Messages

Id be interested in hearing your response to Lar Naparka 's question myles

He posed more than one, but his final query: 'Was HMG acting in clear and deliberate breach of the accepted rules of war or was it not?' My answer to that would be a clear and unequivocal yes - I think the British acted outside the normally accepted rules of warfare. Contrary to the perceived wisdom on here, I am not an apologist either for British foreign policy, nor for the actions of the British armed forces. Having said that, I would go on to point out that it was not just the British who acted outside the rules at this particular time in Irish history. When the British had packed up and gone home, there was the Irish civil war. More people died in this conflict between erstwhile comrades than had been killed in the Tan War. Whats more, some of the brutality and the atrocities carried out by Irishmen on Irishmen made the Black and Tans look like the Boy Scouts. 

I've very little problem with your observations here, Myles. However, while you may have most of your facts right in the second part of your post that I'm quoting above; I don't see the relevance of this part at all.
In my original post I posed some queries alright but they were directed at the role played by British armed forces, with the full backing of their government, in a campaign that went on or a long period of time.
I had read some of MW's recent posts and I think it's fair to say that he has pointed out that international laws do exist and they outline the conditions under which the forces of a sovereign state may wage war against the forces of another sovereign state. I don't think that any country could start a war without the expectation that some of its people will kill others on the opposing side.
I've picked out some of his comments that I have selected randomly- I have only started reading this topic in the last few days and I haven't any desire to trawl back through the earlier posts. I read enough at a time when MW was very active to pose some questions.
I've no problem in saying that Constable Murphy was murdered and not killed under any convention of war.  However what happens when the roles are reversed? I'm referring to killings that were carried out by the armed forces of a sovereign state with the full knowledge of its government. The Tans/Auxies burned down the centre of Cork city. Now, the reason I'm told for this orgy of wanton destruction was that it was in response to actions by the IRA in the area.
But it was not directed at armed opponents.  Its aim was to cow the people of Cork and force IRA sympathisers in the locality to abandon their support for the 'boys.'
I doubt very much if my granny's ducks were wearing uniforms, bearing arms or involved n any sort of subversive activity when they were mowed down by a lorry load of drunken Tans. The Tans had the habit of careering at high seed through the rural roads of East Mayo, where I come from, deliberately ploughing through flocks of geese or ducks they encountered. My grandparents had the roof of their house destroyed by a burst from a Lewis gun on the same occasion.
I know that IRA atrocities certainly occurred but I'm not referring to them here.
They could well be the subject of another discussion but they were not covered by an article of the Geneva Convention or any other aspirational waffle anyone would care to mention.
The Tans on the other hand were.
My point is that I see eff all merit in referring to any sort of protocol when the signatories don't bother to abide by the rules. There have been numerous acts of illegal actions carried out by sovereign states around the world that broke any accepted protocol in existence. The Americans in Vietnam and later in Iraq come to mind, but I don't see any evidence that anything the Americans or indeed the British may have carried out elsewhere had the the official blessing of their respective governments.
I'm reproducing some of MW's comments here that set me thinking. I'm not in any way having a go at MW by doing this. It's just that he set me thinking...

Then you live in a wierd fantasy world, because international law on war, including the Geneva Convention, does exist.
Shoot any enemy serviceman on the battlefield who isn't wounded, surrendering or a medic. In a nutshell, that's allowed under international law in a declared war. Pretty obvious to 99% of people out there..
Another stupid comment. Constable Murphy was a policeman, not a serviceman, his killers were not in the armed forces of any sovereign state, and they were neither uniformed nor openly bearing arms.

As always, I'm a bit reluctant to interfere here and maybe distract you lads for your usual fun.
But I would be genuinely interested in hearing the views of any of you on what happened in this country of ours during the period 1919-21?
I'm referring to the War of Independence or whatever term you may wish to use.
I'd like to hear your spin on who you would regard as 'terrorists' back then.
Sir Hamar Greenwood was Chief Secretary at the time. (I think I got his job title right.)
He sanctioned the formation of both the Black and Tans and the Auxiliary Police.
I'd like to say that the regular British army personnel would be generally regarded as having acted in a normal manner and never resorted to acts of thuggery and lawlessness that characterised the other two official forces. I have been told this by many people who had lived through this period and I'm referring to southern Ireland.

I'm not sure as to what happened in the north of the country but in the south, the Tans and the Auxies won a worldwide reputation for their actions.
They burned, raped and pillaged on a massive scale. I doubt any one would seriously deny this and they acted with the full knowledge and consent of HMG and of course of the Chief Secretary, Hamar Greenwood.
Could they be said to have acted in conformance with the Geneva Convention or any other convention you care to mention?
Their officially admitted aim was to flush out the IRA but that doesn't concern me here. Their actions in the name of HMG does concern me.
ASAIK, the British government had signed up to this treaty by 1919; it had possibly done this a lot earlier. 
Was HMG acting in clear and deliberate breach of the accepted rules of war or was it not?

I wasn't playing. I remember in '97 at the team meeting the nite before they read out some of the messages we had received, all wishing us luck. We got one off every club in mayo bar cross. I supported them both days they were in the final. As for ballina, i was told by a county player that he hoped we got bet out the gate, he proceeded to put the boot in after we lost, left a sour taste. The going to school things works both ways, i've loads of time for some of the ballina players, v good friends, but by the same measure i know what knobs some of them are away from the pitch as well

you did well to get any messages at all Mayo4sam   in fairness i think that any one that has played for any of clubs against each other definately have a respect for each other. At the last championship match against knockmore i met loads of knockmore lads that i had played against and had a great auld chat talking about how the auld days and all the off the ball hitting that used to be going on , even had a pint with them

You were a lucky man then to have left the place in one piece.
In my day, (fado, fado) you'd have needed a sharp pointed stake and a clove or two of garlic to have any chance of getting out alive.   
Mind you, Ballina and Cross weren't much friendlier either.
In fact, the same could be said for nearly all of the others clubs in the county.
Except of course, my own beloved Swinford!
Back then, beloved Swinford were better known for kicking the crap out of each other than for putting it up to the opposition, any opposition.
Did any of ye here ever get the line for clocking one of your own men, right in front of the ref?

Whatever about the board and post-mortems, where would Mayo be without them? Maybe we are too critical in our post-mortems of games. They usually last up until the start of the next game in my house!

You'd want to see mine then!
Even my one and only good buddy, the bloody dog, has started shaking his head and slinking off when he sees me coming.
Whenever The Boss would say it was a case of her or the computer whenever Mayo would lose a game, I could call her bluff because she knew what answer to that one would be every time!
But I think I overheard her telling her sister that it was going to be a case of me or the computer this time if I didn't leave Bannon, whoever he is, alone.
I would do almost any thing for the sake of Mayo football but I could well do without another crack on the cranium. Like Mayo on Sunday, I might not be so lucky the next time.
I wish Barney would leave off whatever he's up to this weather and go start a new thread.

[It just wasnt executed very well on Sunday.]

If it had worked the Mayo players would have been hailed for it. And it has been proven to work in the past. It just wasnt executed very well on Sunday.

What I love about Mayo supporters is that the craic is always mighty.  Long after the game is over, the post mortems go on and they are usually more interesting than the effin' game had ever been.

To be (a small bit) serious, you have just about the nail on the head on Mayo's antics tactics coming up to the end of the match. I have no problem with them playing 'pass the parcel' right from the time they went one point ahead and they would have been hailed for it, as long as they won.
It certainly has been proven to work many, many times in the past. However, I can never recall a time when it worked for Mayo. I have seen kids in a schoolyard making a much better fist of it than our lads did last Sunday.
Like I said before, Galway handled it very well; they crowded the parcel passers over to the sideline and waited for the inevitable breakdown. I wouldn't blame Conoreen any more than the rest of those involved- it was always going to come to grief in the end. I have a suspicion that if the roles were reversed, Galway would now be Connacht champions and we'd be laying it into the ref and the weather and everything else we could think of.
I think the game did our side a power of good and they won't act the ass so much the next time.
In the end, justice prevailed and we won but the winning could have been a lot easier.

I'm trying to say he's no martyr, he played fair play to him, it doesn't require all this ground worshipping that been going on, you'd swear he'd come up with the cure for cancer.

For my tuppence worth, I think that is very OTT.
The man has to spend the rest of his life with the knowledge that he has cancer in his system and that it could suddenly re-appear and, if it does, he may not be so lucky the second time. Still, he realises that he is a marked man and every time he lines out, he and can expect more digs, kicks and attempts to behead him in the Ciaran Whelan style.

There is one helluva difference between a fool and a brave man. A fool will feel that once he's okay he's fine and will act if there isn't a problem. On the other hand, a brave man will understand the risks, be scared shitless and will then go ahead anyway.

IMO, Ronan McGarrity is a very brave man.

Now, that things have settled down somewhat, I'd hope that a few points will be kept in mind by Johnno and the lads. Too much can be read into the defeat of Galway. There were issues that need to be addressed if we are going to progress any further. I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade here; I think there is nothing that can't be sorted out.
It seems no one in Mayo was happy with John Bannon's performance.
Yet, in spite of his best attempts, (if anyone should think that way,) we were 7 points up with 7 minutes remaining.  If we had gone on to blow it once again, there would be little merit to looking for a scapegoat elsewhere.
I honestly feel we were worth every single one of them but even JB at his worst could not be blamed for cancelling out every one of them. He did not score against us but it was Galway and only Galway who did the scoring. We should have been ruthless in closing down the game at that stage. Kerry or Tyrone or Galway for that matter, would have no problem doing this.
I don't think it is fair to blame poor Conoreen for handing (kicking?) away possession near the end either; he was only the last one in a long list to indulge in amateurish passing about. Did anyone else notice how Galway handled the passing the buck affair? They kept the cool and waited for the inevitable breakdown. Notice how they crowded Mayo over to the sideline to cut down the room for manoeuvre. The Galway players did not panic; they knew what they had to do and they did it very well.
JB's 'bias' did not surface until the second half, did it? Coincidentally, that was when Mayo decided to go on the defence.
The lads should have tuned into his attitude to frees and played it by the book.
That means John Bannon's book and not theirs.
When he began to dish out the yellows, our defence should have reacted accordingly and should have tried to avoid them at any cost. One single sending off would certainly have taken the wheels off our wagon

Still, they were relatively young and inexperienced and they lived to fight another day. I think the lessons will be learned but any team they are going to face from here on will be aware of what happened in the second half.

Just watching the sunday game again...
http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1052479
Meehan took 10 steps before shooting at goal at the end.
ref was a joke, nearly cost us the game.

But Wasnt there a foul in the lead up to one of Mayo's goals as well?

Also, the reason Meehan took so many steps is because there wwas a Mayo back hanging off him. If Meehan had gone down, it may have been a penalty.

Mayo deserved to win but if they had not won, it would have been nobody's fault but their own!

I'd be inclined to agree with you here. We won so anything else is history at this stage and endless recriminations are of no use to anyone. I feel we should have won by more but that is irrelevant now.
There are some points to be kept in mind although. Galway, to their credit, never give up and have to be watched right up to the final whistle. We have found that out many times to our cost and could have been caught once again yesterday. A positive note is that Mayo did not lose the plot when Galway scored the last goal and somehow managed to hit a winner-a bit like the Irish team against Wales in the recent Triple Crown decider.
Of course it feels mighty to have won but we have a total of 43 Connachts and counting. (I lost the count a long time ago put that's the tally according to the TV3 commentary.) and precious little joy after 39 of them so I hope the obvious weaknesses  that were there to be seen are attended to.
I few lost it would be own fault and it would be pointless to blame John Bannon.
The ratio of free went 35/19 against us and even if Bannon was wearing a maroon jersey, that figure tells its story.
He wasn't all one-sided either. Remember the 'shock' on Pee Joyce's face when he was adjudged to have pulled his marker to the ground. That's an art perfected by Connoreen in days gone by. Joyce is also a past master at engineering soft frees ands he got caught yesterday. The number of yellow cards handed out to our backs in the second half is a real worry. I don't see a point in blaming Bannon for any of them. Even if he was harsh in giving even one of them out, a lot of our lads left themselves in serious danger of getting a red and that could have spelt disaster. Even if every Mayo lad felt Bannon was acting the maggot, they should have copped on that he would come down hard on them for what he regarded as yellow card offences. That's my only serious concern about yesterday's game. For once, we can look at the positives and hope we can learn from the negatives.
John O'Mahony was my MOTM; he has started to impose his presence on the sideline and I think he will sort out the tendency to foul amongst the backs; they were collectively very young and inexperienced going into yesterday's game and I think they will benefit immensely from the experience.

Unless bad luck intervenes, I expect Mayo to come out winners today. If it all boils down to what happens on the field –determination to win, football ability and present form, Mayo should get by.
It's the type of game where bit players grow into stars in their own right. I remember this happening to Alan Dillon in the game against the same opposition back in '06.     If it was practical to draw some sort of a form line based on previous encounters, I feel Mayo have a positive edge.
In Salthill '07 especially, and to a lesser extent last year, Mayo let Galway build up commanding leads before taking the fight to them. In both games, it was a case of too little, too late but I maintain that with a bit of better leadership on the field and a greater degree of tactical awareness on the sideline, we could have done better in both instances.
Today is what counts and here I think both  our team and manager have improved immeasurably. Roscommon have proved in the backdoor games to be a much better side than they looked against Mayo.
Did they really have a bad hair day or were Mayo just far too strong for them?
Maybe the truth is that it was a bit of both but Mayo played with more purpose and concentration than I have seen in a long time. I had thought I'd never see that in my time again.
The fact that O'Mahony is fielding an almost unaltered line up from the Roscommon match is encouraging as he is giving the players the chance to settle in and concentrate on their own games, without keeping an eye at what is going on over on the sidelines.   
O'Mahony seems to be more energetic and tuned in to the on-field action that I have seen from him in all games prior to the Roscommon one. If he keeps this standard up, as I expect him to do, it will be a major plus.
All in all, my €100 is behind the bar in my local along with two €50s from a pair of shams from Tuam and I'm confident I'll be pocketing the contents of the pint glass later this afternoon.
To hell with the so-called 'Hoodoo,' it's P. Joyce I'm afraid of!  Galway are still Galway and we need to keep the throttle down to the final whistle.
So; here's to Johnno and may he prove  that I've been spouting rubbish all along.
BTW; Good luck and a safe journey to all who are on the road for the game.

I first heard of the famous '51 curse before the 1996 All-Ireland final. Of course, we all laughed and shrugged it off back then but...

The only relevant curse is the one you hear at the final whistle of our last game every summer.

Bang on, Muppet.
Most counties that are unsuccessful have stories of a similar type. I say that the reason for the abundance of pisreogs and mí-adh stories is that some supporters won't accept that their side wasn't up to it at a given time and want to blame outside forces instead of accepting the obvious. For instance,, a widely-held Sligo excuse is that their team missed mass when heading to Dublin for the semis after winning their first Connacht title in 1928. The priest is supposed to have cursed them on the altar when they failed to show up. Good luck to them against Kerry but I hope they don't turn up blaming some unfortunate priest for their expected failure before a ball is thrown in! If the team and fans paid even the slightest heed to this nonsense,  the likelihood indeed is that they will wind up on the losing side once more.
Mayo certainly have had an above average share of bad luck but then so have lots of others. Kerry have lost more All-Irelands than we have!
I wouldn't bother with the bullsugar about any priest's curse at any time. Sometimes the cause mightn't be immediately obvious but they usually is a human element involved.
Remember the loss to Meath in '96.
The common moan is that we wuz robbed when the ref sent McHale to the line, isn't it?
We can blame the bleddy ref for allowing Geraghty to take a quick free that got a goal in the closing stages alright but McHale was the author of his own misfortune.
After the first game, he sounded off in public about the rough tactics of the Meath gang and said he'd be ready the next time. When he sailed in to wave his handbag about as the scrap started, the ref may been reacting this promise.

I think we should take the advice of Ciaran McDonald when a reporter asked him what it felt like to finally break the Tuam hoodoo.
"F**k the hoodoo," Mac is supposed to have replied and he went on his merry way.
Let's hope the lads on Sunday will adopt the same attitude.

[I m still troubled by the fact that we seemed to have to be much better than Galway to actually win against them - especially away.]

They seem to have the knack of beating us economically. I recall 89 when we were a much better side we could only draw in Tuam. In replay in Castlebar we were nt spoiled with an 8 point win. I m still troubled by the fact that we seemed to have to be much better than Galway to actually win against them - especially away.
If we re good enough no reason not to win it, even away.

Moysider, do you remember that there used to be a general acceptance that Galway were always more streetwise than either Mayo or Roscommon?
I first heard of their alleged superior mental toughness back in the mid-60s and I felt that Mayo and indeed Rossie fans generally accepted it as a fact. Certainly, of the three teams in question, Galway always seemed the best bet to give a good account of themselves whenever they crossed the Shannon.
When they won in Connacht, Mayo and Roscommon did not perform well when they came to Headquarters. Galway, it was felt could always stay composed under pressure and Mayo or Ross would need to be a few points the better side to have any chance.
The figures in question were generally put at three for Mayo and up to five for Roscommon.
Sadly for Sligonian, Sligo or the Ridgebacks were never even considered.
I haven't heard much of this sort of talk since Mayo broke the so-called hoodoo in Tuam but it was definitely widespread and was much used by the herrin' chokers whenever there were verbals between rival sets of fans.

Heaney is exactly what we need at midfield. He was quietly effective against Roscommon and I've little doubt he'll be the same on Sunday. Anyone know when the team is being announced?? Hand on heart Moysider can you see McGarrity starting?

I m hopeful he can yet. He s training and he took part in a squad game at the weekend. Still a long shot but there s a chance. The fracture was described as a non displaced fracture. That means though while there are cracks, thankfully nothing out of place. Ye can still sup tea out of a cracked cup.

I know that reports about Ronan's injury may have been exaggerated but, from what I have been reading here, I doubt it.
I'd hate to see him on the field unless he is really up to it. He has shown tremendous character and devotion to the cause by coming back and playing himself into the reckoning again. I thought he was recovering his old form again and himself and Heaney were shaping up for the best midfield pairing we have had for a long time.
They complement each other very well. If Heaney is deemed fit enough to stick the pace, he is adept at picking up loose ball and can distribute passes as well as any one else on the side but I cannot recall him ever contesting a high ball and coming away with it. Ronan on the other hand, is the best fetcher we have on the side but he is not the bustling, harrying type.
If only the years could be rolled back and we had David Brady and Ronan together at midfield, we'd have as good a combination as could be fielded by any other country in the land!
But there is no point in wishful thing and we got to make do with the best we have. Tom Parsons seems to be the best option if either of the pair that started against Roscommon doesn't begin the game at midfield but I'd hate to see neither of them there. I think the time for wholesale chopping and changing is over. I am reasonably optimistic that the team will hit the ground running as they did against Roscommon.
As for the Salthill hoodoo, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. The game is there for the taking— if Mayo shows up in the right state of mind.
Would anyone disagree with me that Mayo lost out in Salthill so many times because they were just the inferior side each time?

[have bee]

I hope none of Shane O'Neill's pupils have urged him to "Fc.k off you b..d c..t!" even if I have done so for the last 7 or 8 years

Tony, are you telling us you are still at school?
If indeed you have been Shane's pupil for the last 7 or eight years, when are you going to leave, graduate or get kicked out or whatever?

Jesus, a lot of pointless shite being dragged up on this thread.
We better get some sort of an injury update to get us back on track. This is the Connacht Final thread, not the 'in-fighting and recriminations' thread. 

Yeah, you are right.
This happens all the time when we're hanging around waiting for the off in a big match. I'd welcome the arrival of Sligonian at this stage; if for nothing else, he'd provide a target for all to have a go at.
For the first time since Johnno, returned, I found reason to be moderately hopeful after the Ross game. It's early days yet, but the team that day had a more settled look about it. The side kept its concentration until the result was no longer in doubt. Not closing out a game when we were on top, has been the cause of many a Mayo defeat in recent times.
Also, the selection of Heaney at midfield was justified. I thought it was very significant that he stuck to his task and stayed in his selected position, for most of the time at any rate. He and Gardener have lost the run of themselves and moved up into the forwards far too many times in the past.
With his experience and coolness under pressure, he will be needed at midfield. I don't think a pairing of Parsons and O'Shea would be a good idea. They are both too inexperienced for the task in hand and whoever faces them will be old dogs on a hard road. I hope the team will show minimal change from the side that faced Roscommon.
The enforced absence of McGarrity means someone, probably Parsons, will start in midfield but I'd leave the rest alone. At this stage of the campaign, it's vital to have a settled side. The time for chopping and changing has gone.
The one thing I'd hate to see would be a Galway win and a Mayo side complaining about the way the nasty bullies roughed them up. I am beginning to believe that the present side will stand up to whatever is thrown at them and will do their talking on the field.

Indy, I must say I'm impressed by your determination to prove your point. Trouble is that I don't quite know what the point is. If any of the posters you selected in your trip down memory lane had claimed that he never said a bad word about my good friend, I'd say you were dead right.
Otherwise, you will have to accept that they were reacting to the facts as they saw them to be- at the time of writing.
For instance, if Farrandeelin did state: "Don't worry, everyone I've spoken to is delighted we lost, so it will speed up O'Mahony's dismissal...," I could not find anything wrong with his statement.
Unless you should doubt his honesty, and I don't think you are doing this, he is entitled to have his statement taken as factual reporting. If he then goes on to say that he personally feels the same way- and gives his reasons, he is also entitled to do this as it reflected his personal feelings at the time in question.
Likewise with Moysider and Barney. 
I don't always see things their way but of their integrity and devotion to Mayo football, there can be no doubt whatsoever. All anyone can be asked to do is to call they shots as he see them.
The same applies to John O'Mahony.
I would hope he is never swayed by popular opinion or by electoral expectations. Obviously, he is only human and is subject to many sorts of pressure. But he took on the job and knew full well what lay in front of him.
I also think he is a proud and ambitious individual who would dearly like to end his managerial career with an All-Ireland win for his own Mayo. I would never doubt his devotion to the cause and I will gladly kiss him on both cheeks (front - and rear if needs be) if he manages to pull it off.
But I do have serious reservations about some of the things he has done in the past two years and those concerns still remain, regardless of what happens this season.
I am not going over old ground again if I don't have to but one matter I did highlight was the way in which he used the need to close his panel by a certain date as being a reason for declaring that Mac's intercounty career was over. The morning after Ciaran gave his famous interview to the Indo, Johnno was to state that the panel was in fact still open and that the player in question could still play himself onto the panel - if his form justified this.
Well, the man displayed great form on the club scene and was selected on the Mayo team of the season (or whatever it's called.) He had also declared his desire to play for Mayo again so where was the problem in recalling him?
I have found nobody to date who can point out any other county that had to close its panel in the same way. Until I get a satisfactory explanation of why Johnno acted in the way he did, my doubts will remain. Period!
This season, things seem to be getting better and both team and manger appear to be operating much better as a unit. All I ever ask of any team or its manager is that they should perform the best of their abilities.
Good luck to both Johnno and his team; this is a new season and, on the field at any rate, the events of the last two seasons don't enter the picture.