By Kate Jackson
August 20 2013

Following Manchester City's thumping win over Newcastle last night, some have stated that the lack of English players in the top flight is the reason that the Three Lions don't do well at international tournaments, but I don't think that is the case.

In last night's encounter between Manchester City and Newcastle United only had three English players in the starting XI of either side, Joe Hart and Joleon Lescott and Manchester City, and Steven Taylor of Newcastle, and this morning there has been a common trend on Twitter and Facebook about how the English national team don't stand a chance because of all of the foreign players, but I think that it has very little to do with it.

The Premier League is into it's 21st year, however, until the late 1990s it was still uncommon to see non-British players in the English game. In the late 90s England only got to the second round of a World Cup, being eliminated by Argentina, and other than three appearances in the quarter finals of the World Cups of 2002 and 2006, as well as the Euros of 2004, England haven't enjoyed the best of times.

However, going further back, even before the influx of foreign players, English success on the international stage is extremely limited. We didn't even qualify for World Cup 1994, and only reached the second round in 1982. Some will argue that we should have gottne further in 1986 than the quarter finals and the infamous "Hand of God" incident, but facts are facts and the squad representing the English game, a game pretty much devoid of foreign players, were only ranked 8th in the world.

Going slightly further back and again English didn't even qualify for the World Cups in either 1974 or 1978, yet again well before foreign players were coming into the English game, and a quarter final finish in Mexico in 1970 wasn't exactly thrilling for the English, who were at the time reigning Champions.

Then we get onto 1966, arguably English football's finest hour as Bobby Moore lifts the trophy (left) after a 4-2 win over Germany that was full of controversy. However, it's not until you examine this and Euro 1996 that you start to notice a pattern. England have NEVER beaten a country considered to be a major footballing nation in the knockout rounds of an international tournament played outside of England.

At first I also refused to believe that fact myself until I actually looked it up, and it is accurate. Any time England have faced a major footballing nation in the knock out stages of a major international tournament played outside of England, we have lost. So if foreigners are to blame for the last 15 or so years of international failures, what about in the numerous years before that? We can't blame the foreigners for failing to get out of the group stage of the World Cup in 1950 or 1958, yet alone failing to qualify for three Wolrd Cups between 1974 and 1994.

Unfortunately the English (and I am English myself) have always had a hyped up view of how good our nation actually is at football, and our failure on the international stage is nothing to do with the foriegn players coming into the game. Plenty of players have broken into their first team in the last 15 or so years despite the amount of foreign players around them. Chelsea were famed for being the first team in English history to field a team without a single English player in it, and yet Frank Lampard managed to get into that team and became a record breaking midfielder for Chelsea.

Michael Owen and Steven Gerrard broke through at Liverpool at the beginning of the influx of foreign players into our game, and I could list you any number of players who are talented enough to make a difference for England before then failing at the international stage. To do so you only have to look at the talent that we have taken to international tournaments recently.

The 2002 World Cup squad was (in squad number order) Seaman, Mills, Cole, Sinclair, Ferdinand, Campbell, Beckham, Scholes, Fowler, Owen, Heskey, Brown, Martyn, Bridge, Keown, Southgate, Sheringham, Hargreaves, Cole, Vassell, Butt, James and Dyer. With that array of talent, including several of the best players in the world and they all broke through despite the influx of foreign players.

Isn't it also a telling fact that the most consistent England manager in recent times hasn't even been English? Sven record three quarter final appearances in a row but people never took to him because he was Swedish, but again all of the English coaches that have been since have been failures. Steve McLaren should never have been appointed over Sam Allardyce and has now become something of a joke figure due to his umbrella and putting on a dutch accent for no reason whatsoever.

And also, Roy Hodgson shouldn't have been appointed ahead of Harry Redknapp. Harry had successfully turned Tottenham from a side who were dead bottom of the Premier League when he took over to a side who made the Champions League and several Europa Leagues straight afterwards.

In both cases the FA chose incorrectly in my eyes, but again maby that is part of the problem. Maybe English managers just aren't good enough. You look at the history of the Premier League and the successful managers have easily been the non-English ones. English managers have often failed miserably to succeed.

People will again say "why don't we give English managers a chance at the top" and I will just say that clubs have no obligation to appoint someone English as their manager, and even in the days when English managers dominated the top flight, it was the Scots were winning everything, infact, in terms of winning Premier League managers, you have two Scots (Ferguson and Dalglish), a Frenchman (Wenger), a Portugese (Mourinho) and two Italians (Ancelotti and Mancini), with English managers rarely even close.

Unfortunately we have to face up to the fact that we are not a force in international football, and other than the odd tournament here and there over the lengthy history of the game, we have virtually never threatened the truly great teams of the world, and to blame that on the influx of foreign players into the game is quite frankly ridiculous. England weren't successful in the major of their history long before foreign players started coming into our game, and the ONE tournament win that the country have had success was so long ago it's pretty much irrevalent these days.

If the player is good enough, they will break into their club's first team, it is as simple as that really. Clubs are under no obligation whatsoever to play young, English players simply because they are English. They have to bring in the best players that they can, and the fact that they aren't using young, English players, is simply down to the fact that the current crop of players simply aren't good enough. Club managers are under no obligation whatsoever to help the national team and they shouldn't sacrifice their club's potential success because England need new players.

I believe that foreign players have made the Premer League arguably the best league in the world (with only Germany really being a true rival, Spain's La Liga is a bit crap). Six of the last Champions League finals have had English teams in them, and regardless of how you spin it, that is a fantastic record when you consider that Spain have only been represented three times (and by the time club each time), Germany three times (again the same club) and Italy three times (AC Milan twice and Inter one). Before the influx of players in the late 90s, English teams (albeit these were in the days of just one team qualifying for the Champions League from each country) were often going out well before it started getting to the serious business of the tournament.

Unfortunately, blaming foreign players for England's lack of success at international tournaments is a lazy excuse. Yes, I understand the frustration and believe me, I would love to see England win the next World Cup, but it isn't going to happen simply because the players are not good enough. The "Golden Generation" of Beckham, Gerrard, Lampard, Owen and countless others couldn't get past the 1/4 final stages of any tournament, and they are far more skilled than the current crop, and both have had to deal with foreigners.....but again, and I can't stress this point enough, England have not been a major force in international football for long before forieng players came into the game.

Blog : Foreign players aren't ruining England's chances

Discussion started by theimps.ka (IP Logged), 20/08/2013 07:57

theimps.ka
20/08/2013 07:57

What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.

Reply Quote Report

David The Imp
20/08/2013 10:19

Firstly, you say the prem was mostly full of English players until the late 90's and notice how the players that were born out of that were responsible for the 2002, 2004 and 2006 quarter final appearances.

The issue is teams are no longer bothering with English players, who is the new Gerrard? Lampard? Owen? Shearer? Are we suggesting that Jagielka, cahill and Lambert are the new hero's? NO chance!!!

We no longer have a sufficient amount of young English players coming through because they are been swallowed up by the young foreign lads. Look how many English players were in each squad in 93 and compare it to 03 and now 13! Its a steady decrease in most cases.

England can only dream of Quarter final appearances now and what's worse, when we used to go out it was after a very even game often ending in penalties. Now it's like the Italy game where they had around 30 shots to our 6 or whatever.

I'm not suggesting England are anymore than an average team and not suggesting they will be anything more in the future but I can guarantee that they will only get worse the way things are going.

Fundraiser for LCFC

Reply Quote Report

jal jal
20/08/2013 14:25

I'm with you David I think it should at least be 50/50 in a team or even 60/40 of English players in any team.
Man Utd had 7 English players in their Squad of 18 when they played Swansea that's probably the most any team is likely to have this season.
Chelsea had 4 out of a squad of 18
It's not giving the young English players a chance at the top level to progress.

Reply Quote Report

David The Imp
20/08/2013 14:49

Let's not pretend that our players are brilliant but if you don't give them a chance we will not find the next Shearer or Owen.

I'd rather England's manager was picking from a pool of maybe 200 players (10 from each prem side) than the pool of 100 or less that he currently has to choose from.

Fundraiser for LCFC

Reply Quote Report

davidimp
21/08/2013 20:04

I agree with some of Kate's comments but only 75 English players spread across the 20 teams must be a worry for the future of national game, thank god we are getting at other sports and we enjoy watching the national sides/sports people doing well there.
Odd the big European leagues seem to have more of their countrymen playing for the club sides or we just saying the English are@#$%&at footy but still a bit better than Scotland

Here we go again!
Will we ever get the right man?

Reply Quote Report

Goto: Forum List•Message List•Search• Log In

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net