That's too blithe. The English youth teams, both at country and club level, have actually been very competitive at the international levels. I think England won the U-21s this past year, for instance and our youth team is still in the junior CL. There definitely has been more investment into the youth levels than before, too - just look at us, Citeh, etc. It's funny, compared to Cuddly Ken's complete lack of interest in it, but we currently have more English players called up to the English U-whatevers than any other club in the country*. The question is, where are they going to play? You've seen, for instance, what playing a young English player like Chambers in the league means (I mean, he's bad). In that regard, FFP may actually help, since it may force everyone to play a bit more youth, especially clubs like Citeh (and us). The coaching, however, I agree with. Again, as I said - Stewart Pierce! How can you hand over the new generation of English talent to the equivalent of Tim Sherwood - "get stuck in boys"! *The point isn't "we're awesome", but that clubs that have historically not given a shit about youth now care about it a lot more. When Abramovich took over, he and his charges were shocked as to how neglected the academy was in terms of investment and interest. It's taken a long time to build it back up to a high level and to convince top prospects that it's worth coming to, something which started with foreign youngsters, like the Borinis of the world.
I think you're seeing that change already - most of it has to come from the clubs themselves, and it it is happening. Part of the problem is that due to geographical restrictions previously the top clubs that were interested in youth were mostly subsiding on foreign players, while the new rules let them poach players fro further afield. For instance, much of the youth that you and we produced in our academies was foreign - I suspect there are considerably more Englishmen there now. I don't know your youth program very well, but our focus has certainly changed and I strongly suspect yours has as well, at least partially.
Well, that's also dependent on the generation of talent coming through. Ten years ago when the likes of Xavi, Iniesta and Messi were at La Masia, they might have been very differently placed. Also, I think there was a period in the last decade when either one of Real or Barca B were doing well enough in the 2nd league to approach promotion (which would be prohibited).
Agreed. I've even ever seen a League One match, but I image a team of experienced grown men vs youngsters wouldn't turn out that great. I also noticed that those three never played together specifically at Barcelona B. http://www.worldfootball.net/teams/fc-barcelona-b/20/ It would also be worth noting, that seeing a lot of those teams, you'll recognize maybe only a third of the names. Some kids just don't pan out. I'm also guessing that Barcelona B is actually more like Barcelona C or D.
Oops, why did I look at this thread, when I was going to watch that match later on DVR. My stupidity! p.s. That sounds just like Bendtner... being a big contributor for his country but rarely his club. Have never had on iota of regret that we let him go. In fact it took way too long as I recall.
There's no direct correlation, but you also don't see Iceland winning too many U-21 titles either. I'd rather have good U-21 teams than not.
Is this true? I think a more accurate statement would be that doing well at the U-21 level does not guarantee success at the senior level. Finishing dead last in the U-21s probably does mean failure at the senior level, however.
Sure - but Spain were, as I recall, successful at the junior level too. I think that's what he's trying to say, that winning at the U-21s isn't correlated to winning at the senior level. But it's also somewhat of a faulty premise, since so few countries actually win anything. You can be great and win nothing because there are only 5 major tournaments per decade.
Certainly, but it's not clear that winning at U-21s means that you'll be a regular quarterfinalist either.
There's no direct causation, certainly, but there's definitely correlation. If you never manage to do well at the U-21 level or other younger levels, it's not likely you'll do very well at the senior one.
I don't have any proof of this - but I believe the population of football talent would follow the normal population curve So in other words if coaching quality /grass roots stays the same, but you lift % of domestic talent from 33% participation to 66% - you should see 2x the number of players all along the curve. Similarly if you drop participation form 33% to 25% it won't be just the worst 25% of the talent you lose - it will end up being right across the curve. Quality & quantity both matter
At the U21 level there begins to be some correlation, but at younger levels there really isn't, at least not with winning titles. Go learn about South American player development- they are drilling technique, technique, technique. Until very late ages they play small sided on smaller pitches. They don't drill tactics or positional training. It's all about encouraging the development of close control, decision making, etc. The French and German player development systems have basically taken the Dutch and South American systems and built on that. It's not just the quality of coaching at those youth levels, it is the overall philosophy and culture.
er ... actually, if you'd care to take a look at the fruits of Mr. Sherwood's labors whilst in charge of our youth set up, you might concede that he deserves rather better than such comments imply.
i like the pace of the France vs Brazil game...Brazil's mids are no match for the power of Sissoko, Matuidi and Schneiderlin