The England Thread

[The College Dropout]

 

Again:

 

Where are your posts pre-World Cup saying that the philosophies of the Costa Rican side ingrained over a number of years might be our undoing?

 

It's just the way you said it and all the exhaustive research you've done before the World Cup, well personally if I was in your shoes I might've mentioned it.

 

I've been posting on this forum for nearly a decade and the majority of people here where surprised to know I'm Ghanaian - and have followed and supported them for the last couple of decades. There's plenty I know and do about football I'm sure you are clueless to.  Knowing the formation and profile of the Costa Rican team is the least of them.

 

Like I said, I never mentioned ability with Costa Rica. Just factors I know they have that are a benefit. Over 7 months, watching our for the few players I can watch, listening to World Cup preview podcasts, reading previews online I can come up with a bit of information on 1 of 3 teams England are guaranteed to face at the WC.

[Interpolic]

You're full of shit.  Night, babes. xx

[TRon]

 

Again:

 

Where are your posts pre-World Cup saying that the philosophies of the Costa Rican side ingrained over a number of years might be our undoing?

 

It's just the way you said it and all the exhaustive research you've done before the World Cup, well personally if I was in your shoes I might've mentioned it.

 

I've been posting on this forum for nearly a decade and the majority of people here where surprised to know I'm Ghanaian - and have followed and supported them for the last couple of decades. There's plenty I know and do about football I'm sure you are clueless to.  Knowing the formation and profile of the Costa Rican team is the least of them.

 

Like I said, I never mentioned ability with Costa Rica. Just factors I know they have that are a benefit. Over 7 months, watching our for the few players I can watch, listening to World Cup preview podcasts, reading previews online I can come up with a bit of information on 1 of 3 teams England are guaranteed to face at the WC.

 

I never knew you were Ghanaian, I just assumed you were a thick Englishman. I suppose there's not much difference considering you and a vast majority of English people think Pardew is a good manager. 

[loki679]

TCD hitting IP on the break and he's rattled, the comeback is on.

[Cronky]

Can you expand on your understanding of the philosophies of the Costa Rican side ingrained over a number of years, then explain how you have time in your life to devote your attention to the point of apparent expertise about every single situation that relates to football as a sport?  Would be helpful, cheers.  Always learning.

 

They've had the same coach since 2011 and he's largely stuck with the same team, as evidenced by the majority of the team having a good number of caps and being fairly mature in age. When Bryan Oviedo played really well for Everton it was said he played as a wingback in a back 5 for Costa Rica. It was given as a reason why he looked so dangerous going forward as that's important for a wingback.

 

Same applies with Chile. They've had Bieslian style tactics since 2007 give or take a year or two with another style of management.

 

So unlike England - Costa Rica have had the same team, play in the same shape for at least the last 4 years more or less. Even with players dropping out - they've kept the same system (in formation at least). England switched formations fairly recently, changed the LB, midfield duo, attacking partnerships and the widemen constantly over the last 36 months. Only a handful of the starters and players coming off the bench have more than 30 caps. Considerably less as starters.

 

 

I'm sorry for having more footballing knowledge & common sense than yourself.

 

Like I said, there's not many teams coming to the WC with such little experience or talent and have come to play attacking football. This is a pretty different team from the one that qualified for the tournament even.

 

I don't know about Chile or Costa Rica, but you're right about England.

 

For no particular reason, we don't have a good crop of defenders at the moment, but going forward, it was like we had too many options and made too many changes.

[loki679]

They need an established, reliable, proven partnership in the centre of defence.

 

Step forward Steven Vincent 'Twat' Taylor and Michael James 'Willo' Williamson, your time has come. 

[themanupstairs]

Suarez also called it his "retribution" for the treatment he's received over here.

 

He's a great footballer; but he's an altogether bigger Cnut. As for the Scousers, they'll be cheering on Uruguay all the way now. Suarez is a Scouser after all.

 

It'd be idiotic as the sooner Uruguay get knocked out, the more of a pre-season Suarez will have.

 

Why would you care about a Real Madrid player getting in preseason?

[Incognito]

 

 

National teams shouldn't be allowed foreign managers IMO but that is a different argument.

 

I agree.

 

Of course some countries would circumvent any such rule with daft citizenship loopholes, one I'm glad that England haven't gone down.

 

It's a stupid suggestion IMO.  Apart from running States, I don't see what nationality has to do with a job.

 

Also the English FA definition of English is loose at best.  English parents but never lived in England is fine. But spending 5 years in the country and becoming a British citizen is not fine. Not born here, don't have English parents but being 'raised' here for some period of time is also fine. Don't get it personally.

 

It's international football, country v country. No-one who isn't eligible should be anywhere near a national set up. Don't mind the got a passport get a cap rules so much but I'd tighten the residency rules - makes a mockery unless you first moved over to wherever for non-footballing reasons.

 

E.g. Eduardo shouldn't play for Croatia but Shaqiri should play for Switzerland.

 

Disagree.  If you're a citizen of a country, why shouldn't you be able to represent them for a sport? Eduardo's more a Croatian than Hargreaves was an Englishman.

That's nonsense, piffle and bullshit all rolled up into a big bollocks sandwich. The blood in Owen Hargreaves is 100% British, Eduardo is Brazilian.

 

In your mind if a dog was born in or decided to live in a stable, he'd then become a horse.

[The College Dropout]

 

 

 

National teams shouldn't be allowed foreign managers IMO but that is a different argument.

 

I agree.

 

Of course some countries would circumvent any such rule with daft citizenship loopholes, one I'm glad that England haven't gone down.

 

It's a stupid suggestion IMO.  Apart from running States, I don't see what nationality has to do with a job.

 

Also the English FA definition of English is loose at best.  English parents but never lived in England is fine. But spending 5 years in the country and becoming a British citizen is not fine. Not born here, don't have English parents but being 'raised' here for some period of time is also fine. Don't get it personally.

 

It's international football, country v country. No-one who isn't eligible should be anywhere near a national set up. Don't mind the got a passport get a cap rules so much but I'd tighten the residency rules - makes a mockery unless you first moved over to wherever for non-footballing reasons.

 

E.g. Eduardo shouldn't play for Croatia but Shaqiri should play for Switzerland.

 

Disagree.  If you're a citizen of a country, why shouldn't you be able to represent them for a sport? Eduardo's more a Croatian than Hargreaves was an Englishman.

That's nonsense, piffle and bullshit all rolled up into a big bollocks sandwich. The blood in Owen Hargreaves is 100% British, Eduardo is Brazilian.

 

In your mind if a dog was born in or decided to live in a stable, he'd then become a horse.

 

So you disagree that if you're a citizen of a country, you should be able to represent them for a sporting reason?

 

Nationality is not a race or species do the dog comparison is stupid. I don't believe in 'British Blood'. With your logic Raheem Sterling has 'Jamaican Blood', he was even born there. Shouldn't he be playing for Jamaica?

 

To me there's plenty of ways you can become a national of a country. Being naturalised is just as valid as heritage of an individual who has never lived in the country of his heritage.

 

I don't view nationality is this finite thing. 

[Incognito]

 

 

 

National teams shouldn't be allowed foreign managers IMO but that is a different argument.

 

I agree.

 

Of course some countries would circumvent any such rule with daft citizenship loopholes, one I'm glad that England haven't gone down.

 

It's a stupid suggestion IMO.  Apart from running States, I don't see what nationality has to do with a job.

 

Also the English FA definition of English is loose at best.  English parents but never lived in England is fine. But spending 5 years in the country and becoming a British citizen is not fine. Not born here, don't have English parents but being 'raised' here for some period of time is also fine. Don't get it personally.

 

It's international football, country v country. No-one who isn't eligible should be anywhere near a national set up. Don't mind the got a passport get a cap rules so much but I'd tighten the residency rules - makes a mockery unless you first moved over to wherever for non-footballing reasons.

 

E.g. Eduardo shouldn't play for Croatia but Shaqiri should play for Switzerland.

 

Disagree.  If you're a citizen of a country, why shouldn't you be able to represent them for a sport? Eduardo's more a Croatian than Hargreaves was an Englishman.

That's nonsense, piffle and bullshit all rolled up into a big bollocks sandwich. The blood in Owen Hargreaves is 100% British, Eduardo is Brazilian.

 

In your mind if a dog was born in or decided to live in a stable, he'd then become a horse.

 

So you disagree that if you're a citizen of a country, you should be able to represent them for a sporting reason?

 

Nationality is not a race or species do the dog comparison is stupid. I don't believe in 'British Blood'. With your logic Raheem Sterling has 'Jamaican Blood', he was even born there. Shouldn't he be playing for Jamaica?

 

To me there's plenty of ways you can become a national of a country. Being naturalised is just as valid as heritage of an individual who has never lived in the country of his heritage.

 

I don't view nationality is this finite thing. 

 

What devalues sport is people moving to other countries to play internationals. We've seen Ireland take advantage of it and we're seeing Eas.tern European teams such as Croatia take advantage of it. Eduardo is a Brazilian and that should be the end of it. If he has children by a Croatian wife or even born in Croatia then they are fine to play for Croatia, but not Eduardo. Owen Hargreaves has British parents, one English , one Welsh. What planet are you on if you think that Eduardo is more Croatian than Hargreaves is English?

 

How great it would've been to see George Best abandon his country to fulfil his dream of playing World Cup football? Answer: it wouldn't. Them's the cards you are dealt. He was a proud Northern Irishman and got on with it.

[Incognito]

 

 

 

National teams shouldn't be allowed foreign managers IMO but that is a different argument.

 

I agree.

 

Of course some countries would circumvent any such rule with daft citizenship loopholes, one I'm glad that England haven't gone down.

 

It's a stupid suggestion IMO.  Apart from running States, I don't see what nationality has to do with a job.

 

Also the English FA definition of English is loose at best.  English parents but never lived in England is fine. But spending 5 years in the country and becoming a British citizen is not fine. Not born here, don't have English parents but being 'raised' here for some period of time is also fine. Don't get it personally.

 

It's international football, country v country. No-one who isn't eligible should be anywhere near a national set up. Don't mind the got a passport get a cap rules so much but I'd tighten the residency rules - makes a mockery unless you first moved over to wherever for non-footballing reasons.

 

E.g. Eduardo shouldn't play for Croatia but Shaqiri should play for Switzerland.

 

Disagree.  If you're a citizen of a country, why shouldn't you be able to represent them for a sport? Eduardo's more a Croatian than Hargreaves was an Englishman.

That's nonsense, piffle and bullshit all rolled up into a big bollocks sandwich. The blood in Owen Hargreaves is 100% British, Eduardo is Brazilian.

 

In your mind if a dog was born in or decided to live in a stable, he'd then become a horse.

 

So you disagree that if you're a citizen of a country, you should be able to represent them for a sporting reason?

 

Nationality is not a race or species do the dog comparison is stupid. I don't believe in 'British Blood'. With your logic Raheem Sterling has 'Jamaican Blood', he was even born there. Shouldn't he be playing for Jamaica?

 

To me there's plenty of ways you can become a national of a country. Being naturalised is just as valid as heritage of an individual who has never lived in the country of his heritage.

 

I don't view nationality is this finite thing. 

 

 

Obviously coming from a Commonwealth country to England at the age of 5 is different to a chap moving to a different language speaking country at the age of 15 or 16.

 

John Barnes is a better example for your argument.

[The College Dropout]

 

 

 

 

National teams shouldn't be allowed foreign managers IMO but that is a different argument.

 

I agree.

 

Of course some countries would circumvent any such rule with daft citizenship loopholes, one I'm glad that England haven't gone down.

 

It's a stupid suggestion IMO.  Apart from running States, I don't see what nationality has to do with a job.

 

Also the English FA definition of English is loose at best.  English parents but never lived in England is fine. But spending 5 years in the country and becoming a British citizen is not fine. Not born here, don't have English parents but being 'raised' here for some period of time is also fine. Don't get it personally.

 

It's international football, country v country. No-one who isn't eligible should be anywhere near a national set up. Don't mind the got a passport get a cap rules so much but I'd tighten the residency rules - makes a mockery unless you first moved over to wherever for non-footballing reasons.

 

E.g. Eduardo shouldn't play for Croatia but Shaqiri should play for Switzerland.

 

Disagree.  If you're a citizen of a country, why shouldn't you be able to represent them for a sport? Eduardo's more a Croatian than Hargreaves was an Englishman.

That's nonsense, piffle and bullshit all rolled up into a big bollocks sandwich. The blood in Owen Hargreaves is 100% British, Eduardo is Brazilian.

 

In your mind if a dog was born in or decided to live in a stable, he'd then become a horse.

 

So you disagree that if you're a citizen of a country, you should be able to represent them for a sporting reason?

 

Nationality is not a race or species do the dog comparison is stupid. I don't believe in 'British Blood'. With your logic Raheem Sterling has 'Jamaican Blood', he was even born there. Shouldn't he be playing for Jamaica?

 

To me there's plenty of ways you can become a national of a country. Being naturalised is just as valid as heritage of an individual who has never lived in the country of his heritage.

 

I don't view nationality is this finite thing. 

 

What devalues sport is people moving to other countries to play internationals. We've seen Ireland take advantage of it and we're seeing Eas.tern European teams such as Croatia take advantage of it. Eduardo is a Brazilian and that should be the end of it. If he has children by a Croatian wife or even born in Croatia then they are fine to play for Croatia, but not Eduardo. Owen Hargreaves has British parents, one English , one Welsh. What planet are you on if you think that Eduardo is more Croatian than Hargreaves is English?

 

How great it would've been to see George Best abandon his country to fulfil his dream of playing World Cup football? Answer: it wouldn't. Them's the cards you are dealt. He was a proud Northern Irishman and got on with it.

My point is Owen Hargreaves is English via heritage only, Eduardo was naturalised. They are as valid as each other.

 

Eduardo moved to Croatia at 16, represented them at u21 level. Who am i to tell him he's not Croatian?

 

Once you accept you can be naturalised into a country and represent them, I don't see where you can draw a like.

[Incognito]

 

 

 

 

National teams shouldn't be allowed foreign managers IMO but that is a different argument.

 

I agree.

 

Of course some countries would circumvent any such rule with daft citizenship loopholes, one I'm glad that England haven't gone down.

 

It's a stupid suggestion IMO.  Apart from running States, I don't see what nationality has to do with a job.

 

Also the English FA definition of English is loose at best.  English parents but never lived in England is fine. But spending 5 years in the country and becoming a British citizen is not fine. Not born here, don't have English parents but being 'raised' here for some period of time is also fine. Don't get it personally.

 

It's international football, country v country. No-one who isn't eligible should be anywhere near a national set up. Don't mind the got a passport get a cap rules so much but I'd tighten the residency rules - makes a mockery unless you first moved over to wherever for non-footballing reasons.

 

E.g. Eduardo shouldn't play for Croatia but Shaqiri should play for Switzerland.

 

Disagree.  If you're a citizen of a country, why shouldn't you be able to represent them for a sport? Eduardo's more a Croatian than Hargreaves was an Englishman.

That's nonsense, piffle and bullshit all rolled up into a big bollocks sandwich. The blood in Owen Hargreaves is 100% British, Eduardo is Brazilian.

 

In your mind if a dog was born in or decided to live in a stable, he'd then become a horse.

 

So you disagree that if you're a citizen of a country, you should be able to represent them for a sporting reason?

 

Nationality is not a race or species do the dog comparison is stupid. I don't believe in 'British Blood'. With your logic Raheem Sterling has 'Jamaican Blood', he was even born there. Shouldn't he be playing for Jamaica?

 

To me there's plenty of ways you can become a national of a country. Being naturalised is just as valid as heritage of an individual who has never lived in the country of his heritage.

 

I don't view nationality is this finite thing. 

 

What devalues sport is people moving to other countries to play internationals. We've seen Ireland take advantage of it and we're seeing Eas.tern European teams such as Croatia take advantage of it. Eduardo is a Brazilian and that should be the end of it. If he has children by a Croatian wife or even born in Croatia then they are fine to play for Croatia, but not Eduardo. Owen Hargreaves has British parents, one English , one Welsh. What planet are you on if you think that Eduardo is more Croatian than Hargreaves is English?

 

How great it would've been to see George Best abandon his country to fulfil his dream of playing World Cup football? Answer: it wouldn't. Them's the cards you are dealt. He was a proud Northern Irishman and got on with it.

My point is Owen Hargreaves is English via heritage only, Eduardo was naturalised. They are as valid as each other.

 

Eduardo moved to Croatia at 16, represented them at u21 level. Who am i to tell him he's not Croatian?

 

Once you accept you can be naturalised into a country and represent them, I don't see where you can draw a like.

 

So you are now saying they are as valid as each other. Nice u-turn. Of course you're still wrong as Eduardo is a born and bred Brazilian despite what country he chooses to represent.

[Guest neesy111]

 

National teams shouldn't be allowed foreign managers IMO but that is a different argument.

 

Nah, think that's a poor idea myself. Would disadvantage the poorer nations and stunt growth. I couldn't care less what nationality manages us.

 

[The College Dropout]

 

 

 

 

National teams shouldn't be allowed foreign managers IMO but that is a different argument.

 

I agree.

 

Of course some countries would circumvent any such rule with daft citizenship loopholes, one I'm glad that England haven't gone down.

 

It's a stupid suggestion IMO.  Apart from running States, I don't see what nationality has to do with a job.

 

Also the English FA definition of English is loose at best.  English parents but never lived in England is fine. But spending 5 years in the country and becoming a British citizen is not fine. Not born here, don't have English parents but being 'raised' here for some period of time is also fine. Don't get it personally.

 

It's international football, country v country. No-one who isn't eligible should be anywhere near a national set up. Don't mind the got a passport get a cap rules so much but I'd tighten the residency rules - makes a mockery unless you first moved over to wherever for non-footballing reasons.

 

E.g. Eduardo shouldn't play for Croatia but Shaqiri should play for Switzerland.

 

Disagree.  If you're a citizen of a country, why shouldn't you be able to represent them for a sport? Eduardo's more a Croatian than Hargreaves was an Englishman.

That's nonsense, piffle and bullshit all rolled up into a big bollocks sandwich. The blood in Owen Hargreaves is 100% British, Eduardo is Brazilian.

 

In your mind if a dog was born in or decided to live in a stable, he'd then become a horse.

 

So you disagree that if you're a citizen of a country, you should be able to represent them for a sporting reason?

 

Nationality is not a race or species do the dog comparison is stupid. I don't believe in 'British Blood'. With your logic Raheem Sterling has 'Jamaican Blood', he was even born there. Shouldn't he be playing for Jamaica?

 

To me there's plenty of ways you can become a national of a country. Being naturalised is just as valid as heritage of an individual who has never lived in the country of his heritage.

 

I don't view nationality is this finite thing. 

 

 

Obviously coming from a Commonwealth country to England at the age of 5 is different to a chap moving to a different language speaking country at the age of 15 or 16.

 

John Barnes is a better example for your argument.

 

What does the Commonwealth have to do with it?  Why 5 and not 15? Why does it matter if he has to learn the language at an older age?

 

I thought of Barnes but wanted a modern example. 

[Incognito]

 

 

 

 

National teams shouldn't be allowed foreign managers IMO but that is a different argument.

 

I agree.

 

Of course some countries would circumvent any such rule with daft citizenship loopholes, one I'm glad that England haven't gone down.

 

It's a stupid suggestion IMO.  Apart from running States, I don't see what nationality has to do with a job.

 

Also the English FA definition of English is loose at best.  English parents but never lived in England is fine. But spending 5 years in the country and becoming a British citizen is not fine. Not born here, don't have English parents but being 'raised' here for some period of time is also fine. Don't get it personally.

 

It's international football, country v country. No-one who isn't eligible should be anywhere near a national set up. Don't mind the got a passport get a cap rules so much but I'd tighten the residency rules - makes a mockery unless you first moved over to wherever for non-footballing reasons.

 

E.g. Eduardo shouldn't play for Croatia but Shaqiri should play for Switzerland.

 

Disagree.  If you're a citizen of a country, why shouldn't you be able to represent them for a sport? Eduardo's more a Croatian than Hargreaves was an Englishman.

That's nonsense, piffle and bullshit all rolled up into a big bollocks sandwich. The blood in Owen Hargreaves is 100% British, Eduardo is Brazilian.

 

In your mind if a dog was born in or decided to live in a stable, he'd then become a horse.

 

So you disagree that if you're a citizen of a country, you should be able to represent them for a sporting reason?

 

Nationality is not a race or species do the dog comparison is stupid. I don't believe in 'British Blood'. With your logic Raheem Sterling has 'Jamaican Blood', he was even born there. Shouldn't he be playing for Jamaica?

 

To me there's plenty of ways you can become a national of a country. Being naturalised is just as valid as heritage of an individual who has never lived in the country of his heritage.

 

I don't view nationality is this finite thing. 

 

 

Obviously coming from a Commonwealth country to England at the age of 5 is different to a chap moving to a different language speaking country at the age of 15 or 16.

 

John Barnes is a better example for your argument.

 

What does the Commonwealth have to do with it?  Why 5 and not 15? Why does it matter if he has to learn the language at an older age?

 

I thought of Barnes but wanted a modern example. 

 

I believe Commonwealth countries have the same rules as home nations, ie England, Scotland , Wales and Northern Ireland, in that they are eligible to play for any of the Home Nations. I'm fairly certain that's the case.

[The College Dropout]

 

 

 

 

 

National teams shouldn't be allowed foreign managers IMO but that is a different argument.

 

I agree.

 

Of course some countries would circumvent any such rule with daft citizenship loopholes, one I'm glad that England haven't gone down.

 

It's a stupid suggestion IMO.  Apart from running States, I don't see what nationality has to do with a job.

 

Also the English FA definition of English is loose at best.  English parents but never lived in England is fine. But spending 5 years in the country and becoming a British citizen is not fine. Not born here, don't have English parents but being 'raised' here for some period of time is also fine. Don't get it personally.

 

It's international football, country v country. No-one who isn't eligible should be anywhere near a national set up. Don't mind the got a passport get a cap rules so much but I'd tighten the residency rules - makes a mockery unless you first moved over to wherever for non-footballing reasons.

 

E.g. Eduardo shouldn't play for Croatia but Shaqiri should play for Switzerland.

 

Disagree.  If you're a citizen of a country, why shouldn't you be able to represent them for a sport? Eduardo's more a Croatian than Hargreaves was an Englishman.

That's nonsense, piffle and bullshit all rolled up into a big bollocks sandwich. The blood in Owen Hargreaves is 100% British, Eduardo is Brazilian.

 

In your mind if a dog was born in or decided to live in a stable, he'd then become a horse.

 

So you disagree that if you're a citizen of a country, you should be able to represent them for a sporting reason?

 

Nationality is not a race or species do the dog comparison is stupid. I don't believe in 'British Blood'. With your logic Raheem Sterling has 'Jamaican Blood', he was even born there. Shouldn't he be playing for Jamaica?

 

To me there's plenty of ways you can become a national of a country. Being naturalised is just as valid as heritage of an individual who has never lived in the country of his heritage.

 

I don't view nationality is this finite thing. 

 

What devalues sport is people moving to other countries to play internationals. We've seen Ireland take advantage of it and we're seeing Eas.tern European teams such as Croatia take advantage of it. Eduardo is a Brazilian and that should be the end of it. If he has children by a Croatian wife or even born in Croatia then they are fine to play for Croatia, but not Eduardo. Owen Hargreaves has British parents, one English , one Welsh. What planet are you on if you think that Eduardo is more Croatian than Hargreaves is English?

 

How great it would've been to see George Best abandon his country to fulfil his dream of playing World Cup football? Answer: it wouldn't. Them's the cards you are dealt. He was a proud Northern Irishman and got on with it.

My point is Owen Hargreaves is English via heritage only, Eduardo was naturalised. They are as valid as each other.

 

Eduardo moved to Croatia at 16, represented them at u21 level. Who am i to tell him he's not Croatian?

 

Once you accept you can be naturalised into a country and represent them, I don't see where you can draw a like.

 

So you are now saying they are as valid as each other. Nice u-turn. Of course you're still wrong as Eduardo is a born and bred Brazilian despite what country he chooses to represent.

 

IMO Hargreaves is a Canadian man of British heritage. Raised in Germany and Canada. IMO he should be eligible to play for all 3 but I suspect he feels more affinity to Canada than anywhere else.

[Incognito]

The Diego Costa episode is the epitome of how wrong the rule is. As someone said earlier we could've gone down that road with Arteta or Jose Enrique, and like him, I'm so glad we haven't.

 

Germany are another country who take the piss in this respect.

[Incognito]

 

 

 

 

 

National teams shouldn't be allowed foreign managers IMO but that is a different argument.

 

I agree.

 

Of course some countries would circumvent any such rule with daft citizenship loopholes, one I'm glad that England haven't gone down.

 

It's a stupid suggestion IMO.  Apart from running States, I don't see what nationality has to do with a job.

 

Also the English FA definition of English is loose at best.  English parents but never lived in England is fine. But spending 5 years in the country and becoming a British citizen is not fine. Not born here, don't have English parents but being 'raised' here for some period of time is also fine. Don't get it personally.

 

It's international football, country v country. No-one who isn't eligible should be anywhere near a national set up. Don't mind the got a passport get a cap rules so much but I'd tighten the residency rules - makes a mockery unless you first moved over to wherever for non-footballing reasons.

 

E.g. Eduardo shouldn't play for Croatia but Shaqiri should play for Switzerland.

 

Disagree.  If you're a citizen of a country, why shouldn't you be able to represent them for a sport? Eduardo's more a Croatian than Hargreaves was an Englishman.

That's nonsense, piffle and bullshit all rolled up into a big bollocks sandwich. The blood in Owen Hargreaves is 100% British, Eduardo is Brazilian.

 

In your mind if a dog was born in or decided to live in a stable, he'd then become a horse.

 

So you disagree that if you're a citizen of a country, you should be able to represent them for a sporting reason?

 

Nationality is not a race or species do the dog comparison is stupid. I don't believe in 'British Blood'. With your logic Raheem Sterling has 'Jamaican Blood', he was even born there. Shouldn't he be playing for Jamaica?

 

To me there's plenty of ways you can become a national of a country. Being naturalised is just as valid as heritage of an individual who has never lived in the country of his heritage.

 

I don't view nationality is this finite thing. 

 

What devalues sport is people moving to other countries to play internationals. We've seen Ireland take advantage of it and we're seeing Eas.tern European teams such as Croatia take advantage of it. Eduardo is a Brazilian and that should be the end of it. If he has children by a Croatian wife or even born in Croatia then they are fine to play for Croatia, but not Eduardo. Owen Hargreaves has British parents, one English , one Welsh. What planet are you on if you think that Eduardo is more Croatian than Hargreaves is English?

 

How great it would've been to see George Best abandon his country to fulfil his dream of playing World Cup football? Answer: it wouldn't. Them's the cards you are dealt. He was a proud Northern Irishman and got on with it.

My point is Owen Hargreaves is English via heritage only, Eduardo was naturalised. They are as valid as each other.

 

Eduardo moved to Croatia at 16, represented them at u21 level. Who am i to tell him he's not Croatian?

 

Once you accept you can be naturalised into a country and represent them, I don't see where you can draw a like.

 

So you are now saying they are as valid as each other. Nice u-turn. Of course you're still wrong as Eduardo is a born and bred Brazilian despite what country he chooses to represent.

 

IMO Hargreaves is a Canadian man of British heritage. Raised in Germany and Canada. IMO he should be eligible to play for all 3 but I suspect he feels more affinity to Canada than anywhere else.

 

He was eligible to play for all 3 but chose England as he is English.

[The College Dropout]

Disco - so is the country of your parents heritage the correct choice all the time? Would he have been wrong to represent Canada or Germany? If so, why?

[Incognito]

Disco - so is the country of your parents heritage the correct choice all the time? Would he have been wrong to represent Canada or Germany? If so, why?

 

Disco? I believe i'm eligible to represent Disco but I'm incognito.

[Guest neesy111]

Disco - so is the country of your parents heritage the correct choice all the time? Would he have been wrong to represent Canada or Germany? If so, why?

 

Disco? I believe i'm eligible to represent Disco but I'm incognito.

 

[loki679]

Depends on what age he moved to Cognito.

[JCONA]

england are shit

[S.S.R.]

Should we really be surprised England failed to qualify with Jagielka, Baines and Johnson at the back? Spain won the thing and turned shite simply by getting older and losing a few yards of pace. Our back four - other than Cahill they're at the wrong side of 28 and were average when they were at their peak.

 

Hart - Lost his place at his club side partway through last season due to bad form

Johnson - Generally accepted not to be good enough in previous competitions. Now older.

Jagielka - Not good enough to make the team in previous competitions. Now older

Cahill -  Young, decent. Could cement his place by simply not being awful and lack of alternatives. (Older than I originally thought  )

Baines - See Jagielka

Gerrard - Respectable performances in previous competitions but changed to a role not suited to him to accommodate him being slower. Did nothing at Liverpool to suggest he could protect their defence.

Henderson -  Young, decent, but less likely than Cahill to keep place in team due to more competition in his position.

Wellbeck - Generally accepted not good enough, but at least he has youth and fitness on his side

Sturridge -  Young and arguably World Class

Sterling - Young and potentially World Class/potentially Aaron Lennon

Rooney - Disappointing in previous competitions, played out of position to keep him in the team