Time to scrap these international breaks?

[Eddie Hitler]

There is little in the way of good reason for having them, the vague talk of bonding and team building is rather nonsensical given that the players are then pitched straight back into their clubs.

Meanwhile any club with some international players, including us, just watches the grass grow for two weeks.

Why not do all the friendlies and the qualifiers in the summer before the Euros / WC so that you aren't interrupting the domestic schedule, which can as a consequence finish earlier, and then there is a genuine national team formed during that summer?

 

It does seem a relic from a bygone age to me, like in the days when there was no England manager and the committee just picked the team over a good lunch.

[W-S-M Seagull]

They do annoy me. The season barely gets going then it pauses for the international break. Then it starts up again and then before too long there is another. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

It's a global game.

Until 2004 we had Matchdays on International weekends in the 2nd tier or 2003 at worst.

Us being in the 3rd Tier for good periods of the mid 1990s to mid 2000s we will have barely noticed it.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Iirc, the rule was yeah play as usual but.. 

*If you have 3 or more International call-ups you can apply to have the match postponed.

[Back of the Dolman]

Look on the bright side though, it’s given our injured players 2 weeks to get closer to a return without us having matches.

 

[Midlands Robin]

It all changed after the break up of the former Soviet Union. It probably doubled the amount of teams attempting to qualify for the Euros.

I'd be more than happy to see a two tier qualifying system based on world rankings which would potentially reduce the number of international games. 

It was brilliant to see San Marino take their first competitive win in the Nations League last week but they and the teams they play get nothing out of a Euro qualifier where they lose 10-0.

 

[Sleepy1968]

31 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

There is little in the way of good reason for having them, the vague talk of bonding and team building is rather nonsensical given that the players are then pitched straight back into their clubs.

Meanwhile any club with some international players, including us, just watches the grass grow for two weeks.

Why not do all the friendlies and the qualifiers in the summer before the Euros / WC so that you aren't interrupting the domestic schedule, which can as a consequence finish earlier, and then there is a genuine national team formed during that summer?

 

It does seem a relic from a bygone age to me, like in the days when there was no England manager and the committee just picked the team over a good lunch.

Don't worry, the way the WC is going, by 2034 everyone will automatically qualify for the finals and there'll be no need for qualification.

[Eddie Hitler]

1 minute ago, Midlands Robin said:

It all changed after the break up of the former Soviet Union. It probably doubled the amount of teams attempting to qualify for the Euros.

I'd be more than happy to see a two tier qualifying system based on world rankings which would potentially reduce the number of international games. 

It was brilliant to see San Marino take their first competitive win in the Nations League last week but they and the teams they play get nothing out of a Euro qualifier where they lose 10-0.

 

 

Yes, like Eurovision puts some countries straight into the final and makes others qualify.

I don't know the basis on which they do that but as you say international rankings makes it dead simple for football.

[italian dave]

31 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

There is little in the way of good reason for having them, the vague talk of bonding and team building is rather nonsensical given that the players are then pitched straight back into their clubs.

Meanwhile any club with some international players, including us, just watches the grass grow for two weeks.

Why not do all the friendlies and the qualifiers in the summer before the Euros / WC so that you aren't interrupting the domestic schedule, which can as a consequence finish earlier, and then there is a genuine national team formed during that summer?

 

It does seem a relic from a bygone age to me, like in the days when there was no England manager and the committee just picked the team over a good lunch.

I’m going to play devil’s advocate!

It’s not just about bonding and team building. There’s generally two games played. And by having the common approach across Europe it gives some certainty about when things are going to happen, in an increasingly global game.

In the top two leagues that certainly also means you don’t get the really annoying situations you’d get in L1 where you’ve got a long away trip all planned and booked, and then a couple of weeks beforehand a third Barnsley player gets a late call up to sit on the bench for Azerbaijan- and it’s all off!

And If you shifted all the qualifiers to the summers before the two tournaments then

a) not sure how that works across the rest of the world where the WC is concerned, and

b) you end up with no breaks whatsoever. And the players (never mind the fans) need a break! Remember when Kalas (I think) played something like 18 months without a break. And then got injured.

Having said all that I’m much more of a fan of club football that I am of international football, so it does annoy me when the breaks come. However, it’s also an opportunity - you can book a holiday in the knowledge that you won’t be missing a City game. 

[Eddie Hitler]

3 minutes ago, italian dave said:

I’m going to play devil’s advocate!

It’s not just about bonding and team building. There’s generally two games played. And by having the common approach across Europe it gives some certainty about when things are going to happen, in an increasingly global game.

In the top two leagues that certainly also means you don’t get the really annoying situations you’d get in L1 where you’ve got a long away trip all planned and booked, and then a couple of weeks beforehand a third Barnsley player gets a late call up to sit on the bench for Azerbaijan- and it’s all off!

And If you shifted all the qualifiers to the summers before the two tournaments then

a) not sure how that works across the rest of the world where the WC is concerned, and

b) you end up with no breaks whatsoever. And the players (never mind the fans) need a break! Remember when Kalas (I think) played something like 18 months without a break. And then got injured.

Having said all that I’m much more of a fan of club football that I am of international football, so it does annoy me when the breaks come. However, it’s also an opportunity - you can book a holiday in the knowledge that you won’t be missing a City game. 

 

It's a fair point about the lack of break, though as I noted if you drop the in-season international breaks then you can trim maybe two weeks off each end of the season and let the selected players have a holiday before and after the international games.

If we already had the system I'm suggesting could you see a move to start introducing multiple two week breaks into the domestic season, especially one like this where the season has barely started and then stops again?

[Sleepy1968]

36 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

They do annoy me. The season barely gets going then it pauses for the international break. Then it starts up again and then before too long there is another. 

It's not great is it, especially for those clubs that got confused and started the break an hour or so early.

[BigTone]

39 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

They do annoy me. The season barely gets going then it pauses for the international break. Then it starts up again and then before too long there is another. 

They give me the Eartha Kitts

[redsquirrel]

45 minutes ago, Back of the Dolman said:

Look on the bright side though, it’s given our injured players 2 weeks to get closer to a return without us having matches.

 

2 ways of looking at that, more time to get crocked up the hpc aswell

[Malago]

I’d give the top 16 countries a free pass into the World Cup finals.  Same with the top 16 European countries re the Euros.

And of course scrap this Nations League nonsense.

Won’t happen, because of loss of revenue to national associations.  Everything in football leads back to money.

[Back of the Dolman]

8 minutes ago, redsquirrel said:

2 ways of looking at that, more time to get crocked up the hpc aswell

Yeah but that happens whether we have international breaks or not.

They’d still be up there day in day out anyway.

[CodeRed]

26 minutes ago, BigTone said:

They give me the Eartha Kitts

That's all the fois gras you eat down there, it's far to rich.

[Markthehorn]

48 minutes ago, Sleepy1968 said:

Don't worry, the way the WC is going, by 2034 everyone will automatically qualify for the finals and there'll be no need for qualification.

Funny thing is Europe will only get 2 extra spots so not sure who are getting the rest ?

 

12 minutes ago, Malago said:

I’d give the top 16 countries a free pass into the World Cup finals.  Same with the top 16 European countries re the Euros.

And of course scrap this Nations League nonsense.

Won’t happen, because of loss of revenue to national associations.  Everything in football leads back to money.

It’s more useful for teams who won’t qualify automatically for the big tournaments so not us .

And it has a league cup feel feel for the winners I guess ?

Not that bothered until the last 4.

[Davefevs]

International Break = earn Brownie points 

[Mr Popodopolous]

20 minutes ago, Markthehorn said:

Funny thing is Europe will only get 2 extra spots so not sure who are getting the rest ?

 

It’s more useful for teams who won’t qualify automatically for the big tournaments so not us .

And it has a league cup feel feel for the winners I guess ?

Not that bothered until the last 4.

Some nations develop through it.

Finland- Gained Ranking points which may or may not have assisted their rise to make Euro 2020.

A better example is Georgia. Qualified directly via the Nations League.

[NDW4CITY]

I hate international breaks with a passion.
Would happily go back to the internationals being played midweek as in the good old days, though I’m sure the Premier League would object.
Wasn’t there a proposal from FIFA to just have October/March breaks? Anyone know what happened to that?

[Numero Uno]

Anything that gives our injured lads two extra weeks without missing games has got to be a good thing…..in fact if we made the breaks three months at a time we would be full strength for at least six weeks of the season.

[Maltshoveller]

26 minutes ago, NDW4CITY said:

I hate international breaks with a passion.
Would happily go back to the internationals being played midweek as in the good old days, though I’m sure the Premier League would object.
Wasn’t there a proposal from FIFA to just have October/March breaks? Anyone know what happened to that?

I think UEFA would be more against it

How dare one body get in the way of the Fat Cat Cup

[RoystonFoote'snephew]

1 hour ago, Malago said:

I’d give the top 16 countries a free pass into the World Cup finals.  Same with the top 16 European countries re the Euros.

And of course scrap this Nations League nonsense.

Won’t happen, because of loss of revenue to national associations.  Everything in football leads back to money.

I'd be so opposed to this. Every country that is affiliated to FIFA and, UEFA should have equal right to qualify and to play against the larger nations, with the chance to increase their revenues and therefore aid long term improvement. The competitions should be exclusive to the so-called elite. We already have the totally corrupt Champions League which places clubs from favoured nations directly into the latter stages of the competition (English clubs only qualify due to their record that goes back to our 1970s dominance by the old 1st Division and not through our paltry record by PL clubs), where the big money is guaranteed, despite many of them being the champions of sod all. Only the champions of the UEFA affiliated nations should be in the Champions League. The also rans should go into the lesser competitions. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

58 minutes ago, NDW4CITY said:

I hate international breaks with a passion.
Would happily go back to the internationals being played midweek as in the good old days, though I’m sure the Premier League would object.
Wasn’t there a proposal from FIFA to just have October/March breaks? Anyone know what happened to that?

There were a lot less nations for one, post Soviet Union and Yugoslavia inflated numbers.

Then you have Andorra, Faroe Islands, Liechtenstein and San Marino..oh and the split of Czechoslovakia.

Otoh, Germany re-unified.

Unsure how it fits in elsewhere outside Europe but Nations steadily got their independence from the 1950s or 1960s onwards.

How would that have worked then, assuming this is pre PL days..

Edited September 9 by Mr Popodopolous

[RoystonFoote'snephew]

3 hours ago, Eddie Hitler said:

There is little in the way of good reason for having them, the vague talk of bonding and team building is rather nonsensical given that the players are then pitched straight back into their clubs.

Meanwhile any club with some international players, including us, just watches the grass grow for two weeks.

Why not do all the friendlies and the qualifiers in the summer before the Euros / WC so that you aren't interrupting the domestic schedule, which can as a consequence finish earlier, and then there is a genuine national team formed during that summer?

 

It does seem a relic from a bygone age to me, like in the days when there was no England manager and the committee just picked the team over a good lunch.

It's not as simple as playing all the games in the summer as a number of nations affiliated to UEFA have summer leagues and there would be huge disruption to them. The points made about players needing a break are also very relevant. 

[sephjnr]

I'm against it now. Teams should be using their rosters as everyone has the same handicap and it's the perfect opportunity for managers to expand their options and for bench players to make the case for promotion.

[Robbored]

I’m probably being a bit dim here but wasn’t the international break introduced because many of the top clubs would have too many players called up to represent their country?

At least that’s my understanding of it - reinforced by the lower league clubs not being effected.

However….these days all the top clubs have huge squads and surely they could accommodate the loss of their international players for a couple of weeks……..

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

There were a lot less nations for one, post Soviet Union and Yugoslavia inflated numbers.

Then you have Andorra, Faroe Islands, Liechtenstein and San Marino..oh and the split of Czechoslovakia.

Otoh, Germany re-unified.

Unsure how it fits in elsewhere outside Europe but Nations steadily got their independence from the 1950s or 1960s onwards.

How would that have worked then, assuming this is pre PL days..

I can think of four other "national" teams that inflate the numbers as well.

But, for once, I find myself agreeing with @Robbored. Keep the games where they are in the calendar but carry on with the leagues at the same time. FIFA won't let that happen, but it would be a good way to move forward. The squads can take it, and if they can't, we'll maybe we'll get some interesting results.

[Dr Balls]

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

International Break = earn Brownie points 

Or in our case 4 weeks between home games. There is only so many Brownie points anyone can earn and that’s just too long!

[Mr Popodopolous]

30 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I can think of four other "national" teams that inflate the numbers as well.

But, for once, I find myself agreeing with @Robbored. Keep the games where they are in the calendar but carry on with the leagues at the same time. FIFA won't let that happen, but it would be a good way to move forward. The squads can take it, and if they can't, we'll maybe we'll get some interesting results.

I don't see why FIFA would be bothered, it was fine until 2003- Championship minimum, what changed.

It would act as a big wildcard agreed.

[ExiledAjax]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I don't see why FIFA would be bothered, it was fine until 2003- Championship minimum, what changed.

It would act as a big wildcard agreed.

Because they (and UEFA) don't want anything to draw eyeballs away from their international tournaments. It is literally why there is a break at all. FIFA mandates that clubs release players for international games. In essence that enshrines the principle that Country trumps Club, and so has the effect that whenever FIFA schedules international matches (or sanctions a continental organisation to do so) there is, by default, a break.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, ExiledAjax said:

Because they (and UEFA) don't want anything to draw eyeballs away from their international tournaments. It is literally why there is a break at all. FIFA mandates that clubs release players for international games. In essence that enshrines the principle that Country trumps Club, and so has the effect that whenever FIFA schedules international matches (or sanctions a continental organisation to do so) there is, by default, a break.

Yes Clubs release players but your idea if I read it right, of Clubs releasing players but playing through breaks seems win-win?

[Super]

It's irrelevant really not a chance they will be scrapped 

[NDW4CITY]

3 hours ago, Maltshoveller said:

I think UEFA would be more against it

How dare one body get in the way of the Fat Cat Cup

That too!

[Shauntaylor85]

I cannot stand the breaks, too many of them and far too soon. We should only have two per season, not four. So many pointless games, club first for me every day. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

13 minutes ago, Shauntaylor85 said:

I cannot stand the breaks, too many of them and far too soon. We should only have two per season, not four. So many pointless games, club first for me every day. 

It's been this way since as long as I can remember.

1998 I started following City, I always recall tje September, October, March breaks in seasons beginning in an even number- ie 1998, 2000 etc, midweek friendly in November.

Same in odd number season save for the November to fit the WCQF Playoffs in.

[NDW4CITY]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

There were a lot less nations for one, post Soviet Union and Yugoslavia inflated numbers.

Then you have Andorra, Faroe Islands, Liechtenstein and San Marino..oh and the split of Czechoslovakia.

Otoh, Germany re-unified.

Unsure how it fits in elsewhere outside Europe but Nations steadily got their independence from the 1950s or 1960s onwards.

How would that have worked then, assuming this is pre PL days..

Yes more nations, but ultimately this just means more qualifying groups rather than more games per team. If memory serves, going back to the 70s and 80s, you would still typically have had groups of 4 or 5 teams. The bIg advantage for international teams now vs then is obviously the extended time together which would not have happened.

As an example, for the 1982 World Cup qualifying, in the early qualifying games, England played :

Wed, Sep 10 1980 v Norway

Wed, Oct 15 1980 v Romania

Wed, Nov 19 1980 v Switzerland then no more games until April 1981. 

Typical schedule would have been for players to join up with England on the Sunday/Monday, train Monday/Tuesday, game on Wednesday, rejoin club team asap and barring injuries, be in the team for their clubs on Saturday. Bish bash bosh , everyone’s a winner! Never gonna happen now for so many reasons, like so many other things from that era. 

[Markthehorn]

21 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

It's been this way since as long as I can remember.

1998 I started following City, I always recall tje September, October, March breaks in seasons beginning in an even number- ie 1998, 2000 etc, midweek friendly in November.

Same in odd number season save for the November to fit the WCQF Playoffs in.

Yes I remember we played in the Championship on Internationals weekends in the 90s/00s but games were called off and now it seems even League Two games are.

Regarding this one Arterta won't be happy.

New Italian chap injured at the weekend and now Odegaard 

 

[Rocking Red Cyril]

4 hours ago, Numero Uno said:

Anything that gives our injured lads two extra weeks without missing games has got to be a good thing…..in fact if we made the breaks three months at a time we would be full strength for at least six weeks of the season.

Yeah with our seemingly never ending injury  list the international breaks give good time for rest and repairs on the players in need. And we can  hope as we still  bedding in new signings. We will see a refreshed, fit, more in tune with each other, and dynamic return to the league. And speedy rise up the league.

Or am I missing something 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, NDW4CITY said:

Yes more nations, but ultimately this just means more qualifying groups rather than more games per team. If memory serves, going back to the 70s and 80s, you would still typically have had groups of 4 or 5 teams. The bIg advantage for international teams now vs then is obviously the extended time together which would not have happened.

As an example, for the 1982 World Cup qualifying, in the early qualifying games, England played :

Wed, Sep 10 1980 v Norway

Wed, Oct 15 1980 v Romania

Wed, Nov 19 1980 v Switzerland then no more games until April 1981. 

Typical schedule would have been for players to join up with England on the Sunday/Monday, train Monday/Tuesday, game on Wednesday, rejoin club team asap and barring injuries, be in the team for their clubs on Saturday. Bish bash bosh , everyone’s a winner! Never gonna happen now for so many reasons, like so many other things from that era. 

Thanks for the context.

I'm trying to think of changes to suit everyone vs the current system, clearly now it is imperfect- the Super Duper ever growing CL a factor here as we are seeing with our own domestic Cup competitions.

I think Middling and Lower sides can rise via the Nations League and this is a good thing. Kazakhstan e.g. when they first joined UEFA got barely a point, they got 18 points in Euro 2024 qualifying e.g.. including wins v Denmark and Northern Ireland.

Finland 12 points 6 games 2018 Nations League, probably helped a bit Seeding wise for Euro 2020 qualifying. All sides (just IMO) should have an equal theoretical crack although I sympathise with the disruption and congestion bits too.

Pre-qualifying could even boost some of the Lowest sides over time into Lower Middle, Lower Middle into Middle Lower and so on.

Edited September 9 by Mr Popodopolous

[The Bard]

Current scenario is 4 international breaks in-season.  That's 4 weekends plus 8 midweeks for international football.

I would prefer if they had 1 longer window in late October/November.  3 or 4 weeks off so that about 5 or 6 internationals can be played.  Scrap the March Internationals.  This would mean the club season could end a week or 2 earlier and then have another 4 or 5 internationals in June. 

It would work so much better. Less travel, especially for Asian/ South American players at clubs in Europe.  At the moment you get jet lagged Brazilians trying to play about 60 hours after a transatlantic flight. It's ridiculous.  

In terms of getting games played, it would be more efficient. The season would fall into 3 blocks.  S

[italian dave]

17 hours ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

It's a fair point about the lack of break, though as I noted if you drop the in-season international breaks then you can trim maybe two weeks off each end of the season and let the selected players have a holiday before and after the international games.

If we already had the system I'm suggesting could you see a move to start introducing multiple two week breaks into the domestic season, especially one like this where the season has barely started and then stops again?

If you think ours has barely started, try Serie A in Italy! One season - I think it may have been last year - they started the season, had one weekend of games, and went straight into the September international break!!! 

[Sir Geoff]

Hate International breaks, but since retired now plan my holidays around them. September and October perfect Holiday time, no crowds, no kids and still plenty of sun.

[Sir Geoff]

12 hours ago, Markthehorn said:

Yes I remember we played in the Championship on Internationals weekends in the 90s/00s but games were called off and now it seems even League Two games are.

Regarding this one Arterta won't be happy.

New Italian chap injured at the weekend and now Odegaard 

 

Wasn't there a rule that a game could only be called off if a team had 3 (may have been 2) players called up for International duty. As more and more Championship clubs were affected it was easier just to scrap Championship games altogether. If League One clubs had players called up they had to just get on with it.

[pillred]

19 hours ago, Eddie Hitler said:

There is little in the way of good reason for having them, the vague talk of bonding and team building is rather nonsensical given that the players are then pitched straight back into their clubs.

Meanwhile any club with some international players, including us, just watches the grass grow for two weeks.

Why not do all the friendlies and the qualifiers in the summer before the Euros / WC so that you aren't interrupting the domestic schedule, which can as a consequence finish earlier, and then there is a genuine national team formed during that summer?

 

It does seem a relic from a bygone age to me, like in the days when there was no England manager and the committee just picked the team over a good lunch.

I think a minimum number of players missing from a team should trigger an exemption to make it fair, some teams have at most a couple of players involved which replacements from the squad should easily cover, plus we rarely if ever seem to benefit from international breaks.

Edited September 10 by pillred

[Oh Louie louie]

First player I ever saw win a full cap, howard Pritchard, I think he was the only person under TC to win a full cap? 

[Eddie Hitler]

2 hours ago, pillred said:

I think a minimum number of players missing from a team should trigger an exemption to make it fair, some teams have at most a couple of players involved which replacements from the squad should easily cover, plus we rarely if ever seem to benefit from international breaks.

 

Yes I agree but I was more coming from the angle that the international games shouldn't happen during the season, or maybe only once or twice, as there is no good reason for playing these games during the league season.

 

Making clubs play without their international players is what happens with the African Cup of Nations and it does serve to penalise penalise teams for having players good enough for international sides.

Man City for instance would really struggle, though as you say a minimum cut off could be applied.

[formerly known as ivan]

Not a fan of rugby so might be wrong on this, but follow their lead in that the season continues just without your star players. Anyone not called up for internationals, fringe players and youngsters, get a run out in a league game. This will help development as well.

We know it won’t happen, too much money involved. But would love to see it.

[Kid in the Riot]

It's one weekend without a City game, in an otherwise packed schedule. Struggling to see the problem. 

It's good for grassroots football too, with local clubs getting a revenue boost from larger crowds. 

[The Bard]

1 hour ago, formerly known as ivan said:

Not a fan of rugby so might be wrong on this, but follow their lead in that the season continues just without your star players. Anyone not called up for internationals, fringe players and youngsters, get a run out in a league game. This will help development as well.

We know it won’t happen, too much money involved. But would love to see it.

That happens twice a season now and that is due to training for upcoming internationals.  I posted earlier about having just 2 windows, 1 in the autumn and 1 in June.  That is the obvious solution.  The last world cup effectively trialled it.  

That would give you something like 10 league games then a break as the winter closes in.  

This whole debate will seem a bit futile when people realise the extent of the new Champions League.  You could get a situation where a team plays 17 games to win.  Half a season in Germany.   Football is at the point of eating itself.

 

 

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

They boil my piss, especially this early in the calender. 

[Markthehorn]

19 hours ago, formerly known as ivan said:

Not a fan of rugby so might be wrong on this, but follow their lead in that the season continues just without your star players. Anyone not called up for internationals, fringe players and youngsters, get a run out in a league game. This will help development as well.

We know it won’t happen, too much money involved. But would love to see it.

I understand they just play a cup competition now with as say kids and fringe players .

Basically like our league cup really .

On occasions there have been 3 games a week on an International week maybe with less breaks in that season ?

But Internationals are part of the game and will be here to stay .

Suppose not so many EFL teams need to call their games off though .

 

[MarcusX]

On 09/09/2024 at 19:06, Robbored said:

I’m probably being a bit dim here but wasn’t the international break introduced because many of the top clubs would have too many players called up to represent their country?

At least that’s my understanding of it - reinforced by the lower league clubs not being effected.

However….these days all the top clubs have huge squads and surely they could accommodate the loss of their international players for a couple of weeks……..

Every club has near enough the same size squad, because there's a limit of 25 registered players in the Premier League (with some of the youngsters excluded from that count)

Man City have around 10-15 players called up, Arsenal 12, Liverpool about 15. It would make a mockery of the league IMO.

Anyway, to buck the trend, I love the International Break. I love watching England, and I'm glad the Nations League exists because it means less meaningless friendlies and gives a bit more purpose to the games.

It's mad how many people will jump on the bandwagon come tournament time, but seem to hate or at best be indifferent to England the remaining 23 months between events.

How do you expect us to improve, and hopefully win something, if we play less games and give the manager less time with the players?

[ExiledAjax]

5 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

Man City have around 10-15 players called up, Arsenal 12, Liverpool about 15. It would make a mockery of the league IMO.

Or, it would mean that there was an interesting risk/reward element to signing international players. Yes you can fill your squad with the best of the best, but the risk is that come the time of international games you have to field the kids (some changes to squad rules might be needed but its workable). We see this a little already with AFCON and the Asian Champs and it doesn't in any way mock the league. Also, all teams would be treated equally, with full transparency. It would be fine.

We might, possibly, end up with the international level players distributed more fairly through the PL, which could potentially lead to a more competitive league. That might not be the consequence, we don't really know, but it could be something that changes.

[cotswoldred2]

1 hour ago, MarcusX said:

Every club has near enough the same size squad, because there's a limit of 25 registered players in the Premier League (with some of the youngsters excluded from that count)

Man City have around 10-15 players called up, Arsenal 12, Liverpool about 15. It would make a mockery of the league IMO.

Anyway, to buck the trend, I love the International Break. I love watching England, and I'm glad the Nations League exists because it means less meaningless friendlies and gives a bit more purpose to the games.

It's mad how many people will jump on the bandwagon come tournament time, but seem to hate or at best be indifferent to England the remaining 23 months between events.

How do you expect us to improve, and hopefully win something, if we play less games and give the manager less time with the players?

It also allows us City fans to have a stress free weekend or two.

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

12 hours ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

They boil my piss, especially this early in the calender. 

I'd like to add to this the hyperbole over Carsley in the press today makes me want kick a cat.

[View from the Dolman]

So anyone wanting to ditch the international breaks, what do you want in their place?

More matches? A 30 team league? Extra cup competitions?

A calendar with less/no midweek matches with them moved to weekends of the current international breaks?

Less games during the busier spells (e.g. Christmas)?

[The Bard]

27 minutes ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

I'd like to add to this the hyperbole over Carsley in the press today makes me want kick a cat.

He's won a couple of games we should win and handed out a few debuts. No more or less than what could be expected. 

 

He's the right appointment for 2024.  Not sure about 2025 onwards..

[RedM]

On 09/09/2024 at 19:06, Robbored said:

I’m probably being a bit dim here but wasn’t the international break introduced because many of the top clubs would have too many players called up to represent their country?

At least that’s my understanding of it - reinforced by the lower league clubs not being effected.

However….these days all the top clubs have huge squads and surely they could accommodate the loss of their international players for a couple of weeks……..

Rugby carries on when there are internationals, always a good time to play a club with loads of internationals .

I think Knight has featured in both matches for Ireland so maybe we will have to rest him. I think our other Irish players have travelled, half our team, (luckily it's not far). Our non international players have taken a break and some on holiday abroad according to social media.

[Davefevs]

8 minutes ago, RedM said:

Rugby carries on when there are internationals, always a good time to play a club with loads of internationals .

I think Knight has featured in both matches for Ireland so maybe we will have to rest him. I think our other Irish players have travelled, half our team, (luckily it's not far). Our non international players have taken a break and some on holiday abroad according to social media.

Just Knight, O’Leary and Armstrong went away, wasn’t it?

[Markthehorn]

57 minutes ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

I'd like to add to this the hyperbole over Carsley in the press today makes me want kick a cat.

Not the same ones calling him to be sacked before the Ireland game ?

[Eddie Hitler]

1 hour ago, View from the Dolman said:

So anyone wanting to ditch the international breaks, what do you want in their place?

More matches? A 30 team league? Extra cup competitions?

A calendar with less/no midweek matches with them moved to weekends of the current international breaks?

Less games during the busier spells (e.g. Christmas)?

 

A shorter league season with the same number of games as now, thus enabling international players more of a break between the league season ending / beginning and the international tournaments.

[Welcome To The Jungle]

22 hours ago, formerly known as ivan said:

Not a fan of rugby so might be wrong on this, but follow their lead in that the season continues just without your star players. Anyone not called up for internationals, fringe players and youngsters, get a run out in a league game. This will help development as well.

We know it won’t happen, too much money involved. But would love to see it.

It's one of the reasons that Rugby has playoffs. The best team, with lots of international players, may have a torrid time during internationals, and end up finishing second to a decent team with few call ups. The playoffs still allow that better team to win the Premiership.

You do tend to see the international players more spread out across the league though.

[Mr Popodopolous]

It's difficult really. Different parts of the world have different requirements- there isn't one universal Global League season August to May. Climate, hemisphere etc. That's one element. What suits England may not suit South America or even parts of Eastern Europe whose season substantially differs say.

Plus the lengthy CONMEBOL mini League format is quite good really. Both Argentina and Brazil (2-1 in Colombia, 1-0 in Paraguay) lost this week which is a turn up- greater depth and unpredictably than any other zone IMO.

Brazil struggling a tad!

 

Edited September 11 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

13 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

It's difficult really. Different parts of the world have different requirements- there isn't one universal Global League season August to May. Climate, hemisphere etc. That's one element. What suits England may not suit South America or even parts of Eastern Europe whose season substantially differs say.

Plus the lengthy CONMEBOL mini League format is quite good really. Both Argentina and Brazil (2-1 in Colombia, 1-0 in Paraguay) lost this week which is a turn up- greater depth and unpredictably than any other zone IMO.

Brazil struggling a tad!

 

I think Brazil beat Ecuador in Ecuador at the weekend (first time ever????), otherwise they’d be below Bolivia!

[ExiledAjax]

31 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

A shorter league season with the same number of games as now, thus enabling international players more of a break between the league season ending / beginning and the international tournaments.

Also, if you play internationals whilst the league continues, then those players that go to internationals don't play "extra" games, they just play slightly fewer league games.

[Eddie Hitler]

Just now, ExiledAjax said:

Also, if you play internationals whilst the league continues, then those players that go to internationals don't play "extra" games, they just play slightly fewer league games.

 

True, though when I say to get rid of international breaks I also mean get rid of these randomly scheduled international games, especially friendlies, and instead hold them all in an international summer season each year.

 

[ExiledAjax]

13 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

True, though when I say to get rid of international breaks I also mean get rid of these randomly scheduled international games, especially friendlies, and instead hold them all in an international summer season each year.

I think you'd need to persuade FIFA to schedule that in place of it's new Club World Cup. Best of luck with that!

[Markthehorn]

18 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

True, though when I say to get rid of international breaks I also mean get rid of these randomly scheduled international games, especially friendlies, and instead hold them all in an international summer season each year.

 

The Nations league is supposed to replace them but can see why England seen them as such because we haven’t looked like winning the competition or had to use it as a back wards route to a tournament.

Edited September 11 by Markthehorn

[Robbored]

1 hour ago, RedM said:

I think Knight has featured in both matches for Ireland so maybe we will have to rest him. I think our other Irish players have travelled, half our team, (luckily it's not far). Our non international players have taken a break and some on holiday abroad according to social media.

City and other Championship clubs could have coped without their called up players. Most if not all have big enough squads. City could have managed without O’Leary, Armstrong and Knight for two matches.

One benefit is that with internationals absent it gives opportunities for other players to step up.