Young British players should be a priority

Discussion in 'Bluemoon forum' started by MJ, 17 Jun 2017.

  1. salfordbluetrue

    salfordbluetrue

    Joined:
    2 Jul 2013
    you have just named over 200 million pounds worth of players all from other premiership teams where they were playing first team football where is the Hart? bought for under a million our last young english signing to be a first team starter, or Richards our last youth team developed first team starter?
    we have a few young players out on loan that can fill quota`s but none in the youth that are not years away from the squad the championship and first division are playing to a far higher standard
    when the youth start producing players good enough to play in our squad then we will not need to buy young and English but this has not happened for a decade
     
  2. Shaelumstash

    Shaelumstash

    Joined:
    30 Apr 2009
    What a strange viewpoint.

    You're suggesting there is no such thing as natural talent, only coaching and an aptitude for learning.

    In that case, why aren't Barca churning out a production line of Messi's? They can coach players in exactly the same way, but you will always get different results.

    If it's just Messi's drive and aptitude for learning that sets him apart, then you're essentially suggesting anyone with as much drive ability to learn could be as good as Messi, given the right coaching. Absolute poppycock.
     
  3. Damocles

    Damocles

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2009
    To you perhaps.

    Luckily 200 years of educational thought disagrees.
     
  4. Shaelumstash

    Shaelumstash

    Joined:
    30 Apr 2009
    You're making a fundamental mistake of applying educational thought to football.

    Football is not accounting or computer programming.

    You can't just teach any old eager beaver to be a professional footballer. Luckily, 120 years of football coaching agrees.

    Usain Bolt isn't the best sprinter of all time because he had the best coach. Wayne Rooney wasn't the best 16 year old in the world because he had the best aptitude for learning.

    Picasso didn't revolutionise art because he had the best art teacher. He did it because he thought differently to his teachers.
     
  5. twosips

    twosips

    Joined:
    29 Apr 2008
    Gender:
    Male
    Sorry Damo, I agree with Shaelum. You can't teach everything it takes to be Messi to someone otherwise we'd have mini Messi clones everywhere. He just has it. You see videos of him at 8 or whatever and he's identical. He clearly then learned how to finely tune his skills through years of dedication and tutelage, but he's always been better than his peers from an impossibly young age. It's just as much a physical thing as it is a mental think. He thinks quicker, he reacts quicker and his body moves quicker - and it always has. His generic make-up clearly had a lot to do with it. Same way I'd never have been an Olympic sprinter even if I'd dedicated my whole life to it. I'm just not fast and never would be. It feels like Messi was born with that balance, poise and immense natural ability to just think quicker than everyone else.
     
  6. I'm With Stupid

    I'm With Stupid

    Joined:
    6 May 2013
    Yes Messi has natural talent that was well-nurtured, but that doesn't mean that there aren't other people with a similar level of natural talent who either never get the opportunity to show it or have it squandered by poor training, lack of dedication, or any number of other reasons. The Spanish and German teams aren't better than England technically because of some genetic advantage. They're better because they are better trained from an early age and have more opportunities to progress. Messi is a once in a lifetime combination of perfect natural talent, great training and amazing dedication, but there's no reason English clubs shouldn't be producing players in the Muller, Kroos or Silva range of ability every few years.

    How many technically talented players with great passing and vision have failed to become world class in England? You look at people like Jack Wilshere, Joe Cole or even our own Stephen Ireland, and you see players who threatened to become great playmakers who ended up falling into mid-table obscurity (and further in Ireland's case). And we've already got people writing off the prospect of Sterling ever becoming a world class player. I'm not suggesting these players would have become Messi, of course, but they all could have been the basis of very good technical sides. It seems quite revealing to me that the last two world class creative players to come through in England (Rooney and Bale) were both players who combined their technical abilities with a very physical side to their game. It's almost as if that's the only way to succeed in England, because of this obsession with physical players at the youth level.
     
  7. I'm With Stupid

    I'm With Stupid

    Joined:
    6 May 2013
    It's worth mentioning that a lot of the big clubs have given English players chances to prove themselves. The rags bought the likes of Jones and Smalling to be the long-term replacements for Vidic and Ferdinand, and you could hardly argue that they've not been given a chance, but they're reportedly looking to sell both this summer. And Luke Shaw has hardly been a success either.

    Arsenal have given two full seasons for Calum Chambers to prove himself, and yet last season, he ended up on loan at Middlesbrough. Welbeck has been given the chance at two big clubs and has failed to take them. Walcott was bought for big money at the time, and yet has never managed to become a guaranteed starter. Gibbs was given plenty of opportunities to establish himself, but has become a bit-part player again in the past two seasons at what should be his peak age. Wilshere, admittedly ruined by injury, spent last season on loan at Bournemouth after being given a key role at Arsenal for a fairly long time. Oxlade-Chamberlain has just had his most successful season, so we'll see with him.

    There's a familiar pattern of young English players being bought by top clubs and then being let go when they should be at their peak because they've realised that they're not actually good enough for a team trying to go for the title. Spurs are an exception, but Utd, Arsenal and Liverpool can hardly point to their great successes in recruiting English players. Cahill at Chelsea is arguably the last English player to be recruited to a top team and become a vital first-team member of a title-winning team (yes, I know Leicester had English players). Liverpool might point to the fact that they have English players who are important members of their first team, but I'd argue that that's one of the reasons why they don't threaten to win anything now Suarez has left.
     
  8. salfordbluetrue

    salfordbluetrue

    Joined:
    2 Jul 2013
    And all off this is correct , so who was the last young english player bought for the squad that we did not pay over the odds for, as every penny spent on english players is a penny we cannot spend on better foreign players . This is why we need to buy young english players with potential , so we can have a better quality 17 foreign players
     
  9. Citymapper

    Citymapper

    Joined:
    31 May 2017
    Gender:
    Male
    You lost.
     
  10. Citymapper

    Citymapper

    Joined:
    31 May 2017
    Gender:
    Male
    It difficult, look at the quality of the England team how many of them would get in our best 11? None IMO.

    Roberts looks a decent player but that would only be for Sterling so we would be no further on. Thought going for Butland would have helped the situation.
     

Share This Page