That's just silly. How can a player be 'good enough' at 18/19 when there's a ready made alternative somewhere else in the world that a Premier League can easily afford with many years of first team football behind them? Even if they're supremely talented at that age, you still don't have the experience of having played two or three hundred games, which we saw the other night when we looked incredibly naive against the Croatians.
That's fair enough, but my argument is that they do get the opportunities at first team level, whether on loan or at their present clubs. Can you give an example of an English player who would have 'made it' but didn't get the opportunities as there were foreign players in their place? I can't think of any, hence if they're good enough, they get into their teams or get a transfer sooner than later.
This is a really weird question.
It's not worded very well, yes - but it's a perfectly reasonable question and the answer to which is probably no, there's no examples where an English youngster failed or didn't develop through lack of opportunities alone. (of course many have failed because of other reasons, but I can't see any case where it's been down to lack of opportunities to develop).
It's not a reasonable question, it's preposterous. Let's play your silly game then: Scott Sinclair.
Why is it preposterous?
Don't know whether Sinclair fits your criteria or not but the question is ridiculous because anybody I name, you can just say "ah not good enough anyway" because you've got the benefit of hindsight and can just claim their current ability is their ceiling. I don't know the exact reasons Player X failed to reach his potential but I do know that the quickest way to improve a player is to play them regularly.
The point is that footballers only improve by playing football, and neither you nor I can possibly know how an obviously talented player like Sinclair - who left Chelsea at 21 having played 5 games for them, would have fared if he'd been given the opportunity to play regularly in the top flight in the key development years of 16-21.
Chelsea bought Eden Hazard when he was 21, same age as Sinclair when he was binned. By that time he'd played nearly 200 games for Lille - 4 full seasons of top flight and European football. Hazard would not have been as good as he was at 21 if he'd been sat round at Lille scratching his arse as Sinclair was at Chelsea, with a month loan once a season. That's the difference, and the advantage other countries have over England because of the financial success of the Premier League, where every single club can afford to buy any player they need, ready made off the shelf. There are vastly more Italians, French, Germans and Spanish playing in their respective leagues as a percentage of the total players. You only need half a dozen of those to really blossom as a result of playing in the top flight every week to give you a big advantage at international level.
A glaring example of how much playing can improve is Kieran Trippier - fucked off from Man City when he was 21 (having played zero games for them), went to Burnley and it's taken him until he's 27 to make an England squad, and arguably been the best in his position at a World Cup. How good could he have been if Man City had put their faith in him instead of buying, for example, Zabaleta? If he'd played 150 top flight games by the time he was 21 instead of 0? What if Burnley had never been promoted, just falling short? He'd probably still be faring his trade at a decent level in the Championship, like dozens of other players who came through big academies before getting the boot in their 20s, the likes of Josh McEachran, Patrick Bamford, Sam Hutchinson. McEachran was supposed to be the next big thing, an England midfielder who could pass like the Europeans. He's 25 now, a Championship regular and he's still played less first team games than Hazard had by the time he was 20. He's played in 15 top flight games. What chance did he ever stand of meeting that standard?
That's why you get newspapers making these daft "future England XI" teams (this one happens to include Sinclair and Hutchinson actually), and they always look ridiculous five years down the line because half the players that were so highly thought of in their teens never got a game and drifted away.
http://www.whoateallthepies.tv/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/england-2007.jpg
I mean, good post - and I agree with a lot of stuff in there; I'm also aware of the futile nature of the initial line of questioning. The Trippier example of course feels like a good one, given how well he's played this WC. I'm pretty sure neither you nor me watched him at youth level, but what if he simply wasn't showing strong enough signs of growth or was lacking a certain key mental, physical or technical attribute at the time and City felt right to, A. not trust him at first team level, and B. let him move on? I can't see good enough reason to simplify it as - if more top clubs played their young English talent then they would develop to become better players and our pool would be expanded. There has to be a reason for a Chelsea or City to bring a youngster into their team, it can't just be done in hope they will develop - obviously - they have matches to win. So unless a player, Foden for instance is so talented that he demands recognition in a strong team, then why shouldn't those youngsters have to drop down the league, or drop to lower leagues and look to develop through games there? Because as far as I can see, that's what happens with the majority, and when certain ones fail to climb back up to the top flight they're deemed as not fulfilling their potential, and we start hearing these excuses like they weren't given the chance at top level through foreign players being in their positions - but maybe it's actually just an accurate reflection of their skill set, whether City played them for 3 years or Bury did. I'm not saying that's always the case, but it certainly has to be considered.
I know what you're saying with the experience factor though, obviously what separates equally talented players is often match experience and football maturity. You raise Hazard as an example of someone who by 21 had 200 appearances for Lille. Well Marcus Rashford, at one of the biggest clubs in the world will almost certainly have around that many appearances by the time he's 21 too. So clearly, it does happen. Hazard and Rashford are also supremely talented players, who despite the fact they would have had downsides to their games at 17/18 year old, we're so talented that they still warranted starting and playing matches despite their deficiencies, and thus end up with a large amount of appearances by 21 say. They also play attacking, wide roles which often require less tactical discipline. Then you take McEachran or Swift for example, who as central midfielders, would have had to show immense maturity tactically at 17/18 along with their technical qualities in order for Chelsea to justify playing them as much as a Rashford or a Hazard. Is that Chelsea's fault then for not giving them game time to develop, and thus having them drop down leagues? Absolutely not, yet those, and players alike often get grouped into these conversations where people claim top clubs don't provide opportunities. Well maybe it's not that simple. What position the player plays seems a fairly substantial factor that has to be considered imo.
