Cork Hurling Manager?

Okay, so we're four month's into the dispute, and even though there's a palpable shift in support in the direction of the players, things seem as entrenched now as they were at the start, and maybe even more so. I've always been one of the few non-rebels on here to (tentatively) support the players (posting as lenny_leonard, btw), but I've never given a good rationale for my position, and I feel compelled to do it as there are some repeated arguments against the players which I believe to be somewhat unfair. Admitedly my position is not based on any knowledge of the political machinations of the Cork GAA scene, but that also means my arguments are not influenced by any emotional attachment to the issues at hand, and are purely those of an outside observer.

Anyway, the first point I take issue with is the continued assertion that the players want to pick their own manager. A lot of posts in this thread seem to use this as the basis that the players are the villains of the piece. This, imo, is a complete misrepresentation of the players position; they have always asserted that what they are fighting for is an appropriate manager appointment process. Right from the start, we had Ger McCarthy acknowledging this, shortly after his ratification as manager: “I met with two players on Monday and they spoke to me about the process that saw my name go forward for ratification and that they felt it was wrong”. And since then, there has been nothing in the media to suggest that the players want anything other than an effective appointment process. From an article in The Examiner on 10th October, regarding the two player representatives at the appointment proceedings [1]:

wrote:

“The players... said they were here to talk about processes, not personalities. How would they go about seeking the best man and system for the job? Would there be a shortlist? Interviews? It's how it worked in other counties, including Tyrone with Mickey Harte's appointment. The board informed them that wasn't how Cork operated.”

From the Players Statement, Wednesday 05th November [2]:

wrote:

“The players don’t say they have the right to pick the manager, (their wish was to be involved in the selection process) nor do they want the right to pick the manager.“

From here the argument logically goes on to the involvement of the two players reps in the discussions of the appointment of a new manager- how hard did they fight for the process they seek? Did they even offer any names? Admittedly, this is one aspect that I originally thought worked against the players as it appeared that they played a very passive role in the discussions, and thus were partly to blame for the resulting stand-off, and maybe even were the instigators of it. However, the November Players Statement indicates that the reps did indeed try to steer the appointment discussion in a positive direction:

Players Statement, Wednesday 05th November [2]

wrote:

“The county board insists the two player representatives never presented any other candidate for consideration . . . at the third meeting there was a discussion of the names of other possible managers.”

PLAYERS: “In two sentences, the innate contradiction of the county board statement is clearly set out. It can hardly be said that nobody was presented for consideration if there was a discussion of their names. By way of further clarification, the names were suggested at the second meeting (not the third), which was attended by Seán Óg Ó hAilpín (as proxy for John Gardiner). It was the only meeting he attended and he suggested potential candidates. Regarding the process, the players believe that the board tried to force them into a vote (on one man) where they held the majority, while attempting to maintain that this was ‘a process’. “

So again, there's nothing to indicate that the players were interested in anything other than an appropriate appointment process.

Another argument floated around is that the players agreed to a “No-Strike Clause” in the Keiran Mulvey Arbitration Deal last February (almost a year ago to the day, incidentally), yet here they are again involved in a de facto strike. This aspect troubles me and is one which is tough to argue against, although one of the reasons for that is that the full text of the arbitration is hard to find. All that's available online are these excerpts; The No-Strike Clause is:

"No strike clause -- the players agree not to invoke any strike process in future where it is clear that the terms of this arbitration memorandum have been adhered to by the Board."

All that says is that once the CCB carry out their obligations as detailed in the arbitration deal, then the players won't strike in the future. Without knowing the full text of the arbitration, it's impossible to analyze whether or not the CCB have carried out their obligations to the letter of the law. I mean, was there a clause that a better manager appointment process would be carried out in future, or would it just be business as usual for the CCB executive? Or was there an unspoken, implicit understanding by all sides that a more thorough appointment process would be carried out in the future (the 'spirit' of the process, as mentioned a lot recently)? My feeling is that the latter was the prevailing sentiment; after all, the strike in the first place was due to what was perceived to be a flawed appointment process. Surely any settlement would include a commitment to improve the process, at least in spirit if not in an actual clause? And from the two statements in the last couple of weeks (hurlers and fooballers), I'm inclined to believe that this is the case:

Hurlers Statement 26th January 2009 [3]

wrote:

“We were given a role in the selection process for the Hurling manager for 2009 by Kieran Mulvey in his arbitration findings in early 2008.

In good faith, our representatives took part in a number of meetings on behalf of the panel, until it became clear that there was no process really involved. The Board Executive clearly viewed it as a vote, in which they would always have a majority. This was obviously not a "process" by any interpretation of the word. “

...Accordingly, we have always maintained that the appointment of the current manager was flawed.“

Footballers Statement, 5th February 2009 [4]

“We believe that Mr Kieran Mulvey’s arbitration findings were an ideal template for the executive and the players to begin working together for the benefit of the GAA in Cork and to help repair relations that have been damaged in the past.

“Unfortunately, we believe that it is evident that the executive would rather work against the Cork hurling panel of 2008 rather than work with them and we are fearful that Cork hurlers and footballers of the future will be put in the same position.

“We do not believe that the executive have acted with the best interest of Cork GAA at heart with their recent actions, whereby the spirit of the arbitration was not adhered to in the selection process.

At the risk of rambling on with this point, it could of course be argued that the players were negligent in not having an 'appointment process' clause in the deal (if indeed one doesn't exist, as it would appear), and so any consequences are the fault of the players. But if the 'spirit' of the deal was that the appointment process would improve, then the CCB are completely wrong, in my opinion, for exploiting the lack of any such clause. In addition to this, the fact that the CCB can effectively ignore the opinions of the players reps through the 5-2 majority they hold in the selection process, gives some legitimacy to the claim that the CCB is using the arbitration deal as a tool to gain revenge over the losses to the players in 2002 and 2008. While I'm not saying definitively that the CCB are exploiting the arbitration deal, the fact is that the ways and means to do so are available to them, and the cynic in me suggests that they are in fact doing this, even if only subconsciously.

And then we get around to the issue of whether Ger Mc is in fact good enough to get the full potential out of this team. Speaking as an outside observer, I think the answer to that is a resounding 'No'. In 2003-2006, Cork lost only two championship games, and won five of the major finals they were in. In the two years under Ger Mc, they lost five championship games and didn't make one final. As the players said themselves in their recent Statement:

Players Statement 26th January 2009[3]

wrote:

There was no complaint from us from 2003 to 2006. We contested all eight available championship finals and won five of them over those four seasons. We haven't contested a final since.

Sure, there were other issues going on such as Semplegate in '06 and the strike last year, but that still doesn't account for such a dip in form. And the claim that Cork are an aging team doesn't lend as much weight to the argument as some people believe- for an obvious corollary one just needs to look at the Irish Rugby side. Twelve months ago, they were written off as a stale, aging team, and three days ago they come out as a completely rejuvenated side to destroy France, with 'finished' BOD playing like a 23 year old. Eddie O'Sullivan lost the Irish dressing room last year, and Declan Kidney has reclaimed it this year. But Ger Mc clearly just doesn't have the dressing room, and his training seems to have a certain old-skool aspect to it as well. (From the article in The Examiner on 10th October [1]):

wrote:

They felt training wasn't up to scratch either... One drill was of particular concern to the players. Six men in one line facing infield, six in another facing them, between them, six poles in a straight line for them to solo zig-zag through. Player One goes. Solo in open space for a few yards, negotiate the six poles, solo in some more open space for a few yards, pass the ball off to the man first in line and then go back to the end. Players felt they were standing around idle for too long waiting for their next go.

... That summer Gerald had instructed the players to be on the field for training at 10 to seven every night yet too often he wasn't there. And when it had started, it was still too pedestrian and that was reflected in their hurling. The sharpness wasn't there to compete with Kilkenny. “

... People say the players want to run the show, that they won't listen to anyone,'" says one player. "But under [Donal O'] Grady, we were more than happy to do what we were told. It was reflected on the field. We didn't have the same confidence in Gerald's coaching.

At the end of the day, even though there are some peripheral issues going on to add to the demise of the Cork hurlers fortunes, it's glaringly obvious that the fit of management and players just wasn't working. So why on earth would the CCB be so eager to reappoint Ger Mc? The only reason I can come up with is that the CCB are trying to reassert themselves as being in charge. And if that's not the reason, and they believe their appointment process is sufficient, then they are just as negligent in looking after Corks welfare. As I mentioned in an earlier post, their appointment process, one that they consider good enough for the most successful county in GAA history, consisted of a few names being floated about, a call to the outgoing manager, and a vote by county board delegates on that one man. Compare that to the Galway appointment process with 8 candidates nominated, all 8 being interviewed, 3 getting called back for a second interview, and finally John McIntyre getting the job. The CCB executive should be ashamed if they feel that their 'process' is sufficient, because in all honesty it's just embarrassing.

Of course the fact that the county board delegates ratified Ger's appointment by 88 votes to 6 is also somewhat bizarre- but if the CCB/Frank Murphy is the wielder of power that some suggest, then maybe it's not that strange. Plus voting in a one-man election is inherently flawed; what's the question supposed to be? “Would you prefer this man elected, or would you prefer no-one?” You have to applaud the bravery (insanity?) of the 6 clubs who voted against, to be honest, as it's quite the insult to not be approved by everyone in a one man race.

This is rambling rapidly out of control, not that I expect anyone to have gotten this far anyway. I'm not sure I've even made a good case for the players, but I do believe that they have genuine grievances in this dispute. There is however one last thing that really annoys me about the whole debate, and that's the labeling of the players as “whingers” and “cry-babies”, as has happened a lot in the thread. I personally think that's way off the mark and is very unfair on the players. I've always believed that hurling in one of the true remaining 'warrior' sports, and that top-class inter-county hurlers exist on a different psychological level to other Irish athletes due to the mythical roots in Irish history. These players aren't 'throwing the toys out of the pram', as has been suggested; some of these players have won three All-Ireland's since '99, and surely they've earned the right to a lot more respect than a simple labeling of 'cry-babies'.