just can't keep hold of a football. The composure levels are diabolical.
How could the decline of English players in the Premier league not lead to a drop in quality. If they're not playing at the top level then they certainly won't compete.
posted on 20/6/13
Metro
Back to RC's point about correlation / causation. Artificially reducing the quality of the league through quotas mean we will have more but worse English players getting more experience in a league of diminished quality. Perhaps it's actually better to have fewer players getting experience playing at a higher level among better players. That argument can work both ways.
What I don't think anyone can argue against, and what is surely the fundamental thing that needs to improve, is that if we start to coach players more effectively from a much younger age, the quality of players competing for opportunities in the Premier league will be raised.
I'm not against mild measures which encourage clubs to include home-grown players in their squads. But the key developmental phase is much much earlier and that's where there is a chance to make much more progress.
posted on 20/6/13
and last i checked, only 36% of players in the Prem were English - a third
Italy at 48% is half their league
Germany and Spain have improved greatly in recent years and their leagues both boast over 60% of homegrown
posted on 20/6/13
Metro_1
The key distinction is that Germany and Spain have extremely good youth development systems.
Do either of those leagues have quotas for domestic players? I don't know the answer to that but I'd guess they don't need them because the quality of home grown players is so high it makes economic sense.
Page 2 of 2