This forum is read-only now. Please use Forum 2 for new posts
| xml | No replies possible in the archive |
| To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: vakho
Date: 27-04-2004, 10:24 | I was through the history of country ranking. Great job Bert ! Amazing to see for example that Hungary was at the 2nd place once upon a time. The question is that I have found the strange country named Saarland , in 1960 rankings and have seen that team from Germany Saarbruken has played under this nation. In 1961 this disappered , I can't find anything about this anywhere. Any info on this? |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: eoinh
Date: 27-04-2004, 10:51 | Wasnt it a de-militarised part of Germany after World War 2 governed separately. Its an integral part of Germany now. I didnt think it lasted as long as 1960 though. Are my facts correct? |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: flob
Date: 27-04-2004, 12:21 | correct it was reintegrated on 01.01.1957 |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: bert.kassies
Date: 27-04-2004, 13:12 | See here. |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: eoinh
Date: 27-04-2004, 14:45 | In the article it says wasnt it a claptrap way for UEFA to enlarge its memembership. I wonder will there ever be any more new members of UEFA? The only ones i could think of would be Greenland and Monaco. Are There any other prospective members? |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: kerrbhoy
Date: 27-04-2004, 15:24 | Gibraltar would be one. You can sign a petition here.  Gibraltar for the World Cup Jersey, Isle of Man, Guernsey etc could be others as they are not actually part of England. |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: macaskil
Date: 27-04-2004, 16:01 | How about the Vatican? The Pope used to be a goalkeeper.... |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: viulo
Date: 27-04-2004, 16:19 | Also if Israel and Kazhakistan are there, why not Morocco, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan... |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: porto-1978
Date: 27-04-2004, 16:42 | I can?t agree with none! But i?d like to watch a Vatican - Palestine game, why not? Kazakistan it?s kinda like Turkey: with a bit of the country in Europe and the whole rest in Asia. There?s no more countries like these. Israel, well, as they don?t want to be stoped, until they get peace in midle east it?s good that UEFA let them enter but i would agree that they should play in Asia when that zone will be safe. I?d sign a petition to Gibraltar not to be a federation. And isle of Man?!? One of this days we have 100 conferences, with Corsega, Sardegna, Sicilia, Baleares, Canary, Madeira, Azores, Crete, turkish Cyprus, greek Cyprus, Isle of Man, Gibraltar, Ceuta, Melilla etc etc What?s the point?!?!? But would be nice to join Rep Ireland with North Ireland and Wales with Isle of Man - that would mean one less federation and two of them would get sronger. Also good would be the reunification of Cyprus... |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: Munja
Date: 27-04-2004, 17:06 | I think that in 5 years we can expect Kosovo and/or Montenegro (Crna Gora) to become UEFA members. I am not happy because of that (I am Serb, after all), but I think that UN are willing to separate Kosovo from S&M. And some politicians from Montenegro are also willing to separate. |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: kerrbhoy
Date: 27-04-2004, 17:13 | I think NI should unite its league rather than its national teams. There seems to be some support for this. Isle of Man has no historical link to Wales. Its separate and had its own Celtic language which died out about 100 years ago. Montenegro XI would have had Savicevic & Mijatovic, and a Jersey XI would have had Le Saux & Le Tissier. vakho- why shouldn't non-independent countries have their own teams if the people want it? I think it would be cool to have Catalonia v Bretagne or Sicily v Basques in the World Cup. Its football not politics and borders in Europe are becoming arbitrary anyway. |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: kerrbhoy
Date: 27-04-2004, 17:14 | not vakho...I mean porto78 |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: Lyonnais
Date: 27-04-2004, 18:52 | Kherboy wrote: Why shouldn't non-independent countries have their own teams if the people want it? I think it would be cool to have Catalonia v Bretagne or Sicily v Basques in the World Cup. Its football not politics and borders in Europe are becoming arbitrary anyway. Because that would be the best argument for the G14 to kill the nations' competitions. They are already arguing that international players pay too many stupid games (like France-Malta or whatever). That would be the best way to kill the World Cup. Furthermore, accepting that Bretagne, Sicily, Catalonia or the Basque country play under their own colours is a strong political act. And we agree that football should be protected from politics and politicians. |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: kerrbhoy
Date: 27-04-2004, 20:50 | Defining countries by political borders is also a political act! I don't see why if the majority in Catalonia want an international team they shouldn't be allowed one. I agree with G14 not generally but they are right that too many pointless international games are being played. Last month one of Celtic's players was almost crippled playing for Scotland v Romania, and he'll be out for 12 months. Now tonight in the Scotland U21 game 2 players from Rangers & Liverpool were stretchered off. And about 10 subs were used in total. I mean whats the point in it? I think 10 countries should disappear in preliminary rounds so France-Litchenstein etc doesn't happen. |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: anita
Date: 28-04-2004, 00:13 | If Catalunya, Bretagne, Sardegna, Bayern, Vasco, Jersey or Isle of Man wanted to break out of their present and in some cases coincidental federations and establish their own nation, and they were acknowledged by the international society, I presume they would want to establish a national football team as well. And they will be welcomed by our international football family. Remember that eg Italy is no more than 150 years old, Norway is celebrating their 100-year anniversary as a sovereign nation next year, and did you by the way know that the oldest nation in Europe with present borders is Portugal? Remember some years ago, Beckenbauer proposed that it was a waste of time and energy for the "G14"-nations to play against the smaller nations, and that the smaller nations ought to have a pre-qualification before the qualification for World Cup. Couple of months later Germany played Albania. Won something like 3-2 at home and almost lost in the away match (neutral ground). Two goals last five minutes and Germany won 4-3. (Albania by the way beating Russia 4-1 last year). Remember Andorra-France, 0-1, France scored in 86th minute. Spain lost to Cyprus some years ago. I dig it. Thats some of the charm with football. The same Beckenbauer babbled in 1999 about of all the free passengers in the CL, obviously referring to teams like Rozenborg, Maribor, Sturm Graz and AIK Solna from small, unimportant countries in Europe. Some people in Norway were old enough to remember another bawling German (OK, originally Austrian) some 60 years ago having kind of similar view on the topic of unsignificant countries. Two months after Beckenbauers infamous and historically improper statements, Rozenborg humiliated Dortmund 3-0 away, and won their CL-group in front of Feyenoord and Boavista. I am not arguing like this because I represent a small country, but I think the smaller nations should have an opportunity now and then to meet with the better nations, and that the better nations should understand and appreciate that. Sport in general, and especially football the later years, is gathering people from all over the world in (with some exceptions) friendly company and mutual interests. There was a poll couple of years ago in East-Asia about Norway. When Norway was mentioned, noone said Ibsen or Grieg or Amundsen or Nansen or St. Olaf or the vikings or our fjords. No, 95% said:" yes norway, yes, Ole Gunnar Solskjær in ManU". A lot of them could even pronounce the name correctly!! Maybe no decisive conclusion or coherence in my reply, but what the heck. And Greenland has already played a couple of unofficial matches, so next year bring your kajaks. Regards from anita to Israelis, Serbs, Bulgarians and - Germans of course - on this forum. |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: vakho
Date: 28-04-2004, 07:14 | Thanks Bert - interesting article ! |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: JPV
Date: 28-04-2004, 07:31 | i'm 100% against "regional" teams. Only when a nation really separates, they should be allowed to have an independant team. A couple of years ago, there were some polls here in Flanders (northern part of Belgium). If people had to choose between a united Belgium or a independant state of Flanders, the majority (although not 50% of the votes (dus to answers like "i don't know/no opinion")) was in favour of an independant state. However, if people asked if they'd rather see an independant soccer team, a large majority was against the idea. Luckily, Belgium is a confederal state (kind of like Switzerland, but even more complicated, we've got 7 governments and i guess 6 prime ministers). So, few people really want an independant state here in belgium. |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: duncshine
Date: 28-04-2004, 10:28 | Anita: "did you by the way know that the oldest nation in Europe with present borders is Portugal?" Really, I would have guessed at England or Wales... D. |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: eoinh
Date: 28-04-2004, 11:00 | I doubt if its england as Ireland got its independence in 1921. As for regional teams . i think the way FIFA works it is if a region has self-governement and doesnt send representatives to the national parliament. So in cases like that of Catalonia, the Basquez country etc couldnt have national teams. It could mean though that Jersey, Gibralter etc could join as they dont send MPs to London. I think also that Greenland had applied to join FIFA but got into trouble by playing Tibet which annoyed the chinese. As the serb contributor pointed out i reckon from what i have read that Montenegro will probably become independent in a few years time and will be the next member of UEFA. I think the Spainairds will do all they can to stop Gibralter joining UEFA. I agree with Anita and the way the big countries try to bully the smaller countries ( you can see it happening all the time in the EU as well). Thats why i like to see the smaller countries and clubs winning international trophies. To Kerrbhoy - although it would be nice to see a united Irish league i cant see it happening in the near future. The potential for trouble at some of these matchs would be too great sadly. |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: duncshine
Date: 28-04-2004, 11:17 | That's why I said ENgland, and not Great Britain... England's borders have been pretty much the same since the building of Offa's Dyke and Hadrian's Wall.. Cheers Dunc |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: clifton
Date: 28-04-2004, 11:48 | seeing that you are handing out membership, does anyone mind if Australia joins UEFA? after all, we are trying to base our national team in London, & our Prime Minister will not let us severe ties with the Queen. |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: Ricardo
Date: 28-04-2004, 12:13 | Australia in the Uefa? Probably the travel-time&costs will keep you from joining the Uefa: Traveling more than 50 hours for just 1 match? |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: Munja
Date: 28-04-2004, 13:06 | How can Wales, England, N. Ireland have their own football teams. Shouldn't thay play under great Great Britain flag? And also Faroe Islands. They're still part of Denmark. If you let those "countries" have their FA and national team, then why not Catalonia or Bretagne or Sicily... |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: vakho
Date: 28-04-2004, 13:24 | Greenland for example became the member of IHF In ternational Handball Federation - moreover they played on the past Handball World Chapionship with own flag. |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: Lyonnais
Date: 28-04-2004, 15:47 | I am amused that some of you might wish Brittany (Bretagne), Catalonia, Sicily or Basque country have their own "national" team. As a Frenchman, I have never been aware of any serious "autonomous" party in Brittany. And I have never heard any player coming from Brittany claiming that he would rather play for Brittany than for France. I don't know if some players from Catalonia, Sicily or the Basque Country had such requests. The only thing I am sure is that players coming from the French Basque Country (namely Deschamps and Lizarazu) never mentioned that they would have rather played for the Basque Country rather for the French team. Second point: with UEFA coming to 53 maybe more members, it seems to me more and more meaningful to organize a preliminary round between small countries (Faroe, San marino, Andorra, etc.) to save some games in the final qualifying games. As it is done in all other big confederations Asia and Africa. |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: Munja
Date: 28-04-2004, 15:54 | I am against preliminary rounds and even qualifications. If all the teams were starting from same round, it would be easier to compare them and to make good ranking system. Now teams get half points in qualifications, but even so teams that start earlier have chance to win more points. |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: jarv
Date: 28-04-2004, 18:39 | I thought the Scotland(Caledonia), Italy border was defined by Hadrian's wall. Haven't the channel islands & the Isle of Man actually played a couple of international matches in the distant past. Interesting that inhabitants of these islands can play for any of the home nations. (can the pope now play for Italy as well as Poland?) How does it work for colonies, what nation can a Falkland islander play for? |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: ralfinho
Date: 28-04-2004, 23:04 | anita, you are absolutely right to blame Beckenbauer for these statements. But don't take him too serious. He says many things all day long. Often enough, he says the contrary after 2 weeks. He is like he is. And neither you nor I nor anybody else can change him. |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: ralfinho
Date: 28-04-2004, 23:08 | P.S. But the comparison with "another bawling German" was a bit indecent. Don't you think so? |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: porto-1978
Date: 29-04-2004, 03:56 | (Indeed portuguese borders are the oldest from those we can see in a actual globe. The oldest lines that lasted for 800 years to now start to get dissolved in the much more uncertains borders of Europe. The process of dissolution of borders started already but in normal conditions will take a long time to all see that the border is not there.) kerrbhoy "why shouldn't non-independent countries have their own teams if the people want it?" Yeah thinking better you are absolutly right. It?s the power of democracy that rules ourdays but it?s time to learn that pure democracy it?s a misguised type of dictatorship: the rule of the majority that sometimes it?s minority! Who decide about UEFA? Well, not a very democratic institution (it seems). Should they be more democratic? Yes. But to be democratic they have to accept any province or whatever as a federation? I think yes and no, each situation it?s particular. But as more or less general law, if the clubs from a province refuse (really refuse) to play in a federation they suposed belong UEFA can make the effort to analyse the situation, try to pressure a peacefull situation and in case of non agreement it?s normal to aprove a new federation. My first reply in this subject was very impulsive. Only now i?ve analised more carefully the replies and entered in the links... - Saarland as federation it?s new fact for me. Maybe that explain why i?ve saw (when watching history results in EC) the name of clubs from that small region. I think it?s in size and population similar to Luxemburg. I guess it?s a result of WWII and so will not happen again Saarland as federation as two germans it?s no more too. - Catalonia, Galicia, Basc country, Normandia, Corse, Isle of Man, Friesland whatever.... are distinct provinces, let?s say with long history... At least "bascos y catalanes" have their own "national" teams (once Catalunia-Portugal was anounced but canceled because Figo changed to Madrid). But that?s not enough, to be oficial national team they have to make their own championship. - By actual circunstances, from all (that suposed federations) i see as more capable of being in conditions to be (in fact) a federation is Greenland, then Montenegro, then Isle of Man. I agree with Greenland - are the stadiums there covered or does it snow? ;. - Montenegro and Kosovo i tottaly disagree but i can?t go against "cnn made democracy", i can only dream about the day yugo(southern)slavians quietly discovery that they are one people and one federation. What a distant day!, it seems by now. - About Isle of Man my opinion (maybe not well fundamented) it?s that they could join Wales or Nothern Ireland federation, as i?m not sensible to the (possible bigger) cultural diferences from I.Man to Wales or N.ireland. In fact i know nothing about that island exept the cars race, geography and flag; can someone say me if they could possibly see as good idea to belong to Walish or N.Irish federation? (Maybe their culture is more english as they belong to english federation? But i?m almost sure they are not "like english" exactly...) - About Flamish i think you (french and flamish belgium) don?t really want to get away from each other. I know there?s a kind of hate but it?s just sintomatic of a country divided... in two. i?m afraid with the end of european borders that question will loose weight! Still if flamish teams really want to form a federation, why not? it?s just to do their own championship! Want them? - Catalunia and others go by the same way... But Catalunia loose a lot in being as itself a federation and as it is for cultural reasons Aragon, Valencia and Baleares is more Catalunia alike than Madrid alike. So the cleaver idea for catalunian clubs would be to join Valencia, Villarreal, Zaragoza, Mallorca etc and form a league. Then if Galician clubs wanted to enter in portuguese league would be ok. Basc country only could join with Navarra and french Basque country i guess. Of course this will never happen. - Bretagne could be a federation too if they (the clubs) wanted to compete in a own league. Sicily. Southern Italy, Corsega, diferent parts of Switzerld, or Belgium, or Yugoslavia or Germany! The clubs are free to decide in wich league they want to play and uefa have to listen their choices and normaly say yes. - When the clubs of a geographical zone want to form a independent league then their national team have to be allowed by UEFA and FIFA to play oficially and i think there?s no mistake on it! Until the day Catalunia clubs don?t form their own league independent from spanish liga their "national" team it?s just unoficial. I agree Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland, Faroe as oficial national teams because they have clubs?s unity around a professional league (not Faroe maybe but not a big deal). (There?s the exeption of walish clubs in english leagues but i think that?s just one of the exeptions...Liechensteinetc) - SO, clubs and national teams are not totally diferent things. One goes with another, it?s the only way you can get some sense! There?s a national team because there?s a clubs federation and vice versa. In political world we have political countries, with a "independent" parlament. In football we have "footbolistical" countries, with a independent league and federation. |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: eoinh
Date: 29-04-2004, 10:02 | The Isle of Man has no connection with Wales or Northern Ireland really. It is a Celtic "nation". Its not part of the United Kingdom and makes its own laws. I believe if it wanted to it could declare indepence tomorrow - but it wont manx is the the celtic language of the isle of man but i dont think many people speak it anymore. |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: vakho
Date: 29-04-2004, 10:05 | eoinh - what's population of this island ? |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: eoinh
Date: 29-04-2004, 10:20 | About 70,000 i think. |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: eoinh
Date: 29-04-2004, 10:29 | People were talking about Greenland earlier. They have a nice football jersey! http://www.subsidesports.com/uk/store/product_details.jsp?pid=986&cid=132&brc=&red=product_list.jsp?id=132, |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: anita
Date: 29-04-2004, 14:50 | About Man, eoinh Both Manx (about 1950 about ten people could communicate on Manx) and Norn (spoken latest in the beginning of last century on Wirrall, a peninsula outside Liverpool) are now extinct. Some 10 years ago,the "manics" had an argument with the central government in London, and some of them got so pissed off that they founded a party with the purpose of re-uniting with Norway, since Man and the Hebrides where a norwegian-led kingdom from app. 800-1300 when the celts got the hold of it. But there are still a lot of places on Man with names of Norwegian origin. My football question is: Is there any point for Norway to include Isle of Man in the Norwegian Kingdom? In other words; are there any football players from Man of international standard who could be of use?  |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: mark
Date: 29-04-2004, 15:43 | Come on anita, Norway is not such a poor country, surely you can pay several milion dollars to the player like Qatar does, or find a nice lady from norway to marry the player like it used to done in israel in the pre bosman times |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: eoinh
Date: 29-04-2004, 16:00 | Well anita As Jan Mayan land isnt a full part of Norway and nobody live there maybe you could arrange that everybody here gets a norwegian passport and we could all turn out as the Jan Mayan International team. I suppose as a lot of Irish towns were viking settlements you could claim most of the Irish team as norwegian Werent some of the Scottish isles Norwegian in the past too? |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: porto-1978
Date: 29-04-2004, 18:13 | Celts, Scandinavians (there?s not a people called vikings, that?s the name to say "going on campaign", so it was a temporary job of many Scandinavians), Latins, Etruscans, Greeks, Slavians, Magiar, Suomi, Iranians, Indians, Germans, Assirians and many others are all Indo-European. That means they were nomads in the area of central asia and spread their language culture and genes from India to Atlantic Europe. That means that any player from Europe (except the bascs as non euro asians) can play in Mongolia or Kazakistan national teams?!? By the way we all came from Africa. Should Etiopia national team be formed by players from all around the world? |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: eoinh
Date: 29-04-2004, 18:31 | Actually going back to the Isle of man. heres how their championship ended Isle of Man 2003/04 Division One Table: 1.St. George's FC Douglas 24 18 3 3 100-29 57 Champions 2.Laxey FC 24 14 4 6 69-36 46 3.Marown Crosby 22 15 0 7 44-39 45 4.St. Mary's AFC 22 14 2 6 74-43 44 5.Peel AFC 23 11 6 6 56-37 39 6.Rushen United AFC 24 11 3 10 40-46 36 7.Ayre United FC 23 9 4 10 60-56 31 8.Metropolitan FC Castletown 21 7 3 11 38-41 24 9.Douglas HS Old Boys 22 5 7 10 41-62 22 10.Colby FC 23 5 7 11 36-65 22 11.Ramsey FC 23 5 6 12 31-52 21 ------------------------------------------------------ 12.Corinthians Douglas 23 5 3 15 41-71 18 13.Gymnasium Douglas 22 2 6 14 30-83 12 Relegated The channel Islands leagues Guernsey (Priaulx League) 1.St Martin's 24 17 2 5 49-21 53 Champions 2.Northerners 24 16 4 4 59-22 52 3.Sylvans 23 11 4 8 47-39 37 4.Vale Recreation 23 11 3 9 37-36 36 5.Belgrave Wanderers 24 7 6 11 49-50 27 6.Rovers 23 6 2 15 36-58 20 7.Rangers 23 3 1 19 22-73 10 Jersey (Flybe Combination Division 1) [at Apr 21> 1.Jersey Scottish 18 16 0 2 112-12 48 Champions 2.Trinity 18 14 3 1 65-15 45 3.Jersey Wanderers 18 9 6 3 50-54 33 4.St Paul's 17 7 6 4 47-22 27 5.Portuguese Club 17 7 3 7 42-30 24 6.First Tower 18 7 2 9 37-26 23 7.Magpies 18 7 1 10 24-44 22 8.St Peter 18 6 2 10 26-48 20 -------------------------------------------- 9.Rozel Rovers 18 3 3 12 21-42 12 Relegated 10.Sporting Academics 18 0 0 18 21-152 0 Relegated NB: winners obtain the James Marquis Memorial Trophy; Academics lost 0-18 to Trinity in their final match, surpassing their two previous 17-goal defeats against Scottish. Upton Park Final [Apr 24, Foote's Lane> AC St Martin's 0-0 Jersey Scottish [aet, 4-2 pen> [St Martin's: Nathan Pattimore; Etienne Ogier, Steve Concanen, Sam Rowe, Luke Allen, Simon Geall; Darren Le Tissier, Jan Renouf, Kevin Gilligan, Dominic Heaume; Alex Hunter. Cautioned: Concanen, Allen. Sent off: Concanen. Scottish: Jamie Brewster; Scott Devlin, Ryan Lumsden, Craig Ferey; James Scott, Gordon Brodie, Ged McConnell, Chris McNabb, Paul Duxbury; David Brodie; Ross Crick. Cautioned: Crick. Sent off: D Brodie. Officials: Peter Walton (Northampton); Mark Le Tissier (Gsy), Russell Barry (Jsy)> and Gibralter Gibraltar 2003/04 Final Table: 1.Newcastle FC 15 11 2 2 54-17 35 Champions 2.Gibraltar United 15 9 4 2 39-18 31 3.Glacis United 15 7 4 4 30-24 25 4.Manchester United 15 6 3 6 37-24 21 5.St. Joseph's FC 15 4 3 8 33-36 15 6.Lions FC 15 0 0 15 6-80 0 |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: JPV
Date: 03-05-2004, 06:09 | something else for Bert:potAnderlecht => should be in pot 3: you've got at least: -- 3 winners of QR3 - Werder Bremen - Olympiakos Piraeus - Rosenborg - Rangers - Ajax behind them. Ger CL1-2 => should be in pot 1-3 (got at least 12 teams behind them...) |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: timjohnson
Date: 03-05-2004, 06:49 | Being Welsh I have never called myself British and would not support in any shape or form a British National team. |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: Michele
Date: 03-05-2004, 13:40 | Anita, if you want to claim most Irish and some English players as well, please leave a few for us Danes as we were also vikings. BTW, I don't think it's unrealistic that Greenland will join FIFA at some point of time, but I think they will be a CONCACAF member. Geographically, they belong to CONCACAF and their handball team also plays in the American zone. That would also give them much better chances of finding equal opposition instead of being humiliated by Spain, France and England. A game like Montserrat - Greenland would probably be quite an open affair with huge climate differences from the first game in Plymouth, Montserrat to the seond leg in Nuuk, Greenland. However, I don't think Greenland did themselves any favour by accepting to play the game against Tibet in the summer of 2001. Actually, it was quite a funny game to watch. (It was played in Vanløse, about 2 km's from my home) The level was app. as the 4th or 5th level in Denmark, but more than 2000 spectators showed up to watch the game. Many of them were Greenlanders living in Denmark and many of the rest showed up to support Tibet and protest against China. (Don't want to enter this discussion as it is far too political for this forum). But it was a nice game with plenty of atmosphere among the spectators and a 4-1 win for Greenland after Tibet took a surprise lead in the first half. Actually, Tibet has some quite trendy shirts as well http://www.hummel.dk/sw4696.asp They were designed for this game and became very popular in Denmark during that summer, both for their political statement and for their trendy design. And I must admit that it was quite tempting to buy a Tibet shirt with "Karma" printed on the back. One of the Tibet players was actually named Karma and who wouldn't like to walk around with some good karma? Michele |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: anita
Date: 03-05-2004, 14:17 | Hey,hey,hey, Michele. I was just asking about Isle of Man. If the "Maniax" want it. You may have the whole Danelagen (Dane Law). And Gotland and Skaane. What I was trying to emphasise was that if eg Catalonia (or Bretagne) want to build their own nation, like Slovakia, the baltic states or former Yugoslavian or Soviet states, and then this is approved internationally (UN), then UEFA of course will accept them as well as members. And the UK/GB-system in UEFA is a pervertion and an exception, and especially when it comes to FIFA and countries. Wales is not a country, neither is England. And having their own series, is not an argument for joining UEFA. Every county (amt)in Denmark may have their own league, but I don't think UEFA will approve Denmark sending 20(?) teams to the EC. And to you Tim, not feeling british is not an argument. Sometimes I dont feel Norwegian either. Do you have a british passport? And a british citizenship? PS to Michele: Good point with Montserrat and Nuuk, and yes, Greenland ought to be a part of CONCACAF (read something about it a while ago), and it would be a lot nicer for them in all kind of ways playing in the Caribbean. But the same argument there as for Wales. Greenland is not officially a country (nor is Lappland), so... Regards |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: Michele
Date: 03-05-2004, 17:54 | Hej Anita I don't think anyone was really serious about British players in Scandinavian teams because of the Vikings. If that was the case, I think that all players could choose to play for a lot of different countries. I fully agree that independent countries approved by the UN should immidiately become FIFA and UEFA members and be able to play EURO and WC qualification. It would be outright silly to force Slovenia, Bosnia, Serbia-Montenegro, Croatia and FYR Macedonia to form one national team. And I don't think that counties should be given their own national teams just because they want to, but if we look at those nations who have been divided during the last 15 years, it has been because of war or rebellion or...(I don't really know why Czekoslovakia split up). It hasn't been just for fun or because they wanted their own national team. I also agree that the UK question is an exception, but for historical reasons, I think it should stay as it is now. For me, it would be very strange to suddenly see a UK team participating in the World Cup, but perhaps that is just me... Michele |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: Munja
Date: 03-05-2004, 20:21 | What about Faroe Islands. They're not independent. |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: anita
Date: 03-05-2004, 23:28 | Hi Munja Was to mention Faroe Isles as well, but was not sure what kind of "Home Rule"-independence they have. Guess Michele knows the answer. |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: eoinh
Date: 04-05-2004, 09:46 | there are loads of members of FIFA who donthave independence especially in the carribean region. I reckon its that you have full control over domestic affairs, dont send reprsentatives to the controlling powers parliament and can declare independene whenever you want to. The channel islands and gibralter would fall into this category. |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: Michele
Date: 04-05-2004, 23:25 | Wow, Anita, you really put a lot of pressure on me. But I will try to answer to the best of my knowledge. A home rule act for Faroe Islands were signed in 1948, but several years before that a local parliament (Lagtinget) were formed on the Faroe Islands. By now, the home rule is still in full effect, but Faroe Islands still have two seats in the Danish parliament as well (just like Greenland, by the way). I think Denmark controls the Faroese foreign policy and the Faroese currency is pegged to the Danish krone and you can pay with Faroese kroner in Denmark and vice versa. But the Faroese probably controls most of their domestic affairs with a lot of Danish money to help them make ends meet. This is one of the reasons, they don't want real independence. This is about all I know about Danish/Faroese relations and I actually had to do a bit of research to get this knowledge. Faroese home rule is not one of my strong sides, I must admit. Hope that I managed to give an adequate answer. Michele |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: anita
Date: 04-05-2004, 23:55 | Davs, Michele, and thanks for the answer. Since I'm Norwegian, I had some idea myself. Nice of you to do a little research. Hope it didnt harm your brain? I just wondered if we can put Wales and Faroe Isles and Greenland in the same position, or if some of them may have a special reason for being treated like more independent nations than the others? When it comes to the dividing of Ceskoslovensko, you have to know that this was a hybrid(like Yuogoslavia) after WW1 and the fall of the Austrian/Hungarian Empire. And the Slovaks have always felt treated like little brothers by the Czeks. An inferiority complex. Something like Norway/Denmark before 1814. And eoinh, its a little funny that in athletics in eg the Olympics GB/UK is one nation, but all the small caribbean Isles also being formally British are competing with their own flag (Bahamas, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, Barbados and so on). And OK with the Channel Isles, but if Gibraltar applies for some kind of acknowledgement in eg UEFA, I guess Spain may send their armada to UEFA's headquarters. Maybe a little tricky to send an armada to Switzerland, but I bet they will try. |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: anita
Date: 05-05-2004, 00:02 | And Michele, would you please go to the topic "Teams with same number of points". I (we) have a question to you there as well. Dont mean to bother you. Just curious. |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: Michele
Date: 05-05-2004, 00:20 | Hej igen, Anita It didn't harm my brain to do this research, but I think it harmed my sleep... However, I needed a good excuse not to make my exam essay on Northern Ireland (not football, but religion), so you are forgiven. As far as I know, UEFA is very open to allow countries with a high degree of home rule to play their tournaments, when the "mother country" don't have any problems with it. I think that is why Wales and Faroe Islands can play UEFA tournaments. I don't think Greenland have ever formally applied for FIFA membership because they don't have any grass on the island, contrary to what the name suggests. And also the quality of football is very low, but that didn't stop other teams from entering... Michele PS: I'm on my way to the "Teams with same number of points"-thread to solve your problems. |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: eoinh
Date: 05-05-2004, 16:17 | To Anita, Actually with regard to the Olympics Ireland competes as the whole island - both Northern Ireland and the republic. Every team sport in Ireland i think represents the full island except soccer  .Our hockey team just missed qualifying for the Olympics. Every team sport from Gaelige football/Hurling to Rugby is an all-ireland sport. I think at the Olympics the British team is known as Great Britain and not the United Kingdom as Northern Ireland is not included in their team. (Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom but not a part of Great Britain). PS Greenland was called Greenland to get colonists to move to the newly discovered land. I'ld say they got a bit of a shock when they got there - EEEK |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: duncshine
Date: 05-05-2004, 16:22 | Eoinh Off topic I know, but didn't Mary Peters win the Pentathlon gold for Great Britain, not Ireland? Or has it changed since then? Cheers D |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: eoinh
Date: 05-05-2004, 16:26 | Youre right. I think in Athletics you are allowed to choose who you can represent. Most decide for the Irish team as I suppose some for political reasons and others because its probably easier to get into the Irish squad than the British. |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: anita
Date: 05-05-2004, 17:30 | Hi eoinh Thanks for interesting information ad Ireland. So they can co-opperate on some levels?! Comforting. Mean it. Yes, I wrote UK/GB with a purpose, because I dont always get the difference. Now I understand in some extent. And even though Eirik the Red called the island Greenland around 1000 AD as some kind of bait, it was livable and actually green up there on parts of the west coast in those days. But the Little Ice Age 13-1400 AD destroyed the community, that had their own bishopry and up to around 1000 people on its most. |
| Re: To Bert - History ranking | |
| Author: spgrey
Date: 25-05-2004, 18:47 | This has been an interesting discussion. Here are a few more footballing oddities who were all allowed to enter the 2006 World Cup: Tahiti and New Caledonia (neither is independent) Hong Kong and Macao (used to be independent) Palestine (should be independent) Puerto Rico, Guam and American Samoa I'd love to see Gibraltar and Greenland allowed to play in the World Cup. |