On International Friendlies and the Houllier/Benitez feud

Hey Folks,

Sorry it has been so long since I last posted...my work has me in fits and starts in terms of time consumption and I have been very busy recently.

Though, I have not been busy enough to not watch the footy on television and my mind is quickly drawn to the lack of Premier League football.  It was, very unfortunately, an international break.  Not a break for the players, but rather a break from playing with the teams that pay them their...ahem...modest wages.

I am all for the qualifiers for the European Championships next summer - teams have something to play for and the games are meant to be competitive.  It's these international friendlies that are real kick in the pants.  These are simply ways for the associations to make money for a game that is otherwise meaningless.  I respect the fact that the England v. Ghana game was simply more than just a "showcase" game, but rather a cash grab for a virtually bankrupt association (the Ghanaian FA, not English FA...though we're are looking at financial bankruptcy, not moral bankruptcy), and I really hope that the game for Ghana means more survival for their association.

But, we need to think of the players' health and well-being.  Players playing with top teams have the potential between the Premier League, Cup competitions, and Europe, to play upwards of 60 games barring injury.  Throw in these European and World Cup Qualifiers, and we can bring it up to nearly 70.  Then, you toss in the most useless games - the international friendlies, and we are just becoming ridiculous.  People get on the backs of players when they don't want to play, calling them unpatriotic, but I support their decisions.  Consider these friendlies as volunteer work - they don't get paid, they have no reason to play.  Use these friendlies as maybe an opportunity to let fringe players get an opportunity to represent the country (the recent England game saw players like Matt Jarvis & Danny Wellbeck get an opportunity to play).  Either that, or just get rid of them - the associations have very little power these days anyways.

Ahh...two children bickering over a toy neither of them have control over anyway, and over a toy that is six years old.  Still don't know what I am talking about...2005 Champions League Final, and the children...Gerard Houllier and Rafael Benitez.  Recently, the two of them have been fighting over who can have more claim over the epic comeback victory in Istanbul.  My answer...both and neither.  Pretty weak answer, I agree, but let me explain.  If you look at the starting line-up, only two players were non-Houllier players (Garcia and Alonso), and of the substitutes, another two (Josemi & Nunez...though Cisse was brought in during Benitez's tenure, Houllier laid all the groundwork for his purchase).  So, Houllier has a pretty strong claim as all of the other players were either his purchases or came into the set-up during his time (Carragher was technically the Roy Evans era).  However, Benitez's claim is equally as strong - he was the manager in the final...not Houllier.  He made the decisions and the subsitutions (though why he started Kewell is still beyond me), and he gave the "famous" half-time talk when Liverpool had all but virtually lost. 

And yet, neither can take claim - the players deserve the credit...a speech can only do so much, and former purchases are important, but most of Houllier's later purchases were weak, to be kind.  The players took the step-up and made the epic comeback in 6 minutes of madness, and as a result, my final opinion is for the two children to just be quiet.  Nobody cares anymore, Houllier is managing Aston Villa towards relegation and Benitez took one of the classiest clubs in Europe and basically tried to run them into the ground.  Neither of them are currently doing anything of great note, and so, they have to bicker about former glory days.

Sigh...sad.