Team Quasi-Australia

On the same sports show as mentioned in the other threads they also interviewed this netballing woman. She was talking about how they were going to start importing players from overseas to play in the Australian netball league (I think). This got me thinking, especially when combined with the latest airing of the Indian cricket league on TV.

So, what are peoples’ thoughts on the effects this may have on international team identity, if any. No doubt it will improve the performance of the players, but I’m more interesting in the idea that it almost makes no sense to have international teams anymore; players may play most of the year in another country, and even live in that country, and then join together and pretend to be representative of some single identity. And, more to the point, how is it supposed to be ‘this country’s best vs your country’s best’ when the players spend the majority of their time playing against and with players from various nations at the same time (in fact most players would spend all their time—outside of national games—doing this).
Surely the only thing that can be tied to a country, in terms of it being responsible for producing something, would be the league, and the players it begets, in that particular country. This is the only thing, seemingly, that could be compared between countries: “I’ll pit the best that can come out of my league against what you can produce in yours”. If a player from one country plays in another’s league then how can he/she even be considered to represent the country he/she was previously from? Why not, like in any other league, have countries buy the players that they want, adding yet another juicy level of ridiculousness to the already existing tower and bringing the whole farce full circle.

“Wooo go Australia! go Ronaldo! go Giggsie! go Fabre...go Frenchie!”

I would support that team.

It already exists- in Europe (For example) we have the UEFA Cup, Heinichen (I think that's spelled wrong) cup and various other champions leagues. these are the "Best a team/country can buy" vs the same. i think that people like to compete for the country they were born in (Obviously there are some who change citizenship to play for another nation- but we're talking the norm, not the exceptions). they may live in another country, because that's where they can be paid sufficiently for their skills, and get the recognition they deserve- but they still hold an allegiance to their native country. I don't think that's wrong, i think it's what comes naturally- the same as people who move to a new country would like to keep their own national identity alive (i.e. people speaking their native tongue at home, eating native foods, etc. but still learning the newer language, abiding by the rules of that country, being open to the other culture, etc).

anywho- Here's to another long winded discourse Andy!

Fabregas is Spanish.

Proper response later, maybe.

Marc wrote:Fabregas is Spanish.

Damnit! I was questioning that when, and after, I was writing it. But I thought: "nah, isn't that Torres dude the spanish one? Yeah I think so, this guy must be the french dude, I know there's a French dude. Are you sure? He must be, if not him then who? Who's the French guy?" and so it wen—Van Persy! Ah crap!

Real response also later. Hold your pants on Glen. (Nice comment though, yea yea, good talk)

Van Persie is Dutch.

Marc wrote:Van Persie is Dutch.

...no way. When'd he do that?... crazy sucka.

Since birf.

Yo.

Glenjamin wrote:It already exists

Is it global though? Do the teams actually represent nations?

Glenjamin wrote:Ii think that people like to compete for the country they were born in

I totally agree. But what I was more referring to was what it means to have people play in a nations team; do we barrack for Australia because they represent 'us', or because they're just a team we like and can. And therefor could we just as likely support another national team for the same reasons?

Marc wrote:Since birf.

I reckon you're confused. I meant Van PersY, you know, the French guy. Not Van Persie...

Andrew.C wrote:

Glenjamin wrote:It already exists

Is it global though? Do the teams actually represent nations?

Glenjamin wrote:Ii think that people like to compete for the country they were born in

I totally agree. But what I was more referring to was what it means to have people play in a nations team; do we barrack for Australia because they represent 'us', or because they're just a team we like and can. And therefor could we just as likely support another national team for the same reasons?

It depends how strong your sense of identity is with the team. I love this country so I feel good about supporting the national team; it's not particularly rational.

Whereas in the upcoming Euros I'll be supporting Portugal because I like Ronaldo and Nani and they play attacking football, but it's hardly the same visceral support I feel for Australia (or Manchester United).

Marc wrote:in the upcoming Euros I'll be supporting Portugal

So wait, can you clear this up for me: Is the Euros that tournament that just focuses on Europe, or something, kinda like the one Australia enters in and plays against the Asian countries? In other words, are the players in the Portugal team all 'Portugese' (whatever that means) or could they pay Giggsie to play for them?

Marc wrote:It depends how strong your sense of identity is with the team. I love this country so I feel good about supporting the national team; it's not particularly rational.

That's cool. I would never suggest you change your support, indeed I could not, that's just my point since there's isn't any reason to go one way or the other as you just mentioned. But, I say this: Identity with the team? Where is it that this Identity comes from? This was also the point I was trying—failing—to articulate. Does it originate from the fact that a particular team is called "The Australian team"? I doubt it, since we could obviously call any other team by that name, thus destroying the link, I would presume. So where else? Maybe it's that the players are Australian; but now that leads to the immediate question of what it means to be Australian. Birth in the country? Live(d) in the country? What I’m trying to get at is how does it follow from saying “I love this country, therefore I’m going to support the team with the same name.” Why couldn’t we say “I love Australia (or whatever other country), therefore I’m going to support Belorussia, since the link between a country and the team that’s supposed to ‘represent’ it is tenuous, at best.

Andrew.C wrote:

Marc wrote:in the upcoming Euros I'll be supporting Portugal

So wait, can you clear this up for me: Is the Euros that tournament that just focuses on Europe, or something, kinda like the one Australia enters in and plays against the Asian countries? In other words, are the players in the Portugal team all 'Portugese' (whatever that means) or could they pay Giggsie to play for them?

Yes, they're all Portuguese. The Euros is exactly like the Asian Cup that Australia plays in (just twice as big because of the respective size of the federations, 32 teams instead of 16).

Well, the qualification to be "Australian" is to have a passport and to have never played for another international senior side. I know that's not what you're asking exactly, though.

I thought it was to have full citizenship rather than just a passport (though i may just be playing semantics). I go for Australia because i live here, they are the "national side" and on top of that- even though they play overseas, most of them grew up playing locally, some were chosen to go to academies and the like overseas, but they are still "local blokes".

Not sure if this has any relevance, but maybe some people go for the local team because "it could have been them"? what i mean is they go for the team they have some part in- distantly though it is. Marc and i both pay fees to the FFA, so in a twisted long distance way we ARE part of the same organization as the Socceroos, and i think that plays on the minds of some. (pun not intended).

but what it boils down to for me is that i was born in Australia, and i do like this country (most of the time), so i barrack for this national side. it is made up of native (european) Australians, it plays an Australian style of Football (i.e. aggressive and frantic), and i have more chance of watching them play live than say Zambia or England.

Is it Rational? in my own mind yes, you may see it differently...

No, you don't need full citizenship. Hargreaves could have played for either Canada, England or Germany.

What fees do you pay to the FFA? Do you mean for Saturday football?

But what does it mean to be Australian? in a technical sense Marc's right, to have some sort of citizenship. but i think it's a much more profound thing than that, it's probably got a lot to do with wanting to be identified as part of that nation, being based there (even if you live overseas), having familial ties (which relates to the last point i think).

Lots of things, to lots of different people.

yeah- part of our fees go to the FFA (not a big part, but a part none the less)

Thanks for clearing up these two points.

Marc wrote:Yes, they're all Portuguese.

The Euros doesn’t qualify for what I was saying then.

Marc wrote:to be "Australian" is to have a passport

Which raises another question I have for you: what makes you eligible for a passport?

Glenjamin wrote:i live here

So we start of with: you living locally, they are the national side, and so you support them. So somewhere in there would be the suggestion that there exists a link between the team and the country. I'll use the one you provided: It’s made up of Australians.

This is the fundamental point and I’ll try link it in with the last post you made.

How to be an Australian:
1. You got to want it. Well, I think this qualifies anyone, anywhere, anytime. (sorry, but it was too good an opportunity to let by)
2. Be based here. See below. (As you mentioned)
3. Have familial ties. This is the interesting one. Doing a quick Wikipedia search (Marc/Alex feel free to correct any of these ‘stats’) tells us that 10 out of 18 of the players in our national side have parents born in another country. 10! That’s more than half, and that was only the ones that actually had information on their parents heritage, I suspect the number would have risen slightly if there was more information.
Then we move onto another statistic on there: there are 10 players who could have played for Australia, but chose to play for other national teams. If they all played for one team, e.g. Zambia, could we not consider them the Australian team?

When we also consider the “grew up locally” aspect, I think we find most of them had been picked up by overseas teams at around the mid-teen years, where afterwards, presumably, they would have learnt a lot of their skill.

Australian style football? Perhaps, though, as discussed above, there would seem to be little Australian influence.

I’m not sure what to say about the whole being part of the FFA except to say that yes, I agree, it probably does “play on the minds” of people.

I guess a lot of the above statistics are peculiar to our team due to our multicultural situation and because of the relative infancy of our football league, so this is probably less significant in other national teams.

They have parents born in another country, these parents moved to Australia and raised a family, like my dad.

Immigants!

Basically, then, I've realised you're talking about the Champion's League, in a way, and asking if such a tournament exists as a global thing with nations instead of countries.

There isn't one.

Marc wrote:Immigants!

I knew it was those immigants!

Marc wrote:Basically, then, I've realised you're talking about the Champion's League, in a way, and asking if such a tournament exists as a global thing with nations instead of countries.

Yeah, where a national team buys players from around the globe.

Marc wrote:There isn't one.

Precisely.

So where is our discussion now heading? Is it just going to trail off there... I think we've answered the original (and subsequent) questions. Is that it?

Glenjamin wrote:Is that it?

Mmmm, I guess... I mean, you could add something else if you want. I don't mind.

Here's something else!

So I was just watching the table tennis, and Australia was in it. Or was it?! (Oooo) The 'Australian' guy moved to Sweden when he was 14 and trained there (I assume). Then, I see him take a time-out during the game and go talk to his coach... who is also from Sweden! And they start discussing game plans... in Swedish!!!

Where is the 'Australian' in this equation? I wouldn't be surprised if the only reason he came to the Australian team was because he didn't make it into the Swedish one. Even though he seemed to beat the Swedish guy he was versing (I'm not sure, I didn't watch the end of it, because the BMX came on).