Bully Wee Villa Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 He only played for Samoa under twenties.According to Wiki: "FIFA changed its eligibility rules in 2004, allowing players capped at junior levels to switch international allegiance, meaning that Cahill was then able to play for England, Ireland, Australia or Samoa. He chose to represent the country of his birth." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordopolis Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 Wasn't Tim Cahill capped by Samoa or something at about 14 before he later went onto okay for Australia as FIFA said he'd been capped too young and for a country that had no prospect for his development? Something rings a bell anyway. Interesting, never knew that, and didn't realise players were cap tied from younger age groups as recently as that:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Cahill#Samoa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bully Wee Villa Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 I remember during the arse end of his Villa career, Julian Joachim flew all the way out to the Caribbean (well, a plane carrying him did) to play for St Vicent and the Grenadines only to be told upon his arrival that he couldn't play as a result of representing England at under-21 level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordopolis Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 I remember during the arse end of his Villa career, Julian Joachim flew all the way out to the Caribbean (well, a plane carrying him did) to play for St Vicent and the Grenadines only to be told upon his arrival that he couldn't play as a result of representing England at under-21 level. Paid for by Joachim?Then there was this Ged Brennan farce. Think he was set to miss Motherwell Prem games to go out and play for the Cayman islands, complete with a 70k sweetenerhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ged_Brannan#International_career Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bully Wee Villa Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 Paid for by Joachim? Not sure, tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senorsoupe Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 Canada has had a bit of a dodgy history in playing guys who were not really Canadian. One of the best know was a guy named Marc Bircham, who got his first cap for Canada without ever having set foot in our country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevieda Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 Think that is true of Matt Richie tbf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordopolis Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 12 hours ago, Stevieda said: Think that is true of Matt Richie tbf Did Ritchie not win his first cap at Hampden? Still pretty flaky, I know, but Bircham's first cap came in Belfast vs Northern Ireland, so he played out that first game without ever having set foot in Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senorsoupe Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 3 hours ago, Gordopolis said: Did Ritchie not win his first cap at Hampden? Still pretty flaky, I know, but Bircham's first cap came in Belfast vs Northern Ireland, so he played out that first game without ever having set foot in Canada. Ritchie did indeed get his first cap at Hampden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lex Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Yep Ritchie's first ever trip to Scotland was to represent the national football side. Would imagine he wasn't the first of the Anglo-Scots to do this, but he was the first to admit to it in an interview. No problem with this at all in my book. We should be exploiting this avenue as much as possible, other countries do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effeffsee_the2nd Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 Doesn't really make it right tho does it? I don't really care if you're born here or not but this granny rule and 5 year residency pish is defeating the purpose of international sports. same with rugby its just like club teams scouting for players except once you sign you're stuck. Birth, parents or pre -school residency till adulthood. none of this eat a haggis and you're Scottish crap On 21/02/2017 at 15:43, Lex said: Yep Ritchie's first ever trip to Scotland was to represent the national football side. Would imagine he wasn't the first of the Anglo-Scots to do this, but he was the first to admit to it in an interview. No problem with this at all in my book. We should be exploiting this avenue as much as possible, other countries do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 I don't mind the parents rule - people can get born overseas while their parents are serving in the military, in the diplomatic service and so on. Shaun Maloney was born in Malaysia... Owen Hargreaves was born in West Germany... and so on. They aren't Malaysian or German. I don't mind the schooling rule - if you've spent most of your childhood somewhere, you're likely to have a proper sense of affinity with the place. I do mind the grandparent rule - you can have no direct connection with a place, in some cases you might barely have known your relative (who could have left half a century before), and accordingly it is the problem. It's the grandparent aspect that should be closed-up. At least we haven't rugby-style "X years residency for adults" here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effeffsee_the2nd Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Rugby is so loose it cant realy be called international now. Alot of the tier 2 nations are little more than B teams for the stronger sides. The granny rule bothers me for reasons mentioned and becuase it just encourages quick fixes which do nothing to help our game overall. We are not producing very many quality players but rather than properly address it we go scraping the barrel for 2nd and 3rd rate cnuts with barely any connection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 I said direct connection. If your nearest relative to have come from the country is 2 generations up, and you've never set foot in the place, that is not a direct connection... You've also gone to the emotive end of the scale. It is just as common - if not more common - to find someone getting identified by an FA and saying "I never even realised that my granddad had been born there" or "we used to visit my Scottish gran in Cheshire now and then and she told me about when she grew-up in Glasgow during the war", as it is to discover they always felt themselves to be of that nationality and had ambitions of representing the country. Your example is also irrelevant and misleading. If you moved to Australia "with your children" then your grandson would be eligible through their parent. What would be a relevant example is someone moving to Australia, having a child in Australia X years after that, then X decades after that child having a grandchild in Australia. You've also got to find a way of having a rule, which naturally means drawing a line somewhere. There are people in America who's ancestors emigrated before the grandparent level who will say they feel just as "Scots" or "Irish" say, or even more, but obviously aren't eligible... I don't think the rule will be changed, incidentally, but for me and a lot of other people it seems that it's too open when one grandparent - who might have moved away half a century before - renders you eligible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobbieD Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 9 hours ago, HibeeJibee said: I don't mind the parents rule - people can get born overseas while their parents are serving in the military, in the diplomatic service and so on. Shaun Maloney was born in Malaysia... Owen Hargreaves was born in West Germany... and so on. They aren't Malaysian or German. I don't mind the schooling rule - if you've spent most of your childhood somewhere, you're likely to have a proper sense of affinity with the place. I do mind the grandparent rule - you can have no direct connection with a place, in some cases you might barely have known your relative (who could have left half a century before), and accordingly it is the problem. It's the grandparent aspect that should be closed-up. At least we haven't rugby-style "X years residency for adults" here. Sorry mate, I'm just looking at a map of Germany and I can't see Calgary, Alberta on it anywhere. Owen Hargreaves has Welsh and English born parents and brothers born in England. He lived in his country of birth til he was 16. You're saying he can't say he's Canadian then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Fair enough on the Canada v Germany thing. I thought he had a German mother and a British father in the forces with BAOR. Possibly that was someone else - Maik Taylor? I don't follow your second sentence... If he was born and grew-up in Canada then of course he can say he's Canadian. From what you're saying he would also be eligible to represent England and Wales whether or not there was a grandparent rule. It's exactly the same as the point I also made about Shaun Maloney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 I'm always surprised how many people want to dictate to someone else what their nationality is. It's a fluid thing. People feel completely differently. Where they are born is only one connection. A grandparent connection can be just as strong as any other familial tie - see Graham Alexander. And besides, international football has little to do with nationality. It's about selecting the best qualified players. Don Hutchison has always said he is an Englishman qualified to play for Scotland. I have no problem with that at all. I do think rules on the rugby project players are a little lax, but even then, guys like Strauss have shown a genuine commitment to playing for Scotland. The idea that somehow less competent players who were born here are any more likely to show some nebulous concept of passion is romantic tosh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EH75 Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 1 hour ago, Savage Henry said: Don Hutchison has always said he is an Englishman qualified to play for Scotland. I thought Don Hutchison considered himself Scottish and had always wanted to play for us no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effeffsee_the2nd Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 7 hours ago, Savage Henry said: I'm always surprised how many people want to dictate to someone else what their nationality is. It's a fluid thing. People feel completely differently. Where they are born is only one connection. A grandparent connection can be just as strong as any other familial tie - see Graham Alexander. And besides, international football has little to do with nationality. It's about selecting the best qualified players. Don Hutchison has always said he is an Englishman qualified to play for Scotland. I have no problem with that at all. I do think rules on the rugby project players are a little lax, but even then, guys like Strauss have shown a genuine commitment to playing for Scotland. The idea that somehow less competent players who were born here are any more likely to show some nebulous concept of passion is romantic tosh. it doesn't matter if the native borns are better or more passionate, the point is to represent a country , win at all cost is for club sports, without elegibilty rules you might aswell just allow nations to scout and select any player they fancy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 it doesn't matter if the native borns are better or more passionate, the point is to represent a country , win at all cost is for club sports, without elegibilty rules you might aswell just allow nations to scout and select any player they fancy Why is win-at-all-costs only for club football? There clearly are eligibility rules, but they aren't remotely the same as nationality. C.f Don Hutchison: https://www.theguardian.com/football/1999/mar/20/newsstory.sport24 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.