This seems to me to be a strange kind of question, but then I thought about those players who play for a country as a result of a grand parent, or something - Freddy being a prime example. I suppose a lot of players in the UK consider they have a better chance of playing for a country other than England which is why they choose to go that route. We also have Greg Rusedki to consider, plus a whole host of English cricket players born in South Africa.
Surprised that no-one has responded but I guess that might have something to do with the poll posts. It's actually quite an interesting discussion point. What about all those many celebs (for instance) born in India to parents as part of the British Empire? I am quite sure Joanna Lumley and Cliff Richard consider themselves to be British, and not Indian.
Freddy Eastwood's Welsh Grandfather.... :whistling:
As mentioned in my earlier post, MK!!! :raspberry:
Not my fault if you can't appreciate history. It was seismic. The equivalent of the USA beating England in 1950 football World Cup. It's that unpredictability that keeps us as sports fans coming back.
The last football World Cup was ok, but let's face it 2010 was a dud.
I appreciate history in sports that matter.
Is that really the best argument that you can come up with?
No because you ignored the rest of my post.
Would it be sporting history if San Marino beat England if the team was full of Germans and Brazilians!
It's not full of foreigners. Maybe that would have been a fair criticism in previous world cups but they've made huge strides in developing the game in Japan. Two-thirds of their squad was born in Japan and 90% still play in Japan. Those who weren't born there includes players like their captain, who was born in NZ to Fijian parents and moved to Japan when he was still at school, and speaks better Japanese than English. What country should he play for?
Do you not support England in football because Raheem Sterling was born in Jamaica to Jamaican parents? The FA have been assiduously signing up youngsters who qualify for more than one country for the u21s like Eric Dier (grew up in Portugal), Saido Berahino (Burundi), Chalobah (Sierra Leone), Dominic Iorfa (his dad played for Nigeria!) for years now to ensure they are England qualified. Had Owen Hargreaves even stepped foot in England when he was first capped?
Indeed, this line of argument is so stupid. We want the best football to be played in this country, and are happy when it benefits our national team, but then use it to criticise others when they score a massive scalp against a world class team.
Also, Japan played some exceptional attacking rugby along the backs. I was so impressed with their set moves and finishing (the decisive try being a good example)
It's not full of foreigners. Maybe that would have been a fair criticism in previous world cups but they've made huge strides in developing the game in Japan. Two-thirds of their squad was born in Japan and 90% still play in Japan. Those who weren't born there includes players like their captain, who was born in NZ to Fijian parents and moved to Japan when he was still at school, and speaks better Japanese than English. What country should he play for?
Do you not support England in football because Raheem Sterling was born in Jamaica to Jamaican parents? The FA have been assiduously signing up youngsters who qualify for more than one country for the u21s like Eric Dier (grew up in Portugal), Saido Berahino (Burundi), Chalobah (Sierra Leone), Dominic Iorfa (his dad played for Nigeria!) for years now to ensure they are England qualified. Had Owen Hargreaves even stepped foot in England when he was first capped?
New Zealand or Fiji.
My opinion is the same as have for football, you play for the country of birth or your parents. Growing up somewhere doesnt change your nationality. My lad is 8, he is English to English parents. If we moved to France and lived there forever he would still be English.
Dont like it when England do it either in football or Cricket. It devalues the national teams if the teams are full of non-nationals.
New Zealand or Fiji.
My opinion is the same as have for football, you play for the country of birth or your parents. Growing up somewhere doesnt change your nationality. My lad is 8, he is English to English parents. If we moved to France and lived there forever he would still be English.
Dont like it when England do it either in football or Cricket. It devalues the national teams if the teams are full of non-nationals.
That's not necessarily your decision though. If your son reaches 20 and has lived in, say, France, from the age of 8, speaks better French than he does English, and is fully immersed in the culture, and feels more French than English why should your view that he was born English matter?
However, one rule I think they have right in football, and other sports can learn from is that once you have played for one country you can't then change allegiances. IMO other sports should follow suit.
Shouldnt be a decision to be made, you play for the country of your nationality. The only exception is for parentage, not grandparentage.
He still will be English, born in England to English parents you are English. Fact. End Of.:smile:
You cant just change what nationality you are no matter how you feel. Even if he moved there when he was two and never learnt to speak English he would still be English. Even if he felt affiliated to France he still wouldn't be French so shouldn't be allowed to play for them.
Yes it would mean the likes of Sterling wouldnt play for us, but I personally would rather have a weaker team that was strong in National identity.
As soon as players can choose what team they play for just because they lived there a long time then the whole point of National sport becomes pointless.
England for the English.
Off to vote UKIP.