Club vs Country (Viduka etc.)

[toxic rooster]

Yeah just thought I'd get opinions on the whole club v country thing, like what's happening with Leeds and Australia over Viduka right now.

I think it's a case of a rock and a hard place for Viduka.

I think it's sad that FIFA/ASA or whoever is gonna suspend him. He wants to repay Leeds the debt he owes them by letting him go home to Melbourne while his dad was sick. Leeds obviously want Viduka to stay and play for them against Manchester United. But the Aussies want to play in Venezuela to "acclimatise" to South American conditions, as they will have to play in south america to qualify for WC 2006.

Leeds after all, are the ones who pay Viduka, and it's the clubs who ultimately get the player to the stage where they get national selector's recognition and selected etc. But the national team wants them to just drop everything and play for them otherwise they get suspended for whatever they miss plus five days.

I reckon that's a bit unreasonable. If the clubs should really be expected to release their players for the national team, I think there should be some compensation scheme for the clubs.

Thats' just Wee Gooner's opinion

[Wengerland]

I dunno,its a bit of a tough case.

I think it should be up to the player whether he plays really,without the manager of the club having any say.It should be a privilige(sp?) to play for your country but i think they should have the decision but i'm undecided on the issue of compensation for clubs if their player gets injured on international duty.

In Viduka's case i reckon he's doing the right thing,Leeds should be repayed for letting him go on compassionate leave even though they desperately needed his services and so he should repay the compliment so to speak,there's also the time he walked out under Reid earlier in the season.

If the match isn't a qualifier/competitive one then i don't really see the problem.

[toxic rooster]

I know it's beside the point, but the ASA has said this game is all about "altitude training" etc. I think it's ridiculous they have to go all the way to Caracas to play at altitude, when most of Australia's footballers are based in Europe and they could have played in the Alps.

Or if they were trying to get accustomed to South American conditions, couldn't they have had done it more meaningfully?

[yianni]

I think the ASA's hard stance on punishing players who don't rock up for international duty is a good move. Some of our players such as Kewell pick and choose when they want to play for their country and it's not on! Tell me any other country which has the problem we have, where some players try their best to get out of playing for their country. Kewell has an "ankle injury", why didn't he still make the effort to fly over to South America and make himself available anyway like Vince Grella did? (he has an ankle injury yet still flew from Italy to Sth America). It's ridiculous, and a good move by ASA to punish the players.

HOWEVER, having said all this, Viduka in my opinion has a very good excuse and should not be punished by ASA and FIFA for not going to Venezuala. However I believe he is the only one with an exception. It was a bad move by Australia to even select him in the squad, knowing he'd just come back from Melbourne.

[Paranoid Rattlesnake]

Competitive games yes
shite friendly games no

[Dazz]

I always think that unless it is a competive match, the player shouldn't have to play if he doesn't want to. The club pays his wages, there is a chance he will get injured, and it is a pointless match.

It pisses me off when clubs play pointless friendlies and expect everyone to play.

[Rob]

They shouldn't call them friendlies.

Country vs. Club isn't a debate for me. I always dreamed about playing for my country and you don't always play for the club you dreamed of. Playing for your country should be the proudest moments of a footballers career.

[Dazz]

^^ I agree, but if you don't wanna play for your country, then I don't think you should have to.

[Rob]

How can national FA's be expected to pick up the tab for players on internation duty? The English FA bill would be huge and would only money away from football at grass roots level. I doubt the Brazilian FA could afford their tab and heaven forbid countries like Iceland or Ukraine who have the odd big players at big clubs.

[Ian]

I don't think that players have the proper respect for the national team as they should do, not so long ago when certain players in the england squad were talking about striking I decided then that some people had the wrong opinion, that they were bigger than their club and country. I think that the country should take precidence over the club, but that there are too many "friendlies" and they should not be organised to be around busy times in the football season. A speople have said the club shuld also be compensated for the loss of their players.

[Frank Grimes Jnr]

I saw Viduka a few weeks ago when he was back in Melbourne on compassoinate leave. I can't believe Australia are gonna make him play in a worthless friendly when hes just come back from visiting his sick father.
And if FIFA ban him for one match then I think Mark Viduka will retire from internationals altogether.

[yianni]

Well they're going to ban him and Scott Chipperfield. That's what the news said before.

[The Mask]

why? the clubs pay the money and if important players are flying half way around the world for friendlies, it seems stupid. I mean, leeds are doing shit enough as it is without losing more players.

[Rob]

So what can you do? Either get rid of friendlies completely or arrange mini tournaments that mean something. Countries need games under their belts before the World Cup and continental championships.

[The Mask]

what, so they can get eliminated in the first round anyway?

zing! :cool:

[toxic rooster]

Yeah but why can't they have another couple of international friendly weeks like at the start of the EPL season where no club games are played?

[Cactus Sid]

I can see Australia's point of view, but I still think its rather petty.