Wednesday, November 19, 2008
As we enter yet another international break..
As we enter into the international break, friendly matches become the heated argument yet again. Is it really important to be having international friendlies when there is no international game for the next four months?Capello, ever since after taking charge of the England squad has been eloquent that friendly matches are important as they continue to improve the bond and understanding between the international players. Now, managers of the Big Four clubs are hitting out stating that “friendly matches are a meaningless inclusion in a packed schedule.”
Already with all the tight schedules that the Big Four plays, which include the Champions League, FA Cup and also Carling Cup, injuries are mounting on the teams as well. This comes after both Gerrard and Lampard missing out on the international game due to groin injury and rib injury respectively. This has caused a rift between Fabio Capello and the Premier League’s Big Four. And just recently, Theo Walcott became the victim of a freak accident after he fell in the rain at the Olympic Stadium, where he dislocated his shoulder, in preparation of the friendly. And this will very well intensify Arsene Wenger’s dislike of international friendlies.
"Our priority is Theo and making him as comfortable as possible before he returns to England," said coach Fabio Capello."We are all very disappointed but the important thing is for Theo to travel home and make a quick recovery."
An hour earlier, Capello had been stressing how understanding England's major club bosses were over his new philosophy for examining players apparently unfit for international combat only a few days after completing duties for the teams which pay their wages
Managers of Manchester United, Liverpool and Aston Villa themselves has never made secret of their belief of these “meaningless” games.
Now we all know that players should play for both club and country, but which one should be placed first? Country? Or Club?
We’ve some way or another heard how Jamie Carragher stated in his biography that he has never put country before club, but the other way round. When he played for England and they lost, he’ll not be sad. But should he lose at Anfield, he’ll be disappointed with his performance. And thus, he retiring early doesn’t make any difference as he’s never been taken seriously by his country as he’s the third choice for England. So, he’d rather retire early and focus on club football.
But then, there’s David Beckham who’s got a century of Caps for England. And now, he’s come out and said that he wouldn’t mind being on the bench in an England game and giving his first team placement to someone else as its “already an honour to be selected for England”. Is Beckham saying that as we all know he’s well over his prime and should make way for younger and better players who’s better suited in his position?
Of course, Capello can always have a replacement ready for the injured Walcott, as he’s done for the eight missing star players who are all out through injury. Walcott will probably be replaced by Shawn Wright-Phillips who’s been amazing in his place in the first team of Manchester City. But for Arsene Wenger, it will definitely be a tactical headache as it seems that Walcott may be out for a month or so. Should this really happen, Walcott will be missing four to five league games, and also the rest of Arsenal’s Champion League Group Stage games.
So is Capello just taking advantage of his new philosophy of examining all players, fit or unfit for duty? Because he does have quite a number of quality players at his disposal, but is it fair to the lads as they have to be assessed by Capello first before Clubs make any decision?
Then comes the question of trust between Capello and England’s major clubs. If ever there was a test of Capello's relationships, this will be it.
Send in your views of this! Comment me! Lets have a discussion alrights?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home