The Dominance of Dublin GAA *Mod warning post#1*

odyssey06 wrote: »

Dublin has advantages and disadvantages. Vast numbers of people with no knowledge or natural affinity to GAA, or Dublin GAA if resident in Dublin but supporting other counties.
The heartland of Irish soccer and rugby.
The cost of facilities provision, buying pitches far far higher in Dublin.

Other counties have their own pluses and minuses eg GAA being the natural first choice.
That doesnt make them unfair.

There is no financial doping in GAA. The term has been transplanted from soccer and stripped of all meaning. None of what Dublin has done is financial doping in this or any other sport.

Talk of splitting is fantasy stuff. Dublin will never allow themselves to be compelled to be split by the GAA. They would challenge such a malicious act to the courts and win.

Take Cuala out of it and there is no club east of the N11between Clann na Gael in Irishtown and the Wicklow border. I know Shankill have started up but its limited. That is a big spread of population, Donnybrook Blackrock Deasgrange Dun Laoire wth no GAA club

gaffer91 wrote: »

@gormdubhgorm- all of this nonsense has already been dealt with earlier in this thread- why not just go back and read the replies? But to humour you, and educate you, I'm happy to reply one more time

Already debunked. They beat Galway this year as well- stop cherrypicking games. Dublin hurling is coming from a much lower base than the footballers, as has been explained to you already- have a read back to help understand this.

I am not sure you understand the meaning of debunked.

"expose the falseness or hollowness of (an idea or belief)."

The Dublin hurlers very next game they were beaten by Laois it was a false dawn.
There has been six years of decline for the intercounty hurlers since Dalo left.

That 'Hurling is a much lower base in Dublin' is a Ewan McKenna argument.
But the fact he ignores (like you do) is that the sport of hurling is far less competitive than football. It should be much easier to crack into.
There was a clear trajectory for Dublin intercounty hurling until 2013 now it has gone downhill.
Dublin went for thier first leinster minor win in 05 for ages to a league win in 11 and a senior leinster in 13 - then an AI semi in 13. I was at all those games the base was there to be built on. That is about 10 years of a 'base' created - only for Dublin to slip backwards.

The league, right. Dublin have won 4 All-Ireland's on the trot and you're trying to argue their senior inter-county team isn't dominant. Madness.

You originally claimed that one game against Kerry was not evidence of decline! Then when more were mentioned you get annoyed about it. It is evidence of the decline of Dublin which leaves your theory of 'financial doping' on very shaky ground.
As by it's very definition doping indicates an improvement in performance, not a decline.

Doping = enhance sporting performance

You made this argument earlier in the thread and it's already been debunked as well- have a read back. Dublin have won much more underage titles than before the funding started.

But again why is there a decline at underage level? This is abundantly clear.
Has the doping stopped as you see it?
Because if you follow your doping logic there should be no such dramatic decline - no minor since 2012 and Kerry won five in a row!
Yet from your viewpoint Dublin are the dopers, and they have fallen miles behind Kerry in that age group.

Club football is different than inter-county, granted, but Dublin have still been more competitive and won more titles since the financial doping started in the mid-2000s than in the years before.

Again you ignore the clear evidence of decline for dublin clubs.

Brigids from Roscommon beat Ballymun in 2013 a Ballymun side with the backbone of the the Dublin panel. Rock, McCarthy, Hubbard etc
There was even 6 of them on the teamsheet on Sunday!

Rathew from Wicklow! Beat a St Vincents team containing Ger Brennan, Mossy Quinn, Nathan Mullins and Diarmuind Connolly et al
I think Connolly was kept to two points!

I will even let the Corofin beating Vincents in a SF go because that Galway outfit are top notch.

But what happened this year Mullinalaghta half a parish beat Kilmacud Crokes one of the strongest clubs in Dublin - a club that has Mannion as it's star. and a club that Colm O'Rourke said 6 of the other players on the team would get into any county team.

Surely this repeated results would not be happening if 'doping' is the cause of Dublin's success. Or can you find some explaination for it because it shatters your theory

Dublin hammered Cork by 13 points, Mayo by 12 and Meath by 17- and you're using these games as an argument of competitiveness? Hilarious.

Being an utterly dominant team doesn't mean you have do dominate every minute of every game.

You have just contradicted yourself there on the one hand you judge the performance by the final scoreline - but on the other you say that a team does not have to dominate every minute of a game.

It is true that a team does not have to dominate every minute of every game.
But by the same token in many results in sport in general there are cases where the scoreboard does not reflect the result.

I was at both games. And was very impressed with Cork they should of had more goals great movement and tactics. Their wingbacks were great I thought movement was great on the pitch. It was only the last 10 minutes or so Dublin pulled away from Cork.





Cork had this issue not only against Dublin but a number of other teams in this years championship. So it is clear they are very close to becoming a great team with a bit more composure/experience and game management.


I was also at the game against the Royal County - Dublin only started pulling away from meath after the 50 minute mark. Dublin were 6 up then.



If Meath had a couple of forwards to match the level of thier backs Dublin would have been in trouble.
Fortunately for the Dubs - Meath are overly dependent on Newman

Money matters in sport in terms of achieving success- it's actually incredible that I even have to argue this in the 21st century.
There are countless examples, in every sport, including the GAA where this is true.

It is true money matters in sport in terms of achieving success, but is not as critical in an amateur organisation as it would be in a professional one.

It is complete logical fallacy to compare professional sport to amateur sport.
Which makes the misappropriation of the Arsene Wenger's phrase 'financial doping' all the more laughable.
When the GAA's strength is rooted in the community and has a strong family ethos/connections - the Rock's in Ballymun, Brogan's in Plunketts, Diamond's, Mullins in Vincent's
It makes the use of that misappropriated Wenger phrase even more laughable when juxtaposed beside those names.

What you've done is cherry picked some examples that don't even stand up to the most basic scrutiny and tried to argue this means Dublin aren't unfairly advantaged- it's a pathetically weak argument.

I have yet to see the 'scrutiny' on your part. It seems to be a fairly strong argument I have given - that puts major holes in your 'financial doping' fallacious argument.

As I have given clear evidence of decline of Dublin's performance.
But all you have done is used the word 'debunk' and have not really given any real counterargument.

Their success can be bought, it has been.
Even PED users have to work hard at the gym, in their chosen field etc- obviously I wouldn't accuse Dublin of using PEDs but their financial doping follows the same principle. The players still work hard but they are absolutely blessed with the money.

If it does follow the same principle and it is like PED's as you say why is there clear evidence of a decline in Dublin GAA across numerous examples I gave?

You only feel blessed as a Dub because as your posts have shown, you are incredibly biased and blinkered. If it was any other county achieving this current level of success you would be absolutely disgusted because you are so pro-Dublin and anti every other county (if you weren't you would recognise the unfair advantages and want them equalised), even if they did it without the financial doping that Dublin have availed of.

As an Irish person and purported GAA fan, you should be disgusted at how the inter-county game of this great sport is being ruined by Dublin and their financial doping.

See how easy it was to put your tired arguments to bed once again? Please read this and reflect for once, don't just wade in with the same old debunked nonsense. I shouldn't even have to write this lengthy post because it's all already been explained on this thread, to you personally, you just choose not to comprehend it.

Again you have used the words debunk, with out any real dubunking at all.
You provided no explanation why Dublin GAA has clearly declined despite your belive they have been using the equivalent of PED's
I won't even comment on your 'ruined the game' remark that is just hyperbole on your part.

Also I didn't use examples from ages ago either - just 6 years ago at the latest when the 'financial doping' (as you term it) should have set into every code and age group in Dublin GAA.
But yet it has clearly not.
So there is is clearly something wrong with your theory somewhere?
Why has there been a decline in Dublin GAA as evidenced by the examples I gave - if Dublin are effectively performance enhancing?

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

FionnK86 wrote: »

And would you split Dublin in 4 when north & south side teams dominate the championship?

As matter of interest was there every any debate about splitting Kerry during there previous years of dominance?

In reality, if one of them was winning all around them at some stage with endless new players coming out, like now, then potentially, but I think that other teams should be able to put it up to them from that point so you shouldnt need to. It is all about balance.

Do you genuinely not see how what kerry did is very different? Can you not see how when they have an average population, that means that most of us had the same resources as kerry, but they just did it better? That is the difference. We could have done the same as them. But what other county can get 17 million, pick from 1.5 million people and not pay maintenance on or have to update a stadium? It is physically impossible to roll out the 'dublin system' anywhere else. The kerry one can be rolled out in a lot if places if they just put in the effort.

What about the disparity in population between Cork / Antrim and Monaghan?

naughtb4 wrote: »

What about the disparity in population between Cork / Antrim and Monaghan?

There is a disparity there, and it is potentially an advantage. However the figures at play are not as extreme. This is evident from cork not contesting every final with dublin.

The same would be the case for two dublin teams. They still would have circa 6 times the average population each and so a serious advantage, but the figures arent as extreme, so it might not effect the game in quite such a dominant way. Basically what I am saying is people would be willing to live with that. True the dublin north team would be good enough to win all irelands straight away, but other teams would be good enough to challenge consistantly. The championship would be top class

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

It does make you wonder what they are actually spending it on. Like they have no fixed costs. Hotels and food are sponsored for them and they dont have to travel. Yet, they are the top spenders per game every year without fail. Mayo who have massive fixed costs and treat their teams relatively well, had to play almost double the number of games as they did before they managed to spend slightly more than them. Truely, I cant figure out what they spend it on.

This is a load of rubbish. Mayo don't have a hurling team to speak of, and spend nothing on it. Dublin do have a hurling team, participating in the Leinster round robin.

As always, you have a monofixation - senior inter-county football. So when you look at the figures for team expenses, you only divide by the number of senior inter-county football games. If anything exposes the shallowness of your argument, that does.

blanch152 wrote: »

This is a load of rubbish. Mayo don't have a hurling team to speak of, and spend nothing on it. Dublin do have a hurling team, participating in the Leinster round robin.

As always, you have a monofixation - senior inter-county football. So when you look at the figures for team expenses, you only divide by the number of senior inter-county football games. If anything exposes the shallowness of your argument, that does.

Mayo do have a hurling team. And underage hurling teams. Just because they compete at a lower level doesn't mean they don't cost. I doubt its two men and a dog that turn up to look after the Mayo senior hurling team. Mayo played five national hurling league games and three in the Nicky Rackard Competition. Not many games behind the amount Dublin played. Your attitude is a little belittling to teams playing at a lower level.

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

There is a disparity there, and it is potentially an advantage. However the figures at play are not as extreme. This is evident from cork not contesting every final with dublin.

The same would be the case for two dublin teams. They still would have circa 6 times the average population each and so a serious advantage, but the figures arent as extreme, so it might not effect the game in quite such a dominant way. Basically what I am saying is people would be willing to live with that. True the dublin north team would be good enough to win all irelands straight away, but other teams would be good enough to challenge consistantly. The championship would be top class

It either is or is not an advantage. It has been said one of Dublins advantage is numerical on several occasions. Which is it?

harpsman wrote: »

Mayo weren't found out or humiliated. They had to play a semifinal 7 days after a very hard,do or die game, against a team who had 3 weeks rest, along with all the loaded decks, and were leading at half way until fatigue set in and they gave away couple of soft goals

Did Hennelly play the week before?

largepants wrote: »

You are hilarious. You were the one that brought up players playing with other counties. Now that someone gets the better of you in a reasoned debate you 'bow out'.

You've been found out.

I previously mentioned it as it was said in response to a Ewan McKenna comment about Dublin 'taking over' Clane etc.
But I can see it I went into any further detail on it it could veer off topic.


I am just being fair to the mods. Simple as that. You are welcome to start an inter-county blow in's thread I am sure it will get interest, and be a bit of craic.

If it is permitted to be discussed on this thread here maybe the mods could give the go ahead - I don't want to derail the thread.

Happyilylost wrote: »

Mayo do have a hurling team. And underage hurling teams. Just because they compete at a lower level doesn't mean they don't cost. I doubt its two men and a dog that turn up to look after the Mayo senior hurling team. Mayo played five national hurling league games and three in the Nicky Rackard Competition. Not many games behind the amount Dublin played. Your attitude is a little belittling to teams playing at a lower level.

When you look at the annual team expenses report, the top four or five counties are those who have serious engagement in both hurling and football - Galway, Cork, Dublin, Tipperary etc - with one exception, Mayo.

Yes, Mayo have a hurling team, yes they compete in the Nicky Rackard Competition, but do they get the same supports as the senior football team?

harpsman wrote: »

Yes. Whats your point?

Just asking a ?.

gaffer91 wrote: »

The reference for Dublin is not if they win every tournament or not. With regards to the financial doping, the reference is what Dublin's inter-county team (and teams) achieved pre-doping and what they achieved post-doping. A previous poster, gachla I believe, posted many charts and stats detailing the exponential rise in Dublin victories and titles post financial doping which I can't be bothered to repost as you either won't read them or lack the capacity to comprehend them.

To use an analogy- all the Connacht rugby players start taking PEDs, across all age groups. If these teams went to win more games and competitions post PED use, even if they didn't win ever single one, they would be doing it from an unfairly advantaged position. In your mind this would be okay. It is the same with Dublin's financial doping.

Stop cherrypicking examples- Dublin are more dominant and successful post financial doping than they were before it- this is indisputable. You seem to regard victories involving minimum 11 point margins as close when anyone who knows anything about Gaelic Football would tell you they're not.

There is no financial doping carried out by the Dublin Senior Football team.
None, nada, not 1 cent.

It's not financial doping if a team's market value for sponsorship rights is more than another's.
It's not financial doping if a team leases or rents a stadium from a government agency as long as it is at market value e.g. West Ham and the London Olympic Stadium.
It's not financial doping, for example, if the German FA ploughs money into grass roots soccer in East Germany.
So on what basis are Dublin financially doped? None whatsoever.

A term has been transplanted from soccer, stripped of all meaning, and abused to mean nothing.
Dublin are not financially doped, or financially doping and have NO unfair advantages over other GAA counties.
The populations are unbalanced but have been from the get go.

Home advantage in what is the GAA national stadium, in a city populated not just with Dubs, but with people from all other 31 counties, is nothing like home advantage of Man United at Old Trafford where 90% of the tickets go to home fans and chances are the only time another team plays there is against Man United.

The 'analogy' reference to PEDs is just scurrilous further abuse of language.

odyssey06 wrote:

Home advantage in what is the GAA national stadium, in a city populated not just with Dubs, but with people from all other 31 counties, is nothing like home advantage of Man United at Old Trafford where 90% of the tickets go to home fans and chances are the only time another team plays there is against Man United.

Couldn't care less about the rest of your arguments but this is horse s**t. Any Dubs I know will openly admit Croke Park is an advantage. No if's and buts. Not having to get on a bus and go three hours across the county for a game. Staying in your own bed the night before a game. Knowing every blade of grass on a pitch. The way the wind catches the ball. Anyone playing the game could tell you which way the wind is blowing on their home pitch from just looking out the window of there house. How many times do you hear the pundits or papers previewing national league games say "oooh you know (insert team) at home you'd have to fancy them". And the fan thing is only a small part of it. How many Kerry fans will travel to Croke Park for a league game on a cold February? So it's obvious home teams have better support. Dublin might still bring more but the home team would be better supported than if the team were playing in Croke Park.

The fact you say it has no bearing means you never played the game or your so engrained in defending Dublin your not willing to admit the truth.

Happyilylost wrote: »

Couldn't care less about the rest of your arguments but this is horse s**t. Any Dubs I know will openly admit Croke Park is an advantage. No if's and buts. Not having to get on a bus and go three hours across the county for a game. Staying in your own bed the night before a game. Knowing every blade of grass on a pitch. The way the wind catches the ball. Anyone playing the game could tell you which way the wind is blowing on their home pitch from just looking out the window of there house. How many times do you hear the pundits or papers previewing national league games say "oooh you know (insert team) at home you'd have to fancy them". And the fan thing is only a small part of it. How many Kerry fans will travel to Croke Park for a league game on a cold February? So it's obvious home teams have better support. Dublin might still bring more but the home team would be better supported than if the team were playing in Croke Park.
The fact you say it has no bearing means you never played the game or your so engrained in defending Dublin your not willing to admit the truth.

Could you point out where I said it had no bearing?
For all you know I have played in Croker.

And something must be seriously wrong in Kerry if they find a trip to Dublin on a cold day too much to bear!
In the past Kerry played in Croker like they owned it. Great rocks of men hewn from the landscape have been replaced by snowflakes.
Unfortunately theres a lot of Kerry people in Dublin we havent managed to deport so some Kerry fans still turn up...

Even Alex Ferguson, who would sell his own son if he thought it would help Man Utd, never complained about Utd fans having to travel to Wembley London for finals v London clubs. The only time he complained was when two northern teams had to play there in a semi

Whatever advantage accrues to Dublin from playing in Croker is very weak and in the past seemed to hurt them as much as help them. There is nothing unfair about it. Playing some semis in Thurles would be a reasonable thing to do in the interests of balance.

odyssey06 wrote:

Could you point out where I said it had no bearing? For all you know I have played in Croker.

odyssey06 wrote:

And something must be seriously wrong in Kerry if they find a trip to Dublin on a cold day too much to bear! In the past Kerry played in Croker like they owned it. Great rocks of men hewn from the landscape have been replaced by snowflakes. Unfortunately theres a lot of Kerry people in Dublin we havent managed to deport so some Kerry fans still turn up...

odyssey06 wrote:

Even Alex Ferguson, who would sell his own son if he thought it would help Man Utd, never complained about Utd fans having to travel to Wembley London for finals v London clubs. The only time he complained was when two northern teams had to play there in a semi

odyssey06 wrote:

Whatever advantage accrues to Dublin from playing in Croker is very weak and in the past seemed to hurt them as much as help them. There is nothing unfair about it. Playing some semis in Thurles would be a reasonable thing to do in the interests of balance.

Ok sorry. I misunderstood. You stated Dublin home advantage is not the same as Man United. I haven't understood this point it would seem. Could you explain what level of home advantage Dublin have when they play at home?

I seen this tripe about Croke Park being no help to Dublin back in the day when they were s***e. Well it doesn't take a genius to work that out. Using your example if Man United played Salford on Salfords home pitch I would imagine United would beat them every time. If your s***e doesn't matter where you play. Home, away or on the moon your getting beat close to all of the time. Playing at home doesn't turn snowflakes in giants or vice versa. Where it does matter is with two relatively even teams. Say where one team has won Ireland's by a point. Or after a replay. In those instances home advantage could matter. I wonder would Dublin be going for five if they had played All Ireland's in Castlebar and Killarney over the last four years?