Arsenal Thread

[Guest muddatrucker]

I reckon the whole English thing is bollocks anyway, I haven't read the papers today though.

[Liam]

I think it's not too much to expect a team from a country to at least have a few English players playing regularly.

You can argue that it's because the players aren't as good, but they generally aren't given the chance.

Arsenal aren't the first team to be like this (and obviously would usually have Cole and Campbell at least) but it's a sad state of things and the English game to me that the Premiership as a whole is inundated with foriegners, arguably stunting the progress of a lot of UK talent.

[NobBe Nobbs]

I'd definitely not say the Premiership as a whole, not by a long, long, LONG shot. True, there are some teams like Arsenal or Blackburn with few English players, but elsewhere, there are teams like us, Fulham, Spurs and so on with lots of English (or at least Home Nations) players in. I think I can probably name a Charlton XI without a single foreign player in it (if I can call Elliot back from wherever he's at)

[Liam]

Fulham aren't the best club to use in this argument, as we have quite a few foreigners that we play.

EDIT: Fulham team today:

Fulham: Warner, Volz, Knight, Bocanegra, Rosenior, Elliott (Christanval 43), Pembridge, Boa Morte, Malbranque, McBride, Helguson (John 74).

Subs Not Used: Crossley, Goma, Niclas Jensen.

3 home country players, and Warner is technically English, though he chose to play for Trinidad.

Edited March 11, 2006 by HGwannabe

[Guest muddatrucker]

Chris Coleman said it best when he said he'd field a team of aliens if it won him a game.

I think too much shit is put upon teams not giving players a chance, the FA shouldn't rely on teams (which are profitable businesses and will always choose the cheaper option) making english players on their own, they should pile more money in training potential up.

At the minute there aren't enough good english players to go around, its not Arsenals fault if a youth player ends up in League two, no matter how much the player says so, he wasn't good enough.

[Summers]

Villa team today:

VILLA: Sorensen, Hughes, Bouma, Ridgewell, Mellberg, Moore, Davis, McCann, Barry, Baros, Phillips. Subs: Taylor, Samuel, Hendrie , Angel, Whittingham.

7 in the 11.

4 on the bench.

[Guest muddatrucker]

It always the lower teams that are complaining to, what does that prove?

[Liam]

Yeah, but generally a youth player might end up in division 2 as they aren't realistically given much of a chance. I don't expect a team to throw several youth players into big matches just because, but a lot of young English players seem to struggle to get a chance, whether they are good enough or not.

Clubs seem quicker to buy cheap young foreigners and invest time in them, rather than work with the talent they already probably have.

UEFA's rule changes next year will at least change that to some degree.

EDIT: yeah, it's the lower teams that complain, Mudda, but then again, it's funny that Arsenal are the most outspoken about the change in rules by UEFA, because that would slightly screw them

Edited March 11, 2006 by HGwannabe

[Summers]

I'm not complaining so much.

If Arsenal want to sell players like Taylor, and sign Alaminium then fair play, thanks.

[Guest muddatrucker]

I'm just sick to the teeth of people ranked in the bottom half of the table chipping into this arguement, and the players who failed blaming the teams. This arguement came up recently when 3 of our English players were injured so it makes it even more fragile.

Work permits are only granted if you can't buy a player of the same quality within the same price range in your continent, I see it as the same way with general european players. Alot of these players aren't good enough, nationality means fuck all in the bigger picture, if they're investing in foreign youth then perhaps its because the foreigners are doing it right, the teams shouldn't be blamed because there are only 30 or so Englishman worth having.

EDIT: At present with the way Almunia played in the Carling Cup both this season and last, I'd rather have him. He seems to be getting a good chance at Villa too.

EDIT2: Of course they're getting fussy about it, because its a new rule coming into place thats going to be hard to follow since we seem to have gotten into a position where we don't have any real decent homegrown talent on our books, we could put them in our CL squads, but we won't use them because alot of them are shit, just means that we're have to submit weaker squads.

[Liam]

I'm just sick to the teeth of people ranked in the bottom half of the table chipping into this arguement, and the players who failed blaming the teams. This arguement came up recently when 3 of our English players were injured so it makes it even more fragile.

So an argument which affects English football as whole (and European football to the point where UEFA have changed the rules) isn't allowed to be entered into by anyone who isn't 9th or above?

Plus West Ham and Wigan were two of the teams who had people speak out about it earlier in the week, so...*shrugs*

It makes sense to me that in a game where people are always complaining about money (something a lot of the Arsenal fans do on the board with Chelsea), more emphasis should be given on a teams own youth squad and development, which thankfully UEFA are dealing with. At least this means that to a point, a team has to have a solid basis for developing national talent, whether it be in the UK or elsewhere.

Edited March 11, 2006 by HGwannabe

[Summers]

EDIT: At present with the way Almunia played in the Carling Cup both this season and last, I'd rather have him. He seems to be getting a good chance at Villa too.

It's not his fault Sorensen is (usually) a capable keeper. I'm just saying, if Arsenal (and other spending teams) like to buy good foriegners, and it means my club can sign good English players, then I'm all for it.

[Guest muddatrucker]

I'm just sick to the teeth of people ranked in the bottom half of the table chipping into this arguement, and the players who failed blaming the teams. This arguement came up recently when 3 of our English players were injured so it makes it even more fragile.

So an argument which affects English football as whole (and European football to the point where UEFA have changed the rules) isn't allowed to be entered into by anyone who isn't 9th or above?

[TheArsenal]

I'm just sick to the teeth of people ranked in the bottom half of the table chipping into this arguement, and the players who failed blaming the teams. This arguement came up recently when 3 of our English players were injured so it makes it even more fragile.

So an argument which affects English football as whole (and European football to the point where UEFA have changed the rules) isn't allowed to be entered into by anyone who isn't 9th or above?

Plus West Ham and Wigan were two of the teams who had people speak out about it earlier in the week, so...*shrugs*

It makes sense to me that in a game where people are always complaining about money (something a lot of the Arsenal fans do on the board with Chelsea), more emphasis should be given on a teams own youth squad and development, which thankfully UEFA are dealing with. At least this means that to a point, a team has to have a solid basis for developing national talent, whether it be in the UK or elsewhere.

Edited March 11, 2006 by TheArsenal

[Liam]

Yeah, I get where you are coming from, but I just personally think it makes sense the rules that are being put into place.

TheArsenal, the rules are talking about bringing people up THROUGH the development system of the team...so you won't need to spend millions of pounds on the UK players if you use who are at your disposal already. And if someone called a team "racist" for doing that, it'd be as stupid as Wenger calling Pardew "racist" i.e. very

Going a bit off topic (since we just keep going in circles otherwise), the UK never had overly many players abroad even back in the day. I've always wondered about that, but I just assume it's that UK players usually play a different style to the continental teams..or I always just assumed it may have been a hype thing.

Edited March 11, 2006 by HGwannabe

[Guest muddatrucker]

But thats the thing, you're being forced to field players that you wouldn't otherwise, theres a difference between giving someone a chance and being forced to field a weakened team.

I don't mind the rules, I just see the problems it brings to teams that don't have terrific youth academies right this moment, you can't just sign a bunch of players and hope they'll be ready in time for when the rules are implemented.

[Liam]

Last time I checked, weren't Arsenal's development/youth academies pretty good though? Well, I assumed they would be at least, I guess.

[Guest muddatrucker]

But I still take a look at the people in the youth setup and wonder if any of them will actually make it since we've got lots of young people at the same age already proving to be successes.

I think the rule is fair enough, it just takes time for teams to implement systems that'll comply with the rule, you can't just suddenly home grow a bunch of good English players on a sunday afternoon.

I know loads of people who've been successful footballers at a young age at both club and national level and none of them have ever made it, its nice to think that each year you could pluck 4-5 players from your youth team, but for a big club, it doesn't work like that.

[Grounded Wingman]

If England was producing good enough English players they'd be playing in English teams. It's as much the job of everyone at grass roots level as it is of a club like Arsenal to develop players, but Arsenal are under no obligation to make sure the talent that they develop is English. Development of English players would be the jurisdiction of the FA and possibly the government.

Also, you Goonerbury boys might like this quote from Wenger: "When Alan Pardew calls me at the beginning of the season and asks for Jeremie Aliadiere on loan, he doesn't check if he's English or not - he just checks if he's good or not. It's just painful."

Personally I think that sounds like a lie from Wenger, because if Pardew had checked whether Aliadiere was good or not he wouldn't have signed him.

[supergrass]

I don't think you can blame Wenger for his foreign policy when you consider the ridiculous prices put on English players. With the money we spent on Walcott, a completely untested 16 year old, Wenger bought Vieira, Petit, Anelka - all of whom would go on to be world class players with change to spare.

I think another common myth is that Wenger doesn't give some of the kids a chance, which you'll hear David Bentley and Jermain Pennant cry about at every chance they get. The fact is, they had enough of a run out in the team to know that they weren't going to make it. Are they good players? Yeah, they're decent enough. But are they top European footballers, the kind we want? No, and I don't think they ever will be.

If Wenger has found that English players aren't always good enough, and can be very expensive (even Pardew will admit he paid way over the odds for Dean Ashton), why not turn to foreign buys. I've heard rubbish in the papers that without English players you don't have the heart in a team, which isn't true when you had the likes of Vieira, Petit or to a lesser extent Gilberto or Edu driving the midfield on. The club is British and it plays a style that fits and reflects the English Premiership regardless of how many foreigners there are.

As for what it's doing to our national team set up I don't truly see the problem there either. We've got the best England squad we've had in a long time in my opinion. If you're English and you're good enough you'll get a chance to play at the top level. If you're not, you don't.

Also, to those who champion the argument, where do you draw the line on foreign involvement? Should a foreigner be able to own a club, or to manage one? Should a foreign coach be in charge of England if the foreign influence is so damaging to our cause?

Edited March 12, 2006 by supergrass