I will say this, and I have said it before on this topic. This discussion is really a English thing.
I think in most of the world, there is no conflict between the two. It is an honour for player from your team to play on the national team, and when they are not selected people complain. Now there is a bit of a double standard on my part, because I am happy that Boateng did not represent Ghana in the African Cup, as Milan needs him in the CL and Serie A.
Can you direct me to that ? I'd like to read it in order to get a better understanding of what you mean.Originally Posted by trane
thanks.
a ha ha heh he hoo.. ha
I think what trane is getting at is that if you polled most people the English are likely to go "club over country" while most other backgrounds would likely go "country over club".
I think it's more anecdotal.
Google "club over country"
Guardian poll pops up.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/poll/2011/oct/11/1
Thing is as international club football gets bigger, club teams are exerting more pressure on players to choose club over country. That's why FIFA has stepped in to protect their competitions.
I think the debate though is biggest in England moreso than other parts of the world, which is what trane is alluding to.
http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/footbal...b-over-country
Last edited by Whoop; 02-06-2012 at 03:13 PM.
^ thanks.
I wonder what the results would be if players were polled on whether they'd rather play for their club or country ?
Depends on the club and depends on the country haha
Canada in the World Cup is basically a dream. The only reason TFC has yet to have MLS success is because our first management team was a nightmare. It's not close, definitely Canada over TFC for me. The only situation I wouldn't put country over club is the Leafs, and that's because Canada's got gold several times in the past 10 years. Otherwise give me Canada beating the US for gold in olympic mens basketball over a Raptors NBA title any day. If the World Baseball Classic was a real tournament I'd put it above the Jays too. But really, that tourny's a joke. I still love it though.
I find many responses odd because the rational for what would be more desirable is based on how much exposure the team could get.
Where's the passion? I passionately want Canada to make the World Cup, not because people who don't care about soccer are suddenly going to be exposed to the team. I want Canada to make the World Cup because it's the best tournament on Earth.
Why do I have to pick?
That is it. It has never been much of a debate in Italy, as they are not seen as cometeing interests. Playing and supporting ones country, in some ways is seen as an extension of playing and supporting ones club. You love Calcio therefore you support your local team, in that there is alot of civic pride involved, then because of the same love you support your country for national pride.
Too illustrate.
I am from Milano, so I support the Milano team, now in Milano there is two choices, Milan and Inter, due to the makeup of the Milan support, I support Milan. But Milano is in Italy, and plays in Serie A. So I support Italy, as it representes the entire nation, inclduing Milano. I am proud when players from Milan play for the national team. Becuse Milan plays in Serie A, I support Serie A teams competing outside of Serie A. Inter may be a rival in Sierie A and in the City. But when Inter is playing outside of the Italy, it represents the country and the city, so I like to see it do well. It is not the same feeling like I have for Milan, not close, but still their is Civic pride in the fact that between the two Milano teams we have 10 CL trophies, and so on.
Clearly, this is a very different way of looking at it then people do in England.
Last edited by trane; 02-07-2012 at 01:10 PM.
^It is different in England, partly because for many people, cheering for the national team means having to cheer for players from other clubs that they are used to hating week in, week out. This is only part of the reason I'm sure, but in some cases, and depending on the club, it's a huge reason why support for the national side isn't as fervent. Club over country, definitely more so in this instance.
Yet how does Scotland do it?
^Interesting point. However I think in that instance, the sporting arena is traditionally one of the few places where the Scots are really able to display their national pride, so that would trump any divisions that are caused by religion, clubs, etc. You only need to see all the "Remember Bannockburn" banners that come out when Scotland play England to see that point driven home.
I also wonder how much international success plays into the picture?
TFC didn't storm the beaches at Normandy, liberate Holland, establish meaningful peacekeeping in regions that need it and they aren't looked up to all around the world.
When I sing the national anthem at a Canada game it illustrates everything I love about my country, one am I lucky enough to call my own. I'm not sure I've ever loved a girl that much, let alone a soccer team.
I will also say, that even though a shit ton of my really good friends answer club to this, it honest to god makes me think less of them as a person. (Honestly)
It's country, it's always country, it's not even fit for a debate.
Even in the signature, too. Dude isn't fuckin' around!
I admire the enthusiasm.
I don`t get that at all... not cheering for your country because it means cheering for players on rival club teams ? That's mad.
I'm English, but subscribe to Trane's philosophy of national pride.
When did this happen (in England) ? Surely it wasn't always thus.
Man, I still would like to see Canada do well, but our games are infrequent, boring, not at a particularly high level, and all international football in general is poor compared to the best club football. I was also really turned off by the recent Sydney Leroux harassment. It is a double standard, but a bunch of middle-aged guys (including a particular obese and creepy well-known Vancouver soccer blogger) attacking a young woman and basically amateur athlete on twitter and in person just came off as jingoistic and pathetic and made me even less interested in the national scene.
I am far more emotionally invested in what happens to the club teams I support, due to how much time I spend following them and watching their games, than I am the national team. For me, it is no contest, and it is club every time and in every sport.
Last edited by Dub Narcotic; 02-07-2012 at 11:54 PM.
Moderator
Which, funnily enough, sorta takes us back to the argument of Canadian Championship over MLS Cup.
BTW, I'm still of the opinion that NCC trumps MLS Cup because winning the NCC advances us into the CCL whereas winning the MLS Cup gives us a shiny trophy and that's it.
Did the USA , of all countries, just fix soccer? - C. Ronaldo, May 27th commenting on the FBI-led investigations into fraud and corruption throughout FIFA.
Yes, if it's just club or country, country should always win (and it does for me).
But that isn't the question in this poll (despite the misleading thread title). The question is carefully worded in an extreme manner, should we take something minor for our country over something major for a club team?
The national team is only a small part of football in Canada, the various clubs both professional and amateur in this country are a bigger part of what promote this great sport in Canada.
It could be argued that even if Canada fails to merely get into the next World Cup (and fail in the first round like last time) but TFC wins the MLS Cup, TFC's victory is what would best promote the game and propel Canada into becoming more of a proper footballing nation, and ultimately leading to our national team being in every World Cup. Canada loves being a winner, and for example winning in hockey is one of the reasons why hockey is so popular here when most of the world couldn't care less. Winning in football (even the MLS Cup) will make Canadians take notice and give the game a massive bump in popularity. You see it isn't so simple. You can love our country first, but still think that what's best for the country is for TFC (or the Whitecaps or the Impact) to succeed.
To put it in military terms, how much of a success would it have been in WWII for Canada to successfully launch a new tank, but leave Hitler in power?
Last edited by Oldtimer; 02-08-2012 at 07:06 AM.
MLS is a tough, physical league, that emphasizes speed, and features plastic fields, grueling travel, extreme weather, and incompetent refs. - NK Toronto
To an extent, they don't. You have a lot of old firm fans (not all or even half but a strong minority) who support the republic of ireland or england and don't like or care about the national team. The rest of us in our towns and cities don't feel the disconnect that most of england does with London and the south east as when thatcher was in power that area was more prosperous in general and tended to keep her in power leaving the Liverpools, Leeds and Manchesters feeling a disconnect with their southern countrymen due to policy and way of life
I still don't see a TFC victory in the MLS Cup popularizing the game across Canada.
Did the Metros-Croatia victory in the Soccer Bowl or the Whitecaps victory in the Soccer Bowl popularize the game across Canada or did Canada's participation in the 1986 World Cup do more?
I mean if TFC (or Montreal or Vancouver) wins the MLS Cup is the mainstream media in Calgary going to talk about it? I doubt it. When Montreal went on its CCL run a couple of years ago how much play did that get? Some, but not a lot. I don't think a kid in Hamilton decided to start playing because the Impact went to the CCL QF.
Now Canada gets to the World Cup... the mainstream media across the country will talk about it. It could possibly be a lead story on the National news. I'm sure the TV numbers from just one of Canada's games at the World Cup would eclipse the TV numbers for the MLS Cup if a Canadian team was participating.
That's the power of nationalism/patriotism whatever you want to call it.
Sure you want the Canadian teams to be successful but Canadian teams have been successful before and really it didn't help. Sustained international success, which would lead to better friendlies, which would lead to more publicity around the national team (again, look at the women's team)... that's what's going to make the sport even more popular.
What the Canadian clubs do though is give local kids hope that if they want to be a professional soccer player, there's an option available. What Canada qualifying for the World Cup is turn the kid from the middle of Canada that didn't even like soccer before into a soccer fan.
Suspect the World Cup would be a case of "back before the postcards" so opted for the MLS win. Throw in a couple of sudden death rounds and maybe I'd swing over to the other option.
I didn't mean across the board, but for a few people, it's like that. And hate is a pretty strong word, I should have said indifference.
I think Wull's post above encapsulates more of what I was trying to say. In that as it pertains to England, at least as far as I've noticed, regional pride always seems to trump national pride (generally) in the end. Sure, you get your England rah-rah types, but I've never seen a united front for English support quite the same as I've seen it for other nations.
In Canada, during World Jrs. or Olympic hockey, it doesn't matter whether a player (or a supporter) is from St. John's or Winkler, Manitoba - everyone is *Canadian*, and it doesn't matter where you're from. Everyone gets behind Canada. Regional differences fade away.
As far as the English national team goes, I've just never noticed that exists to the same extent. And Wull's reference to the north/south divide I believe is spot on. I think in some areas, you just find a lot more indifference.
Actually, the NASL did do a lot to popularize the game in Canada. For example, look at the founding dates of most of the non-ethnic soccer clubs in the GTA. Most of them date from the mid-70s. There is a reason for that.
I do remember Canada getting into the World Cup and it did nothing for the game (BTW, the only reason Canada was able to make it in 1986 was because of a large number of players whose skills had been developed in the NASL, even though the NASL was gone by then). When Canada quickly exited from the World Cup, people said "Canada sucks at soccer" and went back to cheering for their grandfather's homeland's team. Just getting in did nothing.
Think about the state of soccer in Canada in 2005. The CMNT garnered very little interest. The CSA was barely on the map. There were no "soccer shows" on the radio. There were some foreign games on the TV, but nothing about the game in Canada.
The current higher profile of the game and some very promising young players starting to play for Canada had nothing to do with CMNT success: there was none. It had nothing to do with CSA marketing genius: the CSA was disfunctional. It had nothing to do with the provincial associations and their teams. It had nothing to do with Canadians playing in the Norwegian second division. It all came down to one thing: the founding of Toronto FC in 2006.
From that one event came all of the bloggers, columnists and shows. From that came a Canada home crowd in Toronto (TFC did things right and included a Canada game in the first year SSH package, for many that was their first ever Canada game).
Also from that has come an academy that is churning out players for the CMNT, so that we can dream in the future of a CMNT that makes every World Cup. TFC is doing things right in that regard too, and is relentlessly focused on developing Canadian players. There will be a lot more Canadians playing at a high level because of TFC.
So for me it's not a case of choosing my club over country. I love my country. It's a case of helping my country through my club.
Now, if the CMNT could make it beyond the first round, then yes, I'd agree that it would now be at a point where national team success will further boost the game.
Last edited by Oldtimer; 02-08-2012 at 08:55 AM.
MLS is a tough, physical league, that emphasizes speed, and features plastic fields, grueling travel, extreme weather, and incompetent refs. - NK Toronto
Again, it's more of a regional thing. TFC woke up the GTA in regards to soccer, in terms of an area that had been dormant for a long, long time in regards to the CMNT and the professional game in NA.
Yes, that in turn helps the country but it's just made soccer more mainstream so it's even more okay to cheer for your homeland club team more so than TFC.
So question, if Vancouver wins the MLS Cup this year how does that help soccer in Ontario or Quebec?
Ultimately the question comes down to what do you feel more like a Torontonian or a Canadian? Do you feel more of a connection to Toronto or is Canada an ancillary thought? It's like the England example people are referring to. Does the size of the country play a role in it?
ed: This is something that is occurring in politics in Canada right now and is affecting the country so it's not just soccer related.
Most might not care as much as a fan, but if I was a young soccer player playing at an advanced level I sure would be interested in pursuing a career with Vancouver Whitecaps FC.
Now I'm a Canada supporter first, so I am not ashamed to say that, as much as I dislike anything to do with the Impact, I cheered them on in the CCL as Canada's representatives.
I do the same for hockey, I would rather Winnipeg wins the Stanley Cup than an American team.
Now "club or country" usually comes up not for fans but for players. As Trane noted, it seems to be a uniquely English thing to loath your national team. In most countries it's a huge honour. (Canada's problem is something different: players who view their nationality as a mere matter of convenience, who will play for any other country if it furthers their career).
Last edited by Oldtimer; 02-08-2012 at 09:11 AM.
MLS is a tough, physical league, that emphasizes speed, and features plastic fields, grueling travel, extreme weather, and incompetent refs. - NK Toronto
Fair enough.
I just don't think Vancouver winning the MLS Cup is going to generate a lot of play in New Brunswick.
I must argue that qualifying for the World Cup is hardly a minor accomplishment. To make it to the tournament stage of the grandest competition is terrific. Especially when you factor in the number of nations competing to get in from the outset.But that isn't the question in this poll (despite the misleading thread title). The question is carefully worded in an extreme manner, should we take something minor for our country over something major for a club team?
Add to that just about the entire world will be watching and reading about it. It's great exposure for the country, the team and the players.
There'll even be a Canada page in the Panini sticker set.
Also, trying to get back since 1986 has proven to be tricky. If we go to Brazil it'll have been 28 years between appearances. Let's put a proper value on this.
I point to the US.
While the MLS has helped grow the game in the US, what generates more interest in the game when Houston wins the MLS Cup or when the US makes it to the World Cup (remember the excitement when they drew with England 2 years ago) or when the US women make the final? There was no MLS when the US qualified in 1990 and hosted in 1994. I'd argue that the US run in the 2002 World Cup did more for the MLS than DC United's success in the MLS Cup.
Chicken or egg... but I'd argue in emerging countries (i.e. US, Japan, Australia, etc.) international success fuels the domestic game.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote