Scarby Posted 23 March 2005 Posted 23 March 2005 From BBC George Best wants football authorities north and south of the Ireland border to create a combined national team.The former Northern Ireland star, 58, believes a united Irish side could be a force if they pooled their resources. He told BBC Radio Five Live: "At any given time, both the Republic and Northern Ireland have had some great world-class players. "I just believe in trying something. If it doesn't work, at least you've tried. I just hope it happens in my lifetime." The move would be politically controversial and may face Fifa opposition, given that both nations have their own unique identities. It would inevitably also be a thorny issue for both the Northern Ireland FA and the Football Association of Ireland, which might be required to merge in order for the unified team to become a reality. i am into minds about this! deep down i think it could be a great idea but only about 3 players from Northern Ireland would make it the Republics team
Anish Posted 23 March 2005 Posted 23 March 2005 I can't think of any Northern Ireland players who would make it into a combined Eire team.
Scow Posted 23 March 2005 Posted 23 March 2005 I can't think of any Northern Ireland players who would make it into a combined Eire team. 82431[/snapback] Neither can I. If you're referring to Keith Gillespie, Scarby, then I don't think so.
Ultra Posted 3 April 2009 Posted 3 April 2009 I think the balance might have shifted slightly now. Imagine if they met in the World Cup playoffs..
Hitesh Posted 3 April 2009 Posted 3 April 2009 Whats with the resurection of an old thread? I think it would be a good idea for Ireland if they want to be successful and it works in Rugby but I can't see it working in football at all.
dandannieldanok Posted 3 April 2009 Posted 3 April 2009 I think the balance might have shifted slightly now.Imagine if they met in the World Cup playoffs.. I would still pick mainly Republic players given the choice, NI's position at the minute is not as strong as it seems regarding games played. That's not to say their position is not once again remarkable for a country of that size. Turning into perennial overachievers.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 3 April 2009 Posted 3 April 2009 Wouldn't work for the same reason that a British team wouldn't work (where that would be 8-9 English players with the odd Scot or Welsh - and even less so nowadays!) Works in Rugby because the celtic nations play rugger proportionately more than the most populous nation in the Union (England)
DB11 Posted 4 April 2009 Posted 4 April 2009 Works in Rugby because the celtic nations play rugger proportionately more than the most populous nation in the Union (England) That makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever
Finnegan Posted 4 April 2009 Posted 4 April 2009 That makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever Erm, yes it does. He's saying that proportionately Wales, Scotland and Ireland put more into rugby compared to the English as they put into football (compared to the English.) So, say, if we produce 1 great rugby player for ever 1 the English produce we're probably only putting out 1 footballer for every 5 the English produce. Obviously they're not real ratios I'm just trying to make his point. Admittedly I'm doing a very bad job of explaining what I mean but I did understand him. A better way of looking at it, really: England has five or six decent rugby union sides to Wales' three, Ireland's two and Scotland's one (arguablly two.) England has anything between about 20 and 40 decent football clubs producing decent players, Wales has 2, Scotland has about, maybe, 5 or so and Ireland.. well...
Trav Le Bleu Posted 4 April 2009 Posted 4 April 2009 Erm, yes it does.He's saying that proportionately Wales, Scotland and Ireland put more into rugby compared to the English as they put into football (compared to the English.) So, say, if we produce 1 great rugby player for ever 1 the English produce we're probably only putting out 1 footballer for every 5 the English produce. Obviously they're not real ratios I'm just trying to make his point. Admittedly I'm doing a very bad job of explaining what I mean but I did understand him. A better way of looking at it, really: England has five or six decent rugby union sides to Wales' three, Ireland's two and Scotland's one (arguablly two.) England has anything between about 20 and 40 decent football clubs producing decent players, Wales has 2, Scotland has about, maybe, 5 or so and Ireland.. well... Exactly. Sorry DB, I'm not very good at dumbing down.
Ultra Posted 4 April 2009 Posted 4 April 2009 Wouldn't work for the same reason that a British team wouldn't work (where that would be 8-9 English players with the odd Scot or Welsh - and even less so nowadays!)Works in Rugby because the celtic nations play rugger proportionately more than the most populous nation in the Union (England) Er, no they don't - not in Scotland or Ireland (north or south) anyway.
Finnegan Posted 4 April 2009 Posted 4 April 2009 Er, no they don't - not in Scotland or Ireland (north or south) anyway. Yes they do, read my description for Danny. It's not even an argument, it's a fact. He isn't saying the Scots care more about rugby than they do football - not at all, he's saying proportionately compared to England in each.
Dr The Singh Posted 4 April 2009 Posted 4 April 2009 Er, no they don't - not in Scotland or Ireland (north or south) anyway. Er, my buddies The Real IRA may think differently hey Ultra!!
Finnegan Posted 4 April 2009 Posted 4 April 2009 Er, my buddies The Real IRA may think differently hey Ultra!! Ultra is a hunted man.
Alexikokopops Posted 4 April 2009 Posted 4 April 2009 That makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever Erm, yes it does. I think you missed the "to me" and Danny's natural density.
Finnegan Posted 4 April 2009 Posted 4 April 2009 Erm, yes it does.I think you missed the "to me" and Danny's natural density. I did, yes. I was going to go back and edit it and go "oops" but then I thought, meh, the description can stay. Apparently Ultra was too thick to see as well. Or maybe I'm just empathically in tune with Trav.
Ultra Posted 5 April 2009 Posted 5 April 2009 No, I understood perfectly well the point that Trav was trying to make - and it isn't true. The proportion of rugby players per head of the male population is no higher in Ireland or Scotland than it is in England.
DB11 Posted 5 April 2009 Posted 5 April 2009 The proportion of rugby players per head of the male population is no higher in Ireland or Scotland than it is in England.
Head Honcho Posted 5 April 2009 Posted 5 April 2009 Er, no they don't - not in Scotland or Ireland (north or south) anyway. ....................................and there are actually more registered Football players in Wales than Rugby players.
Finnegan Posted 5 April 2009 Posted 5 April 2009 No, I understood perfectly well the point that Trav was trying to make - and it isn't true.The proportion of rugby players per head of the male population is no higher in Ireland or Scotland than it is in England. ... that wasn't his point either. You're either massively thick or you've read everything I've said, understood it, and you're being impressively pedantic purely just to avoid admitting you were wrong. ....................................and there are actually more registered Football players in Wales than Rugby players. Also not the point - see the above.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.