Sunday Game host

BENDYBINN

Very foolish of RTÉ to retire Lyster. I’d say sky will be on to him in a flash with a big money offer.

NIMAN

billyhead wrote: »

A bit off topic but Ciaran Whelan is a very good pundit in the football and likewise Fast Eddie Brennan in the hurling. I also think Michael Duignan and Bernard Flynn are brilliant on the radio. They tell it as it is and know their stuff.

But they are all males, they have no chance of any big gigs!

Powerhouse

washman3 wrote: »

Looking at what was available I don't see any great problem with Cantwell TBH.
He loves her sport, has been around for some time and is not a bluffer. Bad enough having to listen to Des Cahill on morning radio. Glad too that Lyster is finally packing it in. For all the years he spent in the job his knowledge remained limited. Always went with the flow and seldom gave the 'weaker' counties the credit they deserved.
But as another poster pointed out, its the games that matter, not some ego driven programme after the 9.30 news.

But surely Lyster's job was to chair the discussion not to ram his own opinion down people's throats?

LooseCannonUF

Mr321 wrote: »

Dessie Dolan be a good host

No, just no

Powerhouse

grbear wrote: »

RTEs desire for a "Dunphy" is a problem when it gets in the way of decent analysis and unfortunately Brollys desire to be a talking point is taking away from analysis of the football. He is plainly an intelligent person and can make decent points but Dunphyism is something RTE need to get rid of.

I think Brolly threatens a lot of people because he is conspicuously intellectual. Many people would be more comfortable with Tomás Ó Sé saying "'tis scary" (Brian Fenton's potential as recent example) than, say, a Brolly who might have more to say about his specific role and how the team sets up. I don't believe for a second that Brolly deliberately tried to stake controversy. I think he is just a very bright and well-read person who brings that intellectual rigour to bear in his analysis of football.

Powerhouse

billyhead wrote: »

A bit off topic but Ciaran Whelan is a very good pundit in the football and likewise Fast Eddie Brennan in the hurling. I also think Michael Duignan and Bernard Flynn are brilliant on the radio. They tell it as it is and know their stuff.

Has Eddie Brennan ever really said anything other than the obvious? He's a safe pair of hands but hardly an intellectual heavyweight. Whelan has improved no doubt but he was weak enough for a while. I remember Joe Brolly picking him up on some very bland analysis in his early days and though of course nobody would ever want to admit this I think it improved him.

Bonniedog

Anthony Moyles is good, but probably too quiet and reasonable to be a host!

One of reasons for antipathy on RTE to Tyrone is Mickey Harte's ongoing and justified refusal to engage with them over the disgraceful way his daughter's murder was made fun of.

As for Joanne, she is excellent host of the Sunday sports radio show. It is no longer interrupted continuously by updates on some English soccer match. Cahill would nearly have live reports from Slough playing Cambridge City :-)

Tell me how

Mr321 wrote:

Dessie Dolan be a good host

Seriously? You are joking aren't you?

He's no where near fluid enough to be a host.

ArnoldJRimmer

Powerhouse wrote: »

I think Brolly threatens a lot of people because he is conspicuously intellectual. Many people would be more comfortable with Tomás Ó Sé saying "'tis scary" (Brian Fenton's potential as recent example) than, say, a Brolly who might have more to say about his specific role and how the team sets up. I don't believe for a second that Brolly deliberately tried to stake controversy. I think he is just a very bright and well-read person who brings that intellectual rigour to bear in his analysis of football.

He's an ignorant little so and so who hides behind the fact that he's a barrister (therefore must be intelligent:rolleyes: ) to try and troll anyone who will listen. Yes, he does sometimes provide good thoughtful analysis, but more often than not he just says something controversial to get a reaction. Mainly because he can't shut his mouth for longer than five seconds at a time. I started muting him and Spillane years ago, but decided to give him the benefit of the doubt for an interview on Woolys podcast a few weeks ago. Ended up having to turn that off too as he lacked the basic manners to even allow the interviewer to speak by the time it was half way through

Cape Clear

Powerhouse wrote: »

But surely Lyster's job was to chair the discussion not to ram his own opinion down people's throats?

Correct a skill very few hosts managed to master.

Beechwoodspark

Brolly seems to be like “marmite” although in my experience very very few seem to love him. Most can’t stand him. A lot of real GAA people (old timers especially) have no time for his dramatics.

I find him like a bould child who won’t stop shouting until he gets attention.

He’d be a dreadful host as he doesn’t remotely have the skill set required.

ProudDUB

JC already hosts Saturday Sport on the radio, Against The Head rugby coverage & regularly hosts other GAA and sports programs, such as The All Star Awards. She does a decent job on all of them imo. She is certainly no worse than the likes of Marty Morrissey, or that block of wood called Peter Collins.

Given that, I think it's a bit daft to say she only got the job because she is a woman. If she was someone with zero background in sports broadcasting, or the GAA, a case could made for saying she was only given the gig to keep the PC brigade happy. But she has cut her teeth on many a game, give her a chance to see how she will do.

For all the giving out that we do here about TSG, here is a certain sadness at comfort factor of the Lyster/Brolly/Spillane/O'Rourke quartet being broken up. But that being said, I for one will welcome someone who can shake things up a bit & improve the staleness of the current tired presentation.

I'm tired of Pat Spillane rabbiting on about Kerry & no one trying to stop him. I'm tired of Joe Brolly's constant rudeness & no attempts made to stop him, by a host who should be trying harder to enforce basic good manners on set. Lyster is too weak to do that imo, as he wants to be 'one of the lads' too much. Or maybe it's just not in his personality. Whatever the reason, I don't really care, but the show suffers as a result imo.

I'm tired of Lyster turning to Pat Spillane after every game and asking "Well Colm/Pat, did you enjoy that?" Who gives a crap whether Pat enjoyed the game? I want proper questions asked & decent analysis given....not vague waffle about whether someone "enjoyed" a game or not. It is a sporting event, not an episode of Fair City.

If Joanne Cantell can improve things on any of those fronts, than more power to her.

flasher0030

Powerhouse wrote: »

But surely Lyster's job was to chair the discussion not to ram his own opinion down people's throats?

Its a tough assignment for J Cantwell. If she is passive like Lyster was, she will be judged that she has no presence amongst the boys. If she tries too much to get her opinions across, she will be labelled as an attention seeker trying to make a name for herself.

It should be fun anyway. I can see her taking exception to Brollys rants, and him not liking it.

Mr321

Tell me how wrote: »

Seriously? You are joking aren't you?

He's no where near fluid enough to be a host.

I wanted to spark that very reaction

Its all about Mayo with Dessie.

Mr321

ProudDUB wrote: »

JC already hosts Saturday Sport on the radio, Against The Head rugby coverage & regularly hosts other GAA and sports programs, such as The All Star Awards. She does a decent job on all of them imo. She is certainly no worse than the likes of Marty Morrissey, or that block of wood called Peter Collins.

Given that, I think it's a bit daft to say she only got the job because she is a woman. If she was someone with zero background in sports broadcasting, or the GAA, a case could made for saying she was only given the gig to keep the PC brigade happy. But she has cut her teeth on many a game, give her a chance to see how she will do.

For all the giving out that we do here about TSG, here is a certain sadness at comfort factor of the Lyster/Brolly/Spillane/O'Rourke quartet being broken up. But that being said, I for one will welcome someone who can shake things up a bit & improve the staleness of the current tired presentation.

I'm tired of Pat Spillane rabbiting on about Kerry & no one trying to stop him. I'm tired of Joe Brolly's constant rudeness & no attempts made to stop him, by a host who should be trying harder to enforce basic good manners on set. Lyster is too weak to do that imo, as he wants to be 'one of the lads' too much. Or maybe it's just not in his personality. Whatever the reason, I don't really care, but the show suffers as a result imo.

I'm tired of Lyster turning to Pat Spillane after every game and asking "Well Colm/Pat, did you enjoy that?" Who gives a crap whether Pat enjoyed the game? I want proper questions asked & decent analysis given....not vague waffle about whether someone "enjoyed" a game or not. It is a sporting event, not an episode of Fair City.

If Joanne Cantell can improve things on any of those fronts, than more power to her.

I agree with the majority of what you said there, I'll give Brolly credit though as he's not afraid to make his opinions be known where as O Rourke and Spillane usually shy around it and talk in circles.

ProudDUB

Mr321 wrote: »

I agree with the majority of what you said there, I'll give Brolly credit though as he's not afraid to make his opinions be known where as O Rourke and Spillane usually shy around it and talk in circles.

There is nothing wrong in making your opinions known. Nothing whatsoever.

There is everything wrong in constantly shouting others down and preventing them from doing the same.

I have a feeling that a lot of the pundits (especially O'Rourke) don't bother giving an indepth honest opinions anymore, as they just don't feel like getting yelled at by Brolly, yet again.

That is the kind of thing that Lyster should have clamped down on when Brollys boorish "me, me, me, every one listen to ME" tendancies began to get out of hand. He didn't, so that horse has bolted for now, as long as he is host. With him gone, Joanne Cantwell has a chance to put her own mark/authority on the show and I hope she has the balls ( :P ) to do it. It may piss Brolly off, but I don't care. It'll be a better show because of it and that matters more, than Brolly getting the hump, because someone has the gumption to introduce him to the concept of basic good manners.

Tombo2001

ligerdub wrote: »

This was the most predictable appointment you'll see pretty much anywhere this year.

I won't even argue the point of her genuinely being the best candidate for the job. These days though if you're at least in the discussion of genuine candidates for a job, if you're the only woman in the mix among a group of chaps then it's time for the guys to continue their job search. She was absolutely always getting this, and they'll (RTE) pat themselves on the back much like the multiday festival they had when they gave two women the main news gig.

Diversity stats and HR analytics are all the rage these days. Outside of dangerous jobs, or undesirable work generally dominated in numbers by men, and desirable jobs or otherwise good careers dominated by women, the race to gender quotas has well and truly begun.

It's a shame for Cantwell that she got the job in this environment, it somewhat sullies it for her, part of the reason why diversity quotas are a terrible idea. Cantwell clearly loves her sport, she's in the right place broadly speaking. I don't think this particular style suits her, there is a difference in being a host and being a quasi-mediator. She's enthusiastic and that, but i just find her approach to be quite dull and I'd be inclined not to watch it.

To be honest i didn't think there were any great candidates on the shortlist. The big message here is that the decline in standard was always going to happen after Lyster left. I don't think he was all that keen on leaving. He was an employee so he had to leave at 65, but he could have come back as a contractor, and given how he was generally quite popular (my opinion) and that he was keen to stay on I figure that the smart decision would have been to keep him on board.

The fact that RTE decided against that, and were quite keen to get Joanne on there, that to me is the signal as to why she, specifically, was hired.

For the first time ever, a woman gets a lead position in a banner sports program (of which there are four, live international soccer, the sunday game and live sunday gaa, and live international rugby); and you think....oh the men aren't being a fair crack of the whip.....and that deserves a great round of thanks apparently.

Let me get the violin out.....for poor old Michael Lyster who has only had a 30 year run at the job, and for all those highly talented men who have been over looked.

To refer to your point above..... dangerous and undesirable jobs like banking, stockbroking, software developers, government ministers....... highly paid professions that are completely male dominated.

And desirable jobs or otherwise good careers dominated by women.....the likes of receptionist, contract cleaners, child minders ....lowest paid roles all dominated by women.

Really.....thats a bit much.

The job is up for grabs. Joanne Cantwell is the best person for the job. Get over it.

And part of the reason she is the best person is because the biggest growth in audience for the Sunday Game is the female demographic. In case you didnt notice, attendance at the LGFA final has grown by 70% in the last three years.

sightband

Tombo2001 wrote: »

For the first time ever, a woman gets a lead position in a banner sports program (of which there are four, live international soccer, the sunday game and live sunday gaa, and live international rugby); and you think....oh the men aren't being a fair crack of the whip.....and that deserves a great round of thanks apparently.

Let me get the violin out.....for poor old Michael Lyster who has only had a 30 year run at the job, and for all those highly talented men who have been over looked.

To refer to your point above..... dangerous and undesirable jobs like banking, stockbroking, software developers, government ministers....... highly paid professions that are completely male dominated.

And desirable jobs or otherwise good careers dominated by women.....the likes of receptionist, contract cleaners, child minders ....lowest paid roles all dominated by women.

Really.....thats a bit much.

The job is up for grabs. Joanne Cantwell is the best person for the job. Get over it.

And part of the reason she is the best person is because the biggest growth in audience for the Sunday Game is the female demographic. In case you didnt notice, attendance at the LGFA final has grown by 70% in the last three years.

the first half of your post is just a very generalised and irrelevant rant to the discussion at hand.

you finish by saying that part of the reason she is the best person for the job is because of a growth in female interest in the sport and well joanne cantwell is a female and therefore suited...think about that for a second, that’s pretty much justifying everything the poster you quoted and were opposing.

Cape Clear

Surely it's time for Joanne to step aside and let Panti Bliss have a crack off it.

Tombo2001

sightband wrote: »

the first half of your post is just a very generalised and irrelevant rant to the discussion at hand.

you finish by saying that part of the reason she is the best person for the job is because of a growth in female interest in the sport and well joanne cantwell is a female and therefore suited...think about that for a second, that’s pretty much justifying everything the poster you quoted and were opposing.

Wrong and wrong.

The first part of my post addresses directly the insinuation that she got the job because of positive discrimination and gender quotas.

The second part..... The poster was not saying she is female and she is suited (ie bring in a wider audience). He was saying she is female, and positive discrimination and gender quotas is the way it is going in life. Two entirely different things. But feel free to pretend its the same thing and use it as a stick.

He has the audacity to say its a 'shame' that this 'sullies' her appointment while at the same time himself sullying her appointment.

As for it being a rant.......tends to be the case that when people agree with something its a well thought out argument, when they disagree with something then its a rant......as is the case here.

sightband

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Wrong and wrong.


The second part..... The poster was not saying she is female and she is suited (ie bring in a wider audience). He was saying she is female, and positive discrimination and gender quotas is the way it is going in life. Two entirely different things. But feel free to pretend its the same thing and use it as a stick.

He has the audacity to say its a 'shame' that this 'sullies' her appointment while at the same time himself sullying her appointment.

As for it being a rant.......tends to be the case that when people agree with something its a well thought out argument, when they disagree with something then its a rant......as is the case here.

you haven’t addressed what i was saying about you, you clearly say that because there is a rise in interest in the sport by females, that in part is a reason a female should get the job. that’s no better than saying that because there are more men playing the sport a man should host the show.

and i’m not using anything as a ‘stick’...jesus, it’s a discussion, not everything is an attack.

Utopia Parkway

Dara Ó Cinnéide would have been the actual best person for the job but he was never going to get it because

A. He's not a woman.

B. With 3 Kerry pundits already, RTE could hardly hire yet another Kerry man to host the show.

Dyr

Tombo2001 wrote: »

To refer to your point above..... dangerous and undesirable jobs like banking, stockbroking, software developers, government ministers....... highly paid professions that are completely male dominated.

And desirable jobs or otherwise good careers dominated by women.....the likes of receptionist, contract cleaners, child minders ....lowest paid roles all dominated by women.

Really.....thats a bit much.

You left out well paying industries like publishing, medicine and teaching which are dominated by women. The myth that gender and pay difference in an industry is the result of discrimination is a load of horse sh**.

And, as per the BBC, it's obvious that female presenters are using that myth as leverage to further their own careers.

The funny thing is that it will have a negative effect on competent female candidates in public positions like the sunday game, people assume its a PR decision rather than merit based.

Tell me how

At this stage, I believe that anyone who says Joanne only got the job because she is a woman or that that is the best way to get a job now really do need to acknowledge that they are sexist.

Are there going to be cases where a woman gets a job because someone has an agenda to hire women? Yes.
Will this happen where men get jobs as well? Yes.
But for x number of years (and even still) women who said they lost out on jobs because of their gender were told it had nothing to do with sexism.

If a female had been plucked from an entirely unrelated role in to a new one with no experience and never having shown any interest it in, then it's not right, but in this instance, Joanne has a serious body of work over several years in both reporting and presenting roles and is entirely justified in having been offered the opportunity.

She could turn out to be good or bad in the role but that would have nothing to do with her being a woman.

Tombo2001

Bambi wrote: »

You left out well paying industries like publishing, medicine and teaching which are dominated by women. The myth that gender and pay difference in an industry is the result of discrimination is a load of horse sh**.

And, as per the BBC, it's obvious that female presenters are using that myth as leverage to further their own careers.

The funny thing is that it will have a negative effect on competent female candidates in public positions like the sunday game, people assume its a PR decision rather than merit based.

Interesting that you pick medicine.

A highly paid profession that requires the very highest of qualifications. Unlike other highly paid professions, say software development or stockbroking or property development for example.

A profession that requires you getting the very highest level in the leaving cert, to get into medicine at University.

The reason more young doctors are women is because more medicine students are women. This is absolutely nothing to do with positive discrimination or favouritism towards women; and only to do with the completely level playing field that is the Leaving Cert points system.

So women are more attracted than men to the one high paid job where there is a completely level playing field as to who gets the job.

Hmmm..... I wonder why.

The others - publishing and teaching - are not high paid professions.

Dyr

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Interesting that you pick medicine.

A highly paid profession that requires the very highest of qualifications. Unlike other highly paid professions, say software development or stockbroking or property development for example.

A profession that requires you getting the very highest level in the leaving cert, to get into medicine at University.

The reason more young doctors are women is because more medicine students are women. This is absolutely nothing to do with positive discrimination or favouritism towards women; and only to do with the completely level playing field that is the Leaving Cert points system.

So women are more attracted than men to the one high paid job where there is a completely level playing field as to who gets the job.

Hmmm..... I wonder why.

The others - publishing and teaching - are not high paid professions.

Never said they were highly paid said they were well paid.

Interesting that you completely ignored the actual content of the post and created a strawman argument that I was implying women were getting ahead in certain fields due to positive discrimination towards them. I'm not. They're getting ahead in fields that tend to attract women. It's really weird that.

Anyway seems as how you're making "so what you're saying is" arguments I leave it to the bold Jordan Peterson to torpedo the gender argument in professions, good luck to ye

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

ligerdub

Tombo2001 wrote: »

For the first time ever, a woman gets a lead position in a banner sports program (of which there are four, live international soccer, the sunday game and live sunday gaa, and live international rugby); and you think....oh the men aren't being a fair crack of the whip.....and that deserves a great round of thanks apparently.

Let me get the violin out.....for poor old Michael Lyster who has only had a 30 year run at the job, and for all those highly talented men who have been over looked.

To refer to your point above..... dangerous and undesirable jobs like banking, stockbroking, software developers, government ministers....... highly paid professions that are completely male dominated.

And desirable jobs or otherwise good careers dominated by women.....the likes of receptionist, contract cleaners, child minders ....lowest paid roles all dominated by women.

Really.....thats a bit much.

The job is up for grabs. Joanne Cantwell is the best person for the job. Get over it.

And part of the reason she is the best person is because the biggest growth in audience for the Sunday Game is the female demographic. In case you didnt notice, attendance at the LGFA final has grown by 70% in the last three years.

Well done on totally misrepresenting my point, perhaps instead you might have emboldened the entire sentence/paragraph rather than taking a snippet out of it, or better yet maybe you should have actually read it properly! Are you a tabloid journalist or something?

I can tell I'll get nowhere in a debate with you as you seem hellbent on being disingenuous and not debating fairly, but I feel I must defend my position at least.

If you'd read the sentence you'll notice that I suggested that gender quotas are NOT being sought for in dangerous or undesirable jobs dominated by men, but that they are elsewhere. So when you said this:

"To refer to your point above..... dangerous and undesirable jobs like banking, stockbroking, software developers, government ministers....... highly paid professions that are completely male dominated. " you are actually proving my point! You'll notice that those jobs are neither dangerous nor undesirable. They have, as you correctly state, a higher relative share of men. They also, more importantly, are areas where the discussion around gender quotas are front and centre!

As for point 2:

"And desirable jobs or otherwise good careers dominated by women.....the likes of receptionist, contract cleaners, child minders ....lowest paid roles all dominated by women." No disrespect to those roles, but they are low paid because they are low skilled jobs or in the case of childminders, vocational. It is true there is no gender quota being sought here, but it's also true that these sort of roles are not the sort of ones being sought after by the feminist mob. When I say gender quota I should have stated what it really is, a female share quota.

As for the topic itself, the best person for the job (in my opinion) is Michael Lyster. The point was made elsewhere that he was focusing on his health, but I've read interviews, I've heard interviews from him on tv, and he really doesn't some all that keen on retiring. Interpret it as you will.

"I can't say that I want to go but then I can't say that I don't either," admitted Lyster in an interview on the Ray D'Arcy Show on RTÉ Radio 1.

"You get on with your life, I'm not dwelling on it - there are more important things out there than careers or television stations."

Bill O'Herlihy retired at 75, there was no issue with RTE keeping him on. There was a big hole left when he retired, the same is true of Lyster. Lyster is merely approaching 65 though, there's no doubt he could have kept going, and I suspect that were it not for looking to have a diversity hire in there (RTE have openly stated they want gender quotas) he would have been asked to stay for longer.

If we were starting with a blank canvas here ignoring the existence of the incumbent then I'd have no problem with Joanne Cantwell getting the job. Even as it is I have no issue with her getting it really, she has been working in sport for many years, and hasn't made any major faux pas. She has a nice personality and has done a good job in anything she has done. Good for her, sincerely.

The environment we live with now where this hire will be celebrated in a "you go girl" fashion by others, including RTE themselves, which blow out the meritocracy aspect of this is not healthy though. I don't claim that she only got it because of "positive discrimination", she had earned her place in the discussion, but it certainly didn't harm her chances of getting the gig. I'm sure Joanne, who seems a very reasonable person, would not want to be hired with any of that whirling around in her head.

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Interesting that you pick medicine.

A highly paid profession that requires the very highest of qualifications. Unlike other highly paid professions, say software development or stockbroking or property development for example.

A profession that requires you getting the very highest level in the leaving cert, to get into medicine at University.

The reason more young doctors are women is because more medicine students are women. This is absolutely nothing to do with positive discrimination or favouritism towards women; and only to do with the completely level playing field that is the Leaving Cert points system.

What's the beef with software developers and property development? They are hardly a piece of piss now are they?!

There is no issue with there being more women than men in medicine, good for them.

If I were to hazard a guess I'd say medicine pays better than either of those professions too, so I don't really get what point you're trying to make there. In any event choosing a career due to expected salary is a rather poor way of selecting a career, this is something (and loath as I am to pander to any group, a really bad trait in anybody) which women tend to do less in my opinion.

Both of these things are about personal choice surely. That should be all that matters. If more women want to be doctors and more men want to work in quant trading in finance then good for them. Let the market dictate the best candidates for jobs and let's end this quota nonsense and all these programs designed to push girls into STEM and the like. For what it's worth I don't buy into the idea that because an individual is a guy or girl that there are certain jobs that will suit them better (even though in broader terms there clearly are differences in the preferences of the entire population of both genders).

I wouldn't want quotas to have more male doctors more than I want quotas for female politicians or women in tech. You'll only ever hear about a demand for one of those quotas to be introduced though, no prizes for guessing which one!