Fair enough mate, I wasn't being critical - just puzzled. Having been brought up in Harlesden, which had a big post-war Irish influx, most of my friends are second-generation Irish. Some consider themselves Irish (I slipped the word plastic into my original post, but you didn't bite!), whilst others are proudly English. It's the former group that call me 'The Taff', because I found myself shouting for Wales when they were playing Ireland in the Six-Nations. They all complain about immigrants though!
Wilshire - Puts his foot in it
- Thread starter KPDHoopster
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Fair enough mate, I wasn't being critical - just puzzled. Having been brought up in Harlesden, which had a big post-war Irish influx, most of my friends are second-generation Irish. Some consider themselves Irish (I slipped the word plastic into my original post, but you didn't bite!), whilst others are proudly English. It's the former group that call me 'The Taff', because I found myself shouting for Wales when they were playing Ireland in the Six-Nations. They all complain about immigrants though!
TBH Stroller I did not see it as criticism, because it was a fair enough comment and question as to not getting it and I was fine with that. When asked by Irish people I am meeting for the first time about the origins of my name and any Irish connection, I refer to myself as a passport carrying PPP (Professional Plastic Paddy).
Being a second generation immigrant born in this country can be a confusing position to find yourself in.
This has all moved on since I was last here.....
No one has said anything about a person not being allowed to move to another country, hopefully I've misunderstood what you are saying here. As for a cut off age that you must be resident in a country to represent them at a later date, for sake of argument I'll say 14.
No other restrictions, we are purely discussing international sport, and don't forget they can still represent the country of their birth. Quite frankly, if I moved to any other country I would still be English and want to represent England, not France, Australia or whoever.
Obviously who they support is irrelevant. Assuming that 15 was the cut off age, they would be eligible to play for one of Australia, Argentina (if it could be proven that Messi was the father!) and England. However, once their decision had been made, that would set in stone as per my post back on page one of this thread (#10)
KPD do you think that the USA should be able to field a galacticos team because they can offer all the best players in the world higher wages to move there?
No one has said anything about a person not being allowed to move to another country, hopefully I've misunderstood what you are saying here. As for a cut off age that you must be resident in a country to represent them at a later date, for sake of argument I'll say 14.
No other restrictions, we are purely discussing international sport, and don't forget they can still represent the country of their birth. Quite frankly, if I moved to any other country I would still be English and want to represent England, not France, Australia or whoever.
Obviously who they support is irrelevant. Assuming that 15 was the cut off age, they would be eligible to play for one of Australia, Argentina (if it could be proven that Messi was the father!) and England. However, once their decision had been made, that would set in stone as per my post back on page one of this thread (#10)
KPD do you think that the USA should be able to field a galacticos team because they can offer all the best players in the world higher wages to move there?
Try going to Ireland with my surname (Flanagan) and trying to explain that you're not actually Irish!
I should point out that I know of no Irish relations, so it must go back a long way.
I've lost track on this a bit. Suffice it to say that the England football team has not represented anything especially 'English', at least not in a positive way, for me for at least 20 years. Of course, recently the Thickest Living Englishman, John Terry, has been the proudest wearer of an England shirt. I'd have any number of Memut Ozil's representing my country rather than him.
KPD do you think that the USA should be able to field a galacticos team because they can offer all the best players in the world higher wages to move there?
Roller,
Not in one single post have I ever mentioned money.
My posts have (virtually) all referred to motivation, a player wishing to move to a country for personal reasons, then if good enough to represent his/her new adopted country.
I can understand people saying if they were born in eg: Ireland only ever wanting to represent Ireland - well not all people feel that way, some people may want to embrace their new country (eg Kevin Pietersen, Chris Froome).
To answer your question:
how America won the Americas cup was purely down to throwing money at it ($300m) (buying a NZ boat, recruiting an Auzzie skipper; recruiting a British tactician) - it cheapened the victory in my eyes.
No, I would not like to see money buying international success, but problem lies in where to draw the line, from discussions here (and in the press) there doesn't seem to be reasonable line.
Mind you money does buy training facilities, pay for coaches, buy equipment,dieticians, physios etc, etc,etc
Roller,
Not in one single post have I ever mentioned money.
My posts have (virtually) all referred to motivation, a player wishing to move to a country for personal reasons, then if good enough to represent his/her new adopted country.
I can understand people saying if they were born in eg: Ireland only ever wanting to represent Ireland - well not all people feel that way, some people may want to embrace their new country (eg Kevin Pietersen, Chris Froome).
To answer your question:
how America won the Americas cup was purely down to throwing money at it ($300m) (buying a NZ boat, recruiting an Auzzie skipper; recruiting a British tactician) - it cheapened the victory in my eyes.
No, I would not like to see money buying international success, but problem lies in where to draw the line, from discussions here (and in the press) there doesn't seem to be reasonable line.
Mind you money does buy training facilities, pay for coaches, buy equipment,dieticians, physios etc, etc,etc
The Americas Cup is not an international competition, as in country v country, its between yacht clubs from different countries, much in the same way Chelsea could be said to 'represent' England in the Champions League. Then all your money statements are directly comparable.
So Spain a bankrupt country throwing huge national resources into coaches/training facilities, etc, etc, etc to buy success ???
I'd agree you haven't mention money, but it is the logical conclusion of having no restrictions on who can represent which country in my opinion.
No easy solution, so we may as well go with mine
I don't get it either to be honest. If you're born and bred in a particular Country, surely you'd consider yourself of that nationality? You have the flip side of that in the north of Ireland where there's people born and bred in Ireland but consider themselves British.
I suppose its just not for you or I to understand Stroller. I guess people just have their reasons - unfathomable as they may seem to us.
Firstly..NO..I am not Australian but will be applying for citizenship in the up coming months. having said that I have no wish or desire to represent Australia and any given sport.
I'm English and would jump at the chance to represent my country.
Yes mate, but the point NUTS made was that you had to born in the country to represent it. thats his opinion and personally i have a diffrent opinion. I was just giving an example and questioning NUTS as to whether someone who has dedicated his life to GB/England should be allowed to represent us.
I think yes...NUTS thinks no. What do you think ?
A lot of Bosnia born players now play for Serbia and especially for Croatia. It's football prostitution for me but on the other hand we have players that are playing for our NT even they were born and raised in other countries. Tricky question
everyone else has agreed with you apart from the OP. you are English, you were brought up here. you didn't move here for a couple of years to play sport. you aren't Australian just as that footballer would never be English.
my mate was born in Germany with two English parents as the father was in the army. that doesn't make him German although I always call him a kraut anyway.
Because the notion of defining nationality as 'whoever you feel like' is absurd.
Footballers playing today would have been born when those nations were legally one and the same. You're also forgetting that Bosnia consists largely of ethnic Serbs and Croats, who feel more of an affinity with Serbia or Croatia. Funnily this is because they, like Januzaj, recognise blood binds people more than anything else... Not that you could get away with saying such a thing here (*cough*societyofblacklawyersfieldday*cough*)
Less than a decade ago Serbia and Montenegro were one nation. When Montenegro seceded and formed their own football league and federation, all Montenegrin players who had played for Serbia and Montenegro were 'transferred' to play for Serbia's new independent national side. Poor Montenegro had to pick a new squad of players entirely from scratch; something that makes England's inability to beat them even more embarrassing.
What I find bizarre is that players born in Northern Ireland can qualify for the Republic, but not vice-versa, and that players born in the Channel Islands, Mann, etc can choose to play for any of the Home Nations.
There is a perfectly valid political reason for that.
Over 40% of the people of Northern Ireland (as you call it) consider themselves Irish and do not recognise partition of the island. As far as they are concerned, the whole island is Irish.
People on both sides of the island in a democratic referendum have agreed in the terms of the good Friday agreement that people in the 6 counties can be Irish by nationality. At no stage, have we had a referendum on whether people in the 26 counties of the Republic can call themselves British. If we did have such a referendum, I am sure the people of Britain wouldn't be very happy. As and when we have that referendum, that's when people from the 26 counties can go play for the 6 counties.
I hope that helps you understand.
I already understood, but it doesn't make it any less bizarre. It is bizarre. Very bizarre. Is bizarre even a word? I've said it that often I don't know anymore. God help me.
Whats so bizarre about it?
40% of the people of the 6 counties don't recognise the country and don't want to represent it.
Whats bizarre about that?
They consider their country to be the whole island of Ireland. Full stop. They are entitled to represent the whole island at whatever sport they want.
Can you not accept that?