The Dominance of Dublin GAA Mod warning post#1

Deleted User wrote: »

The dominance will end soon. It always does in sport. But we’ll remember how bitter it turned the country when we had our strong spell

It won't be a spell.

Deleted User wrote: »

The dominance will end soon. It always does in sport. But we’ll remember how bitter it turned the country when we had our strong spell

Always remember the 103 titles have been won off the back of millions upon millions of euro supplied by all of us. That's why people are calling for change.

[Deleted User]

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

It won't be a spell.

It really will. Dominance always comes to an end in sport. Nobody ever sees it coming.
You’d be laughed at if you suggested back in 1990 that Liverpool still wouldn’t have a league title. But it happened.

Deleted User wrote: »

It really will. Dominance always comes to an end in sport. Nobody ever sees it coming.
You’d be laughed at if you suggested back in 1990 that Liverpool still wouldn’t have a league title. But it happened.

It's not just the men's senior footballers. Dublin won 29 titles between 1982 and 2000, they've won more than 103 between 2001 and now.

The high horse brigade

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It really will. Dominance always comes to an end in sport. Nobody ever sees it coming.
You’d be laughed at if you suggested back in 1990 that Liverpool still wouldn’t have a league title. But it happened.

They'll be beaten eventually, but the unfair advantages and financial doping need to be addressed

ToBeFrank123

Dublin hurlers comfortably beat Galway who competed in the last 2 AI finals and were within points difference of a Leinster final finishing level with Wexford and KK.
How on earth is that going backwards. Its light years ahead of 15 years ago before funding started.

ToBeFrank123

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The dominance will end soon. It always does in sport. But we’ll remember how bitter it turned the country when we had our strong spell

It will probably end after the 10 in a row when there might be a short transition. By then the damage will be done and interest will long have ceased.

Deleted User wrote: »

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

It won't be a spell.

It really will. Dominance always comes to an end in sport. Nobody ever sees it coming.
You’d be laughed at if you suggested back in 1990 that Liverpool still wouldn’t have a league title. But it happened.

Yes they were overran by teams that invested heavily, first Blackburn, then Man Utd, then Chelsea and now man city. See a pattern?

[Deleted User]

threeball wrote: »

Yes they were overran by teams that invested heavily, first Blackburn, then Man Utd, then Chelsea and now man city. See a pattern?

Money is important in a sport with transfers and wages.

Deleted User wrote: »

Money is important in a sport with transfers and wages.

In Gaelic Games, you can't buy players and you can't pay wages so creating your own talent is vital. That's why spending over 40 million on professional coaches to assist in player development is such an advantage.

Deleted User wrote: »

threeball wrote: »

Yes they were overran by teams that invested heavily, first Blackburn, then Man Utd, then Chelsea and now man city. See a pattern?

Money is important in a sport with transfers and wages.

Money is important in all sports, amateur and professional. Those with the most tend to do the best. The British had no tradition in indoor cycling but identified an opportunity, pumped millions in to it and dominated. The Olympics is full of countries investing in particular sports and reaping the rewards. You just have to look at our boxers and what happened when the invested slowed down.

Gachla wrote: »

In Gaelic Games, you can't buy players and you can't pay wages so creating your own talent is vital. That's why spending over 40 million on professional coaches to assist in player development is such an advantage.

That is the long and the short of it really. That is why this auld talk about 'Dublin structures and getting their house in order' doesnt really wash with me.
They spent a monsterous amount of government and gaa money on coaching their young lads. Nobody else had it available to them so that resulted in their young players being better. Add in the population factor and we now have the result. That isnt really something anyone else can replicate, and I dont really see spending other peoples money as getting your house in order or a 'structure' either for that matter.

The gaa need to be looking at the kerry model as the one they want to roll out, not the dublin one. When you actually stop and think about it, how could any other county go about even attempting reproducing dublin's system? It's crazy talk. Any gaa official you hear talking about rolling out dublin's system is someone who simply hasnt given the thing the slightest bit of thought.

This seems to come as a shock to many, but rich countries almost always do better in sports than poor countries.

threeball wrote: »

Money is important in all sports, amateur and professional. Those with the most tend to do the best. The British had no tradition in indoor cycling but identified an opportunity, pumped millions in to it and dominated. The Olympics is full of countries investing in particular sports and reaping the rewards. You just have to look at our boxers and what happened when the invested slowed down.

Cycling is a technical sport requiring expensive equipment and research.
British lottery funding specifically identified and targeted sports where they would get the biggest bang for their buck such as cycling, rowing and sailing.
Tellingly, they are not team based field sports.

Swimming did not deliver the medals despite the lavish funding it received.

What happened Irish boxing? Well if they'd had more money and the sense to reward Billy Walsh with the salary and authority his position warranted, then he wouldn't have left to go to the States.

Besides, in the cases listed, the money was geared towards the elite competitors in niche sports. The funding to Dublin GAA was deliberately spread as widely as possible, because it's intention was to encourage participation and the spread of one of the most popular games in the state - not to aid the elite team directly.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

This seems to come as a shock to many, but rich countries almost always do better in sports than poor countries.

The Olympic medal table is basically the G8 apart from Canada who are down in 20th but are more focused on winter sports.

odyssey06 wrote: »

threeball wrote: »

Money is important in all sports, amateur and professional. Those with the most tend to do the best. The British had no tradition in indoor cycling but identified an opportunity, pumped millions in to it and dominated. The Olympics is full of countries investing in particular sports and reaping the rewards. You just have to look at our boxers and what happened when the invested slowed down.

Cycling is a technical sport requiring expensive equipment and research.
British lottery funding specifically identified and targeted sports where they would get the biggest bang for their buck such as cycling, rowing and sailing.
Tellingly, they are not team based field sports.

Swimming did not deliver the medals despite the lavish funding it received.

What happened Irish boxing? Well if they'd had more money and the sense to reward Billy Walsh with the salary and authority his position warranted, then he wouldn't have left to go to the States.

Besides, in the cases listed, the money was geared towards the elite competitors in niche sports. The funding to Dublin GAA was deliberately spread as widely as possible, because it's intention was to encourage participation and the spread of one of the most popular games in the state - not to aid the elite team directly.

So money made the difference in every case except Dublin? Okey doke

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

This seems to come as a shock to many, but rich countries almost always do better in sports than poor countries.

Well Iceland beat england in a game of football there a few years back. So basically all of that goes out the window if ever we can get one freak result... Get your house in order!

odyssey06 wrote: »

What happened Irish boxing? Well if they'd had more money and the sense to reward Billy Walsh with the salary and authority his position warranted, then he wouldn't have left to go to the States.

Sure what difference would a professional coach make? Is it not all about volunteers?

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

This seems to come as a shock to many, but rich countries almost always do better in sports than poor countries.

That doesn't even explain the results in the FIFA World Cup as Brazil has 5 titles and Germany has 4, despite Brazil's per capita GDP being 4-5 times greater.

So your theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny in the world's most popular team based field sport.

Does it stand up to scrutiny within other countries in professional sports?
Does southern England do better at soccer than Northern England?
Can you show me a graph of per capita income per city in the US correlated with sporting success?

You're going to have an even harder time proving this theory within the bounds of this island for an amateur sport.

Are Kerry and Kilkenny the richest counties?

threeball wrote: »

So money made the difference in every case except Dublin? Okey doke

Those sports are nothing like soccer. Which is why they got funded by the British. They didn't put their money into trying to win soccer medals at the Olympics, but niche technical sports.

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Sure what difference would a professional coach make? Is it not all about volunteers?

Has there been a change in the salaried status of the Irish boxing performance director? Or was it all about the actual occupant of the position being one of the best of the world - as attested by his hiring by the US?

odyssey06 wrote: »

Has there been a change in the salaried status of the Irish boxing performance director? Or was it all about the actual occupant of the position being one of the best of the world - as attested by his hiring by the US?

So basically a very good professional coach made all the difference?
Where does that leave the volunteers though?

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

So basically a very good professional coach made all the difference?
Where does that leave the volunteers though?

Explain to me how if professional was the key part of that sentence why are our results not identical regardless of what professional coach is holding the position?
Was Billy Walsh replaced by a volunteer?

A very good coach can make all the difference. Like Jim Gavin.

odyssey06 wrote: »

threeball wrote: »

So money made the difference in every case except Dublin? Okey doke

Those sports are nothing like soccer. Which is why they got funded by the British. They didn't put their money into trying to win soccer medals at the Olympics, but niche technical sports.

So money does make a difference, but not in team sports, like Gaelic football or soccer, unless it's a professional team sport and you can buy players. Makes total sense now.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

odyssey06 wrote: »

That doesn't even explain the results in the FIFA World Cup as Brazil has 5 titles and Germany has 4, despite Brazil's per capita GDP being 4-5 times greater.

So your theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny in the world's most popular team based field sport.

Does it stand up to scrutiny within other countries in professional sports?
Does southern England do better at soccer than Northern England?
Can you show me a graph of per capita income per city in the US correlated with sporting success?

You're going to have an even harder time proving this theory within the bounds of this island for an amateur sport.

Are Kerry and Kilkenny the richest counties?

If you are genuinely interested in learning more about this, I would recommend the book "Soccernomics."

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Well Iceland beat england in a game of football there a few years back. So basically all of that goes out the window if ever we can get one freak result... Get your house in order!

Iceland became good at soccer because of massive government investment. Money was the main driving force in them becoming a team capable of beating traditionally stronger nations.

HOW ICELAND BECAME THE WORLD'S NEXT SOCCER POWERHOUSE

jonnogael

Just have to accept Dublin are the best team.:)

jonnogael wrote: »

Just have to accept Dublin are the best team.:)

Sensible people won't deny that. Maybe Dublin fans should just accept the massive advantages they have. That would really be novel.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

If you are generally interested in learning more about this, I would recommend the book "Soccernomics."

I'm sure a chapter from the authors on GAA would be fascinating. If they can put together a convincing theory explaining the distribution of All Ireland Football titles from 1970-2019 that is valid across decades, I'm all ears.

For example, I am sure they would, looking at the data in 1995 and in ignorance of subsequent funding & results, have projected multiple All Ireland wins for Dublin per decade and would not have predicted zero wins for Dublin between 1996 and 2010.

Dublin were a sleeping giant. They are now playing to the potential that was there. They should be winning 3-5 titles per decade even after this golden generation of manager & players reach the end of the road. The funding may have been a catalyst to that, but the ingredients were there all along since the 1970s and the surge of interest in GAA in Dublin thanks for Heffo's army.

One of the other catalysts to success was the abject failure of the Noughties, which meant Dublin GAA had to embrace change and a new plan.