I think it has a difference, because when you become a national team coach, the coach can only get players from that country, he must be able to maximize it with all the limitations that exist.
Whereas if you become a coach at a club, the coach can be more flexible in determining players, because they can buy the players they need, that cannot be done by the coach when he becomes a national team coach.
Taking charge of a national team also has its highs but the coach is faced with a lot of constraints as he has to get the best out of the country’s talents within the constraints that are there. This means that the coach has to build the team with what he has and very rarely is he in a position to build the team from scratch. These limitations can be a problem while formulating a strategy and while trying to get the best out of the team in international championships.
At the same time, coaching a club gives more opportunities in relation to players’ acquisitions because the trainer is free to look for players for the team and team vision. The advantage is that it enables the coach to construct a squad, which corresponds better to the perceived strategic approach, though at the same time, a coach has increased pressure ensuing from the transfer market responsibility to acquire proper reinforcement and sustain the equilibrative squad. In some places clubs may be more fruitful, but it still takes a very good manager to make all the aspects of the team to flow as a unit.
Yes, there are advantages, I agree with that because they are free to appoint players. However, coaches usually have their own criteria for the players needed, that will be an obstacle.
In addition, the national team rarely gathers and the coach only has a short time to maximize the strategy, because usually they only gather during competitions or FIFA matches, that is also what ultimately becomes an obstacle because the effectiveness of time is also very narrow.