Well, the point was that Giggsy would’ve been a shoe-in for an All-Britain XI. But, for arguments sake, he certainly could have played for England instead of Wales. Heck, if nothing else, he’s certainly more English than Owen Hargreaves.
I think you were pretty sniffy about it, and I say that as an Englishman. You’ve got to admit that we’d never have beaten Spain 3-0, and had we been in Scotland’s group we’d have been fucked from the word dot, so to turn around and say that not a single non-English player would make a GB XI is just crazy. If our lot had had half the pride Scotland showed in their campaign, maybe they’d have been twice the players they turned out to be, and we’d have qualified. As it is, I’d take Scotland’s team in toto over ours right now.
Now, while it’s a given that a “united” GB team is never going to happen, let’s have some fun.
Craig Gordon would walk into a first XI, and for me would probably be one of the first three names on the teamsheet - that lad is gold. Healy and maybe McFadden would surely come above Jenas, Heskey, Defoe and all the other jokers that supposedly vie for front line honours when Owen’s crocked (i.e. days ending in “y”), and while I’m a big fan of the Crouchigol it takes a huge amount of faith to pick him over Healy, who has 33 international goals in 60 matches; a better record than Shearer, for what on paper is a massively inferior team. I’d take Giggs in a heartbeat over any of the supposedly world-class players we’ve got in midfield (I know, he’s off international duty these days, but still), and having seen the way he’s coming along I’d have Bale in defence ahead of almost anyone except Micah Richards. I’d say Hartley has as good a chance of anyone at taking a spot in the consistently dysfunctional midfield, as well.
And that’s only looking at it in terms of “who can we swap out from the England team”. Given the disparity in results achieved with a given level of resources, a GB XI should really hand the reins over to McLeish, and let the English fans hope that maybe Gerrard or Crouch gets a chance as an impact sub. I don’t see the point in pretending that our players are manifestly superior, while handwaving away the insipid performances and still less edifying results. If they’re really that good, they’d be winning. As Slaven Bilic said: wake up! I wouldn’t bet on us against Scotland right now, and that just doesn’t tally with a claim that every one of our players is better than every one of theirs.
That is more or less true, dead badger, apart from the pride in the shirt bollox. If you’re talking about international performances than plenty of the names you mention are ahead of their English counterparts. The puzzle lies in the fact that none of those Scottish, NI etc players are in the same street when it comes to the EPL. Healy and MacFadden in particular are average players (I watch MacFadden play a lot) - they both have no pace or strength so cannot flourish in our domestic league. The premiership version of Stevie G la kidder la could take on the combined midfields of NI, Scotland and Wales singlehanded, Chuck Norris style.
We’ve seen that a reasonable manager in Sven can translate this EPL quality to the world stage in a limited fashion - England were competitive albeit playing an atrocious brand of football. A great manager could do a lot more.
OK, I apologise for the condescending tone. But my point is not “we’re In-ger-land, we don’t need no Scottish players” - it’s that all British national teams have the same flaws, inherent in the British style of football - an emphasis on speed, excitement, “passion”/“belief” etc., over technique and tactical nous. So a GB team would just be a slightly better version of the England team.
I concede that Scotland’s performance in the qualifiers was more impressive than England’s, and Alex McLeish is plainly a better coach than McLaren. Not sure what you mean about beating Spain 3-0, possibly just a typo because Northern Ireland did beat them 3-2. Which is indeed more than England would have done.
I thought I was just stating plain facts when I said that there were hardly any non-English British players who would “walk into the England team”. And really, you have only suggested Craig Gordon and maybe one out of Healy, McFadden and Hartley. The others might well make the squad, but I was looking for something more than “he’s better than Emile Heskey”. It stands to reason, really - England has a population of 50 million, compared to a combined 10 million for the rest, so you’d expect maybe two of the eleven players in the GB team to be non-English.
Sorry, the above is in reply to Dead Badger.
Well, yes, and the fact that the rest of Europe plays a limpwristed form of ``football" (the term used in the loosest sense, since it barely deserves to be called the same name) where even the slightest touch results in a foul being given. The final freekick (resulting in the Italian goal) against Scotland was an affront to masculinity and a good example of this 
Basically, I agree with Stewart Robson, the Tactician columnist in the Telegraph - he’s talking about England’s fundamental problems, but I think that it applies to all British football teams.
http://www.dajiatan.com/bbs/index.php?showtopic=30386&mode=threaded
And I think we, the fans are to blame. We demand exciting football, and would whistle in derision at the sort of tactical chess games they have in Italy.
And England luckily get a relatively easy group for the 2010 World Cup qualifiers, considering that they’re now rightly in Pot B (that is, seeded as a second-rank team). I say that with all due respect, because the top seeded team we have drawn is one that has demonstrated its superiority over England twice in recent memory - it’s Croatia, again. But it could have been Italy or whoever. I’m happy to settle for another crack at Croatia.
Wales and NI get nasty groups, Scotland’s group looks do-able.
I wouldn’t call Group F that easy. Croatia have established dominance over the English lately. And the Ukrainians are certainly capable of making life difficult for the English.
Now, admittedly, England didn’t get drawn into Groups E, H, or I, any one of which looks to be a really tough slog for the top three teams in the group. :eek:
If you ask me, the easy group will be Group B.
I did say “relatively easy” and I pointed out that Croatia have already beaten England twice. If that is still considered arrogant, then I don’t know how I can comment at all without coming across as a blowhard.
Who said your comment was arrogant? I was just discussing the “relative ease” involved. 
Am I the only person whose first reaction on seeing England’s group was to wonder just how many Borat moustaches will be worn at Wembley?
Anyway, I don’t think it looks like an easy group at all.
I’m sorry, it’s just that lately there seem to be some people picking holes in everything I post on this board, so I’m getting a little paranoid.