Are single nation leagues holding football back?

Every country has a domestic league, generally speaking anyway. That’s the way of the footballing world right? Clubs from a single nation compete in seasons of varying times and lengths, only meeting teams of other nations if they are part of the privileged few that qualify for whatever prestigious continental competitions may be on offer. An interesting question is why? Why have such enclosed leagues? With the world so globalised in so many ways, why is it that playing teams from neighbouring countries is not a weekly occurrence. It happens in American sports, with Canadian and Mexican cities often having franchises in ‘soccer’ and ice hockey, and even talk of a London based NFL side playing out of Wembley.

When professional association football was still a fledgling sport, it made sense to limit competition to a domestic or even regional remit; with little money in the game in its early stages, things such as travelling costs were real issues. However, these basic, practical costs are no longer significant issues within the game; Europe’s top leagues are now worth billions of pounds, and in England, even clubs outside of the Premier League attend international friendlies in preseason. In a world connected by train tracks and budget air travel, the cost of travelling to fixtures really isn’t a significant reason for clubs to not compete beyond their immediate domestic surroundings.

In the past couple of years, there has been some talk of the creation of a European Super League, featuring only the best sides in Europe. The logic behind this suggestion, apart from the obvious financial rewards, is that competition breeds quality, so unless the world’s best clubs are meeting on a regular basis, they will stagnate. Fundamentally, this logic is true, competition does increase quality, but the proposal of a European Super League would only further isolate Europe’s top clubs from the rest. The desire for a European Super League has more to do with undermining UEFA’s power, and the huge television revenues that the Champions League garners, than forwarding football. Florentino Pérez has been a vocal advocate for a European Super Cup, being openly critical of the Champions League for what he perceives as too many minnows in the completion, preventing the big teams from meeting on a regular basis: “we have to agree a new European Super League which guarantees that the best always play the best – something that does not happen in the Champions League.”

It is a reasonable argument, in the past 15 editions; the Champions League has been dominated by a select number of clubs Real Madrid, A.C. Milan, Manchester United, Bayern Munich and Barcelona have divided 11 of the 15 trophies between them. Some of the smaller countries represented rarely even make it to the group stages, let alone trouble any of the tournament’s perennial favourites. Even traditionally strong footballing nations such as Holland and France no longer interrupt the grasp that the Spanish, English, Italian and German giants have on the competition, it has been a little under 20 years since Ajax last won the a European Cup and even longer since Marseille won the trophy in somewhat controversial and acrimonious circumstances. Only Mourinho’s Porto have upset the status quo in recent years, long gone are the times when the likes of Steaua București, Hamburg, Nottingham Forrest, Red Star Belgrade and Celtic, were challenging for, and winning Europe’s top prize.

However, a European Super League would only exasperate this gap between the best and the rest. Surely much more desirable would be a more level playing field? More clubs competing at a higher standard, all challenging for honours is certainly a more appetising prospect than an isolated league of stagnating elites, and would certainly be better for football as a sport. The answer to this could well lie in an increase of multi-nation leagues. Particularly with smaller countries that can boast only one or two clubs of any real size, it makes sense to consolidate leagues with similar neighbouring countries. Such consolidations would breed greater competition, which on its own leads to an increase in overall quality, but is also likely to lead to more T.V money, and a more popular league. Players are more likely to sign for, and may be less tempted to leave clubs which play in a more competitive, more popular and ultimately wealthier league.

These are not wild, unsubstantiated assertions either; there is evidence that supports the claim that a multi-nation league can improve overall quality. In a previous article, this blog took a look at the great Yugoslavian side of the 1980’s and early 1990’s. Yugoslavia had wonderful team heading into the 1992 Euros, and could have gone on to become one of the world’s greatest sides but was prematurely torn apart through the horrific wars that erupted as Yugoslavia tore itself apart. One reason why Yugoslavia had such a fantastic team was that they were able to call upon the footballing talents of Serbia, Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Slovenia and Montenegro. However, this is not the sole reason; another huge contributory factor was the strength of the Yugoslav First League.

The last six league titles in Serbia and Croatia have been won by FK Partizan and Dinamo Zagreb respectively, Red Star Belgrade and Hadjuk Split the runners up more times than not. These duopolies are not conducive to breeding quality. What the Yugoslav First League did was not only bring the Belgrade and Zagreb giants together, but also Olimpija Ljubljana of Slovenia, the Macedonian club Vardar, and Bosnia-Herzegovina’s Sarajevo sides. By having a multi-nation league, these small, bordering countries with only one or two clubs challenging for titles, to a flourishing competitive league with six to eight teams battling it out for the championship. The facts speak for themselves; Yugoslavian teams participated in four European finals prior to the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1992, including a victory for Red Star in 1991, since the league splintered, clubs from none of the successor countries have had any real impact on European competition.

Another successful multi-nation league in recent years has been the Soviet Top League. Whilst certain Russian and Ukrainian clubs have continued to be competitive in Europe, many other clubs have settled into a period of sustained decline. This is most evident among the ‘Dynamo’s’, with Dinamo Tbilisi a prime example. Labelled the ‘Great Team’ during the 1970s and ‘80’s, the Georgian clubs have not repeated any of the European success they once experienced since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It is important to clarify at this point that this article is by no means endorsing the Soviet and Yugoslavian regimes; the way in which these clubs were brought together is deplorable. Atrocities occurred under these regimes, and particularly in Yugoslavia, football rivalries were aggravated by racial tensions, with violence on several occasions spilling onto the pitch. However, although the circumstances in which these leagues were formed is regretful, what is hard to deny is that these leagues made for stronger clubs, higher quality players, and greater competition, both in Europe and domestically.

It is doubtful that football is ever likely to see a reformation of the Yugoslav or Soviet collective leagues; there is too much water under the bridge, too deep history of tragedy. However, it does make sense for other countries to replicate the system used, albeit voluntarily. Poland and the Ukraine have proved that they can collaborate during the 2012 Euros; however, more obvious examples of nations that may benefit from partnering in collective leagues would be Holland and Belgium. Both have excellent national sides, but relatively poor domestic leagues, with clubs from neither league challenging on the European stage. The Scandinavian countries are another group for which a collective league could be both beneficial and practical. There are practical issues involved with multi-nation leagues. A lot of concern over any such proposal revolves around Champions League places, but fewer leagues need not result in fewer Champions League places, at least not at first. If for example Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland form a collective league, and each previously had one Champions League place each, then the collective Scandinavian league would have four Champions League places, at least until the league is established.

The other main practical issue is promotion and relegation, if nations are to join in a collective league; they will want fair representation in that league, not for it to become lopsided. One solution is an enclosed league, but that undermines the point of creating competition. Another solution would be to have several tiers of collected leagues, but this would turn practical issues such as travelling costs become real problems for smaller teams. Perhaps the best resolution would to have a quota of teams from each country, which always remains the same. If from the theoretical Scandinavian, there are four relegation places, whatever teams are relegated, drop down into the leagues of their respective countries. So if two Danish clubs, one Icelandic club and one Norwegian club occupy the theoretical Scandinavian League’s relegation spot, they would drop down into separate single nation second tier leagues, with the same amount of teams promoted. In this way, representation of each country remains fair, whilst maintaining the competition brought through promotion and relegation.

Interestingly, at home in England could be where we see this concept of multi-nation, collective leagues put into action. Welsh sides Swansea and Cardiff have been a part of the English football system for a long time, and are now flourishing in the Premier League. Furthermore, one of the longest raging debates in British football has been over suggestions that Celtic and Rangers join the English Premier League. The arguments for and against this are multiple and complicated, but highly simplified, the debate seems to surround on the impact it would have on Scottish football, and the impact it would have on the clubs themselves. Given recent performances, it is perhaps easy to forget that not so long ago, Scotland were good, very good. Souness, Hansen, Dalglish and many more, all excellent players, so what happened? Why is Scottish football at an all-time low? Well, it is no secret that the Scottish Premiership is a forgone conclusion before it even starts; following Rangers administration and relegation, there is no one left to challenge Celtic for the title. It is a stale league, which as such receives relatively low television income, and has seen Scotland decline as a European power; gone are the days of Sir Alex Ferguson’s Aberdeen upsetting the big boys.

One of the side effects of the complete inequality of the Scottish Premiership has been clubs spending beyond their means to bring in mediocre foreign players in a desperate attempt to rival Celtic, affecting the development of young Scottish talent. There is a strong argument to be made that Celtic, and perhaps in a few years Rangers, joining the English Premier League would be beneficial for Scottish football. Without Celtic in the picture, the playing field would be levelled, clubs would no longer have to spend beyond their means, restrictions could be placed on foreign players, and the result could be a much more competitive league, where young Scottish players can enjoy plenty of first team football and develop their game. The league would eventually grow in quality, with significant future benefit. The major concern surrounding the departure of Celtic and the effect it could have on Scottish football is financial. Celtic have passionate fans, regularly packing out the 60,000 capacity Celtic Park, and bringing significant away support. As well as ticket sales, Celtic and Rangers rake in the majority of T.V money for Scotland, the withdrawal of these funds could be critical. However, there seems to be a fairly obvious solution. Relegated Premier League clubs are set to begin £60 million in parachute payments over four years, and Championship clubs not receiving these payments, receive a yearly solidarity payment of £2.3 million. The obvious solution to recompensing Scottish football for the loss of Celtic, Rangers, and the corresponding financial loss for the Scottish FA would be some form of solidarity payment, to ensure that Scottish football survives the transition.

In terms of Celtic the club, the positives of joining the Premier League would surely outweigh the negatives. Celtic have not won a European Cup in 1967, and their greatest achievement in recent years, has been finishing as runners up in the 2003 UEFA Cup, a decade ago. Celtic have been impressing in the Champions League, most famously matching up against Lionel Messi’s Barcelona last year. However, what Celtic currently face is the prospect of having to rebuild their team every season, the stars of last season’s impressive campaign Wanyama and Hooper both left Glasgow in the summer, not for the biggest sides in Europe, but two fairly medium sized Premier League clubs, Southampton and Norwich. Wanyama and Hooper did not leave for bigger clubs, but for a bigger league; Celtic moving to the Premier League would resolve this problem. Celtic’s huge support, boosted by the increased ticket prices that can be charged in the Premier League, as well as the astronomical television revenue on offer would quickly see Celtic able to compete financially with even the biggest in the business. The main issue for Celtic fans would likely be missing out on the Champions League. Competition for Champions League places is at an all-time high in the Premier League this season, and if Celtic were to join the Premier League, there would undoubtedly be a period of transition. However, after a period of adjustment, with their pick of Scottish talent, avid, sizeable support, and the increased financial clout the Premier League would bring, competing for those top four spots would be only a matter of time for Celtic.

In practical terms, adjustments would obviously have to be made to the structure of both nations’ leagues. However, the timing could be right to make these changes. With the relegation of Rangers, Scottish football has already made changes to its league system recently; there is no firmly established system, better to adjust now, than years down the road. In terms of English football, the timing could also be right. Greg Dyke has recently taken over as the new Chairman of The Football Association and has made noises about change. Choosing to ignore many of England’s more systematic problems, Dyke has focused on the number of foreign players in the English game, with talk of a minimum quota of English, or even English under-21 players being bandied about; the introduction of Celtic to the Premier League could be the opportunity Dyke and The Football Association need to implement new regulations. With Rangers romping along in the Scottish League One, a fairly simple and practical way of bringing these to Scottish giants into the English game could be to expand the Premier League to 22 teams, one of these being Celtic, and the other a one off additional promoted side from the Championship. This could then see Rangers join the Championship, with England’s second tier remaining at 24 clubs.

These proposals are obviously radical, and very preliminary, but with the gap between Europe’s top clubs and all the rest ever increasing, it is obvious that something needs to be done to keep football the joyfully competitive and unpredictable sport we all love.

A Week In Football – The transfer window and deadline day causes yet more uproar

As well as my own blog, and the occasional article for The Boot Room over at http://tbrfootball.com, I am now writing a weekly column for the lovely chaps over at http://strettynews.com/ titled A Week in Football. Here is Week 4.

With the predictable mayhem of transfer deadline day has come predictable criticism; that the window should be scrapped and the world of football transfers is a gluttonous national disgrace. It was also jolly good fun. We finally saw Bale move in the most expected transfer of all time but few expected the explosions that followed on deadline day. Madrid’s signing of Bale paved the way for Arsenal’s sensational capture of Ozil; causing the Real camp to implode as it every senior player at the Bernabéu seemed to universally protest the decision with what felt like a rehearsed synchronicity. Whilst these last minute fireworks almost caused Jim White to have a heart and led to sports writers the world over erupting into near nonsensical hyperbole, Manchester United fans watched deadline day coverage with pained expressions, covering their eyes as Woodward continued to embarrass a proud football club, scurrying from central midfielder to central midfielder in the footballing equivalent of a headless chicken. Deep lying playmaker, tough tackling battler or advanced attacking midfielder, United didn’t seem to mind, but eventually settled for Marouane Fellaini; a player who had to take a wage cut and sacrifice £4 million of bonuses, even though he was available for £4 million less only two months ago. Painful and yet marvellously entertaining stuff.

As the dust settled and bleary eyed, confused players finally discovered where they would be playing football this year (until January at least), voices began to criticise the window. It began with the quiet mutterings of Steve Bruce, who once again found himself a deadline day loser as yet another striker slipped through his fingers; West Brom pulling the plug on the transfer of Shane Long. Then Holloway entered the fray. The barmy Bristolian was like a boy in a candy shop on deadline day, buying so many players that even he had to admit he had gone overboard and he had bought two or three too many footballers. The Crystal Palace manager was quick to point the blame at the transfer window, stating that it inspires panic, favoured the big clubs and that there was nothing wrong with the old system. Holloway can blame whatever he likes for his lack of composure in the window, but whilst it certainly needs reforming, to suggest scrapping the window altogether is foolish. Holloway isn’t the first to suggest this and he won’t be the last to, but it is hard to see what scrapping the window would actually solve. If a window favours the big clubs, no window would give them free reign; able to pick players from smaller clubs whenever they felt like, flexing their superior financial muscles with impunity. Curbing the transfer power of the world’s biggest clubs was the reason for the window’s creation in the first place and scrapping it would see them completely unshackled.

As for the panic buying so aptly demonstrated by Mr Holloway, it hard to see how disposing of the transfer window would curb this, if anything it would only serve to aggravate the situation. In the current system, if a team need a player they may only purchase him in a window, it does not matter if a team is struggling all through the winter months, they cannot sign a new player until January. Without a window there would be no such restrictions; your team have suffered an injury? Your strikers aren’t scoring enough goals? Not a problem, just go out and buy a player from another club. It is easy to see many teams behaving much like QPR did last season, spending and overspending in a desperate attempt to buy their way out of a relegation battle, with possible disastrous financial consequences if they do suffer the drop. It is also easy to imagine the likes of Chelsea and Manchester City attempting to buy success, or hoarding players not to strengthen their own squads but to stop other teams from strengthening, or other such naughty behaviour much like Mourinho’s capture of Willian this term. The other alternative if clubs were to abandon the transfer window system would be to abandon the transfer system entirely, with players leaving only at the ends of their contracts. However, such a system of course would never be agreed by clubs and even if it were would not be sanctioned by European employment laws. Restructuring the window so that it finishes before the start of the season has been one of the few sensible suggestions made.

It is not just from managers from which the transfer window has suffered attacks, with new Football Association Chairman Greg Dyke indirectly taking a stab at it. Dyke has blamed all of our nation’s footballing failures at the feet of the Premier League in an effort to shift attention away from the systematic failures that plague the national side’s coaching and managerial structures. Instead Dyke would prefer we blame the Premier League’s expensive foreign imports for apparently preventing the Three Lions from winning World Cups. It has been a mixed week all round for the poor transfer window, with all the excitement giving way to waves of criticism, with even people outside of football getting a kick in. Premier League clubs have always been criticised for the amount they spend and for the gluttonous manner in which the clubs treat £20 million transfer fees as the norm, but this year have received particularly vitriolic attacks due to a particularly extravagant window, with Spurs and Manchester City both spending over £100 million each and Bale leaving for Madrid for £86 million. All of the common angry cries that footballers get paid in a week what doctors earn in a year have been rolled out and other similar calls for footballers’ salaries to instead be given to nurses, or firemen,  or police, or soldiers and so forth. It is easy to be sympathetic towards this point of view; however, whilst the transfer window is disgustingly extravagant and grotesquely gluttonous, it is not immoral. Although footballers do of course contribute less to communities than doctors and surgeons, surgeries are not performed live every week to full stadiums with millions watching at home. The fact is, like it or not, we live in a capitalist society and Premier League football is a multi-billion pound business and it is only natural then that the business’ main assets, the players, will command hefty fees and earn significant sums of money. It is better that the actual players, the ones with the talent who attract the crowds that generate so much cash, receive large salaries than the other assorted agents and executives that surround the game. The real controversy of the week is that PFA Chairmen Gordan Taylor has managed to avoid losing his £1 million a year job, despite having hypocritically run up £100,000 worth of debt with a book keepers that has now gone out of business due to unpaid debts. Taylor has operated unimpeded for too long now and with this latest escape, he has avoided punishment for actions that would have seen the players in his union receive lengthy suspensions.

The problems surrounding the England national team are systematic and extend way beyond the Premier League’s foreign imports

The Football Association recently revealed Greg Dyke as its new Chairman and he was quick to announce his intentions for the role; improving England’s floundering national team. After their capitulation in South Africa, England struggled through to the quarter finals, outplayed by a rejuvenated Italy. The next challenge for Roy Hodgson’s side has been qualifying for the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, a challenge England have hardly excelled against, with qualification going down to the wire, with a crucial match against Ukraine on Tuesday followed by a likely top spot decider versus Montenegro in October. Dyke was quick to point the blame at the feet of the Premier League, claiming that he and the others with a hand in its formation had no idea the monster they were creating and that the League’s expensive foreign imports were stunting the development of young English talent. This has been a common criticism in recent years, with every major tournament failure followed by numerous rants and articles bemoaning the greedy and self-serving Premier League. However, is this really a fair summation of the problems currently plaguing the England national team? The Premier League is an easy scapegoat, but pilling yet more blame at the feet of the country’s top clubs will not solve the national team’s problems and neither will ignoring the other systematic issues that are holding back the Three Lions’ progress.

During his time as manager of Barcelona, Johan Cruyff made many important decisions and changes, but one more than any other changed the face of Spanish football. It is surprising to hear now, but prior to Cruyff, the now world renowned La Masia Academy admitted players based on their physical potential, not technical ability; if a player wasn’t expected to reach a certain height then they weren’t admitted. Cruyff changed this, dictating that any player who was good enough was also tall enough and strong enough, it was a footballing paradigm shift and La Masia began to produce the likes of Pep Guardiola, Xavi, Iniesta and Messi; the beginnings of one of the greatest club sides of all time. Cruyff made these changes in Spain in the 1990’s, it is now 2013 and in England up and down the country, players are still picked in youth sides for their physicality, and we wonder why we are so far behind Spain in terms of the quality of our national side; it is because England are over 20 years behind in the way we produce and coach young players. Some small players are making it through the system; those who are truly and precociously talented still fight past this physical prejudice, but not enough. Also prevalent is an either or mentality. Players can be big and strong, or players can be small and technical, it is a fallacy that is holding English football.

There is a reason that throughout the continent and South America, young players all learn their craft playing futsal, because for certain players, an eleven a side match is simply too physical at the age of eight, nine or ten. This is no reason for these smaller players to be left by the wayside, nor is it a reason for stronger players to neglect the technical side of their game. Playing eleven a side matches is great experience for young players; it helps them grow accustomed to the physical demands of professional football, as well as learning the tactical side of the game. However, at is stands, youth coaching in British football is one dimensional and too many potential young players are falling through the cracks. This is an issue that has nothing to do with the Premier League. Greg Dyke can complain all he likes that the Premier League is too reliant on foreign imports, but perhaps if English clubs were producing more technical players of their own; the Premier League’s elite wouldn’t have to go shopping.

It is not just small, less physically imposing players that are falling through the cracks either. England is one of the most multicultural countries in the world. It is part of this country’s identity, part of what makes England great, yet the national side is not representative of this multiculturalism. In recent years, the world has watched as Germany has benefited from a policy of inclusion, accepting and actively recruiting from their immigrant communities to strengthen their own national side. Mesut Ozil and Sami Khedira of Turkish descent and Klose and Podolski of Polish descent have all chosen their adopted home over their ancestral one to become key figures for Germany. One has to wonder how well this wonderfully talented German side would have fared in recent competitions without these key, adopted players and how the likes of Turkey and Poland (who can also bemoan the loss of Laurent Koscielny to France) could have done if these talented players and chosen to play for the teams of their ancestors. Given the huge success of Germany, it is baffling how we in England haven’t followed suit. Young English players abroad are almost entirely ignored by national scouts, with Lewis Holtby the highest profile of players to pick their new home over England, with new Liverpool signing Tiago Illori another example. However, this problem also extends to players at home. England is a far more culturally varied country than Germany, which dozens of immigrant communities call their home, many for generations, but how many English-Indians are there in the England national team? How many third generation Poles? England has benefitted from certain players picking their new home, particularly from African and Caribbean countries, but how many have we missed out on such as Chelsea’s Victor Moses? And why does it seem to be that only particular cultures can be included in the national team? Why have we have had African and Caribbean Three Lions players, but no English players of Turkish or Pakistani descent? Or Polish? Or Brazilian? Or Romanian? It is a bizarre and disappointing situation, that out of all these cultures, that all have thriving communities throughout England and have done for generations, none have had players who have gone on to be English internationals. It is disappointing for footballing reasons, but it goes beyond that; the England national team should be a reflection of England and what makes this country and currently it unfortunately simply isn’t.

This lack of identity extends to style of play. English clubs are feared across Europe for their fast and direct approach, but the English national team is not. The players that make up the England squad are all used to dominating teams with their club squads, playing a high tempo and direct possession game. Yet when they turn out for the red and white of England, an inferiority complex seems to prevail. The fallacy that England can’t match the world’s best is pervasive, this pathetic false belief that our only option against other international sides is to play a negative and conservative counter attacking game. The occasional performance aside, watching England in past seasons has been laborious, with possession conceded against the world’s better sides before a ball is even kicked in anger. It would be ridiculous to suggest that England should attempt to play like Spain, however, it is also ridiculous to suggest that with the likes of Carrick, Wilshire, Rooney, Gerrard and Lampard in the side England should be reduced to a counter attacking side. Furthermore, with the wealth of pace in the English, the slow tempo with which the Three Lions play is infuriating; Fridays match against Moldova was the first time England had scored at Wembley in the first 20 minutes during this qualification campaign. It is telling that England’s last four permanent managers have a combined age of 250, England are stuck in the past, with no invention and no progression.

It was refreshing to see Southampton’s Rickie Lambert earn his first caps against Scotland and Moldova, and whilst it has been almost universally accepted that he has earned his caps through his performances in the Premier League last term, many fans have been quick to add a caveat; that at 31 Lambert is not the future for England. Except that he is. Lambert himself is never going to break any international records and if he does manage to make it on the plane to Brazil, it would certainly be his first and last major tournament for England. What makes Lambert the future for England, is what his call up could represent; picking players based on form, regardless of age or how fashionable the club they play for is. One only has to look at the selections of Young and Milner. These are undoubtedly two very good players, however, they have not been playing regularly for their clubs, nor have they impressed when they have made appearances. Meanwhile, Leon Osman and Adam Lallana of Everton and Southampton have been consistently churning out appearances of great quality and do not get a look in. It is hard to understand why these players only have one cap between them, is what sets Young and Milner above Lallana and Osman really a gulf in quality? Or is it that Young and Milner play for the two Manchester clubs and have a reputation to match. Unfortunately Lallana and Osman are not rarities; with Gerrard, Lampard and Wilshire all having suffered through poor form and injuries lately, what does Leon Britton have to do to earn a cap? The England national team should be made up of those players who are eligible for the team and are displaying the best form, not who has the biggest reputation and plays for a fashionable club. Of course there are going to certain players who are so invaluable that they are picked even if they are low on form and fitness, but the current state of affairs goes way beyond that. The England set-up has become way too cosy, the same established so called stars are almost guaranteed a place in the squad and so have little incentive to perform with the only competition coming from whatever young ‘wonderkid’ happens to be the flavour of the month.

Many have delighted in the call ups of Barkley, Zaha, Sterling and the like,  but whilst of course it is great to see excellent young English prospects, these call ups are indicative of how hugely England have misused the under 21 system. If German or Spanish, these players would not have earned senior caps yet, but instead properly matured through the various age groups. These countries take competitions in the lower age categories seriously, not rushing players through, but allowing each age group to progress naturally, gaining competitive experience at every level so they are ready when they finally make the step up. There is an outdated arrogance to the English national team, one exasperated by a disregard for youth competition and a tedious predictability in the management, with appointment to the senior posts almost always elder, past their peak and in the zenith of their careers. What England needs is progressive coaching and a clear footballing identity, from grass roots, right the way up to the senior side of the national team. Until this is established and complacent stars are spurred into activity by the selection of in form players, England will continue to underperform regardless of Premier League. The fact is Mr Dyke; young players are getting chances in the Premier League. For all of the league’s expensive foreign imports, at Southampton Luke Shaw is an established starter at eighteen and has been joined by James Ward-Prowse this term, over at Everton Ross Barkley has shone and John Stones will be pushing for a start, Liverpool have a host of young English stars, with Raheem Sterling just the pick of the bunch, the list  goes on with Zaha and Chalobah at Manchester United and Chelsea, or Will Hughes at Derby, the players are there, but the system is failing them. (http://bit.ly/150IQ5q)