Discussion in 'Sports and Fitness' started by Jax, Apr 1, 2008.
I wasn't offended or anything, just saying.
He is not and has never been ENGLISH, the whole point of nternational football is to have players who are of that Nation take on other players from other nations. Hell I think Mikel Arteta is a great player but I still don't want him in the England team so my opinion is not changed by the calibre of a player.
* Born Here
* Parent(s) - English
* Grandparent(s) - English
EDIT - (Only 1 of those not all 3)
should be the only way you can get into a national team IMO though I wouldn't be 100% against someone moving to the UK as a child because then they have been brought up here so thats not as bad as coming here into your mid 20's and playing for us 5 years later just because your real NATION thinks your shit.
btw How did Hargreaves qualify for ENG ? was it grandparents or one of his parents.
^Hargreaves' father is English and his mother is Welsh. They moved to Canada before he was born. He could have chosen to play for England, Germany (due to him having lived in the country for long enough), Wales or Canada.
The problem with the parents and grandparents part of your rule is that it would quite possibly rule out much of England's black players. Theo Walcott's father is Jamaican, for instance and I'm fairly sure we'd lose others as well - I'm fairly certain that Ashley Cole wouldn't fit the bill. Jermain Defoe is of St. Lucian and Dominican descent, to give another example.
You make it sound like the Italians actually appreciate him when he is constantly referred to as the American by his teammates.
US is only tolerant of dual citizenship but officially it's not recognized. For example if I visit Italy the State Department is not obligated by law to help me if I used my hypothetical Italian passport to get into the country.
Of course anybody who is born or grew up in the country or got his citizenship in any other regular way (meaning without special intevention of the government) has to qualify as well. Anything else would be racist, and I don't think Jax meant it that way.
But weren't all of those born in the UK so then it doesn't matter about family they are English. If your born here, grew up here or have parents or grandparents from here than I have no problem with them playing for England...only need to tick 1 of those boxes.
^Sorry, your post read like you had to fulfill all of the criteria.
Sorry about that should of worded it better. Any of those 1 is good enough for me I just don't want to see the lkes of Mikel Arteta or Almuina play for ENG because its goes against what I think International football means...
Dam You Arteta why couldn't you live in the UK 20 years ago, dam fine midfielder too
So John Barnes fails the test, for example.
from his Bio so I don't mind you growing up as a child in the country because you become like adopted you've been in our education system and are part of our culture so your basically English.
after all I did say this...
If your an adult I think its different.
The trouble is where do you draw the line? It's always going to be arbitrary, oh you're 16 when you arrive that's ok, you're 17 that's not?
If you have citizenship that means you are a citizen of the United Kingdom, you have a British passport, you can vote in elections etc why wouldn't you be able to play for the national team?
Watched it all.
Anger with Rossi is one thing, and maybe a bit understandable. But I would think most of the ire should be aimed first at the American coach Bob Bradley, who shows shocking tactical naivete for someone in his position, and to a lesser extent the ref who gave a seriously soft red to leave the Americans playing a man down for 70 minutes.
When you're an average team not known for scoring in the run of play; when you're down to ten men after 25 minutes or so; when despite these handicaps you still manage to go up a goal against the Defending World Champions, there are a few very limited options.
Here's what those options aren't:
Not changing your shape when down a man against a better team. Not substituting your last seriously tiring midfielder until the 80-something minute. Not responding to the clearly offensive changes made by Italy when they took Gattuso off for Rossi. Refusing to bring on defensive minded players to clog the midfield; letting the Italians have days on the ball and tons of space. Letting Rangers reject Beasley on the field in any capacity.
The US is not a top tier team. But they have some useful players. But without better management, it's going to be another 3 and out World Cup.
Sport should be kept seperate from Politics, just because they give you a UK citzenship doesn't mean you should play for that national team in sport. I feel that way any such players won't respect the honour and it will never realy mean enough to them so they won't play to there best. IMO age of 11 is the limit for me cause most places you start secondary school and you could employ the 5 year rule there since at 16 you become an adult.
But theres something else I want to talk about, the whole Ronaldo thing...Is it me or should Fergie of done a different deal of like £50 million + Snejider & Huntelarr because that way hes filling the 2 positions he needs top players in and Huntelarr is a good gaol scorer/Rooney can play off him too. I would still Buy Valencia too cause Snejider can play in the middle too and buying both players seperatly would cost more than £30 million so 50 + them two would of been great.
Indeed. Any other decision is simply discriminatory. It's not as if we're going to be flooded with these players - if you've got at least five years in England under your belt without a call-up, you probably aren't good enough for your "native" team, and probably aren't going to be an integral part of the England side.
No, England won't be "flooded" with these player, and neither will Italy or France or Spain, etc. But I think what the FIFA wants to avoid is, a country like Qatar paying 20 talented Brasilians for playing for their national team and that way instantly becoming a competitor for the World Cup.
Rossi is unusual in that he "traded up". But FIFAs right in not wanting in-all-but-name club teams playing international games.
It's not that simple. I can't see how a country like that could retain twenty Brazilians of World Cup-winning ability for however long it takes to gain citizenship. Unless they steal one hundred babies a year and hope for the best. Besides, it's presumably something about the way the game is played and coached in Brazil that makes them so successful at football, rather than some innate genetic ability.
Ok, maybe they wouldn't win the World Cup, but I think it's not far-fetched to claim that it can't be difficult to find 20 Brasilians (or Cameroonese, Mexicans, whatever) football players who are significantly better than the best Qataris.
Drogba and Boswinga got pretty lengthy suspensions for their actions after that utterly disgraceful display of refereeing - to both sides, not just Chelsea - in the 2nd leg of the CL semis.
Seems a bit much to me, and the fact that the referee escaped unscathed is troubling seeing as he could very well do this again to other teams. I understand you have to keep a level of decorum on the pitch, and think 1 or 2 games would have sufficed.
"Unscathed", possibly, but I would be surprised if he officiates at high profile games again. The bans are entirely appropriate for their absurd reactions.
Separate names with a comma.