The dreaded fortnight-long international breaks for this year are finally over, and club soccer has been able to peacefully resume. For all non-soccer fans out there, what we so euphemistically term “international break” signifies a hiatus in major soccer league fixtures to allow country teams to retrieve their selected players. During these phases throughout the year, national teams compete with other countries in friendly matches and qualification rounds. For coaches and fans of big European teams, days of international matchups feel like an unwelcome decompression: a sense of enjoyment being sucked out of the room. We interrupt top-quality soccer in the Premier League to bring you live coverage of Germany blanking Liechtenstein 9-0. If you’re really lucky, Bernd Leno might start instead of first-choice goalkeeper Manuel Neuer. In all seriousness, these international weeks are never void of controversy, so let’s take a closer look at the constant club vs. country tug-of-war.
The Positives
I’m not writing to defend or praise the international break, but when looked at from a not-so club-centric perspective, there are a few aspects that make international fixtures understandable. The first reason is the extremely long season. There are around 38 league games and multiple club competitions such as the UEFA Champions League, Europa League, and many more. To be fair, I appreciate the opportunity to take a breath from the flurry of games and emotions that come with the club season. The repetitive cycle involving speculations of manager sackings and grand declarations from Sky Sports pundits can get overwhelming. For instance, I assume Manchester United fans needed some time away from club soccer after an abysmal series of matches under manager Ole Gunnar Solskjaer. There’s no obligation to watch the friendly matches as a soccer fan, unlike the pressure you feel to keep up with every game during the club season. You can take your mind off soccer without feeling like you’re missing something.
For players who are not called up for international duty and stay at the training bases to continue with the usual regimen, the international window is an opportunity in disguise. While many players temporarily depart to join their national squads, younger players get an opportunity to continue training––albeit briefly––under their club coaching staff, which could do them a world of good. Not only do they get a chance to acclimate to the manager’s playing style, but they also build up their fitness to become solid options if injuries and fatigue take a toll on the more pivotal names in the first team. For instance, Chelsea FC’s Ruben Loftus-Cheek and Callum Hudson Odoi––both omitted from Gareth Southgate’s English side––have displayed exceptional performances following the November break against Leicester City and Juventus FC. Loftus-Cheek dominated the central region and showcased his repertoire of skills: intelligent off-the-ball runs, slick ball control, and superior physicality. Odoi played the full 90-minutes against the Foxes with moments of individual brilliance and netted a decisive goal against the Italian giants. For many, these international breaks are periods to further their development and improve for the regular club season.
The Negatives
The mismatches during the international break have occurred so frequently that drubbings have become natural, almost soothing to watch. France 8-0 Kazakhstan. England 10-0 San Marino. Netherlands 6-0 Gibraltar. Croatia 7-1 Malta. These one-sided qualifiers make international fixtures an irritant for clubs that are carrying momentum. For a club with consecutive victories, building on the momentum and squeezing the most out of in-form players become crucial; yet, a demanding international session threatens a club to restart at ground zero, often weakening their chemistry and washing away their rhythm. In the Premier League, the November international break has been a nightmare for Crystal Palace. Patrick Vieira's side was enjoying a five-game undefeated streak, beating Manchester City and a solid Wolves team. Nonetheless, the brief disruption saw the Eagles losing three consecutive games against mediocre opponents. Crystal Palace currently sits in 13th place, just six points away from the relegation zone.
Another reason for the staunch opposition to international fixtures is the possibility of injury. The more instrumental players for their national side tend to play close to 170 minutes of high-octane soccer over a short period of time when major competition qualifiers are played. Back in September, Tottenham’s starting midfielder Son Heung-Min suffered a right calf strain during a World Cup qualification match against Iraq, missing the subsequent Premier League game against Crystal Palace––Spurs lost by three goals. Newcastle United’s Ryan Fraser also returned to St. James’ Park with an unfortunate injury: the Scot twisted his ankle during a World Cup qualifier against Austria. In the absence of an integral chance-creator, it was no surprise when Manchester United thrashed the Magpies 4-1 following the break. Even if players are lucky enough to avoid injury, flitting in and out of time zones and engaging in intense games in quick succession leaves little time for their bodies to recuperate. Expecting players to return to club soccer from national play in perfect form is unrealistic.
A Potential Solution?
Personally, I’m not a big fan of the unnecessarily large number of games involved in World Cup Qualification from Europe. There are 13 European places up to be secured from 55 UEFA members. Currently, there are ten groups: five with five teams and five with six teams. Why not have 13 teams of four, hence requiring only six qualification matches, and the 52nd place be decided by the bottom four ranked in a mini-tournament between them the preceding summer. Currently, these last four places are occupied by Malta, Liechtenstein, Gibraltar, and San Marino. Removing three of the four teams from the main qualifying stage would reduce a number of ill-balanced and pointless matches––in fact, a tournament reserved for the last four teams would give them a chance to score some goals and actually win some games (San Marino has not won a single game since 2004).
Is this the perfect solution? Probably not. Will FIFA consider a new structure that lessens the number of international games? Probably not. I hate to be pessimistic, but FIFA’s recent direction seems to be the polar opposite to fewer games. FIFA’s Chief of Global Football Development and former Arsenal coach Arsene Wenger introduced the idea of a biennial World Cup, which was unsurprisingly met by great controversy as the change would dilute the World Cup’s special value, physically overwhelm the players, and bring many other scheduling issues. Throw in the Nations League with its pointless consolation game, the expanded 48-team World Cup, and it’s easy to identify the higher-ups’ cynical revenue-generating exercises. Perhaps, the international break serves as a reminder of what has become of modern soccer: a sport that favors the richest clubs, the best players, and the biggest nations. So while there is a solid case to modify the structure of international breaks, club fans will need to withstand the troubles for the time being.
Comentarios