Because fielding a team with no Englishmen wasn't enough

H. Pedersen · Post by **H. Pedersen** » Fri May 01, 2009 4:28 pm

Oh, Arsene.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/footbal ... 029334.stm

blurred · Post by **blurred** » Fri May 01, 2009 4:36 pm

I've got nothing against it. Unless you're going to piss and whinge about Deco playing for Portugal, if Almunia wants to play for England then he should be considered. Them's the rules, nowt wrong with 'em.

Tombwfc · Post by **Tombwfc** » Fri May 01, 2009 4:42 pm

Don't we have an Italian manager who everybody loves? Bit late to start being outraged over things like this.

We tried to win something fairly, we couldn't, we were shit. Now we're trying cheating and it's working out alright so far. If it's good enough for Spain, it's good enough for us.

I don't actually think Almunia is good enough, but in theory i've no problems with this.

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Fri May 01, 2009 5:11 pm

H. Pedersen wrote:Oh, Arsene.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/footbal ... 029334.stm

Well. How many of the last French World Cup winning side were actually French? Then, there's always the case of John Barnes to consider.

bobo the clown · Post by **bobo the clown** » Fri May 01, 2009 7:55 pm

blurred wrote:I've got nothing against it. Unless you're going to piss and whinge about Deco playing for Portugal, if Almunia wants to play for England then he should be considered. Them's the rules, nowt wrong with 'em.

What a pile of rolling shite. There's everything wrong with it ... but of course there's no point arguing with you.

KeeeeeeeBaaaaaaab · Post by **KeeeeeeeBaaaaaaab** » Fri May 01, 2009 10:14 pm

Tombwfc wrote:Don't we have an Italian manager who everybody loves? Bit late to start being outraged over things like this.

We tried to win something fairly, we couldn't, we were shit. Now we're trying cheating and it's working out alright so far. If it's good enough for Spain, it's good enough for us.

I don't actually think Almunia is good enough, but in theory i've no problems with this.

Does that mean every African country that has qualified for the World Cup in this century have cheated as well? They've all been managed by Frenchman FWIW I think that there should have been rules put in place about foreign managers managing the representative teams of nations long before we employed Sven, never mind Fabio.

If Almunia earns citizenship, then I have no problem with it.

If he's in the squad on merit, then I have a problem with it. Just because he had a good game midweek, doesn't make him first choice. He's far too slow, his communication is either ineffective or non-existant looking at the number of wild clearances his defence has to make when he starts to move, and his distribution is as bad as Jussi's. He's simply not even as good as what we currently have, never mind better. If Cudicini got citizenship and a regular start, I'd move mountains for it.

But Almunia plays for Arsenal, so he has more chance of playing up front than Kevin Davies.

blurred · Post by **blurred** » Fri May 01, 2009 11:50 pm

bobo the clown wrote:
blurred wrote:I've got nothing against it. Unless you're going to piss and whinge about Deco playing for Portugal, if Almunia wants to play for England then he should be considered. Them's the rules, nowt wrong with 'em.
What a pile of rolling shite. There's everything wrong with it ... but of course there's no point arguing with you.

So where do you draw the line? What rules are enforceable and which ones aren't?

Should Owen Hargreaves play for England? Should Zidane have played for France? Desailly? What about Deco and Portugal, or Eduardo and Croatia?

What are the hard and fast rules you live by? I'm interested.

Prufrock · Post by **Prufrock** » Sat May 02, 2009 12:06 am

blurred wrote:
bobo the clown wrote:
blurred wrote:I've got nothing against it. Unless you're going to piss and whinge about Deco playing for Portugal, if Almunia wants to play for England then he should be considered. Them's the rules, nowt wrong with 'em.
What a pile of rolling shite. There's everything wrong with it ... but of course there's no point arguing with you.
So where do you draw the line? What rules are enforceable and which ones aren't?

Should Owen Hargreaves play for England? Should Zidane have played for France? Desailly? What about Deco and Portugal, or Eduardo and Croatia?

What are the hard and fast rules you live by? I'm interested.

My favourite example is the German world cup squad in 2006. 4 strikers, 2 polish, one french, and one half spanish.

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Sat May 02, 2009 12:38 am

And how many players that have represented Ireland coincided turning up for training with their first visit to the place?

FaninOz · Post by **FaninOz** » Sat May 02, 2009 2:43 am

Then weve got Muamba of course.

And, how many similar people, not born in England, have played for and Captained England at cricket?? Also, NZ wouldn't have a Rugby Union team without all the Pacific Islanders in their team. And when Austraia played Croatia in the soccer World Cup I believe that there were something like 18 Croatians on the pitch.

There are so many examples in other sports around the World as well that its not worth worrying about anymore.

InsaneApache · Post by **InsaneApache** » Sat May 02, 2009 3:46 am

They should initiate a transfer system.

Frandsen08 · Post by **Frandsen08** » Sat May 02, 2009 8:06 am

im on board with it, other players have done it and if we can get the best for th england squad im happy, however i do think ben foster is a better option i just dont know how much first team he's going to get

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Sat May 02, 2009 9:37 am

Now then, I'd like to move this on a little if I may be so bold.

As Blurred points out 'them's the rules', which of course, they are. However, he then goes on to claim 'nowt wrong with 'em'. Isn't there?

We've got several examples of players that have represented a country not of their birth and often to which players can only claim a tenuous connection at best. Isn't that farcical? I mean, there has to be some leeway of course due to people moving around the place, but would it perhaps not be fairer, and to a certain degree make it a little less pointless, to alter the criterea to being:

(a) The Country in which you were born?

(b) The Country in which either of your parents were born?

Eleven of your finest versus eleven of ours, and that's it! Afterall, is that not the whole point of international football?

bobo the clown · Post by **bobo the clown** » Sat May 02, 2009 10:14 am

Bruce Rioja wrote:Now then, I'd like to move this on a little if I may be so bold.

As Blurred points out 'them's the rules', which of course, they are. However, he then goes on to claim 'nowt wrong with 'em'. Isn't there?

We've got several examples of players that have represented a country not of their birth and often to which players can only claim a tenuous connection at best. Isn't that farcical? I mean, there has to be some leeway of course due to people moving around the place, but would it perhaps not be fairer, and to a certain degree make it a little less pointless, to alter the criterea to being:

(a) The Country in which you were born?

(b) The Country in which either of your parents were born?

Eleven of your finest versus eleven of ours, and that's it! Afterall, is that not the whole point of international football?

What he said.

Sorry if you can't make it in your real country's (once removed, as above) national team (Kevin Nolan ... & no,I 'm not sure of his parentage/grandparentage), sorry if your proper team is a limited one (George Best, Ryan Giggs, Ian Rush) you're representing "your" country not some place you've picked.

The fact that England cricket have done it is no recommendation, the fact that Jack Charlton's Ireland were barely Irish is no recommendation. Watching the Oil countries naturalise atheletes and have them run for them shows how this will end if we aren't careful.

You know that thread " ... I just don't get ..." ? Well, people selecting which national team they'll play for without any birth link falls into that.

There should be standards. Increasingly there aren't.

Prufrock · Post by **Prufrock** » Sat May 02, 2009 3:16 pm

bobo the clown wrote:
Bruce Rioja wrote:Now then, I'd like to move this on a little if I may be so bold.

As Blurred points out 'them's the rules', which of course, they are. However, he then goes on to claim 'nowt wrong with 'em'. Isn't there?

We've got several examples of players that have represented a country not of their birth and often to which players can only claim a tenuous connection at best. Isn't that farcical? I mean, there has to be some leeway of course due to people moving around the place, but would it perhaps not be fairer, and to a certain degree make it a little less pointless, to alter the criterea to being:

(a) The Country in which you were born?

(b) The Country in which either of your parents were born?

Eleven of your finest versus eleven of ours, and that's it! Afterall, is that not the whole point of international football?
What he said.

Sorry if you can't make it in your real country's (once removed, as above) national team (Kevin Nolan ... & no,I 'm not sure of his parentage/grandparentage), sorry if your proper team is a limited one (George Best, Ryan Giggs, Ian Rush) you're representing "your" country not some place you've picked.

The fact that England cricket have done it is no recommendation, the fact that Jack Charlton's Ireland were barely Irish is no recommendation. Watching the Oil countries naturalise atheletes and have them run for them shows how this will end if we aren't careful.

You know that thread " ... I just don't get ..." ? Well, people selecting which national team they'll play for without any birth link falls into that.

There should be standards. Increasingly there aren't.

For what it's worth I agree with both you and Brucie, although I'd also still have a rule allowing naturalisation, but with a limit of maybe 15 or 16 for when you move to the country. I don't think Almunia, who is clearly Spanish, and only moved here to further his career as a professional footballer should count as English, but someone who moved here as a kid when his parents did, who speaks English and grew up in English culture at an Englsh school, should, if they want, be eligible to play for England.

My original reason for coming on here, was not I think the current international system is all fine, but because I think of all the sticks with which to beat Mr Wenger, this is a poooooor one.

bobo the clown · Post by **bobo the clown** » Sat May 02, 2009 8:53 pm

Prufrock wrote:
bobo the clown wrote:
Bruce Rioja wrote:Now then, I'd like to move this on a little if I may be so bold.

As Blurred points out 'them's the rules', which of course, they are. However, he then goes on to claim 'nowt wrong with 'em'. Isn't there?

We've got several examples of players that have represented a country not of their birth and often to which players can only claim a tenuous connection at best. Isn't that farcical? I mean, there has to be some leeway of course due to people moving around the place, but would it perhaps not be fairer, and to a certain degree make it a little less pointless, to alter the criterea to being:
(a) The Country in which you were born?
(b) The Country in which either of your parents were born?

Eleven of your finest versus eleven of ours, and that's it! Afterall, is that not the whole point of international football?
What he said.

Sorry if you can't make it in your real country's (once removed, as above) national team (Kevin Nolan ... & no, I'm not sure of his parentage/grandparentage), sorry if your proper team is a limited one (George Best, Ryan Giggs, Ian Rush) you're representing "your" country not some place you've picked.

The fact that England cricket have done it is no recommendation, the fact that Jack Charlton's Ireland were barely Irish is no recommendation. Watching the Oil countries naturalise atheletes and have them run for them shows how this will end if we aren't careful.

You know that thread " ... I just don't get ..." ? Well, people selecting which national team they'll play for without any birth link falls into that.

There should be standards. Increasingly there aren't.
For what it's worth I agree with both you and Brucie, although I'd also still have a rule allowing naturalisation, but with a limit of maybe 15 or 16 for when you move to the country. I don't think Almunia, who is clearly Spanish, and only moved here to further his career as a professional footballer should count as English, but someone who moved here as a kid when his parents did, who speaks English and grew up in English culture at an Englsh school, should, if they want, be eligible to play for England.
My original reason for coming on here, was not I think the current international system is all fine, but because I think of all the sticks with which to beat Mr Wenger, this is a poooooor one.

Yep, I'd buy that. Just want to stop people doing what Eduardo's done re. Croatia & now Almunia wants to.

One thing for Nolan ... despite being almost begged to sign-up for Ireland he said "no".

mummywhycantieatcrayons · Post by **mummywhycantieatcrayons** » Sat May 02, 2009 11:58 pm

Like it or not (and I don't), the winds now, in Europe at least, blow in the direction of residence being more important than nationality... people now choose their country, rather than it choosing them, it seems.

Most of us have an instinctive, intuitive feeling about what 'nationality' means and should mean, but it's not always easy to pin down.

Bruce has offered two concrete and separate criteria - the geographical accident of where one leaves one's mother's person, or the same of either parent. It has the attraction of being clear-cut, but is it really 100% defensible as a system that should be determinative in 100% of cases, in this new world of the global village?

Perhaps Norman Tebbit has the answer...

officer_dibble · Post by **officer_dibble** » Sun May 03, 2009 12:46 am

I wish we could make Jussi English!

William the White · Post by **William the White** » Sun May 03, 2009 1:06 am

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:Like it or not (and I don't), the winds now, in Europe at least, blow in the direction of residence being more important than nationality... people now choose their country, rather than it choosing them, it seems.

Most of us have an instinctive, intuitive feeling about what 'nationality' means and should mean, but it's not always easy to pin down.

Bruce has offered two concrete and separate criteria - the geographical accident of where one leaves one's mother's person, or the same of either parent. It has the attraction of being clear-cut, but is it really 100% defensible as a system that should be determinative in 100% of cases, in this new world of the global village?

Perhaps Norman Tebbit has the answer...

I think the difficulty is compounded by having 4 countries within the uk... But for this complication, i'd find it pretty easy - if you were a UK citizen, whatever the nation of your birth, you would be eligible to play sport for your country in the same way you could vote, stand for parliament, pay taxes, join the army and fight for it, live, to the full, every aspect of its life etc etc.

Is it correct that, atm, if you are a naturalised citizen you can choose between any of the 4 home 'nations'? So you could be born in - say - Congo. Be granted (understandably, and legally) asylum, live in London, find yourself on arsenal's books, be transferred to Birmingham, then to Bolton Wanderers, and be eligible to play for Wales...

Though this seems daft, on balance, I'd prefer this to Bruce's formulation, which, despite the virtue of clarity, discriminates between categories of citizens of our country, and i think that's plain wrong.

If Norman Tebbit has an answer we at least know one solution that is incorrect...

mummywhycantieatcrayons · Post by **mummywhycantieatcrayons** » Sun May 03, 2009 1:33 am

William the White wrote:
mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:Like it or not (and I don't), the winds now, in Europe at least, blow in the direction of residence being more important than nationality... people now choose their country, rather than it choosing them, it seems.

Most of us have an instinctive, intuitive feeling about what 'nationality' means and should mean, but it's not always easy to pin down.

Bruce has offered two concrete and separate criteria - the geographical accident of where one leaves one's mother's person, or the same of either parent. It has the attraction of being clear-cut, but is it really 100% defensible as a system that should be determinative in 100% of cases, in this new world of the global village?

Perhaps Norman Tebbit has the answer...
I think the difficulty is compounded by having 4 countries within the uk... But for this complication, i'd find it pretty easy - if you were a UK citizen, whatever the nation of your birth, you would be eligible to play sport for your country in the same way you could vote, stand for parliament, pay taxes, join the army and fight for it, live, to the full, every aspect of its life etc etc.

Is it correct that, atm, if you are a naturalised citizen you can choose between any of the 4 home 'nations'? So you could be born in - say - Congo. Be granted (understandably, and legally) asylum, live in London, find yourself on arsenal's books, be transferred to Birmingham, then to Bolton Wanderers, and be eligible to play for Wales...

Though this seems daft, on balance, I'd prefer this to Bruce's formulation, which, despite the virtue of clarity, discriminates between categories of citizens of our country, and i think that's plain wrong.

If Norman Tebbit has an answer we at least know one solution that is incorrect...

I think that rule is as you have described it, though I don't know of any actual cases of that actually happening yet (this is not to say that it hasn't!).

You're right, that's an additional complication, beyond the broader debate about nationality and identity.

I mentioned Tebbit mainly in jest, but there is a point there somewhere... what role do actual feelings of allegiance play in all this, especially when they don't fit within Bruce's test?