nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Second Captains

ballsymchugh

Thought I'd update the OP with links and stuff for anyone who stumbles across this.

The former Off the Ball hosts have partnered with The Irish Times to do a series of weekly podcasts. They go online each Tuesday and cover a variety of sports, with a number of contributors including Sid Lowe, Richie Sadlier, Gerry Thornley and Shane Horgan.

They can be found:
On The Irish Times' site: http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/second-captains
On Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/secondcaptains-it-com
On iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/ie/podcast/second-captains-irish-times/id647893016?mt=2

Or if you prefer not to use iTunes for your podcasts, use this link in whatever app you use (Thanks to youcancallmeal): http://feeds.feedburner.com/secondcaptainsitcom

And here are their Twitter and Facebook accounts.

Cheers,
wnolan1992

so they're almost finished their gardening leave...

where will they end up?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

lawred2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The same consensus that refuses to acknowledge any of the valid reasons why people voted for Brexit, and instead lazily puts it down to "xenophobia".

Yeah and trotting out the cosy liberal consensus cliché isn't a lazy substitution for a point at all...

Raisins

redbuck wrote: »

Murph is grating on me more and more every single episode, his smarmy, smug attitude and along with all the in jokes is making me skip episodes more and more where once I listened to every single episode no matter what.

Couldn't disagree with you any more. My opinion is completely the opposite I think he carries the podcast. He's extremely witty I don't find him in any way smarmy or smug I don't know where you could get that from. I was speaking to a guy in the UK who was saying a lot of his friends listen to the pod and find him really funny. I also find his opinions to be very well reasoned and well thought out both in print and on the pod. He's the best GAA analyst out there. He's also a great counter balance to Ken at times who goes on these deliberately provocative rants that even Ken himself doesn't believe in. Murph tends to take the sting out of those. I don't think the pod would even keep half its listeners without murph but everyone has a different opinion I guess.

Dots1982

Raisins wrote: »

He's the best GAA analyst out there. .

Ah mate, he's nowhere near. He's barely worth listening to on GAA.

dr.kenneth noisewater

Raisins wrote: »

redbuck wrote: »

Murph is grating on me more and more every single episode, his smarmy, smug attitude and along with all the in jokes is making me skip episodes more and more where once I listened to every single episode no matter what.

Couldn't disagree with you any more. My opinion is completely the opposite I think he carries the podcast. He's extremely witty I don't find him in any way smarmy or smug I don't know where you could get that from. I was speaking to a guy in the UK who was saying a lot of his friends listen to the pod and find him really funny. I also find his opinions to be very well reasoned and well thought out both in print and on the pod. He's the best GAA analyst out there. He's also a great counter balance to Ken at times who goes on these deliberately provocative rants that even Ken himself doesn't believe in. Murph tends to take the sting out of those. I don't think the pod would even keep half its listeners without murph but everyone has a different opinion I guess.

Hi Mrs Murphy ;)

Raisins

Dots1982 wrote: »

Ah mate, he's nowhere near. He's barely worth listening to on GAA.

Well maybe an exaggeration I might stand corrected, give me a handful that are better. There's nobody in the times or in the independent or rte that I'd listen to before him. They're plastered in ex players who make a wage in stating the obvious.

Arghus

He doesn't grate on me as much as he does others, but I'd struggle to see what the show would actually lose if they lost Murph.

bren2001

Raisins wrote: »

Couldn't disagree with you any more. My opinion is completely the opposite I think he carries the podcast. He's extremely witty I don't find him in any way smarmy or smug I don't know where you could get that from. I was speaking to a guy in the UK who was saying a lot of his friends listen to the pod and find him really funny. I also find his opinions to be very well reasoned and well thought out both in print and on the pod. He's the best GAA analyst out there. He's also a great counter balance to Ken at times who goes on these deliberately provocative rants that even Ken himself doesn't believe in. Murph tends to take the sting out of those. I don't think the pod would even keep half its listeners without murph but everyone has a different opinion I guess.

I like Murph most of the time but to say he carries the podcast is bonkers. He is by far the most easily replaced out of the three.

corwill

bren2001 wrote: »

I like Murph most of the time but to say he carries the podcast is bonkers. He is by far the most easily replaced out of the three.

I think he largely does a grand job as the jokey/foil third man, but I often find myself wondering why he hasn't added a bit more substance to his 'product' down the years (as he seems smart/capable enough to have done so).

Eoin has a future ahead of in broadcasting, thought he was impressive in his presenting stints in Setanta, and he's a good radio interviewer, and Ken has his feet under the table as a soccer journo at the IT.

Murph might do very well indeed to stand on his own two feet if the band broke up.

Maybe I'm being unfair, or just plain ignorant of non-SC output he may have put out there. But I've not been blown away by his IT articles.

Dots1982

Raisins wrote: »

Well maybe an exaggeration I might stand corrected, give me a handful that are better. .

My mates, the average lad down the pub, my Ma. ::D

While I think GAA coverage is poor in the media I don't think Second Captains really bring a lot to the table GAA coverage wise. They never really lead the national debate like OTB and to a lesser extent Wooly's GAA hour have been able to. SC GAA's coverage is very very meh IMO.

Raisins

corwill wrote: »

he's a good radio interviewer

He really isn't he's a terrible interviewer. I found myself wondering loads of times whether he had ever had any formal training in how to interview a guest. He specialises in leading questions (a pet peeve) and also regularly asks really long winding questions. I do like him though but he's not a good interviewer.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Turned off SC for the first time since the episode after Trump got elected. Murph was intolerable.

Never interrupt g00als you moron.

...And he kept interrupting.

Go away.

yosser hughes

bren2001 wrote: »

I like Murph most of the time but to say he carries the podcast is bonkers. He is by far the most easily replaced out of the three.

I disagree. Eoin is ordinary enough and not really that good an interviewer. All three work well together though. It's a good collective and of far higher a standard than OTB. I'm not sure why people feel the need to hypothetically get rid of one or other. It's a good podcast and compared to what say the tax funded national broadcaster produces, with its army of staff; it really beggars belief how RTE haven't even bothered to raise its own standards. They haven't bothered because they don't have to obviously;they get paid anyway. It's a terrible indictment of state funded media.

Dr.Winston O'Boogie

dulpit wrote: »

Very interesting to hear of the way Giles treated Ken/Mark back in the Newstalk days. Didn't think he was such a dick,but there you go...

Which episode is this in?

Where is Eoin by the way? No explanation of his absence.

dr.kenneth noisewater

Dr.Winston O'Boogie wrote:

Where is Eoin by the way? No explanation of his absence.

On his honeymoon they said last week

Richard Hillman

corwill wrote: »

To be honest, it sounds like you're a big fan of SC, except for pretty much everything that makes the lads themselves. If you want a podcast that affirms your right-wing political opinions, you've absolutely come to the wrong shop.

You are fan, I am a fan but if they keep going down a specific route in either direction they will alienate a large section of the audience, people will switch off, and there won't be a show. Nobody wants that outcome.

corwill

Richard Hillman wrote: »

You are fan, I am a fan but if they keep going down a specific route in either direction they will alienate a large section of the audience, people will switch off, and there won't be a show. Nobody wants that outcome.

A "large" section of the audience can't tolerate contrary opinions, maybe need safe spaces or trigger warnings built into the pod? Maybe they could just get over themselves.

Trimm Trabb

Richard Hillman wrote: »

You are fan, I am a fan but if they keep going down a specific route in either direction they will alienate a large section of the audience, people will switch off, and there won't be a show. Nobody wants that outcome.

I disagree - you might switch off - but they will still attract a huge audience.

lawred2

corwill wrote: »

A "large" section of the audience can't tolerate contrary opinions, maybe need safe spaces or trigger warnings built into the pod? Maybe they could just get over themselves.

you do know that not everyone has the same opinion on things as you?

very boring world if you actively seek to surround yourself with those that agree with you..

yosser hughes

lawred2 wrote: »

you do know that not everyone has the same opinion on things as you?

very boring world if you actively seek to surround yourself with those that agree with you..

I agree. It's echo chamber stuff and essentially boils down to a bunch if people confirming their own bias. It's tedious. Whether you come from the same political viewpoint or not,it serves no real purpose. I think a lot of people would get pissed off with this type of lecturing if it were to creep in more often.

corwill

lawred2 wrote: »

you do know that not everyone has the same opinion on things as you?

very boring world if you actively seek to surround yourself with those that agree with you..

Oh, I'm well aware that the world is half full with wrong people. And that's cool, they can yabber away to their hearts' content, but they'll need to extend the same courtesy to everyone else.

Cartman78

"Too much of a hippie Ger for my liking"

:D:D:D:D

Made me actually lol in the office just now

foxtrot101

yosser hughes wrote: »

I agree. It's echo chamber stuff and essentially boils down to a bunch if people confirming their own bias. It's tedious. Whether you come from the same political viewpoint or not,it serves no real purpose. I think a lot of people would get pissed off with this type of lecturing if it were to creep in more often.

Lecturing? Did I miss a couple of podcasts...What lecturing?

Mr.Prodston

I liked it when they did the ghooouullllsss

Loafing Oaf

Mr.Prodston wrote: »

I liked it when they did the ghooouullllsss

They seemed to be a lot more 'adult' this time round. Did a double take when Ken did the 'poppers' one.:eek:

[Deleted User]

Ken needs a politics/general what's going on in the world podcast.

Less of that lisping creep Murph would be nice too.

[Deleted User]

corwill wrote: »

A "large" section of the audience can't tolerate contrary opinions, maybe need safe spaces or trigger warnings built into the pod? Maybe they could just get over themselves.

It's not the contrary opinions that's the problem, it's the lack of balance. They are well capable at discussing contrasting arguments when it comes to sport, which is why they are so interesting to listen to, so it just seems a shame to be completely sticking their head in the sand when it comes to anything political.

I'm not saying I can't listen to an opposing viewpoint, I just wish they would acknowledge valid arguments in the other direction now and again.

wnolan1992

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not the contrary opinions that's the problem, it's the lack of balance. They are well capable at discussing contrasting arguments when it comes to sport, which is why they are so interesting to listen to, so it just seems a shame to be completely sticking their head in the sand when it comes to anything political.

I'm not saying I can't listen to an opposing viewpoint, I just wish they would acknowledge valid arguments in the other direction now and again.

Personally, I don't think they need to provide balance when it comes to politics. They're not a politics podcast, they're a sports podcast. If, in the chatty bits, they reference politics, grand, it's their podcast, part of the reason a lot of people listen is for the lads' personalities. Said it after Trump was elected, I think it was a really good idea to put that extra podcast on the other feed rather than the main one for these reasons.

However, the one issue they've really let themselves down on recently was with that female UFC fighter (Ronda Rousey?). I think on sporting issues they really should strive to have diverse opinions where possible. I would have liked to see them actually examine the accusation that she's a media creation rather than just dismiss it out of hand in the sneering way they did.

lawred2

Edz87 wrote: »

Ken needs a politics/general what's going on in the world podcast.

Less of that lisping creep Murph would be nice too.

This thread has taken a turn recently...

corwill

wnolan1992 wrote: »

... rather than just dismiss it out of hand in the sneering way they did.

I thought they did a perfectly good job of pointing out the inconsistencies and contradictions in that creepy chap's torrid auld nonsense, but that's just me.

Richard Hillman

corwill wrote: »

I thought they did a perfectly good job of pointing out the inconsistencies and contradictions in that creepy chap's torrid auld nonsense, but that's just me.

I thought they were going to discuss Ronda Rousey, not just spend the 5-10 minutes having a go at a journalist they didn't like.