It is a proven system that has already been implemented in Spain. The problem with England is that youth and reserve team players do not play a sufficient number of competitive matches. Due to this, bigger clubs often have to farm out their players to smaller clubs for exposure and most of the time, they sign permanent deals and never return. How is this considered a success then? Investing on youth is a gamble and with the over inflated prices of English talent, clubs will readily let go of them for a reasonable fee and invest instead on proven foreign talent. I understand that not all the players are English but it does give English kids that much more of an opportunity. Why is investing in youth a gamble then? Simply because you don't get to asses them properly as they are playing against average opposition. By squaring them up against top quality opponents, you get to see how they will perform for the 1st team. By having reserves sides play competitive matches together, managers also have the opportunity to build their next team. By farming out players to various clubs, you don't get to play them together as a team.

As for how successful this system is, let's look at Barca and players who have graduated into their 1st team:

Albert Ferrer, Josep Guardiola, Sergi, Víctor Valdés, Carles Puyol, Andrés Iniesta and Lionel Messi,

Next is a list of players who graduated but had to move to other clubs to further their careers:

Iván de la Peña, David Sánchez, Luis García, Pepe Reina, Mikel Arteta, Cesc Fàbregas and Albert Luque.

Man Utd have arguably the best youth development programme in the Premiership. You of course have the likes of Crewe as well but let's just focus on the Premiership for now. Aside from the class of 92, there have been no quality graduates since. Barca's graduates in comparison have all played for top sides even if they didn't make the 1st team then. It means that they are good players but a team can only consist of so many players. Man Utd graduates like Jonathan Greening, Luke Chadwick, Ronnie Wallwork and John Curtis all left for average sides.

The smaller clubs are only complaining because if the big teams have their reserve sides playing in the league, there will be less space for them. I honestly think that a reserve side from any of the top flight sides can compete in the lower divisions despite what some of the managers from those divisions think. They are just afraid of being embarrassed. If you look at their objections, none of them have claimed that the system will not work. They are just against it because it doesn't work in their favour. It will however in my opinion, work for English football.

---

Added on March 21, 2007, 1:56 pmIt is already implemented in France as well.

This is an important portion of the interview. You have posted objections made by several quarters of managers from the lower divisions and to quote Gillingham Chairman, Paul Scally, "It's insulting to suggest that a bunch of Liverpool kids could hack it as their own club in the Football League."

If you look at what Rafa said, "I was the manager of Castille, Real Madrid's reserve side, and I had players who were 18, 19 years old playing in the Spanish second division championship," he added.

"They were playing against men. They were winning and we finished sixth and fourth.


It means that the system works. These managers have accused Rafa of only looking out for the interest of his club (can you blame the man? he is our manager) but what about them? Aren't most of the objections based around protecting their own interest. What matters most is the bigger picture. Will this allow for the production of higher quality players?

Not long ago, the England manager had to be English and everyone questioned the appointment of SGE. Not long ago, all the top sides were managed by Englishmen or those from the UK. The game has since changed and has to continue to change for the better. People generally like to complain about change and this situation is no different.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Mar 21 2007, 01:56 PM

And who plays in the 3rd Division? Women? If most of them are good enough to play for 1st or 2nd Division sides, why can't they play against them?

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Mar 21 2007, 02:25 PM

For the better good of English football. We are looking at this situation from the perspective of the small clubs. What about looking at it from the perspective of England. Will this not give English youth more opportunity to play against and therefore learn from top opposition. Managers are suggesting that top sides can still loan out their players to smaller clubs as has been going on for quite awhile now. What is the result of this? England have not won nor been in a major final for quite some time now. Worse still, they are struggling against the likes of Macedonia. Clearly there is a problem and it has to be addressed. How else for young players supposed to get competitive games?

I have always maintained that there isn't such a thing as a bad idea. All ideas can be improved on and this sounds like a possibility.

As it is, there aren't enough English youngsters coming through the ranks. They get shipped out mostly. Why? Aren't they good enough? If so, why not? Could be that it is something in the water that affects the majority of Englishmen. Could also be that they don't play regularly enough at a higher level. As I have said, the Spanish are perennial underachievers. Having said that, Spanish teams still have a substantial composition of Spanish players as opposed to English ones, top sides of course.

Real Madrid themselves have Cassilas, Selgado, Ramos, Raul, Guti. Bravo, Helguera and Pavon to name a few, all of which are in and abouts the first team. Barca have Valdes, Puyol, Xavi, Oleguer and Iniesta.

The argument is that foreign talent is cheaper but why can't English players coming through the ranks compete with them? I'm pretty sure clubs would rather not spend on foreign talent if they could.

---

Added on March 21, 2007, 5:07 pmOf course it is but that is besides the point. The reason this idea was even brought up was for the reserve teams to get better exposure. It wasn't to improve the quality of the league.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Mar 21 2007, 05:07 PM

At Liverpool, promising English youngsters like Welsh and Thompson were shipped out. Fringe players like Mellor and Warnock didn't make the grade. This has nothing to do with foreign talent being cheaper, just better. I'm not going to dwelve into the youth development system which I do not know much about. I'm just bringing up the notion that these players could have made the grade had they received better exposure.

It's not just about the exposure, it is about the quality of opposition they play against. They argument here is that reserve teams 1) don't play enough games, 2) don't play against quality opposition.

My question is simply, how come the composition of English players in English teams are so low compared to other leagues, even Spain?

Who have Man Utd loaned out that has come back to the club a success? The spending power of EPL clubs especially the top sides are increasing as foreign owners are coming in. With money to spend, you'd expect these clubs to buy the players they need. My concern with this is that local lads get less and less of an opportunity to break into the first team, that is unless they improve dramatically. What methods then can be implemented to improve the quality of these players?

I do realise that the prices of English players are way inflated which is why EPL clubs look abroad. Up until now youth teams (e.g. under-18's) consists of mainly British players, some of which play for the reserve teams as well. Assuming that I manage the youth team for Liverpool, how best can I improve the quality of my players? Some say that great players are born, but good players can be made. I can impart as much theory on my young fledglings as possible but the fact remains that they still need real match exposure. Instead what happens today is that a large proportion of these youngsters do not make into the 1st team. They get picked up by championship sides and the better ones go to smaller EPL sides. In their place come young, arguably more talented youth players from countries like France, Spain, Germany and the rest of Europe. Why bring in youth players from abroad if mine are good enough? As you pointed out, they aren't good enough which is the problem. Why do you think this is so? Would playing competitive matches, more of them as a matter of fact help?

I throughly agree with this but how does one develop mental toughness. I used to play in various sporting competitions (though not on the big stage). I played handball, football, futsal, badminton and basketball (am currently playing in a tournament). What thing I do know is that mental toughness can be developed by exposure to competition. Of course you can send players for motivational courses and such but there is nothing like the real thing.

---

Added on March 22, 2007, 11:43 amThe point of playing the reserves in a lower league is because the argument that teams playing in the championship are stronger than reserve teams. Your argument is therefore invalid. How are they not respecting the smaller clubs? What does who founded the league have anything to do with it?

How are they disrespecting English football by wanting to improve it? By your reckoning, should ALL decisions of the EPL be made by only a committee comprising of these teams? Does it mean that if any other club like Man Utd were to win the league without their consent, it would be disrespectful to these teams?



And now many of these youngsters had to be brought in from abroad? They have already received training overseas before coming over. They aren't exactly raw diamonds.

How does one develop mental toughness? I don't know but perhaps playing competitive matches might help, don't you think? Jeffers has always been crap by the way and Stan Collymore lacked discipline. Ricketts had one good season, anyone can have a lucky streak, look at Darren Bent or Marlon Harewood. Bridges did play consistently for Leeds but he has constantly been plagued by injuries.



Aside from Beckham, Lampard and Gerrard, which other English player is being chased by a foreign team? How many English players are plying their trade overseas? How many made it? Far as I remember only Chris Waddle, Paul Gascoigne, Gary Lineker and to a far lesser extent David Platt made any progress.


It is the responsibility of the FA to improve English football. It is the responsibility of a Premiership manager to improve his team. Each is paid to perform their duties. While I do agree with the implementation of this system, I do accept that it has it's flaws. Instead of completely slamming the idea however, why not build on it? Obviously there is a case here and most people choose to slam it without offering a better solution. At least someone had the gall to say something. It is easy to sit here and ridicule but how about some constructive criticism?

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Mar 22 2007, 11:45 AM

It is already happening. Clubs are beginning to lose their identity because the EPL is highly marketable. Already, clubs are being sold to foreign owners. Is this not contributing to a loss in identity? When Liverpool was sold, it brought an end to the Moores legacy, which was part of our identity. Arsenal have now moved into The Emirates from Highbury, was there not an ounce of identity lost it that? When Man Utd were sold, did they not faced with objections (to put it mildly) from their supporters?



How do you know English youth don't choose to go overseas? I've already touched on the issue of culture above. I for one value culture a lot, given that Liverpool is full of it. There has to be a tradeoff somewhere though. The way things are going, all the Premiership sides will be represented by foreigners while English players play in the lower divisions.

How is that any different from what is happening now? Sending players out on loan is nothing new. Some of these players don't get to play regularly enough even when they are on loan which defeats the purpose. Even when they do play, they seldom return. As you have quite rightly pointed out, perhaps it is because they simply weren't good enough but in a country where football is the no.1 sport, how can this be? Of course there are a few contributing factors (i.e. training routines, diet, etc) but match exposure if definitely one of them. Again, the argument here is that they don't play a sufficient number of games at a high enough level.

In conclusion, it will benefit the top sides and not the bottom ones so it depends on which perspective you are looking at it from. As a fan of my club, I only want the best for them. Perhaps having an extension of the reserve league is a more amicable solution.

---

Added on March 22, 2007, 1:44 pmHere's a suggestion

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Mar 22 2007, 01:44 PM

I didn't bring up the issue of identity. You mentioned the importance of preserving a clubs history. Doesn't that reflect a clubs identity?

Who is talking about demoting the smaller clubs? Did Rafa suggest that? What about having a bigger league with more fixtures to accommodate these teams rather than have them replace smaller clubs? What about as you say, starting they from the Conference? The same suggestion was mooted when Rangers and Celtic wanted in to the English League.



It is not nuclear physics that players prefer to play in their countries of origin. I have nothing against foreigners but I would like the core of my team to be of local origin. As it is, it bothers me that there isn't a next Stevie G or Jamie C waiting in the wings. Instead we have a host of players from as many countries as flavours in Baskin Robbins. While Rafa is speaking of developing ALL youth regardless of nationality, I'm touching specifically on English youth (i.e under 18s, etc). Speaking of Walcott, it shocked the whole of England that he was selected to the World Cup having no first team football experience. Was England that devoid of local footballers? It can be argued that this was down to the manager but it is no big secret that though there are a couple of promising young English players, there simply isn't enough of them.

Well instead of just saying it is flawed, why not point out why and how so that I may better understand? Repeating that is it over and over again isn't going to give me a better understanding of why.

Correct and as it is the majority of players that have gone out on loan either do not return and if they do, they have not improved. To me this indicates that there is room for improvement. How do you reckon this issue be addressed then?

---

Added on March 22, 2007, 3:52 pmI'm actually surprised this topic isn't getting a better response. It concerns the future of all English clubs.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Mar 22 2007, 03:52 PM

Far be it for me to take credit for the work of others. It was actually alien2003 which opened the thread.

Is this the end of this thread though? Kinda miss having these sorta discussions/debates...

It is definitely not to boost ticket sales as reserve matches don't garner a huge following. The idea is for clubs (top sides apparently) to produce better talent as the young ones (or reserves) don't play a sufficient number of competitive games. I read a suggestion somewhere that the top sides should then purchase clubs in smaller leagues and field their youth. The only issue then is that they are playing against crap opposition anyway which defeats the purpose. The most logical solution would appear to be combining all the reserve leagues together to form one big league instead of breaking them up into regions as is currently happening. That way all reserve teams play more games. It still is different however because reserve teams also comprise of players returning from injury and are getting back into fitness. I doubt they'd give it their all on the pitch which again brings up the question of quality and competitiveness.

The same thing can be said of Holland who have yet to win the World Cup despite churning out so many talented individuals. As it is, England have not had a decent left-winger since John Barnes... this coming from a nation with rich history where football is the no.1 sport. It can't be that everyone born in England is right-footed. Even now you see the likes of Phil Neville filling in at right-back with Carragher having to play on the left. It says that England is devoid of talent doesn't it? Spain may not have won anything but there are no shortage of players coming through the ranks there.

Reserves comprise of a mixture of youth and senior players. You also get players coming back from injury and players awaiting retirement and the quality of the league can therefore be questioned. Verx was correct to suggest that just because there are more games, it doesn't make for higher quality and it certainly is not more competitive than the first team. Perhaps the focus should therefore be on the youth sides (U-18's, U-16's) where everyone is playing for a club contract. Have more games at that level as their careers depend on them impressing enough. The likes of Pele, Rooney and more recently Messi were already stars by the time they were 18. Perhaps by raising the standards of the U-18's we can uncover star players at an earlier age.

I'm sure you can also include a whole host of English left footed players plying their trade in the Championship. Question is "are they good enough"? Even if you play Baines, Taylor or Barry on the left flank, they are being played out of position and are just filling in for lack of a better option.



Just thought I'd clear things up. This is not a comparison of how many left sided players there are.

And the purpose of such a proposal is to ensure better development of the reserve players right? It is then related to youth development. Yes there are heaps of youth tournaments but they don't get to play against more seasoned veterans, hence the proposal for reserve teams to play in the league. Younger players then get the opportunity to play against hardened professionals at a competitive level. While I agree that this is perhaps not the best solution, it does have it's merits. It's all about ironing out the creases.

Exactly. At least we agree that there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

This post has been edited by Duke Red: Mar 28 2007, 03:32 PM

Loaning players out does seem the most logical solution. Only thing I've noticed is that these players seldom return to their clubs a better player. Most of them move permanently after their loan spells have ended. It could be that they weren't good enough to begin with but it also could be that they weren't being developed while they were away. Which tournament was it that used to pitch English 1st Division sides against Serie B teams? Since most English youngsters are sent on loan to lower divisions, perhaps there should be more tournaments of a similar nature to give them more exposure.

I still maintain that the idea has it's merits and it is a matter of how it can be adapted to the English league. To simply dismiss it as being foolish is ignorant if you ask me. Clearly there is a problem and clearly there must be a solution. Foreign managers will obviously not have as much respect for English traditions and I have to ask fans here, how come you do being foreign and all? Are any of you English? That might not be the point but when changes are implemented, somethings have to give way in the name of progress. It's not something I like, but it's something I know I have to live with.