World Cup 2018

[Nearly Sane]

I have a vague thought that a none of the above country should be allowed in - made up of players from teams that didn't make it. or players not selected for those that did.

[Maeght]

Why?

[Nearly Sane]

Because I think of Giggs and Best. Because I think a non national team would be an interesting challenge to the flags. Because it would be fun

[Maeght]

Not good enough reasons to fundamentally change the nature of the tournament in my view.

[Nearly Sane]

Not good enough reasons to fundamentally change the nature of the tournament in my view.

Surely it should be about the best football? Not the best flag? And challenging that and having George Best play at it would be worthwhile if you want a WORLD cup and involve people? The vast majority of people in the world have no team in Russia if flags are important - let's give them one.

[Maeght]

Surely it should be about the best football? Not the best flag? And challenging that and having George Best play at it would be worthwhile if you want a WORLD cup and involve people? The vast majority of people in the world have no team in Russia if flags are important - let's give them one.

Its a tournament for senior men's national teams who are members of Fifa, not about individuals. Nothing to do with flags either.

[jeremyp]

Interesting idea. I often feel sorry for the great players from nations that are otherwise rubbish, people like, as you say, Ryan Giggs and most conspicuously, George Best.

On the other hand, the World Cup is run by corrupt officials and is being hosted in a gangster state that bribed its way to winning the bid. Frankly, we should consider giving it the cold shoulder.

[Rhiannon]

Interesting idea. I often feel sorry for the great players from nations that are otherwise rubbish, people like, as you say, Ryan Giggs and most conspicuously, George Best.

On the other hand, the World Cup is run by corrupt officials and is being hosted in a gangster state that bribed its way to winning the bid. Frankly, we should consider giving it the cold shoulder.

Agree. Can’t abide international football at the moment.

[Nearly Sane]

Interesting idea. I often feel sorry for the great players from nations that are otherwise rubbish, people like, as you say, Ryan Giggs and most conspicuously, George Best.

On the other hand, the World Cup is run by corrupt officials and is being hosted in a gangster state that bribed its way to winning the bid. Frankly, we should consider giving it the cold shoulder.

I wouldn't mind that but then I think we need to not sell arms to gangster states.

[jeremyp]

I wouldn't mind that but then I think we need to not sell arms to gangster states.

Speak for yourself, I don’t sell arms to gangster states - or anybody in fact.

[Nearly Sane]

Speak for yourself, I don’t sell arms to gangster states - or anybody in fact.

As a UK citizen your govt does. You know the point but if you want to indulge in vacuous evasion, but you want to hug yourself and go 'oh, what a good boy am!'

[jeremyp]

As a UK citizen your govt does. You know the point but if you want to indulge in vacuous evasion, but you want to hug yourself and go 'oh, what a good boy am!'

No I actually said what I said as an alternative to pointing out that you were indulging in whataboutism.

[Nearly Sane]

No I actually said what I said as an alternative to pointing out that you were indulging in whataboutism.

You don't really understand whataboutism, do you?

[ProfessorDavey]

Because I think of Giggs ...

Giggs could have chosen to play for England, and had he done so would undoubtedly have been a part of a number of major tournaments. England might even have done credibly in some of those tournaments.

However the moment he chose Wales over England he had effectively ruled himself out of major tournament finals. Michael Owen made an alternative choice.

[Nearly Sane]

Giggs could have chosen to play for England, and had he done so would undoubtedly have been a part of a number of major tournaments. England might even have done credibly in some of those tournaments.

However the moment he chose Wales over England he had effectively ruled himself out of major tournament finals. Michael Owen made an alternative choice.

Does that matter to the point? did you need to do the part quote on order to ignore it by arguing the specific case?

[jeremyp]

You don't really understand whataboutism, do you?

I say the World Cup is corrupt, hosted in a gangster state and we should have nothing to do with it. You say “but what about selling arms to gangster states”?

I understand whataboutism perfectly thank you.

[Nearly Sane]

I say the World Cup is corrupt, hosted in a gangster state and we should have nothing to do with it. You say “but what about selling arms to gangster states”?

I understand whataboutism perfectly thank you.

Except I am not saying you are wrong, just maybe taking  a hypocritical position, ergo you don't get whataboutism m as you have just demonstrated.

[ProfessorDavey]

Does that matter to the point? did you need to do the part quote on order to ignore it by arguing the specific case?

All I was doing was making the point that the reason why we never saw Ryan Giggs in an England shirt (except at schoolboy level), and therefore not at a major tournament, was basically down to his choice. No idea about George Best (your other example) although that was a rather different era.

But on your broader point, no I don't think there should be a team made up from the best players from countries that didn't qualify. Seems to me there are two approaches to teams - first club football, where (provided you have sufficient resources and perhaps the right scouting) you can put together any team you like regardless of nationality. Secondly international football, where each team is limited to picking only players qualified to play for that team. I really enjoy both, each brings different challenges for management, selection etc, but you can't mix the two. It is one or the other.

Sure you could have some pointless one-off friendly but that's the sort of contrived approach other sports tend to adopt, perhaps because they aren't confident of their 'product', but football doesn't need to do that.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, I know it is 'one thing or another ' for you, that isn't an argument as to if it is a good idea. Not sure about why your last paragraph makes any sense given it is a straw man.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, I know it is 'one thing or another ' for you, that isn't an argument as to if it is a good idea.

Yes it is an argument as to why it isn't a good idea. Not being in favour of a 'mixed economy' for player eligibility for different teams in the same tournament seems to be a perfectly reasonably argument against.

For exactly the same reason you wouldn't want a tournament where some teams are restricted to under 21s, while others can pick players of any age.

Not sure about why your last paragraph makes any sense given it is a straw man.

My point being that other sports have this type of approach - I think cricket had at least one England or Australia vs rest of the world series over the years. And rugby has the regular nonsense (in my opinion) that is the Lions tour. Both seem totally contrived and based on a fundamental premise that some teams or countries simply aren't good enough to compete on a level playing field.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes it is an argument as to why it isn't a good idea. Not being in favour of a 'mixed economy' for player eligibility for different teams in the same tournament seems to be a perfectly reasonably argument against.

For exactly the same reason you wouldn't want a tournament where some teams are restricted to under 21s, while others can pick players of any age.
My point being that other sports have this type of approach - I think cricket had at least one England or Australia vs rest of the world series over the years. And rugby has the regular nonsense (in my opinion) that is the Lions tour. Both seem totally contrived and based on a fundamental premise that some teams or countries simply aren't good enough to compete on a level playing field.

I note your obsession with nationality as important vs a more internationalist view point.

[ProfessorDavey]

I note your obsession with nationality as important vs a more internationalist view point.

Not at all - it is just one way to define eligibility for a team - there is, of course, another way as we see in club football, where you can select players from anywhere - a truly international approach, as we see currently in the Premier league. And great football it provides. But you can't mix the economy - effectively restricting some teams to only picking players from their own country while allowing another team to pick from anywhere.

In my view there is a place for both the club approach (where there are no fundamental restrictions) and the nation team approach (where there are fundamental restrictions) as each provides distinct challenges to creating a great team. What you can't do is mix and match.

[Nearly Sane]

Not at all - it is just one way to define eligibility for a team - there is, of course, another way as we see in club football, where you can select players from anywhere - a truly international approach, as we see currently in the Premier league. And great football it provides. But you can't mix the economy - effectively restricting some teams to only picking players from their own country while allowing another team to pick from anywhere.

In my view there is a place for both the club approach (where there are no fundamental restrictions) and the nation team approach (where there are fundamental restrictions) as each provides distinct challenges to creating a great team. What you can't do is mix and match.

Why not? Other than your own nationalist bias?

[ProfessorDavey]

Why not? Other than your own nationalist bias?

There is no nationalist bias or I wouldn't be in favour of club football.

Here is another compelling argument against. That of conflict of interest for individual players. Currently the only way for a player to play in a finals tournament is for them to be part of a team that qualifies, and likely they will contribute. Under your approach a world class player knows they will be going to the finals regardless of how their nation performs in the qualifying tournament. Indeed some players might prefer to be picked in a 'best of the rest' team as it may be far more competitive in the finals than their own nation. So they might not be bothered about helping their national team qualify, or even might actively ensure they don't qualify to give them the best chance of a winners medal.

This would become even worse if you allowed non-selected players from qualifying teams to be part of the 'best of the rest' - so a great player makes themselves unavailable for selection for their qualifying national team to ensure they can be selected for the 'best of the rest' along with great players from other teams unlikely to come close to the sharp end of the tournament. So, in effect, asset stripping the best players from teams good enough to qualify but not good enough to progress far.

[Nearly Sane]

I note your evasion that nationalism is the important thing. Any player not trying to qualify would do damage to their own chance of selection so your argument is specious as well as a bizarre piece of conspiracy theory.