It must terrible for the pundits this year...........

Solo Run · June 22, 2008, 03:17:49 PM

as their old tired, and rubbish cliches can't be trotted out

the main one that passes off for insightful analysis is..."this match just shows us the difference in class between the the top and lower divisions" looks a bit dodgy to see the least. Doesn't look like the Division 3/4 crew of Down, Wicklow,Fermanagh, Limerick, Wexford, and Leitrim were too much in awe of their Divison 1 opponents, lets see how Sligo get on. Win or lose it doesn't point to a one-sided match. Looking forward to an analyst calling it as it actually is - Kerry clearly the best team (but not unbeatable), Dublin probably a clear second (and most definitely not unbeatable), the next twenty odd teams could all probably beat each other on the day. This is a good thing.

Needless to say if we have lower division teams regularly beating higher division teams we'll then have .."teams have evened-up alright, but standards are poor", this is clearly a lot of baloney too, anyone can tell you that practically every county team is putting in an effort of preparation which is on a par with professional sports teams. The standard has never been higher, people mistakenly think standard has declined because we don't see teams annihilating other teams who only came together about two weeks beforehand.

The third we'll hear shortly .."of course the standard of Province A is better than Province B". Of course, needless to say a team from Province B wiil go out and beat a team from Province A but the old cliche doesn't apply this week so it will be parked until a result comes up that suits it. Ulster and Leinster are the most competitive but the average standard across the provinces is basically the same ie. nobody ever beat anyone else because they were from a different province.

Is there any sign of an analyst/pundit who is knowledgeable enough to assess a match on the merits of the teams strengths and how they measure up against each other without the silly and often irrelevant point of what division they played in or what province they are from. These can be factors but more often than not minor ones. I'm actually sick of the laziness of the whole "professsion".

Maguire01 · June 22, 2008, 03:42:34 PM

Quote from: Solo Run on June 22, 2008, 03:17:49 PM
as their old tired, and rubbish cliches can't be trotted out

the main one that passes off for insightful analysis is..."this match just shows us the difference in class between the the top and lower divisions" looks a bit dodgy to see the least. Doesn't look like the Division 3/4 crew of Down, Wicklow,Fermanagh, Limerick, Wexford, and Leitrim were too much in awe of their Divison 1 opponents, lets see how Sligo get on. Win or lose it doesn't point to a one-sided match.

Yes, but the divisions were realigned this year and the likes of Fermanagh and Down would never have been in Division 3 under normal circumstances.

quote author=Solo Run link=topic=8208.msg316413#msg316413 date=1214144269]
Looking forward to an analyst calling it as it actually is - Kerry clearly the best team (but not unbeatable), Dublin probably a clear second (and most definitely not unbeatable), the next twenty odd teams could all probably beat each other on the day. This is a good thing.
[/quote]
What's your basis of calling Dublin a clear second? A win against Louth? A league with a draw against Monaghan, a heavy loss against Armagh and a loss to Westmeath in the final?
I'm not saying they're not decent by the way, but it's a bold statement to call them a clear second behind Kerry.

haranguerer · June 22, 2008, 03:53:03 PM

I'll say it. Dublin aren't decent (in any sense of the word!).
Typical townie team, if they get it handy they'll put up a cricket score, if the goings tough they don't want to know. Its difficult for the top teams to play against them not because they're a good team, but becasue of the hype and bull surrounding them.

orangeman · June 22, 2008, 08:44:18 PM

Not really a bad year for them - they're still getting paid !

Armagh4SamAgain · June 23, 2008, 08:31:04 AM

they get easy money every year ab it dosent matter what shite they talk

Zapatista · June 23, 2008, 09:59:06 AM

I laugh at how pundits are always pushed to pick a winner before a game and again at half time. Rarely will they bet against th favourite and unless it's a big score difference at half time will they change their mind. The Wexford and Fermanagh wins were typical of this. It makes the pundits look stupid as they often get it wrong. The pundits are there to talk about the game and then end up looking like they know nothing.

orangeman · June 23, 2008, 10:16:28 AM

Any idea how much these pundits are paid ?

ziggysego · June 23, 2008, 12:18:52 PM

No doubt too much OM

Maguire01 · June 23, 2008, 01:20:42 PM

Quote from: Zapatista on June 23, 2008, 09:59:06 AM
I laugh at how pundits are always pushed to pick a winner before a game and again at half time. Rarely will they bet against th favourite and unless it's a big score difference at half time will they change their mind. The Wexford and Fermanagh wins were typical of this. It makes the pundits look stupid as they often get it wrong. The pundits are there to talk about the game and then end up looking like they know nothing.

But the favourites will be the favourites for a reason. Pundits shouldn't back the underdog just for the sake of it. If a result is a genuine upset, should the pundit have some mystic powers to see it coming, moreso than everyone else? No pundit looked like a fool for predicating that Derry would win on Saturday. They may look like a fool for the extent to which the rated Derry, but not in calling the result as they thought it would be.

Zapatista · June 23, 2008, 01:32:13 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on June 23, 2008, 01:20:42 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on June 23, 2008, 09:59:06 AM
I laugh at how pundits are always pushed to pick a winner before a game and again at half time. Rarely will they bet against th favourite and unless it's a big score difference at half time will they change their mind. The Wexford and Fermanagh wins were typical of this. It makes the pundits look stupid as they often get it wrong. The pundits are there to talk about the game and then end up looking like they know nothing.
But the favourites will be the favourites for a reason. Pundits shouldn't back the underdog just for the sake of it. If a result is a genuine upset, should the pundit have some mystic powers to see it coming, moreso than everyone else? No pundit looked like a fool for predicating that Derry would win on Saturday. They may look like a fool for the extent to which the rated Derry, but not in calling the result as they thought it would be.

I understand that but the question is always asked before the game and again at half time. The answer is always the same. They almost base their entire decision on the result of the previous Championship or a very unreliable league. There is very little else available to make a decision on unless you do some decent research. Upsets are not as frequent as it looks, it's more a case of the pundits and punters knowing little about the internal workings of the "weaker counties" and thinking the likes of Derry are actually a better team than Fermanagh or Kildare are actually better than Wicklow. It happens to often and makes the pundits look bad. They'll begin to get it righ about the quarter final stage.