Potentially eligible players thread

I think the relative success of the national team with predominantly homegrown players since 2007/2008 overrides selecting players who aren't good enough for the worst England team since the mid-90's.

If Noble and Grealish end up playing for this it's not what they wanted or chose, it's something they settled for. That's the rub.

I think pragmatism would be selecting players who want to play for us regardless of their nationality and not indulging the ones who don't. And only selecting eligible players if they have upside. If we are going to be selecting players like Matthew Hamilton or Jack Connors at underage level then we would probably just be better off looking closer to home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

I think Sweeney's article ignores the important role of public funding in the Iceland programme. This is GAA country, the only country I can think of where there is a de facto sporting wing of the State.

---

That's a fact. If something similar to the Icelandic 'plan' were drawn up for here and financial backing from the state sought for it Mr Sweeney would quickly be rowing in behind those hollering 'We want whatever soccer is getting +20% as we're the indigenous and not at all plucked out of thin air code' ....and that's just for Gaelic football.

Sweeneys articles on this matter of 2gens and 3gens really let him down. They're snide, spiteful and judgemental.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

Success overrides any gut test.

---

+1 on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks

I think the relative success of the national team with predominantly homegrown players since 2007/2008 overrides selecting players who aren't good enough for the worst England team since the mid-90's.

---

England played in the semi finals of the European Championship in the mid-90's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks

If Noble and Grealish end up playing for this it's not what they wanted or chose, it's something they settled for. That's the rub.

---

I don't know why Noble keeps being brought into the argument, he's never played for us, he's said as recently as March that he's not giving up on playing for England - http://www.skysports.com/football/ne...ngland-call-up - but he keeps being mentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks

I think pragmatism would be selecting players who want to play for us regardless of their nationality and not indulging the ones who don't.

---

What players who didn't want to play for us were selected?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks

And only selecting eligible players if they have upside. If we are going to be selecting players like Matthew Hamilton or Jack Connors at underage level then we would probably just be better off looking closer to home.

---

What players do you think should be looked at instead of those two?

I meant the Graham Taylor era where they underperformed at Euro '92, missed out on qualification to the World Cup in '94 and didn't have to qualify for Euro '96.

Keane, Crowley, Grealish and Bamford played underage level for us even though they weren't committed, whereas there are players who grew up dreaming of representing us who would have gladly taken their places in squads. And this may be a fault of the media more than anyone else but the likes of Hogan, Bamford and Noble are constantly thrown at MON and Trapattoni before him when they are coy about playing for us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

But if it was Noble and Grealish, then they would have been two players as committed to the cause as everybody else. He's basically saying if two players that ultimately didn't want to play for us were involved in the goal, it wouldn't have meant as much, but it's just a ridiculous example because if they were playing it would mean that they did want (or choose) to play for us. He went on to say...

"I think there's a pragmatic case in favour of sticking with native-born players."

So, where does that leave Ray Houghton's goals compared to Brady's?.... without "the same emotional resonance" apparently. That could hardly be further from the truth though, as your username will testify. Why not choose that, a real life example, instead of plunging to desperate hypothetical depths to manufacture a point that's not really there.



So did a squad brimming with foreign-born players in the 80's & 90's. Success overrides any gut test.

---

Jeepers DeLorean, that was a pretty forceful response to not very much.

I didn't single out any quote from Sweeney, just the general thrust. The Noble / Grealish thing was sophistry alright.

The 2012 squad didn't resonate with the public, not afterwards anyway. I think a lot of vitriol was - wrongly - directed to players like Paul Green who I think was treated more harshly than others because he was a granny ruler, albeit one very proud of his roots. [Edit: maybe not. Glenn Whelan...]

I think we've moved on a bit since the 80s and 90s when we had our first successes. I think it's a very intangible point but I honestly feel that the current team resonates with the public now because they are young and home-grown - and of course successful (beating Germany & Italy counts). In the 80s and 90s the footy team wasn't competing with the rugby team - then almost exclusively speaking with Irish accents - or the provinces for the public's affections. In the 2000s the bond between public and players broke down and I think it helped that Coleman, Brady, Hendrick and Randolph* were among the stars of Euro 2016 to get that bond back. Even Danny agreed with me, or at least didn't see anything unreasonable, when I posted this immediately after our exit!


I don't doubt that Callum O'Dowda would be received with great excitement (not least by me) but since the 80s and 90s we've had players like Grealish and Keane defect, ambiguity at best about Crowley, and a media-driven sideshow about McCarthy, and I think all this has made people a bit cynical of using the eligibility rules to the fullest extent. All at a time when we lacked success and the players were earning far more money than Paul O'Connell and Brian O'Driscoll, that perennial red herring.

I would just prefer the [bulk] [insert random %] of the squad was home-grown because it shows we as a football nation are doing something right.

As a father of two English-born kids I don't need anyone to tell me about the nuances of national identity (I'm not saying DeLorean is btw).

*let's just assume Randolph was a star just for this thread :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie

That's a fact. If something similar to the Icelandic 'plan' were drawn up for here and financial backing from the state sought for it Mr Sweeney would quickly be rowing in behind those hollering 'We want whatever soccer is getting +20% as we're the indigenous and not at all plucked out of thin air code' ....and that's just for Gaelic football.

Sweeneys articles on this matter of 2gens and 3gens really let him down. They're snide, spiteful and judgemental.

---

He's a big Sligo rovers fan. I thought he was more soccer than GAA?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

Jeepers DeLorean, that was a pretty forceful response to not very much.

---

Sorry I didn't mean it to come across that way. Well kind of, but any forcefulness was aimed at Sweeney, not you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

The 2012 squad didn't resonate with the public, not afterwards anyway. I think a lot of vitriol was - wrongly - directed to players like Paul Green who I think was treated more harshly than others because he was a granny ruler, albeit one very proud of his roots.

---

I think that kind of proves the point that success overrides the nation's gut test. Our starting line-up in 2012 was almost completely dominated by native-born players, I think only St. Ledger, McGeady and Cox got starts from our 'foreign' contingent. I don't think the problem with Green was that he was born in England, just that his perceived limitations as a player and Championship status made him an easy target, and another stick to beat Trapattoni with. I think the disconnect with the team was because we got hammered, a disconnect that would still be there if Brady, Hendrick and co. performed just as poorly this time around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

I would just prefer the [bulk] [insert random %] of the squad was home-grown because it shows we as a football nation are doing something right.

---

I'm probably the same, but if it doesn't happen naturally, so be it.

Well they're not exclusive and fair play to him for sticking up for the LOI. But I've made the point before about his attitude to 2gens/3gens or 'plastics' as he'd probably call them -that he wouldn't describe as 'settling for second best' a young fellah who gave up on aussie rules and came home to play intercounty. He'd find the upside of it. Yet there's something altogether more sinister going on when some kid from sarf London decides to play for us ...it's very nefariousness backlit and re-enforced by a different kid from Birmingham deciding not to play for us after all.

Stutts, my only issue there is that the line for home grown needs to be clarified. In my view Hendrick and Brady barely qualify....did they even play a loi match.....?

They're no different to the kids I'm the UK in my view. they are not an endoresement of the league.

I agree with delorean. The reason for the team disconnect was we were getting hammered. Mid 2000s when the team was duff Keane Dunne given etc the connection was ok but we weren't qualifying so it was strained.

Quote:

---

would just prefer the [bulk] [insert random %] of the squad was home-grown because it shows we as a football nation are doing something right.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

I'm probably the same, but if it doesn't happen naturally, so be it.

---

what exactly does this mean? My opinion is that we should be actively and intentionally trying to ensure that this type of representation of the League happens - through a complete overhaul of the domestic game from grassroots up to League football. Obviously, it would make no sense to impose minimum representation provisions on the squad as it is just not realistic and would not be addressing the root cause of the issue. In fact, it would probably be detrimental to the intent. Is that what you are getting at?

Its interesting really and in a lot of ways we are in both a fortunate and unfortunate situation. If we get the domestic model right we would have the best of all worlds. A four-pronged approach to international success: 1) quality domestic production playing at home (30%); 2) English based Irish developed players (30%); 3) English based English developed players (30%); 4) 2g/3g players (10%). I think that would be a very fair expectation of a successful domestic model. [by the way 2) is those players that spent a bulk of years playing the domestic game and moved over in early to mid 20's - 3) is those players that were the cream of the youth crop that moved over to England in their teens (16-19) and made it through that cut-throat environment.]

The unfortunate side of that is that we have gotten lazy and allowed the English system to carry us almost entirely. We have zero 1's, about 20% are 2's with the rest made up of 3's and 4's. At the very least we need to be intentionally rebalancing that through how we structure our system and invest in our domestic product. I have highlighted the word intentionally there because the 20% or so that are currently 2's in the model I'm using is born out of necessity rather than strategy. It is as a result of the changed dynamics of English footy than anything the FAI has done to shift the balance back towards domestic football.

In short, back to the point of the discussion above, it is not and never should be a case of either/or. It is not a case of not wanting or not valuing our 2g and 3g or belittling their contribution. There is a role for all comers but we do need to focus on self development and control of our footballing destiny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dynamo kerry

Stutts, my only issue there is that the line for home grown needs to be clarified. In my view Hendrick and Brady barely qualify....did they even play a loi match.....?

They're no different to the kids I'm the UK in my view. they are not an endoresement of the league.

---

Who said they were an endorsement of the league? This conservatism has taken a surreal turn.

Brady and Hendrick spent their first 15 years in Ireland. Only somebody who's trying very hard to be contrary could regard them as not homegrown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

what exactly does this mean?

---

Stutts was saying that he thinks it's probably a healthier reflection of football in Ireland if the majority of our team are home-grown players. At least I think that's what he was saying and what I was kind of agreeing with.

Within reason though, I wouldn't want any restrictions put in place to prevent 2g/3g players, etc. being called up, which is what Sweeney was suggesting.

Obviously the more improvements that are made at grassroots and LOI level, the better chance of having predominantly home-grown players in our international squads, and nobody would complain about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dynamo kerry

Stutts, my only issue there is that the line for home grown needs to be clarified. In my view Hendrick and Brady barely qualify....did they even play a loi match.....?

They're no different to the kids I'm the UK in my view. they are not an endoresement of the league.

I agree with delorean. The reason for the team disconnect was we were getting hammered. Mid 2000s when the team was duff Keane Dunne given etc the connection was ok but we weren't qualifying so it was strained.

---

wow, this has gone off in a different direction altogether. Brady and Hendrick are totally and utterly homegrown. If we're going to look down our noses at teenagers who sign for Man United instead of playing for Bohs then we're in big trouble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

wow, this has gone off in a different direction altogether. Brady and Hendrick are totally and utterly homegrown. If we're going to look down our noses at teenagers who sign for Man United instead of playing for Bohs then we're in big trouble.

---

Agreed, we should be focusing all our attention on looking down our noses at people who play for Bohs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

wow, this has gone off in a different direction altogether. Brady and Hendrick are totally and utterly homegrown. If we're going to look down our noses at teenagers who sign for Man United instead of playing for Bohs then we're in big trouble.

---

Ok I've gone away and had a think about this. I went a bit far there and conflated home grown with representing the league which wasn't actually said by anyone (including sweeney). I didn't mean to have a pop at the two boys. apologies for dragging the topic off.

My original point was (and has been reconciled here at least) is that the 2g/3g players contribution has a place in this and I had been toying with the idea of quotas for u-21 at least but a top down approach means nothing if the right grassroots structure isn't there (and may be questionable anyway)

Of those that lined up against Italy 8 were home grown, 2 were 2g/3g and 1 was Duffy. 2 of 3 subs were home grown. Of those 10 homegrown players 5 played LOI (mostly when the league had a bit more cash) (2's from SkStu), 4 went over as teens (3's) and 1 was Duffy (special case but essentially a 3) and 3 were 4's (Mccarthy, Keogh and Mcgeady - all of whom played U-21 ball before graduating).That's not bad - no mercenaries in there. We'd like a couple of 1's in there and a couple of more 2's. (intentionally as SkSTU puts it)

my final suggestion is that this is the wrong argument. The national team is an output of what goes on in the country. We shouldn't necessarily improve facilities and coaching because it'll give us a better national side. We should do it because the facilities are rubbish, the amount of qualified coaches is lower than it should be and it would be the right thing to do for boys and girls in Ireland who want to participate, train and learn. (presuming they show up :) )As for the league, I'm not able to fathom how to sort that out to bring players through. :(

Lads i've asked this before, and ill ask again, the attendances at places like latvia or in belarus or in estonia or in luxenbourg aren't much greater than LOI attendances I would imagine. THe wages that these players get can't be much more either. Why don't LOI clubs try and add to their talent by purchasing a couple of these players, I remember fenlon tried it at bohs with a latvian or lituanian after seeing him in Champions league game against them.

For example that kumpf fella scored 2 against pats last night and by the sounds of it could have scored another one in richmond park. Surely he can't be on more than what the league would be offering? The by product of this is if they prove decent in LOI english clubs would probably come in for them and they can sell on again. The overall benefit is an improvement in quality in the leauge, and potentially some monetary returns - through progression in Europe and/or selling players on again. They can still nurture the best Ireland has to offer, but they can offer competition and improve quality too.

I am completely aware that there may be transfers involved which clubs can't afford, but surely a word with the player and letting his contract run down is an option in some cases, it really seems like they are oblivious, with scant resources to anything outside the game in Ireland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

Lads i've asked this before, and ill ask again, the attendances at places like latvia or in belarus or in estonia or in luxenbourg aren't much greater than LOI attendances I would imagine. THe wages that these players get can't be much more either. Why don't LOI clubs try and add to their talent by purchasing a couple of these players, I remember fenlon tried it at bohs with a latvian or lituanian after seeing him in Champions league game against them.

For example that kumpf fella scored 2 against pats last night and by the sounds of it could have scored another one in richmond park. Surely he can't be on more than what the league would be offering? The by product of this is if they prove decent in LOI english clubs would probably come in for them and they can sell on again. The overall benefit is an improvement in quality in the leauge, and potentially some monetary returns - through progression in Europe and/or selling players on again. They can still nurture the best Ireland has to offer, but they can offer competition and improve quality too.

I am completely aware that there may be transfers involved which clubs can't afford, but surely a word with the player and letting his contract run down is an option in some cases, it really seems like they are oblivious, with scant resources to anything outside the game in Ireland.

---

The problem is, I think, these players gain more national attention and national team managers attention playing in their own leagues. They're also as well staying around their families and gaining similar money than moving off abroad. Realistically, there's only maybe three or four teams that can afford to take in foreign players at the minute and give them any sort of quality of wage and accomodation.

Also, there's heaps of lads come in from all over on trials every year to LOI clubs. Most of them that come in aren't much good. Finn Harps alone must have had six or seven players over the past year come in from the likes of Spain, France and America. There's requests coming in all the time for lads looking for trials too.

Surely players have more ambition than that.

Ya of course lads who can't get clubs qill have requests, but i am on about leagues at a similar level, playing and being paid a slightly better level, but Ireland would surely seem like a nice place to move to for a lad playing out in latvia for example. It just has to be sold properly.

I definitely think there is something there if they went about it the right way, again the money might not be available to have someone keeping a close eye on these leagues or at least keeping an active interest. Eu free movement of people should make things a lot easier also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

Ya of course lads who can't get clubs qill have requests, but i am on about leagues at a similar level, playing and being paid a slightly better level, but Ireland would surely seem like a nice place to move to for a lad playing out in latvia for example. It just has to be sold properly.

---

I'd say they can make a move to a club at a better level without moving as far away as Ireland.

I can see the (limited) appeal of the idea from the perspective of an Irish club, but I can't see what's in it for the player. When players from central/eastern Europe fantasise/plot a way to the top leagues, I doubt the LOI is part of that plan.

I don't really see what a move to LOI gives them that they couldn't get with a club closer to home.