Joe Brolly

[Fuzzman]

Well said AZ and in fairness Mickey Harte has been making that point for the last number of years that the pundits seem to continually bad mouth the game and see it through biased eyes of yesteryear

Whilst I have not enjoyed Donegal & Tyrone's style over the past 3 or 4 years or so I think Spillane & Co have really added to the negativity of it all.
I hope the openness of games so far this year continue into the championship but I fear they won't. I know teams like Donegal and Cavan continue to think defensively and I'd say looking at Tyrone's lack of good man markers we too will resort to playing sweepers etc.

[imtommygunn]

I agree Johnny. Football has had some problems with teams struggling to adjust to *legal* defensive tactics, but that's a cyclical sort of thing, and I think even last year the we could see the genesis of the next level of attacking play. Even without the black card.

However, I think hurling and football pundits have different mindsets regarding the games they cover, and the games they view. As a coach, I want my team to play to the best of their ability, to display good decision making, and to exhibit good discipline and good technical skill levels.

As a fan, I want to see an exciting game, with a close finish, competitive and intense. Whether the technical abilities of the teams are at a high level or not is moot for me. An exciting Junior club game can give me as much enjoyment as an observer as an exciting inter county game at which I am a neutral.

I think the football pundits, taking their lead from the Eamon Dunphy/Johnny Giles school of analysis, view the games as coaches, and as coaches who have never had a bad team in their lives at that. Their criticism of the skills, the competence or the discipline of the teams is scathing because they feel that is what constitutes analysis.

The hurling pundits can get great joy out of a game between two poor teams, where the finish is close or the intensity and aggression is high. I've seen them laud games as great where lads take two or three touches to get the ball up in their hand, poor striking, bad wides. But it;s a great game because it's close, it's exciting and it's fast paced. They seem to believe that their analysis is primarily getting the message over that they love the game, and try to give reasons for other people to understand and love the game as well.

I can see both approaches being valid in a sense, but the hurling approach is certainly more upbeat and feel good, while the football is too much naval gazing and self loathing at times.

As I've said before, two great games that we should be proud of. That does not mean we can't improve or tweak certain aspects, but to listen to the football commentators you'd swear the football was caveman stuff that nobody should bother their hole even looking at.

The standard of the football punditry is pretty bad these days. It's all about Brolly point scoring or bigging up what he likes now or Spillane losing the plot with him etc etc. Brolly was reasonaby amusing for a while but not any more.

Hurling you have the likes of Mulcahy, Cusack etc etc who are very insightful and you can't but admire the passion the likes of Farrel has. Football you could barely have any respect for any pundit to be honest.

As you say they are both different games - the two best games about so don't see the need for people who like one better to chastise the other one!

[clootfromthe21]

I agree Johnny. Football has had some problems with teams struggling to adjust to *legal* defensive tactics, but that's a cyclical sort of thing, and I think even last year the we could see the genesis of the next level of attacking play. Even without the black card.

However, I think hurling and football pundits have different mindsets regarding the games they cover, and the games they view. As a coach, I want my team to play to the best of their ability, to display good decision making, and to exhibit good discipline and good technical skill levels.

As a fan, I want to see an exciting game, with a close finish, competitive and intense. Whether the technical abilities of the teams are at a high level or not is moot for me. An exciting Junior club game can give me as much enjoyment as an observer as an exciting inter county game at which I am a neutral.

I think the football pundits, taking their lead from the Eamon Dunphy/Johnny Giles school of analysis, view the games as coaches, and as coaches who have never had a bad team in their lives at that. Their criticism of the skills, the competence or the discipline of the teams is scathing because they feel that is what constitutes analysis.

The hurling pundits can get great joy out of a game between two poor teams, where the finish is close or the intensity and aggression is high. I've seen them laud games as great where lads take two or three touches to get the ball up in their hand, poor striking, bad wides. But it;s a great game because it's close, it's exciting and it's fast paced. They seem to believe that their analysis is primarily getting the message over that they love the game, and try to give reasons for other people to understand and love the game as well.

I can see both approaches being valid in a sense, but the hurling approach is certainly more upbeat and feel good, while the football is too much naval gazing and self loathing at times.

As I've said before, two great games that we should be proud of. That does not mean we can't improve or tweak certain aspects, but to listen to the football commentators you'd swear the football was caveman stuff that nobody should bother their hole even looking at.

The standard of the football punditry is pretty bad these days. It's all about Brolly point scoring or bigging up what he likes now or Spillane losing the plot with him etc etc. Brolly was reasonaby amusing for a while but not any more.

Hurling you have the likes of Mulcahy, Cusack etc etc who are very insightful and you can't but admire the passion the likes of Farrel has. Football you could barely have any respect for any pundit to be honest.

As you say they are both different games - the two best games about so don't see the need for people who like one better to chastise the other one!

To be honest, I quite like Brolly as a commentator. At least, he offers an insight other than either a.) some sort of eulogy about passion or wanting it more or b.) effectively a commentary on a piece of action replay that I can see for myself thanks very much. If anything, I think the hurling pundits are the worst for the latter ("Well, Michael, he put his hand up there and he caught it, and then he turned there Michael and he hit it very hard and it went into the net. And that's a goal in any man's language")

It might be unmitigated bollocks, but at least its something. Same with Neil Francis in the rugby (helmet on). Now there's a game I don't understand at all tactically, but Francis will usually come up with some take on it. It might be complete nonsense but it at least it is not stating the obvious that any idiot (i.e. me) can see for themselves.

Of course, with Brolly, in addition to the insight, you have the cheese eating grin, being the smartest boy in the room, the winding up of Pat etc etc

[imtommygunn]

Yeah but you can't help but feel there's always an agenda against someone. Comnments about Cavanagh last year, Mayo the year before etc etc.

[Black Card]

His agenda is Joe Brolly, in fairness he's a master at promoting it.

[Mario]

I like Joe, he is by far the most entertaining pundit, like Dunphy or Giles I can't wait to hear what he has to say.

Regarding the Hurling v Football, hurling fans are so precious about their sport, any praise of football and they take it as a dig at hurling.

Personally i'm not a big fan of hurling, I've no problem with people supporting it but it doesn't entertain me, scores are too easy to come by and while many people think this is great it puts me off it. To use an analogy, snooker wouldn't be any better if the pockets were the size of a saucepans and no one ever missed, it takes the tactics out of the sport.

That's not to say I haven't enjoyed a hurling game but despite the skill levels involved in some aspects I see it as a very primitive game, a defender gets it and hits it as far as he can into the forward line, the forward scraps with the defender to take it, if he wins its over the bar if he loses it comes back down the other way. 50 50 balls are acceptable to play in hurling they aren't in football.

There are no tactics in hurling which is one of the main reasons i'm not a fan.

[AZOffaly]

If you say there are no tactics in hurling, then I'm afraid not only are you not a fan, but you just don't understand the game.

[Mario]

If you say there are no tactics in hurling, then I'm afraid not only are you not a fan, but you just don't understand the game.

I understand it, I used to play it

Martin Fogarty thinks there are no tactics because it's too fast, i think it's because it's too easy to get scores

TACTICS don’t play a big part in hurling because the game is so fast and hard it is almost impossible to play to a rigid or set structure for 70 minutes.

Kilkenny selector Martin Fogarty has been part of the backroom team during five successful All-Ireland campaigns, and if the experience taught him one thing it was that hurling is a unique game that produces the best results when played flat out.

“Hurling will always be a simple game because you can’t slow it down, you have to play it at full pace all the time,” suggested the Erin’s Own (Castlecomer) clubman when it was suggested Galway had a fair tactical plan that paid off in the Leinster final.

“They don’t pack their defence as many suggested they did,” he continued. “I was at a couple of their matches this year and they don’t pack their defence any more than anyone else. When they brought an extra man back on Pa Cronin in the semi-final people started taking about football tactics, blanket defence and all that.

“They don’t do that. They play the game more or less the same as any other team, which is actually not planned. You can’t really plan hurling the ball moves around so fast.

“People often make too much of small things in hurling. If there is a 1-on-1 situation in front of goal and a team scores suddenly they have a tactic of pulling out the forwards. You could get a goal with 10 in the square as well.

“I don’t buy into that too much. Games pan out in different ways. People are always talking, always writing and reading things into situations that don’t exist.”

[5 Sams]

Have to say I quite like Brolly as well. He is quite entertaining and a newspaper publisher's or TV producer's dream.

Own up all you lads who say you don't like him...I bet you couldn't wait to hear what he had to say on TSG the week after his rant about Cavanagh. I dont think I would bother my arse buying the Gaelic Life if him or Cassidy weren't writing in it....(ok I might get it just to see what Poacher the Coacher has to say )

He is like Eamonn Dunphy or Stephen Jones...people read or watch what they say to see who they are going to offend next.

[AZOffaly]

So Tipps long ball into an isolated forward line that garnered so many goals in 2010 wasn't a tactic? Cork's support running under Donal O'Grady wasn't a tactic? Clares short passing game last year wasn't a tactic?

Grand so.

[hardstation]

Maybe he's only seen Antrim.

[BennyHarp]

I like Joe, he is by far the most entertaining pundit, like Dunphy or Giles I can't wait to hear what he has to say.

Regarding the Hurling v Football, hurling fans are so precious about their sport, any praise of football and they take it as a dig at hurling.

Personally i'm not a big fan of hurling, I've no problem with people supporting it but it doesn't entertain me, scores are too easy to come by and while many people think this is great it puts me off it. To use an analogy, snooker wouldn't be any better if the pockets were the size of a saucepans and no one ever missed, it takes the tactics out of the sport.

That's not to say I haven't enjoyed a hurling game but despite the skill levels involved in some aspects I see it as a very primitive game, a defender gets it and hits it as far as he can into the forward line, the forward scraps with the defender to take it, if he wins its over the bar if he loses it comes back down the other way. 50 50 balls are acceptable to play in hurling they aren't in football.

There are no tactics in hurling which is one of the main reasons i'm not a fan.

Thats it there - he is entertaining - like Apres Match was. His analysis is not to be taken seriously. Unfortunately, too many take his points seriously.

[J OGorman]

Have to say I quite like Brolly as well. He is quite entertaining and a newspaper publisher's or TV producer's dream.

Own up all you lads who say you don't like him...I bet you couldn't wait to hear what he had to say on TSG the week after his rant about Cavanagh. I dont think I would bother my arse buying the Gaelic Life if him or Cassidy weren't writing in it....(ok I might get it just to see what Poacher the Coacher has to say )

He is like Eamonn Dunphy or Stephen Jones...people read or watch what they say to see who they are going to offend next.

Brolly, Spillane, Dunphy, Hook et al are on one level, Stephen Jones is at a whole other level. A gobeen so full of dung it near blows the mind

[5 Sams]

Have to say I quite like Brolly as well. He is quite entertaining and a newspaper publisher's or TV producer's dream.

Own up all you lads who say you don't like him...I bet you couldn't wait to hear what he had to say on TSG the week after his rant about Cavanagh. I dont think I would bother my arse buying the Gaelic Life if him or Cassidy weren't writing in it....(ok I might get it just to see what Poacher the Coacher has to say )

He is like Eamonn Dunphy or Stephen Jones...people read or watch what they say to see who they are going to offend next.

Brolly, Spillane, Dunphy, Hook et al are on one level, Stephen Jones is at a whole other level. A gobeen so full of dung it near blows the mind

Agreed but people still buy the paper to see what shite he's gonna come out with next.

[cicfada]

Martin fogarty would have been part of a Kilkenny set up which has 1 tactic ( if you could call it that ) and that's lump the ball up to the forward line where the forwards have to win their own ball and then score or pass to a player in a better position . It's getting outdated as speed and space is coming vogue more as the new way that hurling is played. As regards brolly, he might be right about hurling, I have been at two double headers recently where the football was way more entertaining than the hurling. Cork v Derry and Offaly and the club finals. With the black card there is more emphasis on forwards scoring now and that's refreshing . It does not follow however that a black card would improve hurling......too many whistles ruin it as a sport and indeed in both hurling matches I have mentioned , both refs Barry Kelly and Alan Kelly both blew too often.