Club v Country

[BRISTOLUK]

The Club v Country argument was touched on in the CL v WC thread and I'm interested to hear views. Is it because the club is always there and the National team is an on/off affair?
Does International footie get in the way of club preparations by 'borrowing' players or is it the other way around when clubs withdraw players from National squads?
Do clubs suffer when they 'lose' players to the National team or do they gain from the player's new experiences?

I'm interested to see if there's any link between member preferences and which club/national teams they allign themselves too. So, when you say which you consider to be most important and why, please state your club and country.

[merseyboyred]

The Club v Country argument was touched on in the CL v WC thread and I'm interested to hear views. Is it because the club is always there and the National team is an on/off affair?

Depends on what you really mean, but I have always felt a closer affinity to my club rather than my country. If I was to do a personal identifiaction the club I support would come out before my nationality. It may be the way I was brought up, and my political viewpoints have something to do with it aswell. and also on a separte issue that comes into play is to do with the media and fans aswell.


Does International footie get in the way of club preparations by 'borrowing' players or is it the other way around when clubs withdraw players from National squads?

On this issue I see both sides of the argument. It is incredibly frustrating when a player comes back from interntional duty injured, particularly if it was "only" a friendly international, and players leaving their clubs repeatedly through the season can have a detrimental effect on the team too due to the manager being able to spend less time with his players.
But, I also find it incredibly frustrating when club managers pull players out of international duty. IMO that should always be the players choice, if the player disobeys his manager or goes against his managers wishes by going on international duty when the manager wants him not to that is fine by me. It is the sole choice of the player, it is their career and their livelihood.


Do clubs suffer when they 'lose' players to the National team or do they gain from the player's new experiences?

Can be either depending on the circumstances. Recently though with my club we have suffered more negatives from the NT's than positives. Players picking up injuries, suffering from lack of confidence due to playing poorly or being abused by fans. Although they can gain experience playing at international level, younger players certainly do, due to the fact that it is a completely different type of competition not all that experience is available for club.


I'm interested to see if there's any link between member preferences and which club/national teams they allign themselves too. So, when you say which you consider to be most important and why, please state your club and country.

I'm English and a Liverpool fan first and foremost. I also am prouder of being from a certain region of my country rather than from my country itself. Each to their own, I can completely understand why people support their NT above their club, just for me it is vice versa.

(And if you got quite a few English members to do this I'm sure they would be the least "patriotic")

[BRISTOLUK]

Is this such a dull subject that it's unworthy of comment?

[Panathinaikos2]

A club is better than a country but I like watching countries play more than clubs.

[RaulMadrid7]

A club is better than a country but I like watching countries play more than clubs.

that comment is arguable since Brazil is better than a club like Liverpool. ;)

Anyways, it all depends sometimes.

For me watching my 2 countries that I am from play is more exciting than anything else. But then in terms of clubs Real Madrid is the excitement for me.

So I don't think you can say clubs are better than countries, because there is different sides to it.

What Jose Mourinho said about Champions League being bigger than the World Cup was stupid and arrogant(as ussual) but in terms of skill he can be right, but in terms of importance and excitement he isn't even close.

[Panathinaikos2]

A club has a higher chance of getting better players than a country but to me I love watching countries play more as I said before.

[nachi88]

This is very touchy.

Mostly club pays more than a NT ( some NT dont pay at all!!!, and say that playing for a NT is a matter of honour {I agree with this}). So, if you accpet money from some one you are required to fullfill all obligations to them.

Also there are many conditions-
Club game vs useless/meaningless freindly-> Arsene Wenger was angry when henry was used for a meaningless friendly against holland (last year) just 3-4 days before a CL match. In this type of a situation, I would support the club.
The main players are generally kept on the bench or given very less playing time in friendlies anyways.

[Ronni]

A club has a higher chance of getting better players than a country

it depends on your nationality !!!!

[Ronni]

I think that as long as you live in your own country your club is more important. If you start changing from one country to the other, your own club loses a little bit its importance and your national team starts counting more.

I consider it depends on the context - local rivalries are real important only when you're living in contact with both factions. The feeling gets weaker in your mind when this contact disappears.

Professional sport is said to be able to satisfy the needs for tribe battles that are implicit in the human being. The football players represent your "tribe" against the enemy ones, and therefore you don't have to fight them yourself. You always need to see an "enemy tribe" to fight. If you're in a context as the tribe battles do not include your one, you have to take a higher scope, i.e., your national team, in order to satisfy this need.

As I was living in my home city, everything that counted was my club. Ok, if there is something that isn't clear at all, it's my nationality. Despite of that, after moving to other countries (I've done that several times), I started to have much more the sight at national teams level - I started to have the feeling that club-oriented thinking can't belong to my life. I still do want to know what happens to my club "back home", and I care a lot, but I can't be identified with it like I was there. In any place I am, I always choose one club (I try to pick up one from the region I'm living), but I still feel it's much more appropriate for me to cheer national teams, according to the people I knew and I learned to admire or appreciate, or I could identify myself to (and thus be represented by them) and hope that the ones I didn't like always lose.

If I think about the effects of cheering clubs or national teams, I would say it would be much better if people only cared about clubs, in order not to create nationalism, racism etc derivated from NT rivalries. However, we know that football fans are able to create stereotypes also for club fans. And indeed they exist, since the "fan personality" of a club is built on its history, and therefore is different from one case to the other.
This means there's no much difference. If people are able to judge someone based on his nationality, in a football context they somehow manage to judge him on his football club too.

[Ronni]

I'm English and a Liverpool fan first and foremost. I also am prouder of being from a certain region of my country rather than from my country itself. Each to their own, I can completely understand why people support their NT above their club, just for me it is vice versa.

complementing my already long point above, and taking you merseyboyred as an example if I may, let's assume you move to Buenos Aires for a while. I imagine it will be much harder to see England losing a match against Argentina than to read on the internet that Liverpool lost to Manchester United. Wouldn't you agree?

[BRISTOLUK]

I didn't mean this to be another discussion on whether a club side is better than an international side.
I meant for people to say whether their team (be it local or otherwise) was more important than their National team. There are a couple of clues in some comments. Such as the concept of the 'meaningless friendly' as being anything other than a qualifier or a tournament game. The likes of Wenger (as much as I like the man) are brainwashing people into thinking all friendlies are meaningless. But then I say that because the International game is more important to me. There's no doubt players do gain from playing against other nations. Even in friendlies, they come up against different styles of play and without these games there are fewer opportunities to see what players can cut it at that level.
Where Wenger has a point is about the travelling and time away from the club for some of the games. But isn't that a consideration when you sign someone from the other side of the world? It comes as a complete surprise that the Australian you just signed might like to play for Australia?

Anyway, let me rephrase the question. Would you rather your club side win the league this season, but your International team flops at the WC or would you prefer to see your International team win the WC regardless of what your club team does? I'm interested to see how people in different countries view this and whether the 'size' of your club makes a difference in your opinion.
I've already said I put the International game first. I'd accept relegation for Bristol Rovers (small team) if England won a WC again.

[Ronni]

Would you rather your club side win the league this season, but your International team flops at the WC or would you prefer to see your International team win the WC regardless of what your club team does? I'm interested to see how people in different countries view this and whether the 'size' of your club makes a difference in your opinion.
I've already said I put the International game first. I'd accept relegation for Bristol Rovers (small team) if England won a WC again.
My favorite club has already won the league (and is one of the 6 best ones in the all-time-table of the last 30 years) and my favorite NT has already won the WC (and is one of the 6 best ones in the all-time-table of the WC). So both "big" ones.
This year my favorite club is one of the 6 most probable teams to be relegated to the second division and my favorite NT is one of the 6 most probable teams to win the WC.

I prefer to see my favorite club being relegated to the second division and staying there for the next 4 years and seeing my favorite NT winning the WC than the opposite.

[PALESTINO]

what i know is that clubs HATE big international competitions.They take away their best players and risk hard injury to them.

for me club vs country i prefer country.i have more loyalty to my countrys national team than my club and feel greater pride when my countrys team wins and i feel exactly the same way as ronni does about club relegation and national team achievment

[BRISTOLUK]

what i know is that clubs HATE big international competitions.They take away their best players and risk hard injury to them.

for me club vs country i prefer country.i have more loyalty to my countrys national team than my club and feel greater pride when my countrys team wins and i feel exactly the same way as ronni does about club relegation and national team achievment


That's what I like to hear. :)
I think clubs are hypocritical. The first to complain if a player goes off to represent his country and the first to slap a few million on transfer value because he's an 'international'.