"I'm not so sure Jack wants it as much as we want him"
18 June 2015
Wexford's Jack Guiney.
©INPHO
Jack Guiney's commitment to Wexford hurling isn't what it should be according to manager Liam Dunne.
The Rathnure clubman has been dropped for the Model County panel just days before their Leinster SHC semi-final clash with Kilkenny and, speaking to South East radio, Dunne explained: "Unfortunately, Jack won't be involved with this group.
"We set standards, and the players set standards as you go along and players buy into it.
"If you don't want to come up to that standard or you can't give that commitment that's required, this set-up is nowhere for you to be.
"At the moment Jack just can't give that commitment. I'd love to have Jack Guiney and the players would love to have Jack Guiney.
"I'm not so sure Jack wants it as much as we want him."
http://www.hoganstand.com/Hurling/ArticleForm.aspx?ID=239380
It'd certainly be interesting to see what the manager finds totally unacceptable.
I hate to hear these internal wrangles. It would need to be something very serious to put him off the panel completely. What's wrong with putting him on the bench?
Quote from: keep her low this half on June 18, 2015, 09:17:03 PM
I hate to hear these internal wrangles. It would need to be something very serious to put him off the panel completely. What's wrong with putting him on the bench?
what's wrong with lads having a life outside the game as well? If professional players can go on the piss now and again. So can bloody amateurs.
I hear he scored 4-4 from play in a league game tonight (Rathnure 4-12 1-12 Ferns St Aidans), he also bagged 2-26 in the league for county this year it'd want to be something pretty serious I hate to think its just pedantry.
It's probably another of these corners that managers paint themselves into. Davy Fitz did it earlier in the year too, but he broke his own rule by not suspending the big time lad, and so he's basically been trying to regain that ground since.
Sounds like Dunne saw the Clare situation and said he had to make an example that he was serious about the rules. It's probably going to hurt his team more than any sort of psychological benefit having a communal sense of sacrifice gives.
I don't like these drink bans. You can't perform if you are drinking to excess, and you would soon be blown up on a county panel if you were doing that, and be dropped anyway. So anyone that's serious about it will look after themselves and have a drink in moderation if they want to.
I've seen professional rugby players have a good blow out after a game, and they are out playing again a couple of weeks later at most. Doesn't seem to be a major issue with their dieticians, nutritionists and sports science teams. Why is it such a big deal for our county teams? It feels like we can't trust our best players not to go on the piss a couple of days before a big match or something.
I understand trying to foster a sense of all being in this together, and giving up the drink as a group is a sort of bonding and trust thing, but really is it worth it? Could these lads not find a better sort of communal sense of purpose based on a target outcome, rather than a sacrifice of part of your personal life. Trust each other, and have that sense of responsibility to do the right thing, rather than a rule about never having a drink.
It's a big commitment being a county player, and being a serious county player means you won't be able to go on the beer like anyone else can. However surely they can have an odd blowout a few weeks before their next game.
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 19, 2015, 09:29:11 AM
It's probably another of these corners that managers paint themselves into. Davy Fitz did it earlier in the year too, but he broke his own rule by not suspending the big time lad, and so he's basically been trying to regain that ground since.
Sounds like Dunne saw the Clare situation and said he had to make an example that he was serious about the rules. It's probably going to hurt his team more than any sort of psychological benefit having a communal sense of sacrifice gives.
I don't like these drink bans. You can't perform if you are drinking to excess, and you would soon be blown up on a county panel if you were doing that, and be dropped anyway. So anyone that's serious about it will look after themselves and have a drink in moderation if they want to.
I've seen professional rugby players have a good blow out after a game, and they are out playing again a couple of weeks later at most. Doesn't seem to be a major issue with their dieticians, nutritionists and sports science teams. Why is it such a big deal for our county teams? It feels like we can't trust our best players not to go on the piss a couple of days before a big match or something.
I understand trying to foster a sense of all being in this together, and giving up the drink as a group is a sort of bonding and trust thing, but really is it worth it? Could these lads not find a better sort of communal sense of purpose based on a target outcome, rather than a sacrifice of part of your personal life. Trust each other, and have that sense of responsibility to do the right thing, rather than a rule about never having a drink.
It's a big commitment being a county player, and being a serious county player means you won't be able to go on the beer like anyone else can. However surely they can have an odd blowout a few weeks before their next game.
The problem for Dunne and others is that he is applying rules that no doubt worked on him and his teammates back in the day, however sports coaches particylarly in the states are acknowledging that they must now face the challenge of managing and motivating a new breed of human beings, effectively the "Y" generation who have very different values and expectations from us has beens in the "X" cohort.
I can't stand Dunne. His columns in the ST never failed to get a dig into Waterford who he clearly saw as a shower of bluffers just waiting to be exposed. The day came this spring when 8,500 Wexicans turned up to see them do just that. How did that work out for ya, Liam?
And yet, I feel a degree of sympathy for him here. He's not swinging his dick around and telling us all how he's able to make the hard calls that no one else will. It was a hard decision and I admire his honesty in effectively admitting he doesn't know if it's the right one. The problem he has relative to professional sports players is that the only sanction available to a GAA manager is to drop a player. A manager of a professional team holds the livelihood of the players in his hands, and even the most knuckleheaded player knows it. To make matters worse, a GAA player will usually have a lot more credit stored up with the supporters than the manager. I always think of Brian Cody in his early days as Kilkenny manager deciding to give Charlie Carter the heave-ho. It would be an exaggeration to say that there were folk in Kilkenny who wanted them to lose that year, but there was a hardcore who made it clear through the summer that were ready to say I-told-you-so when a Carter-less Kilkenny failed (they didn't, more's the pity). It's a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but the sledgehammer seems to be the only tool available.
Quote from: deiseach on June 19, 2015, 12:02:48 PM
I can't stand Dunne. His columns in the ST never failed to get a dig into Waterford who he clearly saw as a shower of bluffers just waiting to be exposed. The day came this spring when 8,500 Wexicans turned up to see them do just that. How did that work out for ya, Liam?
And yet, I feel a degree of sympathy for him here. He's not swinging his dick around and telling us all how he's able to make the hard calls that no one else will. It was a hard decision and I admire his honesty in effectively admitting he doesn't know if it's the right one. The problem he has relative to professional sports players is that the only sanction available to a GAA manager is to drop a player. A manager of a professional team holds the livelihood of the players in his hands, and even the most knuckleheaded player knows it. To make matters worse, a GAA player will usually have a lot more credit stored up with the supporters than the manager. I always think of Brian Cody in his early days as Kilkenny manager deciding to give Charlie Carter the heave-ho. It would be an exaggeration to say that there were folk in Kilkenny who wanted them to lose that year, but there was a hardcore who made it clear through the summer that were ready to say I-told-you-so when a Carter-less Kilkenny failed (they didn't, more's the pity). It's a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but the sledgehammer seems to be the only tool available.
How about letting lads having a social drink now and again . These guys are so fit and train so often a couple of pints every few weeks will have no impact on performance. Dunne took the easy option . Saying there is no alternative is ridiculous. It's about a sensible balance. A drinks ban will win you absolutely nothing. I'm amazed how managers believe it does
Any player who doesn't know the parameters of a few pints isn't any use to you anyway . That doesn't seem to be the case here . It's exactly the same scenario as Clare
Well, we know there is no drinks ban because Dunne said there were no rules. It's clear there were problems building up (http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/hurling/liam-dunne-jack-guiney-cant-give-wexford-required-commitment-337629.html) before the decision was made:
QuoteGuiney was substituted in their championship opener on Sunday week last and Dunne appeared to criticise the right-half forward in his post-match assessment: "We took guys off and they weren't taken off because they were getting a rest."
It's all very well talking about sensible balance, but you have to draw the line somewhere. If it's okay to have two pints, why is in not okay to have three, and so on. I don't know if Dunne has made the right decision. It's possible he is cutting off his nose to spite his face. But at least he seems aware that that might be the case.
He doesn't appear the most balanced individual at times. He's not in the Davy Fitz league mind you. Things like this could wreck panels - I guess it could make them too but it's a chance he's taking.
I'm no fan of Dunne who has come out with some daft comments in the past but it doesn't appear this is a scenario similar to Clare and it looks to me that Dunne is probably correct here.
Quote from: Zulu on June 19, 2015, 03:47:42 PM
I'm no fan of Dunne who has come out with some daft comments in the past but it doesn't appear this is a scenario similar to Clare and it looks to me that Dunne is probably correct here.
Why do you say it's not a similar scenario? Apparently he went out on the tear after the Westmeath game.
There was no drink ban as far as I know and it seems Jack fell below the standards that the players themselves set on more than one occasion, i.e. it wasn't all about this incident.
Ah I see, sorry. I thought it was more of a one time thing. If he's consistently breaking rules and showing disregard for his team, then he has to go at some stage. It's the Mario Ballotelli scenario. At what point does his behaviour outweigh his value as a talent. (In Balotelli's case it's very quickly :) ).
Having said that, I just read the examiner article, and it doesn't really hint at a pattern of behaviour. In fact it talks about a night out after the Westmeath game. What are the other incidents supposed to have been?
I don't know to be honest AZ but from what I read or heard I got the impression that Jack wasn't meeting the standard the team had set themselves. I didn't get the impression it was a once off or that it was like the Clare lads who weren't even drinking if I remember correctly. I might be wrong but that was the impression I got and this is the reason management went with the nuclear option.
Ditching Jack Guiney (or whoever) if he's the equivalent of Mario Balotelli is a piece of piss. It's when they're the equivalent of Luis Suarez that the doubts creep in. It's not that bad, twas only one night on the tiles. I'm thick skinned, I can take the abuse. He probably had a point about that sugar in his coffee, the little old lady had it coming to her...
Quote from: Zulu on June 19, 2015, 05:23:58 PM
I don't know to be honest AZ but from what I read or heard I got the impression that Jack wasn't meeting the standard the team had set themselves. I didn't get the impression it was a once off or that it was like the Clare lads who weren't even drinking if I remember correctly. I might be wrong but that was the impression I got and this is the reason management went with the nuclear option.
The Clare situation blew up because of the lad who *was* drinking and didn't get disciplined. You may be right about the history re Guiney, but it doesn't read like that in the report.
Quote from: deiseach on June 19, 2015, 05:24:05 PM
Ditching Jack Guiney (or whoever) if he's the equivalent of Mario Balotelli is a piece of piss. It's when they're the equivalent of Luis Suarez that the doubts creep in. It's not that bad, twas only one night on the tiles. I'm thick skinned, I can take the abuse. He probably had a point about that sugar in his coffee, the little old lady had it coming to her...
Not sure what you're saying here, but what I'm saying is that if he's consistently bad, then you could see why the players and management would want rid of him.
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 19, 2015, 05:31:26 PM
Quote from: Zulu on June 19, 2015, 05:23:58 PM
I don't know to be honest AZ but from what I read or heard I got the impression that Jack wasn't meeting the standard the team had set themselves. I didn't get the impression it was a once off or that it was like the Clare lads who weren't even drinking if I remember correctly. I might be wrong but that was the impression I got and this is the reason management went with the nuclear option.
The Clare situation blew up because of the lad who *was* drinking and didn't get disciplined. You may be right about the history re Guiney, but it doesn't read like that in the report.
Quote from: deiseach on June 19, 2015, 05:24:05 PM
Ditching Jack Guiney (or whoever) if he's the equivalent of Mario Balotelli is a piece of piss. It's when they're the equivalent of Luis Suarez that the doubts creep in. It's not that bad, twas only one night on the tiles. I'm thick skinned, I can take the abuse. He probably had a point about that sugar in his coffee, the little old lady had it coming to her...
Not sure what you're saying here, but what I'm saying is that if he's consistently bad, then you could see why the players and management would want rid of him.
Yes but he still dropped two lads for being out even though they weren't drinking which was ridiculously excessive and was, apparently, part of the rules set down by management. I think this is more a case of a guy who is not putting in what the rest of the boys are and therefore is being let go. It's a pity either way.
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 19, 2015, 05:08:32 PM
Ah I see, sorry. I thought it was more of a one time thing. If he's consistently breaking rules and showing disregard for his team, then he has to go at some stage. It's the Mario Ballotelli scenario. At what point does his behaviour outweigh his value as a talent. (In Balotelli's case it's very quickly :) ).
Having said that, I just read the examiner article, and it doesn't really hint at a pattern of behaviour. In fact it talks about a night out after the Westmeath game. What are the other incidents supposed to have been?
It's one incident. Any manager who doesn't allow his team out after a championship match for one night with a 2-3 week gap needs to get a life in my view. Needs to be a serious reappraisal within GAA circles about the Al Pacino inches speech
Sounds like the Wexford players could do with reading it as well. These indoctrinated social life bans ensure players perform worse not better in my view .