I accept that a UK team would have a better chance to win a cup but as I have said previously, winning is not everything.
Ok, so if losing was the plan, it has worked brilliantly over the last 50 years.
Now, now, let's not get silly. If winning is everything, why don't we all support France or whoever is best at any time.
Would you rather play for Wales (or UK) and not win a trophy or play for another country and win something?
I have to follow what is in my heart and what I believe is right.
Through thick and thin ( mostly thin).
You cant really have it both ways. You cant on the one hand argue that it was a great buzz to see Wales doing so unexpectedly well in the last Euros, and then say it is still motivational for them to qualify for two tournaments in 60 years. We are all British, and most people get behind the British team in the Olympics for instance. Yet football is strange in comparison. If you went into a pub in Glasgow, or Cardiff when England were playing football, then the majority of the occupants would be supporting whoever England were playing, no matter who that was, and would be cheering each time England conceded a goal. This is very strange behaviour as England is part of the UK. When England won the World Cup in 1966, the whole country celebrated, not just the English. The Lions get support from across the UK and Ireland, even though the team includes English players. So you can be Welsh and still support a British team wholeheartedly.
To suggest that we all become French supporters just because they won is really silly, although this sort of mentality does apply to club football on occasion, where supporters switch their allegiance to whoever is winning at the time. Apparently 95% of Man Utd supporters have never been to Old Trafford.
However I don't think this applies to International football.
Winning is not everything, but the England team returned from Russia as heroes, in complete contrast to Brazil. The performance in Brazil didn't make anyone happy or proud.
As far as Wales are concerned there have been two small chinks of light in a very dark tunnel in the last 60 years.
Think you are right re no Scottish players-Tierney not yet ready, Brown/Gordon/McGregor prob past their best. EDIT: Robertson might make it at LB/LWB
Suspect this idea would result in NI joining Ireland rather than UK-as already happens in Rugby and Boxing.
The rest of the world would be delighted if there was a "Team UK" as they have always (understandably) objected to 1 nation (in legal terms) having 4 teams, particularly as qualification becomes ever easier. I remember there being 8 qualifiers for the European competition and 16 for the World Cup.
Love the idea that UK would win trophies-always good to give the rest of the world a good laugh.
PS-re Andy Murray. When he wins, he's British. When he loses, he's Scottish. Simples
Think you are right re no Scottish players-Tierney not yet ready, Brown/Gordon/McGregor prob past their best.
Suspect this idea would result in NI joining Ireland rather than UK-as already happens in Rugby and Boxing.
The rest of the world would be delighted if there was a "Team UK" as they have always (understandably) objected to 1 nation (in legal terms) having 4 teams, particularly as qualification becomes ever easier. I remember there being 8 qualifiers for the European competition and 16 for the World Cup.
Love the idea that UK would win trophies-always good to give the rest of the world a good laugh.
PS-re Andy Murray. When he wins, he's British. When he loses, he's Scottish. Simples
Couldn't disagree about Andy Murray. Don't think you could argue that a UK team would do worse, and in the case of the Lions they do much better than the individual teams.
How many countries play Rugby seriously-10? 15? Easy making a difference when 4 of 10-15 nations band together.
We do not do badly at football, given our size. Far more reason to remain separate now far more qualify-it will be 48 at the next WC. I always struggle to understand why anyone thinks we have some sort of right (or ability) to win World Cups. That said, we really should have come closer to winning a European Cup by now.
I'm English. I'm proud of being English. Population and resources-wise, we dominate the UK. I also have Welsh and Irish roots, and have lived in Scotland. I want Scotland/Wales/NI to retain their status, for all sorts of reasons, but principally finances and retaining identity. Really don't think that should be sacrificed for what would be a small increased chance of winning.
How many non-English UK players would have made a major difference to an England team? As an example, Pat Jennings was a brilliant keeper, but not a great improvement over Banks/Shilton.
Off the top of my head, the only people who would have made a big difference are:-
Dalglish Best Lawrenson (we were always 1 CB short, and it was galling that the English Lawrenson played for ROI) Bale
I'm sure there are others, but not many. Loads that were as good, but not many who were definitely better...
Another couple of examples are rugby league, where we used to only have a GB team, I don't know whats happened since they changed this as I don't watch it much. By far the best example is the Ryder Cup. Lets say that before they changed it from a UK team to a European team, the results weren't anywhere near as close. It must have dramatically increased in popularity and become one of the most popular events on the Sporting calendar. From 1935 to 1977 there were 18 Ryder Cups, the USA won 17 of them, and the UK 1. In the 19 since 1979 when it was changed to a European team, Europe have won 11.
How many countries play Rugby seriously-10? 15? Easy making a difference when 4 of 10-15 nations band together.
We do not do badly at football, given our size. Far more reason to remain separate now far more qualify-it will be 48 at the next WC. I always struggle to understand why anyone thinks we have some sort of right (or ability) to win World Cups. That said, we really should have come closer to winning a European Cup by now.
I'm English. I'm proud of being English. Population and resources-wise, we dominate the UK. I also have Welsh and Irish roots, and have lived in Scotland. I want Scotland/Wales/NI to retain their status, for all sorts of reasons, but principally finances and retaining identity. Really don't think that should be sacrificed for what would be a small increased chance of winning.
How many non-English UK players would have made a major difference to an England team? As an example, Pat Jennings was a brilliant keeper, but not a great improvement over Banks/Shilton.
Off the top of my head, the only people who would have made a big difference are:-
Dalglish Best Lawrenson (we were always 1 CB short, and it was galling that the English Lawrenson played for ROI) Bale
I'm sure there are others, but not many. Loads that were as good, but not many who were definitely better...
Just Welsh ones in my lifetime,
off the top of my head what about,
John Charles, Ryan Giggs, Gary Speed, Ian Rush, Mark Hughes, Ivor Allchurch, Kevin Radcliffe
A couple of jocks,
Dennis Law, Graeme Souness, Billy Bremner, Gordon Strachan, Gary McAllister, Colin Hendry, Archie Gemmill, Martin Buchan, Gordon McQueen, John Wark, Steve Archibald, Joe Jordan, Alan Hansen,
If you include both Irelands,
Liam Brady, John Aldridge, Roy Keane, Johnny Giles, David Oleary, Steve Staunton, Ronnie Whelan, Roy Houghton, Danny Blanchflower, Paul McGrath, Derek Dougan, Sammy McIlroy, Terry Neill, Norman Whiteside.
John Charles, Ryan Giggs, Gary Speed, Ian Rush, Mark Hughes, Ivor Allchurch, Kevin Radcliffe
A couple of jocks,
Dennis Law, Graeme Souness, Billy Bremner, Gordon Strachan, Gary McAllister, Colin Hendry, Archie Gemmill, Martin Buchan, Gordon McQueen, John Wark, Steve Archibald, Joe Jordan, Alan Hansen,
If you include both Irelands,
Liam Brady, John Aldridge, Roy Keane, Johnny Giles, David Oleary, Steve Staunton, Ronnie Whelan, Roy Houghton, Danny Blanchflower, Paul McGrath, Derek Dougan, Sammy McIlroy, Terry Neill, Norman Whiteside.
It's all a matter of opinion.
The players you mention are all fine players, who would grace any team-the key is whether they were substantially better than the English equivalent at the time.
You must be a little older than me-I never saw Charles or Blanchflower, or Law at his peak.
In the 80s/90s England had plenty of commanding centre halves-think Butcher or Adams. The smaller quicker centre halves were not of the same quality. That is why (for me) fine players like Hansen or McQueen would not improve the then England like, say, Lawrenson. Ratcliffe and Willie Miller would also have improved the England of the day.
Until the last 5 years, England always had lots of good central midfielders. So did Scotland, as your list shows. If I was to pick 1, it would be Souness. The stand-out wide player would be Giggs-the forward Rush.
You can't have ROI players-always will be a totally different country.
There would be a lot more debate re who should be in the squad were it Team UK (or GB). Not sure that the starting 11 would be much stronger, and a bigger risk of factions within the squad. At any 1 time, I think England, Scotland or Wales are about as likely to win the World Cup as the UK. Not very likely....
John Charles, Ryan Giggs, Gary Speed, Ian Rush, Mark Hughes, Ivor Allchurch, Kevin Radcliffe
A couple of jocks,
Dennis Law, Graeme Souness, Billy Bremner, Gordon Strachan, Gary McAllister, Colin Hendry, Archie Gemmill, Martin Buchan, Gordon McQueen, John Wark, Steve Archibald, Joe Jordan, Alan Hansen,
If you include both Irelands,
Liam Brady, John Aldridge, Roy Keane, Johnny Giles, David Oleary, Steve Staunton, Ronnie Whelan, Roy Houghton, Danny Blanchflower, Paul McGrath, Derek Dougan, Sammy McIlroy, Terry Neill, Norman Whiteside.
It's all a matter of opinion.
The players you mention are all fine players, who would grace any team-the key is whether they were substantially better than the English equivalent at the time.
You must be a little older than me-I never saw Charles or Blanchflower, or Law at his peak.
In the 80s/90s England had plenty of commanding centre halves-think Butcher or Adams. The smaller quicker centre halves were not of the same quality. That is why (for me) fine players like Hansen or McQueen would not improve the then England like, say, Lawrenson. Ratcliffe and Willie Miller would also have improved the England of the day.
Until the last 5 years, England always had lots of good central midfielders. So did Scotland, as your list shows. If I was to pick 1, it would be Souness. The stand-out wide player would be Giggs-the forward Rush.
You can't have ROI players-always will be a totally different country.
There would be a lot more debate re who should be in the squad were it Team UK (or GB). Not sure that the starting 11 would be much stronger, and a bigger risk of factions within the squad. At any 1 time, I think England, Scotland or Wales are about as likely to win the World Cup as the UK. Not very likely....
Whatever we say is very much conjecture. However, during my lifetime there have been many occasions when England have been a player or two short of a very good squad. This has resulted many times in the manager playing a number of players out of position, with poor results. For much of the time that Ryan Giggs was playing England must have wished he had chosen to play for them.
To say that some of the above players wouldn't get in, because of England having a player to cover their position, doesn't take account of injuries.
The whole point of this debate was to illustrate that we don't treat sports in any consistent way, and to ask the question why. If we have UK teams for some sports, why not all of them?
England just got to the World Cup semis, would Gareth Bale and a couple of others made a difference?
The record of all the individual nations is poor in all competitions. Shouldn't we try to improve this if we can.
They gave up on the old home nations games because they weren't very good.
If the country gets fully behind the Lions why wouldn't they get behind a UK football team
Comments
Particularly as I believe that a hypothetical UK team currently would have no Scottish or Irish players.
You cant on the one hand argue that it was a great buzz to see Wales doing so unexpectedly well in the last Euros, and then say it is still motivational for them to qualify for two tournaments in 60 years.
We are all British, and most people get behind the British team in the Olympics for instance.
Yet football is strange in comparison. If you went into a pub in Glasgow, or Cardiff when England were playing football, then the majority of the occupants would be supporting whoever England were playing, no matter who that was, and would be cheering each time England conceded a goal.
This is very strange behaviour as England is part of the UK.
When England won the World Cup in 1966, the whole country celebrated, not just the English.
The Lions get support from across the UK and Ireland, even though the team includes English players. So you can be Welsh and still support a British team wholeheartedly.
To suggest that we all become French supporters just because they won is really silly, although this sort of mentality does apply to club football on occasion, where supporters switch their allegiance to whoever is winning at the time. Apparently 95% of Man Utd supporters have never been to Old Trafford.
However I don't think this applies to International football.
Winning is not everything, but the England team returned from Russia as heroes, in complete contrast to Brazil. The performance in Brazil didn't make anyone happy or proud.
As far as Wales are concerned there have been two small chinks of light in a very dark tunnel in the last 60 years.
Suspect this idea would result in NI joining Ireland rather than UK-as already happens in Rugby and Boxing.
The rest of the world would be delighted if there was a "Team UK" as they have always (understandably) objected to 1 nation (in legal terms) having 4 teams, particularly as qualification becomes ever easier. I remember there being 8 qualifiers for the European competition and 16 for the World Cup.
Love the idea that UK would win trophies-always good to give the rest of the world a good laugh.
PS-re Andy Murray. When he wins, he's British. When he loses, he's Scottish. Simples
Don't think you could argue that a UK team would do worse, and in the case of the Lions they do much better than the individual teams.
We do not do badly at football, given our size. Far more reason to remain separate now far more qualify-it will be 48 at the next WC. I always struggle to understand why anyone thinks we have some sort of right (or ability) to win World Cups. That said, we really should have come closer to winning a European Cup by now.
I'm English. I'm proud of being English. Population and resources-wise, we dominate the UK. I also have Welsh and Irish roots, and have lived in Scotland. I want Scotland/Wales/NI to retain their status, for all sorts of reasons, but principally finances and retaining identity. Really don't think that should be sacrificed for what would be a small increased chance of winning.
How many non-English UK players would have made a major difference to an England team? As an example, Pat Jennings was a brilliant keeper, but not a great improvement over Banks/Shilton.
Off the top of my head, the only people who would have made a big difference are:-
Dalglish
Best
Lawrenson (we were always 1 CB short, and it was galling that the English Lawrenson played for ROI)
Bale
I'm sure there are others, but not many. Loads that were as good, but not many who were definitely better...
By far the best example is the Ryder Cup. Lets say that before they changed it from a UK team to a European team, the results weren't anywhere near as close.
It must have dramatically increased in popularity and become one of the most popular events on the Sporting calendar.
From 1935 to 1977 there were 18 Ryder Cups, the USA won 17 of them, and the UK 1.
In the 19 since 1979 when it was changed to a European team, Europe have won 11.
off the top of my head what about,
John Charles, Ryan Giggs, Gary Speed, Ian Rush, Mark Hughes, Ivor Allchurch, Kevin Radcliffe
A couple of jocks,
Dennis Law, Graeme Souness, Billy Bremner, Gordon Strachan, Gary McAllister, Colin Hendry, Archie Gemmill, Martin Buchan, Gordon McQueen, John Wark, Steve Archibald, Joe Jordan, Alan Hansen,
If you include both Irelands,
Liam Brady, John Aldridge, Roy Keane, Johnny Giles, David Oleary, Steve Staunton, Ronnie Whelan, Roy Houghton, Danny Blanchflower, Paul McGrath, Derek Dougan, Sammy McIlroy, Terry Neill, Norman Whiteside.
You ridiculed me when I said this and then you say the same thing.
Particularly as I believe that a hypothetical UK team currently would have no Scottish or Irish players.
Then tell me which players would get into the first eleven.
When the UK team still don't win, will you be calling for a European football team just so we can win something?
Thanks @Essexphil
You have said, in a little over one sentence, everything that I have spent the last 2 days trying to convey.
I have never been brilliant with words.
I'll get my coat.
off the top of my head what about,
John Charles, Ryan Giggs, Gary Speed, Ian Rush, Mark Hughes, Ivor Allchurch, Kevin Radcliffe
A couple of jocks,
Dennis Law, Graeme Souness, Billy Bremner, Gordon Strachan, Gary McAllister, Colin Hendry, Archie Gemmill, Martin Buchan, Gordon McQueen, John Wark, Steve Archibald, Joe Jordan, Alan Hansen,
If you include both Irelands,
Liam Brady, John Aldridge, Roy Keane, Johnny Giles, David Oleary, Steve Staunton, Ronnie Whelan, Roy Houghton, Danny Blanchflower, Paul McGrath, Derek Dougan, Sammy McIlroy, Terry Neill, Norman Whiteside.
It's all a matter of opinion.
The players you mention are all fine players, who would grace any team-the key is whether they were substantially better than the English equivalent at the time.
You must be a little older than me-I never saw Charles or Blanchflower, or Law at his peak.
In the 80s/90s England had plenty of commanding centre halves-think Butcher or Adams. The smaller quicker centre halves were not of the same quality. That is why (for me) fine players like Hansen or McQueen would not improve the then England like, say, Lawrenson. Ratcliffe and Willie Miller would also have improved the England of the day.
Until the last 5 years, England always had lots of good central midfielders. So did Scotland, as your list shows. If I was to pick 1, it would be Souness. The stand-out wide player would be Giggs-the forward Rush.
You can't have ROI players-always will be a totally different country.
There would be a lot more debate re who should be in the squad were it Team UK (or GB). Not sure that the starting 11 would be much stronger, and a bigger risk of factions within the squad. At any 1 time, I think England, Scotland or Wales are about as likely to win the World Cup as the UK. Not very likely....
Except in regard to the Lions.
And long may it continue.
The players you mention are all fine players, who would grace any team-the key is whether they were substantially better than the English equivalent at the time.
You must be a little older than me-I never saw Charles or Blanchflower, or Law at his peak.
In the 80s/90s England had plenty of commanding centre halves-think Butcher or Adams. The smaller quicker centre halves were not of the same quality. That is why (for me) fine players like Hansen or McQueen would not improve the then England like, say, Lawrenson. Ratcliffe and Willie Miller would also have improved the England of the day.
Until the last 5 years, England always had lots of good central midfielders. So did Scotland, as your list shows. If I was to pick 1, it would be Souness. The stand-out wide player would be Giggs-the forward Rush.
You can't have ROI players-always will be a totally different country.
There would be a lot more debate re who should be in the squad were it Team UK (or GB). Not sure that the starting 11 would be much stronger, and a bigger risk of factions within the squad. At any 1 time, I think England, Scotland or Wales are about as likely to win the World Cup as the UK. Not very likely....
Whatever we say is very much conjecture.
However, during my lifetime there have been many occasions when England have been a player or two short of a very good squad. This has resulted many times in the manager playing a number of players out of position, with poor results.
For much of the time that Ryan Giggs was playing England must have wished he had chosen to play for them.
To say that some of the above players wouldn't get in, because of England having a player to cover their position, doesn't take account of injuries.
The whole point of this debate was to illustrate that we don't treat sports in any consistent way, and to ask the question why. If we have UK teams for some sports, why not all of them?
England just got to the World Cup semis, would Gareth Bale and a couple of others made a difference?
The record of all the individual nations is poor in all competitions. Shouldn't we try to improve this if we can.
They gave up on the old home nations games because they weren't very good.
If the country gets fully behind the Lions why wouldn't they get behind a UK football team