No, I'm referring to English-born players. Take Michael Keane switching to the England from Ireland, with worries that Sean McGinty will follow suit.
Printable View
Fair of you to acknowledge that. But that only served to exemplify some of the double-standards that I feel are more at large from Northern Ireland's side.
A flag which holds sectarian connotations.
Again, I don't live in the North and, honestly, I have barely ventured into the North but I'm presuming that where McClean lives, for the most part, the lines between 'protestant' and 'catholic' are fairly black and white. I don't think he intends any sectarian bigotry in his comments, I think that should be set aside as naivety on his part and the actual intention of the comments should only be interpreted. It's not as if he's interchanging 'african-american' with the 'N-word' with the actual intention of bigotry.
How many times must I ask? I'm just wondering are there flags in Windsor Park which make sectarian references? I've never been.
Not at all, I'm referring to the fact that McClean's comments infer a black and white, protestant/unionist and catholic/republican approach. I'm only saying that when McClean speaks he uses these terms maybe due to a combination of habit and belief. I'd go for habit, rather than belief.
At times, the benefit of the player should come before the association though. I don't hold any grudge against Micheal Keane realising that his ambition to play for England could be realised, now that he was playing regular for Man United's reserves and making the bench for the first team at his age. It was far more difficult for him to envisage that when he was playing under 17 for Ireland.
It's very difficult for a player to know, at a young age, whether they have a realistic shot of playing senior football for the national side they so wish. The player may not realise that their ambition is realistic until the age of 22, as was the case for James McClean.
Weren't you disputing this under your more obstinate persona on another forum? Why do you think their appearance will become more prevalent? Is that a good thing or bad thing, in your opinion?
They'd probably think he was misguided, naive and careless.
Does such make him a sectarian bigot? I wouldn't have thought so. It's not his national flag.
As far as the Union flag is concerned, it's no more or less sectarian than, say, the Irish tricolour. NI fans can wave it all they want; it is their flag, after all.
Agreed. They can't have their cake and eat it.
Talk of Irish nationals like McClean being unwilling to play for a British association due to bigotry, sectarianism or some chip on their shoulder is therefore misguided. They simply identify as neither British nor Northern Irish and would rather play for the FAI, through whom their national identity is actually channelled.
Not Brazil: I'm not sure why you differentiate between realistic and unrealistic ambitions. When it comes down to the morality behind it what's the difference?
If a player wants to play for another country, I don't see why if they can or not should change your opinion. Surely you either don't want any players playing for you who want to play for someone else, or you want them all? I doubt there's many 18,19,20 year olds who are confident they'll get capped for their first choice country. I don't see why McClean hedging his bets is any different from someone less talented doing the same.
So the idea of making the NI team as cross-community as possible is a bit disingenuous, when it staunchly remains a symbol of their unionist identity.
The IFA cited "Football For All" in response to McClean's comments about not feeling at home or welcome, but remained deafeningly silent when it came to the things that contribute to his, and others', discomfort. That is telling.
The IFA already commented on the anthem issue a few months ago, via a written piece by Gerry Armstrong. They have no intention of changing it because they fear upsetting current NI fans who'd presumably view it as a dilution of identity, or so they say anyway. Deflection of responsibility?
Why should these players have to contact the FAI? I think they should be treated with normal practice for any other player and be offered a call-up by an association for which they are eligible, namely the FAI.
Obviously, there are caveats in this proposal. But it offers players that are of sufficient quality the opportunity to play with the FAI, because the offer should be made on the football association's part, not on the players part. The FAI's net can be cast on the 32 counties and so selection process should reflect this.
Although this approach would create tension as another "poaching our players" racket would be inevitable and, of course, clearly ignorant of facts.
Can we take it that Gerry Armstrong's opinion in a regional paper constitutes the official IFA line? I'm not sure.
It is absolutely a deflection of their responsibility to the people of the north, for whom they govern football with FIFA's permission. If the IFA truly wanted to be "cross-community", they'd catch themselves on and become as neutral as possible. Ostensibly, however, they are more concerned about the identity issues of hardcore union-jack-waving, god-save-the-queen-singing unionists.
I should have said uncomfortable rather than offended. My bad.
Though since using words interchangeably is all the rage around here I figure. What the hell!!!
I think you should investigate the reasoning behind the split in soccer before mentioning rugby union.
In this instance, the imbalance is obviously re-inforced. So, steps by the IFA to reflect the cross-community that exists is considered dilution? This merely serves to compound the fact that the current identity does not and will not facilitate certain members of the community, such as James McClean. Then again, certain people have expressed that he comes across as a bigot. The mind boggles.
Be nice if he scored against Man U today!!
Last minute goal costing them the title!!