Jack Wilshere is an idiot. He obviously doesn't know that constitutionally, anyone born in the CI is entitled to play for any of the home nations plus France which is why Graeme Le Saux and Matthew Le Tissier played for England. There is also the small matter of a goal at the Maracana and a hat-trick against Luxembourg by a couple of Jamaicans...
I don't entirely agree with Jack, but I also don't agree with the rule they can play for a National team after living there for 5 years after their 18th If they do such a rule, then I think they should have lived in the country for 5 years before their 18th, so they have grown up in the country they are to represent. so hopefully would feel some affinity with it Although the rule does seem good enough for other countries, including the likes of Spain
I think the points you make there don't really help the argument as the players you refer to only represented England because the rules permitted them to - what Wilshere is apparently objecting to is the fact that rules allow such a thing to happen. I tend to agree with him - I'm not a particular fan of international football (or any other sport) at the best of times, and really can't see the point of it at all if players are selected for a country on the basis of how good they happen to be and not because they were born in that country. David Bernstein's comment on the issue says it all really - "England must play within the rules and get the best team we can". Quite what it proves having, for example, an England team packed with players of African or Caribbean birth is just beyond me. What's even more ludicrous is the situation where players play for more than one country - such as the SpanishItalianArgentinians of the 50's, or Australia's Rugby Union shame of the 80's - Topo Rodruigez who played for Argentina against Australia then emigrated to Australia and played for Australia ten weeks later. - not particularly well received by the Aussie sports public. On the subject of Wilshere - is anyone else puzzled over the reaction of commentators over his goal against WBA on the weekend? "Brilliant" and "excellent technique" were two that had me scratching my head. A first-time shot that was deflected in by a defender - the commentators obviously hadn't had the privilege of viewing Fessi's goal against Huddersfield earlier in the day. That was excellent technique.
Rather a different slant on the story at the beeb - apparently the replacement has spent the summer doing some painting and clearing up! I wonder if Malky will walk? http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24454963
Although I would be surprised if Malky just walked away without anything lined up, I could see Palace, Norwich or Fulham deciding that it was time for a change and putting a few feelers out. Of course he will say that he is going nowhere, but behind the scenes he will not take too much from a man who has money, but little knowledge about football in general or his place in a long standing football club.
Isn't it a bit sad we're even thinking of having to look for players to who have "only" lived here for a few years to play for our country? Sums up the lack of quality coming through. I know its done in cricket but its different. BTW Surely the lad in question will want to play International football before 2018 - that's 5 years away.
I always find myself thinking of it from the perspective of the individual himself (or herself) - how can you really 'feel' that you are a particular nationality when it has been 'acquired' - even more so when you have only really acquired that nationality so that you can play a sport at a higher level(or avoid restrictions e.g Zola Budd) ... now I was born in England to parents who were both born in England, but my paternal great grandfather came over from Ireland and there is also Scottish blood (and also Irish) on both sides of the family in terms of my grandfathers / grandmothers ... now with that mix I could just about feel that I could represent any of the countries mentioned ... but personally, I would find it far more difficult representing, say Greece, if I'd just lived there (played there) for 5 years ... it wouldn't 'feel right' to me somehow. It would perhaps 'feel different' if I'd been born in Greece and grown up there - or even if my parents had moved there whilst I was a baby etc ... As an aside, I've gone and complicated things even further, because my other half is Welsh, so our daughters have got a right old mix, bloodline wise
Fosse you are British if there are English, Scottish and Ãrish bloods in your recent descendants. Your daughters even more with a Welsh mother. I see there are many Brazilian born footballers playing for nations not of their familial birth, like Mexico and Croatia, because they are good enough to play international football but not in the eyes of the Brazilians.
Isn't this why the rules were first relaxed in cricket? because we did not have enough good players to make a respectable test team. It's totally a shortsighted policy and doesn't address the real issue of how do we create better players for a successful international team.
... in a nutshell. I was amazed when I heard the 'birthplaces' of the current England cricket squad being discussed on the radio the other day ... we are the real 'Rainbow Nation' it would seem ...
I wasn't paying much attention but I think the lunchtime news suggested research indicated that of all the minutes spent on the pitch by players in the Premier League, only 30% are qualified for England. If near enough 70% are not, it does rather restrict the national manager's choice.
As was I at Kevin Pietersen's outburst over whether or not he, Strauss, Trott, Prior, Justin Rose, Froome or Mo Farah were 'entitled' to play for/represent England at sport. It's all a bit of a nonsense really.
Malky has shown what he does when he is employed by dodgy owners, and who can blame him. (Well, actually, plenty but I think that's unfair!)
One of the most positive things to come out of Germany in the last 10 years or so is the fact that they are now utilizing their immigrant population for the benefit of the national football squad. Names like Podolski and Klose (Who incidentally speak Polish to each other on the pitch), Sammy Khadira, Mario Gomez, Meset Ozul, Jeremy Boateng etc. are now on the lips of German football fans everywhere. Surely that is a positive thing for both Germany's image in the World and for integration within the country itself. Britain's problem is that it's immigrants (at least up to the 90's) did not come from footballing countries (like in Germany and France) - English football profiting very little from e.g. Indian and Pakistani immigration. As long as someone has acquired British nationality - either through birth or through time of residence then I have no more problem with that than with the lack of Watford born players in our own club. Loyalty is something which grows up through team spirit and through feeling for the fans etc. not through abstract thoughts about country etc. The only time it would be a problem for me is if a person is fast tracked on the road to naturalization (at the expense of others) if wanted by the national squad. I also find the idea of playing for a country on the basis of parentage slightly doubtfull - as in the case of Owen Hargreaves who had never lived in England before playing for us - or indeed Lloyd Doyley or Nyron Nosworthy who have never lived in Jamaica. For me the last two are more English than Hargreaves - in fact Almunia is more English because he has qualified for his citizenship just like any other citizen.
Cricket is a strange situation when it comes to those born in South Africa - while they were exiled due to apartheid Kepler Wessels played international cricket for Australia but once SA were re-admitted to the ICC, he played for them. I believe that the ICC ruling is that anyone born in SA while they were exiled from international cricket is treated the same as anyone from an associate or affiliate nation (Ireland - Eoin Morgan and Boyd Rankin and previously, PNG - Geraint Jones). It does however, work the other way as well as Tim Murtagh of Middlesex plays for Ireland as his wife is Irish! The most bizarre situation is that of the Pattinson brothers - Darren who played 1 Test for England, and his younger brother James, who was a member of the Australian Ashes squad this year.
With a surname of Murtagh I suspect there is more than just a trace of the Blarney, irrespective of his missus
You may be right FF, but that was what he said in an interview to the Middlesex website once he was first approached by Cricket Ireland before he made his decision.
I think Wilshire's point was poorly made. Let's take Mo Farah for a moment, born in Somalia (moved to England aged 8) but his father was born in England. He has every right to run for GB and if football was his sport then he has every right to play for England. As he himself put it: "it's my country, innit?" The problem comes in that FIFA allow players with multiple nationalities to swap between countries - let's take Wilfred Zaha (born in the Ivory Coast, moved to England aged 4) who, because he has only played U19 and U21 and a friendly for the senior England side could still play competitive football for IC. That is a nonsense. There are several players in the England U21's with similar opportunities. Madness, utter madness. colognehornet makes some good points but so long as the nation isn't a flag of convenience for a player then I am happy for them to play for the country. The young lad at Man Utd should not be playing for England. He was brought to the UK to play football for his club so unless none of the countries he is genuinely entitled to represent be that Belgium or whoever. Ditto Almunia, though he has genuinely made England his 'home' so far as I can tell but when he was being touted for England I think that it was too soon. Now, of course, it is too late for him.
