so if your partner is on holiday abroad and gives birth 2 months early say, you would be happy that your son could never for England ! ! it should be Country of birth OR Citizenship, OR parents nationality
This is a very immotive subject and Jack has done himself no favours for me, his comments (regardless of the context they were meant) will be sensationalised and he may now be labelled racist. Everyone knows the qualification criteria is wrong but there has to be qualification or you could have the situation gooner4ever mentions above, and of course we would still have a guff cricket team ! The world is changing, people/families are more mobile - I have a 17 year old son who lives in Australia, he was born in UK but lived in Aus for 15 years, he considers himself Aussie not English, but Jack thinks he should only be allowed to represent England ? Difficult subject that just about everyone will have a differing view on...
What jack said is right, I am black both my parents were born in the west Indies one in Jamaica and the other in Dominica and I was born here in my beautiful country England. Both my parents have British passports and they love this country, they work hard here but this is not there country! Just because they have been here a hot minute that does not mean they are from this country. I believe that by either being born in a country or your parents or grandparents etc is what makes you be from that country. What Jack said is right and we have to remember that he is 21 years old what you say at 21 is different from what you say when you're 31 give the man a break.
England for England, engaland engaland engaland, engerland engerland engerlandddddddddddddd......All you foriners who kant speek english shud **** rite of!
http://www1.skysports.com/football/...shere-in-twitter-row-over-england-eligibility Usual journo crap. He was asked a direct question and answered it. The journos made it sound worse than it really was to get their story and are probably lapping it up now we are talking about a story they manufactured. Wilshere did not do anything wrong but should in future tell journos he will only talk about what he wants to talk about and not answer their questions. I agree with Wilshere, adults should not be allowed to move here and just represent England or the same for any other country. If I remember correctly when Pietersen moved here and joined England he was no where near getting into the South Africa team so went for his second choice - us. The fact he improved after that is orrelevant, he was rejected by his country so came here. Yes I am happy with the success we have had with him, but it does not make it right.
Jack Wilshere ‏@JackWilshere Wilshere has clarified his comments in that press conference on twitter, and I agree with him. I think it's totally pathetic that the FA are even entertaining the idea of trying to get this United kid to play for us, it sets a very dangerous precedent and smacks of total desperation on the FA's part.
Ingerlanddddddd ingerlanddddd ingerland, ingaland ingalanddddddddddddddd. Just cuz you born in a stayble dont make you a hors dos it? Ingland for Ingland. Mate, im tiered from foriners coming ere and taking our jobs, now they want two take our footy places? Ingland for Ingland, Poland for Polanders, America for Americaners, you get it?
I have some sympathy with Jack Wilshere's view.Playing "foreigners" has not really been a problem for England over the years but you only have to look at teams like Ireland.The Irish have trawled the heritage of players over the years to see if they were eligible to play for Ireland.How many of these players would have chosen to play for Ireland if England had shown any interest in them ?.A few years ago you had the embarrassing situation of Vinnie Jones being made captain of Wales because it was found he had a Welsh grandfather.You will often here of Jones calling himself a proud Englishman but never he never mentions being Welsh.This argument has blown up because of the young lad at Man Utd.The media are the ones who have bought up his possible eligibility for England.He came here aged 16 two years ago and apparently he'll be able to play for England in five years. I think comparing this lad with the likes of Mo Farah is ridiculous.Mo Farah has lived in the UK for years,he chose to become British as he loves this country.The Man Utd player would only be using England as a flag of convenience
Just to offer an example of what I think Wilshere's talking about, there's been a recent case which I think is what's sparked this whole debate in the first place. Atletico Madrid's Diego Costa has decided to switch from his native Brazil to Spain. The 25-year-old has already played in 2 friendlies for the South Americans and qualifies as he's been a resident of Spain since 2007. I can see why people would believe that he shouldn't be allowed to play for his new country.
I disagree with Jack, even after his clarification. I believe that, if someone meets the criteria for citizenship in a nation, they should be able to take part in anything any other citizen can. There's no doubting that some choose to do so to increase their stock (they are commodities after all), but then that reflects more on the business nature of the game than anything else. I do however think qualifying through one's grandparents is a bit silly, as Cym points out. You would expect that a player who plays for a certain nation would at least have lived there at some point. However, Scotland would actually be ****ter without this rule, so I'll shut up
It's a rule that all smaller nations use at some point. Wouldn't the argument about Januzaj be that he will be entitled to play through residency and not citizenship ?.
People are going about this the wrong way, what if it turned out Lionel Messi had English grandparents and made himself eligible for England, how many of you would say no to him playing for England?
I completely agree, if you qualify for citizenship, then you should be entitled to qualify to represent the country. The world really has become a global village. What I disagree with is fast tracking your citizenship in order to represent your adopted country. Also you can change your citizenship via residency.
Isn't there a difference between citizenship and residency ? If I read the rule correctly you must have played football in England for 5 years after you are 18 to be eligible to play for England.It says nothing about being a British citizen. I think the rule is similar for cricket.You must have played cricket in England for a certain amount of years to ne eligible.Again there is no mention of citizenship. I think i'm also correct in saying if any foreigner obtains a British passport they would be eligible to play for any of the home countries
I think the residency thing is mostly to decide which of the home nations the player gets to represent as I think you are right about the passport
If I'm correct weren't Matt Le Tissier & Graham Le Saux eligible to play for any of the home nations as British passport holders ?
First of all, the positive. I, along with others, have noticed how well he actually spoke, his tone was calm, assured and mature far beyond his years. Look at his twitter exchange with Linekar (who sees him as a future pundit) Secondly, kind of related to the above, what's he doing getting involved in this political minefield? He's at a stage of his career that can go one of two ways: a) realise his potential and become pivotal in Arsenal/England future successes b) become yet another "great white hope". The kind of distraction this crap brings can't be good for his mind approaching big games and likely to risk b) scenario materialising. Let's not forget he's actually won (and opposing fans would extend this to "done") f##k all in the game. Yet already has an air of an elder statesmen drowning in medals. Thirdly, as far as the content of what he said. Aside for the irony that it came from a player who has reaped the benefit of foreigners whose main skill isn't just "tackling hard" (ie by growing up with the likes of Bergkamp and Henry around him), it was clumsy beyond belief. I think, and hope, what he meant was he is against players hopping continents and manufacturing a nationality by playing the residency rules. Most people, including me, frown upon this and probably would want rules to become more stringent. Wenger, as ever, summed it up intelligently when he said this trend risks turning national teams into clubs. However, his comments ARE open to the interpretation that they were borne out of an ugly xenophobic mindset. I've lost count the number of times people have called in phone shows on the back of this debate and gone on to say that they think Mo Farah, Pietersen etc shouldn't be representing the country. It reminds me of the interviews with "ingerland" fans at a Brazilian airport after John Barnes had scored his wonder goal for England, they were saying how they don't count that goal and for them the score line should not include Barnes' goal. One word for those particular people = racist. Jack's saving grace would be that most people who know the circumstances of his football upbringing will be aware (and hopeful) that the chances of him being xenophobic are very slim (again because of his Arsenal background=Wenger, our great foreign players etc) Lastly, what was that half witted jingoistic clap trap about tackling? He sounded like one of those illiterate nincompoop who call talk sport. I was surprised someone who has grown up under Wenger's tutelage could sound so embarrassing. It was also illogical, his logic implied that the likes of Januzag can't play for England because they can't tackle hard hence they're not English. This didn't help his case.
