Is this tongue in cheek? First I've heard of him switching. Great if he does.Quote:
Originally Posted by liamoo11
Would p!ss off the OWC brigade no end, no doubt. A young lad in around Liverpool's first team squad. A bitter pill to swallow.
Printable View
Is this tongue in cheek? First I've heard of him switching. Great if he does.Quote:
Originally Posted by liamoo11
Would p!ss off the OWC brigade no end, no doubt. A young lad in around Liverpool's first team squad. A bitter pill to swallow.
This is my point in its entirety - that using the example of Lee Camp or players in a similar situation as an argument for hypocrisy by NI (fans and/or IFA itself) misses the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
As you've shown with quotes from OWC, the responses to the comparison with Sean Scannell are examples of real hypocrisy (and delusion also, though I think most people would have formed that opinion about the majority of the posters on OWC already).
Not at all, I'm baffled as to how you could have inferred that from anything in my posts. Can you point out any post where you think I've suggested this?Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Agreed, but as I've mentioned, I don't think the examples of Bruce and Camp are 'the very same game'. Scannell, from what you've shown me so far, is a much better agrument to use.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Liamoo expressed hope that he might join us and he is the guru on underage football on here! Don't know if he knows something the rest of us don't. From the reports I have read and O'Neill's attempts to cap him early at senior level, he could a damn good footballer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scooby Doo
No worries; merely enquiring further. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
The reason I ask is because I'm not entirely sure if it makes a great deal of difference so long as no second association is forcing a player (who offers his original association the option of his selection so long as he's registered to them and willing to play) to declare for the second association against their volition. Does/should it make a difference whether he's of immediate value to a first team or offers an option down the pecking order, or whether he may be of hypothetical value in the future? You appear to be implying it does make some difference. All talk of the future is speculative in a sense - plenty of footballers are "late bloomers" - and then there's the likes of Marc Wilson who was pretty clear that it was either us or no-one. He's of no value to the IFA ultimately because he had no interest in representing them, irrespective of whether the FAI wish to select him or not.
It makes a difference if you think it makes a difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
If somebody thinks that a player's immediate value to the football association which he's leaving is irrelevant, then that person will see no difference between the contexts of Camp and McClean's switches of association.
However, a person who sees a player's value to the association as relevant will see a difference between those two contexts.
Thanks for the update on Ryan McLaughlin lads. Really hope he declares for us. He is supposed to be a phenomenal talent and with Rodgers showing that he is not afraid to give young talent a go, he could be in the first team squad by the end of the year at Liverpool. A few of my mates that go to the Liverpool youth games all reckon he's as big a talent as Suso and Sterling. Given how good they look, he must be half decent!!
If there is actual substance to the speculation regarding McLaughlin, it will be interesting to see what position Brendan Rodgers takes. Will he persist with the "Northern Irish boys should play for Northern Ireland" stance or revert back to his original position that saw his son Anton declare for Ireland in the first place, before his cousin Nigel Worthington became the NI manager? I haven't heard anything more about Anton Rodgers in relation to NI, interestingly. He seems to be getting himself into the news for the wrong reasons of late though.
Interesting parallel to the issue nationalist players have taken with God Save the Queen etc.
http://www.independent.ie/sport/golf...d-3253773.html
I suppose it comes down to how you define "value" or even "immediate value". Would you say that Alex Bruce was of no value whatsoever to the FAI when he opted to declare for the IFA?Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
McIlroy's been pretty clear that he sees himself as "more British than Irish" and views the 'Ulster Banner' as his flag. Although, as is hinted at in the article, he may see carrying the Irish tricolour as an incentive, not because he necessarily identifies with it, but simply in order to raise his profile and garner greater publicity and exposure as a flag-bearer, similar to how a footballer from a nationalist background may opt to play for the IFA for career-enhancing reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olé Olé
Haven't you just said that the issue of value makes no difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
I think it comes down to how the players themselves define immediate value. Bruce and McClean clearly knew their respective values to the assciations from which they were switching, and the associations clearly valued them differently.
That's the parallel to which I was referring. It's a completely careerist carrot that is being dangled in front of McIlroy, in the same way that one was dangled in front of Patrick McEleney and co. I'm somewhat disappointed that the honour of bearing the flag is being demeaned for such purposes. Clearly, the powers that be feel it is a small sacrifice in order to entice McIlroy's declaration, even though he feels British.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
That's true. I don't think it does so long as the decision to switch is at the player's behest. If a player decides he no longer wishes to play for a particular association, any future hopes or plans that association had for him are subsequently of no consequence. Besides, for argument's sake and as I've been saying, you could argue that a player is always of value to an association so long as he offers them an option for selection. If you accept that argument then would you accept that Bruce was still of value to the FAI when he opted to switch to the IFA? Perhaps he wouldn't have been as valuable as McClean would have been to the IFA when he opted to switch to the FAI, but Bruce still offered something of value as part of the FAI's available international player pool, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
But it's the FAI who NI fans accuse of "poaching". How the players view themselves doesn't enter the equation. How the associations and the fans themselves view the players in terms of value is prioritised.Quote:
I think it comes down to how the players themselves define immediate value. Bruce and McClean clearly knew their respective values to the assciations from which they were switching, and the associations clearly valued them differently.
Of course, in the event of a very unlikely series of injuries, or a case of mass food-poisoning, it's better for the FAI to have him available than not. I accept that completely.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
But yet again, although Alex Bruce knows there is this possibility, he's chosen not to wait for it to be realised.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Whose equation? Prioritised by whom?Quote:
But it's the FAI who NI fans accuse of "poaching". How the players view themselves doesn't enter the equation. How the associations and the fans themselves view the players in terms of value is prioritised.
NI fans and members of the IFA who cry foul; whilst you look at how the players value themselves, they look at player value from the perspective of the association rather than how the players have weighed up their options.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
The two perspectives on value are interlinked.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
You don't think there is any connection between Alex Bruce's decision to switch and his not getting a game for Ireland for 4 years?
Hickey is a slimeball. John Delaney to the power of 1000.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olé Olé
Apparently carrying the Irish flag at the Olympics will make him one of the most recognisable faces in the world. Because that's what everyone's looking out for at the Olympic ceremony.
Carrying the Irish flag will give him the kind of stardom that a couple of major tournaments and the world number 1 spot doesn't?
I see what you're saying and he most likely did take that into consideration. I suppose I'm saying it's none of their business as far as a player's decision as to his own international value is concerned. It's not for the fans to assume anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Hehe, indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
From the article:
In already recognising that McIlroy is undoubtedly a golfing superstar, it's difficult to fathom how one could view carrying a flag at the opening ceremony of the Olympics as much of a bonus of any great significance, assuming the motive would simply be to raise his own profile. McIlroy is already a household name across the globe.Quote:
McIlroy, already well established as one of golf's true superstars, will be aware of the incentive that flag-bearing would carry.