Eligibility Rules, Okay

Given that's he's played for Ireland all his career, the natural step would have been to do what his Ulster rugby counterparts do and represent the 32 counties union under which they fall, while maintaining a sense of Northern Irishness. I'm aware the option isn't open to Ulster to play for a United Kingdom side at international level.

Don't some of the IFA fans refer to players as 'bigots' when they opt to play for Ireland and that they are merely further pronouncing the division in the North? Well, it would have been pretty bigoted, in this context, if McIlroy had lined out for the United Kingdom.

Barnes makes one point in his tweets that I have a sort of agreement with. It would be nice to have one out-and-out Irishman in the pair- Shane Lowry or Padraig Harrington. McDowell and McIlroy aren't exactly tricolour-hugging Irishmen, if you pardon any 'bigotry' that may infer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olé Olé

Don't some of the IFA fans refer to players as 'bigots' when they opt to play for Ireland and that they are merely further pronouncing the division in the North?

---

Hehe, they do. It's a bogus argument anyway, for numerous reasons. But for one, if communal/sectarian division was really their primary concern and trumped the notion of identity for them, why are they so desperate then to maintain partition?

I don't think that McIlroy declaring for Team GB would have been a bigoted decision or an indication of bigotry though. He'd simply have been expressing one aspect of his identity in doing so, as would have been his right. He has stated he also feels British, after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

GMAC has always been on board, as Paddy pointed out when publicly notifying McIlroy of his having failed the Stutts gut test.

---

Hop on board in the sense that he actually gets to Rio. To be honest a victory in golf for Ireland no matter how likely or unlikely will rank as a hollow medal.(No more hollow than our 1996 haul I suppose...)
I hate that golf is in it. Hate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

Hop on board in the sense that he actually gets to Rio. To be honest a victory in golf for Ireland no matter how likely or unlikely will rank as a hollow medal.(No more hollow than our 1996 haul I suppose...)
I hate that golf is in it. Hate it.

---

Bonnie, would agree with you regarding its place in the Games, but it will be one of the most high profile sports and it gives us another possibility of a medal. Someone has to win the synchronised swimming medals, at least golf would certainly be better than that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gastric

Bonnie, would agree with you regarding its place in the Games, but it will be one of the most high profile sports and it gives us another possibility of a medal. Someone has to win the synchronised swimming medals, at least golf would certainly be better than that!

---

Not too wax on and on about the merits of one sport over another but sports like golf and soccer and tennis which already have their pinnacle (Grand Slams, Majors, World Cup) have no need to be in the Olympics.

Sports such as synch. swimming, athletics, biathlon, archery whose pinnacle is the Olympics should be there. That's my opinion in a nutshell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

Not too wax on and on about the merits of one sport over another but sports like golf and soccer and tennis which already have their pinnacle (Grand Slams, Majors, World Cup) have no need to be in the Olympics.

Sports such as synch. swimming, athletics, biathlon, archery whose pinnacle is the Olympics should be there. That's my opinion in a nutshell.

---

But you could also make the argument that sports that are ****, like synch. swimming, also have no need to be in the olympics.

Although in general, I totally agree with you, it's daft that football and golf are in the Olympics, while sports such as squash, climbing, netball, polo, and even ultimate frisbee are not.

If rugby sevens can be in the Olympics so should 20 over cricket.

Think T20 was discussed, but the relative scarcity of pitches/white elephant potential is a problem.

Plus S.Africa would have enough for about 3 decent teams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

If rugby sevens can be in the Olympics so should 20 over cricket.

---

If only. I again think that Rugby7s shouldn't be. It's trash to watch. But that's not the point of the Olympics.

I'd take T20 over that all day everyday. But Cricket hardly needs another tournament.

The ITV commentator on the game between Algeria and South Korea mentioned that 16 players from the Algeria squad were born in France. Kenny Cunningham mightn't approve, but Algeria's footballing resurgence over the last half a decade or so can surely be attributed to quite a significant degree to the 2004 and 2009 rule-changes on switching association as many of their players would have played for France at under-age level.

Completely different circumstances.

Can anyone honestly we are benefiting from our equivalents - Walters, Cox, Green, Keogh - playing instead of say Stokes, Murphy, Meyler, Delaney.

The difference in ability is marginal, and in most cases, they are worse than the players they are keeping out.

Algeria are getting second generation players from a country that regularly schools technically proficient footballers.

Ireland are getting a rag tag collective of players from a country that doesn't produce good footballers, often coming up from League One or League Two.

Ha ha, sadly you're probably right! Well, as of now. Wasn't always the case and could be again...
:(

I was merely mentioning it as the commentator had brought it up and I thought it somewhat relevant to the thread in terms of the impact the rule-change has had upon the fortunes of certain teams in world football. I'm not at all suggesting that we should be content piggy-backing off English academies and relying on second or third generation players at the expense of properly developing the game's infrastructure in Ireland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks

Anthony Stokes, Anthony Stokes, Anthony Stokes.

---

Is it, the answer to a question that nobody asked, Alex?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

The ITV commentator on the game between Algeria and South Korea mentioned that 16 players from the Algeria squad were born in France. Kenny Cunningham mightn't approve, but Algeria's footballing resurgence over the last half a decade or so can surely be attributed to quite a significant degree to the 2004 and 2009 rule-changes on switching association as many of their players would have played for France at under-age level.

---

This is, of course, the country that produced the parents of Samir Nasri and Zinedine Zidane. Maybe if they imported all the French football schooling ethos into Algeria itself they'd become a real conveyor belt.

And so the old question remains...nurture v. nature?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olé Olé

This is, of course, the country that produced the parents of Samir Nasri and Zinedine Zidane. Maybe if they imported all the French football schooling ethos into Algeria itself they'd become a real conveyor belt.

And so the old question remains...nurture v. nature?

---

I think it was actually Nasri's grandparents who were born in Algeria. I wonder do the more gifted footballers amongst the Algerian diaspora in France generally aspire to play for France primarily or would Algeria be their first port of call? Obviously, Nasri and Zidane favoured France and quite a few of Algeria's current squad opted to play for France at under-age level first before switching (of course, there were numerous others born in France who didn't and who played for Algeria at under-age level), but are they examples of or exceptions to the common trend? Isn't Benzema of Algerian descent too? I recall he caused a bit of a stir within the French far-right after refusing to sing La Marseillaise, but Zidane never sang it either. Do the Algerian diaspora footballers choose France as they identify with a French identity or is it more a case of choosing France to enhance their profile despite maintaining a primarily Algerian identity?

Didn't the rules change quite recently, which meant it was easier for the Algerian diaspora to play for them, as mentioned in an earlier post...
Benzema is 3rd generation btw.

As for your question, apart from asking a few French Algerians, guess we'll never know
My very limited knowledge of most N.Africans is Africa first, their host culture second. But as with many immigrant groups, this becomes more diluted over time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

Didn't the rules change quite recently, which meant it was easier for the Algerian diaspora to play for them, as mentioned in an earlier post...

---

Hehe, they did; I mentioned it just a few posts up. The allowance to switch once up until the age of 21 was introduced in 2004. The age cap of 21 was later lifted completely in 2009, permitting dual nationals to make one switch at any age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

I think it was actually Nasri's grandparents who were born in Algeria. I wonder do the more gifted footballers amongst the Algerian diaspora in France generally aspire to play for France primarily or would Algeria be their first port of call? Obviously, Nasri and Zidane favoured France and quite a few of Algeria's current squad opted to play for France at under-age level first before switching (of course, there were numerous others born in France who didn't and who played for Algeria at under-age level), but are they examples of or exceptions to the common trend? Isn't Benzema of Algerian descent too? I recall he caused a bit of a stir within the French far-right after refusing to sing La Marseillaise, but Zidane never sang it either. Do the Algerian diaspora footballers choose France as they identify with a French identity or is it more a case of choosing France to enhance their profile despite maintaining a primarily Algerian identity?

---

You're spot on in relation to Nasri. Not quite sure how I got that mixed up.

Tensions between Algeria and France have always been great. In fact, have a read of this article. There seems to be a relationship between France and Algeria similar to that which existed between Ireland and England during the 90's: http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ial-past-islam
Then you have the 2005 French riots.

As far as I'm aware, there still exists this under-current of tension. I, by chance, lived with a French chap during college and he was very quick to, errm, castigate the African community in his hometown of Marseille.

Anyways, in relation to the football issue. It actually does appear to be the case that they opt for France first. I guess it probably is something ingrained within the French youth system. If a teenager is plying his trade in Clairefontaine or one of these illustrious academies, he's very unlikely to stick his hand up and say 'Oh, I'm going to play for Algeria, I'm Algerian.'

Interestingly enough, Mehdi Benatia had a cracking season with Roma and is now being linked with a big money move. He played under-18 for France but opted for Morocco at under-20 level. In fairness, he has only really rose to prominence this season and I don't think he'd have been considered for the French senior side when he was playing with Clermont but he'd definitely be a shoo in now had he not chosen to play for Morocco at under-20 level. In fact, he was born to a Moroccan father and Algerian mother.
http://www.espnfc.com/blog/espn-fc-u...-generation-87

Quote:

---

Olivier Chavanon, Clermont's sporting director, said: "Morocco really wanted Mehdi and so he returned to his origins. Today, he would certainly bring personality and added value to France national team. He is superior to players like Laurent Koscielny, Adil Rami and Philippe Mexes."

---