time for a GB team?

[Andrew!]

Repeating it doesn't make you right.

The fact that it is right makes it right.

[Heartwork]

Eh, reckon Jonny Evans could be an OK shout for the defence from NI if anything. Ramsey and Bale obvious from Wales. Scotland is breaking off anyway so doesn't matter about them.

[Coulthard's Jaw]

Well, I guess they blame the premier league (and I guess, even the championship), because teams there would rather field developed foreigners than youth prospects. In order to develop good players, the youth prospects needs playing time.

I think it's more an issue where the young players coming through aren't good enough and that's why they aren't getting game time. Also the way our players just don't consider going overseas to get game time and develop their games massively holds us back compared to other countries.

[craigcwwe]

Only players that would get in the England team from Wales, Scotland, and NI are Bale, Ramsey and Johny Evans.

I absolutely don't want a GB team and i imagine most people would feel the same.

[jmr]

Evans and Ramsey would be decent backups. Bale would get straight in obviously.

[Blue Lou]

I don't want it to happen at full international level though, I prefer the 11(!) separate British associations. Having said that, I wouldn't be opposed to Team GB taking part in the the Olympics' football competition again though.

[tjampman]

The clubs are right though, they have to think about their own success, whether it harms the English national team or not is not and should not be their concern.

Sure, club football don't have any obligations to develop players for the national team. I was just stating the obvious to another reply.

I think it's more an issue where the young players coming through aren't good enough and that's why they aren't getting game time. Also the way our players just don't consider going overseas to get game time and develop their games massively holds us back compared to other countries.

Not good enough, by what standards? I mean obviously prospects are by definition not as could as your starting 11, but still with the English league structure and your 50-60 or so games a season, you would think English clubs would be better able to develop their prospects.

Whether they should look abroad is a valid observation, however I do see the language skills being a problem.

[Just-Wool]

The fact that it is right makes it right.

It really isn't. I don't know how best to explain it to you.

The UK is the country we live in, it has been since 1707 (1801 if you count Northern Ireland). We are a unitary state run by a central government and with one monarch. Just because each member of the state has their own FA and local government doesn't mean they are actually recognised in the world as their own sovereign state.

We all have UK passports

We are all controlled centrally by the UK government

We are recognised in the EU as the UK

The capital of the UK is London

The official and overriding government authority is the UK government.

We are not 4 completely separate countries, we are each member states in one country. It's like saying Brittany and Normandy are separate countries and France isn't really a country.

[Just-Wool]

Nowadays?? I am gonna go out on a limb and guess Boltman has at least 10 years on you

With his sketchy knowledge of the UK constitution, probably not.

[Confused Clarity]

Actually agree with monkeywool.

[Andrew!]

Actually agree with monkeywool.

He's completely wrong, though.

[Unknown Hacker]

He's completely wrong, though.

I don't think he is. By no definition is England a country, which is pretty much at the centre of your argument.

[Andrew!]

A country can be defined as a territorial entity with a generally distinct population.

[mlyons]

A country can be defined as a territorial entity with a generally distinct population.

That definition is so vague as to be essentially meaningless. I could call my house and yard a country under that definition.

[Unknown Hacker]

A country can be defined as a territorial entity with a generally distinct population.

Perhaps it can be, but that is purely geographically speaking. If you are talking in a political, legal or diplomatic terms though the word has a completely different meaning -- and that is the meaning that I was referring to because that is the meaning that is relevant to the discussion. A country in those areas is limited to describing self-governing states.

[Boltman]

We are not 4 completely separate countries, we are each member states in one country. It's like saying Brittany and Normandy are separate countries and France isn't really a country.

If you define it by your hilariously pedantic terms.

In the real world, ask people which country they live in and the majority will say Scotland/England/Wales/Ireland. UK is a contrivance born out of political expediency and has no cultural identity of it's own, which I would imagine is why 70-80% (roughly, varies by region) of the population of England and Wales self-identify as either English or Welsh Nationality first and foremost with the remainder either British or Others. In Scotland it's even more pronounced -

Eighty-three per cent of the population of Scotland felt they had some Scottish national identity, including 62 per cent who felt Scottish only. 18 per cent felt Scottish and British. 2 per cent felt Scottish plus another identity

So presumably 'National Identity' stems from the notion of belonging to a Nation. Doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest that to the vast majority a 'Nation' and a 'Country' are one and the same. I'd like to have seen the census results had the option been there to identify as Scots/English/Welsh, British, or UK.

Using your logic the EU is a country

That definition is so vague as to be essentially meaningless. I could call my house and yard a country under that definition.

Of course you could, but I doubt you'll find many people who would recognise it as such, much in the same way that people do not recognise the UK as a 'country' no matter the technicalities of the term.

[Sned]

Say it every time, but their should be a Wildcard Squad at every World Cup, using players from nations that didn't qualify. Bale, Ramsey, Zlatan et al

[Svenc]

I think it's more an issue where the young players coming through aren't good enough and that's why they aren't getting game time. Also the way our players just don't consider going overseas to get game time and develop their games massively holds us back compared to other countries.

When pundits gather to explain why England lose' date=' their favourite scapegoat of the moment is imports: the hundreds of foreigners that play in the EPL.

The experience of playing against the best foreign players every week has probably helped English internationals improve. Englishmen have had to get better just to stay in their club teams. They now learn about international football every week. Indeed, if you date the EPL’s transformation from an English league into an international one to 1996, the year the Bosman ruling took effect, then it is noticeable that England have performed slight BETTER than they did before it. Here are the results from either side of the ruling.

1980-95 Played 181, won 89, drawn 57, lost 35, winning percentage 64.9

1996-09 Played 164, won93, drawn 41, lost 30, winning percentage 69.2

England’s improvement since Bosman isn’t enormous, and of course there are OTHER FACTORS at play, but their better results do cast doubt on the ‘more foreigners have made England worse’ argument.[/quote']

Kuper/Szymanski in Soccernomics as a counterproof from about 2012ish. It is no secret that the whole idea that English international football would currently be on decline is unfounded: apart of 1966, the FA's selections have barely ever went past the quarters in the World Cup or Euros, if so they had qualified. The writers then go on to make other curious points, arguing that English players would get too much top flight football during a league season rather than too few, they make interesting points about a supposedly exclusion of middle class kids from football whilst showing clubs would draw talent mostly from working class families (which I cannot judge) and isolation as opposed to the networking going on in mainland Europe (intriguingly the two only foreign managers combined hold a better win ratio than any English). In another chapter they also conclude that according to their resources and knowledge, the FA wouldn't belong to the continuous overachievers (Netherlands, anyone), but still actually would perform about right (without claiming they wouldn't have the resources to ever win another Cup, or insisting that first round exits such as this one should be a regular thing to happen).

It's easy to get completely carried away with the "Jonny Foreigner steals our kid's playing time" arguments, (remember that Italy had banned foreigners for many years and ironically won their first ever Cup post World War II when that ban had been lifted). Though to a sensible extent they may hold value. The effect of having foreigners as well as home-growns competing for a limited number of spots means that neither of them can risk getting complacent and lazy. For home-growns, that's the harshness of globalized capitalism at work in football right there: If you're not good enough you'll aptly get replaced by the cheaper guy from someplace else right there. It might not be a pretty world, but except for Jules' Rimet original intent for the World Cup (professional) football has never once been a socialist's dream but all about exploiting what's there to take and run with it. We as fans, mostly support likewise: perform and you're cheered, don't and get booed off the pitch. But: I think in between the English FA and those actually running the clubs and the game at top flight there is more an atmosphere of conflict rather than one of united goals, and if such is the case, changes in the game are harder to implement, changes that sometimes can be needed and improve performances. Such gap in interests can prove an obstacle. Such an overhaul had long been due in Germany around the millenium, so it was agreed on anyway, and it was both the clubs and the national FA agreeing on that, as they regard the national team as something that due to its world wide exposure when successful would also benefit the league as a whole. With a league as the Premier League, one that has the most exposure world-wide anyway, the clubs in England would likely view such differently.

However, that change was not just fielding home-grown player just cause. The likes of Özil and Khedira might have sounded fresh in 2010 to people not watching Bundesliga. But they weren't but the result of a fundamental change in youth development that all parties agreed on. That's not entirelly romantics, but economics likewise: No need for foreigners to settle in first if home grown players are equal or better and cheaper. Contrary to clubs in the Dutch Eredivsie, PL clubs also rarely feel the same need to nurture talent and then export it for good money either. Still, rather than obsessing of course and trying to broaden borders you could also accept that international tournaments are a bit archaic in the globalized world we live in today, but hey. :-)

[Just-Wool]

Stuff .

So your whole reason for it not being a country is that some people don't think it is?

I don't think that the world actually exists and we all are plugged into the matrix - is that right too?

The EU is totally different, the EU is merely an economic and political union (think the term is supranational union or something like that) in which the member states can, if they choose, opt out of certain treaties and not have the EU run that particular branch of legislation. It's power derives from how much power the member states wants to give them. Hence why the UK are not in the Eurozone - if the EU was a country then we'd have the Euro, we wouldn't have a say in it as the UK, we'd have it.

In terms of national identity, feel how you want. I feel my national identity goes as far as Liverpool. It'd be ludicrous for me to class Liverpool as its own separate country though.

That being said, the Americans (albeit they are a different style of union) ALWAYS define themselves by state first. You ever see any American and ask them where they from, I'm almost guaranteeing they will say something like Orlando, Florida, or New York, New York, or Charlotte, North Carolina. Doesn't mean they don't feel American though.

In Spain, most, if not all of the regions are autonomous, I think some are more devolved than Scotland from what I remember. Spain is still a country though. You probably never once considered Spain to not be, even though they are more decentralised than the UK is.

One more thing, the UK does have a national identity. The rest of the world consider the UK to be the UK, they don't consider England, Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales to be anything separate than the UK. Just because some people don't want it to be so, doesn't mean it isn't.

[Boltman]

So your whole reason for it not being a country is that some people don't think it is?

Err..... no. What a completely bizarre assertion.

I don't think that the world actually exists and we all are plugged into the matrix - is that right too?

Quite possibly. Totally irrelevant to the matter at hand though. Would tally with your other delusions though.

The EU is totally different,

No it is not.

the EU is merely an economic and political union

As is the UK.

In terms of national identity, feel how you want. I feel my national identity goes as far as Liverpool. It'd be ludicrous for me to class Liverpool as its own separate country though.

We agree on something at least.

That being said, the Americans (albeit they are a different style of union) ALWAYS define themselves by state first. You ever see any American and ask them where they from, I'm almost guaranteeing they will say something like Orlando, Florida, or New York, New York, or Charlotte, North Carolina. Doesn't mean they don't feel American though.

That's nice for them. Of bugger all relevance to how people who live in the UK define themselves though.

Spain is still a country though.

You should be on Mastermind, Specialist subject - 'the bloody obvious'.

You probably never once considered Spain to not be, even though they are more decentralised than the UK is.

Correct. Are you going to make any more totally irrelevant observations?

One more thing, the UK does have a national identity. The rest of the world consider the UK to be the UK, they don't consider England, Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales to be anything separate than the UK.

More out of sheer ignorance than anything else.

Just because some people don't want it to be so, doesn't mean it isn't.

And no matter how hard you try to convince yourself it is, it's not.

[Just-Wool]

So basically, everything that is counter to your argument, despite being valid is irrelevant and everyone who disagrees with your world view, (which must be correct as 70% of people in the UK seem to think the same, despite the actual legislative setup of the country and the act of Union disagreeing with you) is ignorant? Gotcha.

[Andrew!]

It really isn't. I don't know how best to explain it to you.

The UK is the country we live in, it has been since 1707 (1801 if you count Northern Ireland). We are a unitary state run by a central government and with one monarch. Just because each member of the state has their own FA and local government doesn't mean they are actually recognised in the world as their own sovereign state.

We all have UK passports

We are all controlled centrally by the UK government

We are recognised in the EU as the UK

The capital of the UK is London

The official and overriding government authority is the UK government.

We are not 4 completely separate countries, we are each member states in one country. It's like saying Brittany and Normandy are separate countries and France isn't really a country.

You're confusing 'state' and 'country'.

That definition is so vague as to be essentially meaningless. I could call my house and yard a country under that definition.

Don't be ridiculous. Nation and country are well known to be interchangeable. England is quite clearly a nation.

[Just-Wool]

You're confusing 'state' and 'country'.

Don't be ridiculous. Nation and country are well known to be interchangeable. England is quite clearly a nation.

I'm not confusing anything, a state can be either a country or a territory of a country, depending on the status of the place. and context.

[Andrew!]

I'm not confusing anything, a state can be either a country or a territory of a country, depending on the status of the place. and context.

You really are, though. Numerous countries can make up one state, not the other way around. A state is sovereign and independent while a country refers to nationality.

[Just-Wool]

You really are, though. Numerous countries can make up one state, not the other way around. A state is sovereign and independent while a country refers to nationality.

The state of Texas is not independent. We (as the UK) are member states in the EU. It's all about the context and how you use the word. You can't argue Texas is sovereign and independent, much the same as you can't argue that describing a country as a member state in the EU isn't really a country because you used the word state.

You can argue semantics all you like, fact of the matter is the UK is a unitary state (a sovereign state - so a country) which is made up of 4 member states, which were sovereign states (ie countries)

[Coulthard's Jaw]

Not good enough, by what standards? I mean obviously prospects are by definition not as could as your starting 11, but still with the English league structure and your 50-60 or so games a season, you would think English clubs would be better able to develop their prospects.

Premier League is a pretty open market at the moment so if our youth systems aren't producing players of good enough skill to break through then by definition our players won't be good enough for the world stage.

Whether they should look abroad is a valid observation, however I do see the language skills being a problem.

Indeed, although should this really be a big problem, how many young (and not so young) overseas players come to the PL and despite poor English do very well? To be honest this is a cultural problem that is bigger than football.

[Coulthard's Jaw]

Kuper/Szymanski in Soccernomics as a counterproof from about 2012ish.

Indeed. This issue with England not producing good enough players goes back decades.

[Jason the Yank]

Why not? You share a border and share some commonality of language. That seems to be the rationale behind a UK/GB team.

Screw it, why not a Russia/Ukraine or Iran/Iraq joint effort?

Putin's working on that. Should be ready in time to win the 2018 tournament.

[Jason the Yank]

You really are, though. Numerous countries can make up one state, not the other way around. A state is sovereign and independent while a country refers to nationality.

The state of Texas is not independent. We (as the UK) are member states in the EU. It's all about the context and how you use the word. You can't argue Texas is sovereign and independent, much the same as you can't argue that describing a country as a member state in the EU isn't really a country because you used the word state.

Technically, US states are considered sovereign. It's a holdover from the US being founded by 13 separate governments (the rebel colonies)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#State_sovereignty_resolutions_.2810th_Amendment_resolutions.29

Recognized Indian tribes are also considered sovereign nations within the US.

[Just-Wool]

Technically, US states are considered sovereign. It's a holdover from the US being founded by 13 separate governments (the rebel colonies)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#State_sovereignty_resolutions_.2810th_Amendment_resolutions.29

Recognized Indian tribes are also considered sovereign nations within the US.

Fair enough, didn't realise this was the case in the states. Assumed with there being a federal government they weren't. The USA is set up slightly different than us though. I only mentioned Texas as it's a state within a country.

[chopra_hill]

It's comedy how the only people who want a GB team are the English as they want to get their hands on the two best British players. So glad Ramsey and Bale are welsh

[jmr]

I bet they are gutted though.

[chopra_hill]

I'd hazard a guess they're relieved not to be English after the last week.

Even bale playing couldn't have stopped that **** poor defence that had its 2 best defenders sitting at home. In woy we trust

[el sid]

Very limited knowledge on this, but why does GB play as GB in the Olympics whereas it's England at the WC?

[jmr]

There's no England at the Olympics and for some reason the people in-charge were desperate for us to have some sort of football team at it. It was a one off thing.

[miketheheadlesschicken]

I bet they are gutted though.

I doubt it. Wales are talking themselves up to be near the level of Belgium.

[chopra_hill]

Very limited knowledge on this, but why does GB play as GB in the Olympics whereas it's England at the WC?

Don't think it's a regular thing for the football. They just wanted the host country to have a team so did it as a one off afaik. Bale didn't want anything to do with it and pulled out :*)

[mlyons]

US states are actually quite a bit more independent from each other than the UK member "nations" are. The cultural differences between, say, Georgia and Pennsylvania are at least as big as those between Wales and Northern Ireland, and Georgia and Pennsylvania have entirely separate legal systems, taxation protocols, and even militaries (the National Guard is actually controlled by each state except in national emergencies) from each other, unlike in the UK. Texas and California are the only states silly enough to consider themselves as different countries, though, and even they don't really mean it.

[Just-Wool]

Very limited knowledge on this, but why does GB play as GB in the Olympics whereas it's England at the WC?

Because FIFA allow us to play as the home nations for historical reasons (English and Scottish FAs are the oldest and always had a seat on the council) but the Olympics organisers insist we enter as the UK due to the UK being our official entity. If Scotland get independence then they'll enter the Olympics as Scotland, we'll continue as the UK though I guess.

[el sid]

What I meant was, why is there no England in the Olympics?

[Just-Wool]

What I meant was, why is there no England in the Olympics?

Because we'd have to enter as the UK and the other home nations fear that FIFA would tell them they have to do it in the World Cup as well.

[el sid]

The whole British geography is confusing as **** to an outsider like me. If you have 4 countries playing football separately (England, Scotland, Wales, NI - Are these 4 separate independent countries?), why do you compete as GB in the Olympics? Why can't the 4 countries compete separately at the Olympics too?

All I know about the geography of that region is Britain/GB is England, Wales, Scotland and UK is GB + NI. I hope I didn't get that wrong as well

[Pukey]

The whole British geography is confusing as **** to an outsider like me. If you have 4 countries playing football separately (England, Scotland, Wales, NI - Are these 4 separate independent countries?), why do you compete as GB in the Olympics? Why can't the 4 countries compete separately at the Olympics too?

All I know about the geography of that region is Britain/GB is England, Wales, Scotland and UK is GB + NI. I hope I didn't get that wrong as well

The olympic team was a one off.

[Just-Wool]

The whole British geography is confusing as **** to an outsider like me. If you have 4 countries playing football separately (England, Scotland, Wales, NI - Are these 4 separate independent countries?), why do you compete as GB in the Olympics? Why can't the 4 countries compete separately at the Olympics too?

All I know about the geography of that region is Britain/GB is England, Wales, Scotland and UK is GB + NI. I hope I didn't get that wrong as well

Nah, that's right. The UK is the official country. The nations involved enjoy a separate identity but share constitutional government. The reason they play as separate nations in football (and rugby) is purely historic, because their governing bodies pretty much created the sports they play.

The IOC make us enter as team GB because politically that's how we should be. In most sports we enter as gb/uk.

[JD nawrat]

(England, Scotland, Wales, NI - Are these 4 separate independent countries?)

None of these countries are independent. All are ruled by one government (based in England but it not an 'English government', it is a 'British government' made up by politicians from all four countries. It goes without say that the majority of the politicians are English, but that's because of bigger population requiring a bigger representation more than anything else.

They are four separate countries though (I'm with Boltman here). Just come under one ruler (the Queen) and one prime minister (David Cameron).

Scotland will have an independence referendum in September to determine whether we become a totally separate and independent country, thus meaning we would no longer have David Cameron in charge of the country. However the Queen would still be our Monarch (much like she is still the Monarch in Australia which is obviously independent/not part of the UK). It would also have knock on effects like the GB Olympics team no longer having Scottish olympians and instead a Scottish Olympics team would enter. Andy Murray would officially be known as Scottish and never as British etc

[Marc Albrighton]

Yes, atleast Bale will get to go to a few tournaments then.

[JD nawrat]

The IOC make us enter as team GB because politically that's how we should be. In most sports we enter as gb/uk.

Uhhh, no?

Rory McIlroy is Northern Irish, Colin Montgomery is Scottish, for example, in golf.

Scotland, England, Ireland, Wales all have their own rugby teams.

Stephen Hendry is a Scottish snooker player and Mark Williams represents Wales.

Phil Taylor is English whereas Peter Wright and Gary Anderson are Scottish (Darts).

Your cricket team is English, not British.

I think only really boxing, cycling, tennis and motorsport racing consider participants as British instead of Scottish/English/Welsh/Northern Irish... unless you're going to suggest a bunch of obscure sports none of us give a **** about?

[Just-Wool]

Uhhh, no?

Rory McIlroy is Northern Irish, Colin Montgomery is Scottish, for example, in golf.

Scotland, England, Ireland, Wales all have their own rugby teams.

Stephen Hendry is a Scottish snooker player and Mark Williams represents Wales.

Phil Taylor is English whereas Peter Wright and Gary Anderson are Scottish (Darts).

Your cricket team is English, not British.

I think only really boxing, cycling, tennis and motorsport racing consider participants as British instead of Scottish/English/Welsh/Northern Irish... unless you're going to suggest a bunch of obscure sports none of us give a **** about?

McIlroy will be representing Ireland at the Olympics, he had the choice of Ireland or GB. Montgomery would be British in the Olympics.

I mentioned Rugby in that exact same post.

Snooker isn't a sport

Darts isn't a sport

Cricket team is England and Wales. Again, historical because the Scottish didn't play.

Boxing, cycling, tennis, Athletics, motorsport, hockey, Basketball, volleyball, swimming, gymnastics, weightlifting, all winter sports, sailing, rowing....

Pretty much only 4 sports are England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland because they were sports that historically the English or Scottish invented and insisted on having their own governing bodies set up for them.

[JD nawrat]

Hahahaha.

You just claimed Snooker and Darts aren't sports, I'm not even going to contemplate reading the rest of that post nor taking any future posts in this thread seriously.

[JD nawrat]

Oh and McIlroy may be entering as Irish at the Olympics but that's because it's the rules at the Olympics, you can't enter as Northern Irish.

He is regarded as Northern Irish on the PGA Tour and at major golfing events. Because, you know, he is from that country.