As far as a lot of the 'experts' are concerned, it appears the number of foreigners playing in the Premiership is hindering the English National side. The lack of players coming through the ranks is supposed to be because there are too many foreigners at the clubs for young English players to break through the ranks.
I have my doubts though. If a player is good enough, he'll force his way into the team. Look at Steven, Gerard, Ashey Cole, and John Terry as examples. They all play for and came through the ranks of one of the big four. They were good enough to get into the side ahead of the foreign signings, and these are the sort of players that England needs. There's no point having players who haven't been good enough to get through the ranks as they are obviously not as good as their foreign counterparts in the first place. Also, there seems to be an assumption that youth players will make the grade at a big club and move on to the national side or sink without trace. What about players coming through the ranks of a lower division team. Years ago, players like Kevin Keegan came into the top division and into the national side after having started their career in the lower reaches of football (Scunthorpe in Keegan's case, if I remember correctly.) Where are the players who drop down a level to gain experience and work their way back up? It's not the foreigners who are ruining the English team, it's the belief that success has to come straight away and the fact that their aren't as many technically good players in the side as their should be. This is a training problems that stems from when they first play football, and being surrounded by players with far superior technnical abilities (a number of the foreigners) can only be of benefit to them.
i posted an op. earlier, and 2 of the replies missed my point - to date ... magnuis you were one, i asked { a day or so you posted 1 and said .. read properly so i ask again, Please if a person who said and did the things Jesus did today, would he still get the same sad end to his life ???? ----- I Did NOT ASK, if you believed in him or if you watched the t.v. show ..the passion, or even the original film, Just do you think today we would treat him or her the Same ???? are have we progressed enough to be more understanding ????
No, he wouldn't be treated the same. He would, in various ways, be treated both better and worse. Starting with the better, I'd be surprised if he ended up being put to death for his deeds, and he wouldn't have suffered the physical torture that he suffered before his crucifixion. On the other hand, he would never be taken seriously by the majority of people in this day and age. If you look at what happened to David Icke when he said he was the messiah you get an idea of what would happen. He would be ridiculed in the press and they would dig up dirt on him or create it if they couldn't find it and portray him as nothing more than a deluded nut. He would have a small group of followers, as he did in his time, so hopefully that answers your question.
Most people do not watch sky or cable now. The viewing figures clearly show that most people watch ITV or BBC1 still. Between these two channels, they get on average over 60% of the viewing figures at prime time. BBC2 tends to get higher viewing figures than most satelite tv channels do, with channels such as BBC3 doing well in satelite terms with around 1.4 million viewers at peak times. The BBC still, as a whole, get more viewers than any other organisation such as ITV and therefore the licence fee is still being used on the most watched channels on television. I don't think the licence fee would be removed, even if the BBC stopped getting it. The Government would just keep it as a generic tax. Besides, the TV licence fee is safe for the BBC until their charter is up for renewal which means it has a few years left before it gets deciding on again.
