|
|
|
|
|
by mkempe
2937 days ago
|
|
Do you believe that there is no difference between having a national team with zero players who thrive in foreign leagues vs having 4-5 key players who do? In 2007 Liverpool reached the UEFA Champions League Final, and lost to Milan. In 2008 they reached the semi-final, and lost to Chelsea, whose opponents in the final were Man U, making it the first all-English final in the competition's history. How is that "not very internationally competitive"? For the love of Jove, look at the squads this year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_FIFA_World_Cup_squads England is clearly apart from all other teams in its insularity; even Russia manages to include two players with foreign-league experience in their selection. Or look at the EURO 2016 squads: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Euro_2016_squads Your thesis that the best teams from the "larger" football countries don't have a lot of key players in foreign leagues is plainly wrong. |
|
Do you believe that there is no difference between having a national team with zero players who thrive in foreign leagues vs having 4-5 key players who do?
I don't believe that, it's not really what I'm saying. On the other hand, this is the winning squad of the 2006 World Cup.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_FIFA_World_Cup_squads#Ita...
It's tricolore all the way. I don't think foreign league participation is what keeps English fans from having to endlessly update the years of hurt count.