Join Now  | 
Home About Contact Us Privacy & Security Advertise
Soccer America Daily Soccer World Daily Special Edition Around The Net Soccer Business Insider College Soccer Reporter Youth Soccer Reporter Soccer on TV Soccer America Classifieds Game Report
Paul Gardner: SoccerTalk Soccer America Confidential Youth Soccer Insider World Cup Watch
RSS Feeds Archives Manage Subscriptions Subscribe
Order Current Issue Subscribe Manage My Subscription Renew My Subscription Gift Subscription
My Account Join Now
Tournament Calendar Camps & Academies Soccer Glossary Classifieds
Arsene Wenger's flawed rant on EPL's homegrown policy
by Paul Gardner, August 25th, 2010 11:44PM
Subscribe to SoccerTalk with Paul Gardner

TAGS:  england, germany


By Paul Gardner

What sounds like a cri de coeur has recently been heard from Arsenal coach Arsene Wenger. You could also call it, less romantically, a rant, I suppose.

What is getting Wenger in a lather is the move by the EPL to limit the size of its team rosters to 25 players, while at the same time enforcing a regulation that ensures at least eight players are “homegrown.”

That last requirement, designed to promote the development of a strong England national team, is not quite as specific as it sounds, for the definition of “homegrown” includes players of any nationality -- provided they have spent the three years previous to their 21st birthday with an English or Welsh club.

Wenger says the move is both “a joke” and “a disaster.” A joke because, he says, it won’t work as far as strengthening England goes, and a disaster because it will work as far as depleting rosters goes -- and this will adversely affect the quality of play in the EPL.

Let’s face it, foreigners are always something of a problem, whichever activity you look at. And when things don’t go well, the foreigner can expect to take a share of the blame.

The question of foreign players in soccer is hardly a new one. It goes back to the very beginnings of the sport, to the 1880s, when soccer was beginning to become a professional activity, and clubs in the north of England began importing Scottish players -- who were considered foreigners and were viewed askance.

Italy is the country with the longest tradition of importing foreign talent, dating back to the 1930s. It’s difficult to make the case that the policy has crippled the Italian national team, though -- we’re talking about a country that has won four World Cups.

The Bundesliga now includes a high percentage of foreigners -- yet the Germans were semifinalists in South Africa this year, and widely acclaimed for the enterprising play of their young team.

Wenger knows all about these contradictions, and scathingly points out that England, after its World Cup win in 1966, won “absolutely nothing” for a period of 30 years ... when there were virtually no foreign players in England.

And look at Spain, says Wenger, another country with plenty of foreigners -- yet it’s now world champion. It’s the coaching in Spain that does the trick, says Wenger.

Maybe so. But one of the first rules of soccer -- well, soccer journalism, anyway -- is that coaches should not be taken at their word. Wenger has his own agenda here. He has been the coach at Arsenal for 14 years, and this assertion about coaching is a rather precarious one for Wenger to be making.

Because he promotes himself as an “educator” of young players -- “I’ve been educating young players for 25 years now” and 14 years is more than enough time for him to have turned Arsenal’s youth academy into a producer of future stars.

But that has not happened. Of the most recent Arsenal starting 11, nine players were foreigners who were bought from other clubs. The other two were the English youngsters Theo Walcott and Jack Wilshere. Wilshere is the genuine article, having joined Arsenal at the age of 9. But Walcott cannot be considered an Arsenal product as he was already age 17 when he joined the club.

One player developed in 14 years is not a particularly spectacular record. But it is not as bad as it sounds, because I doubt whether any other English youth academy has done much better. In fact, few major academies anywhere in the world do much better. By major academies I mean those that are linked to top pro clubs - in other words, those that have plenty of money.

Clearly, money is not the answer to youth development. We should know that by now -- just as we should know that we can eliminate another factor -- that of “coaching.” By “coaching” I mean the amorphous, all-purpose definition that actually defines nothing. Because Wenger is right -- what matters is the coaching -- not in a general sense, but in its details.

The first question to be asked -- and it must always be asked -- when people start talking of “coaching,” is to get them to define what they mean. What sort of coaching? How much of it? Or perhaps, of equal or even greater importance, how little of it? And so on.

I feel the trouble with youth development in England is that the traditions and practices of the age-old English game -- outdated and damaging as they are -- are still being taught. Perhaps subconsciously, perhaps they don’t even need to be taught, perhaps they are a subliminal part of the soccer culture.

In his excellent book about the English academy system (“Every Boy’s Dream”), Chris Green lays bare a whole slew of political and organizational and social and educational problems that hinder youth development there. Yet there is hardly any discussion of what is actually taught in the academies. Even for Green, an acute observer, it seems that coaching is simply coaching.

But spending millions to set up an academy where intensive “coaching” will be performed cannot be the answer. If coaching is to be applied systematically -- and there seems to be no escape from that approach -- then the coaching had better be the right coaching, or it will do more damage than good. But defining the words “right coaching” is proving mighty difficult.

  1. Rui Filipe Bento
    commented on: August 26, 2010 at 11:13 a.m.
    It is complex to say that we don't make players due to the coaching. Lets see, back in the days we did not had the Academy Club structure that we have today and we had players coming in to the first teams, how is that? Today we have all types of players coming in to play in top leagues and the question is, where they come from, who made them? The making of players is very delicate and I truly beleive that today we have perhaps the best training Academy systems that the soccer world ever had, so coaching is there and the programs are in place, but it takes time to see the results and another problem is the demand of the first teams, the coach hired is in pressure to win, other wise will be fired, so he goes and gets the players that in his mind will give him a team to fullfill the objectives for he was hired for and with that he (the coach) is not willing to take too many risks and give the chance to the home product in the first team, now once in a while one player does show up from the youth that deserves the opportunity. Anyway the systems are in place the problem is the demand of the Organizations to the first teams pressure off course by the fans, that want to see their team win. Thx, Rui Filipe
  1. Kevin Leahy
    commented on: August 26, 2010 at 9:13 p.m.
    I have seen and read all the claims about this way or that way to train players, but you need to look close @ the results. Right now Barcelona is producing the players at the highest level and the youth level. I believe the reason is the influence of Johan Cruyff. The U.S. should pick his brain before it is too late!
  1. Paul Bryant
    commented on: August 29, 2010 at 2:51 p.m.
    Brazil produces the best soccer players in the world. The United States produces the best basketball players in the world. What are the parallels? Our BB players are the best because they play more basketball than any country in the world. Also, the players are coached by the best basketball minds in the world. Brazil's soccer players are the best because they play more soccer than anybody in the world. Also, the players are coached by the best soccer minds in the world.
  1. James Madison
    commented on: September 5, 2010 at midnight
    The examples to study as examples of what works are Barca and Ajax, except that, instead of keeping them for its own club, Ajax sells the players who can move into the professional ranks.

Sign in to leave a comment. Don't have an account? Join Now



Recent SoccerTalk with Paul Gardner
The Gnat's Eyebrow and other VAR stupidities     
The trial of video-assistance for referees currently under way at the Confederations Cup in Russia cannot ...
That Goal    
It was Pele who started the "soccer is beauty" theme. He titled his autobiography -- one ...
Tab Ramos paints a rosy American future in the changing U-20 World Cup -- but a U-18 World Cup would make more sense     
Tab Ramos has been talking in glowing terms of his team and its adventures at the ...
What's this? A goalkeeper penalized for rough play?     
Meet Sorin Stoica. Maybe you've seen him in action during MLS games. Not a highly paid ...
Scots wha hae! Thoughts on the sad and ominous decline of Scottish soccer    
I note, with considerable exasperation tempered by sadness, that Scottish soccer is experimenting with a marvelous ...
Celebrity coaches -- who needs them?     
I am still finding it difficult to come to terms with the extraordinary way in which ...
Wenger must stay -- even the stats agree     
Arsene Wenger should stay. That's what I think. And I think that way because I respect ...
Violent Goalkeeping (Part 2): FIFA must radically rethink the goalkeeper's role    
Last time, I asked: "What action has soccer taken to at least reduce the incidence of ...
Violent Goalkeeping (Part 1): Players at risk as soccer ignores its own rules    
Goalkeepers, we are told, need protection. No doubt we all agree. Up to a point.
The triumphant return of Bruce Arena    
Well, take that Jurgen Klinsmann. Never at any time during his five years in charge of ...
>> SoccerTalk with Paul Gardner Archives