You make some good points and have argued your side well. I still disagree, but mostly because i haven't really seen that much evidence of national teams declining due to an influx of foreign born players. If you have the strength to respond (i'm a little tapped out myself), perhaps you could point out some National teams that have shown a serious decline in recent years, and don't bother with Scotland, thats too obvious. And as far as the US mens b-ball team goes, yeah i would sacrifice some of the dunks for some defense and some wins.
Let's be specific. The "affected areas?" The only people claiming this trend is bad for the game are from one of three camps: 1) Coaches of National Teams who have performed mediocre-to-poor recently (covering their back, blaming closest bogeyman: "WOOOoooo! Foreigners!") 2) "Nationalists" (read: xenophobes, and people who can't relate to, root for, or otherwise appreciate someone who didn't also grow up in the industrial waste pits that pass for cities in Great Britain, Germany, etc.) 3) Sepp Blatter. None of those people actually suffer because of this trend. Look who isn't saying bad things about multi-national rosters and globalizing teams. The teams, coaches and managers, or the players who play on multi-national teams (except Danny Murphy, who is definitely mediocre), and the myriad people that are _helped_ by this trend, like the foreign players and their national teams and fans.
What!?! I can't believe you wrote that. Did you think about it first? The point is that the Europeans that have come over are MORE talented than the players they are replacing! There is a salary cap in the NBA where there isn't one in european football, and this insures that at least no money is wasted (intentionally) on those who can't perform (Grant Hill and Juwan Howard typical of the exceptions). Needless to say, I also take issue with your characterization of both the motives behind the opinions of american followers (I presume all of them? Or just white ones? black ones? who, exactly?) of NBA basketball as well as your implied correlations between "inner-city African-americans," "whites," "boring," "showboat-type players," and "winning." I doubt you know more than a little about the criticisms of this latest incarnation of USA Basketball's team. And I hope it's obvious to all that you do not speak for Americans. Just in case it's not, I'm pointing this out now.
The question wasn't about NBA fans, it was about Americans in general. Take all the issue you want, it certainly won't affect America's racist undertones.
The bottom line is this: If you're good enough, then you'll play. Ashley Cole is good enough. He plays. Rohan Ricketts wasn't good enough - he doesn't play (for us, anyway, and he couldn't even hold his place for Sp*rs). Jermaine Pennant isn't good enough for us - he's done at this level after this season, if not sooner. Doesn't mean those guys can't play. They just can't play at Arsenal, where the bar has been set so high that we need top-level players at pretty much every position. (You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.) I guess you can try to assemble a squad like that buy buying it, but that gets pretty expensive (especially if you're an English team trying to buy English players), and only two teams in the league have those resources. Instead of whining about an influx of foreigners, how about taking a good hard look at what's causing one country's players to fall behind another's? (There are so many reasons why it's happened in England that it's an entirely separate conversation.) Everything else I'd say about this has already been expertly said by ibreak4coffee (see above).
I agree, with dwinkler. Can we say that the players Bolton have bought couldn't have been bought english, i'm sure there is an english jiedi, but could you pay him less, or sign him for less? No, fact is English players want too much for what they are worth. Johnson or whatever from crytsal palace is good but no way worth what it would cost to take him from CP for a team outside of the top 6, and even then he wouldn't get a start. Practicality, is a major boon for foreign players right now and as long as these "homegrown" players feel they have some sort of manifest dinasty on the EPL the longer the window will be open for humble foreigners.
That is why the focus should be on developing young English talent and bringing it through your youth system. Look at the amount of English players who have came through Man Utd's youth setup and are playing in the top 2 divisions. The same cannot be said of Arsenal. That is where the fundamental problem lies.
Hi, we're the Arsenal. We can't do anything right ever, so please leave your name, supported club and rant laced with bitchiness, and we'll get back to you as soon as possible. *BEEP*
That quote is f'n great, but could bigsoccer please start a forum exclusively for Arsenal trolls. These poor folk really need their own place to bitch about us.
You lot should be able to accept some constructive criticism. The comments by Blatter might seem harsh, but the underlying point is a good one. I got a bit side tracked during the main part of this debate, but my last comment is correct. English players do cost more, but that is one of the reasons why teams should develop their own talent. Man Utd are obviously number one in this department. My point was that Arsenal still have some way to go. We can look at the likes of Cole, Pennant and Bentley, but that is it. The focus should always be on developing young local talent, regardless of the team. It helps the country and the club in countless ways.
Man, you sure have a lot of 'constructive criticism' to dole out! It is amazing how you can take an anti-Arsenal stance on every issue.
You lot make it far too easy for me. I'm only "anti-Arsenal" when I feel my opinion is correct or you lot are being ignorant. However, not all of my posts are in that vein.
A few points. First I would agree that there should be a focus on developing young talent within the club. While Arsenal may not have had so much success in this department since the days of Adams, Davis, Rocastle, Merson, Thomas, Quinn, Campbell et al, the performances of our reserves in the League Cup over the past two years shows that the youth policy at Arsenal is starting to bear fruit. Fabregas, Pennant, Bentley and Hoyte have all started Permiership games either towards the end of last season or in this campaign. Second, I think your praise of Man Utd is slightly overdone. How many have come through since the group which included the Nevilles, Beckham and Scholes? Wes Brown and Darren Fletcher are the only two I can think of, although as a United fan feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Fact is, that group came through together and were a godsend for United at the time. Ferguson has admitted himself that he was lucky to have such a good group of young players come through at once. It is exactly the same thing as happened at Arsenal in the late eighties with the group I mentioned earlier in this post. It happens rarely, it's not as if four or five are being produced every year at Old Tradfford. Lastly, if you can produce a young player through your academy, fine. If you can buy a better player for next to nothing (see Toure, Vieira, Ljungberg) who will allow you to compete for the championship every year instead of hoping for a UEFA cup spot then you will. On top of that, Arsenal generally don't buy ready made superstars for top dollar, the careers people like Henry, Overmars and Bergkamp were going nowhere they were brought them to Highbury and we paid relatively reasonable amounts for all of them. In the financial climate in football these days you can't overlook the economics of it.