Spain, Germany and Italy do not have a squad rule, do they?
What Spain and Germany do have is a "B" team system within their league structure.

The home-grown rule has not had a positive affect on bringing quality players through. Making it stricter won't make players better. It will just cause a decline in quality of PL teams (haven't we seen that already?) and big 6 stock-piling the best of the Brits just to meet the rules. (again, something we have seen already).

It isn't about forcing teams to play Brits. It is about developing players so they are good enough - and have the right mentality - to make them the better option.

City and Chelsea have been investing a lot into their academies to bring them up to, and beyond, the level of Arsenal, United and Spurs.

Players going abroad is a good thing as well. Hopefully that will see a trend.

The England U20 World Cup winning Calvert-Lewin will see more game time, because his boss never got a striker in.

Not necessarily but it doesn't matter for them when they are bringing through the talent though, they don't need it when they are developing these players.

I get your point about Chelsea, but they don't play them. Players like RLC and Chalobah have been around for a good few years now, even Ake. This season they've moved to play games or loaned to play games which will help them better than sitting on the bench every game.

Well, if the FA suddenly decide next season that a rule is you must have at least 5 home-grown players in your match day squad and at least 2 of them must have trained with the club for at least 2 years between the ages of 16-21, surely that would then increase the likelihood of more young talent coming through? Be it at the top clubs or the lower clubs? These players will develop by playing games more than what they ever will just playing U23 games.

Just looked into it, La Liga doesn't have the limit (just non-EU). Italy have a 4 HG + 4 club trained. Germany have 8+4 - but no limits on numbers of players in a squad or non-EU players so these players can be under 21.

comment by Arouna Jagielka oooh I wanna take ya, Heitinga Nikica come on pretty mama (U1308)
posted 13 minutes ago
The England U20 World Cup winning Calvert-Lewin will see more game time, because his boss never got a striker in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'be struggled to warm to him as a striker. Thought he was right back watching him play for Everton.

Or am I thinking someone else?

Did he play right side?

comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 11 minutes ago

Just looked into it, La Liga doesn't have the limit (just non-EU). Italy have a 4 HG + 4 club trained. Germany have 8+4 - but no limits on numbers of players in a squad or non-EU players so these players can be under 21.
----------------------------------------------
Your missing the point though. These countries do it voluntarily, we don't. That's the issue.

So if we aren't going to do it voluntarily, then the FA surely must step in for the benefit of our country and national side and amend some rules to make it at least possible for some young or even English talent to have some chance of playing?

surely that would then increase the likelihood of more young talent coming through? Be it at the top clubs or the lower clubs? These players will develop by playing games more than what they ever will just playing U23 games.
============
The question is whether they will develop into top players or just players good enough for the league they are in?
Have the likes of Tom Carroll, Jonjo Shelvey, Isaac Hayden, Tom Cleverly stepped up since becoming first team regulars? Or would they if they stayed at Spurs, Liverpool, Arsenal, United under the forced to play Brits rule?

Your missing the point though. These countries do it voluntarily, we don't. That's the issue.
=========
No, you are missing the point that clubs will pick the best players available to them regardless of squad rules. Enforcing teams to pick Brits does not make players better, it just makes it easier for them.

Well that's the question really, but they've got a better chance if they are playing with better players with first team football at the likes of the top 6 (7 if you want to include Everton from last season) than what they do sat on the bench, loaned out to a lower league side and then into the abyss.

Some of them won't. The one's you've mentioned above haven't. But then you look at players like Walker, Rose, Kane, Alli, Rashford etc that have since in recent times. That's by playing regular minutes as well at a top club. Some there is some correlation and believe more will develop if they play games at a better side.

comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 22 seconds ago

Your missing the point though. These countries do it voluntarily, we don't. That's the issue.
=========
No, you are missing the point that clubs will pick the best players available to them regardless of squad rules. Enforcing teams to pick Brits does not make players better, it just makes it easier for them.
------------------------------------------
They've got more chance of playing sat on the bench than what they do not in the squad or playing the U23 game that weekend put it that way. That's the hypothesis really. It's not proven, but not unproven either. Surely going to give us players in years to come of higher quality. Obviously failure to adhere to the squad rules will result in sanctions which teams will not want. Again, the sanctions can't just be your flimsy fine every time somebody does it.

Or is it that they are good enough, and as such play regardless of squad rules?

Some players are already good enough. Players like Sterling and Rashford for example that were good enough and developed into well established/first team regulars for their first clubs/current clubs at one point.

But players will get better the more they play. That's the whole idea. Not to sit here watching some talent being wasted.

But players will get better the more they play.
======
That isn't necessarily true. A player not good enough will not improve, and in many cases decline. We see it all the time with players clearly out of their depth. Some may get carried along, but when it comes to the national side it will be exposed.

Correct actually yes, not in all cases. But I think we can follow the trend that the more they play, the better they are. A player not good enough won't improve? Yes they will and whilst you are true about players being out of their depth, more have proven to relish the challenge and make a solid improvement. Examples like Rashford, Alli, Kane, Walker, Rose, Sterling, Ibe, all the current Everton lot etc. They were once considered "not good enough", they got a chance and now look at them.

If a player is good enough he’ll play. I don’t think managers care what country they’re from, nor do I as a fan. Would make absolutely no difference to me if we won things with a bunch of foreign players we scouted or players born within a few miles who came through our academy. There’s no additional merit based on the passport of the player.

This obsession about trying to find a way for English players to play is tedious to the extreme. If they’d been coached better from the ages of 10 or whatever like many of their foreign counterparts then maybe they’d be in a position to play as opposed to stinking the place out as they did vs Germany in the U21 final in the summer - afraid and unable to use the ball, spending 60 mins playing on the counter attack because they didn’t have the ability to play.

Examples like Rashford, Alli, Kane, Walker, Rose, Sterling, Ibe, all the current Everton lot etc. They were once considered "not good enough", they got a chance and now look at them.
==========
Not sure I follow you here. Rashford has been pretty regular since he was 18, Alli hasn't looked back since coming through at 16 for the MK Dons, Kane has been a regular since he was 20 after Spurs spent years developing him and gradually increasing the level of his loan, Walker and Rose were signed at a young age and developed, Sterling was a regular at 17 and signed for around £50m, Ibe has done nothing of note, not sure the "current Everton lot" were written off.

You are not talking about players thrown on the scrap heap by their clubs - only Ibe has taken a backwards step and he is the one on the list who stands out for not improving much (still got a lot of time).

I'm talking more the International level rather than club football. But I think it can be an improvement to club football as well because sometimes you have to take a step backwards, change things to move forward again.

Lets rewind. 10-15 years ago, you would usually see an English team reaching the latter stages of the CL. Nowadays, this is not seen anywhere near as often. The only two times an English team has reached the CL final since the beginning of the decade was Chelsea in 2012 and United in 2011. Wind back to the start of the 04-05 season, English teams were reaching the final nearly every year from then on. In fact, the only years since 2004 to the last time (2012) that an English team has not reached the final was once in 2010. At this time, these clubs' top players were the English players they had because they were developed and given an opportunity. Now if that doesn't seem like a plausible theory to me, then what does.

What I'm saying is, once upon a time, these players were seen as not good enough for the current level they are playing at. Then they were given a chance. Alli was disregarded by a lot of top clubs in England I bet barring Arsenal and Spurs, signed, given a chance, top player.

Kane was shipped out on loan here, there and everywhere because he "wasn't good enough" for the first team squad. Was given a chance, top player now.

What don't you follow about that?

comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 26 seconds ago
What I'm saying is, once upon a time, these players were seen as not good enough for the current level they are playing at. Then they were given a chance. Alli was disregarded by a lot of top clubs in England I bet barring Arsenal and Spurs, signed, given a chance, top player.

Kane was shipped out on loan here, there and everywhere because he "wasn't good enough" for the first team squad. Was given a chance, top player now.

What don't you follow about that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact you think a player has to be in the team before his 18th birthday mainly.

Alli was scouted by Liverpool, United, Arsenal and Spurs, who took it on. To say he was seen as not good enough to play at PL level is a bit strange. Been a PL regular since he was 18.

Kane wasn't ready, he was being developed. If he was thrown in at Spurs as a 17 year old, when he wasn't ready, there is a good chance he would have flopped. Instead he has been a PL regular since he was 20.

Taking players who have been developed into top players seems a strange way to argue they have no chance!

I don't think your hearing me right.

"THERE WAS ONCE A TIME WHEN THEY WERE NOT DEEMED GOOD ENOUGH" - like Kane. They got a chance, now they are top players. The start of the season of Rashford's breakthrough year, he wasn't good enough, he was given a chance, now he is.

Conclusion: You give youngsters a chance, you may be rewarded. This doesn't happen often enough in the English game. If clubs HAVE to involve young talent in the match day squad, they are more likely to get game time, thus, much more likely to improve as a footballer.

Understand?

If Kane was deemed not good enough Spurs would have released him - not developed him until the time was right.

I am pretty sure United knew the potential of Rashford, otherwise he would have been nowhere near the squad. It wasn't luck that he was in the squad when he got his chance - it was because United rated him.


Neither were DEEMED NOT GOOD ENOUGH - they were deemed not ready yet, and their development continued.

If they weren't ready, surely that makes them not good enough at the time does it not? Am I speaking a different language.

Anyway fed up of trying to get my point across which your just ignoring. Good luck Darsenal.

I am not ignoring your point at all. I am highlighting the error in your point. DEEMED NOT GOOD ENOUGH is a final statement, and very different to not being ready but having the potential to be good enough.
Your idea seems to be chuck as many players in as possible and hope. Nothing about coaching, nothing about developing players, nothing about changing the mentality of British players in general.
You say playing at the highest level with the best players is enough, ignoring the fact you are cutting the number of top players and reducing the level of the league by this idea.

The majority of times a player isn't blooded as a 17 year old is not because he is not good enough. It is usually he isn't physically ready, mentally ready or needs to develop his game further.

A player deemed not good enough is released.

In that case there are 1000’s of players who are deemed as ‘not good enough’ then, such as all of those in the U23 and U18 squads across the country regardless of their nationality who don’t play for the first team often or at all. So then surely the question should be why aren’t any of them good enough as opposed to just the English ones.

Why isn’t Hazard’s kid brother good enough?
Why isn’t Onomah good enough?