The debate about the number of English players playing for English clubs, which I joined last week over on GU Sports blog, rumbles on. I think more English players need to be exposed to top-flight football – the Premiership and Champions’ League – if they’re to develop into top-flight players. But Today, Simon Kuper writes an interesting piece in the FT which takes the opposite view.
“In short: anyone saying that England failed last month because the English Premier League is overrun by foreign players should recognise that English soccer has a constant, possibly eternal, problem: its lack of intelligence. The second problem is not that too few Englishmen play in the Premier League, but that too many do. [...] one could say that Englishmen get “only” 37 per cent of playing time in the Premier League. Or one could say they get a massive 37 per cent, more than any other nationality in what is arguably the world’s toughest league.”
Which is an interesting argument, but one that misses the point. The debate at the moment is around how to improve English national football, not its league. Yes, you could argue English (British) football isn’t intelligent, but the best way to make it intelligent is to expose more players and coaches to top-flight competition where their shortcomings will be exposed, so they learn. If clubs can immunise themselves from the crisis of footballing intelligence by importing the smarts, the crisis remains, but is exposed only when England take to the field.
I’m also not convinced by Kuper’s argument that English footballers are more tired than counterparts because of the excellence of the league in which they play; the number of games in the Premiership – kept high to boost revenues and maintain a cosy mid-table existance for the majority of sides in the league – means they’re more likely to be tired. It can’t help, either, that British sides tend to rely on physicality and high-tempo to beat more technically competent opponents.
But then our arguments start to come together. Yes, the English game is entertaining, but not particularly smart…
“English players are typically raised not to think about soccer. The English game follows an old-fashioned military model: managers command, players obey. Mr Eriksson discovered this in his pre-match chats with individual players. After outlining the opposition’s tactics in the player’s zone of the field, he would ask: “What would you do?” Often players would reply: “I don’t know. You’re the boss, Boss.””
Which is a slightly depressing story, given the likely salary of the person Eriksson was talking to. And, unfortunately, it’s a stupidity about the game reflected in a great deal of the print and broadcast coverage of the game (although clearly not by anyone I know).
We certainly agree that the next England manager shouldn’t be English.
“Mr McClaren and Mr Taylor both proved that being steeped in English soccer culture is a liability not an asset. Now England’s Football Association should turn up with a foreign manager, and say: “He’s not from here. That’s why we chose him.””
That’s one import which would make a lot of sense.
Hi,
I personally dont think that the problem is that we have too many foreign players. The english players are training with the best players in the world.
But i do think that there is a problem when no english players are playing in the Arsenal team. There isnt an english player in Arsenals 1st eleven and i do see a problem in that.
Apparently, by percentage Spain and Italy have more foreigners in their leagues.
Thus we have legitimate qualms. Its not to do with foreigners. Why cant we ever blame ourselves.
John – the studies I’ve seen over the last few weeks – one in the Telegraph I can’t find, plus this from a German (I think) website…
http://soccer-europe.com/Data/.....ayers.html
suggest the Premiership comfortably has more foreign players in its ranks.
Don’t know if you’ve seen this, but I find this analysis by The Economist quite interesting: Skills gap. Which shows that the problem is much deeper. And much more difficult to fix than with a probably pointless and at least partly illegal quota.
Thanks for the link Armin – it’s a typically interesting and well thought-through Economist piece, and it makes some interesting points on skills training among youngsters. But it dismisses too easily the calls for quotas as mere protectionism, while ignoring the odd truth: that England’s youth teams do pretty well, but that those promising youngsters too often fail to develop into top pros.
Contrary to what the Economist claims, the mediocre wouldn’t be coddled if they were thumped every week in the Champions’ League, because the market for competitions (if not players) would still be open. Faced with humiliation each year, Premiership clubs would invest more in modern coaching and youth developement to make sure they could compete at that top level. A by-product of this would a better English football team.