Martin Samuel's Debate: Should Theo Walcott play for the England under-21 team next summer?

If England defeat Wales in the play-offs for the European Under-21 Championship finals, Stuart Pearce, the head coach, wants Theo Walcott, below, to be made available for the tournament in Sweden next summer. Pearce will have noticed that in 2007, when England last qualified, the man of the match for Holland in the final was Ryan Babel, now of Liverpool, who inspired a 4-1 win over Serbia, despite having made his full international debut in March 2005 and being a playing squad member at the 2006 World Cup finals.

In many leading nations, such as Italy, if you are young enough, you play when there is a trophy at stake. Your ego is swapped for the chance of winning a medal.

Pearce intends to select Walcott, but there is a complication. The 2009 finals start on Monday, June 15. The last match of England’s World Cup qualifying campaign this season is against Andorra on Wednesday, June 10. On Saturday, June 6, there is a match in Kazakhstan, a nine-hour flight away. Walcott either has to be pulled out of the World Cup qualifiers or he is to be delivered to the under-21 squad with a handful of days to prepare for a leading competition.

Option one risks removing a match-winner from important senior matches — admittedly against weak opponents — while option two may harm team morale as the under-21 squad wait for the delivery of a player whose route to Sweden suggests that he is somehow more important than the rest.

Even without an objection from Arsène Wenger, Walcott’s club manager at Arsenal, about fatigue, the issue has to be handled carefully if England are not to be left with the worst of all worlds.

Debate: Should Theo Walcott play for the England under-21 team next summer? Click here to have your say

Comments

[Michael Davis]

Overated...If he played for an average team he wouldn't be getting a look in (and rightly so). He is being hyped up in a Beckhamesque style and it is his performances that are stopping him from reaching those heady celebrity heights. He's a decent enough player but there are others, some more deserving of a starting place in the senior team than him. Let him learn his trade at Arsenal and in the under 21s.

[Timothy Tanner]

Well Aled, though England won and can claim to have had back luck of it's own, Wales surpassed themselves. Shorn of it's best players and in goal, perhaps Hennesey would have done better then Owain in the second game. Perhaps the return of Bale to use on the left wing would have added penetration but overall, little complaint can be had of the Welsh players.

Blake, having to mark GA, Wiggans and captain Eardley kept England's front three out of the game. Ok both fullbacks made errors in the first game but overall they were superb. Midfield worked hard but only the superb Ramsey had penetration, though McDonald certainly can dribble the ball. Church scored three times over the two games and Vokes was a threat when he dropped in for the second game. Given England's winner in Cardiff was illegal, Wales hit the woodwork and scored an unfortunate own goal, certainly luck wasn't with them over the two legs.

Concerns for England, Joe Hart between three times in a one on one, Steven Taylor the captain at fault three times, the front three struggling to beat their markers though they all showed some of their class in the first leg, Cattermole failing as dm with Huddlestone looking a little lost when pushed out of the dm role. Still, one or two bright spots like scoring five goals in two games and the superb Mancienne.

[N/A]

Its not really a moot point. For the vast majority of England supporters, the first team is the important one. If the man can play well at the 'senior' level and there is no superior/equal individual for the role he has to perform, then it would be wise for him to be selected. In addition, the pressures of being a 'senior' player would be good for Walcott's maturity. Brilliant junior players should be bloodied more often at the most important scenarios. Messi for instance was young when he made the Argentinian squad. Look at him now, an integral member of both Barcelona and a class international team

[iandel]

Is U21 success ever a precursor to senior success? I can't think of a recent example, although perhaps someone else can. I think you might be over-stating the benefit of international experience at U-21 level. Walcott plays with and against better players in training every day at Arsenal.

Personally, I think he should play for the seniors and then be left out the U-21s to give him a full summer's rest before the World Cup season.

[Dan Lyles]

The England senior side will not be relying on Walcott to beat Kazakhstan or Andorra. Shaun Wright-Phillips and Ashley Young can definitely play there and do a job, as can Gerrard and Cole. The Under-21's are important to the senior team. The experience of playing in a tournament, and a successful one at that, would be invaluable to these youngsters. Walcott plays as a striker for the under 21s and is pretty prolific. He could form a partnership with Abonglahor up front that would be the envy of a lot of senior international teams. They will no doubt receive great service from the likes of Lennon, Milner and Boro's wizard of the wing Adam Johnson. Tom Huddlestone will probably be given the job of screening a defence including players of the calibre of Steven Taylor and Micah Richards. Walcott should be there for tournament experience as well as to fire Enlgand to victory.

[Taymur]

the question revolves around what is best for the Theo's long term future. True Theo is an astonishing talent but i don't think he is ENGLAND's SAVIOUR yet. The biggest problem we have as a nation is building players up to quickly. An under 21s tournament would be fantastic for strengthening him mentally and also not playing him in some matches may remove the weight of expectation from him. he wont feel like he HAS to be the matchwinner in every game.

Apart from a few exceptions the Italians and the Spainish teams are full of players who played in under 21 tournaments... how many does England have?? and to be honest we are no less talented then any other team we just need to be mentally stronger. Not saying that playing under 21 tournaments is the ONLY way to breed mental strength but it is a good way.

your probably gonna disagree with this but if i was Capello and Pearce i would sit down and discuss Theo's development with Wenger because a) he knows the lad better then anyone and b) he is the best in the business in developing young talent. obviously he will be a little biased but Capello is wise enough to see through that and get down to what really matters. Obviously this has to be done in a way where Capello doesn't seem to be ASKING Wenger's Permission.

[Timothy Tanner]

Aled, first of all the current U21 France team is not that good. Ok, it's attack is very dangerous, indeed a job to watch, but it's defence is awful. At 3-1 up against a very very talented Chile side, it lost 5-3 in the Touloun, it got worse from there. When a team defends as badly as they do, they will fail. As for the last Euro's, they got knocked out in the play off's, the same Euro's that England got to the semi finals. How are France stronger as a whole then England in anything but "past history"?

Of course it is a matter of if England beat Wales. Yet we have reason to be confident, we got to the semi finals of the last tournament even if we were a little lucky to get that far, under Pearce we have not lost since then and have conceded 1 goal in qualifying. Anybody going into a play off with that kind of form will be confident.

Another reason is that England and Wales faced each other in a friendly only in May. England had Walcott but while he is missing, the return of Steven Taylor, Derbyshire and Milner leaves the England side strengthened. The England side put out that day was a strong one and comfortably beat Wales 2-0 in Wrexham.

The Wales team may welcome back Ramsey but from the beaten side, no Wayne Hennessey, no Gunter, no Nyatanga and both your strikers, Evans and Vokes are out. Now there are dangerous players for Wales, Joe Jacobson looks a solid player, Ramsey is very talented, Church has a fair few goals at this level, Joe Allen a fair few assists so it is by no means a forgone conclusion.

Any team in the play off's stands a decent chance but when looking at the draw, I wanted to face teams that finished second or Wales. It will be a hard fight but can you see why some of us are fairly confident that England will advance?

[Rod]

No one cares about the under 21 side, or under 21 football in general. It's a shame really given the quality of players you see in these teams. Maybe in Italy it matters, but also in Italy they have lots of Italians playing in Serie A - the same just isn't true in England. We have limited enough resources as it is.

Walcott plays for the full side because the manager thinks he the best person to play there. If I was in the most important job in English football, and my target was to get England to the World Cup would I put a first team player in the U21s during important matches for the first team? Never - and neither will Capello.

[Aled]

I think more needs to be made of the 'If England beat Wales' part of this topic. It's easy to dismiss Wales' chances considering past history but this Wales side beat France, a stronger U21 side than England, 4-2 and are more than capable of beating England on their day. Let's hope Wales win then it will solve the Walcott problem!

[Dave N]

Don't play the games for the full team, let him join up with the U21s as early as possible. Its a competitive tournament, and I'd rather he played in that to get the tournament experience, possibly even a penalty shoot out, than games we should be able to labor to win without him. Its all part of the education - we've been moaning for years that our players don;t cut it in tournament football - here's a chance to blood them properly. And I'd play Richards and Milner too if they're still eligible.

[brad]

i think it's hard to say that walcott is an established senior player.don't get me wrong, he did ever so well against croatia and took his goals very well but is it a case again of us putting too much pressure on another talented young player? after all he is only 19. i for one want to be seeing england win trophies at all levels. theo walcott has played a part in this u21's campaign already so he more than deserves to be given the oppourtunity to play at the finals. let the kid play

[SJ]

I hope that after next wednesday this debate will be a non-starter as I have a sneaky and only a sneaky suspicion that Wales may defeat England over the two legs....hoping anyway!!

However, if these hopes dont prove fruitful, then I would stick with the team that successully progessed through the group stages and playoffs... meaning he isnt picked !

[Ben Tranter]

There is continuous bemoaning of players suffering from burnout when major international tournaments come around.

If, as England now expects, we make it to the World Cup in 2010, would it not benefit Theo Walcott from having a break this summer so that he is as fresh as possible for next summer?

Its all very well for Ryan Babel to be playing in an U21 tournament, but he was not been labelled as the saviour of Dutch football, as they had players in the senior side such as Arjen Robben and Ruud Van Nistelrooy who carried far more expectation.

Theo Walcott should be nurtured and that should involve resting him wherever possible. Perhaps Stuart Pearce's comments were designed to keep Walcott's feet on the ground.

[Lee]

Walcott should be selected for the U21's if he is not an integral part of the senior starting 11 by then... June is a good distance away. If he is not starting 1st choice for the senior side a full tournament with the U21's would be far more beneficial than the less competitive 'full fat' qualifiers.

[Bryan]

If Walcott is a deserving fixture in the Senior squad then that is where he should remain. The U21's should be seen as the development side as preparation for promotion to the 'big' team or for young players to be downrouted if promotion proves to be a step too soon.

[Adam]

It should be viewed in two ways. Firstly, if the current Under 21 team are doing so well without him, would bringing him in be beneficial or detrimental to a settled squad? Secondly, as international football essentially boils down to a knock out tournament held in a short space of time, would it make sense to give Walcott the experience of playing in these conditions before transferring this experience to the senior team? I think overwhelmingly a player of his ability, at his age, should take the chance to do it, if selected and it would certainly have a positive affect on the U21 squad and on his own game. If only someone had said the same thing of Rooney a few years back.

[J.B Carnas]

I for one hope Walcott does not show the disrespect and selfishness of David Bentley who preferred to get called up for the senior side, then drop out of the U-21 side at the last minute.

Of the Italy World Champions of 2006, a sizeable number had winners medals at U-21 level, many had to spend at least 10-20 games there before being called to the senior side so that they were 100% ready for international football.

In any case, England should in theory not depend on 1 player to win against Andorra and Kazakhstan, and option 2 should not disaffect the other youth players as a Walcott could improve their chances of winning the tournament, which enhances their profile and chances of breaking into the senior side. If they object to that, they are not professionals and patriots.

[paul]

i see no reason for him to play. as far as i can tell (and admitably, it differs country to country) our u21's are set up so that players who are percieved to have the potential to eventually step up to the full squad can gain international experience, including in tournaments. walcott already has this experience, and more than this, like owen and rooney before him, is now an established member of the first team. there are plenty of others who could benefit more from being involved and indeed playing in this tournament. having said which, if fabio wants him to play, you can hardly call 'burn out' as a reason not to. he's what? 21 tops, and it's not even as if he plays every game for the gunners.

[Leiro]

He definitely should not play for U-21. The development of the young player should be assessed not on his youth achievements, but on what he is able to achieve in senior football.

Walcott has already proved he is good enough to play for England's first national team, therefore he should only be available for Capello's not Pearce's team. Let the other youngsters be given an opportunity to impress and breakthrough their careers.

Theo Walcott doesn't need to go to Sweden. After the long and exhausting season he deserves to go on holidays in the second half of June 2009, as all his older mates from both Arsenal and England. In 2010 he might not be given a chance to go on holidays until mid-July.

[Rhys Jaggar]

The answer to this depends on how integral Walcott will be to Fabio's assault on the World Cup in 2010.

For him to be up for that as 'first on the team sheet', he won't want to go into 2009/10 knackered.

If Fabio, however, sees him as a key squad member making decisive substitute appearances, however, maybe U21 will be valuable experience.

Fabio's call, at the end of the day.

[Richie Woodcock]

Personally as an Arsenal fan I would have to say NO I would not want him to play in this tournament if possible. At the end of the day Theo is now an integral part of the Arsenal squad due to a lack of options within the squad, meaning that he will play a shedload of games between now and the end of the season, competing in 4 different competitions. Remember Theo is still very young and I don't want to see him burnt out this summer and return for next season shattered. For any player to play potentially 50+ games and then an international tournament is hard enough but for such a young player to do this, have a few weeks rest then start a fresh campaign again is perhaps not the best thing for the young lads overall developement. I doubt that many of that squad for the U21 euro's will have the same commitments for their clubs or indeed as much match experience which is why it's fine for them to go but from a selfish point of view I feel Theo will gain more from competing in the CL, EPL etc and having a breather in the summer.

[James]

I think in the last few games Walcott has demonstrated his immaturity still and will benefit him greatly to be playing in the tournement. With SWP back on form for Man City, it gives Capello and Pierce (who should be looking at the long term) the choice to pick the games that will be beneficial to Walcotts development at an international level and Kazakhstan and Andorra are not that beneficial to his development in my opinion.

[Bill Cotterill]

Walcott shoukd play for the u/21 if at all possible. Let's win something !

[Harry Boulton]

I think it's do-able. But I suppose it all depends one the state of Engkland qualification hopes. If we're already there, why deny him the chance? It would do him good me thinks.

[Simon]

I think he should play, we ought to put more importance on these types of tournament. We should pull out all the stops and show the numerous pundits who submit to knee jerk reactions about the standard out our upcoming England players how wrong they are. We have a real chance or coming home with a win here and we should take it. After all a winning mentality at international level can't be a bad thing to have before joining up with the seniors.