Are we happy that Smeltz and Lockhead are in the squad for the Oly -whites ?
The Olympics clash with the A-League in August. Draper and Costa will already be missing from the Phoenix lineup. If we lose Smeltz....then the strike force looks a little thin(assuming no Porter)
As much as I like to see players play at a higher level I hope that Killen, Nelson and Elliot are the three chosen players.
Permalink
Permalink
Happy. I'd be a complete f**king hypocrite otherwise. Stevo2008-04-23 15:20:23
Permalink
Permalink
Honestly lads, we don't yet have a final squad, they are two of five seniors called up for the squad... plenty of time to stress about it later, but why worry about something that is unlikely to happen ?
Hard News2008-04-23 15:24:33
Permalink
Permalink
It's the highest honour to play for ones country and unlike David 'Thick' Beckham, no money or club should get in the way.
Permalink
Permalink
But since we don't have a youth league set up, couldn't we exploit the loophole and get some awesome ring ins. I hope this doesn't only apply for injury cover.
Permalink
Permalink
It's the highest honour to play for ones country and unlike David 'Thick' Beckham, no money or club should get in the way.
Mate David Beckham puts in 110% everytime he wears the Three Lions on his chest, he's one of the only ones.
Oh, and club for me too.
Three for me, and two for them.
Permalink
Permalink
Country except for friendlies which are a waste of time. If it's a friendly, the club should come first! IMHO
Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!
The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!
The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!
Permalink
Permalink
Honestly lads, we don't yet have a final squad, they are two of five seniors called up for the squad... plenty of time to stress about it later, but why worry about something that is unlikely to happen ?
Coz out of the five.....Blackburn would not be happy releasing their skipper,Nelson.
Elliot is only just getting back on the park after a serious injury(there would be doubts about his ability to play the Olympic tournament) Killen might have the best chance. So there is a highish probability that at least one of Smeltz or Lockhead would go.
Daniel could cover Lockheads LB as he has played defense before but Smeltz would be a big loss.
. No Costa, no Draper, no Smeltz means "horse Coveny" would be our sole striker unless of course in a surprise move Tony P announces a new marque
But its been fairly quiet on that front recently.
. No Costa, no Draper, no Smeltz means "horse Coveny" would be our sole striker unless of course in a surprise move Tony P announces a new marque But its been fairly quiet on that front recently.
Permalink
Permalink
Country would have to come first. I don't know about you guys but if I'd ever been given the chance (not sure what fool would have done that) I'd have put playing for the All Whites or Oly Whites ahead of any premier league contract... though they can definitely both go hand in hand. jamesnz2008-04-23 19:35:04
Permalink
Permalink
Country except for friendlies which are a waste of time. If it's a friendly, the club should come first! IMHO
100%
. Countries the highest honour for sure , friendlies= blah, blah, blah.
. Countries the highest honour for sure , friendlies= blah, blah, blah.Hence
#1 Country
#2 Club
#3 Club friendlies
#4 Country friendlies
Permalink
Permalink
It's the highest honour to play for ones country and unlike David 'Thick' Beckham, no money or club should get in the way.
You've got me confused
Beckham has always put country first. I can't think of an instance of him ever withdrawing from a squad.
Beckham has always put country first. I can't think of an instance of him ever withdrawing from a squad.
Permalink
Permalink
Country except for friendlies which are a waste of time. If it's a friendly, the club should come first! IMHO
100%. Countries the highest honour for sure , friendlies= blah, blah, blah.
. Countries the highest honour for sure , friendlies= blah, blah, blah.Hence
#1 Country
#2 Club
#3 Club friendlies
#4 Country friendlies
Agree with that except I would reverse 3 and 4.
Permalink
Permalink
Killen might have the best chance.
Celtic's Champions League matches will present a problem to Killen. I haven't seen the calendar for next year, but the last two qualifying rounds are normally in August. The Scottish champions go into the third qualifying round (first leg would clash with NZ's third match), whilst the Scottish runners-up go into the second qualifying round (clash with NZ's first two matches).
Permalink
Permalink
If Killen can't make it.....Smeltz will go!
Permalink
Permalink
Not that I think I'll ever have the choice.......Country should always come first, particularly in football it is the top echelon of the game.
Queenslander 3x a year.
Permalink
Permalink
Not that I think I'll ever have the choice.......Country should always come first, particularly in football it is the top echelon of the game.
The only issue here is that Olympics aren't really the top echelon of the international game. Very few countires take the tournament, or even qualifying for it, very seriously.
We're in a different position because we need to use any opportunity to play quality opposition to improve as an international team, and U-23 teams from Belgium, China and Brazil will be the best international competition we'll have for the next 12-16 months.
I'm really divided over this - normally I'd say country first, then club, but the AWs peculiar circumstances make me hesitate to say that...
Permalink
Permalink
Definitely country...even if it is just the Olympics, it may be the only time any of the over 23 players have the chance to go to it (or even u-23 if FIFA remove Oceania's direct qualification) so I think we should let them go - hell, I'd much rather have a happy club player than tell him he's not going to be released to play for his country.
Besides, I think the Olympics start on 8 August - based on the draw last year at most they would miss the end of the pre-season (including our victory in the final 
) and at most 1 regular season game. And the chances of anyone getting injured at the Olympics are just the same as in the pre-season.
) and at most 1 regular season game. And the chances of anyone getting injured at the Olympics are just the same as in the pre-season.UniGoldenrods - Propping up Capital Football since 1994
Permalink
Permalink
Not that I think I'll ever have the choice.......Country should always come first, particularly in football it is the top echelon of the game.
The only issue here is that Olympics aren't really the top echelon of the international game. Very few countires take the tournament, or even qualifying for it, very seriously.
We're in a different position because we need to use any opportunity to play quality opposition to improve as an international team, and U-23 teams from Belgium, China and Brazil will be the best international competition we'll have for the next 12-16 months.
I'm really divided over this - normally I'd say country first, then club, but the AWs peculiar circumstances make me hesitate to say that...
For NZ it is. How many chances do we get at a big international tournament. This is the biggest since 82 IMO. Although making it out of the group is extremely unlikely it would be huge for NZ football if they did. Even just good performances and exposure on the world stage would be a boon. This is MUCH more important than a couple of A-League games.
Permalink
Permalink
So would you rather see the All Whites knocked out of the Olympics in round one or let the Phoenix have the best possible chance for a good start to the season with a full compliment of players to choose from?
I know which one I'd rather see.
danielsleftball2008-04-24 14:47:25
Permalink
Permalink
Country, country, country!
What many players (and supporters) seem to forget is that playing for your country through the age grades and then at senior level is often a significant factor in getting a club contract in the first place (I guarantee you that any player with international caps is using that footage in the DVD their agent will be hawking around). In the case of many of our overseas players (definitely the ones in the UK) the link is even more explicit because I'm pretty sure that they need a certain number of international caps to get a work permit and even then NZ needs to have a world ranking above a certain number.
So international appearances can have a crucial role in players getting club contracts and the future ranking of the national team will also affect the prospects of those coming after them. Players will bleat that "the club pays my wages, it's my bread and butter" but this is a hypocritical stance when in many cases they wouldn't even be at the table for a feed if it wasn't for the opportunities they have previously been given by their country.
The clubs also act with a certain amount of hypocrisy around the club vs country debate. There is no doubt that they use international performances as a good gauge of a players worth before signing and they even go as far as using a player's international status in their own marketing and promotion after they've signed. But even while they milk the promo value it's "nah, we'd really prefer you didn't risk yourself playing internationals even though the fact that you have in the past is a large part of why you're here in the first place". FIFA has to go as far as putting international windows in place just to ensure that some sort of meaningful international programme can take place.
As for the fans, we all salivate over the fact that a prospective signing has made x many international appearances but as soon as they're signed we expect them devote themselves entirely to the club? Would we really prefer to watch a bunch of no names not capable of playing at international level but always available for the club? Hypocrisy again.
International football is something that brings an additional layer of colour, drama and status to the game. When a player gets selected for any international team we should be happy, not least because over the long run it will make them a better player at club level.
Permalink
Permalink
I know which one I'd rather see.
And if it was England ?
I love the Phoenix, but I'm an All Whites fan first...
Permalink
Permalink
Oh, and by the way, I might not even be talking about this or give a sh*t about football if it wasn't for the 1981 - 82 All Whites.
Permalink
Permalink
So would you rather see the All Whites knocked out of the Olympics in round one or let the Phoenix have the best possible chance for a good start to the season with a full compliment of players to choose from?
I know which one I'd rather see.
"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus."
Mark Twain
Permalink
Permalink
Country, country, country!
�
What many players (and supporters) seem to forget is that playing for your country through the age grades�and then at�senior level is often a�significant factor in getting a club contract in the first place (I guarantee you that any player with international caps is using that footage in the DVD their agent will be hawking around). In the case of many of our overseas players (definitely the ones in the UK) the link is even more explicit because I'm pretty sure that they need a certain number of international caps to get a work permit and even then NZ needs to have a world ranking above a certain number.
�
So international appearances can have a crucial role in players getting club contracts and the future ranking of the national team will also affect the prospects of those coming after them. Players will bleat that "the club pays my wages, it's my bread and butter" but this is a hypocritical stance when in many cases they wouldn't even be at the table for a feed if it wasn't for the opportunities they have previously been given by their country.
�
The clubs also act with a certain amount of hypocrisy around the club vs country debate. There is no doubt that they use international performances as a good gauge of a players worth before signing and they even go as far as using�a player's international status�in their own marketing and promotion after they've signed. But even while they milk the promo value it's "nah, we'd really prefer you didn't risk yourself playing internationals even though the fact that you have in the past is a large part of why you're here in the first place". FIFA has to go as far as putting international windows in place just to ensure that some sort of meaningful international programme can take place.
�
As for the fans, we all salivate over the fact that a prospective signing has made x many international appearances but as soon as they're signed we expect them devote themselves entirely to the club? Would we really prefer to watch a bunch of no names not capable of playing at international level but always available for the club? Hypocrisy again.
�
International football is something that brings an additional layer of colour, drama and status to the game. When a player gets selected for any international team we should be happy, not least because over the long run it will make them a better player at club level.
�
1. Oympic tournament is not a full A international tournament, so those appearences don't count as full senior appearences.
2. The question some of are making is simply is it worth risking the Phoenix's start to the season for a Mickey Mouse tournament that the rest of the footballing world could care less about? Yes, given our position the competition provided by Brazil, China and Belgium will be very welcome, but will in all likelihood result in the going home after those three games, and I personally doubt that the 'exposure' the OlyWhites get will be all that positive.
3. Ultimately, as far as I'm concerned, this is not a simple club v. country issue. For really important matches and tournaments, like you say FIFA have come up with the system of international windows, and that's a system that works well. Even when the AW WC qualifiers were not in the international window because of the FFA scheduling, I had no problem with the Nix players being on AW duty. But the real issue is the seemingly endless supply of meaningless (although I admit it's not meaningless for us given we get so little international exposure and competition) tournaments which are causing these kinds of problems.
Permalink
Permalink
2. The question some of are making is simply is it worth risking the Phoenix's start to the season for a Mickey Mouse tournament that the rest of the footballing world could care less about?
Stick the word 'Olympic' before any sport in NZ, and Kiwis are interested. That's why it's important. If by miracle we did snatch a result (or two), it would be pretty massive for NZ football. The Olympic Spirit. Nelsen is feeling it. Cool.
Permalink
Permalink
1. Oympic tournament is not a full A international tournament, so those appearences don't count as full senior appearences.
2. The question some of are making is simply is it worth risking the Phoenix's start to the season for a Mickey Mouse tournament that the rest of the footballing world could care less about? Yes, given our position the competition provided by Brazil, China and Belgium will be very welcome, but will in all likelihood result in the going home after those three games, and I personally doubt that the 'exposure' the OlyWhites get will be all that positive.
3. Ultimately, as far as I'm concerned, this is not a simple club v. country issue. For really important matches and tournaments, like you say FIFA have come up with the system of international windows, and that's a system that works well. Even when the AW WC qualifiers were not in the international window because of the FFA scheduling, I had no problem with the Nix players being on AW duty. But the real issue is the seemingly endless supply of meaningless (although I admit it's not meaningless for us given we get so little international exposure and competition) tournaments which are causing these kinds of problems.
2. The question some of are making is simply is it worth risking the Phoenix's start to the season for a Mickey Mouse tournament that the rest of the footballing world could care less about? Yes, given our position the competition provided by Brazil, China and Belgium will be very welcome, but will in all likelihood result in the going home after those three games, and I personally doubt that the 'exposure' the OlyWhites get will be all that positive.
3. Ultimately, as far as I'm concerned, this is not a simple club v. country issue. For really important matches and tournaments, like you say FIFA have come up with the system of international windows, and that's a system that works well. Even when the AW WC qualifiers were not in the international window because of the FFA scheduling, I had no problem with the Nix players being on AW duty. But the real issue is the seemingly endless supply of meaningless (although I admit it's not meaningless for us given we get so little international exposure and competition) tournaments which are causing these kinds of problems.
I don't agree that the Olympics are meaningless or Mickey Mouse. You seem to have missed my point that over the long run all international football (including age-grade) is ultimately of great value to players coming through the ranks looking for professional contracts. I just think it is hypocritical and short-sighted of players (and the clubs who put the pressure on them) to take advantage of the international system when it suits but not support it when it doesn't suit.
It's all like one big, living, breathing, evolving eco-system man. You can't kill off one bit and expect the rest of the system to survive. Don't you get it?
Permalink
Permalink
1. Oympic tournament is not a full A international tournament, so those appearences don't count as full senior appearences. 2. The question some of are making is simply is it worth risking the Phoenix's start to the season for a Mickey Mouse tournament that the rest of the footballing world could care less about? Yes, given our position the competition provided by Brazil, China and Belgium will be very welcome, but will in all likelihood result in the going home after those three games, and I personally doubt that the 'exposure' the OlyWhites get will be all that positive. 3. Ultimately, as far as I'm concerned, this is not a simple club v. country issue. For really important matches and tournaments, like you say FIFA have come up with the system of international windows, and that's a system that works well. Even when the AW WC qualifiers were not in the international window because of the FFA scheduling, I had no problem with the Nix players being on AW duty. But the real issue is the seemingly endless supply of meaningless (although I admit it's not meaningless for us given we get so little international exposure and competition) tournaments which are causing these kinds of problems.
�
I don't agree that the Olympics are meaningless or Mickey Mouse. You seem to have missed my point that over the long run all international football (including age-grade) is ultimately of great value to players coming through the ranks looking for professional contracts. I just think it is hypocritical and short-sighted of players (and the clubs who put the pressure on them) to take advantage of the international system when it suits but not support it when it doesn't suit.
�
It's all like one big, living, breathing, evolving�eco-system man. You can't kill off one bit and expect the rest of the system to survive. Don't you get it?
�
�
�
Name one player whose market value increased by playing at the Olympics? Remember the Iraqi team that did well at the 2004 Olympics? Any of those guys scored big contracts?
No[one here is disputing the importance of international football - its competetiveness is in fact one of the best, if not the best, things about football. But I do have issues with the Olympic tournament, but I don't want to labour the point and let's just agree to disagree on this one.
Permalink
Permalink
Country, country, country!
What many players (and supporters) seem to forget is that playing for your country through the age grades and then at senior level is often a significant factor in getting a club contract in the first place (I guarantee you that any player with international caps is using that footage in the DVD their agent will be hawking around). In the case of many of our overseas players (definitely the ones in the UK) the link is even more explicit because I'm pretty sure that they need a certain number of international caps to get a work permit and even then NZ needs to have a world ranking above a certain number.
So international appearances can have a crucial role in players getting club contracts and the future ranking of the national team will also affect the prospects of those coming after them. Players will bleat that "the club pays my wages, it's my bread and butter" but this is a hypocritical stance when in many cases they wouldn't even be at the table for a feed if it wasn't for the opportunities they have previously been given by their country.
The clubs also act with a certain amount of hypocrisy around the club vs country debate. There is no doubt that they use international performances as a good gauge of a players worth before signing and they even go as far as using a player's international status in their own marketing and promotion after they've signed. But even while they milk the promo value it's "nah, we'd really prefer you didn't risk yourself playing internationals even though the fact that you have in the past is a large part of why you're here in the first place". FIFA has to go as far as putting international windows in place just to ensure that some sort of meaningful international programme can take place.
As for the fans, we all salivate over the fact that a prospective signing has made x many international appearances but as soon as they're signed we expect them devote themselves entirely to the club? Would we really prefer to watch a bunch of no names not capable of playing at international level but always available for the club? Hypocrisy again.
International football is something that brings an additional layer of colour, drama and status to the game. When a player gets selected for any international team we should be happy, not least because over the long run it will make them a better player at club level.
1. Oympic tournament is not a full A international tournament, so those appearences don't count as full senior appearences.
2. The question some of are making is simply is it worth risking the Phoenix's start to the season for a Mickey Mouse tournament that the rest of the footballing world could care less about? Yes, given our position the competition provided by Brazil, China and Belgium will be very welcome, but will in all likelihood result in the going home after those three games, and I personally doubt that the 'exposure' the OlyWhites get will be all that positive.
3. Ultimately, as far as I'm concerned, this is not a simple club v. country issue. For really important matches and tournaments, like you say FIFA have come up with the system of international windows, and that's a system that works well. Even when the AW WC qualifiers were not in the international window because of the FFA scheduling, I had no problem with the Nix players being on AW duty. But the real issue is the seemingly endless supply of meaningless (although I admit it's not meaningless for us given we get so little international exposure and competition) tournaments which are causing these kinds of problems.
The Olympics are the World Cup for U23 players. Only the WC and continental championships are held higher. Only the WC do more countries partake in. And yes countries do take it seriously. You look at the last few teams who have won medals, Argentina, Cameroon, Nigeria, Italy, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Spain etc. a lot of the players that have participated are greats of the game, Ronaldo, Rivaldo, Javier Zanetti, Juninho, Ivan Zamarano, Samuel Eto, Luis Enrique etc and this is for medal winners only since '92; the list is very long and prestigious.
I think it is a huge honour to represent your country, to be a select few to partake in the Olympics and have no problem the Nix being short a few players. They will come back better for it.
Permalink
Permalink
Name one player whose market value increased by playing at the Olympics? Remember the Iraqi team that did well at the 2004 Olympics? Any of those guys scored big contracts?
No[one here is disputing the importance of international football - its competetiveness is in fact one of the best, if not the best, things about football. But I do have issues with the Olympic tournament, but I don't want to labour the point and let's just agree to disagree on this one.
No[one here is disputing the importance of international football - its competetiveness is in fact one of the best, if not the best, things about football. But I do have issues with the Olympic tournament, but I don't want to labour the point and let's just agree to disagree on this one.
By drawing a direct line between appearing at the Olympics and getting a professional contract you are again missing my point. For many players the Olympic tournament will be just one stepping stone on the way to a professional contract. An international career is a long term thing. At times it will benefit you and at other times it's about putting something back. I'm sure there are hundreds of players around the world who have appeared at the Olympics and gone on to (or already had) professional careers. The Olympics was not the sole reason they got a contract but a part of the journey.
When it comes to the Olympics you clearly have a case of the happyted's ("bah, humbug, Olympics, bah") so yeah - agree to disagree.
Permalink
Permalink
I know which one I'd rather see.
And if it was England ?
I love the Phoenix, but I'm an All Whites fan first...
Yeah, but this isn't actually the All Whites as such. It is a youth competition. Perhaps that's my Anglican origins talking though.
When I said country before club, I was talking about the seniors - for whom the FIFA international window means that it normally isn't an either/or situation.
Permalink
Permalink
Name one player whose market value increased by playing at the Olympics? Remember the Iraqi team that did well at the 2004 Olympics? Any of those guys scored big contracts?
No[one here is disputing the importance of international football - its competetiveness is in fact one of the best, if not the best, things about football. But I do have issues with the Olympic tournament, but I don't want to labour the point and let's just agree to disagree on this one. [/QUOTE]
Ditto
Though did find one that specifically says his appearance in the Olympics got his career going:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idriss_Carlos_Kameni
Edit: [quote]Following Argentina's and T�vez personal success at the 2004 Olympic Games, he was named Futbolista latinoamericano m�s destacado ("Most notable Latin American footballer")
No[one here is disputing the importance of international football - its competetiveness is in fact one of the best, if not the best, things about football. But I do have issues with the Olympic tournament, but I don't want to labour the point and let's just agree to disagree on this one. [/QUOTE]
By drawing a direct line between appearing at the Olympics and getting a professional contract you are again missing my point. For many players the Olympic tournament will be just one stepping stone on the way to a professional contract. An international career is a long term thing. At times it will benefit you and at other times it's about putting something back. I'm sure there are hundreds of players around the world who have appeared at the Olympics and gone on to (or already had) professional careers. The Olympics was not the sole reason they got a contract but a part of the journey.
When it comes to the Olympics you clearly have a case of the happyted's ("bah, humbug, Olympics, bah") so yeah - agree to disagree.
Ditto
Though did find one that specifically says his appearance in the Olympics got his career going:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idriss_Carlos_Kameni
Edit: [quote]Following Argentina's and T�vez personal success at the 2004 Olympic Games, he was named Futbolista latinoamericano m�s destacado ("Most notable Latin American footballer")
Permalink
Permalink
I know which one I'd rather see.
And if it was England ?
I love the Phoenix, but I'm an All Whites fan first...
England to win the Olympics (I know, I know they don't enter the Olympics) or Swindon to win the League 2 Playoffs? Easy, Swindon every time. In the footballing world the Olympics are meaningless. The WC is the only meaningful global international tourny.
Permalink
Permalink
Thing that pisses me off is that if you opt for club before country all of a sudden your unpatriotic, which is really a total load of bollocks.
Three for me, and two for them.
Permalink
Permalink
COUNTRY!
Even if one of our youngsters gets picked up on a contract I'd call that a positive. hopefully we can steal a point against China and beat the Belgians
Even if one of our youngsters gets picked up on a contract I'd call that a positive. hopefully we can steal a point against China and beat the Belgians
Permalink
Permalink
club
I couldn't give 2 c**ts for the All Whites, the Oly-whites or any of our other stupidly named teams. Actually, if they all didn't have such stupid names, I might care about them a little more
All I do is make the stuff I would've liked
Reference things I wanna watch, reference girls I wanna bite
Now I'm firefly like a burning kite
And yousa fake fuck like a fleshlight
Permalink
Permalink
Club for sure. Doesn't mean I don't support the All Whites fully but I just don't think that having Smeltz and Lochhead in there will help the Olywhites enough to balance out the fact that the Nix lose a hell of a lot.
a.haak
Permalink
Permalink
i have to say club because, lets face it, we haven't got a hope in hell in winning anything at the Olympics - the team won't be as strong as the Nix, and the Nix have a hard time beating A-league level clubs, so we will get destroyed. Sorry for the pessimism, but i think it's justified.
I like tautologies because I like them.
Permalink
Permalink