The English Championship is rubbish, watched Bristol City vs Blackburn i only watched 5 minutes and i saw more of the ball in the air than on the ground.

Our lads need to play in the continent more than in the lower leagues of England.

dude correct your sig to 1-4.  Its annoying me/

I agree the Holy Trinity is preferable. Hence, its exports often have more success in the UK than British-developed footballers. It gets further complicated by the notion that young Aussies are best served by going to the Holy Trinity in their mid-teens or so, ideally, because then they don't fall behind the curve. Often enough, they end up in the Holy Trinity at such an age that all the best local footballers their age have already developed and moved on.

The trouble is that it's difficult for Aussies to have a shot in France. Then I guess some prefer the UK for reasons of language and maybe their family live in the UK? We need to be careful to draw distinctions between different football clubs in the UK. Some have far better development pathways than others have. Also, I'm not sure the Championship can be counted as the lower leagues.

All in all, I think it's better that Mass and Jackson are in the Championship, rather than in the A-League. I mean, maybe they'd be better served in the Bundesliga? Probably. But they're on their way up.

The ideal situation is that, in addition to having an outstanding A-League with lots of support and with very high technical standards so we can export to the Big 4 leagues, we also have footballers starring in the Bundesliga, Serie A, La Liga, the Premier League and the Eredivisie. That would be epic. One of the reasons Guus' side was so good was the variety they brought. We'd really benefit from that variety (but with the context of a solid domestic base).

The Championship teams look like chalk and cheese. Newcastle play very good football on the deck. They look very skilful in doing it. Moreover, they are good to watch.

On the other hand Bristol, Villa, Blackburn, Wolves, Ipswich, Norwich, et al, play the  ball in the air a lot. If a player is trying to develop his skills in build up play on the deck, most Championship clubs are not  good club scenarios for developing it. Teams turn the ball over a lot. Possession is not valued.

Just across the English Channel in France all clubs I've seen in the French top division play exquisite football on the deck - far better than most EPL teams.

We must watch different French football, apart from a few teams at the top the quality is horrible, the intensity non existent. It might help our young players with some build up play, but physically it isn't good at all, match pressure and intensity is very low as well.

Genuine question, how many people in the French squad actually play in their league, my guess is not many, they all play abroad because their league really isn't that good for getting a player to the level they want. I'll check this with numbers soon.

So in the euros those players who played one game or more are.

Lloris, Evra, Koscielny, Mangala, Rami, Sagna, Umtiti, Cabaye, Kante, Matuidi, Payet, Pogba, Sissoko, Coman, Gignac, Martial, Giroud and Griezmann.

Only 2 from the french league and one was from PSG.

Out of the other 5 players who didn't play a match 2 from the French league including a 3rd choice goalkeeper being one of the 2. So is the French league really where we want to send our players to develop considering the French team are looking everywhere but their own league.

But how many players in the French team were developed by French clubs first? Close to all, surely.

Well most i'd assume, but they didn't grow enough in that league to actually be good enough for the national team, unlike the other leagues such as Italy, Germany, England etc etc. 

I don't think I disagree with any of this expect for the leaving in their teens part and the Eredivisie part. Its rubbish. The a-league is miles ahead. 

To the defence of the championship it offers a wide variety of opposition to our players. You have quality teams and players like newcastle and then you have absolute long ball playing tripe. So the exposure to various styles is good.

The other thing it exposes our players to which suits anges style is the intensity. There is little to no time on the ball so our players have to be quicker in their decision making as well as their defensive work

Eredivisie is miles ahead of the A League, and is the best developmental league in the world, the systems they have in place there is absolutely amazing. And i am not making this up, Netherlands is rated the best place for youth development, or development in general.

Thats a very silly way to look at it Sam. It's not at all that these players weren't good enough when in france that they didn't make the national team. It's that they were good enough, and that's why the left to play at better clubs. If they stayed in france they would still be more or less the same players. People use the same flawed logic in an Australian concept and its really annoying. 

Exactly the point, in France they'd be more or less the same player, and i don't think the French league is enough to take a player to the next level. Which is why everyone leaves the league. And if we are sending players around in europe, i think there is far better places than France because i believe other leagues are better at developing youth, play better football and have more intensity. I don't believe our players would be prepared if they went to France to play the way we do.

In the 10 or so games I've seen this season teams play a ridiculously fast/intense counterattacking style and so the game is very stretched. In those games there has been a lot MORE time on the ball in attacking areas than you would see in the a-league. Although the defenders and defensive mids seem to be put under more immediate pressure. 

No I just said something completely different to you buddy. Please re-read. I'm saying:


The players are good enough -> therefore -> they go to bigger clubs

You're saying

the players aren't good enough -> they go to bigger club -> they are good enough. 

I think Kante is a perfect recent example, grew to a massive new level leaving the French league.

I think growing to a massive new level = showing you how good he is by playing in a league you watch. 

If he was that good at France he wouldn't have been playing for a 2nd division team was it and would have been in the national team and not only go for 400k. Then we look at Payet, not rated highly in France no chance to get in the national team, moves to West Ham and goes to a new level and is one of France's best players now.

If he was that good in France, he'd have been selected.

No because national managers have the same bias as you. Play for a big club = good player. Those players didn't change that much, (of course players do change year to year), they just proved themselves to you and the national coach by playing for teams they respect. Payet is 29 how much better do you think he got in a year or two? 

Its a silly idea. These are still the same players with the same attributes more or less, just now they have "proven themselves" and are recognized. But the "proving themselves" comes mostly after they are the player they are. It's not development (well some of it is but mainly) its recognition. 

How do you think Leicester won the league? Well one thing they did was pick players that WERE good enough (jamie vardy a good example) but hadn't proven it. (obviously players who were proven at big clubs would be too expensive). 

And this is relevant to the thread because we should always be picking the best players for the national team based on their individual attributes and their form and basically how good they are as a player rather than which club they play for. 

For example people say pick Irvine over Brattan (or wright over just about anyone) because he's playing at a higher level, but that isn't a reason! the same people said pick luongo over mooy because he is at a higher level. Mooy hasn't changed (much) since then but all of a sudden these people now have changed their opinion of him. 

Players change slowly. It's your biases and preconceived ideas that change quickly.

West Ham aren't a bigger club than Marseille or Saint Ettiene. Look at every other good league, most players come from the league they are in, often the top clubs of those leagues but they are developed in that league and stay in it. France is the complete opposite, everyone seemingly goes up another level outside that league and therefore players aren't selected in that league.

Pogba there best player, developed by Ferguson and Juventus both master at youth development. A lot of excellent French players developed under Arsene Wenger rather than their own league.

Griezmann there best striker never played in France, rather Spain like many other French players, Coman one of the best youngsters in the world, played for Juve and Bayern. 

France isn't a good league for development, nor is it a good league thus why everyone leaves.

It depends how one evaluates football. In terms of intensity, the EPL and Championship are the fastest paced leagues in the world. Most of the time athleticism and football conditioning  supersedes technical and tactical ability in those English leagues.

However, at international level and even UEFA Champ league level , the paucity of rhythm changes in English softball, with the heavy weighting on athleticism and football conditioning being paramount over technical quality and tactics, has been a formula for continued English failure at senior international level.

This is particularly overseas in continents other than Europe. These conditions are often hot.  Someone else posted results for England outside Europe over the last 10 years. They were abysmal. They lost to many teams they should've beaten and beat no powerhouses at all.

The French league appears to be physical in terms of heavy, muscular  body on body contact - like England or Oz.

 Nevertheless,  the way teams play in France, with  a greater adherence to angled passing lanes, triangles and diamonds in build ups,  more diagonal angles in preferred formations than the popular  English 4-4-2 with a flat  midfield, replicates Spain, Germany, and what we are trying to do here.

The French players are often very two footed, play with both sides of the body well, keep their head up when ball carrying, receive the ball well with both inside and outside of the foot, have pretty decent attacking and defensive 1v1 skills and have fast handling speed.

I'm surmising most of these players in the French first division have been developed under the French Football Association, Clairefontaine's jurisdiction, unless they've been imported from other countries.

Of the most current staring eleven,  http://www.skysports.com/football/teams/france/squad 10/11 of France's players are French-developed.  

Pogba was taken by Man U as an 18 year old in a dodgy deal, but he was always highly regarded whilst still in the French youth system at his French Club.  Quite likely the foundations were laid there, and would still be great player but the money saw him leave.   Griezeman basically developed in Spain and is the exception

anyone think Ange will give Herd another shot? I mean he is playing again although at a pretty low level.... he was decent when he played for us and we do need a RB.

also most of the top players in Ligue 1 come from French speaking African countries like: Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Benin, Gabon, Morocco, etc.. 

Tommy oar.. i rest my case, the guy has not progressed.

he was good in holland, then went to the championship and actually went backwards

I think our next evolution needs to be playing with deep lying playmakers rather than a DM like Jedinak. We have too much talent in that area of the park to stick with an old school enforcer. I think it would work better with a defensive triangle. 

Imagine how we would dominate the teams in our group with the ball playing ability of:

----------Mooy-----Brattan
----------------Luongo

City Sam

It seems to me that there are some similarities between the French and the Dutch leagues. That may be too simplistic (I acknowledge differences) but for the sake of argument let's go with it for a bit.

I mean both have youth systems which produce some of the most technically gifted and tactically-smart footballers in the world. You're critical of Ligue 1. Do you extend that criticism to the French youth development system? It seems that the nature of footballers who have come from the French youth system, as with the Dutch, suggests it can bring out the best in them. I know Payet mightn't have done so well in French domestic football and, suddenly, at West Ham he does brilliantly. But I mean the point still stands that these footballers still did quite a bit of development in France. Also think of all the African footballers who develop there. Riyad Mahrez? Further back, look at Thierry Henry. Amazing footballer who developed in France. Same with Patrick Vieira.

I'm a big fan of the Eredivisie. But I mean it's not as if it doesn't have its weaknesses. It has very high average number of goals scored, doesn't it? This could suggest that it's defensively not that great, perhaps? The point I'm making is that neither it nor Ligue 1 are perfect. But both seem to have developed many technically outstanding and tactically savvy footballers who then go to the Premier League, the Bundesliga, Serie A or wherever and do brilliantly.

I like the French youth system, but my issues from what i witness is major problems in the top division. I can't think of many players who were able to grow into good international footballers just from playing in the French league. And when i compare that with the other leagues, they are all able to make grow to that level from within their own league.

If an Aussie develops over in France he won't feature in the French youth system, but rather play in a lackluster league. I think the fact Balotelli is dominating the French league highlights my major issues with the league, defensively it is utterly shambolic and there is no intensity at all, every match i see players who look half arsed and i don't want Aussies to get those bad habits.

Eredivisie does provide some defensively strong teams, which is usually PSV and this season Feyenoord, i wouldn't say it is as bad as the French league in regards to defence. I feel our players would be better served going to the Bundesliga, La Liga, Eredivisie to develop them technically and tactically rather than France.

melbourne is our city. doesnt matter which stadium we play at.