Second Captains

Baggly · 21-02-2018 04:29PM

Dots1982 wrote: »

He doesn’t as much fall down with insights as not really offer any.... i find him bland. Saying McClean is a loose cannon is spot on but hardly anything any adult football supporter in the UK or ireland wouldn’t be able to tell you.

I don’t find the players chair good .. i find it bland or overly earnest..jesus its just sport at the end of the day. I think Ken or Mcdevitt could do as much with it. I basically don’t get sadlier...I don’t know if people like him because he’s affable or because they get something from him that I don’t..

Ok i getcha now. Yeah i find his demeanor ok - so the affability might indeed be a factor. Im inclined to take his interpretation of player reactions and mindset analysis a little bit more seriously than others, but i can take or leave some of what he says. I dont know - he is fine....not defining as a pundit, but not without value too. Im not relying on him for insights or tactical analysis though, so maybe my expectations on him are low?

The players chair is his main gig on SC, so if you arent interested in those, yeah i can get how you dont see his value.

I listen to OTB on the way home from work and/or to football in the evenings, so if im not getting something from SC, ill get it from OTB and vice versa. I dont see them as mutually exclusive.

Ol' Donie · 21-02-2018 04:31PM

Dots1982 wrote: »

Actually another one important to mention, OTB interact with listener feedback better. SC just read out some email from some lad ..who for some reason are always abroad in far flung destinations..and read out their pointless emails that raise nothing interest from my point of view on the show.

If I was determined to have an email read out on the show I’d pretend to be lady subscriber currently living in Vietnam

That's a big one.

Salvation Tambourine · 21-02-2018 04:36PM

frefrefre wrote: »

Both. His insight is poor and he didn’t have much of a career really.

Most of the people I prefer listening to have had no career in top level football, so I suppose that's where we differ.

Dots1982 · 21-02-2018 04:41PM

If i was to take a psych view on richie is that he actually views pro sport as extremely scarring as this was his own experience. He got through this scarring through meeting a psychologicalist. its now like the players chair is his attempt to do this for other sports stars...which is grand i suppose just i actually don’t think they go that deep because its basically one psych session and thousands of people are listening so its trying to be real but it isnt really real when it comes to psych analysis.

Like the shay given interview was ****e i thought..sadlier just tried to chase shay on his mother’s death and frankly went no where and it took 15 mins.

Dots1982 · 21-02-2018 04:43PM

I wouldn’t abuse sadlier for his short career. It’s extremely sad. He could have been an extremely good player for ireland and foil for Keane who played well off a big striker. Morrison and the Doc weren’t in his class to me and sadlier could have been a big big player and a replacement for Niall Quinn that we never found till maybe Kevin doyle.

Arghus · 21-02-2018 05:26PM

tomwaits48 wrote: »

I found the guest on that latest problem political podcast unbearably smug.

Sorry to come late to the party, but -

Really? I thought she was excellent. It's the second time she was on and I think she's one of the best guests they've had on for the political pods.

People complaining that SC is all cosy consensus all of the time would do well to give to that episode a listen.

Every time Ken would make some pronouncement about what he thought Peterson was on about Laura Slattery would step in and, in the most diplomatic way possible, bloody his nose intellectually. Even though they didn't lose the rag with each other, there was no doubt that she disagreed quite heartily with a lot of the quick fire conclusions Ken seemed willing to make.

I loved how she challenged him - a man making a living charging a subscription fee for people to listen to whatever comes into his noggin and then out of his mouth - when he made the grand, but bland, assertion that Capitalism has failed. She wasn't aggressive, she just wanted to know what did he actually mean by that - it sounds good to say it, but how true is it, how do you judge that? - it felt like Ken wasn't used to having his own easy beliefs prodded at a bit.

People quick to say that the pod was a disaster and that it wasn't Ken's finest hour are missing the point of the excercise in my view. What made the pod informative and even instructive in many ways was how it put Peterson's views and all the hoopla surrounding him under the microscope in an interesting way: Ken coming to simple conclusions and then someone who had a more nuanced and less judgemental set of arguments coming to challenge them and showing how there's more to Peterson's views, for better and worse, than initially appears - but without any rancour or easy point scoring.

Laura Slattery tried to honestly engage with Peterson and his ideas and I think she was very fair: she said some very cutting things about the ivory tower world of academia, which was quite brave considering that is her world. I felt I actually learnt some things about Peterson after listening to it - how he can easily be misunderstood and misinterpreted, how he isn't the saviour of us all as some would say and an alt-right bigot as some others would say. I thought it was a great edition of the pod.

dr.kenneth noisewater · 21-02-2018 05:50PM

Dots1982 wrote: »

From all their talk of member led journalism SC have barely broken a story that ended up in Irish papers in their 5 years...that isn't great.

This is a crazy statement imo, journalism is not just breaking news, its about good writing/broadcasting of news. For example, learning something new or insightful about a person in an interview is good journalism, just because the red tops dont publish it on the back page the next day doesn't mean its a bad thing.

Dots1982 · 21-02-2018 06:21PM

dr.kenneth noisewater wrote: »

Dots1982 wrote: »

From all their talk of member led journalism SC have barely broken a story that ended up in Irish papers in their 5 years...that isn't great.

This is a crazy statement imo, journalism is not just breaking news, its about good writing/broadcasting of news. For example, learning something new or insightful about a person in an interview is good journalism, just because the red tops dont publish it on the back page the next day doesn't mean its a bad thing.

My point is they have had about 100 interviews with sports people over the 5 years and i cant remember the press running a story on anything put on the record on those interviews... maybe you shrug and think that’s no big deal. I think ..jesus.. how did they never get a few more big stories from guests.

OTB are getting about one into the papers every couple of months.

It’s not the biggest thing but I don’t think it reflects greatly on their interview style.

Gbear · 21-02-2018 06:22PM

dr.kenneth noisewater wrote: »

This is a crazy statement imo, journalism is not just breaking news, its about good writing/broadcasting of news. For example, learning something new or insightful about a person in an interview is good journalism, just because the red tops dont publish it on the back page the next day doesn't mean its a bad thing.

Headline chasing is just about the least important part of journalism.

It's important for journalists because whoever gets there first sells the papers or gets eyeballs on their ads, but for the consumer, it's just simple facts that you're going to hear about sooner or later. Who breaks the story doesn't make much difference.

Dots1982 · 21-02-2018 06:36PM

Pter wrote: »

Dots1982 wrote: »

It's a long list..

Their main pundits are attending games not speaking from a remove of thru a TV like Ken. Kens views are coloured through press conferences and interviews. I need a bigger slant on what's happening on the pitch. Ken probably hasn't attended a PL game in at least 2 years.

Otb' main pundits have played the game or are journalists, SC's are just journalists apart from Richie sadlier who is a very nice man but I have no idea how he has carved a career as a pundit. To my ear he simply has very little interesting to say about football apart from Millwall stories. He has nothing near to offer like kilbane offers on almost every topic.

Otb can react to live sport. SC do not.

Otb have loads more content to listen.

Arguments occur more frequently on otb. Everyone is in deference to Ken on SC. mcdevitt will say the counterpoint but won't actually full on argue with Ken. Murph is in awe of Ken.

Dan McDonnell for me is simply streets ahead of any other Irish journo when it comes to coverage of the Irish scene. He knows league one Irish eligible players and underage prospects that Ken or Dion would barely have heard of. He knows the domestic scene like Ken and Dion could only dream of. He is also balanced not biased like Ken, Richie and dion with regards to what Ireland should achieve.

I've have just discussed the football end of both shows. SC are in deeper water again when it comes to their weak GAA coverage.

There's a feeling I get from the posts I read here. Fans love the repoiree of the SC boys and kens ability to make us crack up (believe blatter, it doesn't matter for example) and aren't as much worried about getting an insight on what they are watching. This is furthered when I hear people say they want Miguel Delaney off the show. Delaney is a dick on twitter but he is well connected and is a scooping journo that is badly needed on SC.

From all their talk of member led journalism SC have barely broken a story that ended up in Irish papers in their 5 years...that isn't great.

I hope you dont mind me offering up some reaction to your post, and i hope you will take it as constructive discussion, because im not disagreeing with your points out of fanboi-ism.

Its ok to want that wider slant as well as the SC take on events on the pitch. For me, Ken isnt offering a take of whats happening on the pitch - he is offering an interpretation of the wider context behind what happened on the pitch. I dont see SC as competing with regards to getting the nuts and bolts of what happened on the pitch.

I also think, despite some of their live coverage and attendance of games, OTB get as much right in their analysis as they do get it wrong.

I also feel you are coming across as from the 'football man' school of thinking in what you have posted above. Who cares if they have or havent played soccer at a high level - they have dedicated their careers towards analysis of the game. How many games does someone have to play to be taken seriously? Michael Owen played umteen games in the PL - do you value his opinion on things more than Dunphy or Giles, who havent played in decades? Over Dan McDonnell who hasnt played in the PL? How does that work that OTB are better because they have semi recent players on their books?

I dont listen to any GAA coverage, so i couldnt comment on the standard of it, to be fair to you.

And re: Dan McDonnell - he is extremely knowledgable - no argument from me there - but he has so little charisma that i find it really hard to stay with him when he is explaining things. Charisma and being able to structure stories, not just report them, does come into it, especially on a aural format like radio or a podcast.

Finally, i dont think stories breaking in newspapers is the bar for anything these days. Newspapers are a dieing media, with more and more news being published and, more important, consumed on digital media like non-traditional news sites, podcasts and even Twitter, over either newspapers and/or newspaper websites.

Briefly about being an old football man type in my views: nah i just like a mix of ex pros and journos. I probably prefer journos but SC just has journos and Richie sadlier which is not as good a balance as OTB.

Dan McDonnell being knowledgeable but boring. This is where i differ from posters who stand up for SC. I like insight more than one liners although i like both. Dan is very very on the ball in what he says on ireland. Ken comes out with a lot of daft arguments that fall down under any analysis like his one about how Iceland use players from their domestic league for their international team which was categorically untrue and then using an untrue argument to say ireland should play more players from the domestic league even though he didnt name one.

Newspapers are not dying. Their football stories are discussed ad naseum on podcasts, radio, tv etc etc. the fax machine is dying, news papers are just dealing with a changing marketplace.

Dots1982 · 21-02-2018 06:37PM

Weepsie wrote: »

Dots1982 wrote: »

My point is they have had about 100 interviews with sports people over the 5 years and i cant remember the press running a story on anything put on the record on those interviews... maybe you shrug and think that’s no big deal. I think ..jesus.. how did they never get a few more big stories from guests.

OTB are getting about one into the papers every couple of months.

It’s not the biggest thing but I don’t think it reflects greatly on their interview style.

OTB are broadcast on Newstalk, which is owned by a company which owns some of those papers.

It uses Journalists from same papers frequently too

It’s a fair point

Ol' Donie · 21-02-2018 06:46PM

I feel very let down by Second Captains.

Before today, I loved them as much as ever.

But then...

An entire Ireland-Wales rugby podcast...and ZERO Ken Burley?

Come on, guys.

Booooooo-urns.

frefrefre · 21-02-2018 06:58PM

Nokotan wrote: »

Most of the people I prefer listening to have had no career in top level football, so I suppose that's where we differ.

Interesting, care to give examples?
I like Souness, Gary Neville and Giles on the wireless when he’s not beside his overbearing mate.

Baggly · 21-02-2018 07:07PM

Dots1982 wrote: »

Newspapers are not dying. Their football stories are discussed ad naseum on podcasts, radio, tv etc etc. the fax machine is dying, news papers are just dealing with a changing marketplace.

I'd just have to disagree about what keeps papers alive. It's not discussion about stories. It's number of papers being bought. And the number almost universally across the board is down year on year.

Dots1982 · 21-02-2018 09:09PM

Pter wrote: »

Dots1982 wrote: »

Newspapers are not dying. Their football stories are discussed ad naseum on podcasts, radio, tv etc etc. the fax machine is dying, news papers are just dealing with a changing marketplace.

I'd just have to disagree about what keeps papers alive. It's not discussion about stories. It's number of papers being bought. And the number almost universally across the board is down year on year.

Fair enough, its not really related to what I’m arguing, its just what one poster choose to focus on.

Main points
Lack of arguments
Lack of interesting feedback with scumbags
Lack of being able to bounce off live sport (which ken was absolutely brilliant at on OTB)
Too much analysis of press conferences and post match interviews from Ken

jaykhunter · 21-02-2018 10:41PM

Mod Note: Cleaned up a few posts relating to an uncivil poster. Please remember that you can have differing opinions but do not insult your fellow users.

Baggly · 21-02-2018 11:22PM

Dots1982 wrote: »

Fair enough, its not really related to what I’m arguing, its just what one poster choose to focus on.

Main points
Lack of arguments
Lack of interesting feedback with scumbags
Lack of being able to bounce off live sport (which ken was absolutely brilliant at on OTB)
Too much analysis of press conferences and post match interviews from Ken

Fair points.

Cienciano · 22-02-2018 12:14AM

Ol' Donie wrote: »

I feel very let down by Second Captains.

Before today, I loved them as much as ever.

But then...

An entire Ireland-Wales rugby podcast...and ZERO Ken Burley?

Come on, guys.

Booooooo-urns.

We always lose when ken burley makes an appearance. He's ready to stick it to the Welsh and the Irish rugby team let him down.

Arghus · 22-02-2018 12:36AM

Cienciano wrote: »

We always lose when ken burley makes an appearance. He's ready to stick it to the Welsh and the Irish rugby team let him down.

Honestly, I'd put my personal enjoyment of Ken Burley over a win for the rugby team.

Brock Turnpike · 22-02-2018 03:07PM

Dots1982 wrote: »

It's a long list..

Their main pundits are attending games not speaking from a remove of thru a TV like Ken. Kens views are coloured through press conferences and interviews. I need a bigger slant on what's happening on the pitch. Ken probably hasn't attended a PL game in at least 2 years.

I'm not sure this is a big deal? Maybe if you're looking fro tactical insight into the games... Miguel Delaney regularly attends games but I know who I'd want reporting about what happened if I had to choose between Ken watching on TV and Miguel being at the ground.

Otb' main pundits have played the game or are journalists, SC's are just journalists apart from Richie sadlier who is a very nice man but I have no idea how he has carved a career as a pundit.

This just sounds like an Eamon Dunphy/soccer Saturday "football man/people" viewpoint.

Otb can react to live sport. SC do not.

Comparing apples and oranges here. Might as well say that Sky Sports can react to live sport but MOTD can't.

Otb have loads more content to listen.

Agreed. But they are a radio show as opposed to a podcast...

Arguments occur more frequently on otb. Everyone is in deference to Ken on SC. mcdevitt will say the counterpoint but won't actually full on argue with Ken. Murph is in awe of Ken.

I don't disagree that Eoin and Murph are reluctant to argue with Ken, but Ken has been involved in plenty of arguments with other contributors to the show.

Dan McDonnell for me is simply streets ahead of any other Irish journo when it comes to coverage of the Irish scene. He knows league one Irish eligible players and underage prospects that Ken or Dion would barely have heard of. He knows the domestic scene like Ken and Dion could only dream of. He is also balanced not biased like Ken, Richie and dion with regards to what Ireland should achieve.

McDonnell does have excellent knowledge of Irish football, but I've never been able to warm to him for the lack of insight he (fails to) offer(s) when I hear him talk. It's great having a broad knowledge, but he doesn't use it to say anything insightful imo.

In all honesty, I'm not really sure why you choose to listen to SC, as you seem to dislike an awful lot about it??

PhilipsR · 23-02-2018 05:35PM

Dots1982 in nothing positive to say shocker..

tomwaits48 · 23-02-2018 09:49PM

PhilipsR wrote: »

Dots1982 in nothing positive to say shocker..

I'm genuinely baffled as to why he takes the time to repeatedly espouse his opinion on a show he seems to have a consistent issue with.

Didactic Ninja · 23-02-2018 10:18PM

Arghus wrote: »

Sorry to come late to the party, but -

Really? I thought she was excellent. It's the second time she was on and I think she's one of the best guests they've had on for the political pods.

People complaining that SC is all cosy consensus all of the time would do well to give to that episode a listen.

Every time Ken would make some pronouncement about what he thought Peterson was on about Laura Slattery would step in and, in the most diplomatic way possible, bloody his nose intellectually. Even though they didn't lose the rag with each other, there was no doubt that she disagreed quite heartily with a lot of the quick fire conclusions Ken seemed willing to make.

I loved how she challenged him - a man making a living charging a subscription fee for people to listen to whatever comes into his noggin and then out of his mouth - when he made the grand, but bland, assertion that Capitalism has failed. She wasn't aggressive, she just wanted to know what did he actually mean by that - it sounds good to say it, but how true is it, how do you judge that? - it felt like Ken wasn't used to having his own easy beliefs prodded at a bit.

People quick to say that the pod was a disaster and that it wasn't Ken's finest hour are missing the point of the excercise in my view. What made the pod informative and even instructive in many ways was how it put Peterson's views and all the hoopla surrounding him under the microscope in an interesting way: Ken coming to simple conclusions and then someone who had a more nuanced and less judgemental set of arguments coming to challenge them and showing how there's more to Peterson's views, for better and worse, than initially appears - but without any rancour or easy point scoring.

Laura Slattery tried to honestly engage with Peterson and his ideas and I think she was very fair: she said some very cutting things about the ivory tower world of academia, which was quite brave considering that is her world. I felt I actually learnt some things about Peterson after listening to it - how he can easily be misunderstood and misinterpreted, how he isn't the saviour of us all as some would say and an alt-right bigot as some others would say. I thought it was a great edition of the pod.

Laura Kennedy........

Agree with the rest of your post though.

Didactic Ninja · 23-02-2018 10:19PM

Arghus wrote: »

I thought it was a great edition of the pod.

best they have ever done imo

24-02-2018 12:15PM

The recent politics podcast about Jordan Peterson was the best so far. At last it felt like listening to a balanced grown up discussion and not the juvenile one dimensional lecturing you get so often nowadays in SC or ORB.

Dots1982 · 24-02-2018 12:24PM

My reputation precedes me

Look the show is funny and is doing well.

I just have issues with it in terms of the insight and in some cases the facts they provide. When a presenter makes a representation that Iceland's success is based on domestic league players being picked and this is categorically false then you have to ask questions about what else is being said that is in fact and fiction.

To the accusation that I'm a "football man" type; utter bollocks. I like a balance like otb has. Should be easy to understand.

yosser hughes · 24-02-2018 01:41PM

I wonder how they feel about Andy Lee announcing his retirement on OTB?
I suppose a live radio show with more listeners as opposed to a subscriber based podcast is probably more appropriate? What do you think?
Then again the second captains boys had a relationship with Andy for a long time,long before Joe Molloy was ever heard of.
Indeed, Mark Horgan has a huge interest in boxing and is very knowledgeable.

Joe Molloy's only interest is himself and golf.

Ol' Donie · 24-02-2018 02:06PM

There's Shane Horgan talking away to Joe Molloy on TV3.

dr.kenneth noisewater · 24-02-2018 02:23PM

yosser hughes wrote:

I wonder how they feel about Andy Lee announcing his retirement on OTB? I suppose a live radio show with more listeners as opposed to a subscriber based podcast is probably more appropriate? What do you think? Then again the second captains boys had a relationship with Andy for a long time,long before Joe Molloy was ever heard of. Indeed, Mark Horgan has a huge interest in boxing and is very knowledgeable.

Wasnt it announced that day and he was just on the show that night? Think he gets on very well with both but is on regularly with OTB over the past year discussing other topics and fights

Ol' Donie · 24-02-2018 02:29PM

yosser hughes wrote: »

I wonder how they feel about Andy Lee announcing his retirement on OTB?
I suppose a live radio show with more listeners as opposed to a subscriber based podcast is probably more appropriate? What do you think?
Then again the second captains boys had a relationship with Andy for a long time,long before Joe Molloy was ever heard of.
Indeed, Mark Horgan has a huge interest in boxing and is very knowledgeable.

Joe Molloy's only interest is himself and golf.

No one can be cross with Andy Lee.

Both OTB & SC are delighted any time he's on.

Didn't he actually present a pod for SC when they went to the states a while back?

Second Captains

Comments