[Archived] Is Jack Wilshire right?

[DE.]

Correct, that's my view and for what it's worth, that's what I thought international football was all about.

You represent the country of your birth, end of. The rests a crock of kean and of convenience. I'll stand corrected if somebody can convince me otherwise.

With logic like that I think it's best to leave you to it.

[darrenrover]

With logic like that I think it's best to leave you to it.

My point DE is that with regards to International football there shouldn't be any logic. Surely, you're born where you're born and that's the country you're eligible to represent. There should not be any need to have a debate.

The latest nonsense with the 18 year old Belgian at United surely highlights this. He's debating which of 5 countries to play for? FFS, he's Belgian, there shouldn't be an option..

I'd have made an exception for Ryan Giggs though!

[Plastics]

My point DE is that with regards to International football there shouldn't be any logic.

Ha

[Mike E]

The fact that some people reckon there are English people born in the army who should only be allowed to represent Afghanistan or Iraq is just plain weird.

There is NOTHING wrong with the current rules regarding international representation. Januzaj is an extraordinary case. If people allow a single exception to alter their stance on something that has worked perfectly fine for many years, then frankly I fear for their wellbeing.

If I was a footballer, I'd have the option of England or Scotland. If I wasn't good enough for England, I'd play for Scotland. Why do people give such a crap about that?

In the case of residency rules, you need to take that up with our government. It's sod all to do with any sporting authority.

[Plastics]

In the case of residency rules, you need to take that up with our government. It's sod all to do with any sporting authority.

Indeed.

[darrenrover]

Mike, what are the current rules regarding international representation? I don't have a clue but perhaps you do?

[Steve Moss]

I don't think residency should have anything to do with the country you represent.

Where you born in the country? If so, you can represent it.

Where either of your parents a citizen of the country you wish to play for? If so, you can represent it.

Did you become a citizen of the country before age 18? If so, you can represent it.

Did you honorably serve in a country's military? If so, you can represent it.

Either of those four would be okay with me, but looking for grandparents, uncles, etc. is just too far.

[Plastics]

Lulz military service.

[Audax]

Look at Mick McCarthy, born in Yorkshire, I'd assume he would never be able to get into the England squad but he was a key part of Ireland's National Team that did well enough at the 1990 World Cup.

So, I'm seeing the ol' "spirit of the game" unwritten rule coming into this, you want to be fair as well.

On that same principle, sure, England should have an English manager but on the other hand, long story short, you are going to have your countries that will have problems having a high-calibre manager, in 1994, hosting the World Cup, USA would have had problems finding a really good American manager and would have most likely been a clear cut below managers from Brazil, etc. Same for Australia. They might be able to find one but I'm not sure about a real succession, pool of managers as an Italy would have.

You base eligible players as one person said that if they are paying taxes and working here why not, that would open up the door to almost mercenary types of international teams, pay Ronaldinho big to play for a club in your country so he'd get to play for your country. Bad idea, Sure wouldn't want that. I think that was slightly the situation with Puskas, Hungarian great, later on played for Spain. I think that influenced things some and not only that, I gather some athletes wanted to get out from behind the Iron Curtain, wasn't like today (except with North Korea and maybe a few other places).

[Audax]

edit: bit off the main topic!

[darrenrover]

Representing your nation shouldn't be a debate IMO.

It ought to be where you were born as qualification and nothing else.

What pride did the likes of Jason Macateer, Mark Lawrenson etc. have in representing Eire?

Pride of pulling on the shirt to represent YOUR nation should be all that matters and nothing else.

[Steve Moss]

Representing your nation shouldn't be a debate IMO.

It ought to be where you were born as qualification and nothing else.

But what about 2 English born and bred citizens, employed overseas as diplomats. If their son is born overseas while on duty, should he be prevented from playing for England?

Or an English Marine marries a girl overseas, has a kid, then brings them back to England. Should the boy be prevented playing for England?

I really think the citizenship of parents should play a role, and it should not be exclusively where one was born.

[Stuart]

It ought to be where you were born as qualification and nothing else.

Mike has made a good point to refute this. A child born to English military parents while temporarily stationed abroad. Why would you insist they cannot play for England?

It's like saying a child born to a family who have lived in Blackburn for generations, and who grows up there, cannot be a true Rovers supporter because they were born in Burnley.

[Mike E]

Mike has made a good point to refute this. A child born to English military parents while temporarily stationed abroad. Why would you insist they cannot play for England?

It's like saying a child born to a family who have lived in Blackburn for generations, and who grows up there, cannot be a true Rovers supporter because they were born in Burnley.

Now, Stuart. THAT I can get on board with

Mike, what are the current rules regarding international representation? I don't have a clue but perhaps you do?

I'll be honest I'm not entirely sure. I think it's either 5 or 10years living here and then you can apply for a British passport. Though don't quote me on it.

I believe there was a chance Amoruso could've played for Scotland under such rules?

Representing your nation shouldn't be a debate IMO.

It ought to be where you were born as qualification and nothing else.

What pride did the likes of Jason Macateer, Mark Lawrenson etc. have in representing Eire?

Pride of pulling on the shirt to represent YOUR nation should be all that matters and nothing else.

What makes you think they had no pride? There is surely still a sense of pride in that you've been picked as on of the best 23 players on offer to that team? I'd be happy to represent bloody Andorra tbh.

I take it you begrudge Mo Farah his gold for the UK? Yeah, who the hell does he think he is? Bloody pirate adoring our country (spit).

[donnermeat]

Joe Calzaghe wasn't born in Wales but there's no doubt he's Welsh.

I certainly wouldn't tell him he's not Welsh anyway!

[Pugg]

Darren, you keep referring to people's grandparents...no one said that...they are saying parents not grandparents. The military example is a perfect one.

[DanLad]

Tony Cascarino got to represent Ireland because his named sounded a bit Irish. True story (well, ish)

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2000/oct/29/newsstory.sport12

[Majiball]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/pressure-heaped-jack-wilshere-caused-2357812

Some advice:

1) Be a professional and quit smoking (Don't speak to Wayne for advice)

2) Don't make stupid comments in the press

3) Realise it's all your own doing and there's no one too blame for your 'pressure', other than you.

4) Finish maturation

[Audax]

Wishere was asked a question and answered it the way many would, this incident and smoking hardly compares to the antics that have been caught up by many international footballers, I mean really? One cigarette that we know of?? I don't know, it might have even been a semi-norm to smoke in days gone past.

Interesting topic, a legitimate story and perhaps driven by the press as well, the press has shown themselves to undermine the England team too in the past among many foes. The story basically is a big "so what".

Januzaj may well not even apply to become a permanent resident, who knows who he's looking at to play for.

http://www.blackpoolcitizen.co.uk/uk_national_sport/10723485.Januzaj_not_ready_to_pick_country/?ref=nt

[DE.]

My point DE is that with regards to International football there shouldn't be any logic.

If you don't apply logic to a situation then you have no argument. Of course a rule should have logic, and a simple "your nation is wherever you were born" doesn't have anywhere near enough of it. It's such a static line of thinking that it holds no value in the modern world whatsoever.

What you're saying is if I was born to English parents in Afghanistan, and a day later I came back with my parents to England and had lived there ever since, I'd only be eligible for Afghanistan as in your opinion that would be my nationality. Do you not understand how ludicrous that is?

[broadsword]

I think Darren is getting caught up in the emotion of it all. It's an emotive topic, I can understand the feeling that someone wouldn't want "imposters" to represent their country.

It's too harsh to enforce a "country of birth" rule. What I think should be enforced is that a player can only play for a country if they have a "strong claim* to represent it. What does, and doesn't, constitute a strong claim is clearly a contentious area. There have in the past been African distance runners who've eloped to the middle east to run for oil-rich countries presumably to get a big wedge in their bank account. Now that's an athlete who is more interested in what their country can do for them and not vice versa. That is not the sort of mercenary I would want playing for England.

In the case of Januzaj, he only came to the UK 2 years ago, he'd have no business pulling on an England shirt. If most of your childhood years are behind you by the time you're resident in England, I'd say you shouldn't play for the country.

But it's not always cut-and-dried and I think some cases you can't proscribe for and some degree of leeway would have to be shown occasionally. But what is the over-riding consideration is why a player wants to represent a particular country.

[CapeTownRover]

Wilshere probably afraid of losing his place to this lad.

[Stuart]

There's not a great deal of point in changing grassroots football to increase the pool of "English" players to then start converting players from other countries.

Once we start doing that then we are into transfer fee territory and may as well pack in having a national level football team at all.

As league football fans we have had to get used to players with no affiliation to our home towns "representing us" and the resulting loss of identity, should we have to do the same as English-folk?

Or perhaps it's just a sign of the times. Do we even know what being English means any more? There is certainly very little in the way of display of national pride; with those who do being badged as xenophobes, racists and UKIP MPs.

[Plastics]

Representing your nation shouldn't be a debate IMO.

It ought to be where you were born as qualification and nothing else.

What pride did the likes of Jason Macateer, Mark Lawrenson etc. have in representing Eire?

Pride of pulling on the shirt to represent YOUR nation should be all that matters and nothing else.

I think it's a little unfair of you to speak for the 7 billion people that exist on that planet on how much pride they would feel for representing a nation that they had links to.

[roversR4ever]

Correct, that's my view and for what it's worth, that's what I thought international football was all about.

You represent the country of your birth, end of. The rests a crock of kean and of convenience. I'll stand corrected if somebody can convince me otherwise.

Its not as simple at that in my view.

What if you have an English married couple (parents are English), go and work in a foreign country have two children born there but say at the ages of 3 and 5 move back to England. Then those two children spend the rest of the childhood in England? They would obviously qualify for a British passport but under your rules they would only qualify for the foreign country to play football. The reality is those two children would have few memories of the foreign country and would feel English by the time the were old enough to represent England. Most likely they wouldnt even be able to speak much of the foreign countries language.