Success vs English players

[angelman]

I know that it is a little different due to a huge windfall coming their way, but I look at Spurs and wouldn't be surprised if their starting line up will be entirely made up of non-English players. I recall teams of old from Arsenal and Chelsea who didn't have a single English player in it. Does that matter to the supporters? It does to me - even if it meant not being as successful as we could be, I would hate it if we only had 1 or 2 English players in the squad. Fortunately the Academy seems to be turning out some pretty good prospects, long may that last, coupled with a manager/chairman who want to bring them through to the 1st team, so maybe we will always have more than a token Englishman. [As an aside, I also look at the national cricket side and dislike the way we import South Africans into the squad, especially when they are over 18]

 

Just wondered whether I am the only one who thinks like this, as I do realise that some put the most emphasis on success (which equals more money) being the be all and end all of things rather than how you get that success. I was very proud of little old SFC for having 6 English players starting against WBA.

[adrian lord]

The way national cricket and rugby teams bend nationality is totally undermining international sporting credibility. Football is not yet so bad.

 

Saints have a great blend of home grown talent and foreign trimmings. Long may it continue.

[Jack]

Success WITH English players needs to become a trend. I hope we become successful with this side with a core of English/British players, and if that was to happen you'd hope that more clubs strive to follow in our footsteps and invest in youth rather than looking abroad and to experience every time.

[Dig Dig]

The way national cricket and rugby teams bend nationality is totally undermining international sporting credibility. Football is not yet so bad.

 

Saints have a great blend of home grown talent and foreign trimmings. Long may it continue.

 

The South Africans in the English Cricket team have Parent(s) from England so it doesn't mean much that they grew up in SA.

[Lallana's Left Peg]

I found it interesting to hear Cortese say in the summer that Saints had an obligation to provide players for the national team should they wish to select them. It was the first time I had seen anything in public be mentioned about it. You could argue that a successful Academy would naturally provide that anyway (and the view that 50% of the first team be made up of Academy products has been around since the takeover).

[DuncanRG]

Note that Manchester United normally field four or five English players in their starting XI. It's possible to be successful with or without English players, but we can all be thankful that Southampton are aiming for the former.

[The9]

I'm not remotely bothered where Saints' players come from to be honest, only that they are good enough.

 

The fact we've got a model which seems to produce cheap talent is impressive, the fact the players meet the home grown rule (which itself doesn't discriminate on nationality if a player has been with a club long enough) is the main benefit apart from cost.

[moonraker]

The problem is that these two things are seen as mutually exclusive when they are not. As stated above Man Utd have achieved there unrivalled success with a core of English players. The problem is that the foreign Sugar Daddies are only interested in how the success of the club reflects on them and they are impatient for that success hence they buy established players mostly from overseas. As an example there is no realistic long term youth strategy at Chelsea, yes they have an academy but how many first XI Chelsea and/or England players has it produced since Abramovich took over? I can think of only 1 Bertrand and he is not a Chelsea first XI regular.

 

The turnover of Managers in these clubs clearly illustrates the impatience of the Sugar Daddies, pressure to succeed is so immense they dare not risk blooding the youngsters. The preferred approach is to loan players out, mostly to lower league sides, whilst this can work it must be done in the best interests of the individual player as part of genuine personal development programme not just to make room in the academy for the next bunch of gullible talent who are blinded by the glamour of the Club not the success of the academy.

[Frank's cousin]

To me , 'home grown' is more important than 'English' - not only for the obvious reasons, but as a strategy there is an increased probability that these players have more of an affinity for the club etc. Naturally in most cases these are more likley to be English by default, but not that importanat to me. Its clear that until we have a national coach with some balls to be his own man with folk at the FA who have the balls to stand up to the Premier League, England players will still be picked from a core set of clubs despite sitting on the benches or being sheidt... so why should we feel any obligation to produce talent for England? The academy's obligation is to produce talent for Saints, whatever nation they qualify for.

[DanW]

If England wants to have the biggest league in the world and also have great English talent, the rankings of the leagues needs to be understood. A young player who is developing but cannot break into the senior team because of all the great international talent in front of him should recognize that going overseas to develop and grow is a viable, acceptable, and in fact encouraged plan.

 

Then when they do develop into a better player, they can come back and star for their squad.

 

If they are too xenophobic, then there are plenty of lower league teams that would also like to have them around, too.

[melmacian_saint]

If this is to happen then this idea that is ingrained in our youth setup that any player who is either not tall, burly, incredibly pacey or can run for 90 minutes at his top is not good enough has to end.

 

How many talented youngsters have been denied at chance in our clubs because of this decandent ideology?

[angelman]

This is nice to read:

 

"I think it's important to have a nucleus of home-grown players from our Academy. That's how we want to proceed.

http://www.tribalfootball.com/articles/pochettino-delighted-southampton-market-work-3977394?utm_source=main_feed

[Berudenot2]

I'm not remotely bothered where Saints' players come from to be honest, only that they are good enough.

 

The fact we've got a model which seems to produce cheap talent is impressive, the fact the players meet the home grown rule (which itself doesn't discriminate on nationality if a player has been with a club long enough) is the main benefit apart from cost.

 

This. My interest in the national team has only just been rekindled but it's club before country always.

[angelman]

My interest in the national team has only just been rekindled but it's club before country always.

I feel the same, but I still for some reason want to see English players playing for Saints and preferably ones that we have nurtured. I don't really care of they don't play for the national side, as we all know that successive English managers chose from a preferential pool of about 6 clubs.

[The9]

If this is to happen then this idea that is ingrained in our youth setup that any player who is either not tall, burly, incredibly pacey or can run for 90 minutes at his top is not good enough has to end.

 

How many talented youngsters have been denied at chance in our clubs because of this decandent ideology?

 

Does this really happen ? It doesn't seem to be the case with Saints' academy - though I will say that being able to run for 90 minutes is an absolute minimum requirement for top-level football, as fitness and consistency are basically the difference between non-league players and top ones. Anyone can run fast, and players at a low level can have a great touch and ability on the ball, but you need ability AND top level application to succeed nowadays as a basic requirement.