Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Hurling V Football

Options
1235

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    Patww79 wrote: »
    People just need to get used to the way football is now too.

    No they don't. Rules can and should be changed to improve the game if possible.
    The complaint is that it's slow and laborious with attacking on the break these days but that's basically what soccer is and millions watch and enjoy that.

    A well oiled marketing machine can convince people of lots of things ...

    I remember Dunphy blathering on about the amazing Italian art of defending after Milan and Juve played out a turgid, soul destroying 0-0 draw in the champion's league final in 2003. There is a lot of emperor's new clothes stuff that goes on around sports punditry.


  • Registered Users Posts: 67,434 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    I didn't say that one was better or worse. I just said that there is no doubt that hurling is more entertaining right now than football.

    Also, I dispute the idea that football is more tactically sophisticated than hurling. I think that people often confuse slow and stodgy for tactically sophisticated. As far as I can, football right now has no interesting tactics. Any fool can pack the defence and look to play on the counter - its not clever or innovative - its just the obvious thing to do if you want to keep the game tight because you don't have confidence in your players to win individual battles. And pretending that one particular variation on that theme is somehow fundamentally new is nonsense. The problem with football now is that the rules don't give enough advantage to teams that want to play a more open attacking style.

    On the other hand I think that hurling has quite a lot of interesting tactical stuff going on. Anyone who thinks that the 4 semi finalists were just lashing it up and down the field and hoping for the best wasn't watching properly. Look at the way Clare adjusted their tactical set up after the first quarter - it was a subtle enough change but it completely changed the flow of the game.

    I think you missed the point and also invented something I didn't say. Ie - That hurling isn't tactical.


  • Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    I think you missed the point and also invented something I didn't say. Ie - That hurling isn't tactical.

    Well you pretty much say exactly that in this post
    That was a fascinating match this year.

    Yes it was defensive, but that can have an attraction too.

    One of the reasons I enjoy soccer is that it is more formally tactical. That can be boring for some, but I enjoy it mostly. Rugby too for the same reason.

    Hurling can be a frenzy of scoring, end to end stuff, but essentially it is about who wins the last 15-10 minute shoot out. As a neutral I am fully tuned into those minutes and not really engaged with the earlier stuff.

    Watched a bit of basketball in the states and the crowds treated that game similarly. Sit in the bars having drinks and meals during the game and only really engage for the last bit.

    The idea that hurling matches are just reduced to a 'shootout in the last 15 min' is laughable.

    The Galway Clare match was more interesting from a tactical point of view than any football game I have seen this year (as well as being more exciting).

    The 2 point I was making, which I stand by, are

    1. that some football pundits (including yourself in the post above) mistake stodgy turgid muck for tactical sophistication. (The same is true of a lot of soccer punditry BTW)

    2. Many of the same pundits (including yourself in the post above) mistake fast paced open attacking play for tactical naivety. The fallacy seems to be that since the play is moving fast there cannot be any thought going into the tactical side of things.

    I would argue that hurling, as well as generally being more exciting than football these days is also tactically far more sophisticated. Football could be equally sophisticated but the current rules benefit strength and power too much to allow that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 577 ✭✭✭gerryirl


    For whatever reason, the changes that have been made to the hurling championship structure in recent years have generally been good ones, whereas football has had a hit-and-miss record in that regard.

    Also, I think that football has suffered a lot from an obsession with rugby. You see it in the language used by commentators - "recycling possession, overlaps, running off the shoulder" and the obsession with strength and tackling among players and managers.

    I think that reducing to 13-a-side would be a good first step to save the game. It would create more space for attackers, give more of an advantage to lighter players over big ones. Also it would favour counties with smaller populations a little bit as they would stand a better chance in a 13 v 13 contest than a 15 v 15.

    As it stands, players have got so big and powerful that it is almost impossible for attackers to create any space within the scoring zone. So the game has become more about being able to retain possession until the opposition fouls you to give away a kickable free. For most people that is not very entertaining to watch.

    Possession based tactics cannot work so well in hurling because the scoring zone is so much larger, so the penalty for getting caught in possession is much greater. And of course it means teams have to defend against shooters over a much larger area. In football most players cannot reliably score a point from 30m away from goal so there is little incentive to pressure the opposition in their own half.

    I should say that I grew up playing football (never touched a hurley as a kid) and that is very much my first sporting love. But anyone who thinks that it can compete with hurling for entertainment value (at intercounty level) these days is delusional. I think that football can be saved but it needs some intervention to eliminate the obsession with strength and power.


    Agree completely with you


  • Registered Users Posts: 67,434 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Well you pretty much say exactly that in this post



    The idea that hurling matches are just reduced to a 'shootout in the last 15 min' is laughable.

    The Galway Clare match was more interesting from a tactical point of view than any football game I have seen this year (as well as being more exciting).

    The 2 point I was making, which I stand by, are

    1. that some football pundits (including yourself in the post above) mistake stodgy turgid muck for tactical sophistication. (The same is true of a lot of soccer punditry BTW)

    2. Many of the same pundits (including yourself in the post above) mistake fast paced open attacking play for tactical naivety. The fallacy seems to be that since the play is moving fast there cannot be any thought going into the tactical side of things.

    I would argue that hurling, as well as generally being more exciting than football these days is also tactically far more sophisticated. Football could be equally sophisticated but the current rules benefit strength and power too much to allow that.

    And nowhere did I say that hurling is not tactical.
    I made no mistake, I gave my opinion on what I enjoy about other game.

    I also enjoy hurling by the way. But I think it has very obvious problems in appeal. As I said earlier, some of, if not the worst sporting occasions I have attended have been hurling games.
    I don't think I am alone in that.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    Patww79 wrote: »
    I'd rather let it stay as it is than ridiculous stuff like shot clocks as some have suggested.

    I agree that a shot clock is a bad idea but that doesn't mean that change is not required.

    Personally I think 13 a side would be a good step. It would incentivise a different style of play less based on upper body strength without trying artificially enforce a certain mode of play in the way that a shot would.


  • Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    Patww79 wrote: »
    Good idea on the face of it, but I wouldn't purely because you're taking two young fellas off the pitch at every age level in every club around the country.

    Actually I think that one good aspect of 13-a-side would be that it would reduce the number of intercounty players. There are far too many fellas going around with a county jersey who fancy themselves as elite athletes and aren't within an asses roar of that status (obv not
    referring to the elite senior intercounty teams there)

    I agree that you would need to do something at club level to maintain participation levels, but there are other ways to compensate for that if it becomes an issue (eg have more teams in a club/ bigger panels/more subs).


  • Registered Users Posts: 67,434 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Actually I think that one good aspect of 13-a-side would be that it would reduce the number of intercounty players. There are far too many fellas going around with a county jersey who fancy themselves as elite athletes and aren't within an asses roar of that status (obv not
    referring to the elite senior intercounty teams there)

    I agree that you would need to do something at club level to maintain participation levels, but there are other ways to compensate for that if it becomes an issue (eg have more teams in a club/ bigger panels/more subs).

    Making a fundamental change to the game because a couple of cocky lads piss you off is not really good policy. :rolleyes:

    I don't think more space is going to make any great change anyway and will play further into the hands of teams that can concentrate on fitness, I.E. you would get athletes rather than footballers coming to the fore.


  • Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    Making a fundamental change to the game because a couple of cocky lads piss you off is not really good policy. :rolleyes:
    seriously, how many times are you going to misrepresent other peoples argument. I quite clearly said that the reason for proposing 13-a-side was to do with incetivising attacking play vs strangth power.
    I don't think more space is going to make any great change anyway and will play further into the hands of teams that can concentrate on fitness, I.E. you would get athletes rather than footballers coming to the fore.

    this makes zero sense. Of course extra space would change the game. Also what do you mean by 'fitness' - there is more than one type of fitness. In fact that is the whole point. The current set up gives an advantage to teams with lots of upper body strength. That's why we have declining skill levels and footballers that look like body builders - they spend too much time in the weights room rather than with the ball. One thing that is quite noticeable with a lot of current intercounty guys (even on the best teams) is how much the performance level drops near the end of the game - you can't look like a body builder and have great endurance.Extra space tips the balance in favour of lighter guys with more endurance. It should also favour more skillful players as higher skill level would tend to make you more efficient with your energy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 67,434 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    seriously, how many times are you going to misrepresent other peoples argument. I quite clearly said that the reason for proposing 13-a-side was to do with incetivising attacking play vs strangth power.
    So you didn't say that one of the benefits of making it 13 a side would be to curtail young fellas strutting around like elite athletes? :confused:

    this makes zero sense. Of course extra space would change the game. Also what do you mean by 'fitness' - there is more than one type of fitness. In fact that is the whole point. The current set up gives an advantage to teams with lots of upper body strength. That's why we have declining skill levels and footballers that look like body builders - they spend too much time in the weights room rather than with the ball. One thing that is quite noticeable with a lot of current intercounty guys (even on the best teams) is how much the performance level drops near the end of the game - you can't look like a body builder and have great endurance.Extra space tips the balance in favour of lighter guys with more endurance. It should also favour more skillful players as higher skill level would tend to make you more efficient with your energy.

    A lot of might in all that.
    I think you see fall offf's in energy levels towards the end of all physical sports.

    I agree on the upper body thing, but I think 13 a side will not necessarily produce more skillful players. You are inviting players to make better use of space and that would be easily done with athletes rather than footballers.

    I don't have the answer btw. I would ban the hand pass for a while first and see does it produce a change.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,077 ✭✭✭C__MC


    I love hurling but miss the old days of a good defensive structure and plenty of physicality with scores tough to come by

    I’m talking games like
    Kilkenny Galway 2012 final
    Kk tipp 2010/09
    Kilkenny tipp 2014 replay
    Cork Waterford 2006
    Tipp Waterford 2008

    Hurling has changed. It’s more athletic now, each player is physically as strong as what you can get out there. In stark contrast to 10 years ago

    Consider limerick 2018 and 2007


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 430 ✭✭6am7f9zxrsjvnb


    Good article in the Sport section of the RTÉ news app about Hurling..
    Fans of ‘the greatest game on earth’ continue to slap themselves on the back despite the fact that 22 of our 32 counties can’t be arsed to field teams at any serious level.
    Football people are full of self loathing and are falling over themselves to denigrate the game,lamenting the cynicism they feel is destroying it...Personally,i’d rather watch a dour Ulster Championship game with a total of 10 scores than watch the ‘instant classics’ served up in Croker yesterday.

    Beef No.1 -Lads belting sliothars over the bar from 70 yards out while their six ’attacking’ teammates watch it sail over.

    2. Ger Canning describing a point from a 65 as ‘genius’ despite the fact that it’s done with the same frequency as a golfer tapping in a 2 foot putt.

    3 Loughnane , Cusack et al banging on about ‘sweeper systems’ when it’s obvious to anyone outside Munster and Kilkenny that tactics are utterly redundant once the game actually starts.

    4. The almost total lack of actual ‘team’ scores- y’know like 4 consecutive passes before a score

    5. Cyril Cusak saying something like ‘we’ve seen more drama in twenty minutes at Semple Stadium today than in the whole World Cup so far blah blah blah

    Hurling is the new basketball. Some of us prefer field sports where scores don’t come around every 77 seconds.

    Ahh, that felt good.


  • Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    So you didn't say that one of the benefits of making it 13 a side would be to curtail young fellas strutting around like elite athletes? :confused:

    .
    I did

    I did not however suggest
    Making a fundamental change to the game because a couple of cocky lads piss you off is not really good policy. :rolleyes:

    I gave my reason for suggesting the change and said that one of the benefits of it would also be fewer intercounty players. But don't let that get in the way of a good straw man ....
    I think you see fall offf's in energy levels towards the end of all physical sports.

    ya but it is much more noticeable in football than in many other field sports (eg hurling).

    As for 'athletes vs footballers', space is exploited by being able to kick accurately (both into space and over the bar when you have the ball in space) so it would reward skill rather than endurance.


  • Registered Users Posts: 67,434 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    I did

    I did not however suggest



    I gave my reason for suggesting the change and said that one of the benefits of it would also be fewer intercounty players. But don't let that get in the way of a good straw man ....
    Sorry for paraphrasing this:
    There are far too many fellas going around with a county jersey who fancy themselves as elite athletes and aren't within an asses roar of that status
    but I thought having to watch young fellas who fancy themselves (cocky?) going around when they arn't within an asses roar of elite athletes was annoying you (pissing you off).

    Maybe they were causing a different reaction? :confused:
    ya but it is much more noticeable in football than in many other field sports (eg hurling).

    As for 'athletes vs footballers', space is exploited by being able to kick accurately (both into space and over the bar when you have the ball in space) so it would reward skill rather than endurance.

    They could just as easily run and hand pass it into space.
    Creating space at the moment by false runs etc can be tactically fascinating. Skilled teamwork too.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,314 ✭✭✭megadodge


    seriously, how many times are you going to misrepresent other peoples argument. I quite clearly said that the reason for proposing 13-a-side was to do with incetivising attacking play vs strangth power.



    this makes zero sense. Of course extra space would change the game. Also what do you mean by 'fitness' - there is more than one type of fitness. In fact that is the whole point. The current set up gives an advantage to teams with lots of upper body strength. That's why we have declining skill levels and footballers that look like body builders - they spend too much time in the weights room rather than with the ball. One thing that is quite noticeable with a lot of current intercounty guys (even on the best teams) is how much the performance level drops near the end of the game - you can't look like a body builder and have great endurance.Extra space tips the balance in favour of lighter guys with more endurance. It should also favour more skillful players as higher skill level would tend to make you more efficient with your energy.

    If you want your argument to be taken seriously don't spout that absolute boll*cks!


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,574 ✭✭✭deaddonkey15


    Good article in the Sport section of the RTÉ news app about Hurling..
    Fans of ‘the greatest game on earth’ continue to slap themselves on the back despite the fact that 22 of our 32 counties can’t be arsed to field teams at any serious level.
    Football people are full of self loathing and are falling over themselves to denigrate the game,lamenting the cynicism they feel is destroying it...Personally,i’d rather watch a dour Ulster Championship game with a total of 10 scores than watch the ‘instant classics’ served up in Croker yesterday.

    Beef No.1 -Lads belting sliothars over the bar from 70 yards out while their six ’attacking’ teammates watch it sail over.

    2. Ger Canning describing a point from a 65 as ‘genius’ despite the fact that it’s done with the same frequency as a golfer tapping in a 2 foot putt.

    3 Loughnane , Cusack et al banging on about ‘sweeper systems’ when it’s obvious to anyone outside Munster and Kilkenny that tactics are utterly redundant once the game actually starts.

    4. The almost total lack of actual ‘team’ scores- y’know like 4 consecutive passes before a score

    5. Cyril Cusak saying something like ‘we’ve seen more drama in twenty minutes at Semple Stadium today than in the whole World Cup so far blah blah blah

    Hurling is the new basketball. Some of us prefer field sports where scores don’t come around every 77 seconds.

    Ahh, that felt good.

    All your points are horsesh*t.


  • Registered Users Posts: 57 ✭✭BannerBoy1


    Good article in the Sport section of the RTÉ news app about Hurling..
    Fans of ‘the greatest game on earth’ continue to slap themselves on the back despite the fact that 22 of our 32 counties can’t be arsed to field teams at any serious level.
    Football people are full of self loathing and are falling over themselves to denigrate the game,lamenting the cynicism they feel is destroying it...Personally,i’d rather watch a dour Ulster Championship game with a total of 10 scores than watch the ‘instant classics’ served up in Croker yesterday.

    Beef No.1 -Lads belting sliothars over the bar from 70 yards out while their six ’attacking’ teammates watch it sail over.

    2. Ger Canning describing a point from a 65 as ‘genius’ despite the fact that it’s done with the same frequency as a golfer tapping in a 2 foot putt.

    3 Loughnane , Cusack et al banging on about ‘sweeper systems’ when it’s obvious to anyone outside Munster and Kilkenny that tactics are utterly redundant once the game actually starts.

    4. The almost total lack of actual ‘team’ scores- y’know like 4 consecutive passes before a score

    5. Cyril Cusak saying something like ‘we’ve seen more drama in twenty minutes at Semple Stadium today than in the whole World Cup so far blah blah blah

    Hurling is the new basketball. Some of us prefer field sports where scores don’t come around every 77 seconds.

    Ahh, that felt good.


    With all due respect its seems as though you didn't actually watch any of the games at the weekend and just watched the highlights of the scores. I mean I personally feel like your responses were very uneducated. I wish it was as simple as simply "baiting" the ball over from 70 yards out and as easy as a 2 yard put.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,426 ✭✭✭shockframe


    As a Limerickman who grew up playing more hurling I'd have to say 'the best game in the world' talk is tedious in the extreme.

    Hurling on the face of it has some advantages but if you look closer at it there's some things to consider.

    1. The ball in hurling is far lighter now. In the 1998 A-I semi finals the combined scores of the Clare-Offaly draw and the Kilkenny Wexford games was 53 in total. Limerick and Cork scored 55 times yesterday.

    The ball used in Football is still the same size as it was 20 years ago. If Football went the same way there could be a huge increase in scores. It's unfair to judge football against Hurling on this.It's kind of taken from Hurling being so easy to score.

    2. Of the 10 counties that competed in this years round robin system 8 of them have populations over 100,000 and Kilkenny not far off this figure. Counties in the top half of the country have much smaller resources. For all the flak say Fermanagh took they have a population of 30,000 to pick from. Despite being the more widely played game I reckon that there is a big underestimating the difficulties for a lot of teams with such limited playing numbers and supporters amongst non-football people.

    3. Even with that there are still counties with big numbers like Kildare, Donegal, Kerry, Mayo who dont meet with the same regularity as the top hurling counties due to distance apart. When they do meet you tend to get some serious games.

    4. Football could do with a bit more positivity yes but Hurling punditry leaves a lot to be desired due to reluctance to criticise. Perceptions of both sports have clouded peoples judgements. Sky is about the only TV station that shows football in a good light but the bitterness from rte towards it is so strong (same station that slate the game at every turn) that people haven't cottoned on to sky's decent coverage.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,018 ✭✭✭Bridge93


    Much prefer Sky's coverage. Spend the time properly analysing where they can instead of RTEs hurlers getting teary eyed over the game or Joe Brolly shouting over everyone on the football. Rte spout a load of tired cliches over both codes. Ger Loughnane must've mentioned corks mental strength 15 times on Sunday


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭mickmackey1


    shockframe wrote: »
    1. The ball in hurling is far lighter now.
    I've heard that claim bandied about but yet to see it substantiated. Have you actual proof of that?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 22,324 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    The size and weight rules for a sliotar haven't changed in almost a hundred years. There was a short time when they used rubber cores, but its back to cork now and has been for years.

    Also a heavier sliotar would travel further and be less vulnerable to wind knocking it off course so it would make the long range scores easier, not harder, and the ball would be harder to catch and control on the Hurley resulting in more scrappy games.

    But all this is silly anyway because the ability to cover long distances is a core part of the game, teams have to vary their attack and defend against multiple styles of attack and this is why you often see 'purple patches' as one team dominates for 10 minutes while the other team adjusts their strategy and counters it forcing them to change.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,148 ✭✭✭mountgomery burns


    shockframe wrote: »
    As a Limerickman who grew up playing more hurling I'd have to say 'the best game in the world' talk is tedious in the extreme.

    Hurling on the face of it has some advantages but if you look closer at it there's some things to consider.

    1. The ball in hurling is far lighter now. In the 1998 A-I semi finals the combined scores of the Clare-Offaly draw and the Kilkenny Wexford games was 53 in total. Limerick and Cork scored 55 times yesterday.

    The ball used in Football is still the same size as it was 20 years ago. If Football went the same way there could be a huge increase in scores. It's unfair to judge football against Hurling on this.It's kind of taken from Hurling being so easy to score.

    2. Of the 10 counties that competed in this years round robin system 8 of them have populations over 100,000 and Kilkenny not far off this figure. Counties in the top half of the country have much smaller resources. For all the flak say Fermanagh took they have a population of 30,000 to pick from. Despite being the more widely played game I reckon that there is a big underestimating the difficulties for a lot of teams with such limited playing numbers and supporters amongst non-football people.

    3. Even with that there are still counties with big numbers like Kildare, Donegal, Kerry, Mayo who dont meet with the same regularity as the top hurling counties due to distance apart. When they do meet you tend to get some serious games.
    .

    How many times have Limerick played Kilkenny since 1973? Waterford were competing with KK/Cork between 2002 yet only played Kilkenny once in 6 years up until 2008.

    And populations, what chance do the Fermanagh hurlers have if its that much of a struggle for the footballers?

    The top teams in football in the last 15 years have been pretty much as regular as hurling. They extend to Dublin, Mayo, Kerry, Tyrone and Donegal (more recently) with a few appearances from others. 5 teams won all irelands, same as hurling in a 33 team championship and the best teams still typically win out.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,252 ✭✭✭Sterling Archer


    The whole debate doesn't make sense, We compare these two because they are our games, But they are very different sports, Why not argue why hurling is better than handball or why Rugby is better than Soccer.

    They are completely different games, football Used to be a hit and hope game (high ball up the middle) and it has become a running game and a direct passing game.

    Hurling is still a hit a hope (poor description but it gets the point across) Long balls contested lots of 50/50s, however I've see a lot more direct hurling this year than any other, lots of running forward with short passes (the way football slowly changed to what it is now)

    Both codes have pros and cons..
    Hurling folk will say Hurling is the more skilful sport and it is
    Football folk will say Football has a higher number of counties playing at the top level and it has

    Both codes need to be fixed.. with the level of physicality displayed nowadays we need to consider moving the 13 V 13 and allow 1 extra sub

    Hurling:
    I love seeing hearts broken from 100 yards however it can sometimes be a ping pong game of scores from half way (I'm well aware this is not easy to do)

    Football:
    Consider either a hardpass rule (similar to rugby league phases rule) or a shot-clock (similar to basketball, which used to have a similar issue of "Keep-ball" before the shot-clock)
    I would completely avoid a "back-field" or halfway rule

    But again, this one is better than the other is pointless really,
    There are hurling purists who have "Hurling fields"
    Football purists who have the "Football pitch"
    And the folks who love both codes and have "The Gaa Pitch"


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,392 ✭✭✭robbiezero


    I disagree that you cannot compare them.
    For me the Mayo-v-Kildare game was fairly comparable to a hurling match. End to end action, great pace to the game, lots of scores, some crackers, physicality, skill, liberal use of the boot to get the ball forward etc.
    Some of the Dublin - Mayo All-Irelands likewise. The Kerry Dublin semi-final of 2013 would rank right up there with any hurling match for me in all aspects of the game.

    Then other football games, which while intriguing enough in their own right cannot be compared to hurling as they are just completely different e.g. Dublin v Tyrone, interesting, but never really edge of the seat, take your breath away stuff. Kerry v Galway was just too bad to compare to anything.

    My own preference for football would be games like the Mayo v Kildare game rather than the defensive death by strangulation games that we see quite a lot of, even though they can be mildly fascinating in their own right.
    I think it is premature to be making any major changes to football just yet. A lot of the reasons for why top teams set up as they do in the modern game is to cope with a marvelous Dublin side which might come back to the pack in a few years and we could see teams change how they set up again.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,148 ✭✭✭mountgomery burns


    Don't get why people are surprised at the comparison. Both our own indigenous sports run within the same organization.

    Yeah fine they are different sports, but not completely different as some suggest. The rules are extremely closely aligned. What other sports have rulebooks that mirror each other so closely?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,863 ✭✭✭Pogue eile


    Shane_ef wrote: »

    Football folk will say Football has a higher number of counties playing at the top level and it has

    Is it though? Anyone of 7/8 teams could win the Hurling AI next year, you would be doing well to make a reasoned case for half that number in football. One of the massive deficiencies in football is the glaringly obvious gap between the top teams and the rest, at least the hurling championship is tiered to offset this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,018 ✭✭✭Bridge93


    You couldn't make a similar argument for football no. But that's largely because hurling doesn't have a team nearly as strong as current Dublin. It's the same scenario as we had with Kilkenny a few years back.
    Football has more depth beyond trying to win the competition


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,863 ✭✭✭Pogue eile


    Bridge93 wrote: »
    You couldn't make a similar argument for football no. But that's largely because hurling doesn't have a team nearly as strong as current Dublin. It's the same scenario as we had with Kilkenny a few years back.
    Football has more depth beyond trying to win the competition

    You are mixing quantity with quality. Its not the same scenario as KK at all, because its not just Dublin who hand out hidings to the lesser counties its all the top counties that are doing it on a regualr basis.

    Would you not agree that football needs to introduce a tierd championship? I'm not really a fan of this comapring both codes, apples and oranges etc. but there is very little doubt that the hurling championship model with Christy Ring, Nicky Rackard is far better.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,018 ✭✭✭Bridge93


    Yeah I feel it should be tiered to a certain extent. There are too many pointless games at the beginning in Leinster in particular. It's also slightly bizarre that Galway and mayo keep meeting in Connacht round one while Leitrim get through to the semi finals with a win over the other worst team in the group

    But at the same time there is a certain romanticism about Kildare going to Carlow and losing, Wicklow winning a game for the first time in about a million years and getting a shot at Dublin or Tipp getting to the AI semi finals that you don't get in hurling as it's to a large extent a closed shop.

    A middle ground somewhere would be great. What that is is anyone's guess


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 579 ✭✭✭puzl


    I don't know what all these lads who like apples are talking about, to me you can't beat a good orange. Sure, even the colour is better, never mind the flavour!


Advertisement