Nationwider Posted 8 July 2007 Posted 8 July 2007 Talk of Joe Mattock and Ashley Chambers in the U17s "World Cup" (ahem) event this summer has got me thinking about actually how pointless age-limit internationals are. Why do we bother putting a team in for them anyway? OK - at the youngest age levels (U15, U16) there might be some benefit in bringing the best players together to judge their potential against one another, but surely the U21s should just be scrapped? The following is a list of the most capped players at U21 level for England: Scott Carson 28 James Milner 27 Jamie Carragher 27 Gareth Barry 27 David Prutton 25 Jermaine Pennant 24 Jermain Defoe 23 Nigel Reo-Coker 22 Gary Owen 22 Shola Ameobi 20 David Dunn 20 Frank Lampard 19 And now a list of some of the better English fully-capped players of recent years, and their U21 caps: Wayne Rooney 0 Michael Owen 4 Gary Neville 0 Steven Gerrard 4 Tony Adams 5 Ashley Cole 4 Owen Hargreaves 3 David Beckham 9 LINK Surely this is proof that if you're good enough, you're old enough, and that the U21s is filled by players that will never be good enough for the full side? Why the hell did David Prutton play 25 U21 internationals? Why did it take 13 internationals for someone (Peter Taylor???) to realise that Luke Chadwick was sh*t? Isn't it telling that Frank Lampard played a whopping 19 times for the kids? Scott Carson 28 caps, Ben Foster 0 caps.... and who is England's reserve keeper? We need to sack off youth internationals after U16 and bring back the "B" international in place of U21s and full international friendlies. Maximum 6 fully capped players per team, only those with 6 full caps or less can qualify - no age limits. Am I right, or does watching that Ameobi/Carlton Cole partnership again on Sky Sports 6 Xtra on Friday night get your juices going?
JoeyB Posted 8 July 2007 Posted 8 July 2007 Talk of Joe Mattock and Ashley Chambers in the U17s "World Cup" (ahem) event this summer has got me thinking about actually how pointless age-limit internationals are. Why do we bother putting a team in for them anyway? OK - at the youngest age levels (U15, U16) there might be some benefit in bringing the best players together to judge their potential against one another, but surely the U21s should just be scrapped?The following is a list of the most capped players at U21 level for England: Scott Carson 28 James Milner 27 Jamie Carragher 27 Gareth Barry 27 David Prutton 25 Jermaine Pennant 24 Jermain Defoe 23 Nigel Reo-Coker 22 Gary Owen 22 Shola Ameobi 20 David Dunn 20 Frank Lampard 19 And now a list of some of the better English fully-capped players of recent years, and their U21 caps: Wayne Rooney 0 Michael Owen 4 Gary Neville 0 Steven Gerrard 4 Tony Adams 5 Ashley Cole 4 Owen Hargreaves 3 David Beckham 9 LINK Surely this is proof enough that if you're good enough, you're old enough, and that the U21s is filled by players that will never be good enough for the full side? Why the hell did David Prutton play 25 U21 internationals? Why did it take 13 internationals for someone (Peter Taylor???) to realise that Luke Chadwick was sh*t? Isn't it telling that Frank Lampard played a whopping 19 times for the kids? Scott Carson 28 caps, Ben Foster 0 caps.... and who is England's reserve keeper? We need to sack off youth internationals after U16 and bring back the "B" international in place of U21s and full international friendlies. Maximum 6 fully capped players per team, only those with 6 full caps or less can qualify - no age limits. Am I right, or does watching that Ameobi/Carlton Cole partnership again on Sky Sports 6 Xtra on Friday night get your juices going? That does get my juices going!! But you do have a good point
escape2victory Posted 8 July 2007 Posted 8 July 2007 Nice post. Interesting stats, and very thought provoking. I suppose the only positive of the under 21's is that it does give them tournament experience. Take last months under 21's championship for example. Im sure they all learnt valuable experience about being away from family and friends for a length of time in a pressurised tournament environment. But year i take your point about the majority in that squad never being good enough to play for England. Would be interesting to see the stats for other European countries, and how many of their under 21's make it to the full squad.
Nationwider Posted 8 July 2007 Author Posted 8 July 2007 That does get my juices going!!But you do have a good point Well, if I close my eyes and imagine them in Leicester shirts, it gets my (footballing) juices going too. But that's about as far as the excitement goes!
JoeyB Posted 8 July 2007 Posted 8 July 2007 Well, if I close your eyes and imagine them in Leicester shirts, it gets my (footballing) juices going too. But that's about as far as the excitement goes! I agree i wouldn't mind seeing them at Leicester. But i agree with you, with those stats why do we even bother having an under 21 team. But then again if your good enough for the 1st team shouldn't you go straight into it?
Floating Fox Posted 8 July 2007 Posted 8 July 2007 They make money for the Fa...simple as. I couldn't give a fck to be honest!
Sparky Posted 8 July 2007 Posted 8 July 2007 really good interesting post mate, think b internationals would prove better stepping stones
davieG Posted 8 July 2007 Posted 8 July 2007 B internationals could provide an opening for the return of the Home internationals
Nationwider Posted 8 July 2007 Author Posted 8 July 2007 B internationals could provide an opening for the return of the Home internationals ...took the words right out of my mouth.
Raj Posted 8 July 2007 Posted 8 July 2007 Most people already moan about meaningless international games . Why would the Home Internationals be any different nowadays? I admit they used to be good in the 70's 80's but would nayone be interested nowadays?
Nationwider Posted 8 July 2007 Author Posted 8 July 2007 Most people already moan about meaningless international games .Why would the Home Internationals be any different nowadays? I admit they used to be good in the 70's 80's but would nayone be interested nowadays? Fair comment. But at least you get some structure and a small amount of interest, whereas with the current mixture of random friendlies there are neither of these things. You could still take them to smaller venues, making them easy to police - not that they'd be a big draw for the hooligan element.
Fez of Mahrez Posted 9 July 2007 Posted 9 July 2007 Not so sure myself. I think it would be another stick to beat the FA with when the full side underachieve in the future. Academy sides don't produce many players for clubs these days with all the massive transfer fees that go on and I think a parallel of sorts can be drawn with the idea of U21 progression. Players are never automatically going to progress from the Under-21s to the full side, and rightly so. There are players such as Nicky Shorey (or further back Ian Wright to use an obvious example) who have never been rated as the best youngsters in the country yet have made their way to the top of the game another way. That said, I still feel the Under-21s does seem to be a bit of a billionaire boys club these days, with players like Richardson and Reo-Coker guaranteed places in the side without threatening to kick on and challenge fringe players like Jenas and Smith in the full squad. Seems like the whole setup is rather unprofessional and complacent from an outside perspective. This may change with a full-time boss. From a Leicester fan's point of view, it's easy to get annoyed when Joe Mattock misses part of the season to jet off to a tournament but for Mattock himself, the more he ingrains himself into the England setup the more he'll feel like he can achieve full international honours. He is still at a very early stage in terms of his first team involvement and something like this will be good for him in my opinion, providing decent middle ground between being involved with the first team week in week out with the pressure that brings and being dumped in the reserves for another season when he has clearly shown his potential at first-team level. This will ease him into the season and I can see the benefit. On a wider level, clubs are increasingly holding countries to ransom over players and scrapping the U21 team would be an extension of this in my opinion. There is still a strong case for it as long as we don't expect every player to progress to the full England squad.
dandannieldanok Posted 9 July 2007 Posted 9 July 2007 The only thing that pisses me off with under 21s is the fact that a lot of the players are not under 21.
isaidno Posted 9 July 2007 Posted 9 July 2007 How does Reo-Coker play for the under 21's . He's 23 .Date of birth May 14, 1984 (1984-05-14) (age 23) David Bentley. August 27, 1984 (1984-08-27) (age 22)
Alexikokopops Posted 9 July 2007 Posted 9 July 2007 How does Reo-Coker play for the under 21's . He's 23 .Date of birth May 14, 1984 (1984-05-14) (age 23)David Bentley. August 27, 1984 (1984-08-27) (age 22) If you're under 21 at the start of the qualifying campaign then you can play in the tournament.
dandannieldanok Posted 9 July 2007 Posted 9 July 2007 To be honest, I would be more motivated to play under 21s than B internationals, don't ask me why because I haven't got a clue. :laugh:
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.