It isn't odd for me, perhaps I didn't make it clear enough. Italy, France and England are countries that I wouldn't go for while having the option of Ghana because I would not be confident of having successful careers with them. Where as with teams like Brazil and Spain, I am. Surely in a footballer's career his main objective would be to be as successful as possible. Even at club level. Say you supported Leeds from 'birth' and they are your favorite club. But you got offers from Leeds, Arsenal and Manchester United. You would be unlikely to choose Leeds because you want as much success as possible and want to go as far as possible. I'm not saying Italy, France etc.. are bad teams, But if you have the chance to play for a country that goes into every competition a favorite then it makes more sense to choose them.
With Ghana thrown in, I'd rather play for them because my other eligibility wouldn't be likely to have success anyway. And it would be more satisfying playing with people from your origins.
Another point, with the Englishman thing I'd like to ask a quick question. If Welbeck chose Ghana, would English fans be booing him and shouting traitor? No they wouldn't I think in a case of Country of birth vs Country of origin, Country of origin is the only one you can choose to minimize the consequences
---------- Post added at 12:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 PM ----------
6 coaches if you count interim, 4 if you dont. Which is because we often put a lot of pressure on managers. Our organisation isn't unstable or corrupt, people simply leave because they can't handle the pressure