European Champonship 2016

Gullscorer · Post by **Gullscorer** » 06 Sep 2015, 21:16

Seems as if Wales was robbed of a penalty against Israel. But they can still make it to the finals, two games to go.

Northern Ireland too. It would be great to see all our British teams get there, though it looks as if Scotland have blown their chances yet again.

Anyway, Israel is not in Europe. Has never been part of Europe. What on earth are they doing in the European Championship?

Post by **Gulliball** » 07 Sep 2015, 02:32

Mainly because playing their neighbours would cause far more trouble. There's quite often flexibility with boundaries to suit agendas - Australia moved to Asia a few years ago and Spain/Gibraltar are kept apart.

It's great to see Wales and Northern Ireland qualify for a major tournament after long gaps, as it is with Iceland, as it means so much more to them. Slovakia aren't far away either. Ireland and Scotland are in a straight shootout for the play-off spot in their group. Ireland might win a play-off but I don't think Scotland would. Holland missing out would be a pretty major shock and they're in big trouble.

Gullscorer · Post by **Gullscorer** » 07 Sep 2015, 03:05

You'd think that because of the Spanish problem Gibraltar would be moved to the north African football bloc! However, Gibraltar is now a full EUFA member, despite opposition from Spain. So what would happen if they were to be drawn against each other? It's a pity politics has to interfere in such matters.

If the Israelis had to remain in the Middle East group, they might be better motivated to behave more peaceably towards their neighbours. Same goes for their neighbours, who seem to fight among themselves pretty regularly: disqualify all those in a state of war, and make the rest play Israel on neutral grounds.

Good news about Iceland. I always thought they were traditionally ice hockey players. Must be global warming..

Post by **Gulliball** » 07 Sep 2015, 17:11

Apparently Iceland invested heavily in indoor facilities around 10-15 years ago, which allowed them to play all year round for the first time, rather than just in the summer. The players they have now are the first ones that have grown up being able to play football all year round.

Spain and Gibraltar are not allowed to be in the same group for qualifying due to political pressure applied when Gibraltar were trying to get UEFA membership. They actually were drawn together for this very qualifying round, but Gibraltar had to move groups to avoid Spain. Armenia and Azerbaijan have been kept apart recently as well.

Football solving the middle east peace crisis would be one hell of an achievement, but probably quite unlikely. On a purely footballing level, Israel playing against the sides around them would be like moving Cardiff and Swansea back to the Welsh league.

Post by **happytorq** » 10 Sep 2015, 14:42

Iceland spent quite a lot of money a decade or two ago on upgrading their facilities. They have close to 200 places to play year round now (in a country with a population of 330,000) plus they have so many qualified coaches that there are Uefa B and A licensed people at pretty much every school. That's a huge amount of investment and one that you're seeing the results for now. [edit - excellent piece here - https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/l ... occer-team]

Israel were moved into Europe in part thanks to the attitudes of the Arab countries who refuse to recognise them as a country, and would refuse to play them. There were actually excluded from AFC competitions thanks to a motion put forward by Kuwait in 1974, and for 20 years they didn't play anywhere as they didn't have a confederation that would let them. You can talk about Israel's politics all you like but the momentum for getting them into UEFA was because a lot of countries in their original confederation said they wouldn't play. (There also isn't a "Middle East" group, Gullscorer)

Gullscorer · Post by **Gullscorer** » 27 Sep 2015, 21:57

I expressed myself badly: I meant the group in which other middle eastern countries (or most of them) play.

I don't want to talk about anybody's politics when it comes to football. Competition groupings should be, as far as possible, geographical, not political. Politics should not interfere with or affect sport in any way.

If Arab countries refuse to recognise Israel, if Israel refuses to play Arab countries even on neutral ground, if any country allows politics to interfere, they should be excluded, whether they be Israeli, Arab, or any other.

Post by **Dave** » 27 Sep 2015, 22:32

So are you suggesting that all those years that Apartheid South Africa was banned from all international sport, they shouldn't have been ? After all that's allowing politics to interfere with sport isn't it not ?

Sometimes for the greater good you have to let politics interfere, what neutral country do you think Israel could safely stage an international football match in ? Egypt, Iraq, maybe some where in West Africa, not really, it would have to staged somewhere in Europe, so why not just let compete as a European nation.

Ok, so no alternative can be found, so lets exclude Israel, well surely that would be a prime example of letting politics interfere with sport, because Israel would be banned for an entirely politically motivated reason.

Gullscorer · Post by **Gullscorer** » 27 Sep 2015, 22:58

I believe, as a general principle, politics/politicians should not interfere in sport, and a country's international sporting activities should not be banned. But where does one draw the line in specific cases? I don't know all the answers, Forever.

Do sports bodies ban countries for political reasons, or do they ban countries because those countries interfere politically in sport? Seems to me that it's not sports bodies but governments who usually do the banning and the interfering.

As I remember, South Africa was banned because its apartheid policies interfered in the country's sport (among other things). Of course, it has been argued that the state of Israel, since its inception in 1947, has operated an apartheid policy against the Palestinians, who were effectively rejected from their homes by the Israelis at the time, and so perhaps Israel should indeed be banned! I tend to disagree: I believe countries should not be banned.

But, as in the case of Israel and certain of their Arab neighbours, practicalities determine the decisions that are made, and so Israel plays in the European groups. It's a solution, though hardly a satisfactory one.

And none of this is a reason for Israel to be in the Eurovision Song Contest..

Post by **Dave** » 27 Sep 2015, 23:12

Unfortunately, sport can not survive with out politics, government's/politicians, so politics has to interfere with sport.

The Olympic games is a prime example, we're talking about a massive movement of people into the host country, needs politics for that to happen, stadia to be built, needs politics, as does the football, or any sporting world cups. Would there ever be any sport played in schools without politics, and where does the money come from for school sports, politics., and so on and so on.

Your argument that politics shouldn't be allowed to interfere in sport, in my view, is fatally flawed.

Gullscorer · Post by **Gullscorer** » 28 Sep 2015, 00:45

There's a big difference between politicians interfering with sport, and politicians supporting sport..

leetufc · Post by **leetufc** » 12 Oct 2015, 13:25

Great to see Wales and Northern Ireland Qualify for the tournament, along with other less-fancied nations such as Iceland, Albania and Austria.

I wonder how all the Northern Irish players who chose to represent ROI feel at the moment...

PhilGull · Post by **PhilGull** » 12 Oct 2015, 19:54

leetufc wrote:Great to see Wales and Northern Ireland Qualify for the tournament, along with other less-fancied nations such as Iceland, Albania and Austria.

I wonder how all the Northern Irish players who chose to represent ROI feel at the moment...

I guess that depends on their reasons. I would hope they feel the same about NI qualifying as they do about Wales and England - happy to see another 'home' nation qualify. Certainly would be disappointed if any had regrets...

leetufc · Post by **leetufc** » 12 Oct 2015, 20:07

PhilGull wrote: I guess that depends on their reasons. I would hope they feel the same about NI qualifying as they do about Wales and England - happy to see another 'home' nation qualify. Certainly would be disappointed if any had regrets...

Agreed it would depend on the player and their reasons for choosing which country to play for. Obviously there are political and emotional reasons why players would choose ROI over NI, and why NI players can opt to play for either nation. I am sure most are still patriotic about NI and are happy to see them through.

My comment was more aimed at players who choose to represent NI at youth level to get experience, then opt to play senior international football for ROI as it is deemed superior, such as Eunan O'Kane. The same could also be said for Jack Grealish who was quite happy to be part of the ROI setup until the media started telling him he was the next big thing.

On the one hand you can understand players trying to better themselves and play for better nations, on the other hand I think they should have to play for the nation they choose at U21 level. They want to benefit from the exposure and use that nations facilities, therefore they should pladge their allegiance.

Mainly just a gripe at how international selection works!

PhilGull · Post by **PhilGull** » 12 Oct 2015, 20:49

It is a bit rubbish but still better than cricket or rugby, something like 120 odd players in the Rugby World Cup playing for nations they weren't born in.
I don't really care so much, so long as players are playing for the country they have the most affinity with. I think this is why Bale is proving so popular with football fans outside Wales, the pride he has to turn up for every squad and play for the team, unlike the brother of a certain former Torquay trainee!

Gullscorer · Post by **Gullscorer** » 13 Oct 2015, 10:50

While the USSR was in existence, all the countries it controlled played under the USSR banner. Only when those countries became independent did they begin to play independently: Ukraine, Georgia, Latvia, Estonia, etc..

Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and England, have been one (more or less) united nation for many many years. Should we not be playing as one team? Had we done so earlier, this would have enabled the likes of George Best, Ryan Giggs etc. to play in world tournaments.

I understand the reasons why, historically, this did not happen. But perhaps I am an idealist. I believe all the peoples of the whole British Isles should be united as one nation, including the Republic of Ireland, perhaps under a federal system. Not going to happen, of course, perhaps not for another millennium, thanks to history and politics and human nature.

Anyway, as things stand, the Republic (including perhaps Eunan O'Kane), if they come through the play-offs, will be joining Northern Ireland, Wales, and England in the tournament.

It's such a pity that the Scots will not be there too..

Torquay United Fans Forum