It may have been Rafa Benitez who first raised the idea, back in 2007, when
he talked about how, given the size of his squad, he would favor the
opportunity of letting his Liverpool reserve team play somewhere in the
Football League pyramid.
More recently, Premier League teams have floated the idea of having
reserve/youth teams in the pyramid. Instead of each other, they would face
real, live lower-division opposition. And, of course, they've packaged it under
the guise of something vital to player development. After all, Germany and
Spain are the current flavors of the year when it comes to successful
"footballing models" and they both allow "B teams" in their
pyramid. So too do France and Netherlands, two nations that were the gold
standard of player development before everyone decided it was time to ape
Germany and Spain.
(How easily we forget... remember how an English Clairefontaine was the key
to success? Or, before that, Ajax and their famous TIPS system and all that
jazz?)
The argument is that taking all the bright young things stockpiled at top
Premier League clubs who are too young to break into the first-team squad and
getting them regular football against seasoned pros in the lower leagues would
help their development.
Sure, you could send them on loan to other teams -- as many clubs do now --
but this would be better because they'd still be trained by their parent club.
They would be formed in the philosophy of that club and be better prepared to
make the leap into the first-team squad.
I can see the benefits to big Premier League clubs with giant squads. I
really can. What bugs me, though, is the way this is now being presented as
some kind of necessity if England ever wants to be competitive. Because it
simply isn't. How bad an idea is this? Let us count the ways.
First and foremost, the lower tiers in England are not like the lower tiers
in other nations. No other place in Europe has the depth of history and crowds
that England's Football League does. England's second tier has a higher average
attendance than all but five European top-flight leagues. League One, the third
step down, averaged more fans per game last year than the second-tier in any
other European league, except for Germany's.
Allowing B-sides into this system would send a clear message that these
leagues are purely developmental and nothing else. And, by the way, since
winning and developing players are often at odds with each other when you're
dealing with youngsters, it could potentially wreak havoc with the regularity
of a league. One club might be trying to win at all costs, the other might be
giving a 19-year-old reserve a run of games since they've already decided that
the 21-year-old starter, though better, won't have his contract renewed since
he'll never be good enough for the parent club.
Then there are the "crowds", although maybe that's a euphemism.
Last year, Borussia Dortmund drew 80,000 a game. Their B-team drew 2,000, in
the third tier of German football. Bayern Munich's B-team managed 660, one
level below. In Spain -- and note, this is in the second division --
Barcelona B notched 5,500; Real Madrid's B-team just 3,000. Needless to say
both were well below the league average.
How could anyone think that injecting teams that, for all their pedigree,
only manage to attract tiny crowds into a successful product like the Football
League would be good for anyone but the parent clubs?
Apart from the slap into the face to the base of the English game, there's
another obvious fact: we're not sure if it really works. If this is really
about developing the England team -- and not just a place for the Premier
League's biggest clubs to park their excess players -- it might be worthwhile
to note that most B-teams around Europe play at a level where they square off
against amateurs, not professionals. (There are exceptions, of course, like
Barcelona, Real Madrid and a few others, but these are few and far between.)
That's why, unless they're at Barcelona B or Real Madrid Castilla, most
youngsters who actually make it won't spend more than a year at the B-team
before they either get upgraded to the parent club or loaned out to gain
experience. And while we're at it, let's knock another myth on the head, shall
we?
Most big clubs around Europe raid smaller clubs for their best 16-year-olds.
At that age, you have a pretty clear idea of guys with the potential to make it
-- certainly more than you do at 14. When we speak of a player being
"produced" by a club, we need to be clear what we're talking about.
If you're hoovering up the best 16-year-olds in a 50-mile radius because you're
a massive, pedigreed club, then it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. And
the fact that the players you sign might play for your B-team isn't necessarily
crucial to their success.
The other issue is that there's something distinctly knee-jerk about this.
The Premier League and Football Association have made a big deal out of the
Elite Player Performance Plan (EPPP) and the Professional Development League
(PDL) that was -- not without controversy -- implemented last year.
Broadly speaking, the former tends to push the more gifted youngsters
towards the bigger clubs with more established academies and is meant to ensure
they get the best coaching. Obviously many Football League clubs with a history
of excellent youth development were unhappy with this, but now the law is in
the book and there isn't much you can do.
The latter replaces the old reserve leagues and creates an under-21 league
for the nation's best academies (most of them attached to Premier League
clubs). Shouldn't we give this a chance to succeed or fail before we simply rip
up the blueprints and start over again?
The PDL hasn't caused much of a splash, but you can see the logic. Given the
way some -- definitely not all -- lower-league teams play, are we sure the best
way to develop kids is throwing them out there against 6'4" 30-year-olds
who play long ball and kick lumps from the very first minute, a brand of
football they'll likely never experience in the top-flight? Or might they be
best served taking on players of a comparable age who have been schooled by top
coaches in a developmental environment?
If the crux of the matter is getting more young players more playing time,
there are plenty other ways to do it. You can encourage the loan system, rather
than limiting it to five per club in the lower leagues, perhaps with the
proviso that players can't be recalled except during transfer windows, thereby
ensuring some level of stability. Or maybe push the notion of loaning players
abroad, where they can experience a different culture and round out their skill
set. You can introduce things like co-ownership, which incentivizes smaller
clubs to work on developing talented players they might take on loan from
bigger ones.
Some countries have quotas for young players in the lower division.
Personally, I'm against that type of regulation, but incentives are another
matter. You could offer bonus TV money to lower-divisions clubs who actually
field younger players, based on the age and number of minutes they get over the
course of a season.
Above all, though, what will make a difference is quality of coaching.
That's where England lags behind. And that's where the bulk of the investment
ought to be.
Tweet Follow @punshcomempower
50% off Hosting for your Website at GoDaddy.com!
It's a BIG Deal! $5.99* .COM from GoDaddy.com!
It's a BIG Deal! $5.99* .COM from GoDaddy.com!
Host a site without stress on namecheap eApps|YOUR APP HOSTING PROVIDER
Submit your Website
Free webmaster resources including SEO Tools, Computer Glossary, Templates Sign up to BIGTIMEBUX today!
0 comments:
Post a Comment