The Official Cavan GAA Discussion thread.

tayto lover

Lemlin wrote: »

Here's a full article about the meeting and why it took place:

http://www.anglocelt.ie/sport/roundup/articles/2012/04/19/4010111-what-a-crazy-game-this-isprintprintprintprint

It boils down to the players and probably the CB being unhappy with Val.
Even from what you have posted there is uncertainty -

"As absurd as it sounds, much of the problem appears to centre on the definition of what constitutes a vote. The captain won't say what went on at the meeting but it can reasonably be assumed that the general mood was that the majority of players were unhappy with the management."

Either way my original post stated that Val would not be good for Cavan just as he was not good for Louth. That has been established by the event.

Terry Hyland re-established the dropped players and got things moving forward again.

Time to move on Lemlin. Val has gone and Cavan are moving in the right direction thankfully.

Lemlin

tayto lover wrote: »

It boils down to the players and probably the CB being unhappy with Val.
Even from what you have posted there is uncertainty -

"As absurd as it sounds, much of the problem appears to centre on the definition of what constitutes a vote. The captain won't say what went on at the meeting but it can reasonably be assumed that the general mood was that the majority of players were unhappy with the management."

Either way my original post stated that Val would not be good for Cavan just as he was not good for Louth. That has been established by the event.

Terry Hyland re-established the dropped players and got things moving forward again.

Time to move on Lemlin. Val has gone and Cavan are moving in the right direction thankfully.

What dropped players has he reestablished then? You listed four above - Mackey, Reilly, McCutcheon and Clarke.

Only one of those was dropped. One left because of work commitments. One left because he felt he wasn't getting enough playing time. The last left because he was asked to play out of position.

The five high profile players dropped by Val were McKeever, Mackey, Johnston, Dermot Sheridan and Lyng.

Only one of those has been brought in by Terry and even that was on condition that he mended his ways.

tayto lover

Lemlin wrote: »

What dropped players had he reestablished then? You listed four above - Mackey, Reilly, McCutcheon and Clarke.

Only one of those was dropped. One left because of work commitments. One left because he felt he wasn't getting enough playing time. The last left because he was asked to play out of position.

The five high profile players dropped by Val were McKeever, Mackey, Johnston, Dermot Sheridan and Lyng.

Only one of those has been brought in by Terry and even that was on condition that he mended his ways.

http://hoganstand.com/Cavan/ArticleForm.aspx?ID=157687

Now maybe you would answer some of the questions asked earlier.

Lemlin

tayto lover wrote: »

http://hoganstand.com/Cavan/ArticleForm.aspx?ID=157687

Now maybe you would answer some of the questions asked earlier.

What's the relevance of the article?

James Reilly played under Andrews in the league last year. He was reestablished long before Val went.

Of the other players, only Mackey is back in the panel now. So you're disproving my point by posting a link to an article which backs up what I said?

Whatever questions you have, please raise them again and I will answer. I would have thought the article about the meeting answered your queries on it.

tayto lover

Even if they didn't take a vote why do you think they met?
Were they happy with things and decided just to meet for the craic?
What was the purpose of the meeting if things were honky dory?

Lemlin

tayto lover wrote: »

Even if they didn't take a vote why do you think they met?
Were they happy with things and decided just to meet for the craic?
What was the purpose of the meeting if things were honky dory?

The article answered those:

"They had just delivered their worst performance of the season when they most required their best one, shipping four goals - and it could have been six or seven - against an Antrim team who were, to paraphrase the old Second World War mantra, down the table, down on personnel, down on motivation and down here.
Things, as they say around these parts, just weren't good. Arms linked, together in the drizzle, someone suggested a meeting to address the problems, a place to clear the air and allow a fresh start. A good idea, to be sure."

tayto lover

Lemlin wrote: »

The article answered those:

"They had just delivered their worst performance of the season when they most required their best one, shipping four goals - and it could have been six or seven - against an Antrim team who were, to paraphrase the old Second World War mantra, down the table, down on personnel, down on motivation and down here.
Things, as they say around these parts, just weren't good. Arms linked, together in the drizzle, someone suggested a meeting to address the problems, a place to clear the air and allow a fresh start. A good idea, to be sure."

So they were not happy with Val and how he was managing them.
Thought so. That was the purpose of my original post.
Same happened here in Louth. I knew it would happen in Cavan too.

Lemlin

tayto lover wrote: »

So they were not happy with Val and how he was managing them.
Thought so. That was the purpose of my original post.
Same happened here in Louth. I knew it would happen in Cavan too.

It appears so:

"Was there a vote or show of hands taken? No - that much appears certain. Padraic O'Reilly had repeatedly stressed that the players weren't there to shaft the manager and had no power to do so. There was plenty of discussion about various aspects of the set-up, the general opinion was ascertained and, we're told, someone made the point that it appeared that the majority in the room were unhappy with the status quo. That much is not crystal clear because the captain, as is his right, pledged not to reveal what was said."


I have to reiterate my original point though that Val deserves great credit for making the hard decisions and taking great criticism for cutting players that needed to be dropped.

Mountainlad

Very late to the party here I know, but just wanted to say well done to Cavan at the weekend. Great to see them winning a game in Ulster and really a great lift at the Senior ranks having done some fantastic stuff in the Ulster u21 championships in the last three years.

Hadn't a chance to watch the games last weekend, and while I know there's many people talking about Martin Dunne getting all the space in the world it still takes a lot of bottle to take the scores and 8 points from play is an incredible return really especially on his debut, and one of his second half points off his right from a tight angle was a really classy score. Ye seem to be on the better side of the draw as well, and with Jack Brady coming back into the fold as well it's onwards and upwards hopefully.

I always find it a great feeling winning championship games, I'm sure ye enjoyed last Sunday. Fairplay lads.

Tom Joad

Really don't know what your agenda is dragging all this up again tayto apart from your obvious dislike of Val Andrews for whatever reasons but I will put it simply for you - your mates are clowns who don't have a clue.

Val Andrews is gone from the Cavan set-up and he has acknowledged that things didn't work out here from him and I'm sure that is a great disappointment to him - he came back for a second spell in charge which took great guts. Val was respected by the vast majority of the players and was known as someone who called a spade a spade. Sometimes in jobs things don't work out - doesn't make the person "not up to it" - show some respect. The vast majority of true Cavan supporters will acknowledge the much needed thankless work done by Val which made life an awful lot easier for Terry Hyland (who you are conviently forgetting worked very closely with Val).

As to the 6 players who were "dropped" by Val, only one is back in the set-up and he's playing the football of his life!! Speaks volumes about the guy and semms Val got it spot on that the lad needed a kick up the hole if he wanted to fulfil his potential. I'm not going to slag off any of the other on an internet forum but some had commitments outside of football and some didn't have the dedication it takes to be an intercounty footballers - simple as. The fact that 5 of the 6 are outside the county team now speaks volumes and blows your argument up.

And by the way you brought this up - no-one else - I have no wish to re debate the issue with you but you have been told by 3 Cavan supporters here that your mates are talking crap - accept it and move on - maybe set up a Louth football thread and how rosy life has been since Val left.

tayto lover

Tom Joad wrote: »

Really don't know what your agenda is dragging all this up again tayto apart from your obvious dislike of Val Andrews for whatever reasons but I will put it simply for you - your mates are clowns who don't have a clue.

Val Andrews is gone from the Cavan set-up and he has acknowledged that things didn't work out here from him and I'm sure that is a great disappointment to him - he came back for a second spell in charge which took great guts. Val was respected by the vast majority of the players and was known as someone who called a spade a spade. Sometimes in jobs things don't work out - doesn't make the person "not up to it" - show some respect. The vast majority of true Cavan supporters will acknowledge the much needed thankless work done by Val which made life an awful lot easier for Terry Hyland (who you are conviently forgetting worked very closely with Val).

As to the 6 players who were "dropped" by Val, only one is back in the set-up and he's playing the football of his life!! Speaks volumes about the guy and semms Val got it spot on that the lad needed a kick up the hole if he wanted to fulfil his potential. I'm not going to slag off any of the other on an internet forum but some had commitments outside of football and some didn't have the dedication it takes to be an intercounty footballers - simple as. The fact that 5 of the 6 are outside the county team now speaks volumes and blows your argument up.

And by the way you brought this up - no-one else - I have no wish to re debate the issue with you but you have been told by 3 Cavan supporters here that your mates are talking crap - accept it and move on - maybe set up a Louth football thread and how rosy life has been since Val left.

Post 977 brought it up again Tom as well you know.
I didn't even read past your first line when you accused me of bringing it up again but you will hardly apologise anyway.

Tom Joad

tayto lover wrote: »

Post 977 brought it up again Tom as well you know.
I didn't even read past your first line when you accused me of bringing it up again but you will hardly apologise anyway.

Ok I have read back and I stand corrected - it was Lemlin that brought Val Andrews up in that post - I have no problem admitting when I am wrong so there ya go I was wrong on that point.

However, it was you that stated that the players had a meeting to get rid of Val Andrews (post 980)- that is not true no matter what your mates tell you and has been acknowledged as such by Val Andrews, the players and the county board - that's what started us down this path again. :rolleyes:

Lemlin

tayto lover wrote: »

Post 977 brought it up again Tom as well you know.
I didn't even read past your first line when you accused me of bringing it up again but you will hardly apologise anyway.

To be honest tayto, last year you had your "Cavan friends" and this year you now have "close sources" in the panel.

Yet you've already made a number of points which are either downright lies or incorrect. Whichever way you look at it, they aren't the truth and you're twisting the truth to suit your vendetta.

For example:

- trying to say Hyland has resetablished players that Val dropped. Only one has been brought back and that was very much on Terry's conditions that improvements were made.
- trying to say Val was "got rid of". He resigned himself.

Those are just two examples.

I'm always very wary also of people on internet forums who say they were told this or that by players or panel members.

Cavan's a small county. I know county players myself. I know their families. I know their relations. And, one thing I do know, is that they are very secretive about the panel and give away very little, even to those closest to them. In fact, the lads I do know are clearly very awkward when I do see people ask them questions and, because of this, most people who know them now know not to other than maybe giving them an encouraging remark.

Therefore I'm always amazed by these lads that pop up on forums stating "close sources" told them this or that.

Crash Bang Wall

DARK-KNIGHT wrote: »

Moving the date is the most sensible option IMO

Moving the date is the most logical, and sensible, but if the game is scheduled for tv, then this will not happen.

Game will be moved to Clones IMO if anything changes

tayto lover

Tom Joad wrote: »

Ok I have read back and I stand corrected - it was Lemlin that brought Val Andrews up in that post - I have no problem admitting when I am wrong so there ya go I was wrong on that point.

However, it was you that stated that the players had a meeting to get rid of Val Andrews (post 980)- that is not true no matter what your mates tell you and has been acknowledged as such by Val Andrews, the players and the county board - that's what started us down this path again. :rolleyes:

If it's not true then I will stand corrected too and have no problems with that.
I stated what I was told by someone close to players on the panel. Maybe they were wrong too or maybe there was an "official" version put out.
Nevertheless my reasons for engaging in the discussion in the first place were to point out that Andrews would not be good for Cavan and that it would not end well were borne out.

tayto lover

Lemlin wrote: »

To be honest tayto, last year you had your "Cavan friends" and this year you now have "close sources" in the panel.

Yet you've already made a number of points which are either downright lies or incorrect. Whichever way you look at it, they aren't the truth and you're twisting the truth to suit your vendetta.

For example:

- trying to say Hyland has resetablished players that Val dropped. Only one has been brought back and that was very much on Terry's conditions that improvements were made.
- trying to say Val was "got rid of". He resigned himself.

Those are just two examples.

I'm always very wary also of people on internet forums who say they were told this or that by players or panel members.

Cavan's a small county. I know county players myself. I know their families. I know their relations. And, one thing I do know, is that they are very secretive about the panel and give away very little, even to those closest to them. In fact, the lads I do know are clearly very awkward when I do see people ask them questions and, because of this, most people who know them now know not to other than maybe giving them an encouraging remark.

Therefore I'm always amazed by these lads that pop up on forums stating "close sources" told them this or that.

I would love to name my source but can't as he's a close relation of a player.
You hardly expect me to name him and I don't think the rules would allow it anyway. They cannot even disclose stuff in the Dail. Therefore all anyone can say is a "source close to the panel or players".
Your other point is only semantics.

Lemlin

tayto lover wrote: »

I would love to name my source but can't as he's a close relation of a player.
You hardly expect me to name him and I don't think the rules would allow it anyway. They cannot even disclose stuff in the Dail. Therefore all anyone can say is a "source close to the panel or players".
Your other point is only semantics.

No, I don't expect you to name him because I don't believe you have a source. Like I said, the panel are hugely secretive and players rarely comment to anyone about the goings on so I find it very strange that someone not even in Cavan could gain access to this information. I'd also suggest that if you can't name a source there's no point trying to use the information. It's useless. That's why I posted the articles answering your questions. I'm posting facts and quotes. You're posting hearsay.

tayto lover wrote: »

If it's not true then I will stand corrected too and have no problems with that.
I stated what I was told by someone close to players on the panel. Maybe they were wrong too or maybe there was an "official" version put out.
Nevertheless my reasons for engaging in the discussion in the first place were to point out that Andrews would not be good for Cavan and that it would not end well were borne out.

Like I said, whether or not Val's term was good or bad is a matter of opinion. GAA is a results-based business, the same as any sport, and Val didn't deliver the results. That is true.

However, I think it'd be unfair to say that he didn't launch the plateau which is now leading to results. After all, like I said, he was responsible for cutting players that needed to be cut and stood firm when he received alot of criticism.

I also spoke earlier in the thread about Cavan having only two debutants this year. Last year they had seven against Donegal (the article I found says 5 but McLoughlin and Killian Clarke were later drafted into the starting line up). The year before 8 players made their championship debuts against Donegal.

So Andrews blooded players like Gearoid McKiernan, Damien Reilly, Niall McDermott, Fergal Flanagan, James McEnroe, Jack Brady, Killian Clarke and Jason McLoughlin. All of whom, bar McKiernan with injury, played a part against Donegal. He also played various other players in the league and other championship games. Martin Dunne, for example, played his first games in the League under Andrews last year.

So you may argue that Andrews was "not good for Cavan" but I'm hoping that he started a revolution which may actually lead to some silverware.

I also must of missed where we had huge success before he arrived. The Cavan team I remember him arriving too is one which had only beaten Division 4 teams in the championship for the best part of a decade. It was also a team which had been hammered by Cork in a qualifier the year before.

tayto lover

Lemlin wrote: »

No, I don't expect you to name him because I don't believe you have a source. Like I said, the panel are hugely secretive and players rarely comment to anyone about the goings on so I find it very strange that someone not even in Cavan could gain access to this information. I'd also suggest that if you can't name a source there's no point trying to use the information. It's useless. That's why I posted the articles answering your questions. I'm posting facts and quotes. You're posting hearsay.



Like I said, whether or not Val's term was good or bad is a matter of opinion. GAA is a results-based business, the same as any sport, and Val didn't deliver the results. That is true.

However, I think it'd be unfair to say that he didn't launch the plateau which is now leading to results. After all, like I said, he was responsible for cutting players that needed to be cut and stood firm when he received alot of criticism.

I also spoke earlier in the thread about Cavan having only two debutants this year. Last year they had seven against Donegal (the article I found says 5 but McLoughlin and Killian Clarke were later drafted into the starting line up). The year before 8 players made their championship debuts against Donegal.

So Andrews blooded players like Gearoid McKiernan, Damien Reilly, Niall McDermott, Fergal Flanagan, James McEnroe, Jack Brady, Killian Clarke and Jason McLoughlin. All of whom, bar McKiernan with injury, played a part against Donegal. He also played various other players in the league and other championship games. Martin Dunne, for example, played his first games in the League under Andrews last year.

So you may argue that Andrews was "not good for Cavan" but I'm hoping that he started a revolution which may actually lead to some silverware.

I also must of missed where we had huge success before he arrived. The Cavan team I remember him arriving too is one which had only beaten Division 4 teams in the championship for the best part of a decade. It was also a team which had been hammered by Cork in a qualifier the year before.

Andrews did no such thing. The players were up and coming and Hyland had far more to do with their success than Andrews no matter what you claim.
You have been flogging a dead horse.
My source is a Cavanman as already stated. You can choose to ignore or disbelieve that fact with all your might for as long as you like as it doesn't matter to me what you believe.
Cavan had little success before Val arrives like any other county team he left. Thankfully the people who matter eventually saw that and acted accordingly.

I agree with you that he started a revolution alright. The one that got him out of Cavan.

Lemlin

tayto lover wrote: »

Andrews did no such thing. The players were up and coming and Hyland had far more to do with their success than Andrews no matter what you claim.
You have been flogging a dead horse.
My source is a Cavanman as already stated. You can choose to ignore or disbelieve that fact with all your might for as long as you like as it doesn't matter to me what you believe.
Cavan had little success before Val arrives like any other county team he left. Thankfully the people who matter eventually saw that and acted accordingly.

I agree with you that he started a revolution alright. The one that got him out of Cavan.

I fully agree that Hyland did. I always said Terry was the man I wanted for the job.

The fact still remains that Val took alot of criticism for the decisions he made. How many times last year had we to listen to pundits and other players say stuff like, "who do Cavan think they are dropping Seanie Johnston"? I even heard it a number of times on the board here. I also saw numerous supporters complain about Lyng and others being dropped.

Yet there's every chance Martin Dunne wouldn't have been in the panel if Johnston was still there. The two are very alike. It was even pointed out in the commentary last Sunday. And, as for your reasoning that all the players were up and coming, Martin Dunne couldn't make the U21 team in 2010 and stepped away from it. It was Val brought him into the senior panel.

It was also Val who was brave enough to start McLoughlin and Clarke when they were 18 and 19 and give them the championship experience that has been vital. Alot of managers would have stuck with the old guard, as alot of supporters wanted, and we'd still be losing championship games year after year.

And your argument re the players being up and coming is futile because it could be aimed at any manager. Sure Jim McGuiness isn't a good tactician and manager, he's just lucky players like Murphy and McBrearty arrived!?

You may not be able to compliment the man but I hope that in years to come Cavan will be successful and people will look back and realise that Val Andrews took alot of unwarranted criticism for starting work from the bottom up, which is exactly what he did.

tayto lover

Lemlin wrote: »

I fully agree that Hyland did. I always said Terry was the man I wanted for the job.

The fact still remains that Val took alot of criticism for the decisions he made. How many times last year had we to listen to pundits and other players say stuff like, "who do Cavan think they are dropping Seanie Johnston"? I even heard it a number of times on the board here. I also saw numerous supporters complain about Lyng and others being dropped.

Yet there's every chance Martin Dunne wouldn't have been in the panel if Johnston was still there. The two are very alike. It was even pointed out in the commentary last Sunday. And, as for your reasoning that all the players were up and coming, Martin Dunne couldn't make the U21 team in 2010 and stepped away from it. It was Val brought him into the senior panel.

It was also Val who was brave enough to start McLoughlin and Clarke when they were 18 and 19 and give them the championship experience that has been vital. Alot of managers would have stuck with the old guard, as alot of supporters wanted, and we'd still be losing championship games year after year.

And your argument re the players being up and coming is futile because it could be aimed at any manager. Sure Jim McGuiness isn't a good tactician and manager, he's just lucky players like Murphy and McBrearty arrived!?

You may not be able to compliment the man but I hope that in years to come Cavan will be successful and people will look back and realise that Val Andrews took alot of unwarranted criticism for starting work from the bottom up, which is exactly what he did.

I don't think Val was there long enough to achieve all you praise him for.
It is also a disservice to Hyland and all the club mentors involved in each individual club who brought those boys to county standard.
As for Jim Mc Guinness being lucky ... nuff said.

Lemlin

tayto lover wrote: »

I don't think Val was there long enough to achieve all you praise him for.
It is also a disservice to Hyland and all the club mentors involved in each individual club who brought those boys to county standard.
As for Jim Mc Guinness being lucky ... nuff said.

I praise him for starting the good work. That is all. There's no doubting it could have went better and he made mistakes, including clashing with certain players.

But I still stick to my original point that he had a hard skin and took alot of criticism for making decisions which only now appear to have been correct.

tayto lover

Lemlin wrote: »

I praise him for starting the good work. That is all. There's no doubting it could have went better and he made mistakes, including clashing with certain players.

But I still stick to my original point that he had a hard skin and took alot of criticism for making decisions which only now appear to have been correct.

On that we'll agree to differ as I think Hyland straightened it all out after he left.

Lemlin

tayto lover wrote: »

On that we'll agree to differ as I think Hyland straightened it all out after he left.

Ah well, I'd presume you'd have that information from your "close sources"

Just wondering did Andrews give you a bad mark on some of your coursework or did he piss in your corn flakes that the vendetta is that bad?

tayto lover

Lemlin wrote: »

Ah well, I'd presume you'd have that information from your "close sources"

Just wondering did Andrews give you a bad mark on some of your coursework or did he piss in your corn flakes that the vendetta is that bad?

Well you and your friend seem to put him above all else anyway.
Nothing like a bit of licking up to a complete outsider who never won anything with any county and putting your own men down.

Good luck to Terry Hyland and the boys.

Lemlin

tayto lover wrote: »

Well you and your boyfriend seem to put him above all else anyway.
Nothing like a bit of licking up to a complete outsider who never won anything with any county and putting your own men down.

Good luck to Terry Hyland and the boys.

Funny how you didn't answer the question. Did ya fail your course on that E he gave ya?

Val managed Louth and Cavan. It's not much of an insult to say he won nothing. Hardly two powerhouses of football.

I have a friend though who has a sister whose mother in law's father's brother is close to a member of the panel and "close sources" in it told them that Val was the best manager they had in Louth in years

tayto lover

Lemlin wrote: »

Funny how you didn't answer the question. Did ya fail your course on that E he gave ya?

I'm a bit past courses at this point.
You failed to answer a lot of questions yourself.

Lemlin

tayto lover wrote: »

I'm a bit past courses at this point.
You failed to answer a lot of questions yourself.

Point them out so and I'll gladly answer.

tayto lover

Lemlin wrote: »

Point them out so and I'll gladly answer.

You should have answered the first time, you had ample opportunity.

Lemlin

tayto lover wrote: »

You should have answered the first time, you had ample opportunity.

I see what you're trying here: reverse psychology. I answered all the questions but, by trying to say I didn't, some people might think I didn't.

Bravo. You must have been head of the school debating team.

tayto lover

Lemlin wrote: »

I see what you're trying here: reverse psychology. I answered all the questions but, by trying to say I didn't, some people might think I didn't.

Bravo. You must have been head of the school debating team.

I was :pac: