Not making any 'Rash' decisions

It is almost a year to the day since a complete unknown took to Rochdale's Spotland pitch under the floodlights for a fleeting 20 minute cameo appearance for Manchester United in the Lancashire Senior Cup. For most youth players at Manchester United they will be embarking on a journey along a conveyor belt on their way to obscurity - just another youngster who was never going to make the cut into the prestigious senior squad. The man in question, however, was Marcus Rashford. The same man who scored an impressive hat-trick in this week's 6-1 thumping of Norway's U21s,

This emphatic scoreline comes only days after England's senior squad yet again struggled to break down a relatively poor Slovakian side, despite a man advantage, purely down to a severe lack of attacking threat and creative impetus - two ingredients that clearly Rashford has in abundance. Which makes you question why the young man has been omitted from both Jose Mourinho's and Sam Allardyce's respective set-ups.

Rashford completes his hat-trick vs Norway, and has now scored on both England and England U21 debuts

Roy Hodgson took a chance on him during Euro 2016, and if anything he looked our most substantial attacking threat - but I suppose that isn't saying much. Now, regardless of his success in the early stages of his career and being an exciting prospect with clear goalscoring prowess and attacking threat I firmly believe his feet should be firmly held on the ground for the time being.

The man who has the most significant effect on which path Rashford finds himself on in the coming years, and who could to some extent make or break his whole career is Jose Mourinho. Clearly, stocks in Rashford have spiralled even higher in the aftermath of Tuesday's superb hat-trick, and gives Mourinho (and Allardyce for that matter) even more to think about - if he wasn't in their minds he's certainly at the forefront of it now. However, without consistent minutes at Manchester United surely a position in England squads are untenable for Rashford especially with the likes of players on the cusp of England call ups such as Jermaine Defoe making a strong start to the domestic season. This is where Mourinho has a decision to make.
Despite an illustrious managerial career one potential downfall the media have identified is his lack of youth development, the complete opposite of Sir Alex Ferguson who guided the 'Class of '92' to cement themselves as legends at Old Trafford, even Louis Van Gaal offered many, Rashford included, the opportunity to break into the senior team.

Despite an extraordinary record, Mourinho has never relished youth development

As one of the most celebrated managers of all time, even if he is a controversial character, Mourinho must surely recognise he has a player on his hands, but as we've seen at Chelsea in the past the likes of Kevin De Bruyne and Romelu Lukaku have simply been discarded by him in the past, and since gone on to do bigger and better things. In addition, only fourteen of the youth players Mourinho has claimed to developed have made more the five appearances under him.
Clearly Rashford should be handled with care if his potential is to shine through, he needs game time at the highest level for sure, however, as good as he is for an 18 year old opportunities are going to be few and far between with Rooney - club captain, and Ibrahimovic a major marquee signing this transfer window aren't going to be easy to overtake in the pecking order. However, what they do offer Rashford is the opportunity to learn vital lessons from the duo current leading the line for the red half of Manchester.
Regardless of whether he gives Rashford consistent minutes or not, Mourinho is in a win-win situation, because Rashford has so much time to mature as a player, and already oozes talent. The responsibility is on the older players to justify their inclusion ahead of him. When the opportunities do come around as a youngster under no pressure, he makes the most of them, illustrated by his injury time winner against Hull.
The same can be said about Sam Allardyce on the international scene. Yes, Gareth Southgate may be under scrutiny for not thrusting Rashford upon Allardyce - of course Southgate has identified Rashford's incredible ability in front of goal - it's what he's done tirelessly for the past few years with the likes Sterling, Kane, and Alli to name a couple that have moved on to bigger and better things after sensible nurturing. Even Allardyce himself has been under fire for not taking a risk with Rashford and freshening the national team up, but this surely would have been to much of a risk for his first game in charge. Regardless of if Rashford is in Allardyce's current plans or not, no harm has been done omitting him from the squad, clearly his game is developing nicely at U21 level, and making Rashford a regular fixture in the senior squad too early could see him lose momentum in his development as a world class player - see Theo Walcott and Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain as examples of this. After all Rashford will still only be 20 years old when Russia 2018 comes around.
Above everything though, no matter what the future holds for this talented young man, perspective is the best way of concluding this piece. He's made something of his career - from an insignificant 20 minutes against Rochdale a year ago, he now has Guardiola's Manchester City in his sights. Not bad for an 18 year old I suppose!


Follow me on Twitter: @DLster

How do you solve a problem like the England National Team?

Around 48 hours ago I was sat in my local pub filled with anticipation. This could be our year, we have the ability to really do something in this tournament, and show our class to the rest of Europe. Today, I sit here sun burnt (cheers Wimbledon), but more importantly bemused and frustrated. England had embarrassed themselves again. England had crashed out of the Euros losing 2-1 to Iceland, in what could arguably be described as the most demoralising defeat in recent Three Lions history.

Iceland celebration as their Euro fairy-tale continues

Unfortunately, as an Englishman this result wasn't completely unexpected, the sense of deja vu loomed large, and the dismal atmosphere of blame and loathing following the traditional fallout of an international tournament had well and truly returned.

Previously, I've eluded to this being the 'golden generation' of English football, and despite the major upset in France I stand by my comment. Without a doubt, on paper the quality of player is there, the likes of Dele Alli, Eric Dier and Marcus Rashford all have great potential and are slowly fulfilling it. The squad is also complimented by experienced veterans such as Wayne Rooney (albeit against most fans' wishes), alongside a consistently free scoring strike force and a relatively strong back line which in itself has attacking qualities too, England looked a force to be reckoned with. However, as it conspired over the past couple of weeks, after witnessing four relatively woeful performances, what has become apparent is that the team lacks the correct mental attitude to become a force on the international scene. It's all well and good battering minnows in qualification, if this isn't reflected in competitive matches it means nothing. Therefore, although the manager alone shouldn't be to blame, I believe that the decision chosen by Roy Hodgson to resign was the correct one, and realistically his only option after such an awful tournament.

Pundits and fans alike can argue until they're blue in the face; 'the players aren't good enough', 'the system is flawed', 'blame the Premier League' - some arguments more valid than others. But as it stands, we are currently without a manager, and this issue needs to solved before a real post-mortem as to what went wrong in France can really take place, and if Greg Dyke's projection of Qatar 2022 victory has any hope.

The question is, who is the right man for this arguably impossible job?

The answer? One who can erase the negative mentalities players have coming into tournaments caused by the culture of fear created by England fans. It's nonsense that if you believe we didn't have the ability to beat Iceland, because clearly we did. After all, we beat the Germans only weeks prior. However, what was clear wass that Hodgson hadn't learnt from and reformed the team based on mistakes made in the past - progress hadn't be made, and the negative mentality of the past prevailed, rather than players pushing on for the required equalising goal.

Whilst the job is a massive coup for any potential manager, recruitment is one hell of a minefield, some shortlisted names (a pretty long list at the moment) such as Harry Redknapp have already ruled themselves out - identifying the job as somewhat untenable. Personally, I believe the manager should be British, have Premier League or international experience and prior understanding of how the FA works (and preferably not be Gary Neville after his self destruct at Valencia).

A man who ticks all those boxes, and is marked up as a strong favourite by bookmakers is Gareth Southgate. Southgate could potentially be seen as the obvious replacement for the England management role. He has experience in the England set-up as both a player (57 caps) and has also been in charge of the next generation of England players at Under 21 level. Southgate has mentored several players and brought out their potential, and are now frequent fixtures in the senior squad - Raheem Sterling and Harry Kane to name a few. He has also guided the Under 21 team to the Toulon tournament crown in 2016, however, a year prior his team flopped at the European championships, finishing bottom of the group - however, what he does advocate is giving youth a chance, a possible opportunity to find fresh, exciting talent.

Gareth Southgate. Bookies favourite. But is he the right man for the job?

As a player he more than anyone will understand the emotional slumber the current cohort of players are in - as he missed the decisive penalty against Germany at Euro '96, and therefore could be a great replacement for Hodgson - a man who could rid England of this losing mentality. On the contrary, despite knowing the England 'formula', from recent events it is clear that this 'formula' is clearly a losing one. These doubts are also reinforced by the fact the last club job that Southgate had was at Middlesbrough - one that led to a relegation and a sacking.

A second suggestion would be Sam Allardyce. Personally, I don't understand why the FA have a fixation with keeping the traditional FA formula alive, because it clearly isn't working. Or for that matter, why foreign coaches such have been a common appointment in past times e.g. Capello and Ericsson (both failed). Sam Allardyce has been in the business for a long time. He is a manager that has a reputation for knowing what he needs to do in order to create a winning team, and has a formula that sees failing teams (England?), punch above their weight, much like at Sunderland this season. His managerial record is also untarnished with no relegations to his name. Although the style of football that he drills into his teams may be portrayed as unfashionable and boring (just ask West Ham fans), it does the job, and he gets results - at the end of the day players want to play for him, and they must have a good mentality to do so. Personally, as an England fan, I would just like a manager who gives the squad a prolonged period of stability, followed by progress and results at major tournaments, and the way in which we play is a secondary thought. However, as a character, I'm not sure how suited he would be in the role - as some of his comments may rub certain people in the FA up the wrong way.

My third and final pick, is up and coming coach Eddie Howe. Yes, he is young. Yes, his Bournemouth team isn't exactly teeming with big international characters. And yes, one solid if unspectacular year in the Premier League doesn't exactly set the world alight. However, the man would bring something different to the England set up, a different footballing system from what we are used to, and one who has an understanding of how to salvage a bad situation into a winning team - guiding Bournemouth on minus point in League 2 to the Premier League, making him a hot prospect in the managerial game.

However, it is unlikely the FA will take a risk and throw the dice. And this could be the root cause of all English footballs' problems. The FA are too fixed in their ways to make a significant change, and I have absolutely no doubt that until a major revamping does occur England will continue to be a failing footballing nation. The talent is there. Rational thinking seems to be elsewhere.


Follow me on Twitter @DLster

B teams: The Death of lower league football?

Back in 2014 Greg Dyke - FA Chairman announced a revolutionary plan to restructure English league football as we know it today. His idea was to introduce B teams to the football league pyramid and add a third division to cater for these new teams in the future - seeing the football league system go from 92 teams to 100, across five divisions. Most rational thinking FA members and clubs responded to it extremely negatively, giving his idea the proverbial two fingers, and Dyke's vision was rightly quashed. However, it seems in recent weeks this idea of B teams playing on same platform as League 1 and 2 teams has resurfaced.
To most league fans with any sort of understanding of the historical standing of the league system they would identify giving B teams the opportunity to compete alongside league sides could completely damage the integrity of the footballing pyramid in the future. However, money talks, and the recent news that the Premier League have paid £1 million for so called B teams to participate in the English League Trophy from next season is disappointing.

Barnsley lift the English League Trophy

On the surface, this news could be celebrated, the system hasn't been compromised, it is merely giving youth players the opportunity to play in a competitive cup competition, with the chance of silverware and a final at Wembley to play for. However, if you venture past the facade, this has the potential to just be the beginning - a Trojan Horse - a way of infiltrating the Football League. A way of identifying how successful a new system with B teams could be. Personally, this just doesn't sit right with me.
Now, the first clear issue with B teams from the Premier League being incorporated into this tournament, the clue being in the name, is that it's the football league trophy, not some sort of poor excuse of a Premier League reserves cup. As a supporter of a football league club, I do understand that the ELT is by far a priority for football league managers, with low prize money, the inconvenience of extra fixtures and sometimes extra travel - it's relative meaninglessness reflected by low attendances and the fielding of weakened sides, with teams only really starting to give any attention to it with the coup of a Wembley final on the horizon. If anything the trivial nature of the ELT will only become even less desirable for league clubs, with the already wavering competitiveness of the competition becoming even less so. On top an already relatively congested fixture list will be lengthened by at least three games, with the cost of holding these games likely to outweigh the benefits to clubs with low budgets. It could be argued that costs will be covered by increased attendances it matches featuring these B teams, with the supposed glamour of playing Premier League names, but in all honesty if Manchester City B team turns up, you'd be very unlikely to be treated to the likes of Aguero and co. Football league fans dream of playing the likes of Premier League goliaths, not their youngsters - as promising as they may be.
Another objection of this plan, as insignificant as it may seem, is the unpredictability of the plans,and the possibility that they could escalate into Dyke's original five tier division system plan. If the proposed plan of five divisions and 100 clubs got the go ahead, although B teams could progress passed division 3, theoretically, this is fair, however, the idea alone challenges the integrity of the league system and without a shadow of a doubt a bottleneck of quality B team sides would occur. This would put the concept of promotion and relegation as we know it in jeopardy. Not only that, it would mean that league positions that could feasibly be filled by non-league teams with great potential on the cusp of the football league, will instead be taken by B teams with no history, no real opportunity for league progression, and is purely just another cog in the machine of the ever expanding corporate empire the Premier League is becoming.
As a football fan, I do understand that the idea of introducing B teams does have its merits as well. It would give upcoming talent a platform to develop their skills up against well drilled, disciplined professionals that are normally playing to a higher standard than that of U21 level players, with the possibility of unearthing the next English superstar.
Although it is clear that B teams can be successful - just look at Spain and Germany for proof of this, with the likes of Puyol, Xavi and Iniesta all thriving at FC Barcelona B, before becoming cult heroes for the senior squad. It is also clear that a strong youth set up translates well into future first team performance both domestically, in Europe and also on international stage. However, this alone doesn't mean that B teams are the answer.

Carles Puyol and Xavi playing for FC Barcelona B in 1998

In order to quell the dangers of the possible death of today's lower league football a restructuring at youth level is required, not at senior level as Greg Dyke very naively believes. In order to harvest talent and keep it in the England, a shake up of both the youth league system, but at the same time also the way loans from Premier League clubs work is necessary. For example, if the youth Premier League was given a face lift, with more consistency in fixtures and played at bigger venues, rather than unkempt training grounds, it would appeal to more players and fans alike, this in turn would give young players the opportunity to get a taste of the professional game. This alone could possibly encourage more young players to stay in England, rather than make a name for themselves elsewhere. Making a conscious effort to overthrow the loan system could also make an impact. Chelsea currently have 8 players under the age of 21 out on loan to teams outside of the UK, with many others recently being recalled from Dutch club Vitesse - an evident feeder club for Chelsea. Now, if the youth system in England was improved, these players (most without a senior Chelsea appearance), would without a doubt have the opportunity to play week in, week out. Instead, many of them are rotting away on loan and have very little chance of breaking into the Chelsea first team - if they were of the required calibre they'd be there already. Playing in England however, would mean they would understand the pace and style of play, be much more closely monitored, and potentially increase the likelihood of breaking into the senior setup.
So overall, B teams are not the answer, although they can be a great platform for new homegrown talent, in the long run they will do more harm than good. Instead investment is required in youth league development.
It needs to be remembered the Premier League isn't the be all and end all in English football.