RAFALUTION

by Paul Tomkins 18 October 2006

I don't know if it's different for fans of other teams, but I know very few Liverpool fans who care more about their country's fortunes than that of the club they worship. The national team is secondary. For many, it's not even that important.

It's just a hunch, but I've always been under the impression that it is the fans of unsuccessful English clubs who care most passionately about the England side. When there's less chance of seeing a successful team week-in week-out, and there's no Champions League football for added glamour and excitement, it's probably more tempting to hitch your affections to the national side. England compete on the highest stage, and their fans always think they have a chance, however deluded that may be. For Liverpool fans, international football seems a mere hindrance these days.

It's been another fortnight of disruption for Benítez. No time to prepare for the visit of Blackburn last weekend, and three key players who would almost certainly have started returning to Anfield unfit for the game. Agger (the PFA Player of the Month), Sissoko and Kuyt have been three of the Reds' best players this season.

Perhaps of equal importance, all three play in the spine of the team, which is clearly the key area to any side. Agger is a more progressive player than Sami Hyypia; the young Dane's passing and willingness to bring the ball out from the back makes him a valuable asset in home games, when more is expected from defenders in an attacking sense.

Some newspapers focused on the fact Blackburn had two Australian full-backs returning from the other side of the world, but at least they were fit to play. Those two do deserve credit, but they've not played anywhere near as much football this season as the Reds' key men. And the tiredness will catch up with Lucas Neill and Brett Emerton.

It's not like Liverpool don't have they depth in the squad to cope with injuries. But for all the talk of rotation, three enforced changes to the heart of the side meant Rafa's hand was somewhat forced. Injuries picked up on international duty are that bit more frustrating, as they are sustained fighting someone else's cause. (When they're friendlies, it's even worse.)

Benítez made the point before the Blackburn match that there's now a long period without these constant interruptions. But that run really starts now, as the weekend's game was still one of those that couldn't be fully prepared for. As a manager who thinks hard about tactics, the preparation time for games is arguably more crucial than to a manager who sends out the same eleven week after week with the instructions "more of the same, lads".

It's interesting that the same patchy start has plagued the Reds in 2005/06, and that last year it was only once the international games were over that the form improved. If there is a link, it's now up to the coaching staff to work out how to solve the problem. If it's a mere coincidence, then it's an unfortunate one. A title challenge isn't beyond the Reds, but it's only getting harder with every point dropped.

Let me be clear, though: I don't for one second think the Reds' average start to the league campaign has been solely down to the international fixtures. Nor is it solely down to rotation, if indeed it is down to that at all (given, like all conspiracy theories, it thrives on being impossible to prove either way; you can never prove results would have been better with different selections).

Such simplistic arguments ignore a whole host of factors, such as poor finishing, myopic refereeing, integrating new players, injuries, uncharacteristic mistakes from defenders, tough away fixtures, and a lack of the kind of good fortune all successful teams need. It's a combination of complex factors. But the international fixtures have contributed, too.

I think clubs rightly feel very conflicted about international football. Complaining, however, smacks of sour grapes; it's the natural drawback of having the best players (although, of course, the problem also applies if you have a few Andorran and Lithuanian internationals).

Then there's the fact that if you deny players the chance to represent their country you're risking mutiny. Your players will resent it, and new players won't be eager to join a club if they can't represent their country. Players see it as their divine right to play at that level, if selected.

It does have to be said that international football is good for the game in a number of ways, not least in how the World Cup introduces new fans to the game, and unites the planet behind one global event. It's the stage that all players gravitate towards, although the quality is no better than the business end of the Champions League, and arguable worse. Another bonus is the experience players pick up in international football, which clearly helps in their education.

There's also the fact that it presents a chance for players to play their way back into form without the result affecting Liverpool FC. Craig Bellamy is the perfect case in point: without that superb finish for Wales a week ago the ex-Blackburn man might not have placed such a confident header past the ex-Red, Brad Friedel. No goals in two months, then two in four days. Pepe Reina will also have benefited from a run-out for Spain, and his late block against Rovers was the young keeper back to his very best.

Meanwhile, Peter Crouch's stature as a footballer has grown to become more comparable with his height following the most remarkable year representing England, and a record-breaking 11 goals in a calendar year.

The flip-side of this, of course, is that players can suffer a hard time with their country, as Crouch did a year ago, and have their confidence damaged as a result. The worry now, of course, is that Crouch hasn't scored in the last two internationals. How long before the backlash?

I also find it hugely frustrating that there's little accountability from the national teams towards the clubs. It is club fans who pay the wages of all international players; not those who attend international matches. And the clubs are not adequately compensated as a result of injuries. The international game as a whole cannot afford the insurance policies of top players, but some international federations do make a profit. Some kind of compromise needs to be sought. The English FA has one of the best insurance policies, but it still doesn't cover the full wages of its best players.

I'm not calling for an end to international football, but the increasing professionalism of the club game, and the greater financial pressures involved, mean too much has changed in recent years to sustain the current model.

Another worry is that international managers don't have a duty to protect players from injury or strain; they are dealing in the here and now, the quick result to keep their job, and their next fixture might not be for a couple of months. That doesn't necessarily make them reckless, but once the international match is over, they are handing back a player whose condition is not really their concern.

Arsene Wenger's recent analogy was excellent: "What the national coaches are doing is like taking the car from his [club manager's] garage without even asking his permission," Wenger said. "They'll then use his car for 10 days and abandon it in a field without any petrol left in the tank. We then have to recover it, but it is broken down. Then, a month later, they'll come to take your car again – and for good measure you're expected to be nice about it."

Wenger stopped just short of saying that the car then gets wrapped around a lamppost and torched. But that's what a serious injury to a key player must feel like to a club manager.

It's been a tough year for the Reds regarding international injuries. John Arne Riise missed the crucial Benfica tie following an injury for Norway, and Harry Kewell hasn't been seen since picking up a new injury at the World Cup. Dirk Kuyt missed just five games in five years in Dutch football, but he's already missed one for Liverpool after representing his country.

So it remains a complex issue, full of pros and cons – but for clubs who have shelled out fees for the players, and who pay their wages, there’s arguably a greater percentage of the latter than the former.


Post a Comment