Player's that don't want to play for their Country. Should they have a choice ?

If a top England player fell out with the England coach and didn't want to play for his Country I'd give him a 10 match domestic ban.

 

So you'd punish his club for a decision that the player has made of his own free will?

Good idea

 

Thats his choice not the rule makers !

 

Carragher?

On 1 July 2006 Carragher was one of three players to have a penalty saved by Ricardo Pereira, as England yet again succumbed on penalties to exit the 2006 World Cup in the quarter finals against Portugal. Carragher, who had been brought on as a substitute for Aaron Lennon in the dying moments of the game, presumably with the "shoot-out" in mind, was the most unfortunate of the three players who missed, as he scored with his first attempt but was forced to re-take the kick by the referee, who had not blown his whistle. Carragher then saw his second effort saved.

On 9 July 2007 it was reported that Carragher was thinking of retiring from the England set-up. TalkSport Radio Presenter Adrian Durham accused Carragher of "bottling it" and was asked by one caller if he would say that to Carragher's face. Durham told the caller that he was about to find out as Jamie Carragher was by this point on the line waiting. He then confirmed that he was thinking about leaving the national set-up but he had already had two talks with the England head coach Steve McClaren and would leave it until the upcoming match against Germany to decide.[2]

Carragher did subsequently retire from International football. England former head coach Steve McClaren attempted to persuade him to return to the International setup on at least one occasion, whilst McClaren's replacement Fabio Capello has reportedly suggested that he would be happy to consider Carragher. Carragher's responses have suggested that he would not respond positively to any offers of a call-up. Carragher was said to have been unhappy at the failure of successive England managers to pick him at centre-back[3], preferring to use him as cover along the back four and even as a holding midfielder.


Though he has not received a call-up for the England national team since the reign of manager Steve McClaren, Carragher also claimed he took solace from international defeats with England because he was less concerned about results for his national side than for Liverpool

 

Eh?

 

yes

why force somebody who doesn't want to be there.

I once read that for every top england striker out there there is somebody with just as much ability that is working in an office simply because they don't like football and never tried it seriously. Should they be punished too? Afterall they've chosen not to play for england to an extent.

 

Do they have a choice. Remember Claude Makelele? According to Raymond Domenech as long as a player is registered as a professional player FIFA rules mean they are available for their national side. Not heard anything about it recently but maybe it is the case and we just do the 'right' thing by our players and let them retire.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/chelsea/5291486.stm

 

so in that case do you support the re-introduction of national service then

it is the same thing as far as your point of view is concerned.

 

RE: so in that case do you support the re-introduction of national service then

National Service and an over-paid footballer kicking a football about, is that the same thing ?

 

How would that accord with the Human Rights Act?

If someone doesn't want to play for their country, they don't want to do it - simple as that.

If you did 'force' them, they wouldn't do it in a good heart and you'd just have a liability in the side. Or let's say they were compelled to play under the duress of a ten match ban - and let's say that contrary to common sense, they embraced that and gave it their 100%, but then despite giving it 100% made a critical error such as giving away a penalty or missing an open goal - would you punish them again? Could you believe that their actions weren't deliberate?

It's no way to run a national setup.

The best 'punishment' is having them sat at home or in the studio when the rest of the squad are lifting the word cup and receiving their winners medals.

 

it is if you're talking about forcing either of them to represent their country

against their wishes

 

RE: it is if you're talking about forcing either of them to represent their country

Make no wonder the Country's in a mess we let everyone do what they want and don't question anything, It's only money that makes them pack in. There's no pride any more for some players.

 

If he don't break the rule he don't get a ban. At end of the day they get paid too much and playing for their Country doesn't mean as much as it used to.

 

But that's the point isn't it? If they've got no pride in playing for the team then they shouldn't be playing. Leave the national side for those that are proud to represent us and will give it 100% all the time.

Sometimes I think that the England team would perform much better if the entire 11 were picked from the championship and league 1 than from the premiership rich boys that couldn't care less.

 

They should be honoured to play for their country....

If not then **** em is what i say

Let others that will wear the shirt with pride

 

RE: it is if you're talking about forcing either of them to represent their country

Well I agree that it's more about the money than anything else.

The way the game is structured now we have more fixture congestion than ever simply because of the revenues, the TV rights, the share values and the dividends etc.

Until someone has the balls to reassess the way that the success of the national game ties in financially to the success of the domestic calendar we'll only have limited success internationally.

For me, the year of a world cup there should be no F.A. Cup, and no League Cup. The fixture time should be made up with more international friendlies and time for the national side to focus on it's game. We went into the last world cup as the country that had played the fewest friendlies in the twelve months leading up to the competition, and let's face it, our squad was entirely compromised by fatigue and injury across the board. It's because the big club sides and organisations like SKY TV want to milk every player for every ounce of profit. But what do the fans want?

 

RE: it is if you're talking about forcing either of them to represent their country

I think you would still get mixed reaction from the fans, there's pleaty of fans that don't agree with this break to get us there.

 

RE: it is if you're talking about forcing either of them to represent their country

We'd all be over the moon if we won the world cup though. It'll take bold action to win it.

 

RE: it is if you're talking about forcing either of them to represent their country

All this fixture congestion and fatigue is a bit of a smokescreen for underperformance though. Never hear successful sides moaning about being tired. Professional players get plenty of rest. They should be quite capable physically of playing all these games, notwithstanding injuries. I agree that it has been caused by the focus becoming on money but the players have been a part of this with their wage demands. Other countries players play just as many games, due to the fact that a lot of them play in the PL anyway, but countries like Brazil, Argentina also play twice as many qualifying games to get to the WC and the Copa America, and you have to factor in all the extra travel. English players just like to mention the 'fixture congestion' as a ready made excuse. The media also buy it.

 

RE: yes

</p>

Proper, proper LOL. Where'd you read that, Heat magazine?</p>