You are assuming that Bobby Zamora proves the point as you do not know with 100% certainty that Zamora had formally requested to change association to Trinidad, that the switch had been granted by FIFA and that Zamora formally agreed to the switch.
Printable View
You are assuming that Bobby Zamora proves the point as you do not know with 100% certainty that Zamora had formally requested to change association to Trinidad, that the switch had been granted by FIFA and that Zamora formally agreed to the switch.
My opinion is based on analysis, I am not preaching a belief - so being 100% certain or claiming 100% certainty is not a concern for me.
If you wish to hold on to your opinion, then fine, as the FIFA article does not spell it out clearly.
But when reports about Zamora have stood the test of time, we can value them as being accurate enough for opinions to be based upon.
We can value their accuracy when there is a complete absence of retraction or alternative version over a period of time. The reports are then on the way to becoming historical fact.
FIFA.com
T&T adds new faces Zamora
Zamora set for T&T debut
Zamora to reject T&T
on Zamora´s reference to the door being closed by T&T, see the bottom of this article
Jack Warnerinstructs T&T not to pick Zamora
It appears to me that Zamora never made any binding commitment to Trinidad. So whether he formally requested to change association is all I'm looking for clarity on. While I appreciate that your opinion is based on "analysis", I'd rather something more concrete than that as the wording of the FIFA articles does not support your point (imo).
It depends on the meaning of "formal request" - it's not defined in the articles so you sort of have to extrapolate. I think, given that the entire purpose of the law is to make it easier for players to switch associations, I'd guess it's very close to or identical to the normal criteria for exclusion: e.g. a full cap.
As far as I know, making an application to FIFA is only for the purpose of establishing eligibility - all it does it confirm that the player is qualified to represent one of two associations rather than just their original one. You don't formally commit yourself to any association until you've been capped at a competitive level.
don't know if he ever did formally request to change association, but according to his wikipedia profile, he applied for, and received a T&T passport before being called into a squad. That would suggest he was serious at one point about playing for T&T.Quote:
Originally Posted by ifk101
He was subsequently injured and missed out on the game, and went on to play for England.
But I think that defeats the purpose of an article stipulating that you may only switch association once when it's a given that if you play in a competitive senior A international you are tied to that association.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
It's not clear from his wikipedia page but he renewed his Trinidadian passport at the time - which perhaps puts a different spin on it. Obviously he was open to the idea of playing for Trinidad but the formal request part is what's at question.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
True, he didn't turn up despite being in 3 squads so his commitment wasn't binding. He would have been bound if he turned up and played. That's not the point is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by ifk101
The point is he formally applied to FIFA to change associations and that clearance came through (see FIFA link). Then he was selected to play for T&T. He decided not to turn up. Because he did not turn up he was free to re-declare himself to England. That is the kernel issue.
Read the report in the FIFA web page stating that he had completed the formal paperwork to change to T&T and then you can wonder why T&T finally selected him after years of trying to get him. T&T had tried to get him for the 2006 WC but probably he was too old to change then.Quote:
So whether he formally requested to change association is all I'm looking for clarity on.
The wording does not contradict my opinion either, does it?. So it comes down to what you can gather to support your opinion.Quote:
While I appreciate that your opinion is based on "analysis", I'd rather something more concrete than that as the wording of the FIFA articles does not support your point(imo).
What supports my opinion is hard evidence. If you chose to be sceptical then so be it. But in order to even have a semblance of persuasion, you have to do better than just deny the solidity of the Zamora example. That's so biblical :)
It doesn't say that. It states that he obtained the relevant documentation. You're assuming this means that he applied, got the okay from FIFA, and was a "Trinidadian player" when it could just as easily be interpreted as meaning that he simply acquired the relevant documentation to make the request to change association.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Read that line in then context of the article and there is only one main easy assumption. There are other much less likely assumptions to be taken but that would contradict the other content in the article.
You might have a slight chance if this was an isolated report, but it's not isolated, it is one link in a chain of reported events
The chain of reported events and reported quotes, make the Zamora example to just about being incontrovertible.
I hadn't really given too much thought to the Celtic tournament before now, aside from the fact that it is semi-competitive and gives fringe players a possible opportunity. It's an awful pity the 6 games aren't being played in the space of 7/10 days, as that would allow for different partnerships and full use of the squad.
With so few players at the top level, honour chasing clubs of the English game, and fewer still playing on the mainland, we probably should be picking our in-form, stand out players in their stand out positions. We have few candidates using that criteria though, with Kevin Doyle, Kevin Foley, Seamus Coleman, Marc Wilson, Damien Duff, Shane Long and Aiden McGeady perhaps being head of the list.
Of course the old reliables have rarely let us down, but the lack of game time for Shay & Robbie is going to become an issue sooner rather than later and personally I thought both were edgy in the autumn. Richard Dunne has been alarmingly out of form, I'm not up to tabs on Sledger but skimming the thread on him here it seems he's mirrored his international partners form, while Josh has been injured and is bound to be rusty.
The demotion of Killer further highlights the deficiency at left back, and it leaves us in a stinker of a situation: the possibilty of blooding a total greenhorn (given greg's injury woe) or continuing on with a player as honest as could be, but ageing rapidly before the eyes.
Our recent midfield options have to be a worry too, with Whelan seeing zero gametime for Stoke and reportedly surplus to requirements, while Andrews has been a long term injury. Green seems to be something of a victim of being ****e, only Fahey has been seeing gametime and that has been out wide. McCarthy of course has played quite a few games but won't be ready.
That might not be a 100% accurate appraisal of the first team, but it's not too bad either. Also with so few regulars being, erm, regulars, wonder could the Mister tinker with the formation a bit?
So, what to do? Can we continue to persist with players that aren't playing? If the answer is no, then it means picking something like this:
----------------------------Westwood---------------------------
Foley ------------ Dunne ------------- Clark------------?--------
Coleman ----------Fahey------------- Wilson --------------McGeady--
-----------------------------Long--------------------------------
---------------------------- Doyle-------------------------------
Also, with Foley having played in the centre successfully twice for Wolves, you could adapt the above team somewhat to this:
Coleman - Dunne - Clark - ? -
--Fahey---Foley---Wilson--
Long------------------McGeady
--------------Doyle------------
Makgidi is back in preseason, and by the time of the Wales match will have had a preseason tourny under his belt.
Spartak will be involved in earnest in the Europa league, won't they?
Given
Foley---Dunne---O'Shea---Ward
Coleman---Foley---Delap---Duff
Keane---Doyle
Would be my choice, for what it's worth.
They are in the EL, but not sure when the knock-out stages begin.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
St Ledger or Hunt could play at left back . Wilson could play at CB with Clark - call up Duffy and bring him on at some point
Foley and Coleman have to play at RB and right midfield respectively
More importantly is, who would the manager be?
shellyriver, obviously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosby87
I see there Foley is an important player for you Peadar.Quote:
Originally Posted by peadar1987
:doh: The Foley in central midfield should be Fahey!Quote:
Originally Posted by CraftyToePoke
The first thing to sort out for Trap, or any manager at the moment, is the central midfield conundrum. We have a shedload of players for the position, with the established, experienced ones arguably not good enough, and the more talented ones either injured or not ready yet. With room for only five central midfielders in a squad, it's a tough call for Trap, and he's not going to please everyone.
Whelan and Andrews are Trap's first choice, which would be fine if both were match-fit and playing well. However, Whelan needs a move from Stoke, and Andrews needs to get fit and break back into Blackburn's first team. No definites there, but they'll still probably be picked.
Fahey is the form Irish midfielder, a better passer than GW and KA, and did quite well against Norway. I'd be happy for a Fahey + Whelan or Andrews combination to play against Macedonia. Fair to say that Fahey, Whelan and Andrews are not going to be dropped by Trap.
Gibson? Seems to be playing a bit more these days, but has still to make an impression for Ireland. Wouldn't be averse to seeing him left out in favour of McCarthy, but can't see it happening.
Wilson? Not playing as much as we'd like, hard to judge how good he actually is, based on a few performances here and there.
McCarthy? Will he return from injury in time to be in consideration for Wales? If not, when will he get a chance to work his way into the squad? Same goes for Meyler - can he be fit in time for the May friendlies?
Green? It would be a travesty if he makes the squad again, but having started the last four competitive games, it'd be a pleasant shock, but a shock nonetheless, if Trap dropped him from the squad.
Talk of Foley or Clark playing out of position in CM is needless, in my opinion. Foley and Clark are needed elsewhere. Delap doesn't offer any more than the above, bar long throws, and isn't an option for the future either. Andy Reid's best hope of getting in the squad is by displacing one of the wingers, which probably isn't going to happen given Coleman's emergence as an option on the right, and McGeady, Hunt and Duff competing for the left. Conor Clifford is an exciting prospect, but needs more time. Maguire is way down the pecking order, and will need to do something spectacular to displace the men ahead of him.
My five midfielders for the upcoming year: Whelan, Andrews, Fahey, McCarthy, Meyler/Gibson. *Gibson only if Meyler is still injured.
What I think Trap will pick for the Wales game: Whelan, Andrews, Fahey, Green, Gibson.
Agree with that. Marc Wilson should be included as a defender and he would also give us an extra option in the middle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supreme feet