Why do people keep going on about players needing to be of "international quality" or being able to play at "international level" The quality of international football comes nowhere near that of the top level of club football in the Champions League and even the Premiership.
It's just another lazy cliche that useless journalists and pundits use when it means absolutely nothing, when was the last time there was even an international tournament with real quality throughout many of the teams? I would understand if they said "at this level" when talking about the Champions League as that it the pinnacle of football, the best players in the world who train with their teams every day and have an understanding that no international team could ever achieve.
Sorry about the rant, it just annoys me, Peter Reid has already mentioned it 3 times on the telly.
Also, how often does Southgate start a sentence with "look"?
"International level"
posted on 2/6/12
England are good at CL level though not very good at international.
posted on 2/6/12
Maybe the ability to come into a squad of player that don't play together and get that understanding straight away and win things like the Euros or the World cup is the one thing that makes the international quality players stand out?
posted on 2/6/12
The problem England got is that there's no world class players other than Joe Cole
Plus we haven't had a world class GK since Tim Flowers
Drop Gerard and put in Joe Cole with Dexter Blackstock and the euro's is ours
posted on 2/6/12
Loads of players who play in the Champions League are Championship quality. Players at clubs like Otelul Galati, Genk, Viktoria Plzen and BATE would struggle even in League 1, tbh.
It is all relative. The top club sides have the pick of the best players around the world, so naturally are better than international teams who have a limited pool to chose from. Thus the best clubs are better than the best international sides almost without exception.
However, a lot of the weaker leagues are represented by stronger national XIs than club XIs, as the best players move abroad. Belgium for one have a national side that would win the Belgium league. Players like Hazard, Vermaelen, Vertonghen, etc are long gone from the domestic league.
posted on 2/6/12
This is why the term, "play like and have the pace of club level" is meaningless at international level. We must be smarter than this. Roy knows more than me but the phrase to play like in the Prem doesn't work at international level where you actually have more time.
posted on 2/6/12
The quality of international football comes nowhere near that of the top level of club football in the Champions League and even the Premiership.
***
International football is streets ahead of the PL in technique. Look at today, Belgium were unlucky as the away team. England couldn't put 2 passes together before they gave the ball away. Gerrard, Milner, etc might look good in the passion of the PL but at this level they get found out. The reason we won today was because of the finish of DW and that Belgium tend to over complicate their play in the final third... and that's it.
posted on 2/6/12
I agree it makes little sense. For example you could play for a country like Northern Ireland (no disrespect intended), but be in the Championship or Div 1. However someone else could play a key role for Manchester United like Carrick and not be recognised as a core player for your national team, or sometimes not even be capped e.g. Bruce.
BTW Since this topic is related to internationals can I please just take the opportunity to reply to 'The_Bossman1's 'England Are Pathetic' article.
http://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/124069
Because what's pathetic is that WUM attempt.
First, you need to at least pick a subject that most people would disagree with.
Second, you shouldn't write the exact same article you already tried to WUM with a few months back. It doesn't show much imagination
http://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/45625