Steven Gerrard has revealed he would "love" Everton counterpart Mikel Arteta to come into the England fold. He told TalkSPORT's Drive Time: "I'd certainly love nothing better than to see Mikel Arteta available for England.
"You want to play with the best players, and if it makes the England squad better, of course I'd like to see it," he went on. "I think it happens to most national teams [that they pick non-nationals], but it's up to him if he wants to make himself available. You want to play with the best players, and if it makes the England squad better, of course I'd like to see it."
Gerrard added: "Fabio Capello is the man to answer the question because he's the manager, but for me he's an excellent player."
Chris Wilson, Posted 13/08/2010 at 19:49:36
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
1 Posted 14/08/2010 at 06:17:17
2 Posted 14/08/2010 at 06:59:51
3 Posted 14/08/2010 at 07:18:26
Why would anyone not want to play for their birth country and proud heritage?
Add to that, Spain are the World & European champions and have some of the best players and are the best team of this current generation.
Why would he want to play for this prehistoric and overrated country. Everyone outside of this country knew England were shit before the World Cup, now even our media have to finally admit we're shit too.
Arteta may struggle to get into the Spain squad, but what an achievement it would be to finally do that, far better than playing for England, just because all our players are crap.
4 Posted 14/08/2010 at 07:23:50
5 Posted 14/08/2010 at 07:24:22
I'd rather not have Everton players playing for England anymore. They just get tapped up and get massive ego's.
6 Posted 14/08/2010 at 07:26:14
7 Posted 14/08/2010 at 07:53:22
10 mins as a sub in some friendly would mean more to him that playing regularly for England. I think England need to start producing technically gifted players, rather than pinching them from other countries. There is no doubt that Lampard, Shithouse Gerrard etc are world class.... but what England lack, is a patient playmaker that controls and dictates the play. In my lifetime, only Gazza and Scholes come close to being good enough to do that for England.
8 Posted 14/08/2010 at 08:06:54
9 Posted 14/08/2010 at 08:31:18
10 Posted 14/08/2010 at 09:32:05
11 Posted 14/08/2010 at 09:38:00
12 Posted 14/08/2010 at 09:40:13
13 Posted 14/08/2010 at 09:55:35
14 Posted 14/08/2010 at 09:57:18
15 Posted 14/08/2010 at 10:36:32
16 Posted 14/08/2010 at 10:46:19
17 Posted 14/08/2010 at 10:55:16
Not sure that the Irish would be too keen on that sort of rule though
18 Posted 14/08/2010 at 11:11:37
What would you do with tose born in Yugoslavia? or the USSR? or.....or......or.....someone who was born in England and brought up in Canada froman early age?
Nationality is a complex and often abstract concept..
Simple rules like 'country of birth'...often won't cut it..
19 Posted 14/08/2010 at 11:17:02
20 Posted 14/08/2010 at 11:16:32
21 Posted 14/08/2010 at 12:00:05
22 Posted 14/08/2010 at 12:22:17
23 Posted 14/08/2010 at 12:29:43
Bizarrely Jo on the bench ahead of Bellamy as well...
24 Posted 14/08/2010 at 12:31:10
Just say four Hail Mary's,point out Dublin on the map,drink a pint of Guiness down in one - and your in!!
25 Posted 14/08/2010 at 12:57:08
26 Posted 14/08/2010 at 13:14:11
I agree 1000000000000%
27 Posted 14/08/2010 at 13:21:23
If it was as simple as "country of birth", as some are statig, what woulld happen if your English mam was on holiday in China when she gave birth? Would that make you Chinese!?
Having said that, Mikel Arteta is very much a Spaniard and would love to play for Spain. Let's hope he gets the call-up he deserves.
28 Posted 14/08/2010 at 13:25:10
29 Posted 14/08/2010 at 13:19:43
And who thought of them as" England's B Team"? The English media, that's who. Usual patronising shite. Nobody in Ireland thought of them as " England's B Team".
And "brief moments of decency on the world stage"? Forgotten about the 2002 World Cup?We've had a lot more moments of decency than the indecent football team that calls itself 'England,'who failed to even qualify for the 1994 World Cup.>
30 Posted 14/08/2010 at 13:47:04
Start a chat about Arteta then we are verbally bashing each other about our own national teams.
Can't see the point in this subject as it is quite obvious that Arteta will only play for Spain. End of - it's a bit like asking Gerrard to play for Cyprus, that's the probable equivalent of the drop Arteta would take playing for England (instead of Espana).
31 Posted 14/08/2010 at 13:45:57
As for Barnes and Hargreaves, they shouldn't have played for England as they were not born in England.
Brendan, how many of the great Irish teams were born in Ireland?
Ray Houghton - Scotland
John Aldridge - England
Kevin Kilbane - England
Tony Cascarino - England, Paul McGrath - England,
Andy Townsend - England
Kevin Sheedy - Wales
To me you shouldn't be able to pick and choose who you play for, and place of birth is the only concrete way of determining eligibility.
32 Posted 14/08/2010 at 13:39:11
Also,their "15 minutes of fame," on the world stage was reaching the quarter finals ONCE. And meeting The Pope.
Compared to England's 7 QF appearances,2 Semi's,1 WIN, yes - I would class it as a brief moment of decency, or "greatest moment." But it was achieved by an English manager,with goals from a Glaswegian,and a Scouser, and captained by a boy from Kent. Ridiculous.
Which is why I agree with many here regarding the nationality rule.
33 Posted 14/08/2010 at 14:08:16
34 Posted 14/08/2010 at 14:25:29
Were I any good at football, I take it you'd have me play for Greece?
Arteta issue aside, it is absolutely ludicrous to suggest birthplace is the sole determinant of nationality.
35 Posted 14/08/2010 at 14:29:27
You like the "place of birth = nationality, no ifs or buts" rule because it suits England and gives them an advantage, that's all.
Thanks for demeaning our World Cup QF appearance Kevin, as if it had nothing to do with any Irishman at all. Typical English attitude, fortunately not held by all.
36 Posted 14/08/2010 at 14:36:13
Ciarán's and Paul's points are valid
Bruce Rioch, Richard Gough etc...tell them they're not Scottish
My passport says nationality: British
For most of us Scousers it could say : Mongrel
37 Posted 14/08/2010 at 14:41:54
Much as I would like to agree with you Steve, the reality is somewhat different.
38 Posted 14/08/2010 at 15:30:09
39 Posted 14/08/2010 at 15:34:15
40 Posted 14/08/2010 at 15:53:29
41 Posted 14/08/2010 at 16:00:15
42 Posted 14/08/2010 at 16:44:56
Isn't that pejorative? And therefore contradictory?
43 Posted 14/08/2010 at 21:12:49
Fuck me, it didn't work! I'd love to play for the Irish National team.
Seriously Kevin... c'mon man.
44 Posted 15/08/2010 at 02:42:21
45 Posted 15/08/2010 at 02:46:09
46 Posted 15/08/2010 at 03:37:41
That would make England reaching the QFs of Euro 2004 and WC 2006 equally ridiculous then, as they were managed by a Swede.
Even more ridiculous is that they failed to qualify for Euro 2008 when they were managed by an Englishman, and were an indecently embarrassment at WC 2010 when they were managed by an Italian.
It would also mean that the children of the masses of Irish who emigrated to the UK during the last century, would not have the right to represent what they feel is their native country.
47 Posted 15/08/2010 at 09:33:12
Arteta shouldn't be eligible to play for England/Scotland simply because he's been a UK resident for 8 years.
We're talking about "flags of convenience," here. The "Plastic Paddies'," who played for Ireland did so because they weren't good enough for England. And there was such a paucity of actual Irish talent that they took on a tenuous truck-load of them to "represent," the country.
The Irish diaspora in England DOES have to right to represent this country. Stop twisting.
48 Posted 15/08/2010 at 10:03:16
Place of birth has little to do with it in some cases.
I was born in Singapore to 2 English parents, I never had the desire to play for Singapore. Although I did consider it when it became apparent I'd never get a game for England.
49 Posted 15/08/2010 at 10:33:15
Ireland's finest moments on the international stage:
1990. 12 English born and raised players: Morris, McCarthy, McGrath*, Aldridge, Cascarino, Townsend, Hughton, Sheridan, D Kelly, Byrne, McLoughlin & Peyton. 2 Scots: Houghton & Slaven, and 1 Welshman: Sheedy. (15 ringers in a 22-man squad)
1994. 14 English this time! Phelan, Townsend, Aldridge, Cascarino, Sheridan, McGrath*, McLoughlin, Babb, McGoldrick, David Kelly, Alan Kelly, Kernaghan, McAteer. 2 Scots: Tommy Coyne & Ray Houghton. (16 ringers in a 22-man squad)
2002: Kiely, Kelly, O'Brien, McAteer, Holland, Kilbane, Carsley, Morrison, Reid & Connolly. (10 English in a 22-man squad).
In the interests of balance, I also refer all to the English cricket team. Spot the Englishman!! The 5-year rule is ridiculous.
* = Grew up in Ireland.
50 Posted 15/08/2010 at 11:41:52
51 Posted 15/08/2010 at 14:16:13
Similar situation with some Bosnian players, Misimovic grew up in Germany and Pjanic could've represented, I believe, France or Luxembourg, but felt a strong tie to Bosnia.
52 Posted 15/08/2010 at 14:20:10
You seem to be contradicting yourself.
On one hand you produce a list of non-Irish born players who went to the 3 World Cups you mention, to support your case that the residency rule is 'ridiculous'.
On the other hand you say "The Irish diaspora in England DOES have to right to represent this country." Do you mean England? When I said "would not have the right to represent what they feel is their native country," I was referring to Ireland. Perhaps you mis-read what I said.
You use the fact that Ireland had an English manager in an attempt to undervalue Ireland's achievements at World Cups. You then conveniently fail to mention that England have also had foreign managers at World Cups.
Several posters have given examples of how they would not be considered English under the rules as you would have them, as they were born outside the UK. There seems to me to be an overlap in the 'residency rule' vis-a-vis Arteta's scenario, and the situation where a player chooses to play for the country of birth of his parents. As you would have it, players whose parents are of African origin, would not be able to play for that country, despite that they might feel it to be their natural country of heritage. That can't be right. It would mean that if Wayne Rooney had popped out while his parents were away for the weekend, in say Dublin, he could not represent England.
Players should not be penalised just because their parents decided to move to a bigger/wealthier country for economic reasons, as many have done over the years. They might not be good enough to play for their 'new' country, as the competition would be harder with the country having a larger population. There is nothing wrong with them then representing their 'original' country despite the fact that they were not born there, which is what happened in the Ireland scenario.
53 Posted 15/08/2010 at 16:39:30
Don't get me wrong, I love him when he's on form, but honestly, how often is that?
54 Posted 15/08/2010 at 15:46:57
Posts 49, 47, 32 & 24 all repeat the same basic premise, and any contradiction lies solely in your head. Just so we're clear, I'll walk you through it another time:
Although the Fifa rules may allow Arteta the right to represent a UK side, I wouldn't be in favour of it, because I couldn't class him as British. What's not to understand?
If I emigrated to the Federated States of Micronesia tomorrow, in 2015 I would be eligible to represent that country in professional football. Doesn't that strike you as ridiculous?
Also, I don't "conveniently" fail to mention that England have had foreign managers at World Cups, as managerial nationality doesn't detract from my argument. For the record, I'd always prefer an English manager... but, Owen Hargreaves aside, the PLAYERS who participated, were English.
I did in fact mis-read your point about the "children of the masses of Irish who emigrated to the UK", but simply citing that your granny once shagged an Irishman 150 years ago doesn't neccesarily make you Irish ? hence the pejorative phrase "Plastic Paddy."
"There is nothing wrong with them representing their original country." Let's take that argument further, by paleoanthropologically analysing the players mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosomes, only to find that everyone's eligible to play for Eritrea, and that every player on the planet should at least represent an East African country!
Facetiousness aside, of the 66 squad players who starred in Ireland's 90, 94 & 02 campaigns, 34 were not Irish. That's over half! Had they been good enough to play for England, with the probable exception of Houghton, McGrath and one or two others, they would have done so, so let's not kid ourselves. Since better players were chosen to wear the 3 Lions, they looked towards their lineage, instead.
Ireland has produced good players, but had it produced more, then it wouldn't need to look into the ancestral records of 2nd, 3rd, 4th & 5th generation Anglo-Irish players in order to put out a barely half-decent team. And in the case of Cascarino, not even bother.
So it's thanks, in part, to that predominantly ENGLISH core, that "Ireland" have had limited success. Without them, that country would have remained largely unscrutinised on the world stage.
55 Posted 15/08/2010 at 17:56:16
No, I'm not making any sense to you Kevin, because you fail to understand the concept of playing for the country of your parents. Most other posters seem to disagree with you, so maybe you should take the blinkers off. And comparing me to Fr Dougal and the cows is insulting and patronising in the extreme, which is in keeping with you other comments.
I tried to make a distinction between 'residency' and 'parentage', which you obviously can't grasp. Your point about residency is a valid one. Your point about having to actually be born in the country you play for is not. It's simple. Try to understand.
56 Posted 15/08/2010 at 19:55:49
If Ireland wants our second-rate rejects, it's welcome to take them. But deep down surely it's a hollow "flag of convenience," isn't it?
57 Posted 15/08/2010 at 23:21:48
Aldridge was not going to get into the England team in front of Lineker and Beardsley. What's wrong with him wanting to play for Ireland?
In other cases, the player might actually PREFER to play for the other country. Geoff cites some examples of Bosnian players in post #51.
Also Victor Anichebe. OK I know he was actually born in Nigeria and moved to Merseyside as a toddler, but that didn't make any difference under the present ruling; he could have played for Nigeria anyway because of his parentage. However, he chose to play for them because he felt a natural affiliation to that country. Under the 'you can only play for the country you were actually born in' rule that you would like, he would not have been eligible to play for England, despite having lived on Merseyside for almost his whole life. Nor could Paul McGrath ever have played for Ireland.
We took your 'second-rate rejects' as you describe them. You would be hard pressed to find a performance by the likes of Townsend or Houghton where they didn't give everything for the Ireland shirt. In fact they gave your 'first-rate rejects' a few very difficult games, famously beating them in Euro '88. Happy days.
58 Posted 16/08/2010 at 00:02:19
That's so small time.
If Victor was any good,I'd be happy for him to play for England,for the same reason I put an asterix next to McGrath.But clearly he "chose," to play for them because he'd never get within a million miles of England-and because he WAS born there.
In the case for Aldridge,what would he have done if England had come calling? Exactly. But always good to have a back-up plan..
Look,I don't have a problem with Anglo-Irish players feeling affection for their ancestral home,I just don't think someone ought to be allowed to swap their colours,and play for a country after just 5 years living there.
But the entire discussion's moot,as Arteta's on record as being uninterested anyway. I'm ready to move on..
59 Posted 16/08/2010 at 00:32:35
Exactly. But he would not have been able to play for England even if he was good enough, under the rule of being able to only play for your country of birth.
England have a larger pool of players than most, and should not have the rules made to suit them, and not other smaller countries, that's the point.
But you are right about Arteta. It would not make sense to see a player who is a Basque and would clearly prefer to play for Spain, play for England. I hope he never goes near them. Time to move on.
60 Posted 16/08/2010 at 01:10:51
I just have an issue with the 5-year rule.
Seriously, Brendan. Are we done? Yawn...
61 Posted 16/08/2010 at 02:49:01
Still enjoyed that Sheedy equaliser against England in Italia '90 though....
62 Posted 16/08/2010 at 09:23:42
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment to the MailBag, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.