[33%] [67%] 
36-0tto wrote:of course the UK should be one team
they have ONE PM as well
we don't have Bavaria and Saxony as distinct national teams either
whether the Scottish would ever accept this arragement is a moot point
the Spanish are not too keen on their team either
tough luck
36-0tto wrote:of course the UK should be one team
they have ONE PM as well
we don't have Bavaria and Saxony as distinct national teams either
whether the Scottish would ever accept this arragement is a moot point
the Spanish are not too keen on their team either
tough luck
Allez les rouges wrote:Well, that's as may be, but arguably no more than the original suggestion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India
From a historical point of view, to say nothing of the emotional or nationalistic point of view, it's no more or less grotesque than suggesting the English and Scots are the "same people".
36-0tto wrote:of course the UK should be one team
they have ONE PM as well
we don't have Bavaria and Saxony as distinct national teams either
whether the Scottish would ever accept this arragement is a moot point
the Spanish are not too keen on their team either
tough luck
Roger Hunt wrote:Allez les rouges wrote:Well, that's as may be, but arguably no more than the original suggestion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India
From a historical point of view, to say nothing of the emotional or nationalistic point of view, it's no more or less grotesque than suggesting the English and Scots are the "same people".
But we are! The Scots have been running Britain, and before that the Empire, for centuries. The first king of the two countries was a Scot for goodness sakes.
Allez les rouges wrote:36-0tto wrote:of course the UK should be one team
they have ONE PM as well
we don't have Bavaria and Saxony as distinct national teams either
whether the Scottish would ever accept this arragement is a moot point
the Spanish are not too keen on their team either
tough luck
Ja verpiss dich Otto
"Wilhelmus von Nassawe
bin ich von teutschem blut"
willst vielleicht mit ihnen ne Mannschaft bilden
nah. none of the fans of any of the countries would want it. they're all recognised as distinct footballing nations, with their own leagues, own f.a. etc. hence separate national teams. there's really no need to change it.bluenine wrote:Do you think the United Kingdom should be one international team, instead of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales?
I think so, its high time.... for all practical purposes, its one country... and one country = one team!!
The plus'es will include a stronger EPL (specially with celtic and rangers joining in), larger base of talent, better chance for some great talents like Best/Giggs/etc of the future to make an impression in the international stage, and some good local coaches like SAF!
Also, together they would have at least one team qualifying for the major championships!!(sorry, couldn't resist that one!!)
Negatives - can only think of one - it undermines the local unique-ness of Scotland/Wales/N Ireland... some of the international/CL exposure than these guys get will reduce... less CL spots, etc.
But overall, I think it will be good for football.
What do you guys think?
Puro wrote:------------------------Gordon/Given---------------------------
----Richards-----Ferdinand------King/McManus------Hutton---------------
------------Hargreaves------------Scott Brown--------
-----Gerrard--------------------------McGeady----------------
---------------Healey--------Rooney-------------------
Subs: Giggs, Lampard, Boyd, Green, Naismith.
L r d wrote:Puro wrote:------------------------Gordon---------------------------
----Richards-----Ferdinand------King/McManus------Hutton---------------
------------Hargreaves------------Scott Brown--------
-----Gerrard--------------------------McGeady----------------
---------------Healey--------Rooney-------------------
Subs: Giggs, Lampard, Boyd, Green, Naismith.
No offense Puro mate, but that team is awful.
Both Gordon and Given are overated anyhow. Hutton is a good right back but left back no chance. Mcgeady is good but Cole is a much better player. healy stands out for n ireland but he's really not that good. Naismith can barely get in the rangers team. Boyd is one of the worst strikers at a big club you will ever find. And Giggs has retired
but ashton's actually a prettty smart footballer. he's far from your classic big man up front who only wins headers and does donkey work.Puro wrote:L r d wrote:Puro wrote:------------------------Gordon---------------------------
----Richards-----Ferdinand------King/McManus------Hutton---------------
------------Hargreaves------------Scott Brown--------
-----Gerrard--------------------------McGeady----------------
---------------Healey--------Rooney-------------------
Subs: Giggs, Lampard, Boyd, Green, Naismith.
No offense Puro mate, but that team is awful.
Both Gordon and Given are overated anyhow. Hutton is a good right back but left back no chance. Mcgeady is good but Cole is a much better player. healy stands out for n ireland but he's really not that good. Naismith can barely get in the rangers team. Boyd is one of the worst strikers at a big club you will ever find. And Giggs has retired
I think Hutton can do a Zambrotta, but I respect your call on Hutton. In my opinion McGeady is Joe Cole with a brain, a lot of it. Then again like Kimbo says no Paddy's in this team so Joe Cole's spot is safe.
Naismith will be the shite soon. I've seen him play, and that kid can turn out to be something special. Boyd can be good as a complementary role, besides, teams do need a big man up front with some football skills. If you just want a big dumbass then Ashton can get the call although he'll be useless against higher caliber opposition. Boyd can play, but Smith only likes to play with one forward up front thus rendering Boyd useless in that lone role. Boyd-Naismith could be special.
borocooper wrote:no
Roger Hunt wrote:Realistically - the other side of the coin is Spain. Many players don't feel 'Spanish' and aren't that bothered about the national side. maybe this is a reason that they have underperformed historically.
|
|
|
Home