英格兰足球青训问题系列 1：The FA Commission | Part I : League 3

When the FA commission was put together by Greg Dyke there was much hope and intrigue that this could be a defining moment in English football. Would there be the solutions and actions required to help English football progress? Although it was a rather limited (in terms of wider knowledge and discipline) commission it sought to have experienced football people involved to discuss the issues. After many months (and many lunches and coffees) it appears our hopes of progression have been shattered. 

Perhaps the only thing which the commission has helped is to propel English youth development to the top of the media discussion. Yet the reputation of Dyke, the FA and the

commission has taken a massive hit, one which it may not recover from.

The highly anticipated report from the FA commission was supposed to offer English football a ‘way forward’ in terms of developing better players and a successful national team. This blog has always felt that Dyke was too concerned with the senior level, too interested in top down initiatives rather than addressing more underlying issues in the game. The first reports decision to focus on two key areas; 'lack of meaningful opportunities for English elite players in the final stages of their development' and issues with the 'system' which is restrictive to young English players, rather than initially focus on the other two issues of coaching and facilities in grassroots highlighted the priorities of the FA and Dyke.

It is hard not to view the FA's approach to the problems with concern, as they decided to spend £1 billion on a new stadium this past decade, shelving the now St George's Park project for several years. Had the focus really being on developing the next generation that £1 billion could have been used much more effectively. Where the money goes and not words is what defines the priorities of any organisation. Worryingly the focus has always been too much on the top and not the bottom. And so this report shows.

The bridge to senior football

To address and focus on the 17-21 age group is not a problem, this blog has argued before that this is an area which has been England’s downfall. The state of English development is becoming very concerning when you consider the amount of English players playing in the Premier League (32%). The figure of players under 21 is even more concerning. The blog has written extensively about the issues for players between 17-21 years of age and why experience at this age is essential for a young players development 

Too many wasted years sitting on the bench or being shipped around from club to club on short term loans. By the time our players reach 21 years many have stagnated and not achieved their potential. Josh McEachran is a perfect example of this. Chelsea a great example of a club who stockpile players and effectively make young men wealthy yet don’t enhance them as footballers.

In this respect English football needed a solution, an answer to help these young players and provide them with the opportunities needed to push their development to the next level.

The EPPP decided that an Under-21 league was the answer, it was intended to give the young players in academies the opportunity to develop and play in competitive environments. Now while I like and agree with the concept I fear that this is a place for the 'late developers' and not for the players who at 17/18 years require more in terms of competition and challenge. 

Dyke’s commission looked at this problem, took on board the advice from the Premier League Academy Managers and decided that the U-21 league was not the answer for England’s future success. In their report they make compelling arguments and use a lot of data to prove that English youngsters do not get the same playing time as their counterparts in Germany and Spain and because of this we lag behind the rest. When players get to 22 years of age the ‘foreign’ lads are more advanced and experienced than our players. The answer therefore must be the development of a League 3, for ‘B’ sides. Wait, what?

The report is comprehensive, detailed and makes very good arguments. And then makes this tragically naïve suggestion about forming a new league which comprises of ‘B’ sides and conference teams. Without any thought of what the public consensus was going to be, about how it would rip apart the Football League Dyke has put this forward without very little thought but just an idea of "Let's do what Barca and Spain do". To make comparisons with examples of Barca B and Madrid B and how these sides have helped the development of many players who we marvel at today can look valid on paper yet the key is not necessarily the B sides but the development structures in youth development and the football philosophies of these nations. 

There is no doubt that these experiences at B sides helped the players they point at in the report. The B team idea 'works' because it shares philosophies, standards, levels of coaching and facilities. As I’ve argued before young players going on loan to any old club tends to be helping the club rather than the player

and their development may suffer. A B side has the same philosophy, caters for the players development and also put them in a league which is genuinely competitive and ‘senior’. 

Yet the answer is not the formation of a new league and the commission should have anticipated this response and outcry. They say they needed to make 'radical changes' and suggestions but all this has done is alienate nearly every fan, journalist and certainly the Football League. They have taken away the trust and hope which people had in this commission. To repair this will be extremely difficult. 

And lets be honest, this ‘B’ league will not happen, it will never be approved and thus to be the commissions big idea just points at a waste of time and resource.

A better solution

If the U-21 league is not working, which it really isn’t effectively, then Dyke should have just suggested the return of the Reserve league. It is a simple, realistic and positive solution to the issue of playing time and experience. Introducing a Premier League Reserve league which mirrors the first team fixtures which mean more opportunity for senior players to get playing time as well as helping integrate young players under 22 into the reality of senior football. 

The ruling should have been simple for this, Reserve league football must use the 6+5 rule with six under 22 players in the

starting XI. Moving forward this rule should then be applied to home grown players and then to English only, thus making the development of young players a priority yet helping their development with integration and opposition of experienced professionals playing a more competitive league. 

Outside the Premier League the Reserve league should be regional to save time and money on travel and would help young professionals between 17-21 get realistic experiences of senior football. A thriving reserve league will help bridge the gap which the commission talks so much about.

And what of 'feeder clubs'? The commission talk of ‘feeder clubs’ in the report yet dismiss it by saying “We looked at the possibility of Premier League Clubs buying clubs in the lower leagues. While this had attractions we took the view that, overall, this was too destructive of the current pyramid of English football and would be too difficult to deliver.”  

Woah, when did a feeder club become a bought club? Now this is a simple issue of semantics as feeder clubs does not entail buying a club but having a link with one or several clubs where the movement of players happens regularly. The parent club often then helps to support with coaching, sports science etc. The report calls it a ‘Strategic Loan Partnership’ between clubs, which is effectively the feeder club idea. It proposes that any club in the Premier League and Championship can have a link with up two clubs from League 1 or 2 with up to eight players at one time allowed to be loaned out. 

Now this blog has proposed the need for feeder clubs last year and believes this is the answer to what Dyke has sought to address. This should have been their key recommendation as it offers a much more structured and realistic solution to the problem. Why? Because it is already happening.

If the loan allows him playing time and experience then he will certainly excel for it. Yet the argument regarding loans is whether the club a young player is moving to is actually going to help the development of the player. Will he get the playing time needed or will he waste away on the sidelines like Josh McEachran at Swansea?

Which is why the ‘feeder’ club idea is so perfect for England’s future.  And secondly and most importantly  do the club and its coaches share a similar philosophy as his parent club? The issue of continuity is important at this age. Which is why the debate regarding ‘feeder clubs’ and “B” teams is an important debate to have.

In my book I argue that this “B” team model is essential for England’s future development. The idea of having continuity in philosophy and tactics like at Barcelona for instance allows continuous development and understanding. Therefore the move by clubs to seek a link with lower league sides has some serious merit.

We can see the success of this at Swindon Town and Spurs. Tim Sherwood would be ‘supporting’ the manager in the coaching of the team. A link had been formed with Spurs which would involve

sending several young talented players across to get the experience of playing senior football and Sherwood would be there to help the ‘continuity’ of styles between clubs.

It was clear that the chairman Jed McCrory who has ties with Spurs was keen on this ‘relationship’. Although you can see the issues the benefits are evident for a lower league club, they get top young talent for free, perhaps a fee paid them for the ‘relationship’ and they help the team improve and progress. And the young players benefit by getting the playing time their development requires.

Chelsea have a link with Vitesse Arnhem in Holland already which may benefit some of their youngsters, yet a Chelsea B team in England could be just what Chelsea need for a more sustainable future which utilises the Barca model of using academy players.

There will be many who disdain the idea of feeder clubs, arguing that the Premier League’s top sides are ruining the soul of English football. Yet when these clubs have loan players play for them they often see the talent and are thankful for these players. Of course it is not nice for Swindon fans to be considered as just Spurs “B” side yet if it helps the club’s future and perhaps their progression up the leagues it must be seen as a positive?

Importantly the rule should be that clubs are restricted in loaning ‘foreign’ players yet open to allowing more English players to move. It really should be a link with only one other club which will allow direct links, style and philosophies to marry between. This

will be perfect for young players to excel and of course the feeder club will receive funding to keep their long term future secure. It will also mean an opportunity for young coaches to develop and progress, almost like an apprenticeship for the Premier League side to ‘mould their own’ future coaches.

It is apparent that that for the negatives a ‘feeder club’ idea has, the positives simply outweigh them. For those who care about England’s future as a national team, the more solutions we can find to give more English players between 17-21 the chance to develop and progress is surely a good thing and the feeder club model appears a great solution for English football’s future.

The commission agrees and a key facet of the rule put forward by them says “To ensure that SLPs were used primarily for player development, all loaned players within the SLP would need to be under the age of 22 and Home Grown as defined by both the Premier League and Football League.” 

And this is where the commission fell down. We will discuss why in Part II.