The rise of Daniel Sturridge has been an important one for both England and Chelsea fans. Chelsea are in desperate need of a player to revitalise their aging attack and England are in desperate need of competition for places up front. However, there is more significance to Sturridge’s development than just his on-field performances for club and country.
There have always been clubs, like Arsenal are now, who have championed home grown talent over the spending of vast sums of money on foreign players. However it is something that clubs with mega-rich owners such as Chelsea and Man City have seemed largely uninterested in. However, in Daniel Sturridge we have seen a product of the Manchester City academy sold, regrettably for City, to Chelsea on the cheap. And come the end of January when Drogba and Kalou go to the African Cup of nations, Sturridge could be Chelsea’s most important striker.
It was interesting to hear Mancini say before City’s game against Chelsea that he wished they still had Sturridge:
“It was strange because Sturridge was developed in Manchester and someone let him go. For sure he was one of the best young players at City. It was not difficult to see he was a good player. If Sturridge was here today, he’d be in the first team. I’ve watched him many times and know him well.”
This is frank admission from the Italian manager and was hugely refreshing to hear from somebody who is involved with the world’s most extravagant team. But perhaps Mancini wouldn’t appreciate the Chelsea striker as much if he was still at City. I think it took Sturridge leaving for Mancini to remember that you don’t always have to buy the most expensive players to get quality. Sure, he uses Hart and Richards, but they were already established before Mancini got there.
It is also an important lesson for Chelsea who seem incapable of producing their own talent (fine, quote Josh McEachran. But does he ever play?). Sturridge has outscored both Drogba and Torres this season. As much as for anyone, it is important that the owners of both clubs realise how good Sturridge could be. Despite being willing to spend huge sums of money, I’m sure that both owners would rather develop cheap home-grown talent if they thought it possible; now they know it is. This is important not just for the financial situations at the clubs but also for English football as a whole.
With the increase in foreign ownership (half of the Premier League clubs are now owned by foreigners) there is the very real danger that our academies will suffer, and subsequently our national side. Without being English the owners will, understandably, care little for the development of our young talent. That is unless it is in their interest as well. The more players like Sturridge we see coming through the ranks at major clubs the more our national team will benefit.
Having an influx of foreign money in to our league is perceived by many as an evil, but it doesn’t have to be. If it causes wage and transfer inflation then it is, just as if it stifles the development of English managers and players then it is also a negative influence. However if these club owners begin to value English footballers as opposed to simply valuing English football then we as a football nation can reap the rewards of their money.
Follow me on Twitter @H_Mackay
Written by Hamish Mackay for FootballFanCast.com
Introducing the neat little app that’ll pay you to view content tailored to your interests:
ThisisFutbol.com are seeking new writers to join the team! If you’re passionate about football, drop us a line at “thisisfutbol.com@snack-media.com” to learn more.
we have to add more tallented plers like sturugd in our squad.