Man Utd's success & their English players

starbelgrade

I was watching Arsenal line out against Celtic the other day & saw not one English player amongst their ranks.. it lead me to think that maybe that fact has something to do with their failure to really make an impact on the Premiership in the last few seasons.

So, I thought what about the other two - Chelsea & the Pool.. Ok, the Blues have Cole, Lampard & Terry, the Pool have Gerrard & Carragher... but Utd over a number of seasons have had, in their first team choices..


1. Neville
2. Ferdinand
3. Brown
4. Scholes
5. Carrick
6. Fletcher
7. Rooney


Add to that, Foster, Wellbeck, Owen, Hargreaves, who are either starting out, or constantly injured, is it any real coincidence that a squad with so many English internationals have won the English league not only so many times, but for the last 3 years running?

Yes, they have a brilliant manager & yes, they almost always have exceptional non-English players like Ronaldo & Van Nistleroy who score many match winners for them, but... having a very English back-bone of players, surely makes a difference?

Royale with Cheese

Having a backbone of English players makes a difference in that they're highly unlikely to leave United once they get there, most of them have no interest in playing abroad and with United they've reached as high as it gets in England. Whereas Arsenal for example, are constantly having to rebuild as every decent player they develop eventually gets bought by Barcelona. If Ronaldo was English he'd still be at United.

In terms of ability? No, having English players makes absolutely no difference.

CHD

Fletcher is Scottish. Fail.

starbelgrade

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

Having a backbone of English players makes a difference in that they're highly unlikely to leave United once they get there, most of them have no interest in playing abroad and with United they've reached as high as it gets in England. Whereas Arsenal for example, are constantly having to rebuild as every decent player they develop eventually gets bought by Barcelona. If Ronaldo was English he'd still be at United.

In terms of ability? No, having English players makes absolutely no difference.

Fair points.. hard to try & imagine Ronaldo as being English though!!

What I was trying to get at though, was, having so many England first team players, playing for an English team, in an English league.. is there more of an incentive, more of a drive for them to win in their own country.. does that make a difference?

Take Ronaldo for example - yes, brilliant player, excellent abilities, but what's his drive... money, fame or acceptance from his community?

starbelgrade

CHD wrote: »

Fletcher is Scottish. Fail.

Oops. I just did a "Wenger"... he said something along the lines of Mc Gready being an exceptional Scottish player.

Either way, it's the same difference... the British Isles are so closely connected, the same principles apply - so you could easily throw Giggs & Evans into the equation.

themont85

starbelgrade wrote: »

Oops. I just did a "Wenger"... he said something along the lines of Mc Gready being an exceptional Scottish player.

Either way, it's the same difference... the British Isles are so closely connected, the same principles apply - so you could easily throw Giggs & Evans into the equation.

Don't you ever forget about Long John O'Shea.

starbelgrade

themont85 wrote: »

Don't you ever forget about Long John O'Shea.

I've erased him from my memory.

grenache

starbelgrade wrote: »

Oops. I just did a "Wenger"... he said something along the lines of Mc Gready being an exceptional Scottish player.

Either way, it's the same difference... the British Isles are so closely connected, the same principles apply - so you could easily throw Giggs & Evans into the equation.

Dont even go there....

Killme00

grenache wrote: »

Dont even go there....

Where? Ireland is part of the British isles (a geographical location) and thats a fact.

Karmafaerie

How many English players were part of Wengers Invincibles?

The fact of the matter is that it's the players/manager/executives/chairmen who make the difference, not where they're from.

The Hustler

Karmafaerie wrote: »

How many English players were part of Wengers Invincibles?

The fact of the matter is that it's the players/manager/executives/chairmen who make the difference, not twhere they're from.

Cole, Campbell, Parlour and Keown?

prendy

starbelgrade wrote: »

I was watching Arsenal line out against Celtic the other day & saw not one English player amongst their ranks.. it lead me to think that maybe that fact has something to do with their failure to really make an impact on the Premiership in the last few seasons.

So, I thought what about the other two - Chelsea & the Pool.. Ok, the Blues have Cole, Lampard & Terry, the Pool have Gerrard & Carragher... but Utd over a number of seasons have had, in their first team choices..


1. Neville
2. Ferdinand
3. Brown
4. Scholes
5. Carrick
6. Fletcher
7. Rooney


Add to that, Foster, Wellbeck, Owen, Hargreaves, who are either starting out, or constantly injured, is it any real coincidence that a squad with so many English internationals have won the English league not only so many times, but for the last 3 years running?

Yes, they have a brilliant manager & yes, they almost always have exceptional non-English players like Ronaldo & Van Nistleroy who score many match winners for them, but... having a very English back-bone of players, surely makes a difference?

did they not have a young english lad in for Fabergas?

8-10

Didn't Almunia declare for England?

Boggles

8-10 wrote: »

Didn't Almunia declare for England?

Don't think so, he is entitled to a British passport now as far as I know, which would make him eligible.

greendom

Yeah that would explain Villa's success too :rolleyes:

Karmafaerie

The Hustler wrote: »

Cole, Campbell, Parlour and Keown?

But does that not make the initial point null and void, seeing as Chelsea currently have 4 regular English players.

(Cole/Cole/Terry/Lampard)

and Liverpool have

Gerrard/Carra/Johnson with Martin Kelly technically as second choice right-back.

therecklessone

Having more English players doesn't win you trophies.

Having better players, and effective management of those players, wins you trophies.

Warper

Total nonsense, if a player is good, a player is good irrespective of where he's from. As someone said look at Villa and the millions O'Neill has spent on English players and they are average at best. English players actually cost more than foreign players so if anything foreign players are more value.

Headshot

Whats the story with that home grown rule?

Kev_ps3

Killme00 wrote: »

Where? Ireland is part of the British isles (a geographical location) and thats a fact.

Well Ireland is no longer a British Island so we are therefor not part of the British isles:rolleyes:

anonymous_joe

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Well Ireland is no longer a British Island so we are therefor not part of the British isles:rolleyes:

It's not a political term.

Britain is an island as is Ireland. Britain being the largest of this cluster of islands gave the rest it's name.

Nalz

anonymous_joe wrote: »

It's not a political term.

Britain is an island as is Ireland. Britain being the largest of this cluster of islands gave the rest it's name.

you are correct but none of this matters, especially here on this thread. Christ its like arguing if they're called rice krispie cakes or rice krispie buns

its buns btw

Frisbee

I don't see how having English players would make you more successful than having Brazilian/Spanish players when England have achieved no real success in the past number of decades while the likes of Brazil/Spain have.

anonymous_joe

Trilla wrote: »

you are correct but none of this matters, especially here on this thread. Christ its like arguing if they're called rice krispie cakes or rice krispie buns

its buns btw

Cakes! Fcuk you! :pac:

I do think that the concept of 'needing' English players is bullshít. You don't need English players, you need good players.

8-10

Karmafaerie wrote: »

Martin Kelly technically as second choice right-back.

? I doubt that.

Corben Dallas

1. Neville >>average squad plyer
2. Ferdinand >> England international, quality but makes odd error
3. Brown v average 'squad' player
4. Scholes >> good but never world class, prob last year as Premier league player
5. Carrick >> not lived up to potential, journeyman/squad, often does nothing in matches
6. Fletcher >> v average 'squad' player
7. Rooney >> dont rate, not a stiker, international level but never strings mopre than 4 matches when he scores(Prem league plays better for England), good but hugely overated.

Overall Rooney best of that lot, but mostly average 'squad' players, not the players that top European champions league teams would be making big money plays for any of the above.

Man Utd owe their success for the last 3 titles to Ronaldo, Tevez(recently) , Evra, Vidic etc. Plus more of their success could be attributed to SAF. (dont like but good manager)

+++ its Rice crispie CAKES!!!! ftw

gustavo

Corben Dallas wrote: »

1. Neville >>average squad plyer
2. Ferdinand >> England international, quality but makes odd error
3. Brown v average 'squad' player
4. Scholes >> good but never world class, prob last year as Premier league player
5. Carrick >> not lived up to potential, journeyman/squad, often does nothing in matches
6. Fletcher >> v average 'squad' player
7. Rooney >> dont rate, not a stiker, international level but never strings mopre than 4 matches when he scores(Prem league plays better for England), good but hugely overated.

Overall Rooney best of that lot, but mostly average 'squad' players, not the players that top European champions league teams would be making big money plays for any of the above.

Man Utd owe their success for the last 3 titles to Ronaldo, Tevez(recently) , Evra, Vidic etc. Plus more of their success could be attributed to SAF. (dont like but good manager)

+++ its Rice crispie CAKES!!!! ftw

I would say that the nationality of the players were irrelevant in that case , though your list there underestimates the Englishmens contribution. Look at Inter they've dominated Italy in the last 3 years with a largely non Italian squad

kippy

One of the other reasons Arsenal dont have that many English in their senior squad is probably the relative cost of English players (even relatively young, decent players) versus players from abroad who generally cost less and provide better value.
Arsenal havent had a vast quantity of money to spend and I personally believe there was serious overspending on English players, Spurs seen to be notorious for it, as are other teams as well.
Wenger obviously believed there was better value for his money elsewhere.
That said, he did snap up two of the most promising talents in the English game in Walcott and Wilshere (SP), so if he believes there to be Value there he will sign them. He got stung with a few English players a few years ago/early on in his career. Pennent and "the fox in the box" tm, spring to mind.
There do appear to be less and less English youngsters breaking through however and that is, in my opinion as a result as a loosing up on the rules in relation to playing in European competitions with a certain quota of English players, that could change again however with this new Homegrown policy, although it doesnt appear as tight as the former policies in place.
Uniteds' English players are getting older, they've paid a lot for the ones they've bought in and a lot of their English reserve players have been sold over the years.
Bottom line through if the players were good enough they'd be playing, no matter what nationality.

The Muppet

Turning the question on its head a little United suffered badly in europe in the early to mid ninties by not having enough quality english player. They had to play some very ordinary players from the academy in big european games just to field a team with the requisit number of home grown players as per the rules of the time.

I think that still rankles with the manager and explains why he pays over the odds for English born players. Since the rule changed the nationaly of players has little effect on team performance once communication is not an issue.

SlickRic

Corben Dallas wrote: »

1. Neville >>average squad plyer
2. Ferdinand >> England international, quality but makes odd error
3. Brown v average 'squad' player
4. Scholes >> good but never world class, prob last year as Premier league player
5. Carrick >> not lived up to potential, journeyman/squad, often does nothing in matches
6. Fletcher >> v average 'squad' player
7. Rooney >> dont rate, not a stiker, international level but never strings mopre than 4 matches when he scores(Prem league plays better for England), good but hugely overated.

i have to pick this apart, sorry.

and I'm a pool fan.

let's just say you grossly undervalue pretty much everyone on that list.

ferdinand's description would have been accurate 3/4 years ago. he and vidic, along with ronaldo, have been the primary reason for their success. he's pretty much error-less now.

brown is only average because he's always injured.

scholes was one of the top 2/3 midlfielders for going on 7/8 years in the league until last season.

carrick, though i don't rate him highly, is far more than a journeyman. he does start for the league champions, and has done so since he joined. not top class imo, but no journeyman.

fletcher is now their most important midfielder. not top class imo, but he's certainly proved by now he's not merely average.

rooney is overrated (by the standards of the truly great players he keeps getting mentioned alongside), but he's still utd's most important player offensively.

i think you just need to re-assess your use of the word 'average'.

JP Liz

There isnt alot of great English players currently maybe Gerrard, Terry and Lampard and as stated before they cost way more that foreign players

lordgoat

SlickRic wrote: »

i have to pick this apart, sorry.

and I'm a pool fan.

let's just say you grossly undervalue pretty much everyone on that list.

ferdinand's description would have been accurate 3/4 years ago. he and vidic, along with ronaldo, have been the primary reason for their success. he's pretty much error-less now.

brown is only average because he's always injured.

scholes was one of the top 2/3 midlfielders for going on 7/8 years in the league until last season.

carrick, though i don't rate him highly, is far more than a journeyman. he does start for the league champions, and has done so since he joined. not top class imo, but no journeyman.

fletcher is now their most important midfielder. not top class imo, but he's certainly proved by now he's not merely average.

rooney is overrated (by the standards of the truly great players he keeps getting mentioned alongside), but he's still utd's most important player offensively.

i think you just need to re-assess your use of the word 'average'.

cheers for saving me writing something similar!

Karmafaerie

8-10 wrote: »

? I doubt that.

Ahhm, he's the only right back on our bench.
So who are you suggesting is?!
Kelly has been understudying Johnson since the season started, with Degen third choice.

Peyton Manning

Corben Dallas wrote: »

1. Neville >>average squad plyer
2. Ferdinand >> England international, quality but makes odd error
3. Brown v average 'squad' player
4. Scholes >> good but never world class, prob last year as Premier league player
5. Carrick >> not lived up to potential, journeyman/squad, often does nothing in matches
6. Fletcher >> v average 'squad' player
7. Rooney >> dont rate, not a stiker, international level but never strings mopre than 4 matches when he scores(Prem league plays better for England), good but hugely overated.

Overall Rooney best of that lot, but mostly average 'squad' players, not the players that top European champions league teams would be making big money plays for any of the above.

Man Utd owe their success for the last 3 titles to Ronaldo, Tevez(recently) , Evra, Vidic etc. Plus more of their success could be attributed to SAF. (dont like but good manager)

+++ its Rice crispie CAKES!!!! ftw

What an absolutely ridiculous post. Im gonna follow protocol here and attack the post, not the poster, so that post is complete retardation.

Neville - Past it. Every United fan will agree. But good to have as back up, so I'll let your average squad player evaluation pass.

Ferdinand - Best defender in the world bar none. Has matured into the one of the finest centre backs the world has seen. A few years ago, he was a liability at times, but thats ancient history now given his form for the last 3 years. And dont give me this "only good with Vidic beside him" crap. It takes quality to form that understanding aswell.

Brown - Very average? Youre having a laugh. He's one of the most reliable players in the United squad when he's fit and playing. His crossing has come on immensely, sets up his fair share of goals, can fill in at centre back too without much hesitation. When all our RB's are fit, you can bet your house on Fergie taking Brown as first choice.

Scholes - Never world class? What the f*ck are you on? One of the best midfielders of his generation. One of the finest strikers of a ball, he could thread it through the head of a needle if he wanted to. Great passer, can spray the ball to any side of the field in an instant. Never mastered tackling, but it was rarely his job. Was one of the best players in the league 2 years ago, his form slightly slipped last season only because he's getting old. It happens.

Carrick - One of the most important players in the United first eleven for the last 2 years even after a solid first season. Put it this way - since the lad has come to United, he has not known what it is like to NOT win the Premier League.

Fletcher - Has cemented a first team place on merit, and with good reason. A big match player, always gets stuck in. A few years ago he was certainly a scapegoat, and a lot of the time with good reason, but he has come on leaps and bounds since.

Rooney - United's most important player over the last few years, and I include Ronaldo in that. F*ck your statistics, anyone who watched every United game knows who was more important to us. The fact that you dont rate him means I shouldn't even have replied to your sh*tty little post anyway.

Also, United owe a few important goals and a lot of determination to Tevez, and not a thing else. If he hadn't scored them, someone else probably would have. You have no right to say that we wouldn't have won titles if not for him.

Headshot

fair play Archimedes

you got alot of patience to reply to that in a civil way

CCCP^

Killme00 wrote: »

Where? Ireland is part of the British isles (a geographical location) and thats a fact.

I prefer the term Northwestern Archipelago myself.

SlickRic

Archimedes wrote: »

Also, United owe a few important goals and a lot of determination to Tevez, and not a thing else. If he hadn't scored them, someone else probably would have. You have no right to say that we wouldn't have won titles if not for him.

a bit angry, no?

i agree with the content of what you've written, if not the tone!

apart from this last bit that is...

don't belittle tevez's contributions to utd. you know as well as I do that some of those 'few' goals were damn important. you have no right to say that you would have definitely won those titles without him.

you may well have, but Tevez certainly did his bit.

Mr Alan

the season before last, when Tevez was a starter for Utd, he was at least as important as Rooney imo.

SlickRic

*

Mr Alan wrote: »

the season before last, when Tevez was a starter for Utd, he was at least as important as Rooney imo.

* Slick wants to add this to his above post having forgotten Tevez's role that particular season...

flahavaj

Corben Dallas just got disciplined in a severe way. I actually felt bad for him by the end.

Paul Tergat

SlickRic wrote: »

i have to pick this apart, sorry.

Wp sir!

lordgoat wrote: »

cheers for saving me writing something similar!

This for me too.

Archimedes wrote: »

What an absolutely ridiculous post.

Wp sir!

Mr Alan wrote: »

the season before last, when Tevez was a starter for Utd, he was at least as important as Rooney imo.

Agree with this Alan, the way in which Tevez has gone has left a sour taste in a lot of peoples mouths. I reckon if we hadn't have signed Berbatov Tevez would still be at UTD, would have had another good season like he did in his first year and a lot more UTD fans would have a very different view to him to what they do now. Im saying nothing negative about Tevez as I feel he did well when with us and offered us a lot more than some fans are willing to admit now hes at Citeh.

PHB

lol at the Tevez love in. It's no surprise it comes after he leaves United, because as we all know, it allows one to suggest that United are now weaker because he has left.

But leaving aside that cynical thought which I'd imagine 50% of the forum has had:

Tevez was ****e in the league last year. The year before, he was good but not great. If you want one example of this, look at the CL Final. Rooney vs. Tevez. Rooney in the first half runs the show. Tevez in the first half misses 2 easy chances to finish the game. To suggest he was ever on par with Rooney is imo, laughable.

I think now he'll do well for City, but it no way reflects his time at United. In the first year, he was good, but I welcomed Berbatov's signature. In the second year, he was very poor. A ****ing fantastic signing considering the cost to us, but tahts about it.


In terms of English players, personally I think it no doubt helps United that they have a good solid English core. Why? Because I think they are happier at United than others would be, not least because of it being the pinnacle of their careers, but also just lifestyle language etc. I also think that the common language helps foster team spirit. People speaking different languages is not great for building these bonds imo, and its no surprise that people make friends in football clubs to those who speak the same language.

PHB

Also the British Isles no longer exist.
If you need to refer to the geographic unit, the term which I much perfer is Atlantic Isles. Or perhaps just, the Isles.

The Muppet

Does anyone who thinks Tevez is on a par with Rooney fancy a wager on him scoring the same or more goals as Rooney this season?

Rooney and Tevez are similar in that they give 100% in every game but the similarity ends there, Rooney is by far the better player of the two and that has been my belief for the last two years.

Paul Tergat

PHB wrote: »

lol at the Tevez love in. It's no surprise it comes after he leaves United, because as we all know, it allows one to suggest that United are now weaker because he has left.

But leaving aside that cynical thought which I'd imagine 50% of the forum has had:

Tevez was ****e in the league last year. The year before, he was good but not great. If you want one example of this, look at the CL Final. Rooney vs. Tevez. Rooney in the first half runs the show. Tevez in the first half misses 2 easy chances to finish the game. To suggest he was ever on par with Rooney is imo, laughable.

I think now he'll do well for City, but it no way reflects his time at United. In the first year, he was good, but I welcomed Berbatov's signature. In the second year, he was very poor. A ****ing fantastic signing considering the cost to us, but tahts about it.

I am not going to being a Tevez debate but as much as the other teams fans now are hyping him up the way that Utd fans have reacted towards him is a little embarrassing. He was ****e in the league as he wasn't been given a good run of games. It annoys me when people count up minutes played/total number of appearances but they need to be in context. I think he would have continued to improve with us but we brought in Berba and so he was no longer first choice.

And im not saying he's on a par with Rooney. I think Rooney is definitely a better player but im just annoyed at UTD fans and in particular a few on here who have taken a tevez is ****e/wasnt good enough stance.

PHB wrote: »

In terms of English players, personally I think it no doubt helps United that they have a good solid English core. Why? Because I think they are happier at United than others would be, not least because of it being the pinnacle of their careers, but also just lifestyle language etc. I also think that the common language helps foster team spirit. People speaking different languages is not great for building these bonds imo, and its no surprise that people make friends in football clubs to those who speak the same language.

I love having an English core to our side. I think while Fergie is there this will always be the case, particularly players coming through our system.

starbelgrade

PHB wrote: »

Also the British Isles no longer exist.
If you need to refer to the geographic unit, the term which I much perfer is Atlantic Isles. Or perhaps just, the Isles.

And Pluto is no longer a planet. Apples and pears. You KNOW what I mean. This is a football discussion, not a political one.

Ferguson (in)famously once said that he'd never manage the English team, because he sees them as "the mortal enemy", yet he's histotically one of the most succesful managers of an English team ever.

If we're gonna make it political, let's hang him, or all the Irish players who have played in the UK, or all the Brits who played for Ireland.

Like I said, apples & pears.

greendom

PHB wrote: »

Also the British Isles no longer exist.
If you need to refer to the geographic unit, the term which I much perfer is Atlantic Isles. Or perhaps just, the Isles.

Like it or not the geographical term is the British Isles.

You might like to prefer the Atlantic Isles or the Isles but no one else would have a clue to what you were talking about

PHB

It's only the British Isles because you accept it as such. If everyone started calling it the Atlantic Isles, then that's what it would be called. These things aren't set in stone.

You know how I know this? The idea of Britishness was only really created in the 15th century. Before that, the naming was kinda weak and not very consistant. It got really established then.

Now though we're seeing a move away from it. We see British and Irish Isles in quite a few childrens text books. I prefer Atlantic Isles personally, but you can't get everything your way.

You gotta keep fighting the good fight

flahavaj

PHB wrote: »

It's only the British Isles because you accept it as such. If everyone started calling it the Atlantic Isles, then that's what it would be called. These things aren't set in stone.

You know how I know this? The idea of Britishness was only really created in the 15th century. Before that, the naming was kinda weak and not very consistant. It got really established then.

Now though we're seeing a move away from it. We see British and Irish Isles in quite a few childrens text books. I prefer Atlantic Isles personally, but you can't get everything your way.

You gotta keep fighting the good fight

Maith an fear.

greendom

PHB wrote: »

. I prefer Atlantic Isles personally, but you can't get everything your way.

You gotta keep fighting the good fight

Good luck with that

starbelgrade

PHB wrote: »

It's only the British Isles because you accept it as such. If everyone started calling it the Atlantic Isles, then that's what it would be called. These things aren't set in stone.

You know how I know this? The idea of Britishness was only really created in the 15th century. Before that, the naming was kinda weak and not very consistant. It got really established then.

Now though we're seeing a move away from it. We see British and Irish Isles in quite a few childrens text books. I prefer Atlantic Isles personally, but you can't get everything your way.

You gotta keep fighting the good fight

Very interesting, bu what the hell has this got to do with football?