The FA's Response: Changing Attitudes?

It's almost like the FA read my last blog post on England. As I made my recommendation to start blooding the younger generation of English players, in order to maintain a more consistent approach in the future, the English governing body made its point. Greg Dyke, who has been a strong proponent of introducing further English quotas, has outlined his plan for the future of not only the Premier League, but the English national side.

If you want to read the full proposal, look here, but I'll just give you the highlights. The headline suggestion is that instead of the eight players currently required to be "home-grown", there will need to be 12, meaning that by 2020, the Premier League will be made up of a minimum 45 per cent of English players. There is also a change to the definition of "home-grown". Rather than the three years that a player must have been registered with the club before his 21st birthday, Dyke wants the three years to have been served before a player's 18th, ensuring that young talent continues to be nurtured by English clubs, instead of simply buying it in. Finally, he included a new requirement that two of these "home-grown' players must have been trained by their current club, meaning that all clubs have to place emphasis on their youth programmes.

So, should this come into operation today, how would this affect the current squads? Having looked at the sides registered by our top flight clubs after the September transfer window, I've outlined the amount of English players in each of their squads below:

Club	Players	Home grown (%)
Arsenal	8/23	35%
Aston Villa	16/25	64%
Burnley	18/24	75%
Chelsea	3/20	15%
Crystal Palace	15/25	60%
Everton	8/25	32%
Hull City	13/25	52%
Leicester City	17/24	71%
Liverpool	9/19	47%
Manchester City	8/24	33%
Manchester United	12/24	50%
Newcastle United	9/25	36%
Queens Park Rangers	19/25	76%
Southampton	9/20	45%
Stoke City	12/25	48%
Sunderland	12/21	57%
Swansea City	12/25	48%
Tottenham Hotspur	6/23	26%
West Bromwich Albion	10/23	43%
West Ham United	14/24	58%
Total	230/469	49%

Now, it's important to remember that this does not include the currently defined 'U-21s', who do not require registration. This may seem irrelevant, but it's worth noting that the likes of Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain, Hector Bellerin and Harry Kane all fit into that bracket, and would all require registration under the new regulations. This may naturally boost the numbers of English players in the Premier League, but it's worth noting that there are only 11 of the 20 sides in the Premier League that would currently satisfy the proposals.

There is also a more significant trend. As we get further and further up the table, the percentage of English players gets less and less. The sides that would currently satisfy the new regulations sit in the following positions: 4th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th. With most of these sitting in the bottom half of the table, does this not just suggest that the best players (i.e. the ones that win titles) are not English?

With this not currently being the case, how do we breed the next generation of footballer, and even more so, encourage them to be successful? All of these new regulations may be completely irrelevant if our youth system does not produce the quality of English player we require to be competitive agains the likes of Spain, Germany and Brazil?

So maybe it's more pertinent to consider the national make-up of our youth sides, as this will give a better representation of the impact of these new regulations. As with the first team, I've listed the English contingent below:

Club	Players	Home grown (%)
Arsenal	16/22	73%
Aston Villa	13/18	72%
Burnley	17/27	62%
Chelsea	20/27	74%
Crystal Palace	17/17	100%
Everton	22/29	76%
Hull City	32/33	97%
Leicester City	15/21	71%
Liverpool	9/16	56%
Manchester City	14/29	48%
Manchester United	24/28	86%
Newcastle United	26/34	76%
Queens Park Rangers	7/14	50%
Southampton	15/19	79%
Stoke City	14/20	70%
Sunderland	22/30	73%
Swansea City	24/30	80%
Tottenham Hotspur	16/22	73%
West Bromwich Albion
West Ham United	16/24	67%
Total	339/438	77%

With the exception of West Brom, whose youth side I could not find, all bar Manchester City have youth sides with at least 50 per cent home grown players, giving rise to the hope that greater regulations around minimum English quotas will make a significant difference. This, coupled with the kind of investment that the likes of City are putting into their youth setups, shows that youth football has become a priority, and with English talent currently dominating the academies up and down the land, it looks like a positive step.

Another recent event that may significantly impact the way that our youth development works is the recent enormous rise in TV rights for the Premier League clubs. With clubs now set to receive a significant pay packet, there will be more to invest on our younger talent. However, the growth in funding for Premier League clubs inevitably inhibits the lower league sides from producing their own players. The likes of Wilfried Zaha, Scott Sinclair and Will Hughes, who came through the Championship youth system are likely to become less and less frequent, as the bigger clubs continue to steal the best talent. Though the Premier League points to the £1bn that the lower league clubs will share from 2016, it is worth pointing out that despite a rise of 70 per cent in overall TV rights fees, the lower leagues have only seen a 30 per cent rise in their cut - maybe not so generous after all?

However, will these make any significant difference to the national team? Or even the performance of our clubs in Europe, as outlined in my previous article? Well, in terms of the national team, it will inevitably help us produce a greater calibre of player, and more consistently. However, it is perhaps our own arrogance that makes us believe that we are in the same bracket as Spain and Germany when it comes to creating players. We are typically impatient, meaning that players are not given the chance to develop when it comes to the national team, and often to their downfall.

Ultimately, we need to accept that we are not good enough when it comes to football. We may have created the game, but we are no longer the kings of it. As a result, just 23 English players played Champions League football last year, compared to 76 from Spain, 51 from Germany and 55 from Brazil. We would be naive to think that we can change that substantially overnight, but it is certainly true that we can bolster those numbers, so perhaps a quota of English players is a good first step.

But now I'm going to be facetious and use a political argument (the election is just a matter of weeks away!). Can you imagine any other industry in the country proposing this? And further still, it being widely accepted? If I turned round and made a public comment that 'XX sector should reserve 50 per cent of English jobs for English people', I'd be signed up to the BNP and ostracised by practically everyone else! But chuck in a ball and a net, and people are falling over one another to support what may otherwise be branded as racist and discriminatory!

Ok, back to the serious argument. I do support the ideas to an extent, though I do suspect it will have a negative impact on the quality of the Premier League. However, this may not be a bad thing when it comes to competing in Europe. Let me explain why. A lower quality Premier League means lower TV rights and prize money for domestic competition. As I mentioned in my earlier post, it is this financial disparity between the Premier League and the Champions League that may have a detrimental impact on the performance of English sides, even if only subconsciously. This proposal may make Europe a larger priority, and we may at last return to seeing English clubs in the latter stages.

This argument is strengthened by the announcement made by UEFA last week. Clearly Michel Platini had been reading my blog too (or so I'd like to think!), as both of the major competitions in have raised their prize money for competitors. For the Champions League sides, all will now share £872m - up from £696m - or an average of £8.7m each, which represents a 38 per cent increase. In the Europa League, it is an even bigger jump, nearly doubling from £972,000 to £1.7m per team. With Europe offering a larger financial reward, and the potential for the domestic game to lower its rewards, could we begin to see a greater emphasis placed on these competitions?

In terms of the national side, I think there is a better alternative to the quotas. In most of the top European nations, leading sides are allowed to submit 'B' teams, who compete at a slightly lower level. These are not like reserve team games, as they are extremely competitive and against teams that are seeking promotion, and offer younger players some game time in conditions similar to those of the normal team. This has seen the likes of Xavi and Iniesta come through the ranks at Barcelona, and was part of the reason for the recent success of the German national side. As such, I would look to implement such as system in England, possibly around Conference level.

The ideas presented by Greg Dyke are not bad ones, and certainly have their advantages when it comes to European competition, but if we're expecting us to take the world stage by storm in the next few years, then we're deluded. It will be a long, slow process to take England back towards the top, but maybe this is a good first step.

Tactics Talk: Manchester United vs Bayern Munich

Manchester United (4-3-3): De Gea, Buttner, Ferdinand, Vidic, Rafael, Giggs, Carrick, Fellaini, Welbeck, Rooney, Valencia

Bayern Munich (4-5-1): Neuer, Rafinha, Martinez, Boateng, Alaba, Lahm, Schweinsteiger, Ribery, Robben, Kroos, Muller

Living in and around Manchester, I have seen first-hand the change in mood surrounding the Old Trafford club in the last six months. The fall from grace of one of the most successful clubs in the world has come as a shock to many, and as a City fan, not a moment too soon for me. But it speaks volumes that Manchester United came into this match having lost their last two games at Old Trafford by resounding 3-0 scorelines against two of their largest rivals, and were considered rank outsiders for this one. Just 12 months ago, United were leading Jose Mourinho's Real Madrid until Nani was debatably dismissed. Fast forward a year, and United fans saying 'if we don't get thumped I'm happy' epitomises the lack of belief in their aging and underperforming side.

With key men in Robin van Persie and Patrice Evra unavailable for selection, United had every right to be pessimistic. But in Wayne Rooney they have one of the form players in the Premier League, and he would need to be on the top of his game to keep United in it. By contrast, Bayern Munich had already sewn up the Bundesliga title with 7 games to go, and were looking to repeat the domestic and European quadruple that they achieved last season. Pep Guardiola's side have picked up where Jupp Heynckes left off, with many calling it 'improving on perfection'. As such, though they were without the suspended Dante, the side looked perfectly capable of breaking United down.

The opening exchanges saw, as expected, the German side retain a considerable amount of possession. In fact, by the time we reached half time, United had only managed to keep their feet on the ball for less than 30% of the time. With this inevitable, United would have to begin the game solidly in defence, whilst remaining open to the counter attack. This they did well, with Danny Welbeck a constant annoyance for Jerome Boateng. However, in Arjen Robben and Franck Ribery, Bayern have two of the best wingers ever to have graced the game, and it was down the wings that the German side were getting joy. With United seemingly camped on the edge of their area, it would take a moment of magic to catch them out.

And yet it didn't come. For all of Bayern's slick (dare I say it) 'tiki taka' football that Guardiola made so famous at Barcelona, Munich just could not break down a strong and committed United defence. Marshalled by stalwarts Nemanja Vidic and Rio Ferdinand, the United back line looked considerably stronger than it has in many Premier League games this year. Guardiola's aversion to long range shooting also meant that the short stuff would continue, and United maintained their defensive solidarity, much to the annoyance of the Bayern coach.

Their strength at the back enabled United to press a little higher when defending, forcing a few errors from the usually reliable Bayern midfield. Manuel Neuer seemed similarly error-prone, with the touch happy goalkeeper having to slice the ball anxiously into touch as Welbeck and Rooney chased down the German.

First half hour: United's defending means they didn't deserve to be behind but Bayern's possession has been mesmerising. It seemed only a matter of time...

The game then began to open up. My initial reaction to this was 'this could get messy for United now', but it strangely favoured the English side. With the game stretched, they were able to maximise their effect on the counter, bringing them their first real chance, and the best chance of the game so far. A quick breakaway from a corner, coupled with a timely slip from Boateng left Welbeck in one-on-one with the onrushing Manuel Neuer. However, instead of smashing the ball beyond the keeper, the United striker inexplicably elected to attempt the dink over the head of the Bayern man. Safe to say it was easily caught, and the chance was gone. As was the half, but United had shown sufficient promise that fans knew they were not about to cave.

This was reaffirmed by Moyes' half time substitution. The elderly (and supposedly injured) Ryan Giggs was withdrawn in favour of the more attacking-minded Shinji Kagawa. With United looking more of a threat going forward, the game quickly became end to end, with the Germans once again dominating possession, but United having as many chances. However, that killer pass just wouldn't come, and for United, it was from set pieces where they looked most likely to damage Bayern. And do it proved. Abysmal marking from a corner left Nemanja Vidic free to expertly glance a header into the bottom corner to a thunderous reception around Old Trafford. The departing captain handing United a enormous leaving gift, and suggesting that a huge upset on the cards.

Second half hour: With Bayern now rattled and behind, United's defending looked ever more impressive - definitely a United period.

However, despite Bayern being on the back foot, they can always punish you. Just 8 minutes after going behind, a fluid move from the European champions left Bastian Schweinsteiger free to slam an excellent finish into the roof of David de Gea's net. With their advantage nullified, United once again reverted to type, knocking long balls up to Marouane Fellaini, and allowing Bayern onto them. But as with the whole game, their defence remained firm. Their defensive task did get more difficult when Alexander Buttner, in for the suspended Patrice Evra, had to leave the field having aggravated an injury. His replacement, Ashley Young, meant a real reshuffling of the back four, bringing Antonio Valencia, who was already on a yellow card and fortunate not to have been dismissed for a lunge on Phillip Lahm, back into right back.

As the game meandered towards its conclusion, with neither side really threatening, Bayern brought Mario Gotze, the highly rated German international on for the fairly ineffective Toni Kroos. As United searched for a winner on the break, Moyes turned to his instinctive finisher and (though he would not want the title) super-sub, Javier Hernandez. Neither really had any impact. The only remaining talking point came in the shape of a second yellow card for Schweinsteiger for a late challenge on the (slightly OTT) Wayne Rooney. Whilst this came in added time, and therefore carried no significance to this game, it could very much affect next week's. With both Javi Martinez (who picked up another booking to rule him out) and Schweinsteiger unavailable, Guardiola will have a slight headache at central midfield for the second leg.

Final half hour: Neither side did enough to win the game. Whilst Bayern's possession stats are incredible for the away side at Old Trafford, they did little to demonstrate why they are the European champions and how they have blown their league away this season. Draw a fair result.

David Moyes, for all his detractors (of which last weekend's banner illustrates there are fewer of than the media would have us believe), got his tactics spot on. He is an expert in defensive management, and this was evident against Munich. Though they head to the futuristic Allianz Arena still as rank outsiders, another performance like that may just see them pull off the impossible.

England Series: The Developing - The Future's Bright?

                              In the build-up to Tuesday's do-or-die fixture at home to Poland, I have been running an England mini-series, looking at the talking points that have haunted the England side's preparations, and looking at their chances going forward. A few weeks ago, I gave my opinion on Greg Dyke's comments that England should be looking to reach the semi-finals of the Euro 2020 competition, and win the World Cup in 2022 in Qatar. This assumes that the groundwork is already in place for England to become a viable winner of trophies, as Spain's 'Golden Age' really began a decade or so previously, with the change of several rules regarding training of youngsters. Using the State of the Game report, as well as evidence from the current England squad and the lower leagues, I will examine just how much creedence can be given to Dyke's claims. I dismissed them a few weeks ago-was I wrong to?

                               After a year and a half of relentless qualification matches, England find themselves on the brink of getting to yet another major tournament. After a morale boosting victory against Montenegro on Friday (the review of which can be found here), only Poland stand between our country and a place in Brazil next year. Whilst few (including the majority of the FA) expect us to achieve any real success in Rio, the plans above indicate that victory is expected in the coming decades. Having seen 'The State of the Game' report, this final post of my six-part England series considers the future of English football, asking whether the majority of our next few tournaments' teams will be found from the top teams, or if the lower leagues could be the place where we will begin finding the next generation of our national team.

                         Bearing in mind the target for an England victory is the Qatar World Cup in 2022, I wonder just how many of our current crop of players will still be around come that competition. Given that this World Cup is nearly a decade away, it is quite obvious that only players under the age of 25 currently will realistically have any chance of playing in Qatar. This obviously rules out the older members of our current squad, with the likes of Lampard, Gerrard and Cole more likely to retire within the next five years. More surprising is the amount of players that we will not realistically have at our disposal in ten years. If we take the cut-off point as being 25, with anyone older than that unlikely to travel to the Middle East, I will now list the ages and players that will not be there.

31-Phil Jagielka, Jermain Defoe, Joleon Lescott
30-Ben Foster
29-Glen Johnson
28-Leighton Baines, Ashley Young
27-Wayne Rooney, Gary Cahill, James Milner
26-Joe Hart, Aaron Lennon

                            As you can see, the vast majority of this group are first-team players, all of which will be missed massively, and all of which will need to be replaced. Arguably the only first team players that will remain, having discarded these, are Kyle Walker (23), Andros Townsend (21), Phil Jones (21), Jack Wilshere (21), Tom Cleverley (23), Theo Walcott (24), Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain (20), Daniel Sturridge (24) and Danny Welbeck (22). Whilst these are all good players, it leaves a considerable hole in the English team. Who could we possibly replace our outgoing stars with?

                           As I discussed in my last post, 'The State of the Game' report has shown that only 32% of the minutes played in the Premier League were played by Englishmen, compared to Spaniards making up 59% in their home country, and Germans making up 50%. This certainly leaves us at a disadvantage when it comes to producing young, bright talent. However, are there any talented youngsters currently breaking into the top flight that we could potentially earmark at this early stage? Andros Townsend is certainly one of these, as he has proven himself to be worth more to Spurs than £30 Million man Erik Lamela in the early part of the season, earning himself his first England call up for the match on Friday. However, even he would be turning 30 as the 2022 tournament kicked off. Perhaps the best thing to is to look at the younger age-groups in English national football. Looking at the U-21s and U-19s, I have produced perhaps 7 names that may be of England fans for the future, that will all be towards the peak of their careers come 2022.

                           Southampton's James Ward-Prowse, a product of the Saints' excellent youth system, is only 18, and has already been playing semi-regular football in the Premier League. With a handful of appearances this season already, I see no reason why the youngster cannot kick on and challenge for an England place in the near future. Ravel Morrison, once of Manchester United, and now plying his trade for West Ham is another. A name that recently has been hyped up, and one that Sir Alex Ferguson even tipped for stardom. At 20, he has perhaps taken a little while longer to develop than initially expected, but if he maintains the form that he has shown at the beginning of this season, I see no reason why the central midfielder couldn't push Jack Wilshere all the way for a starting place in Qatar. The same applies to Wilfried Zaha. The recent Manchester United signing burst onto the international scene earlier this year, with a single cap to his name. He has perhaps become another casualty of the 'bigger club', where competition for places stunts the growth of young talents. Nevertheless, he still has plenty of time to prove himself, and oust Theo Walcott from his position. He will be competing with two more exciting wingers, however. Liverpool's Raheem Sterling, who had such a fantastic season for the Merseyside club last year, and Norwich's Nathan Redmond, who looks every inch a great winger this season, will also be vying for starting places. Ross Barkley ends the wealth of talented midfielders that England are cultivating, as the 19 year-old Evertonian has shown just how good a player he is over the last two seasons at Goodison Park, and I would not be surprised to see him get a cap in the near future. Finally, up-front, West Brom's Saido Berahino looks a positive prospect. Having scored a stunning finish at Old Trafford, the youngster has been scoring bagfuls in the League Cup, and he could be another to make the jump to international level. I have purposefully left out Adnan Januzaj, as I personally do not believe that the United winger should choose to represent England, having lived elsewhere and formed bonds with another country for the majority of his life.

                            As we can see, midfield seems to be an area that England have covered for the Qatar World Cup. Up-front, Saido Berahino can add to the likes of Daniel Sturridge, Danny Welbeck and even Andy Carroll, if he forces his way back into the fold. However, based purely on Premier League youngsters, the squad is perilously thin on goalkeepers and defenders. Can promising players from the lower leagues solve this?

                            Quite simply, no. There are perhaps only four names of players plying their trades in the Championship or below that may make it into the England squad any time in the near future. Though he technically is owned by Stoke, Jack Butland has played the vast majority of his career at Championship level, currently playing for Barnsley. He is an excellent goalkeeper, but one that has not quite reached his true potential as yet. The same could not be said for Tom Ince. The 21-year-old is lighting up the Championship at the minute, and has already been the subject of a bid from Liverpool. I fully expect to see him in and around the England squad within the next few years. Similarly, Will Hughes is another exceptional prospect. The 18-year-old Derby County man has had to fend off interest from the two Manchester clubs and Chelsea to keep playing regular football, and I suspect that he is a real talent for the future. The final name is Danny Ings. Though not consistent enough to really merit significant hype, the Burnley man has had his best season so far, scoring goals for fun in England's second tier. It will be the step up to the Premier League that decides whether he will be international class, or if he will go the same way as David Nugent.

                             From this analysis, it looks as though the lower leagues actually have a smaller role to play in the shaping of English talent than the Premier League. This would be a concern if it were true, but I think it is not. If we look at many of the names that have just been discussed, along with the names that will still be around the England squad in 2022, we see a significant amount of lower league involvement in their progress. Looking at the names in the current squad, Kyle Walker spent time at Sheffield United, Tom Cleverley had spells at Watford and Leicester, both Alex Oxlade Chamberlain and Theo Walcott began their careers at Southampton, Danny Welbeck had a brief stay at Preston and Andros Townsend played at 8 different football league clubs! The Football League, then, has contributed to many of our current internationals. But what about those for the future? Have they all come from Premier League youth academies?

                             The future prospects also show signs of Football League involvement. Of those mentioned above, only James Ward-Prowse and Raheem Sterling have been brought up entirely by Premier League clubs, playing only in the top division. Ravel Morrison had a season-long loan at Birmingham,  whilst Nathan Redmond began his career there, leaving only this summer. Saido Berahino spent time on loan at Northampton Town, whilst Ross Barkley also went out on loan to Leeds and Sheffield Wednesday. Wilfried Zaha spent almost the entirety of his fledgling career at Crystal Palace, helping them to the Premier League in 2013. So what role do the lower leagues play in the development of the England squad? The fact that the 'State of the Game' report indicates that the Championship's English players make up 70.5% of the minutes played in the second tier last season, up 7% on 2007/8,  tells us that the Championship is rapidly becoming a cauldron for young, British talent. This is especially true when you consider the amount of loan signings that we can see from Premier League clubs to Football League ones. This means that the Football League, and the Championship in particular, will be a significant contributor to any England side of the future.

                              Can the lower leagues help England win the 2022 World Cup? In my opinion, unless Barnet or someone help discover the new Lionel Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo, I doubt it. We need a complete change of our grassroots system, and a much more nurturing attitude to our young English players. The loan system is valuable, but we need plenty of young English players, like Barkley and Wilshere playing regularly in the Premier League. Should we overhaul the system, we can win the 2022 World Cup. However, I feel that we are still some way from an overhaul, and therefore, still some way from ending our near-50 year hoodoo.

England Series: What Does 'The State of the Game' Mean For The National Team?

                           In the build-up to Tuesday's do-or-die fixture at home to Poland, I will be running an England mini-series, looking at the talking points that have haunted the England side's preparations, and looking at their chances going forward. A few weeks ago, I gave my opinion on Greg Dyke's comments that England should be looking to reach the semi-finals of the Euro 2020 competition, and win the World Cup in 2022 in Qatar. This assumes that the groundwork is already in place for England to become a viable winner of trophies, as Spain's 'Golden Age' really began a decade or so previously, with the change of several rules regarding training of youngsters. Using the State of the Game report, as well as evidence from the current England squad and the lower leagues, I will examine just how much creedence can be given to Dyke's claims. I dismissed them a few weeks ago-was I wrong to?

                            28th February 1999. The last time any Premier League side fielded an entire XI of English players. The team: Aston Villa. The match: Coventry City vs Villa. The scoreline: 4-1. Which perhaps explains why it has never happened since. Nevertheless, it is slightly worrying when you consider that less than a third of the Premier League minutes played were by English players, after staggering decline of English players in the Premier League. This is the reality as described by the BBC State of the Game report last week. However, is it really any different around the continent? With the influx of players from Europe and, especially, South America, is it really that surprising that the leagues have been diluted? This post will compare the plight of the English game to other European leagues, before assessing why this has occurred, in order to see just how much of an English specific problem this is. Finally, by assessing the performance of the England team in the recent World Cup Qualifiers, we can further compare them as a footballing force to other European nations.

                             First, I think it would be useful to outline the core findings of this report. The BBC State of the Game report is taken once every 5 years, in order to get a basic lay of the land during the intermittent period. The 2013 report stated that the percentage of minutes played by English players in the Premier League has dipped below a third of the overall minutes played. The 32.26% that English players have played this season is a dip on the 2007/8 stat of 35.43%, and, as a result, is the lowest ever on record. This has prompted many in the game to make statements about how worrying this should be considered, almost blaming the Premier League for the lack of English talent. Personally, I believe that they have the cause and effect the wrong way around. Whilst the influx of foreign players inevitably affects the national squad, it is not the fault of other players if England as a nation are not the force they once were. If the league wants to compete with the other European leagues (e.g. Spain, Italy and Germany), they need to be providing the best talent. If that is not from England, as is the case at the minute, it is not the fault of the league.

                              One way of looking to see the influence of South American and African imports is to look at competing European leagues. Are imports really more prevalent in the Premier League than in the Bundesliga or La Liga? The State of the Game report indicates that perhaps there is an English-specific problem. La Liga, the league of the current World Cup holders, and winner of the last three major international tournaments available in Europe, Spain, shows that 59% of the minutes played were played by Spaniards. Meanwhile, in Germany, the Bundesliga's statistics are vastly similar to that of their Spanish counterparts, with Germans making up 50% of the minutes played. This clearly indicates that the Premier League relies far more on players from abroad than homegrown talents.

                              So why is there such a gap between the continental leagues and the Premier League? On the face of it, it doesn't make sense, as many of the big money transfers over the last few summers have been from Spanish or German clubs, not buying Spanish or German players. Looking purely at this season's transfers, whilst Real Madrid did sign two Spanish youngsters for large sums (Isco and Illaramendi), the majority of their transfer outlay were on foreign players (Bale, Casemiro and Carvajal). Barcelona's only signing was Brazilian Neymar, indicating that foreign players do still play a significant role when it comes to Spanish transfers. The same is true for the Bundesliga, where big name signings like Henrikh Mkhitaryan, Luis Gustavo, Thiago Alcantara and Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang were also brought in from abroad. However, whilst the big name transfers and the big teams are the ones more frequently focused on, the teams that really give the indication of the study are those further down the table. Looking at Spain, we can see that there are only two teams outside of the El Clasico pair that spent more than £20 Million on players. Similarly, in Germany, only three teams outside of the top two spent past that margin. Generally speaking, foreign players tend to be more expensive, so those that have spent large sums have generally brought in foreign talent. However, if we look at Premier League teams outside the Manchester clubs, eleven of the 18 clubs have spent beyond £20 Million in this recent transfer window. In England, there has been the school of thought that the better English players are rare and overpriced, and therefore too expensive for smaller clubs to buy, making foreign players a more affordable alternative. However, we can also see that the majority of big-name transfers have been foreign, with the likes of Willian, Lamela, Eriksen, Ozil and Osvaldo all coming in for large fees. This perhaps goes some way to explaining exactly why we have seen a decline in the percentage of minutes played by English players in the Premier League.

                              However, to what extent does this affect the England national team more than that of other nations? Do the players in the national squads get regular game time? Underneath I will lay out what I consider to be each of the nations' top squads (all 4-4-2 formation). This way we can see whether each of the sides' starting line-ups are playing regularly.

Spain: Casillas, Jordi Alba, Sergio Ramos, Pique, Arbeloa, Pedro, Xavi, Iniesta, Fabregas, Soldado, Negredo

Germany: Neuer, Lahm, Boateng, Hummels, Jansen, Muller, Ozil, Schweinsteiger, Kroos, Kiessling, Gomez

England: Hart, Walker, Cahill, Jagielka, Baines, Walcott, Gerrard, Lampard, Milner, Rooney, Sturridge

                                Looking at these XI's, we can see that in Spain's case, every single one of the names mentioned play week-in, week-out, with 9 of the 11 coming from the El Clasico pair. The other pair, both strikers, now play every match for their sides Tottenham and Manchester City respectively. This is a similar story for Germany. Every one of their XI plays on a weekly basis, with 7 of their players coming from Bayern Munich or Borussia Dortmund. For England, whilst the majority play every match, there are a few that have found they are in strong competition for their place at club level. Gary Cahill and Frank Lampard at Chelsea have both, at one time or another, found themselves ousted in favour of either David Luiz (in Cahill's case) or Ramires/Kevin De Bruyne (in Lampard's). James Milner has also found it difficult to break into the Manchester City midfield. Though he often starts the important matches, he is usually used as a bit-part player, covering for the likes of Jesus Navas and Fernandinho. Before the start of the season, even Wayne Rooney's place was not guaranteed at United, with the Englishman playing second fiddle to Robin van Persie for the majority of last season. His performances so far this season have won him his place back, but this shows that the influx of foreign players is affecting the national team. The differences are far more stark when we consider those that would be expecting to be on the bench. Spain's bench is an embarrasment of riches, with the likes of Valdes, Jesus Navas, David Silva, Juan Mata, Santi Cazorla all playing regular football. Germany's bench is much the same, with Adler, Khedira, Gotze, Mertesacker and Draxler in their first-team squads. Looking at those players pushing for the bench for England, Fraser Forster and Andros Townsend illustrate the rare exceptions to the rule. Players like Jack Wilshere, Danny Welbeck, Tom Cleverley, Phil Jones, Chris Smalling and Jermain Defoe all have a battle on their hands to retain their place, with many of them having to settle for benchwarmer for part of the season. This will have a disastrous effect on the strength in depth of the squad, as without match practice, the England team will be left far behind by their European rivals, as has been the case in recent years.

                               How does the English game rectify this? As I stated earlier, the Premier League prides itself on being (arguably) the best league in the world, and with that status comes a lot of money. The league can only work with what they are given, and if the problems with the English players begin at the very bottom, as I suspect, there is where we need to start. Enforcing 'minimum English' rules will only be to the detriment of the Premier League, as we will inevitably see the top talent elsewhere. What we have to do is train the English top talents properly here. By bettering our training techniques, teaching technical ability over 'win at all costs', we should see some of the better players rise to the top at junior level. By nurturing our players properly, and teaching them the skills they need to succeed, there is no reason why we cannot follow Spain's example and have a 'Golden Generation'. We just need to get the grassroots organised correctly first.

England Series: Jack Wilshere's 'English'

                      In the build-up to Tuesday's do-or-die fixture at home to Poland, I will be running an England mini-series, looking at the talking points that have haunted the England side's preparations, and looking at their chances going forward. A few weeks ago, I gave my opinion on Greg Dyke's comments that England should be looking to reach the semi-finals of the Euro 2020 competition, and win the World Cup in 2022 in Qatar. This assumes that the groundwork is already in place for England to become a viable winner of trophies, as Spain's 'Golden Age' really began a decade or so previously, with the change of several rules regarding training of youngsters. Using the State of the Game report, as well as evidence from the current England squad and the lower leagues, I will examine just how much creedence can be given to Dyke's claims. I dismissed them a few weeks ago-was I wrong to?

                      However, I will begin with the stories that have hit the headlines over the last few days, perhaps affecting the run-up to what Hodgson himself has called his most important week in management. Earlier today I wrote about the plight of Joe Hart, one not entirely of his own doing. The reasons that Jack Wilshere has been in the headlines, however, is wholly the Arsenal man's fault. He hasn't had the best of fortnights, with allegations of smoking following a photo of him caught outside a nightclub with a cigarette, prompting widespread criticism, including from his manager. Then this. On Wednesday, Wilshere, in an interview, made his views on England (sort of) clear. He stated that only English people should play for England, making an implicit argument that FIFA's residency rules are wrong. This has led to widespread criticism of his remarks in the footballing world, and many comments (made both seriously and in jest) likening his comments to the racist rhetoric of the English Defence League and the British National Party.

                      Before we completely condemn Wilshere's comments, we really need to take a more detailed look at exactly what was said and what we can imagine was intended to have been said. Despite the complaints of many, labelling the Englishman a racist, I refuse to believe that was the intended message of his statement. Wilshere's statement of 'just because you've lived in England for 5 years, it doesn't make you English' doesn't help his cause much, as it certainly sounds off, but I think most reasonable people understand the intent behind his words. The idea that the finer points of a nation (being the cultural influences and lifestyle) can be picked up and internalised within 5 years is unlikely, and this is what I think Wilshere is referring to. He himself said that this was not a dig at any individual player (meaning the recent comments over Manchester United's Adnan Januzaj), nor was he saying that those born outside of the country should be instantly considered ineligable. The midfielder explained that the target of his comments were adults that arrived in this country, having been brought up and spent their formative years elsewhere, and therefore have an attachment to another county.

                       Being a Politics graduate, I hate it when sportsmen dip their toes into political waters, using terms and concepts that they don't wholly understand. The idea of nationality and nation is something far deeper than something you have on your passport, and, in this respect, I understand exactly what Jack Wilshere has said (albeit disastrously from a PR standpoint). Being from a specific country means more than just the specific rules and regulations. It is getting in touch with the nation, rather than the state. This means getting a real feel of English life (queuing, tea, complaining etc.), and really attaching themselves to the culture and heritage of England. In footballing terms, it is like making a transfer and then learning about the past legends and overall history of the club you have joined. However, unlike another club, whose history can generally be learnt in a couple of days, the history and culture of a state and nation is extremely difficult to learn, even more so to take on as your own. However, it could certainly be argued that a significant portion of the English culture is tolerance, with cultures from far and wide encouraged to add to the 'melting pot' style feel of British life. To that extent, I think that Jack Wilshire is wrong with his comments about Britishness, however I do understand the frustration that he feels over adults coming over and claiming to feel the same attachment to a country in five years that Wilshere has had to cultivate over 20. As a child, your formative years are generally when you form your strongest attachments, and begin to get a sense of who you really are. That is why Wilshere later made it clear that he had nothing against those who moved here from an early age, as they have had the experience of growing up in the country and gathering all the necessary national characteristics and feel an attachment to them. Perhaps the Arsenal player was simply attempting to question the FIFA eligibility rules. Nevertheless, a footballer getting involved in immigration policy, philosophy (yes, I do mean you Joey Barton) and politics in general is not advisable.

                         So does Wilshere have a point? By looking at FIFA's rules regarding eligibility, we can see there there are certainly areas that need tightening up. Whilst there is a rule that states that to play for any country, you must hold a passport from the state that you wish to represent. In order to gain a new nationality, you must either: be born in the country, have a biological mother, father or grandparent born in that country, or have resided in the country since the age of 18 for 5 years continuously. It is the latter that the midfielder was complaining about. I think he has a point. No-one can garner sufficient information of a nation's history and culture in 5 years to be able to strongly identify with it. I think that the rule would be far more accurate and appropriate if we said that anyone wanting to claim a new nationality must have lived in the country for 5 years before the age of 18, or 15 years over the age of 18. That should enable those that truly identify with the country, i.e. those that go through their formative years there, to represent the nation they want, whilst preventing those who simply want to represent a competitive team or, in the case of athletics, get better funding, with no concept of what it is to be 'British'. Wilshere should perhaps have said that the rules need changing-not by seeming to claim that only those that were born here are eligible. 'England for the English' is a headline often seen on BNP propaganda, and not an organisation that Wilshere will want to be associated with, especially if he is genuinely attempting to present a reasoned argument to change FIFA's rules.

                       However, if he is looking to change the rules, there will be many in this country wanting to oppose him. Now, I am by no means saying that any of the people mentioned do not feel a strong sense of attachment with England, merely that they were born in another country, and have now gone on to become highly successful at their sport. In many sports, England are heavily reliant on individuals that were not born in this country, and perhaps would not even fit the rules as I have suggested them to be. In cricket, both Kevin Pietersen and Jonathan Trott were born in South Africa. Both are now considered critical to the success of the batting lineup, and both were integral parts of the successful Ashes winning team this summer. In athletics, poster boy Mo Farah was born in Somalia, and he was one of the British faces of the 2012 Olympic Games last year. In golf, Justin Rose, like cricketers Pietersen and Trott, was born in South Africa. In both rugby forms, there are a multitude of names that are from Australasia and South Africa, with rugby union's Manu Tuilagi arguably the most high profile. Even in football, future talents like Saido Berahino (born in Burundi) and Wilfried Zaha (born in Ivory Coast), who are both widely considered English, were in fact born elsewhere. I dislike the idea that goes around, somewhat cynically, that 'if they are good, they can be English'. It seems too much like glory supporting. Personally, as long as those individuals truly feel like they identify with England, I am happy to have them representing us, however, this identification may be difficult to prove when determining whether someone should receive a passport.

                       Jack Wilshere's comments were ill-concieved and poorly delivered. He did not say exactly what he intended, and as a result left himself open to wild accusations of racism from the PC brigade and sections of the media, and more reasonable criticism from the majority of the footballing world. That being said, I do understand where he was coming from, as there do appear to be faults with the current residency part of the FIFA rules of eligibility. I have set out what I believe to be better to satisfy both criteria, to allow those that genuinely have a connection with a country from a young age to play for the country to which they have become attached, whilst denying those adults that have no concept of being part of the nation that they compete for. However, when applying any rules over nationality, we run the risk of alienating people who genuinely feel a strong connection to a nation. Therefore, perhaps it is best to have rather broad rules, as I would rather let 10 people who don't care about England represent us than deny a single person who really does identify. On a very basic level, people who value and identify with the shirt that they are playing for will perform to their potential. This will eventually show who cares and who doesn't, and bring the best performers to the top. I think that is how Wilshere should have prefaced his statements.

Wimbledon Begins: English Expectation on Scottish Shoulders

          The highlight of every British tennis fan's summer begins today, with SW19 playing host to the iconic grass court tournament. Get prepared to see shots of perfectly lined grass, strawberries and cream (whenever it happens not to be raining) and explanations of how the roof on Centre Court closes (when it inevitably does rain). As with every year, the British fans search in desperation for a potential winner from this small island. And with every year in recent memory, we have been disappointed. However, there are mutterings that perhaps this could be the year when the duck could be broken, when a British player could lift the iconic trophy.

            I am, of course, referring to Andy Murray. After a superb second half of last season, where he won the gold medal at the Olympics, and then Britain's first Grand Slam for 65 years at the US Open, the world number 2 will fancy his chances at his home event. This is also reinforced by his devastating defeat in the Wimbledon final last campaign, where all will remember his emotional commiseration speech. However, I personally, despite being a tennis fan from Britain, will not be supporting Andy Murray in the next two weeks any more than any other player. This blog post will explain why I feel this way, and what we should expect to see over the next two weeks.

           Getting straight to the crux of my argument regarding Andy Murray, I often feel as though the vast majority of fans are being hypocrites (and in recent months, glory supporters) when they blindly follow the world number 2 in Grand Slams. One of my early memories of Andy Murray is an interview conducted with him as a youngster, asking him about his future. One of the questions posed to him was: 'Would you consider yourself British?'. His answer: 'Scottish first, and British second'. Whilst I have nothing against the Scots, or any other nationality for that matter, the fact remains that Wimbledon is a tennis tournament held in England, a sport (and a country) that the Scots seemingly have little interest in. Therefore, English candidates should be the only ones that should receive whole-hearted backing from the home support. However, here is where we see aspects of glory supporting. After the decline of Tim Henman, it was only the Dunblane born youngster that showed any promise of winning tournaments. And so Britain followed him, dubbing him with the rather unfair tag of 'if he wins he's British, if he loses he's Scottish'. This unfairness is just one of a number of reasons why I will not be giving him special treatment.

              For those of you who are now thinking 'but he's British', I have three further arguments for you. 1) In no other sport do we apply the same principle. For example, we do not support all the home nations in the 6 Nations rugby or World Cup football (in fact we often directly oppose them). 2) Scotland may not be 'British' for much longer, with a referendum on the union scheduled to take place next year. And if the vote is 'yes' to leave, will fans abandon Murray then for being 'not British'? (I doubt it due to his success-another piece of evidence of glory supporting). And 3) The idea that he identifies with Britain as a union is challenged somewhat by his complete disdain for the Davis Cup in recent years, which has seen the national side slip down the rankings dramatically. If he really believed himself to be British, rather than the Scottish nationality he claims to put first, he would participate in these events. I must reiterate, Murray is doing nothing wrong by identifying himself as Scottish. All I intend by this post is to challenge the assertion that English fans should follow him blindly.

               Another reason I will be remaining neutral is to do with the commentary on Murray's matches. Again, not the fault of the player himself, as he can do little to affect the commentary of the BBC, but I still find it irritating. I have found a remarkable bias in play in all matches involving Murray, where commentators tend to exaggerate how well the Scot is playing, and often keeping him in matches long after he has effectively lost them. Often they just flat-out lie. Lines like 'Murray has dominated the first set, and been unfortunate on the important points' used to be commonplace when playing Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, and losing the set comprehensively. It is this bias that, perhaps unfairly, has led me to become more and more annoyed at the coverage, often watching on mute, and has caused me to become a tennis neutral.

                Finally, having explained that I have become a neutral, mainly due to things beyond Murray's control, I therefore follow those people whose game I find most entertaining, and whose personality is most likeable. Whilst Andy can certainly claim to have as entertaining a game as many of the players around him, he lacks massively on the second half of the sentence. This is sort of confirmed by the fact that the BBC felt the need to run a biographical piece with the world number 2 this week, attempting to dispel the 'dour Scot' look that he so often carries. I am sure that, away from the court, he is exactly the same as any other normal person, with a good sense of humour (i.e. normal human emotions), making the documentary, in my opinion, fairly irrelevant. On court, he comes across as moany, grumpy and occasionally petulant, in complete contrast to the likes of Federer and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, who are both highly likeable figures. Whilst Murray's on-court demenour has improved in recent years, if I were to support anyone this campaign at SW19, it would be someone who had a nice on and off court personality.

                 As for what we can expect over the next two weeks, I shall sum it up briefly: A Federer early masterclass, slow starts from Nadal and Djokovic, perhaps a couple of shocks along the way, pretty much a pre-determined women's final, with Serena and Sharapova looking strong, and hopefully, the nicest people win, and not necessarily the fans' hypocritical choice.