Keith Duggan gets stuck into the Sunday Game panel

[cadence]

Eh???

You said you find 'traditional' games, which I presume you mean 15 v 15 games, uninspiring and that teams only have one or two skilful players. That sounds like a man who isn't much of a football fan. I never said it was because we disagree and only someone who wants to be insulted would interpret that way.

What else do you disagree with? You claim you can't be bothered because I've my mind made up yet you laud one kind of football and label other types boring, so which of us our mind made up?

You're a donegal man and it is understandable you might defend them but this isn't about Donegal but about the style of football they currently play. You can talk all you like about 'fitness and endeavour' but most of us want that and more and we can have it. Donegal's football is unimaginative and full of fear, the Kildare game was tremendous, the Dublin game was fascinating in some ways but most of Donegal's games lacked everything you claim they had.

sorry, but eh back! and excuse me for disagreeing, but your idea of how football should be played is wrong. it's too definitive to me. i would have thought that it must help teams and improve football to become better at attacking in the quest to find new ways to overcome these tactics. and that the game will evolve for the better because of this. so you know, perhaps the future of the game is in the safe hands, and that's in the hands of teams who want to win and be competitive. it is competitive sport we're talking about here, right?

+ regardless of what it is, there is less to be interested about something if you know how things will end. that's just the way it is and there just is limited interest in games where the usual tactics are played. of course there is something to keep the interest in any football game, that's a given. but this doesn't mean that the top end shouldn't be more complex and nuanced. and sticking to some perceived notion of what the definitive tactics should be is contrary to progression. i'm not saying that we don't have great games, but it's like hurling when you know who's going to win, it ultimately doesn't get your juices flowing. so clever tactics even things up and close the gap between sides. what would be dull becomes something else altogether. more tactically competitive games are what's called for, not the same as before.

and just on the fitness. donegal are noticeably fitter and much better to watch nowadays as a consequence of the tactics than before. we have purpose and are organised, put it up to teams and play our football when we've earned our opportunities rather than leaving having opportunities in the lap of the gods of football. there's that added dimension of leaving every last ounce on the field, which doesn't happen if you're well beaten and have given up the ghost. mcguinness's tactics fail without supreme fitness and effort, and seeing this is absorbing.

[Goldengreen]

Eh???

You said you find 'traditional' games, which I presume you mean 15 v 15 games, uninspiring and that teams only have one or two skilful players. That sounds like a man who isn't much of a football fan. I never said it was because we disagree and only someone who wants to be insulted would interpret that way.

What else do you disagree with? You claim you can't be bothered because I've my mind made up yet you laud one kind of football and label other types boring, so which of us our mind made up?

You're a donegal man and it is understandable you might defend them but this isn't about Donegal but about the style of football they currently play. You can talk all you like about 'fitness and endeavour' but most of us want that and more and we can have it. Donegal's football is unimaginative and full of fear, the Kildare game was tremendous, the Dublin game was fascinating in some ways but most of Donegal's games lacked everything you claim they had.

sorry, but eh back! and excuse me for disagreeing, but your idea of how football should be played is wrong. it's too definitive to me. i would have thought that it must help teams and improve football to become better at attacking in the quest to find new ways to overcome these tactics. and that the game will evolve for the better because of this. so you know, perhaps the future of the game is in the safe hands, and that's in the hands of teams who want to win and be competitive. it is competitive sport we're talking about here, right?

+ regardless of what it is, there is less to be interested about something if you know how things will end. that's just the way it is and there just is limited interest in games where the usual tactics are played. of course there is something to keep the interest in any football game, that's a given. but this doesn't mean that the top end shouldn't be more complex and nuanced. and sticking to some perceived notion of what the definitive tactics should be is contrary to progression. i'm not saying that we don't have great games, but it's like hurling when you know who's going to win, it ultimately doesn't get your juices flowing. so clever tactics even things up and close the gap between sides. what would be dull becomes something else altogether. more tactically competitive games are what's called for, not the same as before.

and just on the fitness. donegal are noticeably fitter and much better to watch nowadays as a consequence of the tactics than before. we have purpose and are organised, put it up to teams and play our football when we've earned our opportunities rather than leaving having opportunities in the lap of the gods of football. there's that added dimension of leaving every last ounce on the field, which doesn't happen if you're well beaten and have given up the ghost. mcguinness's tactics fail without supreme fitness and effort, and seeing this is absorbing.

Well said Cadence . And not a Fairy in sight.

[Jinxy]

Keith Duggan is very sharp. He skewered O Rourke, Brolly and Spillane so elegantly. 

The RTE coverage is really jaded.  It's smugness all the way.
Spillane wouldn't get the job if it was private sector. He's a buffoon. 

Gaelic football today is a real mess. It doesn't seem to be going anywhere as a sport.
Hurling is far more sure of itself.

It isn't in Galway anyway. 

I was trying to figure out what went wrong in Meath. Was it a misallocation of resources from fuball and teaching to shopping centre construction ?

Too many fancy dans.

[Zulu]

sorry, but eh back! and excuse me for disagreeing, but your idea of how football should be played is wrong. it's too definitive to me. i would have thought that it must help teams and improve football to become better at attacking in the quest to find new ways to overcome these tactics. and that the game will evolve for the better because of this. so you know, perhaps the future of the game is in the safe hands, and that's in the hands of teams who want to win and be competitive. it is competitive sport we're talking about here, right?

.

First off where have I told you what my idea of football is, so how do you know if I'm right or wrong? Secondly there are no tactics that can beat Donegal's style in a positive way, youngest have to dog it out them and hope you get 1-6 or 1-7 to win the scrap. Anyway you're defending Donegal's style by speculating it may make football better in the future is nonsensical.

+ regardless of what it is, there is less to be interested about something if you know how things will end. that's just the way it is and there just is limited interest in games where the usual tactics are played. of course there is something to keep the interest in any football game, that's a given. but this doesn't mean that the top end shouldn't be more complex and nuanced. and sticking to some perceived notion of what the definitive tactics should be is contrary to progression. i'm not saying that we don't have great games, but it's like hurling when you know who's going to win, it ultimately doesn't get your juices flowing. so clever tactics even things up and close the gap between sides. what would be dull becomes something else altogether. more tactically competitive games are what's called for, not the same as before.

I can only presume you're a wealthy man from betting on football if you knew the result of games played in the traditional manner? I've no problem with different tactics or innovators pushing the boundaries of the game but that's not what Donegal are doing. They are going for the easy option - fill up the scoring zone with players and turn the game into a dog fight, it's the tactics of a bad junior team. It's nonsense to presume Donegal would be beaten if they played a more open brand of football. Ye could have been beaten by both Kildare and Tyrone so no system guarantees anything but one which shows a bit of courage to go win a game will always give you a chance.

Donegal enjoyed a bit of success and fair dues to ye but don't try to convince us that yer tactics produce good games or are good for football. Enjoy your success but if ye continue to play football as ye have this year you will be the most unpopular team in recent GAA history. I know I won't be shouting for ye despite all that 'endeavour'.

[cadence]

sorry, but eh back! and excuse me for disagreeing, but your idea of how football should be played is wrong. it's too definitive to me. i would have thought that it must help teams and improve football to become better at attacking in the quest to find new ways to overcome these tactics. and that the game will evolve for the better because of this. so you know, perhaps the future of the game is in the safe hands, and that's in the hands of teams who want to win and be competitive. it is competitive sport we're talking about here, right?

.

First off where have I told you what my idea of football is, so how do you know if I'm right or wrong? Secondly there are no tactics that can beat Donegal's style in a positive way, youngest have to dog it out them and hope you get 1-6 or 1-7 to win the scrap. Anyway you're defending Donegal's style by speculating it may make football better in the future is nonsensical.

+ regardless of what it is, there is less to be interested about something if you know how things will end. that's just the way it is and there just is limited interest in games where the usual tactics are played. of course there is something to keep the interest in any football game, that's a given. but this doesn't mean that the top end shouldn't be more complex and nuanced. and sticking to some perceived notion of what the definitive tactics should be is contrary to progression. i'm not saying that we don't have great games, but it's like hurling when you know who's going to win, it ultimately doesn't get your juices flowing. so clever tactics even things up and close the gap between sides. what would be dull becomes something else altogether. more tactically competitive games are what's called for, not the same as before.

I can only presume you're a wealthy man from betting on football if you knew the result of games played in the traditional manner? I've no problem with different tactics or innovators pushing the boundaries of the game but that's not what Donegal are doing. They are going for the easy option - fill up the scoring zone with players and turn the game into a dog fight, it's the tactics of a bad junior team. It's nonsense to presume Donegal would be beaten if they played a more open brand of football. Ye could have been beaten by both Kildare and Tyrone so no system guarantees anything but one which shows a bit of courage to go win a game will always give you a chance.

Donegal enjoyed a bit of success and fair dues to ye but don't try to convince us that yer tactics produce good games or are good for football. Enjoy your success but if ye continue to play football as ye have this year you will be the most unpopular team in recent GAA history. I know I won't be shouting for ye despite all that 'endeavour'.

ok, explain to me what you mean by... "The worst thing about Donegal's style of play is that to beat it you have to mirror it". i must have been mistaken before and that by this statement you meant it as a glowing reference. i'm sorry, but also, how is anyone supposed to take a statement like that seriously as if it's a proven fact! and on the subject of donegal's new tactics and whether we would have beaten kildare and tyrone playing without them and more open football, that's an impossible thing to prove either for or against, so why make such a comparison when it makes no sense. you could have chosen to see the advances that were made by donegal this year but you chose not to think about it positively and came up with an example of how donegal could have beaten tyrone and kildare in some parrallel universe with the old tactics that left us with bare cupboards for 19 years. necessity is the mother of invention as they say. + i'd say we're doing a darn sight better with jim this year. so forgive us for believing in jim and his bad junior side tactics as you see them.

finally, you don't convince me one bit that you are open to different tactics or innovators pushing the boundaries of the game. in fact, it's the absolute opposite. we can't just pick and chose who the innovators are because we don't like what they represent, or we don't understand them, or because we are being obstructive and negative purely because we wish to save face to avoid climbing down from our dug-in positions. whatever the reason is, we can try to prevent innovators from having their ideas become accepted for what they are, the new, but personal taste surely can't be a reliable assessment of their benefits. anyway, all the whinging and moaning and calling shite and bad and the ruination of all things good doesn't change the fact that these new ideas have changed how we think for good. so actually, whatever you think, it doesn't matter. it's like a finger trying to stop the already bursting dam.

   

[cadence]

Eh???

You said you find 'traditional' games, which I presume you mean 15 v 15 games, uninspiring and that teams only have one or two skilful players. That sounds like a man who isn't much of a football fan. I never said it was because we disagree and only someone who wants to be insulted would interpret that way.

What else do you disagree with? You claim you can't be bothered because I've my mind made up yet you laud one kind of football and label other types boring, so which of us our mind made up?

You're a donegal man and it is understandable you might defend them but this isn't about Donegal but about the style of football they currently play. You can talk all you like about 'fitness and endeavour' but most of us want that and more and we can have it. Donegal's football is unimaginative and full of fear, the Kildare game was tremendous, the Dublin game was fascinating in some ways but most of Donegal's games lacked everything you claim they had.

sorry, but eh back! and excuse me for disagreeing, but your idea of how football should be played is wrong. it's too definitive to me. i would have thought that it must help teams and improve football to become better at attacking in the quest to find new ways to overcome these tactics. and that the game will evolve for the better because of this. so you know, perhaps the future of the game is in the safe hands, and that's in the hands of teams who want to win and be competitive. it is competitive sport we're talking about here, right?

+ regardless of what it is, there is less to be interested about something if you know how things will end. that's just the way it is and there just is limited interest in games where the usual tactics are played. of course there is something to keep the interest in any football game, that's a given. but this doesn't mean that the top end shouldn't be more complex and nuanced. and sticking to some perceived notion of what the definitive tactics should be is contrary to progression. i'm not saying that we don't have great games, but it's like hurling when you know who's going to win, it ultimately doesn't get your juices flowing. so clever tactics even things up and close the gap between sides. what would be dull becomes something else altogether. more tactically competitive games are what's called for, not the same as before.

and just on the fitness. donegal are noticeably fitter and much better to watch nowadays as a consequence of the tactics than before. we have purpose and are organised, put it up to teams and play our football when we've earned our opportunities rather than leaving having opportunities in the lap of the gods of football. there's that added dimension of leaving every last ounce on the field, which doesn't happen if you're well beaten and have given up the ghost. mcguinness's tactics fail without supreme fitness and effort, and seeing this is absorbing.

Well said Cadence . And not a Fairy in sight.

any of them biscuits?

[Ciarrai_thuaidh]

Eh???

You said you find 'traditional' games, which I presume you mean 15 v 15 games, uninspiring and that teams only have one or two skilful players. That sounds like a man who isn't much of a football fan. I never said it was because we disagree and only someone who wants to be insulted would interpret that way.

What else do you disagree with? You claim you can't be bothered because I've my mind made up yet you laud one kind of football and label other types boring, so which of us our mind made up?

You're a donegal man and it is understandable you might defend them but this isn't about Donegal but about the style of football they currently play. You can talk all you like about 'fitness and endeavour' but most of us want that and more and we can have it. Donegal's football is unimaginative and full of fear, the Kildare game was tremendous, the Dublin game was fascinating in some ways but most of Donegal's games lacked everything you claim they had.

sorry, but eh back! and excuse me for disagreeing, but your idea of how football should be played is wrong. it's too definitive to me. i would have thought that it must help teams and improve football to become better at attacking in the quest to find new ways to overcome these tactics. and that the game will evolve for the better because of this. so you know, perhaps the future of the game is in the safe hands, and that's in the hands of teams who want to win and be competitive. it is competitive sport we're talking about here, right?

+ regardless of what it is, there is less to be interested about something if you know how things will end. that's just the way it is and there just is limited interest in games where the usual tactics are played. of course there is something to keep the interest in any football game, that's a given. but this doesn't mean that the top end shouldn't be more complex and nuanced. and sticking to some perceived notion of what the definitive tactics should be is contrary to progression. i'm not saying that we don't have great games, but it's like hurling when you know who's going to win, it ultimately doesn't get your juices flowing. so clever tactics even things up and close the gap between sides. what would be dull becomes something else altogether. more tactically competitive games are what's called for, not the same as before.

and just on the fitness. donegal are noticeably fitter and much better to watch nowadays as a consequence of the tactics than before. we have purpose and are organised, put it up to teams and play our football when we've earned our opportunities rather than leaving having opportunities in the lap of the gods of football. there's that added dimension of leaving every last ounce on the field, which doesn't happen if you're well beaten and have given up the ghost. mcguinness's tactics fail without supreme fitness and effort, and seeing this is absorbing.

Ok, first off, as a neutral, Donegal were worse than I've ever seen to watch this year, they are a big, football focused county that have produced some fantastic players over the years and ironically this team contains some players who are as good as any out there, but this year, especially in the dublin game, they were atrocious to watch.
The bolded bits, are nonsensical.
There was nothing "complex or nuanced" about Donegal's tactics, in fact they ultimately cost Donegal the game. Havign 13 men in your own half of the field and one of the best full forwards in the country in your own half back line is not complex, it is just ultra negative, Its nothing new either, many teams have tried it and no team has ever won an All ireland with it.
You say "clever tactics" even the gap between teams? If Donegal had played football like they were doing for most of the league, they would have beaten Dublin in my opinion...they had Murphy at the edge of the square, McFadden feeding off him and they KICKED the ball a lot more...therefore, you can say that the tactic of Murphy not even entering the attacking half of the field more than 5 times looks pretty stupid in hindsight doesn't it?
Finally "what would be dull becomes something else altogether". You think the Dublin v Donegal game wasn't dull....what games have you seen that were dull in the semi final/final in recent years tell me? Because since the Mayo v Fermanagh game in 2004 I haven't seen a game nearly as bad as Dublin v Donegal.

[lynchbhoy]

There was nothing "complex or nuanced" about Donegal's tactics, in fact they ultimately cost Donegal the game. Havign 13 men in your own half of the field and one of the best full forwards in the country in your own half back line is not complex, it is just ultra negative, Its nothing new either, many teams have tried it and no team has ever won an All ireland with it.

have to say , while not as defensively pronounced as Donegal, I'd have to mention that Kerry and Tyrone spring to mind ...plus if Dublin win this season, this will be a third county- that plays a very defensive strategy- to win the AI....

[fearglasmor]

Unless the rules are very badly skewed, sport tends to have a natural justice about it. Jim McGuinness seems like an intelligent man and he will realise that if he wants to progress with that Donegal team then what they produced against Dublin wont ever bring them an all ireland title. And I assume that has to be the ultimate ambition.  I think he will use the confidence built up among his squad this season that they believe they are just as good as anyone else and the abuse that has been levelled at them as a motivator to bring their game to a different place next year. I would be pretty sure his strategic plan extended far beyond one year.

[Ciarrai_thuaidh]

There was nothing "complex or nuanced" about Donegal's tactics, in fact they ultimately cost Donegal the game. Havign 13 men in your own half of the field and one of the best full forwards in the country in your own half back line is not complex, it is just ultra negative, Its nothing new either, many teams have tried it and no team has ever won an All ireland with it.

have to say , while not as defensively pronounced as Donegal, I'd have to mention that Kerry and Tyrone spring to mind ...plus if Dublin win this season, this will be a third county- that plays a very defensive strategy- to win the AI....

I'm sorry, but no..even at their most frenzied level of desperation to win an AI in 2003, Tyrone were not as bad as Donegal the last day IMO...And thats from a Kerry man who was disgusted coming out of croker when they beat us.
Kerry? The 2nd half of the '09 final is the only period I've ever seen Kerry go defensive, but there were always 3 attackers left up at least in that case also...and there was plenty constructive attacking play by them in that half also,therefore - no correlation whatsoever with Donegal.
Dublin will not win by being overly defensive either and I'm sure Gilroy will realise this...If they are to win, they need Connolly and the 2 Brogans firing on all cylinders within 40 yards of goal, NOT around the half back line!

[cadence]

Eh???

You said you find 'traditional' games, which I presume you mean 15 v 15 games, uninspiring and that teams only have one or two skilful players. That sounds like a man who isn't much of a football fan. I never said it was because we disagree and only someone who wants to be insulted would interpret that way.

What else do you disagree with? You claim you can't be bothered because I've my mind made up yet you laud one kind of football and label other types boring, so which of us our mind made up?

You're a donegal man and it is understandable you might defend them but this isn't about Donegal but about the style of football they currently play. You can talk all you like about 'fitness and endeavour' but most of us want that and more and we can have it. Donegal's football is unimaginative and full of fear, the Kildare game was tremendous, the Dublin game was fascinating in some ways but most of Donegal's games lacked everything you claim they had.

sorry, but eh back! and excuse me for disagreeing, but your idea of how football should be played is wrong. it's too definitive to me. i would have thought that it must help teams and improve football to become better at attacking in the quest to find new ways to overcome these tactics. and that the game will evolve for the better because of this. so you know, perhaps the future of the game is in the safe hands, and that's in the hands of teams who want to win and be competitive. it is competitive sport we're talking about here, right?

+ regardless of what it is, there is less to be interested about something if you know how things will end. that's just the way it is and there just is limited interest in games where the usual tactics are played. of course there is something to keep the interest in any football game, that's a given. but this doesn't mean that the top end shouldn't be more complex and nuanced. and sticking to some perceived notion of what the definitive tactics should be is contrary to progression. i'm not saying that we don't have great games, but it's like hurling when you know who's going to win, it ultimately doesn't get your juices flowing. so clever tactics even things up and close the gap between sides. what would be dull becomes something else altogether. more tactically competitive games are what's called for, not the same as before.

and just on the fitness. donegal are noticeably fitter and much better to watch nowadays as a consequence of the tactics than before. we have purpose and are organised, put it up to teams and play our football when we've earned our opportunities rather than leaving having opportunities in the lap of the gods of football. there's that added dimension of leaving every last ounce on the field, which doesn't happen if you're well beaten and have given up the ghost. mcguinness's tactics fail without supreme fitness and effort, and seeing this is absorbing.

Ok, first off, as a neutral, Donegal were worse than I've ever seen to watch this year, they are a big, football focused county that have produced some fantastic players over the years and ironically this team contains some players who are as good as any out there, but this year, especially in the dublin game, they were atrocious to watch.
The bolded bits, are nonsensical.
There was nothing "complex or nuanced" about Donegal's tactics, in fact they ultimately cost Donegal the game. Havign 13 men in your own half of the field and one of the best full forwards in the country in your own half back line is not complex, it is just ultra negative, Its nothing new either, many teams have tried it and no team has ever won an All ireland with it.
You say "clever tactics" even the gap between teams? If Donegal had played football like they were doing for most of the league, they would have beaten Dublin in my opinion...they had Murphy at the edge of the square, McFadden feeding off him and they KICKED the ball a lot more...therefore, you can say that the tactic of Murphy not even entering the attacking half of the field more than 5 times looks pretty stupid in hindsight doesn't it?
Finally "what would be dull becomes something else altogether". You think the Dublin v Donegal game wasn't dull....what games have you seen that were dull in the semi final/final in recent years tell me? Because since the Mayo v Fermanagh game in 2004 I haven't seen a game nearly as bad as Dublin v Donegal.

have to disagree with you there. donegal lost it because we had nothing left in the tank and because we didn't press home when we had the advantage. it wasn't the tactics that were flawed or stupid. we had to sit back more as we became more tired. up until around the 60mins mark the players were able to go soak up any dublin attack and counter themselves. it only requires ten more minutes worth of pep in the tank is all. what we needed was to bring some steel into our game and we have it in spades now. although i was sad seeing our lads reduced to flesh and bone that wouldn't co-operate with them, the game plan was there to compete like that for the full 70. we also made some poor individual decisions when we had opportunities going forward, but that is all part of learning how to win at this level i think and we'll be better next time round. 

the things you see as non-sensical are aspects of the game and sport in general that i love. it's personal taste. i like sport that has a tactical aspect to it that places doubt on the outcome purely because it's about out thinking the opponent by stopping them and imposing yourself. i also absolutely love sports that place huge physical demands on it's participants. let's see what they're made of when they're pushed to breaking point. that's when you find out a team's togetherness and resilience. and while of course donegal's tactics are influenced by others, mcguinness has taken it a step further. it mightn't be pretty and you mightn't like it, but this type of approach to football and sport in general is as valid nonetheless. tactical cleverness, will to win and effort is a potent combo in sport. what's not to like! those anti this type of football say it's nothing new and the tactics aren't innovative, but sure we all know it's something we haven't seen before. we've seen versions of it, but not exactly this before. if it was common practice there wouldn't be boys like you and me on internet forums arguing the toss about who's right and wrong.   

[Hardy]

Well put, cadence. For many people, if they're not supporting a team, sport is just about the spectacle. They want it to be, well, spectacular. In my opinion, they're wasting their money going to football matches or any regular sport if that's what they're after. They might as well go to the circus. Or better still, go to one of the many junk sports that are springing up to cater for this mentality.

If you're interested in who can jump the highest or do the fanciest tricks when under no pressure, surely you'd get much more enjoyment out of watching an acrobat or one of these lads with the jumping bikes than watching a football match and wishing nobody would tackle the star player so that he can score nice points or hit nice looking passes.

But if you're more interested in watching how people react to pressure or how a team responds to adversity or how a manager tries to counter an unexpected tactic by his opponent, then you'll enjoy a football match that has these elements no matter how low the score. And you'll certainly enjoy a 6-points-apiece draw ten times more than a ten point win for one side, unless it's for your own team.

[muppet]

Well put, cadence. For may people, if they're not supporting a team, sport is just about the spectacle. They want it to be, well, spectacular. In my opinion, they're wasting their money going to football matches or any regular sport if that's what they're after. They might as well go to the circus. Or better still, go to one of the many junk sports that are springing up to cater for this mentality.

If you're interested in who can jump the highest or do the fanciest tricks when under no pressure, surely you'd get much more enjoyment out of watching an acrobat or one of these lads with the jumping bikes than watching a football match and wishing nobody would tackle the star player so that he can score nice points or hit nice looking passes.

But if you're more interested in watching how people react to pressure or how a team responds to adversity or how a manager tries to counter an unexpected tactic by his opponent, then you'll enjoy a football match that has these elements no matter how low the score. And you'll certainly enjoy a 6-points-apiece draw ten times more than a ten point win for one side, unless it's for your own team.

Watching surgery can give you all that.

Some people find this hard to understand but Wimbledon in soccer, England in Rugby, the unexciting grinders in various sports such as tennis, golf etc, are all going to be less popular with most fans than say Barcelona, an attacking French rugby team, or a Woods, Mickleson or McEnroe.

Why are people insisting we all have to like a team that refuse to play?

[fearglasmor]

If Donegal do persist with what they produced against Dublin and if they find that "10 minutes" of conditioning to shut teams out for an entire game an dwin next years All Ireland final  on a scor 06-05.

The next step is very easy to predict.  The rules will be changed.

Not because of fluffy spectators who should be watching the circus, but because the (mostly) men who are in charge of the GAA's future wont allow the game to develop along those lines.

I am old enough to remember Dublin-Kerry in the 70's  Throw passes - throw scores  -  basketball  -   rule change.

[Hardy]

Watching surgery can give you all that.

Perhaps, but for me it would lack that element of competition.

Some people find this hard to understand but Wimbledon in soccer, England in Rugby, the unexciting grinders in various sports such as tennis, golf etc, are all going to be less popular with most fans than say Barcelona, an attacking French rugby team, or a Woods, Mickleson or McEnroe.

I don't find it hard to understand at all. In fact that's pretty much my point. Spectacle is popular. Hence monster trucks and circuses. But, for me, it has little to do with the essence of sport, which, to put it at its simplest, is figuring out how to win, if you're a participant or watching competitors figure out how to win, if you're a spectator.

Why are people insisting we all have to like a team that refuse to play?

Again, not my point at all. Liking doesn't come into it. Wanting other people to like a team is a concept I can't come close to grasping. In fact, in general, the term "like" occurs in my attitude to sport when I tend to dislike teams people like. For one thing, they're seldom winners. People hate winners, as soon as they become winners. If you think Donegal are unpopular now ...