O/T International Friendlies

[Jordinho]

About as useful as this:

One of those rare occasions where I 100% agree with Fergie:

Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson has hit back in the row over international friendlies.

Barclays Premier League clubs have come under fire this week from England manager Roy Hodsgon, who has suggested managers use international breaks as an excuse to rest players.

But, after revealing Ashley Young would be out for two weeks, United boss Ferguson spoke up for his colleagues today, saying they are fed up with star players being selected for meaningless friendlies.

Ferguson told his morning press conference: 'International football interferes with clubs' ambitions.

'Friendly games do, for a start.

'For example for the last ten years they have played one the Wednesday before the season starts. Tell me the sense in that.

'I have no issue with competitive games. Players should always be available for those.

'I do have an issue with friendlies.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2307930/Sir-Alex-Ferguson-criticises-international-friendlies.html

 

[braineclipse]

But how are players and international teams are to be ready for those competitive games if they don't have any friendlies?

I agree that the friendly just at the start of the season seems ill-timed, but there aren't a ton of dates available in a fairly tight packed schedule across the season.

I wonder what would happen if the international friendlies were dropped and England (or some other biggish team) failed to qualify for an international tournament after looking disjointed. Would someone think of the lack of friendlies to let the manager find his best team and get them playing together as a decent explanation?

"fudging FIFA! fudging up our chances to go to the World Cup by removing the friendlies! So unfair to the bigger countries, makes it more of a crap shoot. Just because the FIFA representatives needs the many votes of the smaller nations to get re-elected. fudging sham."

 

[Jordinho]

No amount of friendlies will make England or most other countries look less disjointed. The usual withdrawals plus those called up because it's a friendly and not a competitive game will see to that. Besides, most of the players that bother to turn up aren't bothered at all about the result or giving it all they've got. They will have strict instructions from their clubs to take it as easy as possible.

International football holds very little prestige outside the final tournaments and being capped by your country means nothing any more. What international football needs is fewer breaks in the club schedule so they can spend more time together. Either have all games played after the season has ended or at least limit it to 1 break in autumn and one im spring and make them s week or two longer. 2 days together for a friendly nobody gives a fudge about is a waste of time.

 

[johnola]

All international football should be binned off except for schoolboys, amateurs and women.
We don't need it in this country.

 

[Jordinho]

I think international football would work better as an end of season showcase than the current stop-start schedule than annoys more than it delights.

 

[Modric THFC]

But how are players and international teams are to be ready for those competitive games if they don't have any friendlies?

I agree that the friendly just at the start of the season seems ill-timed, but there aren't a ton of dates available in a fairly tight packed schedule across the season.

I wonder what would happen if the international friendlies were dropped and England (or some other biggish team) failed to qualify for an international tournament after looking disjointed. Would someone think of the lack of friendlies to let the manager find his best team and get them playing together as a decent explanation?

"fudging FIFA! fudging up our chances to go to the World Cup by removing the friendlies! So unfair to the bigger countries, makes it more of a crap shoot. Just because the FIFA representatives needs the many votes of the smaller nations to get re-elected. fudging sham."

Competitive games against the dross that makes up most of the qualifying groups?

 

[parklane1]

He has a point.

 

[braineclipse]

No amount of friendlies will make England or most other countries look less disjointed. The usual withdrawals plus those called up because it's a friendly and not a competitive game will see to that. Besides, most of the players that bother to turn up aren't bothered at all about the result or giving it all they've got. They will have strict instructions from their clubs to take it as easy as possible.

International football holds very little prestige outside the final tournaments and being capped by your country means nothing any more. What international football needs is fewer breaks in the club schedule so they can spend more time together. Either have all games played after the season has ended or at least limit it to 1 break in autumn and one im spring and make them s week or two longer. 2 days together for a friendly nobody gives a fudge about is a waste of time.

Well, the footballing world isn't only there to support England So even if that was true I still think there are other teams that do benefit from friendlies. Teams with players that aren't as... half arsed.

I also don't quite see how you can judge that the friendlies (and associated international training sessions) aren't having a positive effect at all. It would be possible for the England side to be worse you know

Competitive games against the dross that makes up most of the qualifying groups?

This surely isn't a serious suggestion?

I think international football would work better as an end of season showcase than the current stop-start schedule than annoys more than it delights.

That would be pretty cool actually. Perhaps shorten the seasons by a couple of weeks. Then 2-3 friendlies and then international qualifiers in the summers without a championship. Probably a bit difficult to actually get done with the amount of games in the qualifiers, perhaps the format could be changed a bit, or perhaps like you said above, one mid season break and then the rest of the games in the summer or something to that effect.

 

[Jordinho]

Well, the footballing world isn't only there to support England So even if that was true I still think there are other teams that do benefit from friendlies. Teams with players that aren't as... half arsed.

I also don't quite see how you can judge that the friendlies (and associated international training sessions) aren't having a positive effect at all. It would be possible for the England side to be worse you know

I don't really watch international football outside finals, but the few friendlies I happen to catch bits of have all been slow paced and mediocre. Friendlies are often used to "experiment" and are usually not in conjunction with upcoming qualifiers (apart from end of season ones). Try a few different players or formations, but in the end 99.9 % of all national teams will resort to the same defensive, boring crap when it matters anyway. It's ALL about results, unlike club level where there's some demand for entertainment, and you get that by not conceding. Pick the right players and tactics become less important.

 

[braineclipse]

I don't really watch international football outside finals, but the few friendlies I happen to catch bits of have all been slow paced and mediocre. Friendlies are often used to "experiment" and are usually not in conjunction with upcoming qualifiers (apart from end of season ones). Try a few different players or formations, but in the end 99.9 % of all national teams will resort to the same defensive, boring crap when it matters anyway. It's ALL about results, unlike club level where there's some demand for entertainment, and you get that by not conceding. Pick the right players and tactics become less important.

I just think calling for friendlies to be abolished is completely unrealistic.

Also, this seems like classic deflection from Ferguson, not sure if this is actually something he believes could or should happen. He gets accused of resting his players by claiming that they're injured or making injuries out to be worse than they are. Seems to me like something a lot of big clubs do quite regularly. So, what to do? Answer a question honestly? Nah. Outright lie? Always risky. Let's go with deflection, that always works...

 

[Spursalot]

I don't really watch international football outside finals, but the few friendlies I happen to catch bits of have all been slow paced and mediocre. Friendlies are often used to "experiment" and are usually not in conjunction with upcoming qualifiers (apart from end of season ones). Try a few different players or formations, but in the end 99.9 % of all national teams will resort to the same defensive, boring crap when it matters anyway. It's ALL about results, unlike club level where there's some demand for entertainment, and you get that by not conceding. Pick the right players and tactics become less important.

I agree with the friendlies notion, but mostly due to the timing issue.


Player plays friendly. Three months later he plays competitive match. In the in between months he will have been playing and training for his club.

He's not going to recall what was done in training or on the pitch that many matches or training sessions ago. The friendlies should be played directly before the competitive games, which would make them far more useful for the International managers and players.

 

[Modric THFC]

But how are players and international teams are to be ready for those competitive games if they don't have any friendlies?

Competitive games against the dross that makes up most of the qualifying groups?

This surely isn't a serious suggestion?

100% serious. England didnt need to play a full team against San Marino or Moldova.

 

[Jordinho]

If instead of picking players on reputation, you picked them on form and what role they play at their club then tactics wouldn't be that much of an issue. If you want to play a certain way, pick players that already do so at club level instead of shoehorning in someone with a completely different style. Just look at how Spain often leave their strikers on the bench as a plan B as they don't really fit with their preferred style.

 

[braineclipse]

100% serious. England didnt need to play a full team against San Marino or Moldova.

Right. And you will always have those games available at the times when you need them? What if England's first three games in a qualifying campaign is against better opposition? What about teams that are slightly worse than England, that will be in with a shout to qualify, but won't have 2 teams that they can use "as friendlies" in their groups every time (being very kind to England here, I don't think you do either).

If instead of picking players on reputation, you picked them on form and what role they play at their club then tactics wouldn't be that much of an issue. If you want to play a certain way, pick players that already do so at club level instead of shoehorning in someone with a completely different style. Just look at how Spain often leave their strikers on the bench as a plan B as they don't really fit with their preferred style.

No other national team in the world is in the same situation as Spain where they have (a) the best squad in the world and (b) the key parts of that squad sourced primarily from two clubs.

You're presenting a potential solution that will be available some of the time that may or may not be better than other potential solutions. Not really an argument that teams don't need friendlies.

 

[Jordinho]

No other national team in the world is in the same situation as Spain where they have (a) the best squad in the world and (b) the key parts of that squad sourced primarily from two clubs.

You're presenting a potential solution that will be available some of the time that may or may not be better than other potential solutions. Not really an argument that teams don't need friendlies.

Those weren't really my points, but there are many countries that can pick from a few powerhouse clubs if they wanted to. Sometimes it would be better to stick with a partnership from club level than to leave one on the bench in favour of someone with a bigger reputation. Every country will have different ambitions, but the best way to achieve them would be through picking the right group of players. Why pick unsuitable players that require a lot of work on tactics to make things work?

I believe my suggestions would be more beneficial than the odd friendly using players that won't feature in the qualifiers. Arguments such as 'getting to know the players' or 'trying out different things' do not hold with me. The problem isn't necessarily the friendlies, but the way international football is scheduled. A friendly in August has little to no effect on a qualifier played in September, same with the one in February. That's two international breaks for friendlies that should be removed.

My point is that friendlies have no real value. They're an annoying break from club football, they do not give you any particular insights you can't get from watching the same players play for their club and any work done in two training sessions have no lasting effect as it almost certainly won't be the same group called up a month later.

 

[braineclipse]

Those weren't really my points, but there are many countries that can pick from a few powerhouse clubs if they wanted to. Sometimes it would be better to stick with a partnership from club level than to leave one on the bench in favour of someone with a bigger reputation. Every country will have different ambitions, but the best way to achieve them would be through picking the right group of players. Why pick unsuitable players that require a lot of work on tactics to make things work?

I believe my suggestions would be more beneficial than the odd friendly using players that won't feature in the qualifiers. Arguments such as 'getting to know the players' or 'trying out different things' do not hold with me. The problem isn't necessarily the friendlies, but the way international football is scheduled. A friendly in August has little to no effect on a qualifier played in September, same with the one in February. That's two international breaks for friendlies that should be removed.

My point is that friendlies have no real value. They're an annoying break from club football, they do not give you any particular insights you can't get from watching the same players play for their club and any work done in two training sessions have no lasting effect as it almost certainly won't be the same group called up a month later.

I agree with you that it might be a better option. I actually argued (can't remember if it was on here) that in the buildup to the last Euros when England found themselves managerless at the end of the domestic season that the FA should have approached Ferguson and asked him to bring a "United+" team to the Euros on a short term, one tournament contract. Manu had around 8 English players in or around their starting line-up at the time that could have been added to by using some players from other teams to make a team that would function as a unit rather than a collection of individuals.

Not all teams at all times have this option, and surely doing so in combination with playing friendlies can't be any worse than just doing so?

Take Ireland as a quick example, what possible way could they have to pick a team built around club partnerships? I think this is true for the mast majority of national sides in the world the majority of the time.

England are in a rather rare situation with the majority of the England players playing in the same league and for a limited number of clubs. It may seem obvious to you what he English should do. For a manager of a team that will have to choose between a player on the bench for a PL side, one starting for a Championship mid table side, one playing somewhat regularly in Holland and one up and coming youngster playing every game in an even smaller league it's not so straightforward at all.

I do agree that the international breaks are annoying. I really dislike them because I don't particularly care about international football.

Edit: I apologize if I misepresented your point in my previous post, not my intention. Hope I haven't gone on to do the same again.

 

[camspur]

But how are players and international teams are to be ready for those competitive games if they don't have any friendlies?

But they don't prepare for competitive games with friendlies due to the fact that half the players who play in the friendlies are nowhere to be seen come the qualifiers.

Friendlies produce one cap wonders and not teams.

 

[Modric THFC]

Right. And you will always have those games available at the times when you need them? What if England's first three games in a qualifying campaign is against better opposition? What about teams that are slightly worse than England, that will be in with a shout to qualify, but won't have 2 teams that they can use "as friendlies" in their groups every time (being very kind to England here, I don't think you do either).

I don't buy it, Club teams dont need a friendly game every month to try out new players.
There's nothing stopping international teams having a tour in the summer where they try out new players if they want.
They don't need to interrupt the football calendar with boring friendlies.

 

[braineclipse]

But they don't prepare for competitive games with friendlies due to the fact that half the players who play in the friendlies are nowhere to be seen come the qualifiers.

Friendlies produce one cap wonders and not teams.

Who are "they" here? Plenty of national teams do use the friendlies as preparation. I won't argue that England does as I rarely watch your friendlies.

I don't buy it, Club teams dont need a friendly game every month to try out new players.
There's nothing stopping international teams having a tour in the summer where they try out new players if they want.
They don't need to interrupt the football calendar with boring friendlies.

I don't think this kind of comparison to club football is particularly useful. Very different situations.

I too find the international friendlies boring, that's not really what we're discussing here though.