Paul Scholes is the only one who retired in a way you stated, but that was after having been a star for his national team for years and citing his family was now more important. That's something different from not playing at all for the country.
Being more global doesn’t make a sport or competition more important. Who cares if some baseball player doesn’t want to play in a tournament and a soccer player does. Individuals have different priorities.
Well I guess he wasn't playing for his country of birth, so it's not quite the same. Someone else did. A lot of those players had individual reasons for retiring. Shearer because of the criticism he got in the national press, Scholes because he didn't want to play on the left, Carragher because he'd travel halfway around the world to be used as a 88th minute substitute, Moeller because of his alcoholism...etc. I think most players who are playing 50+ club games at 33 or 34 years-old know that something has to give.[/QUOTE]
I used the words "as long as" -- I was not saying or even implying that a lot of players retired from national teams 10 years before their eventual retirement. Please stop misreading/inflating my posts. As has already been amply demonstrated in this thread, such cases exist -- and Scholes stayed at an elite club right up to the end.
I don't know, I can't remember what we were discussing. I think it's very rare for a player to retire from international football while they are still relatively young and usually it's for a specific reason. The WBC was only born in 2007. It won't become an important competition in the US until and unless MLB and the media make it one. Remember England and other major countries didn't compete in the World Cup until 1950. It was quite a shock once they did.
The WBC is about as important a competition to Americans as friendlies between Real Madrid and Manchester United in Los Angeles in July are to Europeans.
Again read Carragher's book he did NOT think playing for England was the highest honor. Other players have said the same thing. Yes lots of players and fans consider International Football to be the peak of the sport, but not everyone and I actually include myself in that group now.
I vaguely recall an MLS player turning down his NT to stay with the club a few years back. He played for the Red Bulls maybe? He wasn't American.
I think Nagbe has said he's declined callups citing that its not worth it to him to take time away from his family for it...
Lindpere in 2010? It was a brief international retirement. He returned to the international scene in 2012 and made his final appearance in 2016. Was it an audio book? Scousers (Liverpool) and Geordies (Newcastle) have a very strong sense of loyalty to their home cities, which is often expressed through fanatical support for their football teams. I experienced living in both places as a kid and there's nothing like it elsewhere in England. It's probably akin to Marseilles and Naples. But again it's very rare for a player to turn down an international appearance. It's called "international duty" for a reason.
Yep. And speaking of Americans Brad Friedel of course retired from the NT only to still have half of his storied club career left in the tank.
Sir, this is the internet. You don't need to repeat the assumption that all of this is predicated upon.
Basketball meets and destroys your notion of global sport. That's a FACT. Holy phuck dude ... not only is the "because tall" point absolutely insane ... the Dutch are shit at basketball. You've never done better than 4th in Europe and you've only qualified for the FIBA World Cup ONCE (both of these came in the mid 80's). You've NEVER qualified for the Olympics. Your height can't even get you past the people in your back yard, let alone the ones that are supremely talented at the sport. For Basketball, Baseball, and Hockey (not actually ours) that simply isn't true. By any measure you want to state it simply isn't true. Basketball: USA/Spain/Argentina/France/Lithuania/Australia/Serbia Baseball: USA/Japan/Korea/Cuba/Dominican Republic/Venezuela/Netherlands/Chinese Taipei Hockey: USA/CAN/Czech/Russia/Finland/Sweden These are all consistently good teams that place/medal/whatever and all can give each other a go on any given day or in any given competition. Oh, so then soccer isn't global ...
Wondering what our current "situation" will do to the lower division landscape in the US? I'm not an economist but I could see it going either way. On one side there aren't the expenses for US teams that other lower division sides have. Very few own their own ground, and generally their player and staff costs are very low and they may have even been able to lay everyone off so essentially the club is a name and some equipment. On the other hand this couldn't have come at a worst possible time. Right when a lot of money would have gone out to cover the cost of starting the season, but before a lot money has been able to come in. And with the possibility that the money may NEVER come in. Guessing over all the USL level is probably getting squeezed tightest and would be surprised if every club comes back after this but because there is no pro-rel it doesn't impact MLS in the slightest. Every US lower division side could disappear and MLS could keep going on it's merry way. This is essentially what the NFL does (although people who know more about it than me believe the technique heavy positions of O.L. and QB have been on the decline lately and blame the lack of lower divisions for this). So my round about conclusion is Closed leagues are better for weathering a global pandemic. But then so are single party dictatorships.
I have no idea either, I think you are correct in that it could go either way. On a different note, I was always led to believe that European soccer was about the game on the pitch, the passion of the fans, the club, or some other reason. But I am seeing an awful lot of articles about the business side of the sport. A lot of the articles are about the not so good financial shape some clubs are in to weather this outbreak, especially if it lasts. Let's hope that is not the case. It may lead to a different method to how teams 'do business'. On a different soccer business note, I am watching season 2 of Sunderland til I die on Netflix. The new owners talk a lot about business and former business practices. Both season 1 and 2 are very good, especially in the context of pro/rel.