Are club managers right to be irate as Walcott adds to injury count?

The greatest honour a team can have, or a right royal pain in the backside?

Theo Walcott is set for a lengthy spell on the sidelines after dislocating his shoulder while training with England, a turn of events that is bound to infuriate Arsene Wenger.

The Arsenal manager, Rafael Benitez and Sir Alex Ferguson have long held the view that internationals hinder rather than help their players. Indeed, Fabio Capello is so aware of their negativity towards his England set-up that he is now demanding an "injured" player is assessed by his medical staff, rather than rely upon the word of a club doctor.

If a player is hurt while on duty with England, his club may be entitled to compensation, but it is often not the financial impact that bothers the managers, it is the immense loss felt on the field.

So when it comes to a meaningless friendly such as tonight's match in Berlin between Germany and England, do club bosses have a point? Is it an unnecessary risk which could severely dent their domestic title aspirations? Or should managers and fans be proud that one of their own has been chosen to represent their country, which in turn adds kudos to their club?

Comments

[Paul]

Interesting that it was assumed I was a Liverpool fan. I'm not, I am an Arsenal fan (cue accusations of "No wonder he doesn’t care about England!”)

And Paul from Northern Ireland, that’s your choice you prefer national over club. I’ve spent 20 years of my life regularly attending arsenal matches which is no doubt a contributory factor to a closer bond with that club against a team which plays a few times a year and has a number of players representing them which I spend the rest of the year disliking.

Maybe if it was possible for me to follow England without being branded a hooligan I might be more bothered, but I can’t and therefore I am not.

Capello is the best coach in the world. With him I think you can win World Cup! When he says something, there are good reasons.

From an italian referee :)

[Timothy Tanner]

Clubs can't have it both ways, using players produced by countries youth systems and then not allow said players to return for their countries so the debt can be repaid. Many many clubs benefit from the hard work put in during childhood yet wish to deny the Fa's the ability to give youngsters that same oppertunity.

The English Fa pays for referee's, youth football, administration so people up down the country can pay, the stadium, woman's football, homeless football, disabled football, the national youth teams, it has every right to ask that it gets what help clubs can give. Help like allowing the players to play.

[Paul]

Of course clubs dont want there star players playing in internationals (friendlies or not). Scolari doesnt care if england win, he cares if JT is fit. If JT gets an injury and chelsea drop a few points, he could lose his job. But it works both ways. There must be respect between the 2 and the players themselves should be pushing to play. As for the comment at the top that the person would rather see there club side win the league than country win the world cup. Why?
The league happens all the time. The world cup would unite the whole country. Have some damn pride man.
I'm from N Ireland, i'd rather see us qualify for the world cup than watch my team win the league.

[Kevin]

Club Managers should accept that if they have international quality players in their team, they are likely to get called to play for their country. Alternatively, perhaps Arsenal, Manchester Utd etc. should insist players sign an agreement that they will not be available for their country whilst employed by the club? It would settle the argument, but I wonder how many top names they would retain then?
The real answer is, it is an honour to play for one's country and club managers have to accept players may get injured. Club versus country? Country, every time.

[monsieur]

Interesting that there are so many clear Liverpool fans here and none care about the national team...Premier League or World Cup? Are you kidding me?

[Paul]

It’s weird how it is assumed that playing for your country is the greatest honour for everyone. I support England when they play but for me they will always come second to my club team. Given the choice of my team winning the League or England winning the World Cup I would take the league every time, it’s just a personal preference though and I agree the majority seem of the opposite opinion.

I’m not sure why Wenger should be furious about the circumstance with Walcott though, this happened in training, and is clearly a long running problem for the player. I assume if there was no international this week he would have been training with Arsenal anyway, not taking a week off.

The overall problem is 2 major forces pushing in different directions. The big clubs complain about their players playing too many matches, but threaten to legally challenge UEFA if they reduce the number of Champions League matches. It all comes down to money vs the player well being. Any gap in the football calendar is seen as an opportunity. If the national team don’t take the opportunity, the clubs will. Look what happened when the Scottish League had a midwinter break, teams like Rangers went off to play in indoor tournaments in Europe.

There is no answer unless either the National Side or Clubs win the battle.

[Saranya]

I think a bit of give and take from the international managers is needed. I'm a Liverpool fan and i really can't see what Capello would have learned from playing Gerrard tonight that he doesn't already know about him. The same applies to Ferdinand, Lampard, Rooney.

We know what these players are capable of so why not take a look at others and see if they are up to the task. I'm sure Martin O'Neill wouldn't be happy if Ashley Young or Gabby Agbonlohor get injured tonight (if they play) but he wouldn't begrudge those lads the opportunity to show what they can do.

I think the club managers get more frustrated when established internationals are needlessly played in these matches because they have less to prove in these matches.

[Charles de Freitas]

Those chosen for England, or for any other country for that matter, represent not only the citizens of that country but also an investment by that country in its citizens. Those clubs which play in a country equally represent an investment by that country. This may take the the form of protection, tax breaks, or simply the privilege of playing in front of the citizenry of that country. Their income after all, derives from the country in which they play, and to ignore that implied quid pro quo is to arrogantly place yourself above the nation.

[Paul Groves]

Not that many years have passed since players were honoured to be chosen to play for their country. Progressing to the latter stages for a major tournament (although this did seem rather infrequent as an England fan!) was a major part of a players career. Euro 96 at Wembley? Gazza on the turf with arms outstretched? Pride.
Our current crop of English players may appear happier in the knowledge that if they get injured whilst playing for their clubs, "well I guess I got paid huge amounts of money for hurting my knee". Why would any sane player risk twisting an ankle playing for his country and not getting paid for it?
I'm certainly not a Man Utd fan but I have to admit that the site of Beckham wearing his 3 lions and singing the anthem with such pride is a lesson to all, not to mention his efforts on the pitch.

[Stephen]

I fail to see how representing your country be meaningless, but playing in the Carling Cup (yawn) is meaningful.

More specifically, three points. Firstly, the best way for players to gel as a team is to play matches. So do you want to gel your national team (be it England, Australia - how about football Ashes series by the way - Germany, Togo or whoever) in friendlies, or in World Cup qualifiers? I think the answer is clear, in friendlies. Secondly, do you want to find out how a player performs at international level in friendlies, or in World Cup qualifiers? Again, I think the answer is clear, in friendlies. Thirdly, consider this - if a player only played one match for his country, and it is a friendly, do you think the player will regard the match as meaningless? I doubt it. In other words, representing your country is not meaningless, nor is properly preparing for World Cup matches.

[Matthew (Liverpool Fan)]

The clubs 'own' the players (or they pay their wages at least) - therefore, in my opinion, they should get a say as to whether the player plays for their country or not.
Clubs pay big money (both in terms of transfer fees and wages) for these players, only for them to get injured on International duty.

Wenger has every right to be irate - he's already lost most of his first team, and I dare say this is one of the reasons for Arsenal's inconsistency this season. It's not right that they should suffer for 'the good of the country'.

With my Liverpool hat on I can also say that there probably is a lot less loyalty towards England now - look at the way Jaime Carragher was treated. Played sparingly, out of position and then pushed out of the team by other players with half his ability (obviously, I have my Liverpool hat on here, but even John Terry has mentioned that he believes Carragher has been the best English centre-back over the past few years).
I'm probably going to be labelled a 'poor football fan' for these comments, but I just can't stand watching England nowadays - bring Terry Venables back! ;-)