The Sunday Game

[AZOffaly]

You have a point Syferus, but if I had to choose one over the other, give me the cheerleading over the grumpy old men shite that the football analysts, on the live game at least, indulge in. To listen to them you'd swear Gaelic Football was a dead or dying sport.

The hurling lads might go overboard at times, but they are more interested in highlighting the skills and the excitement that they genuinely seem to enjoy. That's a much better approach in my eyes. I said it before, the Football analysts try to analyse like a coach would, and show how much they know by bemoaning any perceived lack of skills or whatever. That's not the end of the world in and of itself, but they then (at least one of them does) indulge in the character assassination type stuff which has nothing to do with analysis, and everything to do with a 'look at me, aren't I great' mindset.

The hurling bucks analyse like someone trying to spread the gospel, and I suppose that's what they are doing in a sense. They are analysing like people who actually love the game and want other people to love it. I prefer that.

I prefer the coaching analysis type of punditry rather than the fan style but you're right, the football lads are way too negative. I thought for example, Donal Og's instance that Glesson's puck outs was the greatest display ever was way over the top, while he was good Cork made it very easy. However, if it was the football lads they would have simply hammered Cork for the marking without giving the goalkeeper any real credit for being able to pick out his targets.

I also feel the the like of Spillane and O'Rourke can't analyse a game and highlight anything fresh or unclear to the TV viewer. This is criminal in an age when there is so much new going on in football and there are numerous cameras to highlight it. It should be far easier for football pundits to come up with something interesting and insightful yet they too often fall into the trap of commenting on quality of the spectacle. Yesterday's semi final was a poor game from start to finish yet I don't think anyone mentioned that at all, if it was football the amount of wides, the poor distribution, the poor control and the poor spectacle would have dominated all the analysis.

That's it exactly Zulu. The hurling lads were on about the great puckouts (even though they mentioned that the Cork forwards made it way too easy), and on about Callanan's skill in the finishing of the goals etc. Accentuating the positives. If that was a football game, Cork would have been slaughtered, JBM's IQ would be called into question, and the manliness of everyone in Red would have been sneered at.

[muppet]

You have a point Syferus, but if I had to choose one over the other, give me the cheerleading over the grumpy old men shite that the football analysts, on the live game at least, indulge in. To listen to them you'd swear Gaelic Football was a dead or dying sport.

The hurling lads might go overboard at times, but they are more interested in highlighting the skills and the excitement that they genuinely seem to enjoy. That's a much better approach in my eyes. I said it before, the Football analysts try to analyse like a coach would, and show how much they know by bemoaning any perceived lack of skills or whatever. That's not the end of the world in and of itself, but they then (at least one of them does) indulge in the character assassination type stuff which has nothing to do with analysis, and everything to do with a 'look at me, aren't I great' mindset.

The hurling bucks analyse like someone trying to spread the gospel, and I suppose that's what they are doing in a sense. They are analysing like people who actually love the game and want other people to love it. I prefer that.

I prefer the coaching analysis type of punditry rather than the fan style but you're right, the football lads are way too negative. I thought for example, Donal Og's instance that Glesson's puck outs was the greatest display ever was way over the top, while he was good Cork made it very easy. However, if it was the football lads they would have simply hammered Cork for the marking without giving the goalkeeper any real credit for being able to pick out his targets.

I also feel the the like of Spillane and O'Rourke can't analyse a game and highlight anything fresh or unclear to the TV viewer. This is criminal in an age when there is so much new going on in football and there are numerous cameras to highlight it. It should be far easier for football pundits to come up with something interesting and insightful yet they too often fall into the trap of commenting on quality of the spectacle. Yesterday's semi final was a poor game from start to finish yet I don't think anyone mentioned that at all, if it was football the amount of wides, the poor distribution, the poor control and the poor spectacle would have dominated all the analysis.

That's it exactly Zulu. The hurling lads were on about the great puckouts (even though they mentioned that the Cork forwards made it way too easy), and on about Callanan's skill in the finishing of the goals etc. Accentuating the positives. If that was a football game, Cork would have been slaughtered, JBM's IQ would be called into question, and the manliness of everyone in Red would have been sneered at.

This is it in a nutshell. Grannies would have been held up as examples of better athletes and skill sets. Images of vomiting and religions with names that sound like bad words would be evoked. And the stereotypes........

[johnneycool]

You have a point Syferus, but if I had to choose one over the other, give me the cheerleading over the grumpy old men shite that the football analysts, on the live game at least, indulge in. To listen to them you'd swear Gaelic Football was a dead or dying sport.

The hurling lads might go overboard at times, but they are more interested in highlighting the skills and the excitement that they genuinely seem to enjoy. That's a much better approach in my eyes. I said it before, the Football analysts try to analyse like a coach would, and show how much they know by bemoaning any perceived lack of skills or whatever. That's not the end of the world in and of itself, but they then (at least one of them does) indulge in the character assassination type stuff which has nothing to do with analysis, and everything to do with a 'look at me, aren't I great' mindset.

The hurling bucks analyse like someone trying to spread the gospel, and I suppose that's what they are doing in a sense. They are analysing like people who actually love the game and want other people to love it. I prefer that.

I prefer the coaching analysis type of punditry rather than the fan style but you're right, the football lads are way too negative. I thought for example, Donal Og's instance that Glesson's puck outs was the greatest display ever was way over the top, while he was good Cork made it very easy. However, if it was the football lads they would have simply hammered Cork for the marking without giving the goalkeeper any real credit for being able to pick out his targets.

I also feel the the like of Spillane and O'Rourke can't analyse a game and highlight anything fresh or unclear to the TV viewer. This is criminal in an age when there is so much new going on in football and there are numerous cameras to highlight it. It should be far easier for football pundits to come up with something interesting and insightful yet they too often fall into the trap of commenting on quality of the spectacle. Yesterday's semi final was a poor game from start to finish yet I don't think anyone mentioned that at all, if it was football the amount of wides, the poor distribution, the poor control and the poor spectacle would have dominated all the analysis.

That's it exactly Zulu. The hurling lads were on about the great puckouts (even though they mentioned that the Cork forwards made it way too easy), and on about Callanan's skill in the finishing of the goals etc. Accentuating the positives. If that was a football game, Cork would have been slaughtered, JBM's IQ would be called into question, and the manliness of everyone in Red would have been sneered at.

This is it in a nutshell. Grannies would have been held up as examples of better athletes and skill sets. Images of vomiting and religions with names that sound like bad words would be evoked. And the stereotypes........

The hurling pundits don't court controversy and the media attention as much as some of the football pundits, maybe most already have their wee print media gig already, who knows!

[Owenmoresider]

You have a point Syferus, but if I had to choose one over the other, give me the cheerleading over the grumpy old men shite that the football analysts, on the live game at least, indulge in. To listen to them you'd swear Gaelic Football was a dead or dying sport.

The hurling lads might go overboard at times, but they are more interested in highlighting the skills and the excitement that they genuinely seem to enjoy. That's a much better approach in my eyes. I said it before, the Football analysts try to analyse like a coach would, and show how much they know by bemoaning any perceived lack of skills or whatever. That's not the end of the world in and of itself, but they then (at least one of them does) indulge in the character assassination type stuff which has nothing to do with analysis, and everything to do with a 'look at me, aren't I great' mindset.

The hurling bucks analyse like someone trying to spread the gospel, and I suppose that's what they are doing in a sense. They are analysing like people who actually love the game and want other people to love it. I prefer that.

I prefer the coaching analysis type of punditry rather than the fan style but you're right, the football lads are way too negative. I thought for example, Donal Og's instance that Glesson's puck outs was the greatest display ever was way over the top, while he was good Cork made it very easy. However, if it was the football lads they would have simply hammered Cork for the marking without giving the goalkeeper any real credit for being able to pick out his targets.

I also feel the the like of Spillane and O'Rourke can't analyse a game and highlight anything fresh or unclear to the TV viewer. This is criminal in an age when there is so much new going on in football and there are numerous cameras to highlight it. It should be far easier for football pundits to come up with something interesting and insightful yet they too often fall into the trap of commenting on quality of the spectacle. Yesterday's semi final was a poor game from start to finish yet I don't think anyone mentioned that at all, if it was football the amount of wides, the poor distribution, the poor control and the poor spectacle would have dominated all the analysis.

That's it exactly Zulu. The hurling lads were on about the great puckouts (even though they mentioned that the Cork forwards made it way too easy), and on about Callanan's skill in the finishing of the goals etc. Accentuating the positives. If that was a football game, Cork would have been slaughtered, JBM's IQ would be called into question, and the manliness of everyone in Red would have been sneered at.

This is it in a nutshell. Grannies would have been held up as examples of better athletes and skill sets. Images of vomiting and religions with names that sound like bad words would be evoked. And the stereotypes........

The hurling pundits don't court controversy and the media attention as much as some of the football pundits, maybe most already have their wee print media gig already, who knows!

Well Loughnane and Farrell do, but not Brennan nor Sheedy that I know of. Doesn't seem to bother them. And in any case the three wise men on the football side all have their own nixer in Sunday papers but it doesn't stop them.

[johnneycool]

Aye, but a bit of controversy on the Sunday might shift a bit more copy during the week if you know what I mean.

[Zulu]

I think Donal Og is going down the football route slightly or is at least coming across as the a man who wants desperately to be the one to come up with the 'outside the box' point. He came across like bloody Johnny Cochrane at the OJ trial when he said he wanted to put on record that the Glesson's puck out performance was the greatest ever - 'if it doesn't fit you must acquit'. He also lost the run of himself on the PUC redevelopment, while I agree with much of what he said and supported the strikers at the time, he came across as preachy on the Sunday Game.

[Kidder81]

I think Donal Og is going down the football route slightly or is at least coming across as the a man who wants desperately to be the one to come up with the 'outside the box' point. He came across like bloody Johnny Cochrane at the OJ trial when he said he wanted to put on record that the Glesson's puck out performance was the greatest ever - 'if it doesn't fit you must acquit'. He also lost the run of himself on the PUC redevelopment, while I agree with much of what he said and supported the strikers at the time, he came across as preachy on the Sunday Game.

Yep I think he is certainly trying to make a name for himself

[Kidder81]

You have a point Syferus, but if I had to choose one over the other, give me the cheerleading over the grumpy old men shite that the football analysts, on the live game at least, indulge in. To listen to them you'd swear Gaelic Football was a dead or dying sport.

The hurling lads might go overboard at times, but they are more interested in highlighting the skills and the excitement that they genuinely seem to enjoy. That's a much better approach in my eyes. I said it before, the Football analysts try to analyse like a coach would, and show how much they know by bemoaning any perceived lack of skills or whatever. That's not the end of the world in and of itself, but they then (at least one of them does) indulge in the character assassination type stuff which has nothing to do with analysis, and everything to do with a 'look at me, aren't I great' mindset.

The hurling bucks analyse like someone trying to spread the gospel, and I suppose that's what they are doing in a sense. They are analysing like people who actually love the game and want other people to love it. I prefer that.

I prefer the coaching analysis type of punditry rather than the fan style but you're right, the football lads are way too negative. I thought for example, Donal Og's instance that Glesson's puck outs was the greatest display ever was way over the top, while he was good Cork made it very easy. However, if it was the football lads they would have simply hammered Cork for the marking without giving the goalkeeper any real credit for being able to pick out his targets.

I also feel the the like of Spillane and O'Rourke can't analyse a game and highlight anything fresh or unclear to the TV viewer. This is criminal in an age when there is so much new going on in football and there are numerous cameras to highlight it. It should be far easier for football pundits to come up with something interesting and insightful yet they too often fall into the trap of commenting on quality of the spectacle. Yesterday's semi final was a poor game from start to finish yet I don't think anyone mentioned that at all, if it was football the amount of wides, the poor distribution, the poor control and the poor spectacle would have dominated all the analysis.

That's it exactly Zulu. The hurling lads were on about the great puckouts (even though they mentioned that the Cork forwards made it way too easy), and on about Callanan's skill in the finishing of the goals etc. Accentuating the positives. If that was a football game, Cork would have been slaughtered, JBM's IQ would be called into question, and the manliness of everyone in Red would have been sneered at.

This is it in a nutshell. Grannies would have been held up as examples of better athletes and skill sets. Images of vomiting and religions with names that sound like bad words would be evoked. And the stereotypes........

The hurling pundits don't court controversy and the media attention as much as some of the football pundits, maybe most already have their wee print media gig already, who knows!

Well Loughnane and Farrell do, but not Brennan nor Sheedy that I know of. Doesn't seem to bother them. And in any case the three wise men on the football side all have their own nixer in Sunday papers but it doesn't stop them.

Brennan has a column in Sunday Times

[AZOffaly]

I think Donal Og is going down the football route slightly or is at least coming across as the a man who wants desperately to be the one to come up with the 'outside the box' point. He came across like bloody Johnny Cochrane at the OJ trial when he said he wanted to put on record that the Glesson's puck out performance was the greatest ever - 'if it doesn't fit you must acquit'. He also lost the run of himself on the PUC redevelopment, while I agree with much of what he said and supported the strikers at the time, he came across as preachy on the Sunday Game.

Yep I think he is certainly trying to make a name for himself

I think it's fair to say Donal Óg already has a name made. He may well be trying to be the 'controversial one', but in fairness he seems to have been that way since he could talk. It's probably why RTE got him on board.

[Ciarrai_thuaidh]

I think Donal Og is going down the football route slightly or is at least coming across as the a man who wants desperately to be the one to come up with the 'outside the box' point. He came across like bloody Johnny Cochrane at the OJ trial when he said he wanted to put on record that the Glesson's puck out performance was the greatest ever - 'if it doesn't fit you must acquit'. He also lost the run of himself on the PUC redevelopment, while I agree with much of what he said and supported the strikers at the time, he came across as preachy on the Sunday Game.

Cusack may be a langer, but he was absolutely spot on in what he said on the stadium issue, no idea how exactly you figure he lost the run of himself. Anyone who has studied the proposed plans would realise he has just pointed out the obvious.

[manfromdelmonte]

Exactly

Dublin GAA didn't have to spend €30 million on a stadium, but they get to play in Croke Park all the time.
They spent the money on coaching.

Cork GAA are going to waste €30 million on PUC when they will barely get to play in it and still only have 5 full time coaches.

[Jinxy]

I wouldn't mind but the design looks awful.

[ck]

I agree with the fact that some of the SG analysis is OTT and bordering on stand up comedy rather than analysis but if they toned it down would people want that either? Those lads are paid to give strong opinion and to back it up.
Brolly and Spillane are just arrogant whereas the evening crew are much more on the money. As for Cahill, I find him very genuine.

[AZOffaly]

I agree with the fact that some of the SG analysis is OTT and bordering on stand up comedy rather than analysis but if they toned it down would people want that either? Those lads are paid to give strong opinion and to back it up.
Brolly and Spillane are just arrogant whereas the evening crew are much more on the money. As for Cahill, I find him very genuine.

Who says? I thought they'd be paid to try and highlight interesting tactical elements of the game and explain why things went the way they did. i don't know if you watch soccer, but Gary Neville and Jamie Carragher are good at this. They had a very interesting discussion about 3-5-2 formation and players playing in uncomfortable roles last night. No 'controversy', no hyperbole, just plain, interesting and informative discussion. They have disagreements, but they don't roar 'Howl on, Howl on' at each other.

[Zulu]

I think Donal Og is going down the football route slightly or is at least coming across as the a man who wants desperately to be the one to come up with the 'outside the box' point. He came across like bloody Johnny Cochrane at the OJ trial when he said he wanted to put on record that the Glesson's puck out performance was the greatest ever - 'if it doesn't fit you must acquit'. He also lost the run of himself on the PUC redevelopment, while I agree with much of what he said and supported the strikers at the time, he came across as preachy on the Sunday Game.

Cusack may be a langer, but he was absolutely spot on in what he said on the stadium issue, no idea how exactly you figure he lost the run of himself. Anyone who has studied the proposed plans would realise he has just pointed out the obvious.

I said I agreed with most of what he said in the half a dozen or so words right after the bit you highlighted!! I also said in another thread that Cork don't need to redevelop PUC to the tune of €70million and that 5 GDA's was a disgrace. The point I was making though was Donal Og kept referencing €70 million whereas most of that is not Cork GAA money so it couldn't be spent on anything else. The Cork CB are putting in €10 million and I would use some of that to employ more GDA's for example but the other side of the coin is Cork are getting a €70 million stadium for a €10 million investment. On top of that they would need to redevelop PUC to some degree as it isn't fit for purpose so there is an argument to say we can invest €10 million to get a high quality stadium and concert venue or we can invest a couple of million and have something that isn't up to scratch anyway.

The only reason PUC is being redeveloped is the rugby world cup so Cork are probably doing good business. The centre of excellence is a complete joke though and a county as big as Cork cannot be well served by a single centre of excellence. Better perhaps to up grade/develop some club facilities on the basis that the county teams can access them as they need.