Incognito Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 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? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Depends on what age he moved to Cognito. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCONA Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 england are shit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.S.R. Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 England were knocked out because tactically they weren't very good and the team selection wasn't that great either. That and several players are not up to this level and in Italy and Urugauy we were beaten by two better teams. That's why we are out. Nothing to do with the press, over expectations of the fans or the players not singing the national anthem loudly enough or whatever, On a broader scale the reason why we struggle at this level is because of the way we are taught and play the game as kids. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 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. 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 100% with you . Cracking post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sifu Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Of course, failing to advance from the Group Stages is bitterly disappointing but we do have a few positives to take away - namely our up and coming players/youth in Sterling, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Barkley etc. Pretty happy with this new generation of players and they have shown glimpses of quality when called upon. Defensively though, we are showing very worrying signs, we have decent players who start week in, week out for PL teams yet we struggled to do the basics right. For starters, full backs who can actually defend properly would help (though tbh I was surprised by Baines' below par performances). Against Costa Rica, I hope to see the "future" given starts, just to see how they do. Gerrard can fuck off completely, I hope I never see him in an England shirt again, if he has any sense of pride, he'd retire from international football after this World Cup. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Cahill's 28 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.S.R. Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Cahill's 28 A film by M Night Shyamalan. Edited. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beren Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27951271 Lot of stuff I agree with in there. SBR bit too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 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. With whom out of interest? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Wow, that post about English blood came across really badly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
triggs Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 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. With whom out of interest? Can't wait for his reply on that one. I would think all of the German squad apart from Klose and Podolski who moved at a young age were born and grew up in Germany Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts