Dyke's England Commission Report

As I'm not English I'm fairly apathetic to the overall objectives of the report but I'm mildly interested as to the thinking behind the B team plan.

This link to the report works for me http://goo.gl/n8Cm5G

I was going to add a story about it because Roberto came out in favour of Dyke's plans but didn't get time.

The FA are obviously focused on the England national team but RM clearly sees a need to find a proper solution to the issue of developing players in that gap between academy-level and first-team at Premier League teams.

I agree but find the idea of injecting B teams in the Football League, even if restricted to Leagues One and Two, to be utterly abhorrent and believe it would be massively destructive to the traditions of what is the world's best professional football pyramid.

There has to be a better self-contained B-team league system that doesn't result in displacing long-established lower league clubs out from the Football League purely for the benefit of the top two divisions and the much-maligned national team.

Sorry, more haste less speed. Or is that more speed, more speed.

Try again:http://twitdoc.com/upload/lfasoccerschool/the-fa-chairmans-england-commission-report.pdf

Jesus. It's been a long day. Editors please intervene. That twitdoc url is right but I've fecked up the posting somehow.

I'm not particularly impressed by the recommendations. None of them are about addressing the deeper problem of grassroots and youth football. Spain has about 12 times as many UEFA 'A' coaches as England. Germany about 5 times as many. It shows the greater emphasis those countries place on high quality coaching at all levels and all ages.

The B team idea seems half baked and badly thought out. It's a demonstration of consistent short termism, too, that after just a year or two of one new approach, suddenly it's time to change again. While the U-21 league may not be the best idea, it's hardly possible to say it is/isn't working based on such limited evidence.

Underlying this all is a deeper issue. All of the newspaper analysis of this report seem to take as accepted that the needs of the England team are primary. While Greg Dyke at the FA has to take that approach, I don't think that's really a universal truth!

Even the FA can make mistakes - or have they?

Could it be we're in the FA Cup Final after all?

See: Link

A load of bolloxs from a television personality ( ahem) who is listening to the wrong people.

More investment in junior football would be a better use of the tens of millions of pounds this will cost

Dyke's England Commission Report: Really lacks insight into what makes a football team tick. At Everton there is no problem of accelerating the progress of young players if they have the acquired skills to make it at Everton; it is just that the majority of young players at Everton just don't have it to succeed at premier league level.

In countries like Argentine and Brazil, there appears they have a production line of young players, who are so good, they are playing throughout the world in the Spanish, Italian, German and English leagues; while England have no players of any quality playing abroad. Except for Bale, who is Welsh. Even the Germans are exporting their better payers into the premier league.

Most kids today, who would have, generally, kicked a ball around the streets in the past, are more interested in the social media, computer games, Smart Phones and iPhones; while many parents are happy their children are at home and not out on the streets, where they can't keep an eye on them.

Unsurprisingly, they are after some kind of quick fix. If the aim really is to help the national team then a long term plan is required involving heavy investment in coaching at school & youth level is required. I can't help but think this is more to do with extending the power of the big clubs.

Interesting that Richard "Look at the Norks on That!" Scudamore poured cold water on it. The Prem League, rightly in my opinion, stayed out of the commission. They're accused of hoovering up all the money (despite the "solidarity" payments made to the lower leagues) and therefore they would be accused of self-interest in whatever proposals came out.

But Scudamore stated the integrity of the current pyramid structure is vital. We may not care, but there are millions-ish who follow lower league and non-league football, and this would damage their competitions.

It's all well and good pointing to other leagues in Europe and saying "Look at them", well Spain, with the individual TV deals meaning the top clubs get 22 x the bottom club is not a good comparison, as most of the lower teams can't sustain a professional B team, and Germany has already decided to move away from that system.

I still detest "Knockers" Scudamore for his banging on about the integrity of the game, and then pursuing the farcical 39th game – imagine if we had one more round to go in a season like this one and it was Man City v Cardiff in Dubai, and Liverpool v Norwich in Johannesburg? Immediately people claiming that the conditions in South Africa are much more favourable etc. ToffeeWeb would be in meltdown!

(ps – I assumed all the overseas games took place on the same weekend as a round of extra "repeat" fixtures. If this was sporadic through the season then it would be even more of a farce, and the end of watching the league as a competition for me.)

Steavey they have social media and smartphones in other countries as well, that's too easy an answer.

We have a fundamental problem at grassroots I agree, its cultural as much as anything, and the education of coaches is at the core of it, but also parents and spectators of kids games. We value the wrong things at kids level, like being big and strong and winning. These things don't matter until later on.

But we also have a fundamental problem at the top level, which is that young English players are trying to compete in a global league. Clubs can sign players from anywhere at all, so a 19-year-old Englishman basically has to be better than the 19- to 33-year-olds from all over the world in order to get picked. What it does mean is that the ones who do play regularly are good enough, but we simply don't have strength in depth to cover the very best. Part of this issue is the reluctance of English players to play abroad, and the reluctance of England managers to pay attention to them when they do.

Thank you Michael for opening a discussion on this topic. I actually read the Commission's report over the weekend (it was raining a lot over here in Hong Kong!).

It's a worthy effort and good that at least an attempt at joined up thinking is being done. However the basic premise – that too many foreigners in the EPL adversly affects the performance of the England team – seems to be accepted without challenge. But there is simply no evidence for this.

There is no analysis of how the England team has fared over the years prior to 1992 (answer: not very well – no appearances at all in the World Cup between 1970 and 1982!). In fact England did somewhat better in the Erickson period in the late 1990s to early 2000s when they were regular at the quarter final stage (which is about right – top 8 out of all the countries that play football is probably where England should be most of the time on average).

I think there may be an issue regarding developing players from the ages of 18-21 and there was some good evidence in the report to back this assertion and that this was an issue more immediate than the lack of properly trained coaches at the grass roots level. Hence the suggestion for B teams to play in the Football League.

Actually, to me, this makes sense... but, like others, I worry that this will empower the rich clubs even more and that it will destroy competition in the lower leagues. The Commission had no suggestions on how to avoid this as an issue, other than to say it it was not a problem in Germany or Spain.

The B-team proposal is a reaction to Spain's pyramid, but ignores the decades of under-performing when they had this in place. So correlation / causation doesn't seem to register with Dyke.

The cream will rise to the top. There's no need to complain about the number of top flight Englishmen if they're not good enough to be in the PL. The talent pool is worldwide, so to retain the standards in the PL and to double the number of English players isn't possible.

Unless you actually do what Spain have done and train tens of thousands of coaches to a Uefa standard, where as in England there is just a couple of thousand. But this is no guarantee.

There could well be a fight on the FA's plans because the PL will not want to see the quality reduced from the top teams. This quality comes from choosing the best players around the world. A league set up to support the national team, and one that retains the quality for the top teams and their participation in the CL is not compatible.

This is just the FA's inferiority complex coming through – again. In the mid-90s, it was all about copying the Ajax system, then it was the French system, then it was the Spanish and will probably be Germany next.

We had our 'golden generation', but unfortunately, as they rose to prominence, they had their heads turned by the country descending into the celebrity-obsessed consumer culture rising up from Labour's desire to push a high-street economy with easy loans and cheap credit... But I digress...

If you want young kids playing football, as they said on TalkSport, you have to stop clubs like Chelsea and Man Utd farming players in great numbers. Reduce the number of non-homegrown players so they can actually belong to clubs who will play them. This hoarding creates a talent vacuum within the league.

While it is apparent to everyone that the number of English players in most Premier League teams has dwindled down to about 23% is scandalous, the problem the commission is trying to address is how to change the system so more English players are playing in the top league. But how do you restrict clubs bringing in players from abroad?

And this applies to the very rich clubs who can afford the world's best (and how many world-class footballers are English?), as well as the not so rich clubs that complain that fees for English players are massively higher than they pay for equivalent foreign players.

We used to many years ago have what was called a Central League where all the teams in the top division played their reserves against each other. So these teams were usually a mix of promising youngsters and some older players. These games were also played on the first team venues so Everton Reserves would play at Goodison Park the week the first team were away. They were also played every Saturday at 3.00pm so fans knew exactly when the matches would take place and unlike now don't have to, in Everton's case, travel to Southport to watch the games.

We still had youth football played at the club's training grounds, so for me I don't know why they don't re-introduce that system again. I did hear Collymore advocating something similar and he also said that what he believed was stopping this was that most foreign players had it written in their contracts that they don't play other than for the first team.

So the FA in their wisdom have decided to set up a B league with the top 10 Premier sides and 10 Conference sides making up a league. So can you tell me what will the young English players learn from playing against Conference sides? Surely the old adage is true that you improve when you play with and against better opposition — so how can playing against Conference players improve the younger players???

Brian,

Matt Le Tissier said exactly the same thing on SKY over the weekend. Not only did we have the Central League but also A & B teams who played against the reserve teams from the likes of Chorley, Macclesfield etc.

Brian,

In the report, it asserts that players will develop by playing in matches that matter (at least matter to the opposition on whose livelihood the results depend). And I don't think the B teams will be playing Conference sides for long as they can be promoted up to League One (which to me is the old Division 3). But even then, is this a level high enough to make the leap to the Premier League first team? – I doubt it. It would be better to send them out to other leagues – just as every other country in the world does. Maybe we could adopt Scottish Clubs instead??

Holding Spain up as an example is odd as Spain have traditionally under-performed internationally. Their current excellent crop is not necessarily evidence of a great system; to me, their League is hugely unbalanced and the B teams reinforce this dominance of the big two.

The other thing I don't like about the report is that it seems to think it important that England players are in a side that is in the top 6 of a major league. Where did that come from? Look at the 1966 World Cup winning team - it had great players from all sorts of clubs (West Ham, Blackpool, Leeds, Everton, Liverpool, Utd, Stoke to name a few).

If it's ok I'll get my digression in first.

How Nick Entwistle can lay the blame for the celebrity and consumer society on the Labour government is rather puzzling. The UK economy has been based on consumerism ever since the Thatcher government decided that a manufacturing economy wasn't worth the hassle.... and the UK has always had a devotion to celebrity....for the most part because the taxpayer funds the biggest celebrity of all as well as a large number of her family, as head of state. This reinforces the view that some people are just 'better' or to be 'celebrated' more than the average Joe and Joyce. This trickles down to lay the foundation of a highly stratified society of which 'celebrities' form one level.

Anyway, exactly how this is supposed to have undermined the 'golden generation' is also beyond me. Cheap credit for Joe and Joyce to buy a washing machine was not responsible for Mickey Butt actually being shite.

The golden generation was, however, a perfect illustration of what is really wrong with English football but not for the reasons Nick Entwistle moots. Who were the golden generation? Beckham, Scholes, Butt, Lampard, Gerrard, the Nevilles? With some overlap we might want to include Cole, Owen and Rooney. The list could go on but the fact of the matter is really about expectation and delivery. We were told that our golden generation were good enough to beat all comers and win international tournaments but time after time those who we were told were amongst the best in the world fell woefully short and were shown to be deficient when pitched against other sides who time after time were more technically able, creative and imaginative on the pitch.

It is within the shortfall between expectation and delivery were the problem can be identified and the problem is within what the 'English' deem what the game should be all about and how it should be played. Only in England could the likes of Lampard and Gerrard be spoken of in the same terms as Messi and Iniesta. We (the English) see the game as being best played via dynamism, relentless energy and courage... while other teams on the international stage, while not ignoring these attributes, leant heavily on technique, accuracy and pace of thought rather than just being able to run fast.

It's not merely a matter of numbers, or playing competitive B leagues – it is more importantly about attitude: how we (The English) believe the game should be played at all levels. It is, in many ways, comparable, to the difference between Moyes and Martinez in that, while resources have not changed, the game as a result is somewhat more beautiful due to the latter.

Attitudes need to move away from the days when we believed it was our game and only we could play it properly.... out of the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s. I still see 9-year-old kids shouted at for not 'getting shut' or trying something risky, or dropped for being a 'one-man band' and not playing 'for the team'. I still see kids playing centre-back being told to boot it down the pitch to a striker who looks too big for the age range he's playing in and hauled over the coals if he tries something else and fails. This leads to the game being associated with fear, fear of failure and this is the greatest barrier to development.

Changing the attitude has got to be the first brick in any new structure, not B Leagues. Take the fear out of the English game (it is the fear that makes us bottle every penalty shoot-out!) and the kids will not grow up into fearful footballers which is the downfall of English football and a part of the reason why so many lose interest.

Surely, the reason there are so few English players in the PL is based purely on merit (ie, there are not enough good ones). If they want to rectify that long term, then they have to tackle the grass roots. Technical skills, facilities and coaching has to improve. It is not a short-term process, it will take a generation to come to fruition.

Great timing, Greg! We have a team at the World Cup Finals and you start talking about how we can improve the player pool. A great way the instil confidence in the squad!!

Brian #20, if the England team try to use the release of this report as an excuse for yet another abject failure, well, I'd say Nick Entwistle's theory of them all wanting to be selfie-taking WAG-humping celebrities holds more water...

It's also an opportunity to go out and prove Mr Dyke and all the Doubting Thomases wrong.

But life is full of missed opportunities!

Scudamore was apparently dismissive when asked about 'Dyke's England Commission Report' as he thought it was about women's football!

I've said this quite a few times. If any English player is good enough he will without doubt make it through the system. Every player who plays in the EPL at one time went through the youth team / reserves type set up. It doesn't matter if your 4ft 6 and play in the darkest corner of England, if you have the ability someone will pick you up.

I'd bet the youth set up at most English clubs will have at least 90% English lads playing for them, about 5/10 % of the lads will make it on ability and attitude. Every year at this time you hear about lads being released by clubs. This doesn't mean the end for them. They will go and try out for someone else and will eventually find their level. How many times have we heard of players being released as youngsters and then bought back for the same clubs a few years later. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we let Jags and Leighton go as kids, but now both are going and will play in the World Cup

Kevin – with respect, I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Mike Allison at 12 has it spot on. Having a lad of almost thirteen myself, who's played since the age of 6 or 7 you learn a lot about our football at grassroots level, its set-up and culture. I admit I hadn't thought too much about this stuff until I experienced it first-hand with my own son.

Traditionally, do we produce players as technically assured as those from countries where there is a different footballing culture? The answer would have to be no (although I am optimistic this is changing.) The question then, is why not? Are Spaniards, say, simply better biologically equipped to play football? Nonsense. English players, once more by tradition, have been respected abroad for their 'spirit', their 'never say die' attitude despite the technical limitations. Belatedly though, we are realising that sheer will and guts etc isn't enough when you come up against teams who can control a football, where the players have a great first touch and don't give the ball away.

I have seen managers and coaches at youth level who are only concerned about 'winning something' – a league, a trophy, whatever; parents who cheer when a defender boots the ball out to 'safety' when he might have taken a touch and looked for a pass, or when the keeper hoofs the ball out and makes the halfway line – only for the opposition to get it back and come on again.... Big, strong kids will always have an advantage at this early stage, even if their footballing talent is minimal. We should be getting the kids to develop as technical footballers first and foremost. The signs are that things may be changing – we've all seen the products of Southampton's excellent youth set-up.

There are many more complications further down the line of course – but I do believe changing the culture of kids football would be a good start....if it's possible...

#18 Dave Roberts,

Laying the blame on the Labour Party for Nicky Butt being shite is absolutely puzzling and I agree does not stack-up. True.

The idea of distracting a society's attention away from the ruling powers by means of entertainment was spoken about in Roman times. In recent days a scheme ruled as a tax avoidance operation did not make the headlines until the spotlight of celebrity propelled it unfortunately to national awareness.

This distraction technique could perhaps have hoisted the establishment by its own petard in this circumstance, yet controlling a society by dictating the spectrum of argument to the most narrow and irrelevant context has been used throughout time. The media, much of it owned by a corporation with a global record of profiteering through the dumming-down of consumer markets with the use of celebrity (not to mention stating public support for Tony Blair), could be labelled, possibly, as the ruling elite - the very type of people who have access to such tax schemes.

But this is irrelevant to you as this media I talk of currently concern society by pushing a yes-no debate, prompted by Blair Babe parliamentarian Margerate Hodge, over Gary Barlow's return of his OBE. This we can agree is of a national importance.

But still, why did Nicky Butt become shite? Living the life of your celebrated "better-people" the"Golden Generation" became the "selfie-taking WAG-humping celebritie" mentioned by Matt.

The arrogance of the star compromised and distracted him from the professionalism attained at Man Utd, and whose success was influenced by something the England national side did not have. That of the foreign footballer whose view on financial deregulation under Tony Blair pushing an empty value of the illusory attainable celebrity-lifestyle resulting in the desired high-street economy, would be somewhat more objective, despite the attempts of Brand Beckham OBE on the front pages of the Labour aligned media compelling him to think otherwise.

However, we must return to Gary Barlow. Any concern over Barlow having to pay millions in tax will be allayed by news of a profitable stadium tour for Take That. The media will of course promote this tour above the inner workings of the establishment to which they both belong, as we as a society remain distracted by those who they promote as recipients for our worship and whose constant inability to handle this fame results in our continued fascination.

All of the above is of course complete nonsense and only a perpetual number of pure coincidences repeating throughout time are the only allowance toward this reality. No state has ever used the media to control a populace, and the arrogance of celebrity never killed a gladiator... fucking washing machines.

Just two comments, Nick... Butt didn't 'become' shite, he was always shite.

Thatcher and Reagan were responsible for financial deregulation not Blair. Remember the 'Big Bang' day on Wall Street and the City? Remember the resulting yuppies employed by the banks to start robbing the world blind in their red braces and Porsche 924s? Remember the piss taking of all of that in 'Loadsamoney'? Try to recall it....it will save you from forever being misinformed.

As for the rest of your post.....Pardon!?

The deregulation you refer to was reigned in by Major but once again unleashed by Blair.

Consumer spending exploded on the high street fueled by the wave of personal borrowing, in a climate of celebrity obsession copied in from the US. Not everything is Thatcher's fault.

However, Butt was shite and no mistaking.

Consumer spending was reigned in by by Major and Lamont but not as a matter of policy. Rather it was the result of the ridiculous decision to join the ERM in a period of acute sterling weakness. As you should remember it all went tits up and we ended up with interest rates of 15.5% and money was sucked out of the economy in mortgage payments and consequently there was less to spend in the High Street. This was why the Labour government handed the responsibility for interest rates to the Bank of England where it remains. The Major government were using interest rates to save their political skins.

Your right in that we can't blame Thatcher for everything. I don't blame her for the wart I used to have on my knee or the fact that Mickey Butt was shite. But I do blame her for Neo-liberal economics which made this country a much more miserable place to live if you were poor and a victim of her prejudices.

Anyway I hope the editors will forgive me for this reply which will be my last on this matter. This is, after all an Everton website but I only mention any of this at all because you raised it.

On the point of England having poor coaching standards the Report agrees with this but also asserts (using only anecdotal evidence) that 18 year old players at the academies are technically as good as the foreign players of the same age. It is during the 18-21 year period that they fall behind (as do non-English players at the English club academies) because in England they get less opportunities to play competitive football simply because the standards of first team football are higher than elsewhere.

Putting B teams into the Football League structure is a suggestion to fix this particular problem. It does have merit, but I hope someone comes up with a better idea as I think it may ruin the lower leagues and give too much power to the bigger clubs (including Everton in this context).

I am not going anywhere near the Thatcher - Nicky Butt debate. I remember her as a one-dimensional right winger with lots of stamina — never a fan favourite or a great team player, but dragged her team through by force of will at times.

Why don't the FA set-up an England team / squad to play in a lower league? If a club side requires a players services they can return to their parent club and be replaced by another youngster. The whole idea of 'B' teams of the clubs smacks of another opportunity for the clubs to make money and has little to do with the improvement of the young players.