Player eligibility row

**ifk101** · 25/08/2010, 1:11 PM

Originally Posted by Gather round

Er, why would I assume any of that? You're just another anonymous poster on the internet, variously pontificating about games you haven't seen, quoting supposed facts that you've made up and indulging in childish wind-ups. I couldn't care less if you've seen every Swedish international since the break-up of Abba, presumably in some parallel universe while simultaneously watching the Republic of Ireland's games on the same dates. I've only seen a handful, including the two against NI, but I also managed brief youtube highlights of most of the other games in Euro 2008. More than enough to assess all the teams in the group.

Supposed facts and wind-ups? Please.

Originally Posted by Gather round

More fool them.

Aye. Their minds weren't on the game at hand.

Originally Posted by Gather round

If you equate "pretty much out of the reckoning" with "not out of the reckoning at all", you must realise that other readers will be confused?

Only one reader apparently.

Originally Posted by Gather round

You don't, we were seeded third. Are you the Belfast Telegraph's Goteborg correspondent?

No. Hence why I highlighted that I was unsure. But ultimately irrelevant to the point that NI had a higher seeding than Montenegro.

Originally Posted by Gather round

Aye, and Queen Anne's dead. As I said, according to your warped logic one game- even if a friendly- trumps a series of 10 qualifiers- on which basis presumably Montenegro are as good as the RoI despite finishing miles behind? Bizarre.

Bizarre is your comparison of the qualification results of a team seeded 3rd and a team seeded 6th. Surely you can accept that the qualification prospects for a team seeded 3rd are higher than those for a team seeded 6th?

Originally Posted by Gather round

Indeed, although I'd be wary of opinions not based on watching the game.

Brief youtube clips are acceptable though?

Originally Posted by Gather round

You're the one making up stats, dear. Have a ryvita and stop posting rank-pulling nonsense.

The stats I've posted are results of football games. Cheerio. Off to have a Ryvita with cheese.

**Gather round** · 25/08/2010, 1:25 PM

Originally Posted by ifk101

Supposed facts and wind-ups? Please

You're welcome. My pleasure.

Bizarre is your comparison of the qualification results of a team seeded 3rd and a team seeded 6th. Surely you can accept that the qualification prospects for a team seeded 3rd are higher than those for a team seeded 6th?

Your group was roughly equivalent in standard to ours, as it turned out to have three fifth-rate teams even if none were genuine no-hopers. Given that, I'm merely comparing our 15 points with their nine and concluding the former was clearly better. It's quite simple.

Brief youtube clips are acceptable though?

Aye. You can overdo the analysis, like. It's only football games between scratch teams.

The stats I've posted are results of football games. Cheerio. Off to have a Ryvita with cheese

Not invariably. Anyway, bon appetit and have some gravlax for me.

**shakermaker1982** · 25/08/2010, 1:41 PM

GR

Are you also trying to imply that because England got 27 points they are better than Germany (26) and Holland (24)?

Switzerland only got 21 points whilst the mighty Spain managed 30. We all know what happened in their fixture.....you cannot just use point tallies gleaned from qualification groups to make judgements on who is better than who.

**Gather round** · 25/08/2010, 1:49 PM

Originally Posted by shakermaker1982

GR

Are you also trying to imply that because England got 27 points they are better than Germany (26) and Holland (24)?

In qualifying, England were slightly better than Germany; in the finals they clearly weren't. Holland were better than both teams at both stages of the competition. Their 24 points game from only eight matches- so, like Spain, they had a 100% record in qualifying.

Switzerland only got 21 points whilst the mighty Spain managed 30. We all know what happened in their fixture.....you cannot just use point tallies gleaned from qualification groups to make judgements on who is better than who

I think you can, for the teams that didn't qualify. It's more objective than using convoluted FIFA or Elo rankings, or judging from one game which might be a friendly.

In the group stage of the World Cup, Spain outpointed Switzerland 6-4 btw.

**The Fly** · 25/08/2010, 1:57 PM

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

Hargreaves doesn't qualify as homegrown for the new 25-man squad requirement - there's no question he doesn't qualfiy for the national team.

I think John Barnes would be a better comparison to Arteta. *England fans never had a problem accepting him, presumably because he came from an English-speaking country and picked up an English accent very quickly. Most people are probably not aware that he didn't set foot in England until he was 16.

I take it your joking?

* I'd like to hear John Barnes' view on the 'warm embrace' afforded to him by England fans.

**DannyInvincible** · 25/08/2010, 3:03 PM

I'm surprised that nobody in the media has seemingly yet to pick up on the implications of article 18 from FIFA's statutes on Arteta's alleged eligibility for England. The consequences of the wording seem pretty clear to me - that he is in fact ineligible - but I've done a quick Google search and have only encountered any mention of this likelihood on other football forums and Wikipedia, which cites the FIFA statutes.

**geysir** · 25/08/2010, 3:10 PM

I take it your joking?

* I'd like to hear John Barnes' view on the 'warm embrace' shown to him by England fans.

There is a lot of warmth in banana offerings.

Talking about jokes, I get mixed up between John Barnes and Lenny Henry.

**The Fly** · 25/08/2010, 5:00 PM

Originally Posted by geysir

Talking about jokes, I get mixed up between John Barnes and Lenny Henry.

Just keep asking yourself....."which one used to bang Dawn French?"

That should help resolve any confusion!

**Charlie Darwin** · 25/08/2010, 6:00 PM

Originally Posted by The Fly

I take it your joking?

* I'd like to hear John Barnes' view on the 'warm embrace' afforded to him by England fans.

Well now I look silly - England fans have indeed historically been fond of a bit of the old racism. I suppose what I meant is that Barnes never really got it for not being English - he got it for being black, just like Luther Blisset or Rio Ferdinand.

**irishfan86** · 26/08/2010, 11:48 AM

Slightly off topic, but I thought those of you interested in eligibility would be interested in the case of Guadeloupe. FIFA doesn't recognize its national team, but it is an associated member of CONCACAF, meaning it participates in the top regional tournament (the Gold Cup, CONCACAF's answer to the European Championships).

I bring this up because I nearly fell off my chair watching Canada play Guadeloupe when I heard the that "former French international" Jocelyn Angloma was playing for them!

Article on it here:
http://www.worldsoccer.com/features/...es_294499.html

**DannyInvincible** · 26/08/2010, 2:40 PM

Bloody hell, Angloma still playing international football at the ripe old age of 45? Interesting you should mention Guadeloupe, by the way, and a bit of a coincidence, as, just last night, I was reading about Pascal Chimbonda playing for them three times in 2003 in what appeared to me to be an official competition - qualifiers for the CONCACAF Gold Cup - before then going on to win a cap for France. He even made the French 2006 World Cup squad, although he didn't make an appearance for them. His Wikipedia article was very straightforward and matter-of-fact about this peculiar aspect of his international career, as if there was nothing unusual about what appeared to me to be a bit of an anomaly, or certainly something in need of some further explanation, but it makes more sense to me now that you say FIFA don't actually recognise Gaudeloupe. Presumably, the CONCACAF Gold Cup isn't recognised by FIFA as official competition either then?

**sean r** · 26/08/2010, 3:52 PM

guadalope martinique st maartin are all members of concacaf but not fifa they are allowed to play in regional cups only. so any player from france who have connections to those 3 countries can play for them and france. they are all part of france and all all french citizens. the same for aruba and curasao in the carribean there for thierry henry can play for guadaloupe and france at the same time.

**irishfan86** · 26/08/2010, 3:57 PM

The Gold Cup is a sort of weird tournament, because every now and again you'll get a weird team invited, like Brazil U-21 or something. Ireland for Gold Cup glory? Haha...

**DannyInvincible** · 26/08/2010, 4:00 PM

Thought this bit from the CONCACAF Gold Cup's Wikipedia page was interesting:

When the Gold Cup does not fall the same year as an edition of the FIFA Confederations Cup, the winner, or highest place team that is a member of both CONCACAF and FIFA, qualifies for the next staging of that tournament.

So, if Guadeloupe were to win the Gold Cup, they wouldn't be put forward to the FIFA tournament.

**sean r** · 26/08/2010, 4:13 PM

i dont think they will be allowed to play in the confederations cup as they are not a "country" guadaloupe are part of france. and i can recall one time that south korea played in the copa america i dont know how they did. so ireland can be invited to play in the copa america or should we try the african cup of nations??

**DannyInvincible** · 26/08/2010, 4:36 PM

The Copa America organisers (CONMEBOL) usually invite two "outsiders" for each competition to make up the numbers. Usually, they invite CONCACAF sides, Mexico and the USA, or even Costa Rica, as they're geographically-close/culturally-similar, but I don't think there's anything to stop them inviting a European or Asian team, for example.

I think you must be thinking of Japan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copa_Am%C3%A9rica#Invitees

Since 1993, two teams from other confederations, usually from CONCACAF whose members are geographically and culturally close, are also invited. Nations receiving invitations are Costa Rica (1997, 2001, 2004), Honduras (2001), Japan (1999), Mexico (1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2004, 2007), and the United States (1993, 1995, 2007). The United States had been invited every time from 1997 to 2007 but frequently turned down the invitation due to scheduling conflicts with Major League Soccer. However, on October 30, 2006, the US Soccer Federation accepted the invitation for participation in the 2007 tournament, ending a 12 year absence. At 2001 Copa Am�rica, Canada was an invitee, but on July 6, 2001 withdrew because of security concerns.

**The Fly** · 02/09/2010, 9:49 PM

We're taking the p*ss now lads!.............

**boovidge** · 02/09/2010, 10:01 PM

appropriate stadium name too!

Does anyone actually have a recent squad pic for us? cant find one on the net

**irishfan86** · 03/09/2010, 4:47 AM

Originally Posted by boovidge

appropriate stadium name too!

Does anyone actually have a recent squad pic for us? cant find one on the net

This is on the FAI site, sorry it's not bigger:

**DannyInvincible** · 04/09/2010, 2:41 PM

Gather round; did the IFA ever get back to your e-mail?

It's been nearly three weeks since CAS disappointingly responded to my e-mail with the following:

"The reasoned award will be notified to the parties in the coming weeks. Until such time, the CAS is unable to comment any further on the matter."

And that was over two weeks after they'd initially promised to publish the grounds for the decision within a few days of the decision being made. I wonder will they ever publish the full grounds...