All Ireland SHC Final (formerly SHC thread) - READ MOD NOTE POST #1

xl500

I fancy Waterford will do it on Sunday

RIP Tony Keady Man of Iron on the field some great memories

Powerhouse

blue note wrote: »

Ah feck, I thought we had a chance and have my ticket got and everything! Anyone for an upper cusack ticket?

You could consider supporting your team in defeat? It's called loyalty? :cool:

Realt Dearg Sec

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Jackie didn't JUST focus on that, he mentioned it in passing. It was so much in passing that when he said it on Sunday nobody passed any heed, and it was only when Hogan went off on one about it that people started to get on the outrage bandwagon.

Still, Jackie has always had a way of getting in Tipperary lads heads. The rest of them now know how lar has felt all these years.

Why mention it at all? It had no bearing on what was a great performance by both teams. Tipp gave it their all on the day. Would you feel the same about it if Brendan Cummins mentioned something 'in passing' about Kilkenny in a similar scenario?

Realt Dearg Sec

Deleted User wrote: »

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Jackie didn't JUST focus on that, he mentioned it in passing. It was so much in passing that when he said it on Sunday nobody passed any heed, and it was only when Hogan went off on one about it that people started to get on the outrage bandwagon.

Still, Jackie has always had a way of getting in Tipperary lads heads. The rest of them now know how lar has felt all these years.

Why mention it at all? It had no bearing on what was a great performance by both teams. Tipp gave it their all on the day. Would you feel the same about it if Brendan Cummins mentioned something 'in passing' about Kilkenny in a similar scenario?

Yes, I would. If it's relevant, which it was, then I'd have no problem at all with Cummins mentioning it as a possible factor in our demise. I don't see why it's such a problem to mention something the whole country is aware of.

Martin567

Deleted User wrote: »

Why mention it at all? It had no bearing on what was a great performance by both teams. Tipp gave it their all on the day. Would you feel the same about it if Brendan Cummins mentioned something 'in passing' about Kilkenny in a similar scenario?

It seems as though it's Ken Hogan who's decided to make a big deal out of it.

Why shouldn't it be mentioned? It's common knowledge that Tipp have had some troubles in the camp this year. They did dismiss a player from the panel after all!

Whether it affected their performance in any way last Sunday is something none of us know definitively. It may have or it may not.

Jackie was commenting in the context of Tipp's year overall, not just last Sunday's match. For anyone to look back at Tipp's year as a whole, it would be very strange if they weren't allowed to mention that there were a few internal issues.

Powerhouse

Martin567 wrote: »

It seems as though it's Ken Hogan who's decided to make a big deal out of it.

Why shouldn't it be mentioned? It's common knowledge that Tipp have had some troubles in the camp this year. They did dismiss a player from the panel after all!

Whether it affected their performance in any way last Sunday is something none of us know definitively. It may have or it may not.

Jackie was commenting in the context of Tipp's year overall, not just last Sunday's match. For anyone to look back at Tipp's year as a whole, it would be very strange if they weren't allowed to mention that there were a few internal issues.

The part in bold sums it up really. Nobody on the Sunday Game knows definitively about what goes on inside a squad. If someone wants to speculate about the impact "troubles in the camp" then go to the pub and get a pint in your hand or put on your warrior outfit and get behind a keyboard. But if you are going to sit in the studio and take money to give an opinion then simply repeating speculation about something that is as you put it "common knowledge" is very very lazy. Just because something is "common knowledge" does not make it relevant, unless of course the pundit establishes that relevance rather than just wondering aloud.

Powerhouse

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Yes, I would. If it's relevant, which it was, then I'd have no problem at all with Cummins mentioning it as a possible factor in our demise. I don't see why it's such a problem to mention something the whole country is aware of.

In what way was it relevant to Tipperary's defeat? Just because something happened in the squad does not necessarily make it materially relevant to a subsequent result. It is the job of the analyst to demonstrate a relevance if claiming one. It is easy to repeat something but Tyrrell is supposed to be an analyst, not a gossip. If he is going to mention something thereby implying a relevance then he should develop the argument.

I don't get the argument that it's something "the whole country is aware of". So what? Something being well-known does not make it relevant to anything in particular.

Charlie69

Powerhouse wrote: »

In what way was it relevant to Tipperary's defeat? Just because something happened in the squad does not necessarily make it materially relevant to a subsequent result. It is the job of the analyst to demonstrate a relevance if claiming one. It is easy to repeat something but Tyrrell is supposed to be an analyst, not a gossip. If he is going to mention something thereby implying a relevance then he should develop the argument.

I don't get the argument that it's something "the whole country is aware of". So what? Something being well-known does not make it relevant to anything in particular.

Of course it was relevant to Tipperary's defeat... Jackie Tyrell went on record weeks ago to say that he didn't think Tipp could retain their title without Cathal Barrett and he turned out to be correct. Would young whelan have gotten four points from play off of Barrett? ... I don't think so.

As someone posted earlier it's common knowledge (not speculation) that Tipp had some disciplinary issues this year so I don't see why it's taboo for Jackie to mention it.

Realt Dearg Sec

Powerhouse wrote: »

In what way was it relevant to Tipperary's defeat? Just because something happened in the squad does not necessarily make it materially relevant to a subsequent result. It is the job of the analyst to demonstrate a relevance if claiming one. It is easy to repeat something but Tyrrell is supposed to be an analyst, not a gossip. If he is going to mention something thereby implying a relevance then he should develop the argument..

From that last bit you seem to be saying he should have gone into MORE detail about it. To me that would give far more validity to your claim that he is being a gossip. The whole point was that it wasn't the events, real or otherwise, that had an effect on the camp, but the very fact that it was being gossiped about at all. In other words, it is the fact that it is well-known and widely talked about is IN ITSELF the relevant, salient point about the rumours, not the actual content of the rumours as such. Again, I don't see why this is hard to grasp, or how anyone could decide it had no relevance to Tipp's year as a whole. You might argue that we can't know for sure what was going on in the camp, but as a general observation, an experienced intercounty player who has seen it all during his own career can surely comment knowledgeably on the likely impact those kinds of rumours swirling around a camp might have? Honestly I can't see how this is controversial, other than Tipp people really, really wanting to be outraged because it's a KK player who said it.

Can you quote him anywhere that his observations stray into gossip? I'm happy to retract my argument if you can do this.

dastardly00

I said wrote: »

Quick question why is it in my head that AI semi final refs don't get to ref the final?
Or does it only apply to AI refs that ref finals don't get the replays?

I posted this around the same time last year when trying to figure out who the ref would be for the 2016 AI final.

There aren't too many referees in the running for the big games. The clear trend of the last few years is that the referee for the final wasn't in charge for either of the semi-finals. So that would appear to rule out Barry Kelly and James Owens for the final next month.

Alan Kelly (Galway) is from a competing county so he can't do it. Similarly, if Cork make the final, that would rule out Colm Lyons.

If Cork win, that leaves Fergal Horan, Brian Gavin, and James McGrath as the possibilities. But both Brian Gavin and James McGrath seem to have gone completely out of favour as they have only refereed one match of significance each in the championship so far (Qualifier Rd. 1 & Munster Semi-Final respectively). The most obvious candidate would be Fergal Horan. He has already refereed a Leinster Semi-Final, Munster Final, and an AI Quarter-Final in 2017.

If Cork lose, then it could be Horan or Colm Lyons. Lyons has already refereed the Leinster Final and an AI Quarter-Final in 2017.

Here is a list of who has refereed the AI semi-finals and finals over the last few years.

Year | Final | Semi-Final (Leinster Winner) | Semi-Final (Munster Winner)
2017 | | B Kelly | J Owens
2016 | B Gavin | J Owens / J McGrath (Replay) | B Kelly
2015 | J Owens | B Gavin | B Kelly
2014 | B Kelly / B Gavin (Replay) | J McGrath | J Owens
2013 | B Gavin / J McGrath (Replay) | J Owens | J Ryan
2012 | B Kelly / J McGrath (Replay) | B Gavin | C McAllister
2011 | B Gavin | B Kelly | C McAllister
2010 | M Wadding | B Gavin | J Sexton

I said

dastardly00 wrote: »

I posted this around the same time last year when trying to figure out who the ref would be for the 2016 AI final.

There aren't too many referees in the running for the big games. The clear trend of the last few years is that the referee for the final wasn't in charge for either of the semi-finals. So that would appear to rule out Barry Kelly and James Owens for the final next month.

Alan Kelly (Galway) is from a competing county so he can't do it. Similarly, if Cork make the final, that would rule out Colm Lyons.

If Cork win, that leaves Fergal Horan, Brian Gavin, and James McGrath as the possibilities. But both Brian Gavin and James McGrath seem to have gone completely out of favour as they have only refereed one match of significance each in the championship so far (Qualifier Rd. 1 & Munster Semi-Final respectively). The most obvious candidate would be Fergal Horan. He has already refereed a Leinster Semi-Final, Munster Final, and an AI Quarter-Final in 2017.

If Cork lose, then it could be Horan or Colm Lyons. Lyons has already refereed the Leinster Final and an AI Quarter-Final in 2017.

Here is a list of who has refereed the AI semi-finals and finals over the last few years.

Year | Final | Semi-Final (Leinster Winner) | Semi-Final (Munster Winner)
2017 | | B Kelly | J Owens
2016 | B Gavin | J Owens / J McGrath (Replay) | B Kelly
2015 | J Owens | B Gavin | B Kelly
2014 | B Kelly / B Gavin (Replay) | J McGrath | J Owens
2013 | B Gavin / J McGrath (Replay) | J Owens | J Ryan
2012 | B Kelly / J McGrath (Replay) | B Gavin | C McAllister
2011 | B Gavin | B Kelly | C McAllister
2010 | M Wadding | B Gavin | J Sexton

I was thinking F H might get the gig

Powerhouse

Charlie69 wrote: »

Of course it was relevant to Tipperary's defeat... Jackie Tyrell went on record weeks ago to say that he didn't think Tipp could retain their title without Cathal Barrett and he turned out to be correct. Would young whelan have gotten four points from play off of Barrett? ... I don't think so.

As someone posted earlier it's common knowledge (not speculation) that Tipp had some disciplinary issues this year so I don't see why it's taboo for Jackie to mention it.

Just because he said that "he didn't think Tipp could retain their title without Cathal Barrett" does not necessarily mean that the reason they did not retain the title was because of Barrett's absence. You are saying "he turned out to be correct" - but this is a logical fallacy.

It is simply linking one circumstance to a possible outcome while ignoring that there are many other factors at play. It is assuming that there could be no other explanation for the result. I could have said that Tipperary will not retain their title if they don't have Noel McGrath taking frees, and claim I was right too. But it would be illogical just as Tyrrell's is. I could claim that Waterford will not beat Cork if Tadhg De Burca is not playing. That does not mean I am correct if Cork win. They might have won the game anyway,

A few facts:

Conor Whelan scored 0-5 in the League Final when Cathal Barrett was playing.

Tipperary conceded less against Galway last Sunday than in either All-Ireland semi-final or final last year when Barrett was playing.

Even though they outscored Galway from play, Tipperary have scored less than they scored last Sunday only once in the last four championships. Maybe their problems were not at the Cathal Barrett end of the field after all.

As for your comment As someone posted earlier it's common knowledge (not speculation) that Tipp had some disciplinary issues this year so I don't see why it's taboo for Jackie to mention it............. I never said that was speculation. What I said was speculation was trying to link these 'disciplinary issues' (i.e. Barrett) to the result last weekend. There is no obvious link as the Tipperary defence did reasonably well. And don't forget the man of the match was a Galway defender.

Powerhouse

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

From that last bit you seem to be saying he should have gone into MORE detail about it.

Actually more detail was necessary when he brought the matter up at all. Once he raised the matter he had to make the link between his claim about Barrett and the outcome of the match. Simple as.

To repeat what I said in the other post (in more detail) there is no evidence that the Tipperary defence was a particular problem. In large part Galway relied on Joe Canning up front in the second-half. He scored their last five points. The forwards in general were not causing Tipperary major problems.

What Tyrrell needed to do was deal with this in the analysis back up a claim with specific reference to the match pointing out what difference Barrett would have made. By not doing so he presented it as a piece of speculative gossip and proved himself a weak analyst - good for the big statement but very ropey on backing up with evidence.

Powerhouse

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

an experienced intercounty player who has seen it all during his own career can surely comment knowledgeably on the likely impact those kinds of rumours swirling around a camp might have? .

On the contrary. He has not seen it all. He said earlier in the year that he had no recollection of any such thing in Kilkenny, so by his own definition he is in no position to comment knowledgably on the matter.

Realt Dearg Sec

Powerhouse wrote: »

Actually more detail was necessary when he brought the matter up at all. Once he raised the matter he had to make the link between his claim about Barrett and the outcome of the match. Simple as.

To repeat what I said in the other post (in more detail) there is no evidence that the Tipperary defence was a particular problem. In large part Galway relied on Joe Canning up front in the second-half. He scored their last five points. The forwards in general were not causing Tipperary major problems.

What Tyrrell needed to do was deal with this in the analysis back up a claim with specific reference to the match pointing out what difference Barrett would have made. By not doing so he presented it as a piece of speculative gossip and proved himself a weak analyst - good for the big statement but very ropey on backing up with evidence.

Powerhouse wrote: »

On the contrary. He has not seen it all. He said earlier in the year that he had no recollection of any such thing in Kilkenny, so by his own definition he is in no position to comment knowledgably on the matter.

Neither of these actually substantiate your claim that he was gossiping. Accusing him of being a poor analyst isn't the same thing. What did he say that was gossip?

Charlie69

Conor Whelan wasn't Barrett's direct opponent in the league final though... he was on Niall Burke who didn't score at all and was taken off. On Sunday Whelan was on Donagh Maher who probably would have made way for Barrett had he been available.
No way he gets that much room from Cathal Barrett imo.

Powerhouse

Charlie69 wrote: »

Conor Whelan wasn't Barrett's direct opponent in the league final though... he was on Niall Burke who didn't score at all and was taken off. On Sunday Whelan was on Donagh Maher who probably would have made way for Barrett had he been available.
No way he gets that much room from Cathal Barrett imo.

Never said he was and Burke was taken off with about a minute to go. Very disingenuous contribution.

Powerhouse

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Neither of these actually substantiate your claim that he was gossiping. Accusing him of being a poor analyst isn't the same thing.

I really don't care whether you think I have substantiated my claim that he was gossiping. That was the least important thing I said. Demonstrating that he is a poor analyst is the thing that matters. You'll argue the meaning of the word "gossip" forever (which I imagine is the plan in drawing specific attention to that) but if you were able to argue that he was not a poor analyst you'd have done so.

A good analyst would have dealt with the sort of points I raised such as Tipperary's forwards being shut out and the backs actually shutting out Galway quite well in the second-half in the context of claims about Barrett. Chances are Tyrrell is just not a very rigorous thinker on these matters which is fine, but don't make the big claims then. Big claims require, if not always big evidence, at least some engagement with reality. Enough.

Utopia Parkway

Charlie69 wrote: »

Conor Whelan wasn't Barrett's direct opponent in the league final though... he was on Niall Burke who didn't score at all and was taken off. On Sunday Whelan was on Donagh Maher who probably would have made way for Barrett had he been available.
No way he gets that much room from Cathal Barrett imo.

Barrett was marking Whelan in the league final. I even remember texting my old lad during it because Whelan was giving him such a roasting.

Barrett has actually had a tough time of it against Galway in general. Conor Cooney gave him a rough enough time of it last year as well. Probably because if he has a weakness it's against big men and Galway have lots of big forwards to throw at him.

Realt Dearg Sec

Powerhouse wrote: »

I really don't care whether you think I have substantiated my claim that he was gossiping. That was the least important thing I said.

No it wasn't, because if this was just a debate about him being a poor analyst we wouldn't be having the discussion in the first place. This whole thing emerged out of the question of whether rumours circulating around the Tipp squad was an appropriate topic of discussion or not. Ken Hogan stirred it up, and now here we are. If you're claiming that the backlash against Tyrell is because he didn't analyse the game particularly well, I would say you're being wilfully naive. Why on earth would that be a controversial issue worthy of debate? Would Ken Hogan weigh in to say he thought the analysis was slightly missing the point? No, he weighed in because he thinks mentioning the fact that there were rumours around the team should simply not be a topic of discussion at all.

Shifting the goalposts to make this nothing more than a discussion of how well Tyrell can analyse a match is completely disingenuous. The reason the issue came up is because it was felt that he was straying into inappropriate areas. In other words, that he is engaging in barstool gossip (again, the image of a barstool gossip is yours, so no point pretending now that it wasn't what got you riled up to begin with). So yeah, the definition of gossip is germane to this. Because if he said that the constant rumours can't have helped with their concentration and preparation, then that to me is relevant, legitimate analysis. If he said "well you know one of the lads was riding Seamie Callinan's missus, so the story goes Des", that obviously isn't. But as you well know he didn't say that. Whether it's GOOD analysis is a different matter, but I find it hard to believe that the Tipp contingent would be this worked up just because an analyst emphasised defensive problems over problems in the forwards during the Sunday Game.

But I suspect you know that already.

IanVW

De burca cleared to play on sunday:)

Realt Dearg Sec

IanVW wrote: »

De burca cleared to play on sunday:)

Source?

I hope so anyway. Not sure I'm bothered who wins the match, but I want to see the two best fifteens play anyway.

IanVW

https://twitter.com/wlrfm/status/895744649205129218

Mahony0509

Hold yer horses lads.

https://twitter.com/cahilljackie/status/895747719662194688

paulie21

Appeal failed

Noveight

Big, big loss.

dastardly00

https://twitter.com/cahilljackie/status/895804030949224448

xl500

paulie21 wrote: »

Appeal failed

I think that was always going to Happen at that level they are only looking to see if previous levels erred in procedure etc the incident is not looked at as far as i know

I said

paulie21 wrote: »

Appeal failed

Disaster for him personally

Mantis Toboggan

Very disappointing for De Burca.

Cork huge favourites now.