Think about it. Add George Best to England's 60's teams. Add Roy Keane and Giggs to this World Cup and 1998. I think the UK would have won at least 2 world cups if they competed as one team. How many do you people think?
Roy Keane is Irish - not part of the UK. I don't think the England team would do much better ... doesn't England cover something like 80% of the UK population anyway?
It's impossible to say, but really, if you added in the other three countries, England wouldn't really have improved by enough to make a difference in any World Cup. The possible exception would be 1970, if you factored in the phenomenal crop of Scotsmen that won Celtic the European Cup in the late 60's, but even then, would they really have been able to stop that Brazil squad? Would anyone?
They still lose to France in the '98 Final. France earned quite possibly the greatest achievement in European W/C history, becoming the first team outside South America to defeat Brasil in a W/C final. The feat outshines the trophy itself.
Even if he was eligible, he would have picked a fight with the current manager (Erikson, Hoddle whatever) and gone home again…..
And as far as the "what ifs" go for France '98, we had this discussion before a while back when someone speculated what would have happened to England had Beckham not been sent off for kicking Simeone, and the same applies to speculation as to what would have happened if Ryan Giggs was in the squad. They might or might not have beaten Argentina in that case, but even if they did, they would have had Brazil, with a fully fit Ronaldo, waiting for them in the semis. And past that, they then would have had to beat France on home soil to win the World Cup. Beckham, Giggs, or whatever, it wouldn't have happened.
An era where the UK could have been considerably stronger than England must have been around 1974-1986 when a lot of great Scottish and Welsh players like Dalglish, Souness, Rush and M.Hughes would have improved the side. But more World Cup titles? Doubt it.
it happend once before. The united kingdom had a squad and played. George hardwick being captain. He was the only player to captain GB and he was a boro player
i think a better angle for this thread would be how many we WOULD win not could have. Its too hard to say what if about the past. England + giggs to fix left side problem would be a much stronger team. Prehaps include bellamy on the bench to come on and run defenses down when they start to tire would also be a good ploy. I find it hard to imagine scotland could contributed so there i think they wouldnt ever agree to play as uk.
With George Best a British would have maybe made the 1970 finals but I don't think they would have beat Brasil.
With all due respect, you'd have one world cup on the shelf. Which is probably one more than you'd have if England hadn't hosted the thing. An all UK team? Brang it.
IIRC, England, and not GB won gold medals back when the Olympics were the real world championship. But I could be wrong.
I think the IOC only recognizes Great Britain, but I could be wrong. And if England did win those, then why haven't they pulled an Uruguay and tried to make them count? (Uruguay have four stars on their uniforms because they won the Olympic gold medal twice before the World Cup was founded. Thus they claim - and FIFA recognize - four world championships.)
I could be wrong, but I think England doesn't have any stars above their crest (even tho they won in '66). This leads me to believe they may simply not like the way the stars look. Just a guess.
I think you're right. According to this, Great Britain won gold medals in 1900, 1908 and 1912. I wondered if England or a unified England-Scotland squad represented Britain, but it appears the team was selected by the British Olympic Committee and were not affiliated with any of the FA's.
Correct, there is no star on the shirt denoting England's World Cup win. I reckon the stuffed suits at the FA think it's too crass instead of being proud that the tournament was won like everyone else.
Apparantly England plan on introducing the star soon. The early Olympic Tournaments were strictly amateur, the first official competition was 1908 (1900 was a one off exhibition, with Upton Park FC beating France 4-0 in the only game. 1904 saw 3 North American teams compete in exhibition play, with Galt FC of Ontario winning). At the time, Britains amateur side would have beaten any team other than England or Scotland, and they possessed the best player in the world at the time - Vivian Woodward, who scored 73 goals in 53 representative games, including 29 in 23 games for the professional England. Denmark proved their only opposition both times, and in 1912 were the only team to score against them.
The smart money is on Italy to win the cup. Brazil is overrated and that Pele kid is an overhyped fluke.
No, no, no... 1970: Pele's too old, Brazil sacked their manager after a great qualifying campaign cause he's too outspoken (Military Dictators don't like that) and there's no way they'll get past favorites like England and Italy. That's why Brazil won't win. BTW skip, England didn't make the semis... ************ I think I just ruined the tape-viewing for some...