Arsenal-land

In light of Van Persie's injury, it's not just interesting but quite entertaining to see how many people are so against 'meaningless friendlies' all of a sudden. What do you propose; International clubs should only play competitive games i.e. Qualifers/Majors?

I did have an idea a while ago, that I thought would eliminate endless rounds of qualifying and make friendlies meaningful.

Obviously the most important international games are those in the World Cup or Euros, they are watched globally and hold the most pride because there is a tangible goal to play for. The rest of the matches, friendlies and qualifiers are often frustrating to managers and fans alike. My idea was simply to form International Leagues of about ten teams each with all teams playing each other twice. Then the top ranked teams in the league system would qualify for the World Cup and Euros without additional qualifying rounds. Teams would earn their places through long-term success in the leagues rather than qualifiers.

E.g. Euro Division 1 (The top 10 FIFA ranked teams)
England
France
Spain
Italy
Germany
Russia
Netherlands
Portugal
Switzerland
Croatia

Then from these leagues the top 2 teams could automatically enter the next major competition with the rest of the top leagues playing one seeded play-off match. Teams in the lower leagues would have to through additional qualifiers to reach WC finals. Whilst there are still one or two neccesary qualifiers, overall the workload is similar to now but meaningful. For a lower ranked country like Belarus, who would be in the 3rd or 4th Euro league at least there is the pride of winning your league and the possibility of moving up the league ladder. Also, nations would be tested against tougher rivals more often, England would be playing France, Germany and Spain rather than Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Andorra.

First of all, I would never call someones expression of concern or frustration "quite entertaining", because that sounds condescending to me. Secondly, I don't know where you have seen "so many people" "so against friendlies", I have counted three members on three pages of the van Persie injury thread that explicitly voiced their frustration with friendlies, or rather with our players getting injured in them.

I can only speak for myself, but I have merely expressed how frustrated I am that one of our best and most important players got injured in a game that by definition means nothing. I am not doubting that friendlies make sense in the very big picture, but seeing one of our most in form players getting injured in a game that has little relevance individually and in the small picture frustrates me. This injury will have an effect on Arsenal's (and the player's!) season*, while a friendly has no direct effect Arsenal our van Persie's season, yet the club and the player are the ones suffering from it in the first place. There is a difference in relevance if you look at the game and the effects the injury suffered in the game will/could have. This is what frustrates me, and I just expressed this frustration without questioning the whole system of national football and without having a proposal for an alternative in mind.

* I am far away from saying that our season is over, and the effect van Persies injury has can be discussed in the relevant thread.

Scooby I think people are aware that friendlies are necessary at times. But sometimes, as in this round, they really aren't are they? Qualification is just concluded, the World Cup is 8 months away and the season is just rounding into full competition. Why add to that now?

Sure in April-May-June the international teams will need friendlies to warm up for the World Cup. They don't need to do that now in my opinion, not at this time of the season. You could make a case for needing to continue to grow and gel together, but these players have played together for years now, they just finished playing a qualifier a few weeks ago. So that type of team growth isn't necessary. The timing of this round of friendlies was very poor.

I have no problem with friendlies, I just wish our players would not take part

To be honest squads have to be decided and I think International managers need the chance to see how players work into their system and around players who are already going to be playing. I don't think it would be fair to leave International managers no opportunity to see how the players perform as they wish to implement them on a first hand basis.

Jules, you'd be amazed how many people posted on Facebook how 'pointless' England's friendly was and I also saw a few posts on another forum calling them 'pointles', 'needless' and 'ridiculous'. Hence my statement of quite entertaining because I did have a chuckle at the Facebook status' especially given how quite a few of them I know go to a few England friendlies. I was humoured by the contradictions of some.

Bondy, I don't think that would work to be honest and be quite unfair. If you look at the Continental Rankings of who're in the qualifiers at the minute (taken from 09/08 when the qualifiers began); ROI (24th), Slovenia (39th) and Bosnia (37th)... it doesn't really work. As well as those who have already qualified, Serbia (21st), Switzerland (26th), Denmark (23rd) and Slovakia (36th).

Because the likes of Capello, without friendlies this week would have a grand total of one game to test out their side before having to announced the squad for the squad. Because the play off's and African qualification is happening anyway so those not in them can use it to look at their squads and countries still need the money the friendlies bring. As soon as the CL finishes, the players need time to recover, then to readjust to the conditions, filling those months with more friendlies (and the clubs would make a huge whine if these friendlies weren't till after the season) is going to increase the budget for everyone and risk more players simply being exhausted by the world cup.

BoNdY BoY's idea has a lot of merit and I am intrigued but I see three possible flaws:

1) Repetition. We all know the feeling "Not Porto again" and the loss of magic in old Europe nights when you play Barca for the 6th season in a row. Drawing a big team should be a joyful occasion in a world cup match but if, for example, we had played France twice and then got them in the tournament proper, not quite the same is it? For the smaller nations, when one of the big guns rolls in for a qualifier or a friendly, it is a money spinner for the FA's that would be lost.

2) There is always the chance of an upset, example N.Ireland vs England, Luxembourg vs Switzerland, Belarus vs Holland, that would be gone. Do we want to lose the shock of teams like England and Holland not making a tournament?

3) Do you really trust Fifa in making sure the money spinning teams don't always go through?

I just see it as people expressing their frustration at losing an important player. I too was frustrated at Van Persie being ruled out for 6 weeks and did indeed think that it would be great if Arsenal players never played in international friendlies. But of course that is unrealistic as every player should have the opportunity to represent their country if they are good enough and this view i had, born out of frustration, doesnt mean i am saying friendlies are pointless.

I wouldnt read too much into it. People can have strong reactions sometimes when they are frustrated about something