According to the article, Cahill is/was eligible for Ireland, Scotland, England Australia and Samoa. And presumably Wales and N.Ireland due to the rule that allowed Maik Taylor to represent N.I.
Printable View
According to the article, Cahill is/was eligible for Ireland, Scotland, England Australia and Samoa. And presumably Wales and N.Ireland due to the rule that allowed Maik Taylor to represent N.I.
There was quite a bit of fuss about switching here in Wales since our under-21 defender Rhys Williams switched to Australia (why, I don't know, since I don't see him getting many chances with them) and apparently even Jack Collison, the West Ham midfielder, is still eligible to switch to England under the new rules since friendly internationals don't count. So despite having four Wales caps Collison could still play for England.
Doesn't seem right to me, but then neither do most of FIFA's player eligibility laws. :(
[quote]Why? Perhaps because he is an Australian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cymro
In general, use a dual national or run the risk of losing him to the other country.Quote:
and apparently even Jack Collison, the West Ham midfielder, is still eligible to switch to England under the new rules since friendly internationals don't count. So despite having four Wales caps Collison could still play for England
Why should a dual national player suffer if a federation turns out to be one which decided to cap him at an early age to exploit the chance for their benefit that he would turn out to be a good choice for them.
A Dual National has 2 nationalities and 2 identities. Now FIFA extend the limited parameters of choice to a dual national player who has not been capped at senior competitive level. Honestly, what problem can any federation have who have not used the player competitivly and probably never ever cap that player?
But apparently he considered himself Welsh enough to play for us before. I just wonder why he thinks that switching will benefit him long-term. I doubt he is switching for purely nationalistic reasons since otherwise he would have held out for Australia from the beginning.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
The point is we have used Collison, but he is 19 and was previously considered too inexperienced for competitive football. Should we really suffer for not having given him a token cap? It is not as if we do not plan to use him in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
The technicality which formerly allowed British Passport holders who were born outside the UK (like Taylor), to opt for their choice of the 4 "home" countries has since been closed (by agreement between the 4 Associations).Quote:
Originally Posted by boovidge
Any new such applicant would presently have to demonstrate a valid connection* with his chosen country.
Curiously, however, Big Maik has always shown a million times more commitment to NI than his only serious (former) rival for the jersey, NI born-and-bred Roy Carroll.
* - At the time, that would only have been England for Taylor, since that was where he was living and playing his club football.
Previously you said you don't know why he switched, now you are full of guesses. I gave you the obvious reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cymro
He has 2 nationalities. Why is it so difficult for people to comprehend 2 national identities? The holy duality. In this players case, he chose to return to the national set up of his birth.
If he is 19 then under the old rule he would have had 2 years to decide.Quote:
The point is we have used Collison, but he is 19 and was previously considered too inexperienced for competitive football. Should we really suffer for not having given him a token cap? It is not as if we do not plan to use him in the future
This is about players over 21
The rule favours the player. A player owes féck all to a federation that does not cap him by the time he is 22. Now he has the right to pursue the possibility of an international career from the federation of his other nationality.
Dual Nationality explains how a player may switch, but not necessarily why he would want to.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Lawrie Sanchez, for example, was approached by Ecuador before being capped by NI, but declined, since he wasn't sufficiently interested to fly all that way etc.
In my own case, I am qualified to represent NI and, ahem, "another country" ;), via my grandparents.
However, had I been good enough to play international football, it would have been 'NI or no-one' for me.
I suspect Cymru is questioning Williams's particular motives for switching, not that a player might feel equal affilation to two or more Nationalities.
The new rule favours the player, but it also favours a cynical Association, which spots a player who may have been developed by another Association, and gives him 5 minutes of a competitive game in order to tie him to them. Thereafter, he might never make any impact with his new Association.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Meanwhile, the player's original Association, which was respecting his development and declining to give out "token" caps, misses out.
I'm a fan of a country which perhaps stands to benefit from this change, but I still cannot agree with it in principle.
Dual Nationality explains how a player may switch, but not necessarily why he would want to.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Lawrie Sanchez, for example, was approached by Ecuador before being capped by NI, but declined, since he wasn't sufficiently interested to fly all that way etc.
In my own case, I am qualified to represent NI and, ahem, "another country" ;), via my grandparents.
However, had I been good enough to play international football, it would have been 'NI or no-one' for me.
I suspect Cymru is questioning Williams's particular motives for switching, not that a player might feel equal affilation to two or more Nationalities.
The new rule favours the player, but it also favours a cynical Association, which spots a player who may have been developed by another Association, and gives him 5 minutes of a competitive game in order to tie him to them. Thereafter, he might never make any impact with his new Association.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Meanwhile, the player's original Association, which was respecting his development and declining to give out "token" caps, misses out.
I'm a fan of a country which perhaps stands to benefit from this change, but I still cannot agree with it in principle.
[QUOTE]Who said it does?Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
The example that Cymro was puzzled about was Williams changing to Australia.
My answer was that it was perhaps because he is an Australian. He was born in Australia, grew up in Australia, did his early football development in Australia, moved to England to get trials with clubs. it doesn't take a great leap of intelligence to work out a rational enough guess why he might change his mind and declare for Australia.
An implausable argument made irrelevant by the miniscule nrs who would be used in this way as against the argument for a good rule which will have a beneficial effect on the intl.career of dozens of players.Quote:
The new rule favours the player, but it also favours a cynical Association, which spots a player who may have been developed by another Association, and gives him 5 minutes of a competitive game in order to tie him to them. Thereafter, he might never make any impact with his new Association.
Meanwhile, the player's original Association, which was respecting his development and declining to give out "token" caps, misses out.
The benefit of the rule far outweighs the possibililities that it will be abused. And the likliehood of the abuse you refer to is much much less than the current abuse of geting players tied down too early.
The ruling far favours the player who has been discarded by a federation.
For instance a player like Kane might have been tied to Ireland, misled by false promises for the FAI´s benefit in case he would turn out to be something. Now The IFA have a choice whether they would consider him or not, regardless of his age.
And my point was that it seemed odd for him to be apparently committed to us, yet switch to Australia when there seemed to be a decent chance of getting a game for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
If he truly was only interested in playing for Australia, why play for us anyway? I suspect he just wanted to play international football for the sake of his career, and moved to Australia because they stand a better chance of qualifying for World Cups than we do.
Anyway, we seem to be on completely different wavelengths here, so no point continuing this argument.
Not sure if indicated elsewhere....the FIFA rule that will allow players to switch national teams at any age (as long as they haven't appeared for another national team in a senior competition) will take effect October 1st,
[QUOTE=geysir;1178280]Fine. Still leaves open the question as to why he played for Wales, then. (And please don't tell me its because he is entitled to, or that he has Dual Nationality etc; I'm concerned about the possibility of players abusing the system out of nefarious motives)Quote:
The example that Cymro was puzzled about was Williams changing to Australia.
My answer was that it was perhaps because he is an Australian. He was born in Australia, grew up in Australia, did his early football development in Australia, moved to England to get trials with clubs. it doesn't take a great leap of intelligence to work out a rational enough guess why he might change his mind and declare for Australia.
[QUOTE=geysir;1178280]It's not a question of numbers for me, rather one of principle.Quote:
An implausable argument made irrelevant by the miniscule nrs who would be used in this way as against the argument for a good rule which will have a beneficial effect on the intl.career of dozens of players.
[QUOTE=geysir;1178280]That is your opinion; I beg to differ.Quote:
The benefit of the rule far outweighs the possibililities that it will be abused.
[QUOTE=geysir;1178280]Only if you consider 21 to be "too early". I do not.Quote:
And the likliehood of the abuse you refer to is much much less than the current abuse of geting players tied down too early.
More importantly, FIFA, who are supposed to have the greater interests of the game at heart, also considered 21 to be an appropriate age by which one should have decided.
Whereas those countries who disagreed (essentially African countries) were clearly acting out of self-interest.
[QUOTE=geysir;1178280]Actually, Kane is a poor example for you to cite, for three reasons.Quote:
The ruling far favours the player who has been discarded by a federation.
For instance a player like Kane might have been tied to Ireland, misled by false promises for the FAI´s benefit in case he would turn out to be something. Now The IFA have a choice whether they would consider him or not, regardless of his age.
1. He reverted to NI before his 21st Birthday;
2. It is feasible that he might have been persuaded to revert to NI by some sort of inducement, not in keeping with the spirit of the game, or his best career interests. (He wasn't, btw);
3. It's not clear (to me, at least) but is it not now possible that Kane could switch back to ROI once more, seeing as he hasn't yet been capped in a competitive game by NI? That would be funny, if nothing else...:)
That is another question. I don't usually surmise willy nilly. And not in a case where there are absolutely no pointersQuote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
You do like that high horse.Quote:
It's not a question of numbers for me, rather one of principle.
The greater obvious benefit to the players outweighing a speculation about a small level of abuse is not in anyway an unprincipled stand.
The point is about a federation who are no longer interested in a player who can play for another federation.Quote:
Only if you consider 21 to be "too early". I do not.
More importantly, FIFA, who are supposed to have the greater interests of the game at heart, also considered 21 to be an appropriate age by which one should have decided.
Whereas those countries who disagreed (essentially African countries) were clearly acting out of self-interest.
Whether the player is 20 or 26 is irrelevant imo. The player is a dual national.
We are dealing with future conditionals so it is obvious that there is no current example. If Kane was over 21, my point stands as expressed.Quote:
Actually, Kane is a poor example for you to cite, for three reasons.
1. He reverted to NI before his 21st Birthday;
What like? a de Lorean?Quote:
2. It is feasible that he might have been persuaded to revert to NI by some sort of inducement, not in keeping with the spirit of the game, or his best career interests. (He wasn't, btw);
Are you implying an improper inducement?
Tis an irrelevant detail if a federation want to break the rules by poaching with improper inducements. There is little evidence of such a thing and in any cases of such in the past, FIFA have acted with haste.
I presume that a footballer can still only change once.Quote:
3. It's not clear (to me, at least) but is it not now possible that Kane could switch back to ROI once more, seeing as he hasn't yet been capped in a competitive game by NI? That would be funny, if nothing else...:)
I do think that you are imagining tussles between federations over an intl standard player aged 21 or so but uncapped competitivly. I would agree if such a thing happened, it would be unhealthy, against international code and forcing issues prematurely for a player and the federation he is currently tied to.
It is possible to further fine tune the legislation.
Funny how football club supporters don't mind that sort of dastardly behaviour of securing a players temporary loyalty with inducements, over and above inbred talent.
EGQuote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
So do you believe that the IFA has acted cynically by playing Oliver Norwood, who was developed by, and has represented England since he was fourteen and has played at u16 & u17 international level for England?
Originally Posted by EalingGreen:
"The new rule favours the player, but it also favours a cynical Association, which spots a player who may have been developed by another Association, and gives him 5 minutes of a competitive game in order to tie him to them. Thereafter, he might never make any impact with his new Association.
Meanwhile, the player's original Association, which was respecting his development and declining to give out 'token' caps, misses out"
I was originally arguing that there should be an age limit (formerly 21, which seems about right to me) for dual nationals switching between countries. This is because I think that once you've reached that age, you should make up your mind which country you feel the greatest allegiance to and stick with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by co. down green
Otherwise it risks permitting players or Associations to "work the system", for mercenary reasons:
eg "My 'first' team hasn't turned out so successful as my 'sloppy seconds'", or,
"I've fallen out with the National Coach, which has suddenly caused me to remember I'm Greek" (or whatever)
or
"With World Cup Qualification now in the bag, my 'new' country has offered me a sh1t load of money to pad out their squad" etc etc.
Youngsters like Norwood are in an entirely different position, however. That is, whilst still in their teens, they are still at liberty to make their choice, so there can be no objection to two or more Associations for which he may be eligible competing in order to offer him the opportunity to play for them.
In the end, if Norwood feels that the IFA's motives are "cynical" etc, he can always tell them where to go. On the other hand, if he is happy to be considered by them, he may take up the opportunity.
As such, the IFA's conduct is no different eg from the FAI offering eg James McCarthy or Aidan McGeady a chance to represent the country of their choice. Or Shane Duffy...;)
Either way, I wish both Norwood and Duffy all the very best for their career, whichever choice they make, then that they stick with it.
Late Edit: Struck by your citing an article which goes back to when Norwood was 14(!), I've done a bit more research on him to bring the story up to date. It seems from our "MU Insider" that despite making very good progress at Old Trafford, Norwood has become frustrated at not getting anywhere with the England set-up, last having been called up by them for their U-17's, as far back as October 2007.
Meanwhile, there is quite a "mini-colony" of NI players at OT, with the IFA now keeping close track on them. Consequently, Norwood has accepted the IFA's invitation to join up with our under-age squads (presumably to see how he likes it). And when we had to field an experimental team for our recent "B" friendly in Scotland, Norwood was given a few minutes, where he seemed to impress:
"There is one other interesting case – academy midfielder Oliver Norwood, English-born but of Northern Irish parentage. Captain of the U18 side in the second half of this season, the 18 year-old recently took the opportunity to represent Northern Ireland in an U19 friendly and was swiftly fast-tracked into the ‘B’ squad for the friendly with Scotland, during which he made an impressive cameo. Until competitive games come around, the Burnley-born midfielder doesn’t have to make a final decision on where his national football allegiances will lie, but the signs seem to be that he is leaning N.I.’s way"
http://manunitedyouth.wordpress.com/...reland-debuts/
Not really interested in Norwood to be honest, my point was more about the fact that in the past, you were very animated ;) about the IFA investing a few quid in a player who decided to play for Ireland rather then the North.Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
Obviously you have chilled out a bit and will not be demanding that the IFA pay compensation to the English FA for their years of investment in guys like Norwood. :rolleyes:
Not only are you not interested in Norwood, but I suspect you are not very interested in the removal of the age limit for switching Nationality, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by co. down green
Assuming, therefore, your real motive is actually to revisit the Darron Gibson saga, then why not dig out the old thread, and I might reply.
Otherwise, if you really must hijack this thread down that particular avenue, you'll have to find someone else to help you. :rolleyes:
passed on bad info, sorry. Active date for this is the day the rule change was voted on... so, in effect, it's active now.Quote:
Originally Posted by cclinton
Of course Boateng is perfectly entitled to do this and I daresay Ghana are happy to have him, but I for one can't help thinking the phrase "sloppy seconds" applies - especially since his kid brother is German (at any rate whilst he's getting a game for them...)
http://www.skysports.com/story/0,195...400459,00.html
Boateng turns to Ghana
Spurs midfielder set to pursue international career with African nation
By Thomas Zocher Last updated: 25th June 2009
Kevin-Prince Boateng has decided he wants to represent Ghana at international level after turning his back on Germany.
The Tottenham midfielder has represented Germany at Under 21 level but sees his chances of turning out for senior team limited.
The 22-year-old has recently returned to White Hart Lane after an unsuccessful loan spell at Bundesliga club Borussia Dortmund, but he could soon find himself surplus to requirements with Spurs.
Boateng's younger brother Jerome is currently excelling for the Germans at the European U21 Championship in Sweden but the former Hertha Berlin youngster admits his own Germany career is over.
"From now I want to play for Ghana, the land of my father, and I have been starting to get in touch with the authorities of Ghana about that," he told Sport-Bild.
"I had attempted to get myself a Germany career, but I could not succeed. I do not leave Germany in conflict.
"I just do not see any chance for me in terms of a Germany career."
watch out as certain african nations become very strong(well ghana and ivory coast already have class teams). also who knows maby guadelope and martinique will qualify for a world cup soon.