A rant for English Football
Once upon a time England were losing so often that they dumped the lot and built a new team around six Liverpool players. In those days Liverpool obviously must have had more than six English players to choose from. Things got better.
The other day I watched Liverpool beat Arsenal, a foreign club based in North London. Not entirely foreign - their Englishman came on as a substitute late in the game and showed his team how to play - that is to say he ran all the way up the field with the ball, staying on his feet when challenged instead of lying down and pretending to be injured. (Quote from Martin Johnson on the differenc between football and rugby: footballers spend 90 minutes pretending they've been hurt; rugby players spend 80 pretending they haven't.)
What are the prospects for English football - as opposed to football in England - when English players are so few? Of course we can scour the world for the best foreigners to make our club teams sparkle but what then of the pool of home-grown talent for our national team?
I know the Premier league is the best in the world - the most excitng to watch, the best-paid players, the top managers, but isn't it silly for anyone to think this means our national team could be any good? And wouldn't it be just as silly to suggest clubs should pick local boys over imported stars.
What to do, then? We could ask the money, Rupert, Roman, Abdul etc, to invest in facilities to develop home-grown talent but am I forgetting something? Yes, what would be the benefit to them? Are any of them English? Would they make any more money?
Perhaps, therefore, before England becomes a mere performance stage, our own football organisation should require an English club's team to have a specified number of English players. One? Two? Three?
Would they? They seem to roll over nicely to re-schedule games for the money.
I like watching English football. I'd like to watch England play.
The other day I watched Liverpool beat Arsenal, a foreign club based in North London. Not entirely foreign - their Englishman came on as a substitute late in the game and showed his team how to play - that is to say he ran all the way up the field with the ball, staying on his feet when challenged instead of lying down and pretending to be injured. (Quote from Martin Johnson on the differenc between football and rugby: footballers spend 90 minutes pretending they've been hurt; rugby players spend 80 pretending they haven't.)
What are the prospects for English football - as opposed to football in England - when English players are so few? Of course we can scour the world for the best foreigners to make our club teams sparkle but what then of the pool of home-grown talent for our national team?
I know the Premier league is the best in the world - the most excitng to watch, the best-paid players, the top managers, but isn't it silly for anyone to think this means our national team could be any good? And wouldn't it be just as silly to suggest clubs should pick local boys over imported stars.
What to do, then? We could ask the money, Rupert, Roman, Abdul etc, to invest in facilities to develop home-grown talent but am I forgetting something? Yes, what would be the benefit to them? Are any of them English? Would they make any more money?
Perhaps, therefore, before England becomes a mere performance stage, our own football organisation should require an English club's team to have a specified number of English players. One? Two? Three?
Would they? They seem to roll over nicely to re-schedule games for the money.
I like watching English football. I'd like to watch England play.
posted by Kris Deva North at 9:49 AM
