fitz
Fanatical Member
Red sky at night get off my land
Posts: 1,719
|
Post by fitz on Sept 9, 2016 15:39:26 GMT
Where is Alan Fitzgerald btw?
|
|
|
Post by Ard Mhacha on Sept 9, 2016 21:25:00 GMT
If you had let us win the semi in 82, we could've saved you from all that heartache. I'm sure waiting another 20 years made it all the sweeter😉 Waiting 18 would've been nice too
|
|
dano
Senior Member
Posts: 530
|
Post by dano on Sept 9, 2016 23:02:46 GMT
There was no way Maurice Fitz was letting ye win in 2000
|
|
|
Post by MrRasherstoyou on Sept 10, 2016 7:06:45 GMT
Those 2000 semi-final games were something else
|
|
|
Post by MrRasherstoyou on Sept 10, 2016 8:37:16 GMT
There is only one BROLLY and it is not always reliable. When the wind blows hard it turns itself inside out and makes a poor job of keeping the rain off - bloody useless device.
|
|
|
Post by MrRasherstoyou on Sept 10, 2016 8:59:52 GMT
"We need to improve our composure at the end of matches" Dublin have very strong end game management, certainly against us. We're not great at closing out tight games (Donegal 2014 aside) when we have the advantage. This is not just a current issue it stretches back right to 2002.I mentioned in a previous post too, that we have not had much luck in the defining moments of key games at the end, most recently against Dublin specifically. Maybe we used up a decade's worth against Mayo in 14 and also that last gasp ball against the post v Donegal in 2014. Here's a mix of bad end game management and not getting the rub of the green (they are likely close buddies) 2002 - 4 point lead against Armagh, to 1 point down. We had from memory at least 7-8 mins to equalize but couldn't get it done. 2008 - From leading by a point against Tyrone to going scoreless for last 11-12 minutes and Tyrone popping over 5 points. In the middle of this we missed a great goal chance (well saved) 2011 - well dcoumented 2013 - In injury time, all square, Dec shaves the upright, two Kerry players jump for same ball from the kick-out, and it spills free, McMenamin pounces, mi*s and loops ball into net 2015 - Completely outplayed - but McAuley hauls Donagahy down inside last 5 mins - clear penalty. Not given. 2016 - Frontal charge 30 metres in front of posts, free not given - to tie it up, 3 mins into injury time. So, combining both of them together has led to losing lots of big games. The end game management is something we can work toward controlling, well, make advances on. Maybe the better we get at that, the more luck we might happen upon. 2000 Vs Cork, Armagh & Galway. 2001 Vs Dublin. 2006, Vs Armagh. 2007 Vs Dublin. 2009 Vs Cork. 2014 Vs Donegal. 2015 Vs Tyrone. The two games Vs Monaghan. Probably other examples from the qualifiers. I've heard that argument alot over the years about Kerry & tight games. I think it's a bit of a green & gold herring, it seems to say, "we were the better team/we should have won", in every instance where there was a narrow defeat. Now fair enough, a losing team will always tell themselves they should have won a tight game. But why do they persist in saying it very publicly? I don't see the gain. Just as I didn't see the gain in Kerry's very pro-active pre-semifinal media campaign. Remember when Kerry used to keep quieter than a Kildare trophy cabinet cleaner? Stealth didn't come close to describing it. What changed? In the last decade there seemed to develop a culture that influence through media was not just important but essential. And it was very pro-active, and very intensely victim-mentality to some extent. About the CCCC, about referees, about injustices, and so on. There was also the high profile of Tadgh Kennelly, and then the huge amount of ex-Kerry players in the national media (admittecly inevitable considering the success of the team in the two recent golden eras, and arguably it very much worked for them, for a while at least). I think the key thing is non-acceptance publicly. Does this equate to non-acceptance privately? I would presume not. But then again, maybe that very mentality (even if it holds privately) is what has helped keep the senior football team so competitive even in times of less success. And maybe it is something that has been well thought out and deliberate. A non-acceptance of defeat or that defeat was due to anything other than circumstances and a few small shortcomings. I think the emphasis on game-management is too simplistic. All top teams have very good plans for game-management but it's what happens on the ground that determines how well one team may finish the game relative to another. All the best plans in the world will not result in victory if your team is mostly out on its feet having had to put everything into staying in the game, and the other team were able to hold a little in reserve. One could write an essay on the different possible scenarios for how a game is played out in terms of tactical intensity, and how teams react to what they have to deal with. And then who can allow in tactical and conditioning terms for their team shipping a 10 point turnaround in 14 minutes in a game in which they seem to be in control? Perhaps Paul Geaney's interview in the paper/media this week sums up the Kerry culture and approach the best. He never considered defeat, in fact he says he was "certain" they were going to win. Maybe that's just typical of top level sports people anyway. Maybe it's partly because he is such a brilliant player and went on to have a great game (won nearly every ball in during the first half when otherwise Kerry were struggling with possession). I've no doubt that Geaney's mental approach is typical of the whole set-up & a large part of why Kerry were so close to winning the game, and why they were still in with a chance in last year's final, and why they have maintained such a high level of performance in the last few years of transition. But if they truly believe it was just about a bit of game-management, is it just a public media thing or a denial of something/creation of a complex which doesn't really exist? It's another of those cart & horse/chicken & egg discussions. There's any number of stories from sport about teams having this or that 'mental block' about something. How true is it, and does it become self-fulfilling? Possibly the 'finest'( ) example is Meath & Dublin circa 1991. If the Dublin team & mgmt didn't have a complex after that, I know for sure that I & many others definitely did. We were driven insane by it. Yet how did it actually come about & how did it actually change? Meath were renowned for always finishing games really strongly, so there was an inevitability about their comebacks by the time we got to 91. That's something that would have been allowed for (in 'game management'), and in fairness the Dublin team never gave up when Meath had come back at them. That's why it went to 4 games. But alot of the discourse about that rivalry & that era was about "Dublin collapses", and "mental frailties". Meath clearly targetted strong finishes, and maybe also it somehow suited the mentality of their team, or was an inevitabvle, unavoidable part of it. There's no doubt that they knew alot of other teams would in some way start to wilt knowing that the 'comeback' was going to happen. Were that Meath team like the student who only gets his best work done at the last minute/when the pressure is really on? Is this Dublin team now similar? Why do they keep having meltdowns when seemingly in control of the game? But back to Meath/Dublin. Simply put another way, that Meath team had players, leaders, and very talented forwards who were able to produce the goods when the game was really there to be won & lost, no matter if it was the final minute. And that Dublin team didn't have them. And would any coach say that publicly about his own team? Clearly not. So is the public persona/dialogue merely a continuation of the culture lived out amongst the squad & coaches? And are players really that coccooned from what the rest of us see, hear & otherwise experience? Or do teams sit down and forensically analyse in the most honest way possible what is/was lacking after any major game they have lost? I presume they do, modern sports' psychology has been very much dominated by the culture of open-ness and self-honesty, self-awareness, not to run away from challenges of any sort. So that still begs the question, is the public persona/communication a part of the mental approach and/or simply an utterance of anything that the coach/player believes to be non-harmful? I presume so. But if it's a tactical thing purely why not use reverse psychology? I'll have to pull you up on one or two things about "bad luck/bad decisions" etc though. Re-watch the McCauley/DOnaghy incident. Ask yourself, why would a player of McCauley's experience, temperament & physique 'haul down' an opponent in the small square at such a stage, when the opponent doesn't even have the ball yet? Why not just aim to punch the ball? The facts of that as seen in the replay to me are, Donaghy backing into McCauley (technically a foul but almost never given, an example of how the whole 'big man can't buy a free' propoganda is choosy with ignoring how many fouls bigger players get away with), McCauley trying to push back bodily, Donaghy grabs his arm (maybe they both grab each other's arms), Donaghy turns and falls at the same time. The ball hasn't come in/is still only coming in. Considering the game situation, and the personae dramatis (the two individuals) if you were in a court of law and had to surmise outcomes and conclusions from the evidence, what would you say happened? I'd say the man who desperately needed a penalty tried to 'engineer' one.
|
|
fitz
Fanatical Member
Red sky at night get off my land
Posts: 1,719
|
Post by fitz on Sept 12, 2016 23:00:40 GMT
"We need to improve our composure at the end of matches" Dublin have very strong end game management, certainly against us. We're not great at closing out tight games (Donegal 2014 aside) when we have the advantage. This is not just a current issue it stretches back right to 2002.I mentioned in a previous post too, that we have not had much luck in the defining moments of key games at the end, most recently against Dublin specifically. Maybe we used up a decade's worth against Mayo in 14 and also that last gasp ball against the post v Donegal in 2014. Here's a mix of bad end game management and not getting the rub of the green (they are likely close buddies) 2002 - 4 point lead against Armagh, to 1 point down. We had from memory at least 7-8 mins to equalize but couldn't get it done. 2008 - From leading by a point against Tyrone to going scoreless for last 11-12 minutes and Tyrone popping over 5 points. In the middle of this we missed a great goal chance (well saved) 2011 - well dcoumented 2013 - In injury time, all square, Dec shaves the upright, two Kerry players jump for same ball from the kick-out, and it spills free, McMenamin pounces, mi*s and loops ball into net 2015 - Completely outplayed - but McAuley hauls Donagahy down inside last 5 mins - clear penalty. Not given. 2016 - Frontal charge 30 metres in front of posts, free not given - to tie it up, 3 mins into injury time. So, combining both of them together has led to losing lots of big games. The end game management is something we can work toward controlling, well, make advances on. Maybe the better we get at that, the more luck we might happen upon. 2000 Vs Cork, Armagh & Galway. 2001 Vs Dublin. 2006, Vs Armagh. 2007 Vs Dublin. 2009 Vs Cork. 2014 Vs Donegal. 2015 Vs Tyrone. The two games Vs Monaghan. Probably other examples from the qualifiers. I've heard that argument alot over the years about Kerry & tight games. I think it's a bit of a green & gold herring, it seems to say, "we were the better team/we should have won", in every instance where there was a narrow defeat. Now fair enough, a losing team will always tell themselves they should have won a tight game. But why do they persist in saying it very publicly? I don't see the gain. Just as I didn't see the gain in Kerry's very pro-active pre-semifinal media campaign. Remember when Kerry used to keep quieter than a Kildare trophy cabinet cleaner? Stealth didn't come close to describing it. What changed? In the last decade there seemed to develop a culture that influence through media was not just important but essential. And it was very pro-active, and very intensely victim-mentality to some extent. About the CCCC, about referees, about injustices, and so on. There was also the high profile of Tadgh Kennelly, and then the huge amount of ex-Kerry players in the national media (admittecly inevitable considering the success of the team in the two recent golden eras, and arguably it very much worked for them, for a while at least). I think the key thing is non-acceptance publicly. Does this equate to non-acceptance privately? I would presume not. But then again, maybe that very mentality (even if it holds privately) is what has helped keep the senior football team so competitive even in times of less success. And maybe it is something that has been well thought out and deliberate. A non-acceptance of defeat or that defeat was due to anything other than circumstances and a few small shortcomings. I think the emphasis on game-management is too simplistic. All top teams have very good plans for game-management but it's what happens on the ground that determines how well one team may finish the game relative to another. All the best plans in the world will not result in victory if your team is mostly out on its feet having had to put everything into staying in the game, and the other team were able to hold a little in reserve. One could write an essay on the different possible scenarios for how a game is played out in terms of tactical intensity, and how teams react to what they have to deal with. And then who can allow in tactical and conditioning terms for their team shipping a 10 point turnaround in 14 minutes in a game in which they seem to be in control? Perhaps Paul Geaney's interview in the paper/media this week sums up the Kerry culture and approach the best. He never considered defeat, in fact he says he was "certain" they were going to win. Maybe that's just typical of top level sports people anyway. Maybe it's partly because he is such a brilliant player and went on to have a great game (won nearly every ball in during the first half when otherwise Kerry were struggling with possession). I've no doubt that Geaney's mental approach is typical of the whole set-up & a large part of why Kerry were so close to winning the game, and why they were still in with a chance in last year's final, and why they have maintained such a high level of performance in the last few years of transition. But if they truly believe it was just about a bit of game-management, is it just a public media thing or a denial of something/creation of a complex which doesn't really exist? It's another of those cart & horse/chicken & egg discussions. There's any number of stories from sport about teams having this or that 'mental block' about something. How true is it, and does it become self-fulfilling? Possibly the 'finest'( ) example is Meath & Dublin circa 1991. If the Dublin team & mgmt didn't have a complex after that, I know for sure that I & many others definitely did. We were driven insane by it. Yet how did it actually come about & how did it actually change? Meath were renowned for always finishing games really strongly, so there was an inevitability about their comebacks by the time we got to 91. That's something that would have been allowed for (in 'game management'), and in fairness the Dublin team never gave up when Meath had come back at them. That's why it went to 4 games. But alot of the discourse about that rivalry & that era was about "Dublin collapses", and "mental frailties". Meath clearly targetted strong finishes, and maybe also it somehow suited the mentality of their team, or was an inevitabvle, unavoidable part of it. There's no doubt that they knew alot of other teams would in some way start to wilt knowing that the 'comeback' was going to happen. Were that Meath team like the student who only gets his best work done at the last minute/when the pressure is really on? Is this Dublin team now similar? Why do they keep having meltdowns when seemingly in control of the game? But back to Meath/Dublin. Simply put another way, that Meath team had players, leaders, and very talented forwards who were able to produce the goods when the game was really there to be won & lost, no matter if it was the final minute. And that Dublin team didn't have them. And would any coach say that publicly about his own team? Clearly not. So is the public persona/dialogue merely a continuation of the culture lived out amongst the squad & coaches? And are players really that coccooned from what the rest of us see, hear & otherwise experience? Or do teams sit down and forensically analyse in the most honest way possible what is/was lacking after any major game they have lost? I presume they do, modern sports' psychology has been very much dominated by the culture of open-ness and self-honesty, self-awareness, not to run away from challenges of any sort. So that still begs the question, is the public persona/communication a part of the mental approach and/or simply an utterance of anything that the coach/player believes to be non-harmful? I presume so. But if it's a tactical thing purely why not use reverse psychology? I'll have to pull you up on one or two things about "bad luck/bad decisions" etc though. Re-watch the McCauley/DOnaghy incident. Ask yourself, why would a player of McCauley's experience, temperament & physique 'haul down' an opponent in the small square at such a stage, when the opponent doesn't even have the ball yet? Why not just aim to punch the ball? The facts of that as seen in the replay to me are, Donaghy backing into McCauley (technically a foul but almost never given, an example of how the whole 'big man can't buy a free' propoganda is choosy with ignoring how many fouls bigger players get away with), McCauley trying to push back bodily, Donaghy grabs his arm (maybe they both grab each other's arms), Donaghy turns and falls at the same time. The ball hasn't come in/is still only coming in. Considering the game situation, and the personae dramatis (the two individuals) if you were in a court of law and had to surmise outcomes and conclusions from the evidence, what would you say happened? I'd say the man who desperately needed a penalty tried to 'engineer' one. Now Rashers you'll have to do your best now to let me have the last word here. On some of the games you highlighted, yes some well argued, some not. If you insist we can go through them one by one. I will take what I believe your point is that end game management comes easier to the better team. On the McAuley/Star clash, I'll have to pull you down here.You're the only person I've had communication with on this that thinks it wasn't a penalty. Now my take on it is: LDonaghy has far more experience in big games than McAuley. He was playing well on introduction and had already cleanly won a similar ball that yielded a goal chance. McAuley had a poor year by his standards, was in as a sub so plenty of adrenaline in the tank. He would have been aware of Donaghy's prowess here and the goal v Mayo. He knew time was nearly up, there's no way he was going to make a Cafferkey out of him. He's not a dirty player at all but has plenty of aggression and put it to play here. Remember he wasn't considering a logical theorem, this was in the fire. I've no doubt Kieran was backing up to position himself for the ball, but didn't in my eyes help himself to the floor. He desperately needed to keep Donaghy from that ball. Why would a player of Donaghy's calibre and bottle risk taking an opportunity out of his potential control? PDefinite penalty every day of the week. I don't know why you consider McAuley's integrity to be above Donaghy's, is there any evidence for it? Our lads wouldn't know anything about court, so that analogy is lost on me. You did tee that up 😃
|
|
|
Post by MrRasherstoyou on Sept 12, 2016 23:26:09 GMT
2000 Vs Cork, Armagh & Galway. 2001 Vs Dublin. 2006, Vs Armagh. 2007 Vs Dublin. 2009 Vs Cork. 2014 Vs Donegal. 2015 Vs Tyrone. The two games Vs Monaghan. Probably other examples from the qualifiers. I've heard that argument alot over the years about Kerry & tight games. I think it's a bit of a green & gold herring, it seems to say, "we were the better team/we should have won", in every instance where there was a narrow defeat. Now fair enough, a losing team will always tell themselves they should have won a tight game. But why do they persist in saying it very publicly? I don't see the gain. Just as I didn't see the gain in Kerry's very pro-active pre-semifinal media campaign. Remember when Kerry used to keep quieter than a Kildare trophy cabinet cleaner? Stealth didn't come close to describing it. What changed? In the last decade there seemed to develop a culture that influence through media was not just important but essential. And it was very pro-active, and very intensely victim-mentality to some extent. About the CCCC, about referees, about injustices, and so on. There was also the high profile of Tadgh Kennelly, and then the huge amount of ex-Kerry players in the national media (admittecly inevitable considering the success of the team in the two recent golden eras, and arguably it very much worked for them, for a while at least). I think the key thing is non-acceptance publicly. Does this equate to non-acceptance privately? I would presume not. But then again, maybe that very mentality (even if it holds privately) is what has helped keep the senior football team so competitive even in times of less success. And maybe it is something that has been well thought out and deliberate. A non-acceptance of defeat or that defeat was due to anything other than circumstances and a few small shortcomings. I think the emphasis on game-management is too simplistic. All top teams have very good plans for game-management but it's what happens on the ground that determines how well one team may finish the game relative to another. All the best plans in the world will not result in victory if your team is mostly out on its feet having had to put everything into staying in the game, and the other team were able to hold a little in reserve. One could write an essay on the different possible scenarios for how a game is played out in terms of tactical intensity, and how teams react to what they have to deal with. And then who can allow in tactical and conditioning terms for their team shipping a 10 point turnaround in 14 minutes in a game in which they seem to be in control? Perhaps Paul Geaney's interview in the paper/media this week sums up the Kerry culture and approach the best. He never considered defeat, in fact he says he was "certain" they were going to win. Maybe that's just typical of top level sports people anyway. Maybe it's partly because he is such a brilliant player and went on to have a great game (won nearly every ball in during the first half when otherwise Kerry were struggling with possession). I've no doubt that Geaney's mental approach is typical of the whole set-up & a large part of why Kerry were so close to winning the game, and why they were still in with a chance in last year's final, and why they have maintained such a high level of performance in the last few years of transition. But if they truly believe it was just about a bit of game-management, is it just a public media thing or a denial of something/creation of a complex which doesn't really exist? It's another of those cart & horse/chicken & egg discussions. There's any number of stories from sport about teams having this or that 'mental block' about something. How true is it, and does it become self-fulfilling? Possibly the 'finest'( ) example is Meath & Dublin circa 1991. If the Dublin team & mgmt didn't have a complex after that, I know for sure that I & many others definitely did. We were driven insane by it. Yet how did it actually come about & how did it actually change? Meath were renowned for always finishing games really strongly, so there was an inevitability about their comebacks by the time we got to 91. That's something that would have been allowed for (in 'game management'), and in fairness the Dublin team never gave up when Meath had come back at them. That's why it went to 4 games. But alot of the discourse about that rivalry & that era was about "Dublin collapses", and "mental frailties". Meath clearly targetted strong finishes, and maybe also it somehow suited the mentality of their team, or was an inevitabvle, unavoidable part of it. There's no doubt that they knew alot of other teams would in some way start to wilt knowing that the 'comeback' was going to happen. Were that Meath team like the student who only gets his best work done at the last minute/when the pressure is really on? Is this Dublin team now similar? Why do they keep having meltdowns when seemingly in control of the game? But back to Meath/Dublin. Simply put another way, that Meath team had players, leaders, and very talented forwards who were able to produce the goods when the game was really there to be won & lost, no matter if it was the final minute. And that Dublin team didn't have them. And would any coach say that publicly about his own team? Clearly not. So is the public persona/dialogue merely a continuation of the culture lived out amongst the squad & coaches? And are players really that coccooned from what the rest of us see, hear & otherwise experience? Or do teams sit down and forensically analyse in the most honest way possible what is/was lacking after any major game they have lost? I presume they do, modern sports' psychology has been very much dominated by the culture of open-ness and self-honesty, self-awareness, not to run away from challenges of any sort. So that still begs the question, is the public persona/communication a part of the mental approach and/or simply an utterance of anything that the coach/player believes to be non-harmful? I presume so. But if it's a tactical thing purely why not use reverse psychology? I'll have to pull you up on one or two things about "bad luck/bad decisions" etc though. Re-watch the McCauley/DOnaghy incident. Ask yourself, why would a player of McCauley's experience, temperament & physique 'haul down' an opponent in the small square at such a stage, when the opponent doesn't even have the ball yet? Why not just aim to punch the ball? The facts of that as seen in the replay to me are, Donaghy backing into McCauley (technically a foul but almost never given, an example of how the whole 'big man can't buy a free' propoganda is choosy with ignoring how many fouls bigger players get away with), McCauley trying to push back bodily, Donaghy grabs his arm (maybe they both grab each other's arms), Donaghy turns and falls at the same time. The ball hasn't come in/is still only coming in. Considering the game situation, and the personae dramatis (the two individuals) if you were in a court of law and had to surmise outcomes and conclusions from the evidence, what would you say happened? I'd say the man who desperately needed a penalty tried to 'engineer' one. Now Rashers you'll have to do your best now to let me have the last word here. On some of the games you highlighted, yes some well argued, some not. If you insist we can go through them one by one. I will take what I believe your point is that end game management comes easier to the better team. On the McAuley/Star clash, I'll have to pull you down here.You're the only person I've had communication with on this that thinks it wasn't a penalty. Now my take on it is: LDonaghy has far more experience in big games than McAuley. He was playing well on introduction and had already cleanly won a similar ball that yielded a goal chance. McAuley had a poor year by his standards, was in as a sub so plenty of adrenaline in the tank. He would have been aware of Donaghy's prowess here and the goal v Mayo. He knew time was nearly up, there's no way he was going to make a Cafferkey out of him. He's not a dirty player at all but has plenty of aggression and put it to play here. Remember he wasn't considering a logical theorem, this was in the fire. I've no doubt Kieran was backing up to position himself for the ball, but didn't in my eyes help himself to the floor. He desperately needed to keep Donaghy from that ball. Why would a player of Donaghy's calibre and bottle risk taking an opportunity out of his potential control? PDefinite penalty every day of the week. I don't know why you consider McAuley's integrity to be above Donaghy's, is there any evidence for it? Our lads wouldn't know anything about court, so that analogy is lost on me. You did tee that up 😃 Good argument & well articulated (but very un-truck-like ). I agree McCauley's integrity not above Donaghy's. I'll come back to you on it. Video may be needed though............
|
|
|
Post by wayupnorth on Sept 16, 2016 7:49:09 GMT
Travelling from Belfast Airport yesterday I picked up a complimentary copy of the Irish Daily Mail. Inside was an article by one Mark Gallagher on "the secret of Dublin's success". Apparently Jim Gavin is a disciple of Abraham Maslow and his theory of self-actualisation. Despite the lack of turbulence I was looking for the sick bag within minutes. If this is the kind of adulation they are lapping up they could be in for a mighty shock on Sunday. Despite myself. I'm beginning to warm to Mayo.
|
|
fitz
Fanatical Member
Red sky at night get off my land
Posts: 1,719
|
Post by fitz on Sept 16, 2016 19:29:06 GMT
Travelling from Belfast Airport yesterday I picked up a complimentary copy of the Irish Daily Mail. Inside was an article by one Mark Gallagher on "the secret of Dublin's success". Apparently Jim Gavin is a disciple of Abraham Maslow and his theory of self-actualisation. Despite the lack of turbulence I was looking for the sick bag within minutes. If this is the kind of adulation they are lapping up they could be in for a mighty shock on Sunday. Despite myself. I'm beginning to warm to Mayo. To be fair though, it is striking that this inclination is doing his management of the Dublin Senior football the world of no harm.
|
|
fitz
Fanatical Member
Red sky at night get off my land
Posts: 1,719
|
Post by fitz on Sept 16, 2016 19:52:51 GMT
Where is Alan Fitzgerald btw? Resend. Anyone?
|
|
|
Post by misteallaigh abú on Sept 16, 2016 20:07:19 GMT
Really hoping against hope, at this stage, that Mayo can perform for 70 minutes on All Ireland final day. It's something they haven't managed to do, however, anything is possible on All Ireland day. My dad is a Mayoman, exiled in Kerry for the last 47 years, now pushing 80 his obsession with all things Mayo is still admirably scary! Thinks nothing of it to drive from Kerry to Castlebar for league games, ditto championship games, often up and down in the one day. I hope that if I ever reach his age, that I will have his energy! An amazing man and despite the fact that he has no ticket yet, he will still travel to the game in the hope that he will get one from the Mayo mafia in the capital.
Mayo are as good as Dublin from 2-9, not as good at no 1 or from 10-15. They need Aidan O Shea, the 2 O' Connor brothers and Andy Moran to play well to have any chance on Sunday. All have played well at some stage in this year's championship, however their forwards have failed to orchestrate as a unit thusfar. It is by far a hopeless task, however, and they are in the ideal place to pull off a major shock. I'm not sure that the Kerry v Dublin game was the epic it was proclaimed to be, having watched it a few times since, the amount of mistakes we made certainly didn't help our cause. Neither, in my opinion, was the Mayo V Tipp match as bad as people made out. I do think that because Tipp were involved that the form of the game was devalued somewhat. It was very much like the Tyrone v Wexford semi final a number of years back.
We all know the quality that Dublin have on their day, they are unstoppable, on occasion. I just have this feeling that Sunday will see Mayo triumph. It may be sentiment, it may be fantasy but I'm really looking forward to this game and praying for my dad's sake and the good people of Mayo's sake that they can achieve what they have been yearning for for so long. Roll on Sunday!
|
|
|
Post by southward on Sept 16, 2016 20:18:06 GMT
Where is Alan Fitzgerald btw? Resend. Anyone? Injured, as far as I know.
|
|