I'm trying to understand some people's logic or rationale as to what their barometer is for a player to "deserve" to be called. My point is the national team isn't about a players potential and moreso should be related to form, or in other words "Yesterday is yesterday, what are you doing today".
Playing 6 games, and playing bad in majority of them doesn't give you points for me... and Im not comparing the players because they aren't comparable...I'm only referring to their results,and form in the same league they play in.
Oh but he's on an inferior team....okay so Brym is in a better league (top 5 I believe) and hasn't scored in awhile but plays often... does he deserve a call over Bair?
I wonder if Johnston wasn't getting any playing time at Celtic, would the convo be like "he's training with elite players, so that's why.. or he was good before"
....all I'm saying is people metrics here (not you personally) all over the place. When for me, on other teams I only see players who are performing at their club level get called in to national teams unless the player is significantly superior.