Off The Ball Official Thread <Mod Note - Post #1, #533, #6651>

Aidric

Tell me how wrote: »

What do you think they should have done, given that the had a contract in place to promote it?

You answered your own question.

Jayesdiem

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Both Richie and Joe were very critical of the new sanctions in the newsround this evening and called out many of the hypocrisies in it.

I feel they are being hypocritical themselves, if true. The government will deliver what proves to be popular amongst the population. OTB, on several occasions, have championed these draconian measures. They’ve been happy to see sport degenerate into the unattended parody it’s become so when the government give them more of what they originally wanted, they shouldn’t be complaining, though for sport’s sake, I’m glad they are.

irs

Micheal Martin is the fall guy in this and is safe to criticise unlike "Leo & Simon".

Tell me how

generalgerry wrote: »

Ah come on. You think that it was acceptable that they suspended their moralising while the money was rolling in, and then almost as soon as it was over they had Ciara Kelly in to tell us how bad an idea it was that it went ahead.

It's a bit like the fox eating all the occupants of the henhouse and then giving out to the farmer for having not better protected it. :pac:

Aidric wrote: »

You answered your own question.

All the other entities, newspapers, other shows etc covered it as well.
Do you think any entity would, or did, turn down money or annoy a sponsor in such a manner?

It's just a convenient stick to be used here against them. Same old, same old.

generalgerry

Tell me how wrote: »

All the other entities, newspapers, other shows etc covered it as well. Do you think any entity would, or did, turn down money or annoy a sponsor in such a manner?

Yeah but just because other people are hypocritical, doesn't mean that they are all forgiven because of the weight of numbers of similar hypocrites.

If they are choosing to be activists and hold strong positions on certain political issues, then it is fair game to point out when the show that employs them makes choices for commercial reasons that are in complete conflict to the views that they have been ramming down our throats promoting. I mean, they either believe in what they advocate for or they are just selling out, which is it?

Tell me how

generalgerry wrote: »

Yeah but just because other people are hypocritical, doesn't mean that they are all forgiven because of the weight of numbers of similar hypocrites.

If they are choosing to be activists and hold strong positions on certain political issues, then it is fair game to point out when the show that employs them makes choices for commercial reasons that are in complete conflict to the views that they have been ramming down our throats promoting. I mean, they either believe in what they advocate for or they are just selling out, which is it?

Why are they being held to a different standard then others? And spare me they've asked for it with their virtue signalling. They have covered topics and expressed opinions largely in line with how most of their listeners discuss and view things. And generally not really much different than how staff on other shows be it Sunday Sport, Game On or Second Captains except given what OTB produce, they can devote more time to the interesting topics outside the lines (which some here seem to hate).

People complaining about them doing so lost their sh*t over a throw away comment that darts was an inferior sport. While also probably repeatedly using Roy Keane's prawn sandwich brigade phrase. Both cases being just an example of someone with a platform expressing an opinion.

A lot of the judgement, seems to me, to come down to a frustration that these guys talk about sports in the same way most of the rest of us do, but the difference is that it is their full time job to do it.

Jayesdiem

Tell me how wrote: »

A lot of the judgement, seems to me, to come down to a frustration that these guys talk about sports in the same way most of the rest of us do

I can’t agree with this bit and I doubt you even believe what you’ve said yourself. At no point in my life have I ever conversed with a friend, or friends, about sport through the lens of addressing social or community issues. We talk about the latest big signing, the controversial red card, the messed up VAR decision or nostalgia of the past. We never, and I mean NEVER, discuss Muslim head dresses, taking a knee, Rapinoe’s latest activism or what a bad role model Lance is to children. Neither do we seek to include women in our chats to signal to some tokenistic brand of equality. I hasten to add, this is when things called “pubs” and “restaurants” existed so I’m not quite sure what shape our conversations will take going forward.

Tell me how

Jayesdiem wrote: »

I can’t agree with this bit and I doubt you even believe what you’ve said yourself. At no point in my life have I ever conversed with a friend, or friends, about sport through the lens of addressing social or community issues. We talk about the latest big signing, the controversial red card, the messed up VAR decision or nostalgia of the past. We never, and I mean NEVER, discuss Muslim head dresses, taking a knee, Rapinoe’s latest activism or what a bad role model Lance is to children. Neither do we seek to include women in our chats to signal to some tokenistic brand of equality. I hasten to add, this is when things called “pubs” and “restaurants” existed so I’m not quite sure what shape our conversations will take going forward.

You and I are different. And I say that with zero judgement whatsoever. I am always interested in the conversation around the fringes of sport as well as the analysis. In fact, I find the analysis can get very repetitive very quickly.

I used to find programs like Sky's 'The Debate' were just too shallow when it was a good opportunity or experts in the game to explore the psyche which exists amongst players and managers but more and more analysis now is too processed so as not to inflame or be used as a stick to beat a team or a player with and I find that boring.

Same reason why I enjoy Paul Kimmages writing as it is never simply about the score and I enjoyed the Chicago Bulls documentary 'The Last Dance' because so much of it was about the personalities and their motivations and challenges beyond just hitting a basket.

Jayesdiem

Tell me how wrote: »

Same reason why I enjoy Paul Kimmages writing as it is never simply about the score and I enjoyed the Chicago Bulls documentary 'The Last Dance' because so much of it was about the personalities and their motivations and challenges beyond just hitting a basket.

Your examples are very different to what goes on on that show in terms of hot button social issues that bear no relevance to the sport itself. I believe 90% of people would also be interested in Michael Jordan’s psyche and I’m no different. Michael Jordan’s motives however are worlds away from what I listed above (ie Muslim head dresses, ill-tempered pink-haired women who are angry with the world, the performance of individuals not as athletes, but as role models etc etc etc). Do you not think these issues are mundane and irrelevant compared to the motives that drove Jordan to five NBA titles? I do.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

You and I are different. And I say that with zero judgement whatsoever. I am always interested in the conversation around the fringes of sport as well as the analysis. In fact, I find the analysis can get very repetitive very quickly.

I used to find programs like Sky's 'The Debate' were just too shallow when it was a good opportunity or experts in the game to explore the psyche which exists amongst players and managers but more and more analysis now is too processed so as not to inflame or be used as a stick to beat a team or a player with and I find that boring.

Same reason why I enjoy Paul Kimmages writing as it is never simply about the score and I enjoyed the Chicago Bulls documentary 'The Last Dance' because so much of it was about the personalities and their motivations and challenges beyond just hitting a basket.

You're nothing if not consistent, I'll give you that. Fair play.

To quote Kimmage, 'I may be an asshole, but I'm a consistent asshole!'

The problem with OTB is that they have shown no consistency on key issues such as Cheltenham, and when you are moralising one minute and then silent the next it leaves you with egg on your face. You can't run with the fox and the hounds, and by taking the cash from the likes of PP, you are leaving yourself very exposed.

OTB was made to look silly and weak, and lacking in integrity and credibility, by their own inconsistency.

I think what you are trying to suggest by the above is that you like to take a deeper look at sport which is great. I think that's how OTB positioned itself in the past - and it's the market Second Captains has cornered now - but there has been a clear editorial shift away from that content - or maybe it's just the sheer amount of content they now have to produce - of late and there is far to much inane analysis on it now.

And I hate to break it to you, but Paul Kimmage may have done some amazing journalism and done the sport of cycling an incredible service in the past, but he has allowed his ego to run away with itself. Other than his irregular and very hit and miss Q and A's, I can't remember the last interesting piece of his that I read. I'm not sure how any paper would have him on staff given all the baggage he carries and the very patchy nature of his work.

gormdubhgorm

Deleted User wrote: »

And I hate to break it to you, but Paul Kimmage may have done some amazing journalism and done the sport of cycling an incredible service in the past, but he has allowed his ego to run away with itself. Other than his irregular and very hit and miss Q and A's, I can't remember the last interesting piece of his that I read. I'm not sure how any paper would have him on staff given all the baggage he carries and the very patchy nature of his work.

Yeah I agree with this. I find Kimmage a bit of a one trick pony these days. Seems to be volume over quality. Even the style he has has stayed stuck. Transcribes pages and pages of his interviews word for word. He seemed fresh once upon a time, not now.

PK: Do you think blah blah?
XYZ: blah blah blah

PK: Do you think blah blah?
XYZ: blah blah blah

I always feel like it should come with a TLDR summary at the end!

CatFromHue

I much prefer Kimmage's Q&A style of interviews, you get exactly what the interviewee is saying as supposed to what the interviewer thinks they're saying.

Tell me how

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Michael Jordan’s motives however are worlds away from what I listed above (ie Muslim head dresses, ill-tempered pink-haired women who are angry with the world, the performance of individuals not as athletes, but as role models etc etc etc). Do you not think these issues are mundane and irrelevant compared to the motives that drove Jordan to five NBA titles? I do.

I actually do think a lot of people are interested in the mental side that athletes have to deal with and how they experience and are affected by real world events. I've mentioned before about Keith Earls interview with Joe Molloy and how they spsoke about the effect mental health can have on your game and your game on your mental health and it was very interesting.

And whether it be muslim head dresses or whatever, the things which can play on a persons mind and impact their preparation and performance are interesting to hear about. For me anyway and I suspect I am not the only one.

I read about a student track athlete some years ago who suffered with had self harmed. They wanted to hide the scars and so wore long sleeved training tops but this was in a very hot climate and their body overheated and it impact their training and their performances reflected this. The comment about ill-tempered pink haired women who are angry with the world indicates an unwillingness to consider what it is that is making them angry. I am interested in that.

Deleted User wrote: »

The problem with OTB is that they have shown no consistency on key issues such as Cheltenham, and when you are moralising one minute and then silent the next it leaves you with egg on your face. You can't run with the fox and the hounds, and by taking the cash from the likes of PP, you are leaving yourself very exposed.

OTB was made to look silly and weak, and lacking in integrity and credibility, by their own inconsistency.

I think what you are trying to suggest by the above is that you like to take a deeper look at sport which is great. I think that's how OTB positioned itself in the past - and it's the market Second Captains has cornered now - but there has been a clear editorial shift away from that content - or maybe it's just the sheer amount of content they now have to produce - of late and there is far to much inane analysis on it now.

And I hate to break it to you, but Paul Kimmage may have done some amazing journalism and done the sport of cycling an incredible service in the past, but he has allowed his ego to run away with itself. Other than his irregular and very hit and miss Q and A's, I can't remember the last interesting piece of his that I read. I'm not sure how any paper would have him on staff given all the baggage he carries and the very patchy nature of his work.

Yes, I do like the deeper look (or outside the box look) on sports topics. When I heard Joey Carberry had been injured, my immediate thought was how difficult this must be mentally given the frustration of the last few months and the concern about their sport given the impact loss of games and gate receipts will have on it. I'd be much more interested in an indepth conversation about that than the stock 'It must be frustrating, all he can do is get treatment and hopefully come back fit and strong' stock answers.

I think the view on OTB's Cheltenham coverage is possibly because you disagree with them expressing any personal views on any topic.

The idea that a group or individual have to behave in the exact same manner on every topic is not how real life works or if it is, it is precisely because someone is just adopting a position or applying their fixed view on something which is both illogical and boring.

Even with this in mind, what we are talking about here is the stance the show took during the Cheltenham festival, (which did go ahead) and during which they had a sponsorship deal with Paddy Power (I think).
I am 100% of the opinion that if they had announced that they had taken a moral position not to cover it and returned their fee for the sponsorship deal that there would have been very vocal views that they were after pulling the most snowflake of all moves ever. They covered it, pretty unenthusiastically if I recall and even on the last day of it, John Duggan was questioning the sense in it having gone ahead.

I see it as fulflling their obligation more so than abandoning any moral position they have supposedly taken.

That deal would have been agreed and negotiated last year at some point and given that, and given that the festival did indeed go ahead, what do you suggest they should have done?

Tell me how

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Yeah I agree with this. I find Kimmage a bit of a one trick pony these days. Seems to be volume over quality. Even the style he has has stayed stuck. Transcribes pages and pages of his interviews word for word. He seemed fresh once upon a time, not now.

PK: Do you think blah blah?
XYZ: blah blah blah

PK: Do you think blah blah?
XYZ: blah blah blah

I always feel like it should come with a TLDR summary at the end!

I much rather Kimmages inquisitive style which showcase warts and all of a situation or person than the bland focus pieces that are little more than a PR exercise for the athlete or team.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

I actually do think a lot of people are interested in the mental side that athletes have to deal with and how they experience and are affected by real world events. I've mentioned before about Keith Earls interview with Joe Molloy and how they spsoke about the effect mental health can have on your game and your game on your mental health and it was very interesting.

And whether it be muslim head dresses or whatever, the things which can play on a persons mind and impact their preparation and performance are interesting to hear about. For me anyway and I suspect I am not the only one.

I read about a student track athlete some years ago who suffered with had self harmed. They wanted to hide the scars and so wore long sleeved training tops but this was in a very hot climate and their body overheated and it impact their training and their performances reflected this. The comment about ill-tempered pink haired women who are angry with the world indicates an unwillingness to consider what it is that is making them angry. I am interested in that.



Yes, I do like the deeper look (or outside the box look) on sports topics. When I heard Joey Carberry had been injured, my immediate thought was how difficult this must be mentally given the frustration of the last few months and the concern about their sport given the impact loss of games and gate receipts will have on it. I'd be much more interested in an indepth conversation about that than the stock 'It must be frustrating, all he can do is get treatment and hopefully come back fit and strong' stock answers.

I think the view on OTB's Cheltenham coverage is possibly because you disagree with them expressing any personal views on any topic.

The idea that a group or individual have to behave in the exact same manner on every topic is not how real life works or if it is, it is precisely because someone is just adopting a position or applying their fixed view on something which is both illogical and boring.

Even with this in mind, what we are talking about here is the stance the show took during the Cheltenham festival, (which did go ahead) and during which they had a sponsorship deal with Paddy Power (I think).
I am 100% of the opinion that if they had announced that they had taken a moral position not to cover it and returned their fee for the sponsorship deal that there would have been very vocal views that they were after pulling the most snowflake of all moves ever. They covered it, pretty unenthusiastically if I recall and even on the last day of it, John Duggan was questioning the sense in it having gone ahead.

I see it as fulflling their obligation more so than abandoning any moral position they have supposedly taken.

That deal would have been agreed and negotiated last year at some point and given that, and given that the festival did indeed go ahead, what do you suggest they should have done?

If they are going to take firm stances on moral issues - which their presenters do, and I am not suggesting they are wrong in that regard - then don't take money from the likes of Paddy Power in the first place. Simple. You are getting into bed with a rotten industry, and they've already been embarrassed twice now - the Leon Blanche 'betting tips' farrago and Cheltenham. As I said, you can't have it both ways.

I think it might be best to let that one die on the vine as you have your opinion and I have mine. And who's to say who us right. It's been done to death now.

For the record, I have no issue with presenters airing their views on certain issues, but I would much rather it done through the medium of clever interviewing and strategic questioning of guests rather than some of the see through grandstanding that can happen on OTB. As I said before, there are far more subtle and less arsey ways of doing it than some of the lads on OTB.

As a matter of interest, is there anything about OTB that you would be critical of? I'd like to think I can find a balance between being positive and critical when it's warranted. I'm not suggesting anything underhand or anything like that, but as someone who seems to have a great interest in the show I would have thought that you would occasionally find something that you might not like and consider posting on here about it...

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

If they are going to take firm stances on moral issues - which their presenters do, and I am not suggesting they are wrong in that regard - then don't take money from the likes of Paddy Power in the first place. Simple. You are getting into bed with a rotten industry, and they've already been embarrassed twice now - the Leon Blanche 'betting tips' farrago and Cheltenham. As I said, you can't have it both ways.

I think it might be best to let that one die on the vine as you have your opinion and I have mine. And who's to say who us right. It's been done to death now.

For the record, I have no issue with presenters airing their views on certain issues, but I would much rather it done through the medium of clever interviewing and strategic questioning of guests rather than some of the see through grandstanding that can happen on OTB. As I said before, there are far more subtle and less arsey ways of doing it than some of the lads on OTB.

As a matter of interest, is there anything about OTB that you would be critical of? I'm not suggesting anything underhand or anything like that, but as someone who seems to have a great interest in the show I would have thought that you would occasionally find something that you might not like and consider posting on here about...

Agree with a preference they stayed away from gambling money, and I messaged the show once when the tipster came on to say I turned it off whenever he appeared.

I would be of the view that the stances we do hear are simply expressions of views as and when they are appropriate to bring up rather than bona fide positions taken by the show but, that is a difference of opinion.

CatFromHue

CatFromHue wrote: »

I much prefer Kimmage's Q&A style of interviews, you get exactly what the interviewee is saying as supposed to what the interviewer thinks they're saying.

You get for too much of what the interviewee is saying, including lots of inane stuff. Any editor worth his salt would chop them to pieces and weed out the rubbish.

There is always something interesting in there, but it's a slog to find it.

Kimmage also has a shocking habit of just patching together loads of quotes from other sources to make his pieces. It's like he's just stopped writing and has lost his own voice.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Agree with a preference they stayed away from gambling money, and I messaged the show once when the tipster came on to say I turned it off whenever he appeared.

I would be of the view that the stances we do hear are simply expressions of views as and when they are appropriate to bring up rather than bona fide positions taken by the show but, that is a difference of opinion.

For the record, I have never suggested they are some sort of editorial stance taken by the show. You've taken me up incorrectly there.

I sent the same type of message to the show when the tipster came on, and used to genuinely just turn it off whenever he did appear.

Ahwell

Deleted User wrote: »

For the record, I have no issue with presenters airing their views on certain issues, but I would much rather it done through the medium of clever interviewing and strategic questioning of guests rather than some of the see through grandstanding that can happen on OTB. As I said before, there are far more subtle and less arsey ways of doing it than some of the lads on OTB.

Yes, but that's precisely what Newstalk want - "opinion-led radio". They want their presenters to be very opinionated. It's a way of differentiating Newstalk from RTE, where presenters don't tend to give their opinions.

None of the OTB team's opinions are that out of the ordinary. It's fairly mainstream stuff. Yet all we get here is mainstream presenter on a mainstream radio show expresses a mainstream opinion...shock!...horror!

Ahwell

Ahwell wrote: »

Yes, but that's precisely what Newstalk want - "opinion-led radio". They want their presenters to be very opinionated. It's a way of differentiating Newstalk from RTE, where presenters don't tend to give their opinions.

None of the OTB team's opinions are that out of the ordinary. It's fairly mainstream stuff. Yet all we get here is mainstream presenter on a mainstream radio show expresses a mainstream opinion...shock!...horror!

They do shouty radio from 7am right through Drivetime. I would have thought that the 7-10 slot and weekend slot is when people are looking for something a bit lighter, but maybe there is a concerted effort by station bosses to do the same with OTB. I hope not as sports radio is so much better when it's not shouty, opinion and ego led.

Anyway, we're veering off track...are you going to answer my question about ever bring critical of the show? Do you ever see faults or do you just choose to see the positive?

Ahwell

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyway, we're veering off track...are you going to answer my question about ever bring critical of the show? Do you ever see faults or do you just choose to see the positive?

What? When did you ask me this?

Ahwell

Ahwell wrote: »

What? When did you ask me this?

Seven posts back. Not having a go, just curious.

Ahwell

Deleted User wrote: »

Seven posts back. Not having a go, just curious.

I think you are mixing me up with Tell me how, I haven't posted in here since last week.

generalgerry

Tell me how wrote: »

They have covered topics and expressed opinions largely in line with how most of their listeners discuss and view things.

But there is no evidence for this. No group of lads have the same types of conversations about sport that these guys do. You're telling me that at the bar you have overhead a group of lads talking about how terrible it is how underfunded the female game is, or how it was terrible that some players didn't tie their shoelaces with the multicoloured shoelaces for pride, or how disgraceful it was that Burnley had a "white lives matter" flag flying above the stadium, or about how it's terrible that no premiership footballer has come out as being gay.

Like I said before, there is a competition in modern media to prove yourself as the most woke. All I want them to do is back the f**k off with the preachy liberal brainwashing that they go on it.

Ahwell

generalgerry wrote: »

You're telling me that at the bar you have overhead a group of lads talking about how terrible it is how underfunded the female game is, or how it was terrible that some players didn't tie their shoelaces with the multicoloured shoelaces for pride, or how disgraceful it was that Burnley had a "white lives matter" flag flying above the stadium, or about how it's terrible that no premiership footballer has come out as being gay.

I've watched, heard and read all those topics covered on TV sports shows, other sports radio shows, sports podcasts, Youtube sport channels and newspaper sports sections .i.e., the mainstream sports media. You're out of step with the mainstream and you don't like it. Tough, it's not going to change for your benefit.

Tell me how

generalgerry wrote: »

But there is no evidence for this. No group of lads have the same types of conversations about sport that these guys do. You're telling me that at the bar you have overhead a group of lads talking about how terrible it is how underfunded the female game is, or how it was terrible that some players didn't tie their shoelaces with the multicoloured shoelaces for pride, or how disgraceful it was that Burnley had a "white lives matter" flag flying above the stadium, or about how it's terrible that no premiership footballer has come out as being gay.

Like I said before, there is a competition in modern media to prove yourself as the most woke. All I want them to do is back the f**k off with the preachy liberal brainwashing that they go on it.

There is a whole world of people outside the circles you are familiar with generalgerry. That much is very obvious.

Modern media is more and more reflective of the audience, because it has to be.

Jayesdiem

Tell me how wrote: »

There is a whole world of people outside the circles you are familiar with generalgerry. That much is very obvious.

Modern media is more and more reflective of the audience, because it has to be.

If you hang around boards or Reddit, which I unfortunately do, you could be forgiven for thinking the entire world is woke, leftist BLM supporters. It is isn’t though and a good majority of people have contempt for that segment of society and resent it being part of daily dialogue, never mind sport. I’m serious when I say this - it’s an absolute scourge on society and sport, which was always supposed to remain politics free.

Tell me how

Jayesdiem wrote: »

If you hang around boards or Reddit, which I unfortunately do, you could be forgiven for thinking the entire world is woke, leftist BLM supporters. It is isn’t though and a good majority of people have contempt for that segment of society and resent it being part of daily dialogue, never mind sport. I’m serious when I say this - it’s an absolute scourge on society and sport, which was always supposed to remain politics free.

Yeah? Says who?

Sport and politics have historically been intertwined and thankfully frequently a platform which bridged a divide and allowed people to find a place where they could express themselves. Long may that continue.

And of course it has also been used to divide and isolate largely through the actions of some fan bases, in some sports, which is in itself an interesting topic why it happens in soccer but not in rugby.

Tell me how

Jayesdiem wrote: »

If you hang around boards or Reddit, which I unfortunately do, you could be forgiven for thinking the entire world is woke, leftist BLM supporters. It is isn’t though and a good majority of people have contempt for that segment of society and resent it being part of daily dialogue, never mind sport. I’m serious when I say this - it’s an absolute scourge on society and sport, which was always supposed to remain politics free.

Further evidence of the interest people have in topical items and real world events being discussed in the context of sport. Not just Stans comments, but the reaction to the comments Richie made all across social media.

https://twitter.com/StanCollymore/status/1296043177540018177

Jayesdiem

Tell me how wrote: »

Further evidence of the interest people have in topical items and real world events being discussed in the context of sport. Not just Stans comments, but the reaction to the comments Richie made all across social media.

https://twitter.com/StanCollymore/status/1296043177540018177

Just because Collymore points it out doesn’t mean it holds any weight. If anything he’s cut from the same roll of SJW cloth the OTB lads were tailored from because he has, and always has had, an agenda. He’ll be the type emboldened by the events of 2020. The Sadlier comments were relevant to the teams playing on the night but weren’t really of any relevance to events on the pitch which is what he is paid to do. That Collymore highlights them doesn’t legitimise them in my eyes. I prefer the Giles’, Souness’ and Dunphys of this world. Richie can be easily described with the W word.

Tell me how

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Just because Collymore points it out doesn’t mean it holds any weight. If anything he’s cut from the same roll of SJW cloth the OTB lads were tailored from because he has, and always has had, an agenda. He’ll be the type emboldened by the events of 2020. The Sadlier comments were relevant to the teams playing on the night but weren’t really of any relevance to events on the pitch which is what he is paid to do. That Collymore highlights them doesn’t legitimise them in my eyes. I prefer the Giles’, Souness’ and Dunphys of this world. Richie can be easily described with the W word.

Point is there is interest in conversations about more than just scores and line ups.

Jayesdiem

Tell me how wrote: »

Point is there is interest in conversations about more than just scores and line ups.

There might be but how many people specifically tuned into watch football but were left baffled by Richie’s crusade? Maybe 50 times more than those who sought a counselling session? 100 times more perhaps? 1000?

Ahwell

Ahwell wrote: »

I think you are mixing me up with Tell me how, I haven't posted in here since last week.

Apologies, exactly as you said, mixed you up with another poster.

styron

Jayesdiem wrote: »

There might be but how many people specifically tuned into watch football but were left baffled by Richie’s crusade? Maybe 50 times more than those who sought a counselling session? 100 times more perhaps? 1000?

It's been watched over 2.7 million times in less than two days.

Ahwell

Ahwell wrote: »

I've watched, heard and read all those topics covered on TV sports shows, other sports radio shows, sports podcasts, Youtube sport channels and newspaper sports sections .i.e., the mainstream sports media. You're out of step with the mainstream and you don't like it. Tough, it's not going to change for your benefit.

Surely there is a balance to be struck. I like when OTB takes a deep dive into topics and enjoy when they place sports stories in a wider societal context, but I don't enjoy the preaching and sermonising of the presenters that tends to come with it as it is shallow and cheap virtue signalling in the main.

For what it's worth, I hang around with a bunch of lads - now mostly married with kids - who are all college educated, in good jobs and have all played sport to a decent level and we rarely sit down and talk about the topics that are so hotly debated here. But we also don't just natter about transfer talk and the results of games. We are somewhere in between. That's not to say I don't enjoy some of the coverage of these issues on OTB, but I would imagine that most could take it or leave it.

Honestly, I don't see why there is such a divide on here. There seems to be a narrative created by the staunch defenders of the show - you wouldn't need to be an expert to read between the lines - that you have to be smart and discerning to understand why some issues are covered in a certain way and that those who don't like this coverage are lesser. I think that is silly and naive.

I enjoy the show, but I do think the quality has dipped of late, and, ironically given the nature of the conversation, that it has been dumbed down to an extent. I do enjoy the coverage that is not just straightforward analysis and takes a deeper look at issues and places them in a wider context. However, I don't like it when the presenters use the show and as a vehicle to signal their virtues. The best contributors - the likes of Dan McDonnell - don't ever feel the need to do that and just get on with doing their job well.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Point is there is interest in conversations about more than just scores and line ups.

Are you going to answer the question I put to you? As I said, I'm not trying to have a go at you but I am interested...

gormdubhgorm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Yeah I agree with this. I find Kimmage a bit of a one trick pony these days. Seems to be volume over quality. Even the style he has has stayed stuck. Transcribes pages and pages of his interviews word for word. He seemed fresh once upon a time, not now.

PK: Do you think blah blah?
XYZ: blah blah blah

PK: Do you think blah blah?
XYZ: blah blah blah

I always feel like it should come with a TLDR summary at the end!

CatFromHue wrote: »

I much prefer Kimmage's Q&A style of interviews, you get exactly what the interviewee is saying as supposed to what the interviewer thinks they're saying

Tell me how wrote: »

I much rather Kimmages inquisitive style which showcase warts and all of a situation or person than the bland focus pieces that are little more than a PR exercise for the athlete or team.

I understand both your points. But I feel transcribing every bit word for word makes it lose its impact. A bit of editing would not go amiss, seems like a lazy approach time and again dressed up as 'warts and all'. Getting to the truth etc.

As for the OTB show itself I must confess I have not listened to it in ages. Feel I have outgrown it and seems a bit stale for my liking. However, I have come across a few OTB you tube videos which show things are changing?

Younger/newer presenters given more time that have a bit of 'go' in them. Who don't try to be 'edgy' for the sake of it. Plus just deliver decent sports interviews or talk about sports people. No idea of the new lads names, is a while since I listened to it as I said.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Further evidence of the interest people have in topical items and real world events being discussed in the context of sport. Not just Stans comments, but the reaction to the comments Richie made all across social media.

https://twitter.com/StanCollymore/status/1296043177540018177

The fact that has gained so much traction would say the opposite to me. I would suggest that it confirms the vast majority of people have a surface level interest in sport, they rarely engage beyond the headlines and the obvious. None of this would be in any way new to anyone who has an actual interest in football.

BPKS

Tell me how wrote: »

Further evidence of the interest people have in topical items and real world events being discussed in the context of sport. Not just Stans comments, but the reaction to the comments Richie made all across social media.

https://twitter.com/StanCollymore/status/1296043177540018177

The irony of you quoting Stan Collymore to back up your arguments is brilliant.

The same Stan Collymore who once beat the sh1t out of Ulrika Johnson.

I thought you would have cancelled Stan at this stage.

gormdubhgorm

Deleted User wrote: »

The fact that has gained so much traction would say the opposite to me. I would suggest that it confirms the vast majority of people have a surface level interest in sport, they rarely engage beyond the headlines and the obvious. None of this would be in any way new to anyone who has an actual interest in football.

BPKS wrote: »

The irony of you quoting Stan Collymore to back up your arguments is brilliant.

The same Stan Collymore who once beat the sh1t out of Ulrika Johnson.

I thought you would have cancelled Stan at this stage.

Exactly, Stan the hypocrite goes moralistic while hiding behind the trendy Shield of depression/mental health. Zero respect for the guy.

Nor would I care about what he has to say. Most of it is to self style himself as a pseudo intellectual 'thinking mans' footballer.

Ironically a lot of the stuff Sadlier does. But Sadlier did not hit women, nor is he as self pitying as Collymore. I used to listen to Collymore's guff on talksport seeks controversy to make his name - get limelight. I see through bullsh1tters.

southstar

Jayesdiem wrote: »

If you hang around boards or Reddit, which I unfortunately do, you could be forgiven for thinking the entire world is woke, leftist BLM supporters. It is isn’t though and a good majority of people have contempt for that segment of society and resent it being part of daily dialogue, never mind sport. I’m serious when I say this - it’s an absolute scourge on society and sport, which was always supposed to remain politics free.

Completely agree I can't say I've heard these topics discussed by colleagues at work/elsewhere when general dialogue about sport occurs. Its mainly pushed as polemic in sports media to appear relevant, fill space, be cool ...whatever ..but very irritating Imo

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you going to answer the question I put to you? As I said, I'm not trying to have a go at you but I am interested...

What was the question?

Tell me how

BPKS wrote: »

The irony of you quoting Stan Collymore to back up your arguments is brilliant.

The same Stan Collymore who once beat the sh1t out of Ulrika Johnson.

I thought you would have cancelled Stan at this stage.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Exactly, Stan the hypocrite goes moralistic while hiding behind the trendy Shield of depression/mental health. Zero respect for the guy.

Nor would I care about what he has to say. Most of it is to self style himself as a pseudo intellectual 'thinking mans' footballer.

Ironically a lot of the stuff Sadlier does. But Sadlier did not hit women, nor is he as self pitying as Collymore. I used to listen to Collymore's guff on talksport seeks controversy to make his name - get limelight. I see through bullsh1tters.

So, Stan's history excludes him from having an interest in elements outside of the basics of sport being discussed? Why?

And irrespective of this, the point was that the topic which Richie mentioned and the manner in which he did it was widely well received, as somone else pointed out the clip at that point had been viewed nearly 3M times.

There is an appetite for much more than the basics.

Tell me how

southstar wrote: »

Completely agree I can't say I've heard these topics discussed by colleagues at work/elsewhere when general dialogue about sport occurs. Its mainly pushed as polemic in sports media to appear relevant, fill space, be cool ...whatever ..but very irritating Imo

I'd hazard a guess that if you were someone or had someone you cared about been affected by such issues, you would be much more open to see them being discussed on a top sports show.

People on this thread seem to lose their sh*t over what tantamounts to a few minutes of a conversation on a topical issue at most probably a couple of times a week.

I'd be pretty sure that if they spent 3 minutes discussing a female ref during a newsround that this thread would be in uproar about it and ignoring the fact that it was 3 minutes out of a 3 hours show.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

What was the question?

I think I'll tap out of this debate. It's a bit like playing handball against a haystack. I think we agree broadly on a lot of issues, but your take on others, and your complete inability to cede an inch from your polemic starting point, seems to stem from your assertion that you are smarter than everyone else. Most people get over that phase when they are about 17.

gormdubhgorm

Tell me how wrote: »

So, Stan's history excludes him from having an interest in elements outside of the basics of sport being discussed? Why?

And irrespective of this, the point was that the topic which Richie mentioned and the manner in which he did it was widely well received, as somone else pointed out the clip at that point had been viewed nearly 3M times.

There is an appetite for much more than the basics.

I never said Stan is not entitled to discuss such issues. I just see through what he is at. In reality he has Little interest in such issues. I doubt he knows more than the cursory basics firmly formed within the prism of a biased British media. Our culture is superior to yours etc - talk sport "look at Johnny Foreigner - they don't like it up em" - Soccer - Brexit - Middle East

1) Stan wants to appear clever and edgy
2) Stan wants clicks and views
3) Vast majority of people just watch sport for the goals, the misses, the drama, the sweat, determination, the tactics.
4) Most people enjoy sport because of the craic and slagging around a sport-the friends made on the pitch and off it

Granted, politics can use sport Haughey 'winning the tour de France' 1987, Mussolini 1934 and 1938 world cups. 1978 world cup Cruyff warned not to attend or he will be shot (he kept it secret).

But most people forget about all this stuff, and it is about what happens on the pitch. One team against another in competition. Down played in an AI despite a pub bombing in 1994 (people who were watching the soccer Loughinisland, Down).Plus they won that year!

It all comes back to sport one team against another, all the rest fades away for real sports fans. All this 'my culture is morally superior to yours' is irrelevant when the match starts among the players.

Edit: I also don't like the Red Bull drink I don't like the taste. But many in football are consumers of a brand - dressed up as loyalty worldwide. A RB Leipzig and RB Salzburg was only the next logical step. I admire the marketing strategy (sports/extreme sports) despite such a poor product that is full of sugar (in little cans) - it clearly works.
Plus America for example is full of 'marketing franchises' they don't hide from it - different cultures.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

I think I'll tap out of this debate. It's a bit like playing handball against a haystack. I think we agree broadly on a lot of issues, but your take on others, and your complete inability to cede an inch from your polemic starting point, seems to stem from your assertion that you are smarter than everyone else. Most people get over that phase when they are about 17.

There was confusion over who the question was directed at. Now you are throwing the toys out of the cot rather than repeat it? Why should I have to go through posts to determine which post/question is the one you want answered.

You guys seem to get very frustrated that I don't buy in to the collective circle jerk of negativity and judgement most here seem to desire.
Yesterday we saw people being adamant that bo one is interested in more serious topics being discussed based purely on their experience amongst their friends and colleagues. Despite the evidence to the contrary.

And you think it is reasonable to suggest I am the one who has the impression I am smarter than everyone else? Or that I dont cede an inch? This thread has maybe 10-12 people who post any way regularly on this thread. Theres me and 1 more, possibly 2, who post from the position of enjoying the content, presenters or topics. Everyone else has nothing but negativity to say. Day after day, post after post. And then the barbs are aimed at me for countering this deluge of complaining with trying to point out the reality of how successful the show is. Or how there is a lot to enjoy about it. Or for trying to mention a topic or piece which might be interesting to discuss here.

But I'm the one who won't cede an inch apparently? There was a poster here recently complaining about the Dad focused podcast. A podcast that you really have to make an effort to find and listen to. Again, what we got was the negative and judgemental angle rather than acknowledging that they obviously enjoy a lot about the show/presenters to seek out the podcast.

There are some here who are convinced I have something to do with the show, like that is the only reason I could be positive about a show which itself has won numerous awards, whose presenters have won awards, which has successfully expanded outside it's original timeframe and across a multitude of platforms and in to outside venues.
I refuse to take part in what is for some people is the national pastime of whinging, complaining and judging while ignoring the evidence.

Don't ask your question so, whatever it was, I've probably answered it before.

Tell me how

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I never said Stan is not entitled to discuss such issues. I just see through what he is at. In reality he has Little interest in such issues. I doubt he knows more than the cursory basics firmly formed within the prism of a biased British media. Our culture is superior to yours etc - talk sport "look at Johnny Foreigner - they don't like it up em" - Soccer - Brexit - Middle East

1) Stan wants to appear clever and edgy
2) Stan wants clicks and views
3) Vast majority of people just watch sport for the goals, the misses, the drama, the sweat, determination, the tactics.
4) Most people enjoy sport because of the craic and slagging around a sport-the friends made on the pitch and off it
.

Why is it that anyone who expresses an opinion on something which is of a different opinion to yours, is only doing it to appear clever and edgy and only wants clicks and views? Are they not allowed to have their own interests and speak about something to be passionate about. In fact, UK media is populated by a large number of people who go out of their way to not say anything controversial which detracts from the analysis of games massively.

If points 3 and 4 were correct, there wouldn't be any sports biographies, documentaries or feature articles.

Or The Athletic wouldn't have developed a strategy which included the purpose, 'Go beyond the box score...

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Granted, politics can use sport Haughey 'winning the tour de France' 1987, Mussolini 1934 and 1938 world cups. 1978 world cup Cruyff warned not to attend or he will be shot (he kept it secret).

But most people forget about all this stuff, and it is about what happens on the pitch. One team against another in competition. Down played in an AI despite a pub bombing in 1994 (people who were watching the soccer Loughinisland, Down).Plus they won that year!

It all comes back to sport one team against another, all the rest fades away for real sports fans. All this 'my culture is morally superior to yours' is irrelevant when the match starts among the players.

There's way more interconnection between sport and politics than the simple rare cases you mentioned above. Check out the histories of Real Madrid and Barcelona and the roles each club has played in reflecting the political allegiances of their fans of you want to go really deep on just one example.

The experience of the newly formed East Belfast Gaa club was discussed recently on the show and specifically, the day of them playing their first hurling match started with a bomb threat being made against the club.
That was just 2 weeks ago. A club, in East Belfast, which has protestants approaching it asking if they can play? If that isn't interesting to you, then I don't know what to tell you.

Given that you mentioned Down and Loghinisland in 1994, a more in depth consideration of those events would have told you that some Down players new people who died in the attack and they went out and won the Ulster semi-final the day after the attack happened despite they and the crowd being pretty much in shock and hardly able to focus on the game. After they won the Ulster final and before the All Ireland semi-final, they played in a fundraising match for the families of the victims. There is way more of interest in relation to that event than simply acknowledging that Down won the All Ireland 3 months later.

Your assessment that interest in such topics comes down to trying to determine or ascertain that one persons culture is better than the other is very wide of the mark.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Edit: I also don't like the Red Bull drink I don't like the taste. But many in football are consumers of a brand - dressed up as loyalty worldwide. A RB Leipzig and RB Salzburg was only the next logical step. I admire the marketing strategy (sports/extreme sports) despite such a poor product that is full of sugar (in little cans) - it clearly works.
Plus America for example is full of 'marketing franchises' they don't hide from it - different cultures.

Irrespective of what is going on in America, RB Leipzig is interesting for the specific reason which Richie outlined, there is massive dislike in Germany amongst the fans of their clubs who hold ownership in their respective teams for what RB Leipzig has done.
At a time where we see consistent protests amongst fans of Man Utd and Newcastle against their owners for seemingly not having the best interest of the club at heart, I would think a huge amount of people have interest in what has happened in Germany.

US sport is for the most part an entertainment business. I was in Boston last summer when the Bruins were playing game 7 of the Stanley Cup against St Louis. The bar I watched the game in was packed with people wearing Bruins gear. St Louis scored twice in the first period and it was obvious even then that the Bruins were unlikely to win. Pretty much everyone turned away from the TV's, focused more on chatting to their friends or ordering food and by the time St Louis went 3-0 up in the 3rd period, the bar was virtually empty.
In Ireland, or the UK, or Germany, Spain, Italy etc, 'fans' would not have just switched off in the same way, they'd have become despondent and some would have left but there wouldn't have been the same indifference as I saw here. Go to an NBA, MLB, NFL game and you will see that at any one time, at least 10% of the fans are away from their seats as they go get food or drink. There are hardcore fans, but they are much smaller in volume than what we see typically in Europe and why the Leipzig thing is interesting. Because, it is a significant change from current practices and not necessarily a positive change which is why so many actually do have an interest in it. Or at least they should, rather than waiting until everything has changed and then start to complain when it is too late.

Piehead

It’s dweeb radio these days

EmmetSpiceland

Piehead wrote: »

It’s dweeb radio these days

Yeah and all the “jocks” are online whinging about BLM and #metoo. Sure thing, pal. Sure.