 |
| How will Belgium fare in the inaugral Expatriate Cup? |
For a long time I've felt as though the cries of 'There are too many foreigners in the Premier League and they're stunting the development of English players' has had a strong whiff of xenophobic jingoism about it.
That's not to say that I don't agree with the concept, merely that it has been oversimplified and possibly overstated.
To simply lump all foreign players in the same basket labelled 'problem' lacks nuance, and similarly, to say their presence adversely affects all English players is unhelpfully reductive.
What exactly are we talking about when we say there are too many foreigners in the Premier League? Are all foreigners the same or are some better (more acceptable) than others? Does it matter what country the foreigners come from? Are all positions on the field affected equally? And if they're not, what does that tell us about the 'market' for players, both foreign and domestic? It is now commonly accepted that English players are 'overpriced' in the Premier League economy, but what does that tell us about the value of those English players that actually make it into their club side on a regular basis?
No doubt I could have (and probably should have) got Opta to provide me with a whole lot of advanced statistics and pretty graphics that would give definitive answers to most of these questions, but where's the fun in that?
Instead, I'm advocating that we scrap pre-season tours and instead replace it with a biennial (in non-World Cup or European Championship years) Expatriate Cup, in which the foreign players in the Premier League would band together by country and face off against one another for our entertainment.
(Just so we're clear at this point, I appreciate that this can never actually happen given the reluctance of clubs to release their players for even genuine internationals, the amount of
So, what would be the point of this Expatriate League?
1. It would give us a snapshot of which country (or countries) were impacting the Premier League at any given time. In 1992/93 the country (outside of Britain and Ireland) providing the greatest number of footballers to the Premier League was Norway with eight. Spain and France gave us one player each, and Italy and Belgium provided none. The Expatriate Cup would not have worked in 1992/93.
By 1998/99 there were 26 French players (the most from a country outside of the UK and Ireland, a trend that has continued), 22 from Norway and 17 from Italy. Italian strikers and Norwegian everything was in vogue. This season there are 35 French players, 32 from Spain, 13 from Belgium, eight from Italy and four from Norway.
2. It would help us identify trends in the type of foreign player in the Premier League. Whilst there are a number of factors at play when clubs choose to buy foreign, don't discount the idea of certain countries simply being fashionable and the reliance on stereotypes. As alluded to above, for a time Italian strikers were all the rage. Now, it's Spanish midfielders. I'll go into this more shortly.
3. It would help us to identify where the FA (and whoever else we choose to hold responsible) were doing well and were they were doing poorly in providing English talent. The clubs argue that they buy foreign because they can get better quality for lower price. In this sense, it is a question of supply and demand. When domestic supply is low, then you are faced with a choice of paying a premium or shopping in a market where supply is higher.
England need to accept that, at least they way they currently develop talent, their players fall victim to stereotype. This country produces a disproportionately high number of physical centre-halves and good old-fashioned English centre forwards. Assuming that clubs still wish to employ such players (the demand side - and while this is debatable, the likes of Sam Allardyce continue to demonstrate that such demand does still exist) they will be relatively cheap because the supply is relatively high, hence less need to look overseas.
It would also help to demonstrate those English players who are truly world-class. If you are an English player that has managed to rise to the top despite the presence of a large number of cheaper high-quality foreign imports then you clearly have something that is not easily replicated. I'll revisit this idea at the end of this column.
4. Anything would be better than watching Chelsea take on the Indonesia All-Stars on a waterlogged pitch in Jakarta.
So what would it look like?
Without further ado, here's what the 2013 Expatriate Cup would look like:
The six teams able to field a full team plus subs would be France, Spain, Holland, Brazil, Belgium and a combined Scandinavian team.
The three other teams that came closest to being able to field a side were Argentina, Germany (who tried to rope in Poland before realising that all three Polish players in the Premier League are goalkeepers and didn't help them out much in any case), and a combined African team (who fell victim to the stereotyping that goes on with African players and could only call upon a series of defensive midfielders and physically-imposing centre forwards with not a goalkeeper or a wing-back anywhere in sight).
Each of the six teams involved selected a manager (who also had to be a foreigner at a Premier League club, although not necessarily from the country they are coaching), who then chose their squad.
France had the largest pool of players to draw upon and selected none-other-than Arsenal's Arsene Wenger to manage them (narrowly edging out Newcastle's Alain Pardieu for the role). Wenger selected a team comprising almost exclusively of Arsenal players, former Arsenal players and Arsenal targets. The biggest problems he encountered was the lack of a reserve goalkeeper for Tottenham's Hugo Lloris and who should start at left-back. Here's how the squad looked:
FRANCE: H. Lloris; B. Sagna, P. Evra (c), L. Koscielny, M. Sakho; Y. Cabaye, M. Sissoko, M. Flamini; H. Ben Arfa, S. Nasri, O. Giroud. Bench: S. Distin, G. Clichy, E. Capoue, M. Amalfitano, L. Remy.
Spain called upon the canny Roberto Martinez to manage them and as poor Roberto quickly found out the Spanish have a surplus of midfielders (tiki-taka innit) and (more surprising) left-backs but almost no centre-backs. Martinez also had to make the somewhat difficult call to omit Fernando Torres in favour of Roberto Soldado and Alvaro Negredo up top on the basis that the latter two can look themselves in the mirror in the morning without falling into a paralysing episode of self-doubt and rocking back and forward in the foetal position in the corner of the room.
SPAIN: D. De Gea; C. Azpilicueta, L. Enrique, Chico Flores, C. Cuellar; S. Cazorla, J. Mata, D. Silva; J. Navas, Michu, R. Soldado (c). Bench: Adrian, J. Amat, J. Garcia, M. Arteta, A. Negredo.
Holland turned to Martin Jol to run their side and the Fulham boss had to contend with a challenging lack of wide-men, which eventually resulted in him playing Manchester United's Alex Buttner as a left winger. Jol also had a surplus of goalkeepers (in a possible hangover from the thinking that went 'That Edwin van der Sar's quite good, perhaps we should get ourselves one of those) and carried both Tim Krul and Martin Stekelenburg on the bench.
HOLLAND: M. Vorm; D. Tiendalli, E. Pieters, J. Heitinga, R. Vlaaar; J. De Guzman, V. Anita, M. van Ginkel; R. van Wolfswinkel, A. Buttner, R. van Persie (c). Bench: T. Krul, M. Stekelenburg, L. Fer, L. Bacuna, J. Hooiveld.
Jose Mourinho campaigned to be coach of a strong looking Belgian side only for Kevin De Bruyne and Romelu Lukaku to veto the move and Moussa Dembele and Jan Vertonghen to convince everyone that Andre Villas-Boas was a better option. The Spurs boss asked Vertonghen and Nacer Chadli to play slightly out of position at right and left-back, but otherwise had the luxury of a well-rounded squad that could afford to bring Lukaku off a admittedly somewhat short bench. AVB also put an end to the row over Adnan Januzaj's international eligibility by calling him up for Belgium here.
BELGIUM: S. Mignolet; J. Vertonghen, N. Chadli, T. Vermaelen, V. Kompany(c); M. Fellaini, K. De Bruyne, M. Dembele; K. Mirallas, E. Hazard, C. Benteke. Bench: R. Lamah, A. Januzaj, R. Lukaku.
Mourinho immediately sought revenge for Belgium's snub by offering his services to Brazil, who gladly accepted the offer of the Portugese-speaking boss. But the Brazil side was nowhere near as well-equipped as Belgium, facing an excess of midfielders, no strikers, few central defenders and poor goalkeeping options. Here's what the Special One cobbled together, relying heavily on his Chelsea squad:
BRAZIL: H. Gomes; Rafael, Fabio, D. Luiz(c), Sandro; Paulinho, Ramires, Fernandinho; P. Coutinho, Willian, Oscar. Bench: Lucas Leiva, Anderson, Guly Prado.
Finally, the charismatic Michael Laudrup got the Scandinavian nations to put aside the rivalries and band together for a shot at the Expatriate Cup. Possibly because they offer a cheaper version of the good old-fashioned English centre-forward, Scandinavia were quite top heavy although without any wide-players and they also lacked anyone to play at right back, despite an abundance of centre backs, forcing Martin Olsson to switch wings for the tournament.
SCANDINAVIA: A. Lindegaard; M. Olsson, J. Riise, B. Hangeland, D. Agger(c); S. Larsson, A Tettey, C. Eriksen, J. Guidetti, A. Kacaniklic, N. Bendtner. Bench: T. Sorensen, J. Olsson, J. Okore, N. Helenius, A. Cornelius.
How would it play out?
With Spain and France given a bye to the semi-finals Holland were drawn against Belgium and Scandinavia against Brazil.In the first game Belgium ran riot as Robin van Persie grew increasingly frustrated with his lack of service. Goals from Kevin Mirallas, Christian Benteke and a penalty from Eden Hazard after Ron Vlaar had crudely taken out the winger were enough to see Belgium advance 3-0.
In the other match Brazil dominated but Scandinavia took a lead through Christian Eriksen following a long-ball knocked down by Nicklas Bendtner. However, Laudrup's team were overrun in midfield and eventually went down 2-1 courtesy of goals from Ramires and Oscar.
In the semi-finals Spain were drawn against Brazil while France faced Belguim.
Spain ended up beating Brazil comfortably with the midfields somewhat cancelling each other out but Brazil's lack of a cutting edge failing to cause Spain's weak defence any problems. At the other end Silva and Navas caused problems all day and laid on goals for Michu, Soldado and Negredo (off the bench late) to see Spain advance to the final with a 3-0 victory.
Belgium and France was a much closer affair with Arsene Wenger's side taking the lead through Olivier Giroud just before half-time thanks to a great through-ball from Yohan Cabaye. But with time running out in the second-half Vincent Kompany got away from Laurent Koscielny to head an equaliser from a corner and send the game to extra time. Andre Villas-Boas brought on Romelu Lukaku for Christian Benteke and it was Lukaku who grabbed the winner half-way through the added period as Belgium triumphed 2-1.
That saw Belgium take on Spain in the final where they ended up running out fairly comfortably winners on the day. Spain dominated possession and took the lead through Roberto Soldado, but Belgium went on the attack and the Spanish defenders had no answer for Hazard, Mirallas and Benteke. Benteke grabbed a brace and Hazard added the decisive goal late as Spain pushed for an equaliser as the game finished 3-1.
So there we have it, an Andre Villas-Boas-led Belgium take out the inaugural Expatriate Cup triumphing over Spain in the final much to the chagrin of Jose Mourinho, who brings Lukaku back to Chelsea after his loan to Everton but spitefully refuses to play him, temporarily turning him into this generation's Winston Bogarde before the Belgian left on a free-transfer for Barcelona where he went on to win back-to-back Champions Leagues.
So, what did we learn?
1. Belgium and Spain are currently the strongest foreign presences in the Premier League (although we probably knew that already).2. France provide a large quantity of players to the Premier League and many are very good but presently few are of the absolute highest quality.
3. Dutch goalkeepers, Scandinavian centre-forwards and Brazilian and Spanish midfielders are in vogue. (Also Polish goalkeepers and African defensive-midfielders and strikers).
4. Spanish defenders, Dutch wingers and Brazilian strikers are not in fashion. The days of Italian strikers being a must-have are long gone.
5. Don't cross Jose Mourinho.
I find Spain the most fascinating example. The cult of tiki-taka (coupled with a tanking Spanish economy and a surplus of high-quality players in the position) means that everyone wants (and can probably afford) a Spanish midfielder. The Spanish style of play doesn't really mesh with the good old-fashioned English centre forward though, so since they're also relatively cheap we should probably also bring over some Spanish strikers who know how to play with Spanish midfielders and bang in the goals, or so the thinking appears to go.
The pattern clearly doesn't extend to Spanish centre-backs however. For the most part, a British centre-back (or their knock-off Scandinavian equivalent) will probably do just fine.
What does this mean for English players?
 |
| Jack Wilshere is a scarce commodity for England |
I'm sure there's a much more economically refined way of making this argument, and no doubt someone is working on it as we speak, but this is what I think this means for English players in the Premier League:
You're best chance of making it in England at the moment remains as a centre-back or a good old-fashioned English centre-forward. With all due respect to John Terry, Phil Jagielka, Andy Carroll and Rickie Lambert, you played the odds right and came out on top.
There's enough of these type of players around that it is not necessary to turn to foreign imports (although if we can find similar players cheaply in Scandinavia for example, then of course we will go after them).
However, some of these players are likely to be amongst the best in their position (at least for their style) world-wide because few other countries specialise in producing them. These are areas in which England's supply is high (although unlike other countries England fails to 'export' its surplus - think Spain with Xavi and Iniesta staying in Spain but David Silva, Juan Mata and Santi Cazorla exported to England).
The inverse also applies however. With high-quality Spanish midfielders flooding the Premier League market, it says all the more about British players who can hold their own playing a similar style. The player that comes to mind is Jack Wilshere. He may no surpass Silva, Mata and Cazorla but he can certainly hold his own with those players. And for an Englishman, that makes him very, very scarce and very, very valuable.
The FA are therefore faced with choice: Play to England's traditional strengths and bore everyone half to death with outdated but potentially successful long-ball tactics that allow the good old-fashioned English centre forward to thrive (Sam Allardyce for England with Tony Pulis as his assistant?) or work harder to create greater supply of domestic players in the areas where foreigners are currently dominating.
I accept that this is something that cannont be achieved overnight, and that the FA are almost certainly already aware of. The emergence of players like Wilshere and Ross Barkley offers hope.
But let's not resort to cries of 'foreigners are ruining our game' without taking a closer look at what their presence really means and what we can learn from it.
