Right, not one thing I said was anything about that, and nothing to do with the idiots saying the Indigenous side is the same as fielding an Australian 'Anglo-Saxon' side.
You're really good at moving goal posts and making totally irrelevant points.
You said -
The old European cultures I'm talking about are the ones people mention when they say 'Anglo-Saxon' or 'Celtic', these are thousands of years removed and no longer relevant when it comes to identification. No one identifies as these and very few even know what they refer to. No one would have any idea how much Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Norman etc are in them. It's like saying we should have a Viking side.
None of which is true, none of those cultures you named are "thousands of years removed", none of them are no longer relevant when "it comes to identification" (particularly Celtic cultures in Britain, Ireland and parts of France), people still do identify with these cultures or derivatives of them and do know what they refer too.
By pointing out ethnic differences within European nations I was pointing out the utter ridiculousness of what you were saying, and the utter ridiculousness of people saying that if people of European ethnicity or heritage wanted to represent that they can just play for their national teams with one set of examples, e.g. a Walloon is not representing Wallonia or Walloon culture when they play for Belgium and selection for Belgium's national team is not restricted by ethnicity or ethnic heritage, it's open to all citizens of Belgium that are eligible under the sports rules whether they be Walloon, Flemish, or not even ethnically Belgian at all!
People are bringing up the cultural/ethnic groups instead of sub-groups of them (i.e. individual tribes or nations) cause it is more analogous to what is happening with these Aboriginal or Maori teams, e.g. Maori describes an ethnic/cultural group not a specific Maori tribe just as Celtic describes the Celtic ethnic/cultural group instead of specific Celtic tribes and/or nations.