It means that nobody can ever say with any certainty whatsoever that one player is an international reject or no-hoper whilst another has a long, certain and fruitful international career in front of him with a particular association.
Say, Keith Andrews had a second nationality, would it have been fair to cast him as an FAI no-hoper and "fair game" for another association at the age of 26? Evidently not; since the age of 27/28 he's become an integral part of our midfield. Theoretically-speaking, for whatever reason, be it due to a late development spurt on the part of Bruce, a shortage of other worthy centre-backs or a spate of injuries to defensive regulars, who's to know how useful Bruce might have become for us at some point in the future?
The players came to such conclusions themselves, which is entirely their entitlement if they wish to weigh up their options. Their associations never indicated to them that they would be forever more surplus to the association's requirements, however. The argument looks at the issue from the persepctive of the associations' intentions. It goes that the FAI are "poaching" players wanted by another association whilst the IFA operate on a different principle. That argument doesn't stand as the likes of Bruce would always have been a viable option for us had he not declared for the IFA. The IFA don't operate on a different principle besides.Bruce and Camp (and many others in this and other countries) have looked at their lack on involvement with the national teams (ROI and England), have looked at the number and quality of players which are ahead of them in the pecking order, and have come to the conclusion that they had only a very remote chance of a future in the national team. They were fortunate enough to have a back-up option due to citizenship, though Bruce has already burned that bridge in some fans' eyes.
Only if the players were willing to do so. Marc Wilson said he'd either play for us or no-one, for example.The is clearly different from some of the players who've declared for the ROI who were obviously going to be involved with NI at international level.
So, do you believe it is different in principle then? As if the IFA would have any qualms with selecting a player in whom a second association was also interested. They'd act to serve their own interests just like how any professional association would operate. Sure, wasn't Gerry Armstrong chasing after England under-21 international and senior hopeful Connor Wickham only a few months ago? You think NI fans would object to Wickham switching to the IFA despite the FA's obvious interest in the lad?In my opinion, the best counter-argument to the claims of poaching would be to find a player who declared for NI after underage training/caps for another association who still considered the player a valuable player at senior level.![]()
Bookmarks