I was reading today how Michael Essien will be out of action for Chelsea for 4-6 weeks after sustaining an injury training with Ghana at the African Nations Cup. Often, clubs are hesitant to let their players go to international competitions because of the fear of injury. Without a top player lining up for the game, it could have an adverse affect on a team's chances to win.
But is it really so wrong for a player to want to play for his country? It would be cool to slip on a jersey with "USA" affixed to the front, and millions in bars and homes watching you play on TV.
Plus, it's a rare thing to play for your homeland. With only 32 countries in the World Cup this summer and roughly 20 players per team, it's a select crowd. I feel badly for soccer players who are put in the uneviable position of having to choose between their competing duties to clubs and national teams.
Soccer is unlike the NBA and MLB in the respect that there are very few times (none whatsoever in the NFL) where the national team comes calling for practices and games for global competition.
The Olympics and world championships for basketball are few and far between, and because much of the NBA is comprised of American players still (77 players in the 2008-2009 season were from abroad), only a small number of teams are affected. And like the NHL when the Olympics and Ice Hockey World Championships and the MLB when the World Baseball Classic happens, often a break in the season ensues or the competition takes place outside the season.
Obviously the competitions are present to showcase a country's best talent on a national stage. Players enjoy representing their country and exhibiting a sense of pride in where they're from.
Lots of kids grow up wanting to play for the popular teams: Yankees, Red Sox, Lakers, Celtics, Red Wings, Penguins and so on. But everyone always dreams of playing for their country in a sport. Can we really fault them for that?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment