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

The Dominance of Dublin GAA Mod warning post#1

seligehgit

Discussion of all matters relating to this contentious subject is welcome and the potential implications of same.This thread is solely for this purpose.

There appears to be a perception that the moderators are attempting to shut down discussion of this topic and direct same off to a low traffic stickied thread.Nothing could be further from the truth.Our sole motive was to confine discussion to a single thread and prevent cross thread posting which was adversely affecting the enjoyment of fellow posters.

Can we please keep posts civil and constructive in nature.

The Changes in the GAA-super thread is now for discussion of all other suggested reforms not relating to Dublin GAA.

Extra Mod Warning:
Right, a separate warning to both sides in this debate:
Firstly, any more mentioning of "financial doping" or any intimation that rules have been broken by Dublin or that Dublin have cheated are banned from now on. You can debate the issue of the funding that Dublin have received without resorting to that. There is zero evidence of it and posting about it will be considered trolling from here on in.

Secondly, this topic is, like it or not, a big talking point in gaelic football at the moment. You are more than welcome to argue your point, but posting in this thread to simply mock those on the other side or complaining about the topic is known as thread spoiling and is specifically banned in the charter (see point 8 here). No one is forcing you to click on this thread and no one is forcing you to post in it. If you don't like the topic, then don't post. It's as simple as that.

This thread is here so that all the discussion is in one place and it won't filter into other threads. This makes it easier to ignore for posters who don't really want to be involved in it. As a result, we haven't really been moderating it as severely as other threads. However, a number of posts recently from both sides are sailing too close to the wind and getting borderline personal. So please take a minute before you hit submit to ensure that your post won't fall foul of the rules. We'll have no hesitation in issuing cards and/or threadbans to posters who fail to heed this warning.

Please report any posts that you feel break the rules.

Any questions, please feel free to PM the mods.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

odyssey06

Also re home advantage there have only been 4 host winners at soccer world cups since 1966... England, W Germany, Argentina, France.
And Argentinas win is alleged to have been down to more than just home advantage.

Major powers such as Spain, Italy, Germany, Brazil all failed to win as hosts.

Only 3 rugby world cup hosts have won.

Happyilylost

odyssey06 wrote: »

I suspect yes but its not quite the same comparison. Croke Park is played in by GAA counties in both League and All Ireland, not just when a team plays Dublin.

How many times have Kerry and Mayo already played in Croker against Dublin and other teams?

How many Kerry and Mayo fans live in Dublin city versus Dubs in Killarney or Castlebar?

The results of both Dublin teams over the past 30 years dont seem to show any significant advantage to playing in Croker.
Actually for the hurlers and for the footballers in the past it seemed to affect them in a negative way. Weight of expectations.

Sorry but your missing the point. You can't look at one team over any period of time to make this relevant. Bad teams lose. Home or away. Doesn't matter where it's played.

The report in the link doesn't focus on one team. It focuses on the favourites in matches. You can read it yourself but basically favourites at home win most of the time. Favourites away from home have a statistical better chance of been beaten. If you have a better analytical report of games please post.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://amp.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/sport/columnists/does-a-neutral-venue-lessen-a-gaa-favourites-chances-928077.html&ved=2ahUKEwiR-v3kuLrkAhXHRxUIHcQPBQ0QFjAAegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw3ZmUWP9-WXyy5NTgueQOoz&ampcf=1&cshid=1567712738154

Bonniedog

GAA teams don't play one another often enough on a home/away basis to make it as statistically accurate as sports in which there are a lot of such fixtures: soccer leagues, baseball, basketball etc,

Rugby and NFL be similar to GAA. Too small a sample.

Happyilylost

Bonniedog wrote:

GAA teams don't play one another often enough on a home/away basis to make it as statistically accurate as sports in which there are a lot of such fixtures: soccer leagues, baseball, basketball etc,

Bonniedog wrote:

Rugby and NFL be similar to GAA. Too small a sample.

Doesn't suit so discredit. Journalist in Brazil is fond of doing that.

And again. For the last time.

It
Has
Nothing
To
Do
With
Teams.

Is that slow enough? The nature of Gaa is teams are good teams are bad. It goes around in a circle. Comparing stats for certain teams is pointless. The article simply shows that if a team deemed a "favourite" are likely to lose the statistics show it's more likely to happen away from home.

Bonniedog

I bet on games in lots of team sports. I know the stats.

Like all stats, a small number over a long period are pretty much meaningless.

Anyone betting on GAA matches, especially in the league, on basis of home advantage be sleeping in a cardboard box :-)

Just look at the soccerball tonight. From my look at current scorelines late in games. the better teams are winning regardless of where the matches are.

Happyilylost

Bonniedog wrote:

I bet on games in lots of team sports. I know the stats.

Bonniedog wrote:

Like all stats, a small number over a long period are pretty much meaningless.

Bonniedog wrote:

Anyone betting on GAA matches, especially in the league, on basis of home advantage be sleeping in a cardboard box :-)

Bonniedog wrote:

Just look at the soccerball tonight. From my look at current scorelines late in games. the better teams are winning regardless of where the matches are.

Grand no bother. Good point.

[Deleted User]

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

So what you are saying is there are no other variables to Dublin's success - other then they have received more funding?

Surely you can think of more?
Or is it because you do not want to admit the myriad of other variables that have contributed to Dublins success and now slow decline.
You have not answered why there has being such a decline for Dublin if thier finances do equate to doping.
.

I have said many times that it isn't funding alone that is the cause of Dublin's success. But that money is indeed a major part. Actually read the posts and replies before you go around putting words into people's mouths. Seriously- actually try to read replies rather than just wading in with the same responses over and over. I don't even know where you get your energy to post the same debunked, inaccurate tripe over and over and over.

There is no decline other than in your mind- Dublin are dominating. They've won four in a row at senior inter-county level.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Also you seem to ignore the fact that Dublin won the 2011 final by one point against the run of play.
Won the 2013 final by one point because of the ineptitude of Mayo towards the end of the game - C'O'Connor
Won the 2016 final by one point - after one game they should have lost - helped by Mayo ineptitude OG's sendings off etc
Won the 2017 final by one point in another game they should have lost.

All close games.

Jesus Christ, you're now using All-Ireland finals that Dublin won as an argument against their dominance.

Take a step back, think about it and realise how utterly ridiculous that is.

Although it is incredible that given how the competition is basically rigged in their favour that they've only collapsed over the line so many times- they would be much further away if not for the financial doping and other advantages.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I have repeated the previous post - because you have not answered it where I gave examples of Dublin decline.
It angers you because you know it is true.
And it is very difficult for you to refute as it laughs in the face of your theory of financial doping.

You have not given me concrete theories as to why despite more finances Dublin GAA have been in decline in the examples I gave since 2013 - club gaa, underage, intercounty hurling etc.

There is no decline except in your mind- Dublin are dominating and you cherry pick examples to choose your arguments.

You had an extended back and forth with Gachla earlier in this thread (you see, I am actually capable of reading and comprehending arguments) where you churned out the exact same nonsense and he was able to put you back in your place very easily.

I've no intention of doing it again as A. It's very time-consuming and B. You have already lost this argument.

Again- just search the thread.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

S

Surely you can see that despite your financial doping theory there are major holes in it.
This must mean there are many other variables in the GAA and within Dublin GAA that you are not considering?

You like to pretend that Dublin's finances means the following -

1) Automatic success for Dublin

2) A panacea against losing games

3) An overriding factor above all else including - management, talent, mental strength within Dublin. You cannot even conceive these other variables because then you know your fallacious theory dies on it's ass.

4) It is the cause of other counties underachieving - not other counties poor management. lack of talent and/or lack of mental strength etc

You are basically deluding yourself when all is said and done.

You're putting words in my mouth. I said in my last post it didn't mean automatic success, just an improvement relative to a position without their unfair advantages. I have made this point in other posts as well, as have many other posters. You would know this if you actually read responses.

I have also made the point that there are other variables other than money.

You're the one deluding yourself my little friend- you seem to be arguing against yourself mostly and you're still losing the argument and coming across as an ill-informed dilettante. I don't know how you manage it.

Again I will ask you- before wading in with a response, why not actually take in what other people are saying? Rather than repeat the same argument, why not see if it has been debunked previously? Make more liberal use of the search bar basically.

Bridge93

All seems a bit of a catch 22. We want increased funding to more fairly distribute among the counties while simultaneously removing one of the GAAs biggest earners being Dublin games at Croke Park. Leaving Croke Park as a bit of a White Elephant probably not attractive to the top dogs.

Leaving economics out of it I’d happily see Dublin play away from Croke Park. Did the counties ever vote to make Dublin play away? Or make them play in Parnell?

Bonniedog

No they did not. There was a motion at Congress and it fell.

Dublin should have only one game in 8s in Croke Park but either the majority of GAA members don't want this, despite the vox pop, or can't come up with a way of framing a motion to bring it into effect.

Meanwhile it is just another excuse to attack Dublin which is not of Dublin's making. This Dublin team has beaten everyone everywhere.

gormdubhgorm

gaffer91 wrote: »

I have said many times that it isn't funding alone that is the cause of Dublin's success. But that money is indeed a major part. Actually read the posts and replies before you go around putting words into people's mouths. Seriously- actually try to read replies rather than just wading in with the same responses over and over. I don't even know where you get your energy to post the same debunked, inaccurate tripe over and over and over.

In an amateur sport really? Debunked how when?
I have yet to see a post that made me think oh they might have a point on 'financial doping' I went through Gachla's charts and they were deliberately misleading or downright untrue.

Which is why I made my own spreadhsheets comparing the two great power houses of the GAA in Gaelic football.
You will see Kerry only dropped off significantly in ladies football and thier domination of munster was/is comparable to Dublin's domination of leinster.
These things happen when a special collection of players play counties who are weaker div 2 div 3 etc.

Kerry:

Dublin:

Note* spreadsheet were made in August.

It is clear if you go through the AI final starting teams of Dublin there is a core of 10/11 from the 2011 final and another core of 7 from the 2013 final.
All these lads are still on the panel and still in use/pushing for places

There is no decline other than in your mind- Dublin are dominating. They've won four in a row at senior inter-county level.

How is it in my mind I gave you the simple facts where I believe Dublin GAA have shown decline?
You have yet to properly come up with a wholesale convincing counterargument.

Jesus Christ, you're now using All-Ireland finals that Dublin won as an argument against their dominance.

Take a step back, think about it and realise how utterly ridiculous that is.

How is it ridiculous they were all narrow wins by the minimum?
If anything they prove that Dublin possess the intangibles the mental strength and will to win despite looking like they were on the losing side.
Or are you going to tell me intangibles can be bought?
Plus it was Galcha that claimed the margin of victory indicated that Dublin were dominating.
If you go by Galcha's logic Dublin were just jammy in the AI finals.

Although it is incredible that given how the competition is basically rigged in their favour that they've only collapsed over the line so many times- they would be much further away if not for the financial doping and other advantages.

How would they have been further away if they just collapsed over the line?
Surely in any sport this is where the natural talent,mental strength and game intelligence kicks in?
As all learned behaviour becomes a blur?

Also your use of the word 'rigged' demonstrates a strong anti-dub bias on your part.
Which makes it understandable how you cannot see any other argument.
For example you speak of Dublin's 'advantages' does any other county have a club like Round Towers Clondalkin with a catchment area near 100k but has had very little success on the Dublin scene never mind national level?

Also Erins Isle the sole club GAA in the huge urban area of Finglas in competition with over 7 soccer clubs.
Again little success for decades I think it was 98 they reached the AI club final beaten by Corofin. Redmond was suspended for the Finglas lads.

There is no decline except in your mind- Dublin are dominating and you cherry pick examples to choose your arguments.

You use the blanket term cherrypicking because you do not know how to respond to those points. It melted your mind.

You had an extended back and forth with Gachla earlier in this thread (you see, I am actually capable of reading and comprehending arguments) where you churned out the exact same nonsense and he was able to put you back in your place very easily.

I have yet to see any post where Gachla did that.
I investigated Gachla's 'charts' and when he/she uses them it is very scant on detail.
For obvious reasons as it would make them look silly.

I've no intention of doing it again as A. It's very time-consuming and B. You have already lost this argument.

By you saying I have lost the argument, does not mean your argument has made any logic sense.
In fact I have yet to see a cogent argument from you on this issue, if I am honest.

You're putting words in my mouth. I said in my last post it didn't mean automatic success, just an improvement relative to a position without their unfair advantages. I have made this point in other posts as well, as have many other posters. You would know this if you actually read responses.

So what you are saying is a county with over 20% of the population should not be dominating football in the first place. Fair enough... :rolleyes:

I have also made the point that there are other variables other than money.

You're the one deluding yourself my little friend- you seem to be arguing against yourself mostly and you're still losing the argument and coming across as an ill-informed dilettante. I don't know how you manage it.

Attacking the poster normally shows that the poster has lost the argument doesn't it?

Again I will ask you- before wading in with a response, why not actually take in what other people are saying? Rather than repeat the same argument, why not see if it has been debunked previously? Make more liberal use of the search bar basically.

Well I have yet to see my points given a cogent counter argument.
What I have seen from you posts are 'tells' - that you are not willing to look beyond your own narrow theory.
Use of the word 'rigged' and PED's for example that is sure sign that there is no substance to the argument in reality.
It weakens any of your points dramatically.

Happyilylost

Bridge93 wrote: »

All seems a bit of a catch 22. We want increased funding to more fairly distribute among the counties while simultaneously removing one of the GAAs biggest earners being Dublin games at Croke Park. Leaving Croke Park as a bit of a White Elephant probably not attractive to the top dogs.

Leaving economics out of it I’d happily see Dublin play away from Croke Park. Did the counties ever vote to make Dublin play away? Or make them play in Parnell?

I guess herein lies the problem. Its not that long ago Dublin footballers played matches in Parnell Park. Galway played and beat Dublin in Parnell Park in 2010. The spring series as it was marketed began in 2011. And in fairness to the GAA it was a great idea and was very well marketed. Money was being made from Dublin games. Is that still the case now? Attendances are no where near where they were for both Dublin league games and Leinster Championship games. Going back as early as 2013 Dublin wanted to take themselves out of Croke Park and back to Parnell Park due to falling attendances.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/football/duffy-says-dublins-spring-series-in-croke-park-to-go-ahead-250772.html

But this was basically refused by Croke Park. The GAA hierarchy put Dublin into Croke Park so I think now its time to examine how to take them back out of Croke Park beginning with League games played in a near empty stadium.

salmocab

The big problem with Croker is it’s too big for most games especially league matches but Parnell is way too small. Building a 30,000 stadium would cost a fortune and only really needed for a handful of games and from a monetary point of view would just be a waste of money.

Bonniedog

I would much prefer Parnell, as I do for the hurlers.

Problem is the crowds. Biggest was 35,000 for Mayo game, lowest 14, 502 for Galway. Average 23,200.

They are phenomenal crowds for national football league divisional games even with the decline since 2011, and the Mayo game bigger than many if not most finals not involving Dublin.

I would still prefer PP, but ticketing would be a problem.

Bridge93

Did somebody claim that once an attendance hits roughly 16/17,000 at normal prices that the overheads for Croke Park are covered? Good few thousand more as a minimum attend dublin matches even allowing for the drop in attendances. That's a fair bit of revenue to cough up. Herein potentially lies the discord between the GAA and to a certain extent the county boards, and the fans.

But even saying that. A lot of disgruntled people wont get tickets to Parnell. Be a scamble 90% of the time. Suppose it comes down to what the GAA value the most? A "fair" competition, as many happy fans as possible, or maximum revenue. The second of those three is very difficult to achieve across the board as it probably is a result of somehow doing both one and three

Bonniedog

It is a pity that Parnell cannot be increased in size, which is apparently the case.

Even 2/3 years ago it was too small for Vinnies/Ballymun club semis and finals. No way either that a 25/30,000 stadium is going to be built by anyone from scratch.

So looks like DCB are stuck with Croker. interesting that CP was able to prevent Dublin going back to Parnell. I wasn't sure about that to be honest.

gormdubhgorm

Bonniedog wrote: »

I would much prefer Parnell, as I do for the hurlers.

Problem is the crowds. Biggest was 35,000 for Mayo game, lowest 14, 502 for Galway. Average 23,200.

They are phenomenal crowds for national football league divisional games even with the decline since 2011, and the Mayo game bigger than many if not most finals not involving Dublin.

I would still prefer PP, but ticketing would be a problem.

Plus there is also the fact the the hurlers always perform way better in Parnell.
Tighter pitch and so on. In fact the Dublin hurlers have been at a clear disadvantage any time they played thier 'home' games in Croke Park.
They have/had a tendency to get 'lost' in it.

FullBack Jam

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Plus there is also the fact the the hurlers always perform way better in Parnell.
Tighter pitch and so on. In fact the Dublin hurlers have been at a clear disadvantage any time they played thier 'home' games in Croke Park.
They have/had a tendency to get 'lost' in it.

Why is that different for the opposing teams.

gormdubhgorm

I was wondering any of the 'financial doping' theorists/money = success have found an explanation for the utter failure of Parnell's GAA club in Coolock when they received €22m from the sale of land, costs spiraled and they went into debt.

https://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-football/a-spectacular-reversal-of-fortune-28955015.html

Parnells started to import players from other counties about six years ago - ten of them!

Colm Parkinson (Laois), Darren Rooney (Laois) , MJ Tierney (Laois), Colm Begley (Laois), Andy Mallon (Armagh), Conor Mortimer (Mayo), Andreas Doyle (Wexford), Ciaran McKeever (Amragh), Rory Quinlivan and Johnny Murtagh (Armagh)

In fact it got so bad (around 2014) that Cluxton refused to play for the senior team for a while, as he wanted to play junior with his mates he grew up with.

Parnells have still not won the Dublin championship since 1988 and have not even contested a Senior Dublin final since 1991
Parnells were relegated from the Dublin senior football championship in 2018

If ever there was an example of money not = success in the GAA surely this is it.
But the only response I got from the 'financial doping' theorists is that there are always exceptions!

To me it bursts apart the who fallacious theory - when added to a decline at under age in football for Dublin GAA (football) at minor/u21 in recent years, and a decline of of the intercounty dublin hurlers since 2013, the shock losses at club level Dublin football teams received since 2013.

Surely questions must be asked over the validity of this 'financial doping' theory in the GAA?
The phrase is a nice soundbite (stolen from Wenger an ex-pro soccer manager from the richest league in the world) for Dublin's detractors.
The phrase 'financial doping' is eye catching on the surface.
But when some digging starts there are so many 'exceptions' to the theory in the GAA. It does not seem to stand up to scrutiny.

gormdubhgorm

flasher0030 wrote: »

Why is that different for the opposing teams.

Because on the wider pitch the more skillful hurlers can hurl.
But in Parnell park it lends itself to more scrummage, physicality and crowding out of players.
That means if a number of players are not as skillful with skills (such as the pick up from the ground) the next opponent can be crowded out by sheer numbers to get the sliothar back.
Tighter pitch means there is less ground to cover for players to do it closing down.

As Anthony Daly often says 'Dublin are a match for anyone in Parnell Park.'

For example in the game against Galway Dublin ran around like men possessed in Parnell Park, they did not give Galway an inch.
Then Dublin played Laois in Portlaoise....

The_Honeybadger

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I was wondering any of the 'financial doping' theorists/money = success have found an explanation for the utter failure of Parnell's GAA club in Coolock when they received €22m from the sale of land, costs spiraled and they went into debt.

https://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-football/a-spectacular-reversal-of-fortune-28955015.html

Parnells started to import players from other counties about six years ago - ten of them!

Colm Parkinson (Laois), Darren Rooney (Laois) , MJ Tierney (Laois), Colm Begley (Laois), Andy Mallon (Armagh), Conor Mortimer (Mayo), Andreas Doyle (Wexford), Ciaran McKeever (Amragh), Rory Quinlivan and Johnny Murtagh (Armagh)

In fact it got so bad (around 2014) that Cluxton refused to play for the senior team for a while, as he wanted to play junior with his mates he grew up with.

Parnells have still not won the Dublin championship since 1988 and have not even contested a Senior Dublin final since 1991
Parnells were relegated from the Dublin senior football championship in 2018

If ever there was an example of money not = success in the GAA surely this is it.
But the only response I got from the 'financial doping' theorists is that there are always exceptions!

To me it bursts apart the who fallacious theory - when added to a decline at under age in football for Dublin GAA (football) at minor/u21 in recent years, and a decline of of the intercounty dublin hurlers since 2013, the shock losses at club level Dublin football teams received since 2013.

Surely questions must be asked over the validity of this 'financial doping' theory in the GAA?
The phrase is a nice soundbite (stolen from Wenger an ex-pro soccer manager from the richest league in the world) for Dublin's detractors.
The phrase 'financial doping' is eye catching on the surface.
But when some digging starts there are so many 'exceptions' to the theory in the GAA. It does not seem to stand up to scrutiny.

Has there been a decline in Dublin football at minor / U21?

Dublin have won four U21’s since 2010 and made the U20 final this year. They had only won the competition once prior to that. This unprecedented success began 5-6 years after the investment on the ground. I doubt it’s a coincidence and is a good template for other counties to follow actually if funding is to be broadened.

I don’t know the back story to Parnells so won’t comment on that.

Bonniedog

You should contact Wooly about Parnells the next time he is on about "financial doping."

Parnells situation was farcical and as gormdubhghorm mentions, persuaded Cluxton to play for their juniors rather than with a bunch of hired mercenaries.

Wooly should be an expert on "professionalism" in the GAA, ………...

bruschi

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I was wondering any of the 'financial doping' theorists/money = success have found an explanation for the utter failure of Parnell's GAA club in Coolock when they received €22m from the sale of land, costs spiraled and they went into debt.

https://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-football/a-spectacular-reversal-of-fortune-28955015.html

Parnells started to import players from other counties about six years ago - ten of them!

Colm Parkinson (Laois), Darren Rooney (Laois) , MJ Tierney (Laois), Colm Begley (Laois), Andy Mallon (Armagh), Conor Mortimer (Mayo), Andreas Doyle (Wexford), Ciaran McKeever (Amragh), Rory Quinlivan and Johnny Murtagh (Armagh)

In fact it got so bad (around 2014) that Cluxton refused to play for the senior team for a while, as he wanted to play junior with his mates he grew up with.

Parnells have still not won the Dublin championship since 1988 and have not even contested a Senior Dublin final since 1991
Parnells were relegated from the Dublin senior football championship in 2018

If ever there was an example of money not = success in the GAA surely this is it.
But the only response I got from the 'financial doping' theorists is that there are always exceptions!

To me it bursts apart the who fallacious theory - when added to a decline at under age in football for Dublin GAA (football) at minor/u21 in recent years, and a decline of of the intercounty dublin hurlers since 2013, the shock losses at club level Dublin football teams received since 2013.

Surely questions must be asked over the validity of this 'financial doping' theory in the GAA?
The phrase is a nice soundbite (stolen from Wenger an ex-pro soccer manager from the richest league in the world) for Dublin's detractors.
The phrase 'financial doping' is eye catching on the surface.
But when some digging starts there are so many 'exceptions' to the theory in the GAA. It does not seem to stand up to scrutiny.

you're comparing chalk and cheese here GDG.

Parnells got a load of money through their property investment and decided to spend a lot of it on developments and paying players from outside the area to play for them.

If you want an apt comparison, it would be Dublin paying outside county players to play for them. People who go to other clubs/counties on the basis of payment dont have the heart that the local club/county player has.

And lastly, this wasnt a case of Dublin got money and decided to invest in coaching. This was a decision by the GAA to implement a new strategy with the coordination of Dublin of having full time paid coaches being employed directly in clubs. If the GAA just said, here's a few million, do what you like, it wouldnt have got through. The money was invested in coaching. This offer was not given to any other county despite looking for similar investment in coaching structures.

By Dublin having this investment, it means they dont have the same concerns about other areas where they have expenditure.

Something too, if you really want to throw the cat amongst the pigeons, which has been mentioned a few times about the "decline of Dublin hurling". When did this special offer, over and above the Games development money, stop?

https://www.independent.ie/sport/hurling/dublin-answer-6m-question-26759948.html

I thought it was €1m over 5 years ending in 2011, this article seems to suggest it was 6 years. Either way, it was a huge amount more than any other county got specific to hurling only. And this, is over and above any figure included in Games development money, which strangely enough, our favourite friend from Brazil now living in Portugal hasnt spotted.

gormdubhgorm

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

Has there been a decline in Dublin football at minor / U21?

Dublin have won four U21’s since 2010 and made the U20 final this year. They had only won the competition once prior to that. This unprecedented success began 5-6 years after the investment on the ground. I doubt it’s a coincidence and is a good template for other counties to follow actually if funding is to be broadened.

I don’t know the back story to Parnells so won’t comment on that.

Yeah but Dublin have not won minor since 2012, they have not won the u21/20 since 2017.
My argument is that is is indicative of a dip in quality in Dublin underage football.
They did not even win the minor leinster this year they were beaten by Kildare and hammered by Mayo in the Minor QF.

Also Dublin did not even enter the Dublin u21 championship for a number of years. During the 70's and 80's (Heffo did not rate the grade at all)

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/trophy-bride-still-playing-hard-to-get-under-21-football-all-ireland-final-1.380985

This article lists the Dublin u21 teams that have been successful -

https://www.irishmirror.ie/sport/gaa/gaelic-football/gaelic-football-news/how-dublin-under-21-ireland-10334562

The Parnells story is mad altogether it caused a lot of disquiet and controversy in Dublin GAA. Plenty of people were pleased when it backfired on them.

The_Honeybadger

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Yeah but Dublin have not won minor since 2012, they have not won the u21/20 since 2017.
My argument is that is is indicative of a dip in quality in Dublin underage football.
They did not even win the minor leinster this year they were beaten by Kildare and hammered by Mayo in the Minor QF.

Also Dublin did not even enter the Dublin u21 championship for a number of years. During the 70's and 80's (Heffo did not rate the grade at all)

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/trophy-bride-still-playing-hard-to-get-under-21-football-all-ireland-final-1.380985

This article lists the Dublin u21 teams that have been successful -

https://www.irishmirror.ie/sport/gaa/gaelic-football/gaelic-football-news/how-dublin-under-21-ireland-10334562

The Parnells story is mad altogether it caused a lot of disquiet and controversy in Dublin GAA. Plenty of people were pleased when it backfired on them.

You can’t win it every year but Dublin have had a decade of absolutely unprecedented success at U21 was my point. Look at the senior players they got from those teams, Kilkenny, Mcaffrey, Fenton, Howard, Mannion, Con etc. It’s some going to win it four times in a decade. This grade is usually (but not always) a good indicator of future success at senior level.

That Parnells story sounds like a club that was very badly run and a bit of an anomaly really. I’m not sure how it relates to the wider topic on this thread.

bruschi

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Yeah but Dublin have not won minor since 2012, they have not won the u21/20 since 2017.
My argument is that is is indicative of a dip in quality in Dublin underage football.
They did not even win the minor leinster this year they were beaten by Kildare and hammered by Mayo in the Minor QF.

Also Dublin did not even enter the Dublin u21 championship for a number of years. During the 70's and 80's (Heffo did not rate the grade at all)

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/trophy-bride-still-playing-hard-to-get-under-21-football-all-ireland-final-1.380985

This article lists the Dublin u21 teams that have been successful -

https://www.irishmirror.ie/sport/gaa/gaelic-football/gaelic-football-news/how-dublin-under-21-ireland-10334562

The Parnells story is mad altogether it caused a lot of disquiet and controversy in Dublin GAA. Plenty of people were pleased when it backfired on them.

I'm not sure I'd count the U20s losing a final where they were heavy favourites, were way ahead and essentially threw it away in the final as indicative that the quality is dipping, considering they have just won it 2 years ago as well.

Also, they lost the Leinster minor after extra time and I dont know how you can consider losing 2-19 to 5-12, a 2 point loss where the opponents got a load of goals that wouldnt be typical as being a hammering.

Underage is not necessarily always the best gauge to see if a team wins it out every year. Some years there are freak teams or just a great bunch at one age group to come through. But Dublin are consistently at the business end far more than any other team, obviously bar Kerry, at minor and U20. And that to me is a good sign of strength, to be consistent at underage.

omega man

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

You can’t win it every year but Dublin have had a decade of absolutely unprecedented success at U21 was my point. Look at the senior players they got from those teams, Kilkenny, Mcaffrey, Fenton, Howard, Mannion, Con etc. It’s some going to win it four times in a decade. This grade is usually (but not always) a good indicator of future success at senior level.

That Parnells story sounds like a club that was very badly run and a bit of an anomaly really. I’m not sure how it relates to the wider topic on this thread.

So Kerry winning 5 minor AIs in a row is down to what? Let me guess, talent.

threeball

omega man wrote: »

So Kerry winning 5 minor AIs in a row is down to what? Let me guess, talent.

Kerry have a history of multiple wins in a row at minor or at least winning extremely regularly. Money makes very little difference to players under 18 bar maybe getting them better coaches and facilities. The real difference is after that. Look at the Dublin U21's, they are physically monstrous next to their counterparts from other counties. Theres no comparison between the S&C of them and other teams in the competition.

The_Honeybadger

omega man wrote: »

So Kerry winning 5 minor AIs in a row is down to what? Let me guess, talent.

Money, good organisation, development squads and talent.

Dublin have all of the above too.

U21 is the harder one to win and it has eluded Kerry since 2008. It can be a difficult grade to work with as they are all away in college etc, perhaps this has contributed to Dublins dominance of the grade, most of their lads would be based in Dublin and available for regular training etc. I know before Kerry’s first game a few years ago Jack remarked that he had not had the full group together for training at any stage.

Bonniedog

threeball wrote: »

Kerry have a history of multiple wins in a row at minor or at least winning extremely regularly. Money makes very little difference to players under 18 bar maybe getting them better coaches and facilities. The real difference is after that. Look at the Dublin U21's, they are physically monstrous next to their counterparts from other counties. Theres no comparison between the S&C of them and other teams in the competition.

Do you ever read what you post? you've spent months claiming that development funds for kids are why Dublin are currently successful. Now, it doesn't make a difference at all!

Anyway, your new thesis is:

Kerry are natural footballers and Dublin are gym monkeys, hint, hint …..

Why don't you just be honest and say what you mean?

anyway, good to see you are back on track after your disappointment at our lads not collapsing with 14 men last week

threeball

Bonniedog wrote: »

Do you ever read what you post? you've spent months claiming that development funds for kids are why Dublin are currently successful. Now, it doesn't make a difference at all!

Anyway, your new thesis is:

Kerry are natural footballers and Dublin are gym monkeys, hint, hint …..

Why don't you just be honest and say what you mean?

anyway, good to see you are back on track after your disappointment at our lads not collapsing with 14 men last week

You might read what I post instead before jumping the gun. I never once said the funding to the kids made any significant difference. Not once. Others have that opinion. I don't. Yes it ups the numbers but its only the money that keeps lads in the game from 16 onwards that makes any difference at adult level. You can have a lad kicking points from 40m off left and right at 14 but if hes gone on the beer at 17 its not worth a sh!te.