Would a Great Britain team be better than an England team ?

Answer 1

no definetly not, england rule **** the scots welsh nd hueva else there is

Answer 2

A GB football team,, never better than an English team!

Why are Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland not at the world cup 2006?

Maybe could pull one or two non English players from the GB into the England side (then it would not be an England team), but not trying to be offencive in any way but football in the UK outside of England is of a greatly reduced quality on the whole.

Answer 3

Yes - Great Britain or United Kingdom is far less offensive to the many people who live in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, as well as, those in all those regions whose descendants originated elsewhere but are now British citizens. One implies a geographical region where the other seems to imply a region of racial or cultural distinction that simply doesn't exist. Think not - then take a look at the complexions of England's 2006 team today.

Answer 4

Yes most certainly a Great Britain team would be better than an England team- a bigger pool of players to choose from is always better-don't you agree.

Answer 5

Putting national pride aside i would say that Yes a British side would be better, At the moment it would still be pretty much an English side with the inclusion of Giggs & Bellamy for definate,
I think all would agree they would get in the squad ahead of Downing, Jenas, Hargreaves & dare i say Walcott,

Our goalkeeping situation is pretty pore in England with only really Robinson & there are definatley some good British keepers out there,

I think however we should just restrict involvement in such games to the Olympics although i doubt the likes of Rooney & Walcoot etc. would be allowed to play by there respective clubs,

P.S. Rep. Ireland is not BRITISH ,

Answer 6

Nothing to suggest that the Lions do better than the national sides at Rugby, and whilst England are pleased to point out that they are the only team there this year, there have been years 74,78 when England was not there and Scotland was.
Wales and Ireland have also made it, and why not like many smaller nations its about spirit for thye country, it only takes 20 people to win the cup.

Answer 7

The question is as stupid as an England team is a joke.
The Scotch and the Welsh and the Irish need truly independent teams following the Czech and Ukrainian way. But England is so false & selfish and treat their "minor brothers" like dirt.

Answer 8

Over time, YES for sure.
You would have a larger range of players to choose from, being able to choose from more players must help.

The only problem would be that as a team if they can play as a cohesive unit as the England team does. Just having the best players does not mean the best Team. Desire and dedication to a team unit counts for a lot.
http://www.pinehillslightning.baseball.com.au

Answer 9

Two words: Craig Bellamy.

He's exactly what England needs at the moment (with Owen and Rooney still short of 100% fitness). That pace and vision would really liven things up.

However, the second best team in the region is Republic Of Ireland, who aren't in the United Kingdom, so either way, you couldn't have Duff or Given.

Answer 10

Yeah only that all players in the great britain team will be from england except Roy Keane.

Answer 11

I dont think it would change the team at present. I do think that the situation would have been different a few years ago. Think, Jennings, Best, Brady, Daglesh,Giggs,Hansen,Souness, etc etc all competing for places ;but I do think that there should be a United Ireland team, as there is in rugby, lets face it, the only people N.Ireland are capable of beating are ------- well, England !