|
Post by ansúilleabhánach on May 8, 2015 3:04:49 GMT
The back-door does not reinforce this, nor was it intended to. In fact, if anything there's been a greater spread of winners since it's inception, though this is probably coincidental . The backdoor was designed (and with the weaker teams in mind) to ensure at least more than one game for everyone, nothing else. It does this, and it's good. In a lot of cases, it ensures at least one more rout of a weaker county. But it is difficult to argue that it does not favour the strong. E.g. in hurling in 1980 a big factor in the breakthrough of Gaillimh was the vanquishing of the Big Three- suddenly the pedestal did not seem so daunting. Now the Davids cannot slay the Goliaths, as they are resurrected, with the opportunity to review where it went wrong and rectify the flaw (cf 2001 and 2006 champions). More games suit panels with greater depth. Counties like ourselves have a better first 15 than most others, but the gulf is exacerbated further when looking at the top 30 players. There hasn't been a greater spread of winners since its inception, it's pretty similiar. And in the case of diversity, it's been catastrophic for hurling.
|
|
|
Post by Mickmack on May 8, 2015 7:51:34 GMT
About ten years ago Wexford got a last second goal to win the Leinster final. Waterford won an epic Minster campaign
An All Ireland final between these two that year would have been memorable. Instead we got Cork v KK in an other easily forgotten anti climax. I cant even recall which of them won.
Under my proposals (no back door for winners of 3 previous years) Cork and KK would have been gone after losing one game. Cork and KK would have got over that. Wexford and Waterford would have been stronger today too in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Dermot on May 8, 2015 12:15:06 GMT
Actually, having thought about this before, we may have won the All Ireland in 2005 and 2010 under the old system. Also we may have got the O Neill monkey off our backs in the 2007 final! Although with all my objections, justice was delivered by the back door in 2005. The Ulster final was Tír Eoghain's until the two bizarre sendings off of Canavan and O Neill. They were in a class of their (Tyr)own that year. I've never so simultaneously admired, and been sickened by, a team's performance as I was at the final. I think that there has to be a line drawn, re the quarter final defeat of the provincial winners deserving a second chance, that means in theory an even greater advantage for stronger teams, and lets face it, you are not going to make the competition any more exciting by doing this, the opposite is likely. Scrapping the back door altogether isnt going to happen for the simple reason that it is such a money spinner now, and does add much excitement in late june and early july, when there is little else on offer due to the weakness of the provincial championships as meaningful competition in their own rights. The handicapping of successful teams, denying a back door for winners of the 3 previous years, or seeding negatively the winners of the provincial finals the following year away from home and in the first round would all be things worth looking at. There is no excitement until at least the semi finals any more.. Monaghan were not 20 points worse than dublin last year, but they were on the day due to their unfortunate fixture pile up before the quarter final. Something has to be done about it, there is no doubt that the back door may give you another chance, but it is not all good either. Yeah, still cant quite believe that Kernan took off McGeeny near the end ... I honestly think it was a major major factor in the outcome of that match !! ... There was very little between those 2 teams for those 3 or 4 years!!
|
|
|
Post by Dermot on May 8, 2015 12:43:10 GMT
Are some people really advocating that more successful teams be handicapped in some way ? This is nuts. "the current system sorta ensures that one of the usual suspects will win the AI every year" (Dermot). So what? One of the "usual suspects" wins in most sports every year. That's the nature of sport. How many different teams win the World Cup, the Rugby World Cup, the Premiership ? - fewer than win the AI , that's for sure. The back-door does not reinforce this, nor was it intended to. In fact, if anything there's been a greater spread of winners since it's inception, though this is probably coincidental . The backdoor was designed (and with the weaker teams in mind) to ensure at least more than one game for everyone, nothing else. It does this, and it's good. I dunno Southward, I think the back door does reinforce it ... A top team can have a bad day and get knocked out but if they get a reprieve they obviously have that second chance, and there's less chance of a top team getting hijacked twice !! As you say, the back door was designed to give the poorer teams at least 2 games per year .. they get that which is fair enough .. but the upshot is that the real benefit (IMHO) goes to the top teams .. its like they have 2 chances now to win the AI.. The subsequent upshot of this is that there is less and less chance of the lower or middle tear teams making a good run at the AI as even if they beat a top team they will probably/possibly have to beat them (or equivalent) again, and the chances of doing that twice are very low... Would it not be better and fairer to change the system to where you continued to help the teams that this was intended for and be a bit less of a leg up for teams who shouldn't need it... i.e. last few winners??
|
|
|
Post by Annascaultilidie on May 8, 2015 13:04:38 GMT
Are some people really advocating that more successful teams be handicapped in some way ? This is nuts. "the current system sorta ensures that one of the usual suspects will win the AI every year" (Dermot). So what? One of the "usual suspects" wins in most sports every year. That's the nature of sport. How many different teams win the World Cup, the Rugby World Cup, the Premiership ? - fewer than win the AI , that's for sure. The back-door does not reinforce this, nor was it intended to. In fact, if anything there's been a greater spread of winners since it's inception, though this is probably coincidental . The backdoor was designed (and with the weaker teams in mind) to ensure at least more than one game for everyone, nothing else. It does this, and it's good. I dunno Southward, I think the back door does reinforce it ... A top team can have a bad day and get knocked out but if they get a reprieve they obviously have that second chance, and there's less chance of a top team getting hijacked twice !! As you say, the back door was designed to give the poorer teams at least 2 games per year .. they get that which is fair enough .. but the upshot is that the real benefit (IMHO) goes to the top teams .. its like they have 2 chances now to win the AI.. The subsequent upshot of this is that there is less and less chance of the lower or middle tear teams making a good run at the AI as even if they beat a top team they will probably/possibly have to beat them (or equivalent) again, and the chances of doing that twice are very low... Would it not be better and fairer to change the system to where you continued to help the teams that this was intended for and be a bit less of a leg up for teams who shouldn't need it... i.e. last few winners?? So what you really want is a back door when the favourite wins but no back door if the favourite loses... Sounds workable.
|
|
|
Post by Dermot on May 8, 2015 13:35:06 GMT
I dunno Southward, I think the back door does reinforce it ... A top team can have a bad day and get knocked out but if they get a reprieve they obviously have that second chance, and there's less chance of a top team getting hijacked twice !! As you say, the back door was designed to give the poorer teams at least 2 games per year .. they get that which is fair enough .. but the upshot is that the real benefit (IMHO) goes to the top teams .. its like they have 2 chances now to win the AI.. The subsequent upshot of this is that there is less and less chance of the lower or middle tear teams making a good run at the AI as even if they beat a top team they will probably/possibly have to beat them (or equivalent) again, and the chances of doing that twice are very low... Would it not be better and fairer to change the system to where you continued to help the teams that this was intended for and be a bit less of a leg up for teams who shouldn't need it... i.e. last few winners?? So what you really want is a back door when the favourite wins but no back door if the underdog loses... Sounds workable. Is that not a contradiction ? (favourite wins / underdog loses is the same thing) Anyway, following MM's idea wouldn't take it to that level .. it would apply to the last 3 winners only (and if someone did 3 in a row, it would possibly only apply to them !! Very workable Id have thought ... and much more in line with why the back door was brought in in the first place .. i.e. to help the lower/middle tear teams .. not to bolster the already excellent chances of a top(recent champion)team !!
|
|
|
Post by Ard Mhacha on May 8, 2015 13:50:05 GMT
I think that there has to be a line drawn, re the quarter final defeat of the provincial winners deserving a second chance, that means in theory an even greater advantage for stronger teams, and lets face it, you are not going to make the competition any more exciting by doing this, the opposite is likely. Scrapping the back door altogether isnt going to happen for the simple reason that it is such a money spinner now, and does add much excitement in late june and early july, when there is little else on offer due to the weakness of the provincial championships as meaningful competition in their own rights. The handicapping of successful teams, denying a back door for winners of the 3 previous years, or seeding negatively the winners of the provincial finals the following year away from home and in the first round would all be things worth looking at. There is no excitement until at least the semi finals any more.. Monaghan were not 20 points worse than dublin last year, but they were on the day due to their unfortunate fixture pile up before the quarter final. Something has to be done about it, there is no doubt that the back door may give you another chance, but it is not all good either. Yeah, still cant quite believe that Kernan took off McGeeny near the end ... I honestly think it was a major major factor in the outcome of that match !! ... There was very little between those 2 teams for those 3 or 4 years!! Ah Jaysus, that poor wee cat next door won't thank you for bringing that up, Dermot But yeah, I agree. It still baffles me 10 years on.
|
|
|
Post by Annascaultilidie on May 8, 2015 13:53:23 GMT
So what you really want is a back door when the favourite wins but no back door if the underdog loses... Sounds workable. Is that not a contradiction ? (favourite wins / underdog loses is the same thing) Anyway, following MM's idea wouldn't take it to that level .. it would apply to the last 3 winners only (and if someone did 3 in a row, it would possibly only apply to them !! Very workable Id have thought ... and much more in line with why the back door was brought in in the first place .. i.e. to help the lower/middle tear teams .. not to bolster the already excellent chances of a top(recent champion)team !! That was a bit of a slip... Why don't we just go the whole hog and throw the previous year's finalist's out of the next AIFC? Seriously this is nuts talk --- there are always going to be winners and losers and consistent winners and consistent losers. Tell me who was the biggest underdog ever to win an All-Ireland?
|
|
|
Post by Ard Mhacha on May 8, 2015 14:00:02 GMT
Gabh mo leithsceal Ard Mhacha, I didn't mean to run your county down- you were superb that year! What a goal that was at the end of the first day- not only McDonnell's finish, but McEntee's pass was sublime. BUT- it was completely against the run of play. An outstanding smash-and-grab final two minutes. Can't agree with you about McKeever- the least I'll concede is that he should have been black carded! As for McMenamin's actions- a lifetime ban wouldn't have been enough. What he did, in cold blood, off the field of play, had the potential to compromise the man's cerebral circulation by carotid artery compression. It is admittedly extremely unlikely, but you could shear off an embolus and cause a stroke, with sustained pressure to the neck like that. Outrageous that he was cleared for the replay- maor uisce should have been the sum of his ambitions thereafter. I watched the Connacht, Munster and Ulster finals in a bar in Barcelona that day with the brother and a few lads from both Ulster counties. Three games going to the wire that had all of us leaping out of our seats and yelping, slumping back in despair seconds later, etc. A thoroughly enjoyable experience. For the entire six hours a trio of Aussies sipped their pints in front of the corner TV showing the Ashes. There's no accounting for taste! If it's any consolation, in this alternate universe without a back door, I'm awarding you the 2006 title! Ach it was stupid what McKeever did but hardly dangerous. I think the game was threatening to turn nasty at that stage and the ref probably had to show a couple of red cards to try and prevent it getting worse. Actually, I was wondering if anyone seen the Newcastle player sent off last week. Late tackle over the line that led the Leicester man colliding with the camera. Reminded me of O'Neills red that day. Both looked worse because of where the incident happened. A few yards infield and nobody would've batted an eyelid.
|
|
|
Post by kerrygold on May 8, 2015 14:50:53 GMT
Is that not a contradiction ? (favourite wins / underdog loses is the same thing) Anyway, following MM's idea wouldn't take it to that level .. it would apply to the last 3 winners only (and if someone did 3 in a row, it would possibly only apply to them !! Very workable Id have thought ... and much more in line with why the back door was brought in in the first place .. i.e. to help the lower/middle tear teams .. not to bolster the already excellent chances of a top(recent champion)team !! That was a bit of a slip... Why don't we just go the whole hog and throw the previous year's finalist's out of the next AIFC? Seriously this is nuts talk --- there are always going to be winners and losers and consistent winners and consistent losers. Tell me who was the biggest underdog ever to win an All-Ireland? Spot on well said. This suggested handicap systems makes no sense as teams evolve over a three year cycle, often going backwards after winning an Ireland. E.g. Offaly '82, Donegal '92, Derry '93.
|
|
|
Post by kerrygold on May 8, 2015 14:53:38 GMT
Taking McGeeney off in that semi-final was crazy stuff. He had some scowl on his face in the bar facilities in the Hogan Stand after the game. Roy Keane would have looked like a mouse beside him. Lol.
|
|
|
Post by Dermot on May 8, 2015 15:00:38 GMT
Yeah, still cant quite believe that Kernan took off McGeeny near the end ... I honestly think it was a major major factor in the outcome of that match !! ... There was very little between those 2 teams for those 3 or 4 years!! Ah Jaysus, that poor wee cat next door won't thank you for bringing that up, Dermot But yeah, I agree. It still baffles me 10 years on. lol .. poor moggie .. Ah well sure you have another 8 good kicks left before he's out !! Yeah, very weird ... I still remember thinking we were done for, and maybe Im wrong but I think everyone sorta had to take a second look to believe it, and it gave Tyrone a serious lift mentally as well as the loss of his physical presence ... We charged through the middle after that if I remember right ... again, weird !!
|
|
|
Post by Dermot on May 8, 2015 15:12:25 GMT
Is that not a contradiction ? (favourite wins / underdog loses is the same thing) Anyway, following MM's idea wouldn't take it to that level .. it would apply to the last 3 winners only (and if someone did 3 in a row, it would possibly only apply to them !! Very workable Id have thought ... and much more in line with why the back door was brought in in the first place .. i.e. to help the lower/middle tear teams .. not to bolster the already excellent chances of a top(recent champion)team !! That was a bit of a slip... Why don't we just go the whole hog and throw the previous year's finalist's out of the next AIFC? Seriously this is nuts talk --- there are always going to be winners and losers and consistent winners and consistent losers. Tell me who was the biggest underdog ever to win an All-Ireland? lol .. I don't think anyone's suggesting throwing the top team(s) out. There's a world of difference between that and them simply not getting a second chance as the other teams do .. Of course the previous years winners can still win the AI .. but do they really need any more help to win it again? Surely something like the back door should be configured in "some way" to help the lesser teams and not bolster up the top teams which it currently does?
|
|
|
Post by Dermot on May 8, 2015 15:15:44 GMT
Gabh mo leithsceal Ard Mhacha, I didn't mean to run your county down- you were superb that year! What a goal that was at the end of the first day- not only McDonnell's finish, but McEntee's pass was sublime. BUT- it was completely against the run of play. An outstanding smash-and-grab final two minutes. Can't agree with you about McKeever- the least I'll concede is that he should have been black carded! As for McMenamin's actions- a lifetime ban wouldn't have been enough. What he did, in cold blood, off the field of play, had the potential to compromise the man's cerebral circulation by carotid artery compression. It is admittedly extremely unlikely, but you could shear off an embolus and cause a stroke, with sustained pressure to the neck like that. Outrageous that he was cleared for the replay- maor uisce should have been the sum of his ambitions thereafter. I watched the Connacht, Munster and Ulster finals in a bar in Barcelona that day with the brother and a few lads from both Ulster counties. Three games going to the wire that had all of us leaping out of our seats and yelping, slumping back in despair seconds later, etc. A thoroughly enjoyable experience. For the entire six hours a trio of Aussies sipped their pints in front of the corner TV showing the Ashes. There's no accounting for taste! If it's any consolation, in this alternate universe without a back door, I'm awarding you the 2006 title! Ach it was stupid what McKeever did but hardly dangerous. I think the game was threatening to turn nasty at that stage and the ref probably had to show a couple of red cards to try and prevent it getting worse. Actually, I was wondering if anyone seen the Newcastle player sent off last week. Late tackle over the line that led the Leicester man colliding with the camera. Reminded me of O'Neills red that day. Both looked worse because of where the incident happened. A few yards infield and nobody would've batted an eyelid. I think the ref gave O'Neill a yellow that day and had thought it was his second yellow and then produced the subsequent red and sent him off .. The problem was that O'Neill had never received the first yellow ... Ref Fooked up basically !!
|
|
|
Post by southward on May 8, 2015 18:09:26 GMT
The back-door does not reinforce this, nor was it intended to. In fact, if anything there's been a greater spread of winners since it's inception, though this is probably coincidental . The backdoor was designed (and with the weaker teams in mind) to ensure at least more than one game for everyone, nothing else. It does this, and it's good. In a lot of cases, it ensures at least one more rout of a weaker county. But it is difficult to argue that it does not favour the strong. E.g. in hurling in 1980 a big factor in the breakthrough of Gaillimh was the vanquishing of the Big Three- suddenly the pedestal did not seem so daunting. Now the Davids cannot slay the Goliaths, as they are resurrected, with the opportunity to review where it went wrong and rectify the flaw (cf 2001 and 2006 champions). More games suit panels with greater depth. Counties like ourselves have a better first 15 than most others, but the gulf is exacerbated further when looking at the top 30 players. There hasn't been a greater spread of winners since its inception, it's pretty similiar. And in the case of diversity, it's been catastrophic for hurling. In the 14 years of the back door, Galway, Armagh, Kerry, Tyrone, Cork, Dublin and Donegal have all won. That's 7 winners, including 2 first-timers. Not a bad spread; how many other sports could match it? By contrast, the previous 40 years saw just 8 different champions.
|
|
|
Post by MrRasherstoyou on May 8, 2015 18:35:26 GMT
Why should a team that got through more provincial games get an advantage over a team that has come through more qualifier games? Why not? Surely the championship should be biased in such a way to make the direct route more attractive? As happy as I am that we retained the title in 2007, we can't say we managed two years unbeaten. There was already an advantage, of playing less games, in some cases up to 3 less games, and, naturally, retaining the 'second life' (until the Qtr finals). Can't see why make more advantages, in that case why have a qualifiers?
|
|
|
Post by MrRasherstoyou on May 8, 2015 18:44:32 GMT
Is that not a contradiction ? (favourite wins / underdog loses is the same thing) Anyway, following MM's idea wouldn't take it to that level .. it would apply to the last 3 winners only (and if someone did 3 in a row, it would possibly only apply to them !! Very workable Id have thought ... and much more in line with why the back door was brought in in the first place .. i.e. to help the lower/middle tear teams .. not to bolster the already excellent chances of a top(recent champion)team !! That was a bit of a slip... Why don't we just go the whole hog and throw the previous year's finalist's out of the next AIFC? Seriously this is nuts talk --- there are always going to be winners and losers and consistent winners and consistent losers. Tell me who was the biggest underdog ever to win an All-Ireland? I'm with you on this, mad stuff. Apart from anything else, it brings the idea of interpretation and fairness to ridiculous and impossibly complicated places, making a convoluted, and often confusing competition structure even more convoluted. Once again it has to be asked, in a sport where inter-team transfers almost never happen, why should success be punished? And why an assumption that strong counties will remain strong, even if they are disadvantaged? Many counties were strong at one stage but declined markedly for a long time. Imagine a county like Donegal recently for example, or Tyrone, or Armagh, having their best ever era, then being handicapped because they won an All-I! Their best era ends and they might not have another for decades. Imagine Mayo win their first Sam in donkeys', or Kildare - and then the next year, "down with that sort of thing!"
|
|
|
Post by Mickmack on May 8, 2015 18:44:42 GMT
In a lot of cases, it ensures at least one more rout of a weaker county. But it is difficult to argue that it does not favour the strong. E.g. in hurling in 1980 a big factor in the breakthrough of Gaillimh was the vanquishing of the Big Three- suddenly the pedestal did not seem so daunting. Now the Davids cannot slay the Goliaths, as they are resurrected, with the opportunity to review where it went wrong and rectify the flaw (cf 2001 and 2006 champions). More games suit panels with greater depth. Counties like ourselves have a better first 15 than most others, but the gulf is exacerbated further when looking at the top 30 players. There hasn't been a greater spread of winners since its inception, it's pretty similiar. And in the case of diversity, it's been catastrophic for hurling. In the 14 years of the back door, Galway, Armagh, Kerry, Tyrone, Cork, Dublin and Donegal have all won. That's 7 winners, including 2 first-timers. Not a bad spread; how many other sports could match it? By contrast, the previous 40 years saw just 8 different champions. southward I think the back door has been good by and large but it just needs to skewed in favour of counties trying to make the breakthrough. That's all. Having Dublin, Limerick, Waterford, Galway win it in hurling would gladden my heart. And it would save the game. It would be nice to see Kildare, Mayo, Tipperary, Roscommon etc win SAM. Skewing the back door in their favour would be good in my view.
|
|
|
Post by MrRasherstoyou on May 8, 2015 18:54:03 GMT
In the 14 years of the back door, Galway, Armagh, Kerry, Tyrone, Cork, Dublin and Donegal have all won. That's 7 winners, including 2 first-timers. Not a bad spread; how many other sports could match it? By contrast, the previous 40 years saw just 8 different champions. southward I think the back door has been good by and large but it just needs to skewed in favour of counties trying to make the breakthrough. That's all. Having Dublin, Limerick, Waterford, Galway win it in hurling would gladden my heart. And it would save the game. It would be nice to see Kildare, Mayo, Tipperary, Roscommon etc win SAM. Skewing the back door in their favour would be good in my view. To help counties make breakthroughs, they need extra support, in some cases, to build their systems, their structures etc. After that it's up to them. Competitions have to be the same rules for all, within reason. It has always been and always will be that some counties do a better job than others. And at various times, some counties have better players than others, to some extent purely by chance. (Offaly hurlers, 1980s into 90s?) Maintaining the structures and systems is then going to be the hardest thing for counties with much less resources. But then some counties that have very good resources still don't do a great job. I think the bets that can be done is to look at 'designated counties', support them in an extra way as much as possible for 5-10 years, then continue the support either wholly, partly, or not at all, depending on how they are using the resources & help given.
|
|
|
Post by Ard Mhacha on May 8, 2015 19:29:09 GMT
In a lot of cases, it ensures at least one more rout of a weaker county. But it is difficult to argue that it does not favour the strong. E.g. in hurling in 1980 a big factor in the breakthrough of Gaillimh was the vanquishing of the Big Three- suddenly the pedestal did not seem so daunting. Now the Davids cannot slay the Goliaths, as they are resurrected, with the opportunity to review where it went wrong and rectify the flaw (cf 2001 and 2006 champions). More games suit panels with greater depth. Counties like ourselves have a better first 15 than most others, but the gulf is exacerbated further when looking at the top 30 players. There hasn't been a greater spread of winners since its inception, it's pretty similiar. And in the case of diversity, it's been catastrophic for hurling. In the 14 years of the back door, Galway, Armagh, Kerry, Tyrone, Cork, Dublin and Donegal have all won. That's 7 winners, including 2 first-timers. Not a bad spread; how many other sports could match it? By contrast, the previous 40 years saw just 8 different champions. The 10 years before saw 7 winners, including two firsts. Unfancied teams like Kildare and Tyrone coming close. Plus the likes of Clare, Offaly, Cavan, Leitrim not far away from an AI final appearance. You're unlikely to see that in the current setup.
|
|
|
Post by southward on May 8, 2015 19:50:54 GMT
Not to mention poor Mayo
|
|
|
Post by Dermot on May 8, 2015 20:27:56 GMT
That was a bit of a slip... Why don't we just go the whole hog and throw the previous year's finalist's out of the next AIFC? Seriously this is nuts talk --- there are always going to be winners and losers and consistent winners and consistent losers. Tell me who was the biggest underdog ever to win an All-Ireland? I'm with you on this, mad stuff. Apart from anything else, it brings the idea of interpretation and fairness to ridiculous and impossibly complicated places, making a convoluted, and often confusing competition structure even more convoluted. Once again it has to be asked, in a sport where inter-team transfers almost never happen, why should success be punished? And why an assumption that strong counties will remain strong, even if they are disadvantaged? Many counties were strong at one stage but declined markedly for a long time. Imagine a county like Donegal recently for example, or Tyrone, or Armagh, having their best ever era, then being handicapped because they won an All-I! Their best era ends and they might not have another for decades. Imagine Mayo win their first Sam in donkeys', or Kildare - and then the next year, "down with that sort of thing!" The idea mentioned was only to exclude the team(s) who won the AI in the last 3 years from being allowed a second chance .. This seems quite reasonable to me. Also, its not too often that we'll be subjecting this to a lower/middle tear team as they "probably" wont be winning the AI anyway ... The idea is to let them get a better run in the competition with the possibility of winning it (to allow them to keep interested and hopefully improve) .. and not having to beat a top team that have already been beaten, possibly even by them, would certainly help!
|
|
|
Post by Dermot on May 8, 2015 20:31:57 GMT
In the 14 years of the back door, Galway, Armagh, Kerry, Tyrone, Cork, Dublin and Donegal have all won. That's 7 winners, including 2 first-timers. Not a bad spread; how many other sports could match it? By contrast, the previous 40 years saw just 8 different champions. The 10 years before saw 7 winners, including two firsts. Unfancied teams like Kildare and Tyrone coming close. Plus the likes of Clare, Offaly, Cavan, Leitrim not far away from an AI final appearance. You're unlikely to see that in the current setup. Exactly .. now there's far more chance of running into more of the big guns (possibly even the same team twice ), as there are more still lurking about.. Its not much of an incentive for the lower teams really is it !
|
|
|
Post by Mickmack on May 9, 2015 11:06:51 GMT
southward I think the back door has been good by and large but it just needs to skewed in favour of counties trying to make the breakthrough. That's all. Having Dublin, Limerick, Waterford, Galway win it in hurling would gladden my heart. And it would save the game. It would be nice to see Kildare, Mayo, Tipperary, Roscommon etc win SAM. Skewing the back door in their favour would be good in my view. To help counties make breakthroughs, they need extra support, in some cases, to build their systems, their structures etc. After that it's up to them. Competitions have to be the same rules for all, within reason. It has always been and always will be that some counties do a better job than others. And at various times, some counties have better players than others, to some extent purely by chance. (Offaly hurlers, 1980s into 90s?) Maintaining the structures and systems is then going to be the hardest thing for counties with much less resources. But then some counties that have very good resources still don't do a great job. I think the bets that can be done is to look at 'designated counties', support them in an extra way as much as possible for 5-10 years, then continue the support either wholly, partly, or not at all, depending on how they are using the resources & help given. Keith Duggan in Todays Times agrees with that concept.
|
|
|
Post by Mickmack on May 9, 2015 11:07:22 GMT
Dublin team make their way to Hill 16 in 2006 after Mayo choose to warm-up in front of it. Photograph: Inpho
It is coming up on nine summers since the footballers of Mayo attempted an impromptu eviction of Dublin’s sense of comfort in Croke Park by running out towards Hill 16 and then refusing to leave when the city team duly appeared.
As it transpired, the insurrection was hastily masterminded by David Brady, the William Wallace to that generation of Mayo footballers. The plan was hatched in the dressing room minutes – if not mere seconds – before the Westerners took to the field. A discussion began as to whether they should turn right or left and do as all country teams do and leave the Hill to the Dubs. Reports are mixed as to whether Brady told his team mates, “Your heart is free. Have the courage to follow it.” But witnesses and inadvertent participants of the so-called Mill at the Hill are in uniform agreement that he declared: “No, * it. Let’s go down that side.”
So they did. What followed was five minutes of the kind of outright anarchy capable of giving the GAA top brass hot sweats in a snowstorm and which is quickly condemned as “disgraceful” and “unacceptable” and which absolutely thrills and scandalises the rest of the country. The Dublin team made for their sacred patch linking arms and slow marching, as if they had just landed back from a civil rights march in segregation-era Alabama. And then both squads attempted to warm up into the same goal, with predictable confusion, buffeting, angry words, casualties and howls of outrage/uncontainable glee coming from the stands – particularly the affronted citizens of the Hill.
Order was restored, a great game broke out; the Dubs went nine points clear in the second half and Mayo engineered one of their very greatest escape acts which concluded in Kieran McDonald’s deathless, exquisite point into the same Hill where all the trouble had begun.
Bizarre conflagration The episode was just that: one of those bizarre conflagrations which make the GAA – bless its passionate soul -– that bit different. And it also addressed a question taken up by Pat Flanagan in a more reasoned way this week. The Offaly manager broke a gentleman’s agreement by actually coming out and speaking his mind at an official championship launch this week, mildly protesting at the fact that the Dubs get to play all of their games in Croke Park. He made the point that it is not a “fair competition” any more.
Over the past decade, the Dubs have made such a wasteland of the Leinster championship that the idea of them not winning a provincial championship match in Croke Park has become inconceivable. Jim Gavin, the current Dublin manager, has stated that he would be happy to bring his team to any venue to play a championship match. You can bet he means that. The Dubs have amply demonstrated in the league that they are well able to mix it and tap into their “A” game on away games and the Dubs’ winter support is the crowd that makes the league: they show up, they make noise and they go home happy.
But the thought of Dublin arriving in a packed and hostile Mullingar or Navan or Newbridge for a Leinster championship knock-out makes what has become a lopsided competition much more appealing than if played in the neutral venue.
The issue as to whether Croke Park is a home venue for Dublin has gone beyond a joke. In theory, maybe not. But try convincing a Monaghan team or a Roscommon team, say, huddled in their dressing room minutes before an All-Ireland final and hearing the earth tremble above them with the roar that greets the arrival of the sky blue team onto the field. When any team plays Dublin in Croke Park, they are far from home. The only other county harbouring notions that Croke Park can be “theirs” when they play Dublin is Kerry. Mayo’s impromptu coup in 2006 was an attempt to disrupt that sense of place and belonging. If Croke Park is truly a neutral venue, then any team should have the right to warm up in front of the Hill – and supporters from other counties should have the same access to tickets to that area of the ground. It is daft to pretend that any Dublin football player or supporter doesn’t consider Croke Park to be his or her local stadium. No, Croke Park is as much a part of Dublin football lore as the Nou Camp is to Barcelona or the Hinkle Fieldhouse to Indiana basketball. They just belong together. Playing the Dubs in Croke Park is one of the definitive experiences in the lifespan of any inter-county footballer. It is special.
But must they play every championship game there? The argument is that they are such a big attraction that Croke Park is the obvious venue. From a financial perspective, the logic here is unimpeachable. The Dubs bring a crowd, even for games which they are heavily favoured to win.
Yet for how long more? It is not Dublin’s fault that the coaching work and strategic and financial investment at club level is now reflected in the return of nine out of the last 10 provincial championships, a staggering achievement. There is nothing to suggest that streak will end anytime soon. That domination is not good for the wellbeing of other counties – and for general interest in the game.
Heavyweight match Next Sunday, Tyrone must go into Ballybofey to play Donegal in the first real heavyweight match of the All-Ireland championship. They would rather be playing in Omagh or Clones or Croke Park, but they have no choice because that is the draw. That principle should apply across the board.
So if Dublin are drawn away to play the winners of Offaly and Longford, the arbitrary nature of the draw should be honoured. It would serve to end the lingering sense of unfairness that exists. And it would give Dublin the chance to illustrate what is increasingly clear anyhow: that regardless of where they warm up or what town they play in, they are an exceptionally difficult team to beat.
|
|
fitz
Fanatical Member
Red sky at night get off my land
Posts: 1,719
|
Post by fitz on May 9, 2015 11:14:36 GMT
The beating of a team and then possibly facing them again is unfair, don't think an argument could be made against that. Introducing rules for 'some' and not others is a recipe for carnage. I don't see it as workable. The qualifiers has been an equal rule for all counties and been I think a great success. Again Championship is way ahead of league in importance to player and fan so having more games gives it more life longevity for all teams, some more than others of course, but still longer. Maybe some kind of score handicapping, at least it would affect ALL teams. Nightmare implementation but the model works for golf. Golf is not football for sure, ah fcuk I dunno. There's a goose and a gander, hybrid goonders won't work. I think more emphasis is on the counties to improve as opposed to the association helping on this one. There are natural disadvantages depending on what county you're from re:population but there is unfortunately the "tough sh1t" rule. Burnley can't get allowances playing Liverpool possibly bad example this year . All sports have tiered disadvantages for many reasons. I wouldn't change anything, but accept the playing same team possibly twice is a major flaw but one to be suffered.
|
|
|
Post by Mickmack on May 9, 2015 11:18:56 GMT
That was a bit of a slip... Why don't we just go the whole hog and throw the previous year's finalist's out of the next AIFC? Seriously this is nuts talk --- there are always going to be winners and losers and consistent winners and consistent losers. Tell me who was the biggest underdog ever to win an All-Ireland? I'm with you on this, mad stuff. Apart from anything else, it brings the idea of interpretation and fairness to ridiculous and impossibly complicated places, making a convoluted, and often confusing competition structure even more convoluted. Once again it has to be asked, in a sport where inter-team transfers almost never happen, why should success be punished? And why an assumption that strong counties will remain strong, even if they are disadvantaged?
Many counties were strong at one stage but declined markedly for a long time. Imagine a county like Donegal recently for example, or Tyrone, or Armagh, having their best ever era, then being handicapped because they won an All-I! Their best era ends and they might not have another for decades. Imagine Mayo win their first Sam in donkeys', or Kildare - and then the next year, "down with that sort of thing!" Under my proposals Kerry would have had a back door route in 2013 and 2014 even though they have 36 SAMS. Dublin would have had it between 1998 and 2011. And if Dublin don't win SAM in 2015 or 2016 they would have a back door route in 2017. There is no assumption that any county will always be strong or always be weak. Just a little handicap system for the three teams who have been strongest for the past three years. All in the interests of keeping the game alive by giving hope in counties that don't have the resources or tradition to make it over the line.
|
|
|
Post by Ard Mhacha on May 9, 2015 11:45:39 GMT
League is meaningless. Provincial c'ship devalued. I reckon just have an open draw. Each match played home and away with aggregate score winning.
Round of 32, 16, QFs, 2 games in each. Then a single match for SF and final. Everyone gets 2 games minimum, and everyone gets at least a home game.
No seeding. So for example Dublin meet Mayo in first round, with Kerry v Donegal. There's 2 big teams gone already. At least the draw might favour lesser teams, so we could have the odd year like we see in the FA cup with 2 or 3 lesser teams in the semis.
Also, the dates are set in stone, so club football can be scheduled around county games, and it gives fans enough time to plan their trips, instead of 2 or 3 days notice like it is now.
Also what is lacking in the GAA is these super sunday type days. Imagine a full day of action, Kerry v Mayo, Dublin v Tyrone, Donegal v Cork etc instead of the c'ship starting NY v Leitrim or the likes.
|
|
|
Post by MrRasherstoyou on May 9, 2015 13:38:24 GMT
I'm with you on this, mad stuff. Apart from anything else, it brings the idea of interpretation and fairness to ridiculous and impossibly complicated places, making a convoluted, and often confusing competition structure even more convoluted. Once again it has to be asked, in a sport where inter-team transfers almost never happen, why should success be punished? And why an assumption that strong counties will remain strong, even if they are disadvantaged? Many counties were strong at one stage but declined markedly for a long time. Imagine a county like Donegal recently for example, or Tyrone, or Armagh, having their best ever era, then being handicapped because they won an All-I! Their best era ends and they might not have another for decades. Imagine Mayo win their first Sam in donkeys', or Kildare - and then the next year, "down with that sort of thing!" The idea mentioned was only to exclude the team(s) who won the AI in the last 3 years from being allowed a second chance .. This seems quite reasonable to me. Also, its not too often that we'll be subjecting this to a lower/middle tear team as they "probably" wont be winning the AI anyway ... The idea is to let them get a better run in the competition with the possibility of winning it (to allow them to keep interested and hopefully improve) .. and not having to beat a top team that have already been beaten, possibly even by them, would certainly help! So what you're saying is that if Tyrone, after winning their first ever All-I in 2003, had no second chance in 2005, it would have seemed quite reasonable to you?
|
|
|
Post by MrRasherstoyou on May 9, 2015 13:51:02 GMT
League is meaningless. Provincial c'ship devalued. I reckon just have an open draw. Each match played home and away with aggregate score winning. Round of 32, 16, QFs, 2 games in each. Then a single match for SF and final. Everyone gets 2 games minimum, and everyone gets at least a home game. No seeding. So for example Dublin meet Mayo in first round, with Kerry v Donegal. There's 2 big teams gone already. At least the draw might favour lesser teams, so we could have the odd year like we see in the FA cup with 2 or 3 lesser teams in the semis. Also, the dates are set in stone, so club football can be scheduled around county games, and it gives fans enough time to plan their trips, instead of 2 or 3 days notice like it is now. Also what is lacking in the GAA is these super sunday type days. Imagine a full day of action, Kerry v Mayo, Dublin v Tyrone, Donegal v Cork etc instead of the c'ship starting NY v Leitrim or the likes. Provincial championship games in most cases, regardless of the crowd that shows up, are increasingly meaningless, especially where top teams play lower teams, in comparison to mostly very good league contests. Ulster will still have the most competitive games and most local rivalries played out with great passion. In any proposal for a regional 8 team competition, at least 7 of the 9 "Ulster" counties will still be in the same region. Probably 8. So no loss anyway
|
|