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..
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
frefrefre wrote: » Both. His insight is poor and he didn’t have much of a career really.
tomwaits48 wrote: » I found the guest on that latest problem political podcast unbearably smug.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
PhilipsR wrote: » Dots1982 in nothing positive to say shocker..
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.
Arghus wrote: » I thought it was a great edition of the pod.
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.
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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c9236bc67b608c3603b1ed089c896282.svg)
