Which League Is the BEST development league in the world?

Which league on this list do you consider the best development league in the world.

Is it Portugal who have given us Cristiano Ronaldo.

or is it France who have given us such great players as Ronaldinho? or was he already developed in the famous BRASILEIRO?

THE EPL can he said to have developed quite a few superstars such as Rooney, Gerrard, ect. Same can be said for Spain & Italy. Or is it Holland?

Hate to say it, but it's probably France.

Hate to say it, but it's probably France.

I voted Holland, France would be my very close second choice.

As of right now, I would say Portugal. They have produced some excellent portuguese and brazillian players

C. Ronaldo
Luis Figo
Deco
Anderson
Diego
Simao
Nani
Rui Costa
Ricardo Carvalho
Jorge Andrade
Miguel
Tiago
Hugo Almeida
Fernando Meira
Pauleta

and soon the world will hear about the likes of

Ricardo Quaresma (if they havent already)
Joao Moutinho
Miguel Veloso
Antunes (already with Roma)
Pele (already with Inter)
Lucho Gonzalez

these are just the names off the top of my head

Don't see what prospects and their talent has to do with the league. Makes no sense. Ronaldinho isn't worldclass because he did play in the french League...

Name me the best players in the world at their position.

Henry? Ronnie? Cech? Trezeguet? Coupet? Gallas? Abidal? Sagnol? Marquez? Yaya Touré? Essien? Drogba? Diarra? Vieira? Benzema? Maicon? Fred? Sissoko? etc...

All these guys went through a french club. That's not a coincidence.

Don't see what prospects and their talent has to do with the league.
Really? Wow, I sure do.

Name me the best players in the world at their position.

Henry? Ronnie? Cech? Trezeguet? Coupet? Gallas? Abidal? Sagnol? Marquez? Yaya Touré? Essien? Drogba? Diarra? Vieira? Benzema? Maicon? Fred? Sissoko? etc...

All these guys went through a french club. That's not a coincidence.

I'm pretty sure Fred, Maicon, Cech, Ronnie developed their formation in their country. So how did they develop in the French league?

Just using your definition of development that you throw around.

As with most things, it's really a question how to define and measure "development"?

Do you take into a account only 10 best players per league/position or whatever, or 100 best, 1000 best or 10 000 best? At what age do you judge players, at 18 years, at 21, at 24, in their prime or when their career is over? Do you consider the resources put into the development, or do you just ignore cost-benefit analysis?

Do you consider players only in top10 leagues, top 20 or in all FIFA member nations' top divisions? How much weight is given on the number of appearances, goals, assists, team success etc?

Again, as with most issues, person(s) who are in a position to define what things are considered in making judgement and what not, can present pretty much the results they want.

I'm of the opinion that Brazilian league is by far the best developer of talent, much of it is of course because of sheer number of people hoping to become pro footballers. If they had anywhere near the financial resources and infrastructure of European countries and there were no artificial restrictions (work permits, limit the number of foreigners etc.) on Brazilian players' moving into European leagues and if a Brazilian player could get any European nation's citizenship as easily as players born in some other countries (e.g. former African colonies), European leagues would be filled with even more Brazilians.

I'm not saying that Brazilian players are fully developed when they leave Brazil or don't develop significantly after they move to Europe, but this again brings us to my original point that it's mostly a question of how we define development if we try to make a judgement on this issue.

Imo, there's no definate answer on this question. All answers need an asterisk with them.

I'm pretty sure Fred, Maicon, Cech, Ronnie developed their formation in their country. So how did they develop in the French league?

You could say that for about half of that Portuguese list too.

It's all the Eredivisie is good for the past decades. Even abroad players like to use the Eredivisie as a step up towards the eventual bigger leagues.

Every league produces youngsters. But the Eredivisie has nothing else. It's their bread and butter.

It's all the Eredivisie is good for the past decades. Even abroad players like to use the Eredivisie as a step up towards the eventual bigger leagues.

Every league produces youngsters. But the Eredivisie has nothing else. It's their bread and butter.
Same here unfortunately. :(

I'm pretty sure Fred, Maicon, Cech, Ronnie developed their formation in their country. So how did they develop in the French league?

Just using your definition of development that you throw around.

Sure you could say that.
Of you could notice how they played before entering L1 and after they left.
Fred is the exception really because he hasn't left, but Ronnie, Cech and Maicon really learnt the highest level in L1.

French, Brazil and Argentine, in that order. The latter two lose their best players as soon as they finish their time at the youth academies. The French League is the best for 2 reasons.

1. The players are able to develop through playing in the first team, without having to sit and wait behind more experienced players, for the most part. The opposite of English football.

2. The sheer number of talent. Both French and otherwise.

Serie A got one vote? I'd say it's the worst off the list when it comes to giving youngsters playing time.

As with most things, it's really a question how to define and measure "development"?

Imo, there's no definate answer on this question. All answers need an asterisk with them.

Totally agree.

Obviously, we have to define development and that could take ages.

However, if you just try to think of development as
1- the initial formation of the player (see Brazil, France, Holland)
2- the progress a player makes after going through a league

Then you get a good idea.

Obviously, we have to define development and that could take ages.

However, if you just try to think of development as
1- the initial formation of the player (see Brazil, France, Holland)
2- the progress a player makes after going through a league

Then you get a good idea.

But at what age? Obviously if a player leaves Brazil/Argentina at 18, he's going the get better as years go by. It only tells that European leagues have more resources (money,facilities, staff etc.) than those leagues (and countries in general). If that's your question, then obviously I agree. But usually some kind of cost-benefit analysis are made.

You really need to answer all the questions I asked in my previous post. After you've done that, at least everybody would be answering the same question. Whether everybody would be in a position to give an informed answer even then is another matter.

Really? Wow, I sure do.

Ok, then explain it. If you can.

Ok, then explain it. If you can.
If I can?
lol.
Sure I can.
I meet tons of talented 14 year old everywhere.
However, some less talented go pro. I'm sure it's the same way in every country. What makes them succeed where others fail? Development. Teaching. Formation. Mental, technical, physical work.

Then how many talented players never find the toolbox?
How many are good talented but underachieving players in on league and when they move to another league or another team, suddenly realize their potential?

These don't come as coincidence.

It's not a conicidence that France started developping tons of talented players once they made obligatory for any pro team to have an academy.

Saying talent would succed everywhere is an immense lack of knowledge of pro sports.
It takes way more than inner talent to succeed.
Ronnie wasn't half the player he is now when he came to Paris. Some has to do with him maturing. A lot has to do with the coaching.
When Maicon came to Monaco, he already had tons of offensise tools. But he was dreadful defensively, making mistake after mistake, having zero tactical sense.
You can check the search feature, I talked about Maicon when he was playing with Monaco.
I saw him the other day against Milan, and that's not the same player. He has developped tremendously in Monaco and of course in Italy.

If I can?
lol.
Sure I can.
I meet tons of talented 14 year old everywhere.
However, some less talented go pro. I'm sure it's the same way in every country. What makes them succeed where others fail? Development. Teaching. Formation. Mental, technical, physical work.

Then how many talented players never find the toolbox?
How many are good talented but underachieving players in on league and when they move to another league or another team, suddenly realize their potential?

These don't come as coincidence.

It's not a conicidence that France started developping tons of talented players once they made obligatory for any pro team to have an academy.

Saying talent would succed everywhere is an immense lack of knowledge of pro sports.
It takes way more than inner talent to succeed.
Ronnie wasn't half the player he is now when he came to Paris. Some has to do with him maturing. A lot has to do with the coaching.
When Maicon came to Monaco, he already had tons of offensise tools. But he was dreadful defensively, making mistake after mistake, having zero tactical sense.
You can check the search feature, I talked about Maicon when he was playing with Monaco.
I saw him the other day against Milan, and that's not the same player. He has developped tremendously in Monaco and of course in Italy.

I thought it was about which pro League is the best for talents. Not which academys produce the best talents?
But when you say Ronaldinhos success has something to do with PSG then it is just wrong. Has not 1 % to do with it. He woudl had been a world class player if he would had started his career in Ukraine...
Of course you always have to find the best place for every young player so that he can proceed well. But you can't say that league is better for developement than that league. That is just BS.
For the one player the premier league would be better, for the other the Bundesliga would be better. Rondaldo played in Holland, but even he became a worldclass player...

I thought it was about which pro League is the best for talents. Not which academys produce the best talents?
But when you say Ronaldinhos success has something to do with PSG then it is just wrong. Has not 1 % to do with it. He woudl had been a world class player if he would had started his career in Ukraine...
Of course you always have to find the best place for every young player so that he can proceed well. But you can't say that league is better for developement than that league. That is just BS.
For the one player the premier league would be better, for the other the Bundesliga would be better. Rondaldo played in Holland, but even he became a worldclass player...

Ronaldo learnt a lot in Holland. Not sure how it's supposed to support your argument.

Ronnie was a special talent. But I've seen many special talents crash.
Ronnie arrived at PSG and wasn't even close to the finished product he is now.
Yes PSG taught him the physical and mental parts of the game, (technically, he was already out of this world).
There's no comparison between Ronnie before and after PSG.

You can say it didn't change a thing, I'll simply disagree.

Again, working with youngsters, having played with pros as a youngster myself, I can tell you technical talent isn't everything, like you make it out to be.

And yes, some leagues spend more money/time/energy towards the youngsters, and some leagues produce much more talents than others.
Why does France or Holland produce more talents than England or Germany? They have less people and arguably less money.
So why?
Becuase they focus on academies. Simple logic really.

But at what age? Obviously if a player leaves Brazil/Argentina at 18, he's going the get better as years go by. It only tells that European leagues have more resources (money,facilities, staff etc.) than those leagues (and countries in general). If that's your question, then obviously I agree. But usually some kind of cost-benefit analysis are made.

You really need to answer all the questions I asked in my previous post. After you've done that, at least everybody would be answering the same question. Whether everybody would be in a position to give an informed answer even then is another matter.
Personally, I don't think age is important.
Drogba really blossomed as a 26 year old.

What I look for is as I said non-quantitive elements (contrary to your questions) : has the level of the player progressed or not?
Has the player fulfilled what was seen as his potential?
That's for the later developments.

For the initial formation, I simply take into account the sheer number of good to great players each league forms.
I'm sorry, but I refuse to think that kids are innerly (as in "at birth") more talented in one country or another.
It's just the number of quality players that get out of any country that defines the quality of the initial formation, respective of the number of kids obviously (because as much as Brazil forms great footballers, they have quite a few more kids than european countries).

And yes, some leagues spend more money/time/energy towards the youngsters, and some leagues produce much more talents than others.
Why does France or Holland produce more talents than England or Germany? They have less people and arguably less money.
So why?
Becuase they focus on academies. Simple logic really.

I don't really disagree with you, but your logic doesn't prove anything else that if somebody has resources (money, personnel etc.) and decides to invest them in different things, they you usually get better results than those without similar resources. And if for argument's sake somebody (EPL, La Liga, Serie A) has even more resources so they can purchase finished products and enjoy the fruits of other's work without need to invest in the grassroots activity, then it doesn't prove that they would be worse at it if they decided to do it. It just proves that they don't see a need to do so.

So only thing proved is that money can buy you things, it doesn't tell whether somebody is better doing something than somebody else who doesn't do/isn't able to do/doesn't need to do those same things. If you give a mission for two of the brightest medical professors to find a cure for some decease, but give the other 500 million dollars and the other 1 dollar, when the one with the money comes up with whatever results, it isn't a proof of him being better. It just proves that resources are necessary to get results.

Obviously, since Brazil or Argentina these days don't generally have world's best players aged between 18-24 developing in their systems, it's pretty impossible for anybody to make a judgement whether they would be good at it.

But I agree that e.g. France and Holland do well with their resources and in their circumstances, but so do e.g. Brazil within their more limited resources. The problem is with making comparisions between such vastly different circumstances.

Personally, I don't think age is important.
Drogba really blossomed as a 26 year old.

What I look for is as I said non-quantitive elements (contrary to your questions) : has the level of the player progressed or not?
Has the player fulfilled what was seen as his potential?
That's for the later developments.

For the initial formation, I simply take into account the sheer number of good to great players each league forms.
I'm sorry, but I refuse to think that kids are innerly (as in "at birth") more talented in one country or another.
It's just the number of quality players that get out of any country that defines the quality of the initial formation, respective of the number of kids obviously (because as much as Brazil forms great footballers, they have quite a few more kids than european countries).

I'm not saying either that some countries kids are necessarily better at birth than others. Although I wouldn't say either that some individuals aren't better suited to be athletes than others, but even so, it's difficult to make a judgement how much to credit genes and how much the surrounding circumstances. No matter how talented someone might be, if parents feed him junk food from birth and don't (can't afford to)introduce him to sports before he's a teenager and old enough to make his own mind, he's unlikely to become a top sportsman.

By age I meant that if one country (e.g. Brazil) loses its' best world class players to another country at 18 and another country (e.g. France) loses best players at 24, I find it hard to make a comparision between those two's development systems, since the circumstances are so different when it comes to players at their use. Not to mention financial resources.

But if you like, I'm fine with you making comparisions between Germany and France for example. They're close enough in terms of anything, imo.

Of course, I fully agree with you.

But to say England doesn't "need" to produce talent is only half an argument IMO.

First, the question is not who "could" be the best development league. It is who "is". Thus you can eliminate the question of who "could".

Second, english teams DO try to bring homegrown talent, and given the state of the english NT, I think we can say with ease that they fail miserably.
The EPL teams have never been very good at forming youngsters, but obviously, that can be taught, and it's not surprise to see french and dutch coaches go there for the EPL teams academies.
The fact that EPL teams feel the need to recruit tons of 16 or 17 year old from abroad (Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, ManU, etc...) also tells me that there's a problem BEFORE the academies in the english program.
There's no reason to think young english kids are less talented than young french, dutch or spanish kids.
So England fails his kids from age 11 to 15. That's probably where they miss the boat and don't have the structures to boost these kids.

This year, we had a talented young 11 year old english boy that succeeded our football test and entered my school. You know how in Normandy and Britanny we have thousands of english people fleeing England and who come to live here.
Anyway, one of these kids was good enough to enter our school (BTW we sent another great talent to Caen in june). But you know what? Mentally, he was never strong enough. He left after 3 weeks. I think maybe some english kids don't have the mental toughness to go through tough competitions.

Anyway, we have a young phenom, a french guy who's just turned 13. Caen has him signed already but they want us to develop him until he's 14-15.
That's exactly how it works. When clubs can't take care of their youngsters, they have here in France means of making them progress elsewhere.

Of course, I fully agree with you.

But to say England doesn't "need" to produce talent is only half an argument IMO.

First, the question is not who "could" be the best development league. It is who "is". Thus you can eliminate the question of who "could".

Second, english teams DO try to bring homegrown talent, and given the state of the english NT, I think we can say with ease that they fail miserably.
The EPL teams have never been very good at forming youngsters, but obviously, that can be taught, and it's not surprise to see french and dutch coaches go there for the EPL teams academies.
The fact that EPL teams feel the need to recruit tons of 16 or 17 year old from abroad (Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, ManU, etc...) also tells me that there's a problem BEFORE the academies in the english program.
There's no reason to think young english kids are less talented than young french, dutch or spanish kids.
So England fails his kids from age 11 to 15. That's probably where they miss the boat and don't have the structures to boost these kids.

This year, we had a talented young 11 year old english boy that succeeded our football test and entered my school. You know how in Normandy and Britanny we have thousands of english people fleeing England and who come to live here.
Anyway, one of these kids was good enough to enter our school (BTW we sent another great talent to Caen in june). But you know what? Mentally, he was never strong enough. He left after 3 weeks. I think maybe some english kids don't have the mental toughness to go through tough competitions.

Anyway, we have a young phenom, a french guy who's just turned 13. Caen has him signed already but they want us to develop him until he's 14-15.
That's exactly how it works. When clubs can't take care of their youngsters, they have here in France means of making them progress elsewhere.

I'm not in the position to argue and don't even want to argue with you about the merits of the French system. The good results speak for themselves. I just wanted to point out that sometimes it's probably not fair comparing leagues, that have such a difference in resources. Of course that doesn't change the actual outcome, but I'd still give at least some afterthought on the cost-benefit analysis.

As for the English club's situation, I'm not so sure whether all or even most EPL clubs care about the nationality of their players nor feel that they're responsible for the development and success of English NT team players.

As for reasons for English youngsters failing to make the grade, I can agree with your arguments about mental issues. Although I tend to think that it is a social problem also, potential talents are wasted in bad habits and neighbourhoods ever since childhood, or life is easy enough for kids without need to aim for a higher social status by becoming an athlete, instead of other careers.

I think this has historically been one of the driving motives behind succesful sports careers, rising away from the poor social background you were born into. I think changes in children's drive/need for better social status, combined on the other hand with overprotective middle-class parents and on the other hand woefully inadequate lower class parents seriously wastes potential talents (and not only in sports). Of course the academy systems etc. you mentioned (would) provide some remedy to this. But the question is then, is there enough will to finance those academies. If the French, Dutch etc. do it already, why would the wealthiest clubs bother, if they can instead poach talent from them (and even relatively cheaply so)?

Why does France or Holland produce more talents than England or Germany? They have less people and arguably less money.
So why?
Becuase they focus on academies. Simple logic really.

Yes, because of the youth academies. But not because of ligue 1 or the eredivisie...

PS: The other reason, I know you don't want to hear it, is the many african players from french and the netherland. Many of them has all the tools you need as a great football player and only need good coaches and good training program.
Germany don't has such "african" Player. Ok, beside Asamoah *g*

I look at this as if I knew a kid, any age before his peak, where would I recommend him go play? Overall I hate to admit it is France. I think Holland does just as good a job, but due to overall size, France gets the edge.

If the kid is under 16, I might recommend Brazil. Their system is geared towards clearing out top level talent before ~20.

A lot depends on the players style. A primarily quick & skilled player could learn a lot in Portugal. Spain has stepped up in recent years. Germany had a slump, but I think they're making a comeback. Italy produces players but youngsters struggle for playing time.

For the money invested, England has been rather poor. They'd rather have 100 pro clubs than meaningful reserve games. I think some steps have been taken recently to improve England's development structure and some young players do get playing time. But the pressure in 1st team games is too high on youngsters and players that don't fit the British style (and conform to executing the expected decisions on the pitch) still get "straightened out" or pushed aside. English acadamies seem to produce surplus talent at certain positions but not keep up with continent at others (2 way central mids over strikers, etc).

Yes, because of the youth academies. But not because of ligue 1 or the eredivisie...
Yes because these leagues are excellent platform.

An academy is not independant towards a club and team. He's a part of the whole.

PS: The other reason, I know you don't want to hear it, is the many african players from french and the netherland. Many of them has all the tools you need as a great football player and only need good coaches and good training program.
Germany don't has such "african" Player. Ok, beside Asamoah *g*

:shakehead
Then why don't richer african countries produce talent?
Why England doesn't produce much "black" talent?

Why are "blacks" considered having more tools than "whites".


Your argument holds no merit.

Yes because these leagues are excellent platform.

An academy is not independant towards a club and team. He's a part of the whole.



:shakehead
Then why don't richer african countries produce talent?
Why England doesn't produce much "black" talent?

Why are "blacks" considered having more tools than "whites".


Your argument holds no merit.

I don't think England is near the top in this poll IMO but you can't knock them that much. Steven Gerrard is world class player and they have developed many other great/good players too. Wayne Rooney. John Terry. Rio Ferdinand. Gary Neville. Ryan Giggs. Roy Keane, I remember watching Keane play for Cork and never thought he'd become the player he did become. Richards is doing nicely for City, Owen, Lampard, Beckham, Bale..

You make a case for Ronaldinho (and I agree with you) .. but was Cristiano Ronaldo the same player he is now when he first arrived at old Trafford? Can the same be said for Berbatov? Or Torres?

Just wanted to say basically that the EPL has developed quite a lot of players that are great/very good. Look at Arsenal. Fabregas, Henry, ect.ect..ect..

Serie A got one vote? I'd say it's the worst off the list when it comes to giving youngsters playing time.

I agree with this statement 100%.

I don't think England is near the top in this poll IMO but you can't knock them that much. Steven Gerrard is world class player and they have developed many other great/good players too. Wayne Rooney. John Terry. Rio Ferdinand. Gary Neville. Ryan Giggs. Roy Keane, I remember watching Keane play for Cork and never thought he'd become the player he did become. Richards is doing nicely for City, Owen, Lampard, Beckham, Bale..

You make a case for Ronaldinho (and I agree with you) .. but was Cristiano Ronaldo the same player he is now when he first arrived at old Trafford? Can the same be said for Berbatov? Or Torres?

Just wanted to say basically that the EPL has developed quite a lot of players that are great/very good. Look at Arsenal. Fabregas, Henry, ect.ect..ect..

Really?

Neville, Giggs, Keane - you're going way back just to get a list of 6 names? Might as well bring up Zidane when talking about France?

Noones denying England has produced outstanding players or claiming that they don't produce players at all. It's just about the quantity of these players, especially the lack of strikers. How much do you think Torres has developed in 4 months? Berbatov arrived at age 25.

For the money invested in football and the population base, England has done rather poorly the last 10 years. Maybe they're turning it around, but I'm not sure. When I look at Arsenal, I see a club that's been fairly atypical to the whole league. What's remarkable is the lack of development of strikers, goalkeepers, and to some degree flank players in general.

Each league has developed some. Others have just developed more.


I also think where the argument breaks down is the, "who gets the most credit for development of upper tier players". With the age of the transfer with top players bouncing from place to place, who gets the most credit for their development? An academy that might foster the fundamentals that make a player great down the road? A big club who help turn a very good player into a great one by surrounding them with excellent training, players and strategy? I mean, which is more important?

Do you argue that the training Ronnie got at PSG was more important? Or the skills he learned at Gremio? Or even the polish he gained at Barca? I think a better argument can be made for one or two of the three, but which is best?

It's the same way for a bunch of other players.

but was Cristiano Ronaldo the same player he is now when he first arrived at old Trafford? Can the same be said for Berbatov? Or Torres?


Ronaldo DID progress a lot in the EPL.

Berbatov no way. He actually didn't progress since he came to Tottenham. From the get go there, he was very good. It's just a matter of exposure. I remember here people saying he was nothing special and I remember defending him along with a few posters saying that he was a very good striker that would shine in the EPL. The EPL spotlight did the rest.

Torres has progressed in 4 months? Right. Again, EPL spotlight.

:shakehead
Then why don't richer african countries produce talent?


Why are "blacks" considered having more tools than "whites".


Your argument holds no merit.

It does hold some merit.

If you want to pick up on rich countries with big enough population, footballing infrastructure, big support, good training facilities,"academies" not producing enough talent you should make your case about Japan (or South Korea to a slightly lesser extent) instead on an poor African country (there are no rich sub-Saharan countries, besides South Africa, but they have huge social problems).

From what I've read and learned, there are generally some differences in muscle/bone/general body structure that makes some people (or races) more suitable for some sports.

There are differences even in Africa. People with athletic ability and of Western African origin (Nigeria, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Cameroon etc.) are in general more cabable of developing explosive speed required for example in various sprints (100-400m in Olympics). It is no coincidence that most of the best sprinters ancestors are originally from this area. The phenomena was further enchanced when shipping slaves to Central/North America, only the strongest survived the cruelling trip and harsh working/living conditions. So their gene pool in America is amongst the best, of course it is likely to "downgrade" during next thousand(s) of years as the population mixes.

Still in Africa, peoples' of eastern African origin (for example, Kenyans) are very different from West Africans, their leaner body/muscle structure makes them more suitable for endurance sports (like long distance running). Similar to lot of Asian races (like Japanese), who in general have body/muscle structure for endurance sports (long distance running, marathon). As for whites' body and muscles structure, they have the ability to develope upper body strentgh needed in some sports (javelin, shot put, discus, weight lifting, wrestling etc.), but have much harder time developing explosive speed needed in sprints.

Of course these differences aren't everything, you have to consider social issues as well, and you might rightly ask how does all this translate into soccer (and like in USA, that their most talented athletes go into other sports than soccer)? But I just wanted to say, that Olli's argument does hold SOME merit. How much, that's open to debate.

I don't understand your staunch opposition for any statements that French football and their national team have benefited from talent of African origin. Just to make it clear, that I'm happy that these players have been brought into sports, got top training and opportunity to play. (Club) Football is a better standard sports because of it. That said, again I don't understand why you deny that France is probably the nation that has benefited most from this influx of talent. Compared to e.g. Japan or Germany. I'm not touching the question whether it's wrong or right, whether these players feel/are French, just that Franch NT has benefited most from their influx during the last 20-30 years.

If these players had got the same training (e.g. in France) and same playing time, but were playing for the national teams where their grandfather was born, some African NT's would be of better standard. Again, I'm not saying that this needs to happen or that I'm hoping it to happen.

Of course athletic and physical tools aren't everything in sports like football, but with the current emphasis on speed and strength compared to past decades, they certainly don't harm players who have those abilities as well.

I don't understand your staunch opposition for any statements that French football and their national team have benefited from talent of African origin. Just to make it clear, that I'm happy that these players have been brought into sports, got top training and opportunity to play. (Club) Football is a better standard sports because of it. That said, again I don't understand why you deny that France is probably the nation that has benefited most from this influx of talent. Compared to e.g. Japan or Germany. I'm not touching the question whether it's wrong or right, whether these players feel/are French, just that Franch NT has benefited most from their influx during the last 20-30 years.

If these players had got the same training (e.g. in France) and same playing time, but were playing for the national teams where their grandfather was born, some African NT's would be of better standard. Again, I'm not saying that this needs to happen or that I'm hoping it to happen.

Of course athletic and physical tools aren't everything in sports like football, but with the current emphasis on speed and strength compared to past decades, they certainly don't harm players who have those abilities as well.

My opposition is because :
1- these players are usually born in France. To say France steals african talent, like has been said many times on this board (not saying that's the discussion on this thread) is completely wrong.
2- Most of the black players on the NT don't come from Africa but from the Antilles (Henry, Thuram, etc...).Yet you never hear anyone say the US are good as sports because of african americans and slavery.
3- Some countries have a lot of black population (England comes to mind, Germany has a lot of turkish people who are usually very good technically) and yet they don't produce that many players.

It is IMO, a false argument. France is a nation that features a lot of black and arabs. So it's only natural that you find a lot of them in our NT.

Do blacks have natural athletic abilities? That would be considered a blasphemy in some cirlces, so I won't answer.
But even if that was the case, your point that "if the players were playing where their grand father was born" is to me completely irrelevant.
You (as a pro player) are a result of your childhood, your formation and your education.
There's absolutely no reason to say this, just as there is no reason to say "if the US african americans could come back to Africa, they would win all the gold medals". It just holds no merit.

Really?

Neville, Giggs, Keane - you're going way back just to get a list of 6 names? Might as well bring up Zidane when talking about France?

Noones denying England has produced outstanding players or claiming that they don't produce players at all. It's just about the quantity of these players, especially the lack of strikers. How much do you think Torres has developed in 4 months? Berbatov arrived at age 25.

For the money invested in football and the population base, England has done rather poorly the last 10 years. Maybe they're turning it around, but I'm not sure. When I look at Arsenal, I see a club that's been fairly atypical to the whole league. What's remarkable is the lack of development of strikers, goalkeepers, and to some degree flank players in general.

Do you honestly want or care for someone to list every good young player in the EPL? It is considered by many the best league in the world. I'm sure they must be able to have developed the right mixture of players.

2- Most of the black players on the NT don't come from Africa but from the Antilles (Henry, Thuram, etc...).Yet you never hear anyone say the US are good as sports because of african americans and slavery.
3- Some countries have a lot of black population (England comes to mind, Germany has a lot of turkish people who are usually very good technically) and yet they don't produce that many players.


2 Well, I just said it about US. And I don't think any sane person would deny it. Of course if saying it is considered blasphemy by some people, then you're probably better off for not saying it, if it gets you in the trouble. Turning a blind eye won't make things go away or change the facts, though.

3. True about Germany and Turks. And I said before that I have no problem with you comparing Germany and France. And I have no problem saying that Germany has benefited most from the influx of Turks (also in other fields of life than football).



It is IMO, a false argument. France is a nation that features a lot of black and arabs. So it's only natural that you find a lot of them in our NT.



I don't understand your logic here. There are lot of players of these origin in your NT, but you still oppose a statement that they have benefited your NT. I would rather say that they have been beneficial for French football (and I'm sure for some other functions of society as well).



Do blacks have natural athletic abilities? That would be considered a blasphemy in some cirlces, so I won't answer.

But even if that was the case, your point that "if the players were playing where their grand father was born" is to me completely irrelevant.You (as a pro player) are a result of your childhood, your formation and your education.

There's absolutely no reason to say this, just as there is no reason to say "if the US african americans could come back to Africa, they would win all the gold medals". It just holds no merit.

I understand your position for not answering, even if I prefer people were able to openly discuss about almost everything. But I understand this ideal is not always feasible.

Of course I agree about what a pro player is a result of. But as for what NT team they play for, is largely a matter of various international agreements more than anything else. Some countries have lax immigration policies, some strict, some give citizenship easily after a short period, others after a long period if at all. Some peoples are recognised as nations, others not so. It's all a result of history and politics, struggle for (economic) power etc. Personally I'm not nationalistic, so I don't really care, but I'd say that the idea of nation-states has been a cause for a lot of wars and general misery. Of course other things have as well.

As for your last sentence/chapter, I don't see why somebody couldn't have good grounds for saying so. Saying so doesn't change history or mean that they would like "coming back to Africa" to happen. But I think it does hold some merit, I believe your last statement of those people miraculously coming back to Africa would have the consequences you mentioned. That doesn't mean that I believe it will happen or that I'd hope it to happen.

Well, we just differ on how we view the importance of representing a country.

You say "But as for what NT team they play for, is largely a matter of various international agreements more than anything else."


My view of this is that you should always represent the country that made you what you are. So of course we disagree, and I see no relevance in your theory (players going back to the country of their grand fathers).
Really to me, it's like saying let's put all the main athletes on Mars and see if Mars would be better than Earth.

The few players that chose to play for the NT of their grand father (like Ben Arfa could have for instance, like Sissoko or Kanoute did) to me are opportunists that don't "represent" their country but choose that nationality in order to play international games and drive their value up.
I sense no morality in that. I'd rather see a player never represent his country rather than represent a country he shouldn't be representing.

and I see no relevance in your theory (players going back to the country of their grand fathers).


Oh, I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't advocating that people should be forced to represent the countries of their grandfathers.

Rather I'm just saying, that it's just another international agreement which determines the eligibility rules for representing some specific country. Grandparents are just often used as grounds for being eligible for passport/citizenship, which again leads to the national level issues I brought up in my last post. France's national level policy and rules have obviously been good for their football.

For me, these agreements could be really anything which are agreed upon, and various people and institutions have their own interests and agenda for favouring whatever rules they're advocating (Blatter against naturalized Brazilians, for example). Personally I think there's a lot of hypocrisy and self-interest involved, this includes France.

If US soccer would be smart they would follow the French example, and bring in the best young Mexican talent to US and grant them citizenship immediately along with their families. To go with education etc., similar what France does with their academies. Of course this would require the co-operation from politicians, but it would be no different from what France has done.

The fact that EPL teams feel the need to recruit tons of 16 or 17 year old from abroad (Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, ManU, etc...) also tells me that there's a problem BEFORE the academies in the english program.


Recruiting from abroad is simply easier than obtaining British talent which often costs a LOT more. Walcott is an obvious example of this. It's also because as one of the richest leagues, EPL teams want the best talent and it's cheaper to sign them at that age home and away. Less of a financial gamble too if they dont work out.

I think gary69 has a pretty good point when he says South America loses it's talent at 18 while France / Holland tend to lose theirs to the top leagues at a later age. The big three leagues are the hardest teams to break into, so they have fewer spots for developing guys.. only the very best prospects make it directly (eg Gerrard, Rooney, Cole, C.Ronaldo, Cesc etc).

Also I dont really like your story about calling an 11-yr old English kid being "mentally weak" after 3 weeks and using that to explain something. There could have been any reason for leaving, especially at that age and living abroad. It's true the English are less well-adjusted to coping with culture conflict than continental Europeans as there hasnt been any need to deal with it. But I dont think that directly translates to being a failure. The Americans are the worst at coping abroad but have no problem developing sporting talents.

Oh, I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't advocating that people should be forced to represent the countries of their grandfathers.

Oh I know. I'm just saying your argument is out of reality.

Oh I know. I'm just saying your argument is out of reality.

Yes, I know. Players aren't forced to represent the countries of their grandfathers. But often they can.

Recruiting from abroad is simply easier than obtaining British talent which often costs a LOT more.
We're talking about initial formation. If these english clubs were scouting their home talent better, they would have more english quality players.


I think gary69 has a pretty good point when he says South America loses it's talent at 18 while France / Holland tend to lose theirs to the top leagues at a later age.
I could make a list of the thousands of french players (and Ott could do it for the dutch) that left France between age 15 and 20 (Aliadière, Vieira, Frey, Taarabt, Kakuta, etc...).
On the other hand, MOST brazilian players leave Brazil around age 20, except for real superstars (Pato, etc...).
So, no, I disagree with his argument.
Numbers wise yes, but that's because Brazil simply has more population and more football players.
Most good brazilian players leave after 20 (Juninho, Fred, Roberto Carlos, etc...).


Also I dont really like your story about calling an 11-yr old English kid being "mentally weak" after 3 weeks and using that to explain something. There could have been any reason for leaving, especially at that age and living abroad. It's true the English are less well-adjusted to coping with culture conflict than continental Europeans as there hasnt been any need to deal with it. But I dont think that directly translates to being a failure. The Americans are the worst at coping abroad but have no problem developing sporting talents.
Sorry, I was just giving a true example, and maybe try to explain why english boys didn't come through.
In a country as football crazy as England, there should be much more talented players coming out.
So I think it's both a formation problem (that I tried to explain) and probably a mindset somewhere.
The boy I met was incapable of leaving his parents for more than 1 day (our boys sleep in school, don't know how you call it here) and simply didn't have what it takes mentally to fight through difficulties.
He had lived in France for two years and refused to learn the language BTW. Yet he didn't want to hear about going back to England either. Basically, effort was an unknown word to him.

Yes, I know. Players aren't forced to represent the countries of their grandfathers. But often they can.
I know. And I found it particularly disgusting.

I know. And I found it particularly disgusting.

Personally, I don't really care. But perhaps the time has come to agree on universal rules regarding eligibility for NT's.

This would of course require common rules without exceptions in all countries regarding immigration, gaining citizenship, work permits etc. I know they have plans for this in the EU, but as this would interfere with the concept of national sovereignty which is so dear to some people and some countries, who knows when and in what form it will come into being. FIFA most likely can't enforce this by themselves.

And you can bet that the majority of the British will oppose it until the very end and demand exceptions like they have in the past from pretty much everything, be it Euro, Schengen, paying their equal share for EU budget etc. :(

Meanwhile, I just enjoy watching national teams play football and hope that the best, the most attractive/positive team wins, regardless where their players originally come from.

Do you honestly want or care for someone to list every good young player in the EPL? It is considered by many the best league in the world. I'm sure they must be able to have developed the right mixture of players.

You almost made my point. They're the best league because of the talent they bought, not the talent they developed. Not that I have any problem with that. I'm a huge fan of the EPL (I mostly follow MLS & EPL). It's not that quality youngsters can't thrive there. Though I must point out the style can by stifling to certain types of players. I just think there have been some pretty big deficiencies in the overall system. Check the BBC and you'll see most experts in England agree. The problem is a lack of consensus on how to fix the problem. Some want quotas on foreigners (IMO a mistake), some want reserve teams put in the pyramid (workable but so against the sporting culture I wouldn't try it), some want more players going abroad (not happening since English players are so overpaid).

There's no easy answer. I'm not too sure myself WHY England isn't keeping up. Yesterday I saw part of a game with Portsmouth. They have an English manager, but started 8 foreigners, 2 English players (keeper and central defender), and 1 Scot (defensive midfielder). They lost to Middlesbrough (English manager) that started 4 English players (2 defenders and 2 wide midfielders). You don't have to look at just Arsenal to see how reliant the league is on foreign talent. It's part of the price of being the best. My point is look at the strikers and "#10s (if teams bother using one)". Too few English players get the job done (compared to say French, Dutch, Spanish, etc)

You almost made my point. They're the best league because of the talent they bought, not the talent they developed. Not that I have any problem with that. I'm a huge fan of the EPL (I mostly follow MLS & EPL). It's not that quality youngsters can't thrive there. Though I must point out the style can by stifling to certain types of players. I just think there have been some pretty big deficiencies in the overall system. Check the BBC and you'll see most experts in England agree. The problem is a lack of consensus on how to fix the problem. Some want quotas on foreigners (IMO a mistake), some want reserve teams put in the pyramid (workable but so against the sporting culture I wouldn't try it), some want more players going abroad (not happening since English players are so overpaid).

There's no easy answer. I'm not too sure myself WHY England isn't keeping up. Yesterday I saw part of a game with Portsmouth. They have an English manager, but started 8 foreigners, 2 English players (keeper and central defender), and 1 Scot (defensive midfielder). They lost to Middlesbrough (English manager) that started 4 English players (2 defenders and 2 wide midfielders). You don't have to look at just Arsenal to see how reliant the league is on foreign talent. It's part of the price of being the best. My point is look at the strikers and "#10s (if teams bother using one)". Too few English players get the job done (compared to say French, Dutch, Spanish, etc)

Good post. I mean, look at a club like Manu. I'm not trying to take any shots here, but look at them. Outside of the golden generation that was 15 years ago, the club has produced next to no English talent. Ferdinand and Rooney cost about 30 MP each and Hargreaves was 17 MP. That's 80 MP for 3 players, only Manu and Chelsea can spend like that.

There are a very limited number of English players that are good and cheap, so everyone (it's not just Arsenal), looks elsewhere.

France produces a lot of top players at the moment. Just ask Arsenal. Outside Europe, Brazil has to be the first pick.

I could make a list of the thousands of french players (and Ott could do it for the dutch) that left France between age 15 and 20 (Aliadière, Vieira, Frey, Taarabt, Kakuta, etc...).
On the other hand, MOST brazilian players leave Brazil around age 20, except for real superstars (Pato, etc...).
So, no, I disagree with his argument.
Numbers wise yes, but that's because Brazil simply has more population and more football players.
Most good brazilian players leave after 20 (Juninho, Fred, Roberto Carlos, etc...).


I didn't mean those numbers (18 and 24) to be taken literally, rather than to make a point that there's a difference in the age players leave. The difference might not be 6 years, but until shown otherwise I will keep my impression that there's a difference.

I don't have time to do it myself, but if someone can provide a big enough sample of players (100+) from long enough time period (10+years) for us to see at which age/after how many seasons they left their respective leagues, I have no problem admitting I was mistaken.

So I believe 10 years (or maybe the whole time period since the Bosman ruling from 1995 onwards) should provide enough French/Brazilian players, even if you count only those players who played for their country's youth (U-21) national teams. I'd prefer the players to be selected based on their youth NT selection rather than full NT team, since I have an impression that most Brazilian youngsters relevant for the purpose of this thread move to Europe before they have contributed any meaningful amount of full caps for Brazil men's team.

But I'm happy with any other meaningful, universal and coherent criteria as well, which doesn't exclude any group of players. For example, if Brazilians can't leave before the age of 18, then French players leaving before that age should be excluded or counted as 18 year olds.

Yes I think if we were to make such a study, we would need to focus on U21 selections.
N'Zogbia, N'Sia, Sissoko, Vieira, Frey, Taarabt, Sene, Kakuta...

It would be a titan's job to find everyone though. Because let's face it : counting the Arsenal, Chelsea or Real purchase is one thing.
Counting guys that join the portugese or romanian leagues (yes some french guys did that) or even the Serie B (N'Sia) is such a hard task.

If US soccer would be smart they would follow the French example, and bring in the best young Mexican talent to US and grant them citizenship immediately along with their families. To go with education etc., similar what France does with their academies. Of course this would require the co-operation from politicians, but it would be no different from what France has done.

HA!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

For starters, I don't think granting citizenship to families based on sporting potential is very good for anyone outside of the sport. What's more, the best young Mexican talent is A) most likely already playing in Mexico and B) would most likely want to represent Mexico rather than any other country. As a related example, Giuseppe Rossi was born in NYC but he's on pace to play for Italy, he's always wanted to play for Italy, and now he's doing just that. US Soccer needs to reach out to all potential resources for players - the recently immigrated, those long here, etc. - but granting citizenship to young soccer players who may or may not grow up to be pros and expect them to play for the U.S. isn't a sensible way of doing so.

As it is, the US is making a lot of strides in terms of youth development in recent years. Their U-20 team did well at the WYC, even beating Brazil (THE Brazil) in a competitive tournament; the U-23 Olympic team has quite a bit of talent; the U-17 team has some players to watch for; good players still come from college (e.g. Maurice Edu, Chris Seitz, Dane Richards, etc.) to be drafted and play in MLS; and more and more Americans are getting interest to play abroad at younger ages (e.g. Freddy Adu, Michael Bradley, Benny Feilhaber, Clint Dempsey - though he's a bit older). With MLS teams forming their own academies, the USSF improving in terms of management and organization, and the sport itself becoming more popular - America is going to start putting out more competitive teams in the future.

That's the main ingredient that France/Holland/Brazil/etc. have over younger systems like the US. They've had time to figure out what ways are best, what ways fit the players best, etc. The US needs time, not special citizenship granted for talented 16-18 year olds from neighboring countries.

Ultimately, that is what I think: what France does works best for France, it may not be as appropriate anywhere else. You can't just take a style or way of development and co-opt it to anyone; it must fit the players available. As far as what system is the best overall, it all depends - are we looking for quality? If so, how do we determine that? Do we look at the number of players who went on to be professionals? This is a bit broad of a question.

HA!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

For starters, I don't think granting citizenship to families based on sporting potential is very good for anyone outside of the sport. What's more, the best young Mexican talent is A) most likely already playing in Mexico and B) would most likely want to represent Mexico rather than any other country. As a related example, Giuseppe Rossi was born in NYC but he's on pace to play for Italy, he's always wanted to play for Italy, and now he's doing just that. US Soccer needs to reach out to all potential resources for players - the recently immigrated, those long here, etc. - but granting citizenship to young soccer players who may or may not grow up to be pros and expect them to play for the U.S. isn't a sensible way of doing so.

As it is, the US is making a lot of strides in terms of youth development in recent years. Their U-20 team did well at the WYC, even beating Brazil (THE Brazil) in a competitive tournament; the U-23 Olympic team has quite a bit of talent; the U-17 team has some players to watch for; good players still come from college (e.g. Maurice Edu, Chris Seitz, Dane Richards, etc.) to be drafted and play in MLS; and more and more Americans are getting interest to play abroad at younger ages (e.g. Freddy Adu, Michael Bradley, Benny Feilhaber, Clint Dempsey - though he's a bit older). With MLS teams forming their own academies, the USSF improving in terms of management and organization, and the sport itself becoming more popular - America is going to start putting out more competitive teams in the future.

That's the main ingredient that France/Holland/Brazil/etc. have over younger systems like the US. They've had time to figure out what ways are best, what ways fit the players best, etc. The US needs time, not special citizenship granted for talented 16-18 year olds from neighboring countries.

Ultimately, that is what I think: what France does works best for France, it may not be as appropriate anywhere else. You can't just take a style or way of development and co-opt it to anyone; it must fit the players available. As far as what system is the best overall, it all depends - are we looking for quality? If so, how do we determine that? Do we look at the number of players who went on to be professionals? This is a bit broad of a question.

Well, I wasn't really serious with that suggestion, rather I brought it up only as an example how it wouldn't differ from what France has done in the past 25-30 years. If you look at French national teams in the 1980's they had much less players whos' families originated from Africa. There was an odd Tresor or Tigana, but that's about it. Is it a coincidence that when they had access to a larger talent pool, they were more successful on consistent basis. I think not. You might laugh at it, but I'd say larger talent pool benefits just about any sports.

Of course the US has many ways to broaden their talent pool, immigration is just one, luring talented youngsters away from other sports to playing soccer instead is another way, although much harder and takes longer, imo. Of course you need suitable infrastructure to get the best out of any talent.

Well, I wasn't really serious with that suggestion, rather I brought it up only as an example how it wouldn't differ from what France has done in the past 25-30 years. If you look at French national teams in the 1980's they had much less players whos' families originated from Africa. There was an odd Tresor or Tigana, but that's about it. Is it a coincidence that when they had access to a larger talent pool, they were more successful on consistent basis. I think not. You might laugh at it, but I'd say larger talent pool benefits just about any sports.

Of course the US has many ways to broaden their talent pool, immigration is just one, luring talented youngsters away from other sports to playing soccer instead is another way, although much harder and takes longer, imo. Of course you need suitable infrastructure to get the best out of any talent.

The influx of African ethnic soccer players in the French system coincided with the general increase in African immigration into France. AFAIK, It was never a conscious effort of the French soccer federation to focus on African talent as it was a reflection of a growing multi-ethnic French population.

The influx of African ethnic soccer players in the French system coincided with the general increase in African immigration into France. AFAIK, It was never a conscious effort of the French soccer federation to focus on African talent as it was a reflection of a growing multi-ethnic French population.

And I have never claimed it was, even though I haven't studied French history, their government's or their FA's documents (if they're even available to public) from those years to make any statement one way or other.

Intentional or not, like I've said in this thread before it benefited their football.

I'd argue that Sporting Lisboa has the best academy in the world.

As for League, France.

Voted France, Holland is probably second