Waterford GAA Discussion Thread 2011-2012

cornerboy wrote: »

He kind of describes it as it would appear to most who are looking in from outside. Players problem is that they don't have credibility........they haven't been good enough to win an All Ireland and instead of questioning themselves have undermined successive managers. You can argue against that summary but that is how it will appear to most.

I don't like how it's been handled at all, but at the same time I have serious issues with Breheny using his medium tthat goes to a big audience to lambast the players without all the knowledge. He could have been far more reserved and still acknowledged that it was bad form how Ryan was treated. Too many glib remarks there, if he had made the same arguments against Cork a few years ago there would have been war. There are of course differences, but even his piece about otuside managers is not correct from what I heard and is one of several assumptions made. He could shape a lot of people's opinions on this situation without actually knowing much more than what anybody who reads a newspaper knows about it.

premierstone wrote: »

Not a big fan of Breheney and he's a bit of a sensationalist at the best of times and he's actual knowledge of the game of hurling leaves alot to be desired, but when you get past he's window dressing and he's attempted humor he actually is pretty close to the money on this one.

I mean who exactly do these Waterford players think they are? I'm not trying to be harsh here but they are so far out of line its not funny and they have zero achievements to actually back it up.

They have put the Waterford county board in an awfull position aswell - the simple fact is that the money is not there to attract a big name from outside and there doesn't seem to be a big name within that will satisfy them, the board are kind of caught between a rock and a hard place here and it needs to be resolved fairly promptly as you are going to have the likes of Gleeson, Bennett, Curran and Foran coming in over the next 24 months and the last thing they need at that age is coming into a divided panel who are also at loggerheads with the County Board.

I was told or read (not 100% sure which, maybe it was in this thread but I don't think so cos I'd usually be a bit skeptical about anything I read here) that in 2011 (I think maybe 2008) that the County Board agreed with the players that they would be consulted and their views taken into account when making decisions on managers from then on. Now, it appears they weren't actually consulted more that it was indicated that Ryan would be offered a new deal. That would make this issue very much their fault, and so I would have no sympathy for their task in finding a new manager.

That said, those that wanted to remove Ryan went about it the wrong way and I believe the way they did it was purely to get their way. They didn't want anyone who might someway stop them from passing the motion to get in their way, which would explain the low numbers and the timing of it. Take Cork, they would never have made this decision wihth only 11 present.

I would believe that the players having a meeting of the whole panel, and representatives of people who were four and against Ryan giving feedback to both Michael Ryan and a selection of board members would have been the right way to go about it. If they had just grievances, then no doubt Michael Ryan would have stepped aside. So the lack of respect for him would be a main bug bear with me.

At the moment, however, personally I am annoyed with how certain members of the panel have been treated by others. And they obviously are too. And now, people who shouldn't be getting berated, are by the likes of Breheny. Complex enough issue to be honest, if theres a very divided opinion on the manager then it is hard to resolve. But on all fronts, things have not been pursued in an appropriate manner.

doz wrote: »

Sorry to bring this issue up again as I know it is detested here but I have no doubt that the East-West divide would be strongly illustrated if we ever got a list of how players voted. I know a couple of players from the West (not Fourmilewater men) personally who would have always been behind Ryan in the past. I think you can also assume that players from his own club would have strongly supported him.

I dunno the make up of how it was divided either way, but to be honest I think the East/West divide might be over-stated. I think theres just as big an issue between clubs in the City, and I am under absolutely no doubt that if say Derek McGrath or Fergal Hartley or Jimmy Meaney were appointed that there would be those from rival clubs just waiting for the day they made any mistake, and looking for anything they could criticize.

Brad1234 wrote: »

Also on Breheny article.. If he is going to do an article on a national newspaper at least get the actual facts and dont take sound bites off fellas who are going around like chinese whisper...

Agree with that.

lovelypoint wrote: »

I can see where Paddy Joe Ryan is coming from, but the following quote from that article would disturb me a little about the perception/ definition of success and failure within the county by some, and the level of ambition:

He hailed the progress made over the two-year term and the foundations laid. “Most people think that Waterford overachieved last year."

That was immediately followed by: "He was building a new team and bringing on new players. Everybody felt that he was going in the right direction.”

I think there has been far too much accorded to moral victories, and green shoots, and we need to focus on real success, imo.

Given the closeness of their relations I think to be fair it would be unfair to read too much into Paddy Joe Ryan's words. He's defending his friend and man who obviously contributes a lot to the club he chairs. I do think he's right that we are going in the right direction though. Not saying Michael Ryan was going to take us to all-ireland glory, but I remember hearing a lot about how he was going to take us back to the doldrums or into the stone age, and I actually think he's made as much progression as most would with the team. Think he deserves to be commended even just for getting the right people involved. Obviously, his selectors were never popular choices but to be honest I would see you hurling coach and your fitness trainer as far more important.

The bottom line though is he was appointed when there weren't any outstanding candidates for the job. I was happy enough that after an awful start we're on the right road and was hoping we might be a bit luckier with availability of players and a few promising young players a year older.

The question I have now though is this: Is there an outstanding candidate to replace Michael Ryan?

http://www.paddypower.com/bet/gaa-sports/GAA-Sports-Specials/next-waterford-manager?ev_oc_grp_ids=1291085

parish girl wrote: »

Without wanting to cause a stampede what are the positives of Michael Ryan's reign. We stayed in Division 1. In year one that was achieved only after the players spoke up, and two existing selectors resigned and Ken was brought in. This year admittedly the league was better but and we won two games early on to take the pressure on.
Looking on from outside we have in my opinion a decent honest group of players and they would not have taken the stance lightly. I think the players were clearly unhappy and had three choices; retire, speak out or go through the motions and gradually slip back into the doldrums of the 80s. By all accounts things within the camp had not been great for a while we on the outside can speculate all we want but we have to trust that the players do know best.They did in year one and I trust they did this time also.
I think we have to support the players as they are the fellows who put their lives on hold to play and can we blame them for wanting the best available.
It seems the numbers of players reported to be at the meeting has changed significantly from 11 to 20 in favour of the course of action taken. Does this change perceptions if this figure proved to be correct?

There was only 11 at the meeting though seemingly. What way the vote split when players voted is still unknown.

The Irish Examiner said 20/28 voted against him. Brian Flannery has subsequently said it was 18/30. 18-12 is not a big difference. A majority yes, but this notion that "the players know best" (they no more than aynone else for certain) and that "they put too much effort in to settle for second best" or whatever spin we want to put on it. Clearly, plenty of htem were quite happy with things.

Some people would respond to that by talking about his pals in the West voting for him, as if there's one big congregation of people hear starting just beyond Rathgormack that all have sessions together where they talk about how much they hate the City :rolleyes: I'm glad there appears to be a lot less people here suggesting it was a coup organized by the City crowd to get Derek McGrath in charge as they could never be happy with a 'westerner'. I think both are ludicrous suggestions.

robopaddy wrote: »

your link to the odds show derek mcgrath very strong odds. this would indicate they know something was this a name put forward by the players?

I really dont know anymore my head is fried at this stage!!!

My understanding is that those that were in favour of Ryan were doing so with Derek McGrath as their preferred candidate for the job.

chinguetti wrote: »

Whatever people think of Breheny's article, its how it looks to anyone on the outside. The longer this goes on without any clarification, the more of these articles you will see come the weekend.

The players are split according to all sources that we have heard/seen in the vote. The players now are saying nothing which is making any split widen and continue the bad feeling doing the rounds. Surely one of the players had the cop on to point out that if they were going to try and oust Ryan, they should have had some media plan because if what we read/hear is true, the panel wasn't happy with things but we don't know what made them unhappy. I wonder how many of them are doing some media study in college?

The County Board is clueless and are doing their best to stay out of this mess. Whether they have any hand or part in it, no one knows.

Ryan's interview tomorrow will be interesting but if it was recorded on Monday, it was be outdated. Anyone know if its live?

Don't think it's live but I'd also be pretty sure it wasn't recorded on Monday.