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

Tell me how

Someone should tell Kieran that people aren't interested in non-sport specific angles.

https://twitter.com/KCsixtyseven/status/1296828904469147648

Or this article from the NY Times.

https://twitter.com/JohnBranchNYT/status/1296831587842027521

2 examples from the last hour which I didn't even look for

gormdubhgorm

Tell me how wrote: »

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.

Not true either it is old points rehashed - "and look how clever I am able to look beyond football". Let's be honest Tommo and Micka in thier Dublin local just want watch a match, talk about a game and have a few jars. Tommo and Micka are not discussing the pros and cons of Federal Constitutional Monarchies v's Unitary absolute monarchies. Nor do they discuss Red Bulls move from Guerrilla Marketing, sports sponsorship or content marketing.

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

There is all the above precisely because of sport itself. It is ancillary to the main interest the game itself. So people can get opinions on the game, player. opponent and so on.

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

The Athletic is just sports journalism styled as intellectual, not like the common man would read. When you break it down they are nothing more than opinion pieces or historical pieces. Hardly as innovative as they like to pretend.

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.

I well know the histories of Real and Barcelona thanks very much. But they are just football clubs when all is said and done. Now global brands. All that
'More than a club' is just mere marketing. Celtic, Man United, Liverpool etc do the same thing. We are special etc

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.

I would prefer to watch a match they are playing if I am honest. Could not give a damn what religion they were/are.

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.

Not to me, I think Linden, McCartan in thier pomp who won a second Sam in four years. Plus Pete McGrath himself said that they became antithesised to violence and they go on with it. No highfalutin guff required.

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.

I don't think it is. All you have to do is look at coverage and attitude to cultures foreign to the likes of Britain. Assuming that Poland, Ukraine would be full of skin heads in 2012, advising black people not to go! Right down to recent soccer history where Clough laughed at a Polish keeper and called him a clown in the 70's.

I get the same sense of superiority from criticism of RB or PSG.

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.

I am glad you mentioned the Glazers because criticism of them died down fairly quickly when they kept winning and signing big players. Fans are just fickle hypocrites. Newcastle the same when they were owned by Sheppard all the initial big spending fizzled out. You can say what you like about Ashley but he has stabilised the club. Would Newcastle prefer to do a 1990's Leeds or 1990's Man City?

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.

I see nothing wrong with it at all. Football clubs are brands anyway. PL Fans picks successful ones aged 10 (mostly) for example. As for getting food sure that craic even happens in Croke Park annoying when watching a game. Or having a pint in premium or even Canal bar (horrible pints). But it all goes back to the sport so I accept it. Plus you only have to look at cynical way the Barclays PremierLeague advertised to its various consumers. Pretending it is a special bond.

Barclays Worldwide Advert:

Barclay's local advert:

And it seems to to forgotten Barclays are a Bank!

Plus who is heavily invested in Barclays?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jul/02/barclays-qataris-spoke-to-gordon-brown-to-defuse-2008-bailout-pressure

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49951412#:~:text=Three%20former%20top%20Barclays%20executives,bank%20during%20the%20financial%20crisis.

Only the Qatari's

Tell me how

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Not true either it is old points rehashed - "and look how clever I am able to look beyond football". Let's be honest Tommo and Micka in thier Dublin local just want watch a match, talk about a game and have a few jars. Tommo and Micka are not discussing the pros and cons of Federal Constitutional Monarchies v's Unitary absolute monarchies. Nor do they discuss Red Bulls move from Guerrilla Marketing, sports sponsorship or content marketing.



There is all the above precisely because of sport itself. It is ancillary to the main interest the game itself. So people can get opinions on the game, player. opponent and so on.

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

The Athletic is just sports journalism styled as intellectual, not like the common man would read. When you break it down they are nothing more than opinion pieces or historical pieces. Hardly as innovative as they like to pretend.




I well know the histories of Real and Barcelona thanks very much. But they are just football clubs when all is said and done. Now global brands. All that
'More than a club' is just mere marketing. Celtic, Man United, Liverpool etc do the same thing. We are special etc



I would prefer to watch a match they are playing if I am honest. Could not give a damn what religion they were/are.



Not to me, I think Linden, McCartan in thier pomp who won a second Sam in four years. Plus Pete McGrath himself said that they became antithesised to violence and they go on with it. No highfalutin guff required.



I don't think it is. All you have to do is look at coverage and attitude to cultures foreign to the likes of Britain. Assuming that Poland, Ukraine would be full of skin heads in 2012, advising black people not to go! Right down to recent soccer history where Clough laughed at a Polish keeper and called him a clown in the 70's.

I get the same sense of superiority from criticism of RB or PSG.




I am glad you mentioned the Glazers because criticism of them died down fairly quickly when they kept winning and signing big players. Fans are just fickle hypocrites. Newcastle the same when they were owned by Sheppard all the initial big spending fizzled out. You can say what you like about Ashley but he has stabilised the club. Would Newcastle prefer to do a 1990's Leeds or 1990's Man City?




I see nothing wrong with it at all. Football clubs are brands anyway. PL Fans picks successful ones aged 10 (mostly) for example. As for getting food sure that craic even happens in Croke Park annoying when watching a game. Or having a pint in premium or even Canal bar (horrible pints). But it all goes back to the sport so I accept it. Plus you only have to look at cynical way the Barclays PremierLeague advertised to its various consumers. Pretending it is a special bond.

Barclays Worldwide Advert:

Barclay's local advert:

And it seems to to forgotten Barclays are a Bank!

Plus who is heavily invested in Barclays?

Only the Qatari's

And this brings us once again back to the point that lots of sports output isn't just aimed at Tommo and Micka or yourself. There are plenty who like to hear and discuss more.

gormdubhgorm

Tell me how wrote: »

And this brings us once again back to the point that lots of sports output isn't just aimed at Tommo and Micka or yourself. There are plenty who like to hear and discuss more.

See you are not really a real sports fan watches the games. You are more of an observer of all the things which surround the actual game itself off the pitch. Hand under the chin type wistful philosophising. I get the feeling you would love if OTB constantly did that stuff and ignored the actual games!

Personally its sounds silly to me it is not an arts show on BBC4. Most of OTB are Arts and English students so it is to be expected I suppose.

Personally only time I will switch on OTB is if I can't see a live game and they have it on.

deisedude

Genuine question. If some of ye hate the show so much why do ye keep listening to it?

You know what you are getting at this stage

Tell me how

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

See you are not really a real sports fan watches the games. You are more of an observer of all the things which surround the actual game itself off the pitch. Hand under the chin type wistful philosophising. I get the feeling you would love if OTB constantly did that stuff and ignored the actual games!

Personally its sounds silly to me it is not an arts show on BBC4. Most of OTB are Arts and English students so it is to be expected I suppose.

Personally only time I will switch on OTB is if I can't see a live game and they have it on.

Where there is a rule that you can't be both?

You can enjoy your sport any way you want but I think you have to acknowledge the way you do so is not necessarily the way everyone does?

Why should the content of a show be aimed at someone who only listens when they are covering a live game?

gormdubhgorm

deisedude wrote: »

Genuine question. If some of ye hate the show so much why do ye keep listening to it?

You know what you are getting at this stage

I don't! A few you tube clips most I have seen in the last year plus. And I commented on those because were new people with a bit of 'go' in them. Which was good to see.

Now I just look on this thread to see if there is anything changing/worthwhile like there used to be.

gormdubhgorm

Tell me how wrote: »

Where there is a rule that you can't be both?

You can enjoy your sport any way you want but I think you have to acknowledge the way you do so is not necessarily the way everyone does?

Why should the content of a show be aimed at someone who only listens when they are covering a live game?

Because it is the nature of sport itself the actual game, records, despair, joy, collapse upsets. All the rest of the stuff is over analyse of nothing.

Fair enough you like that sports journalist philosophy stuff. But jayus Graham Hunter for example. Pure waffler.

Tell me how

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Because it is the nature of sport itself the actual game, records, despair, joy, collapse upsets. All the rest of the stuff is over analyse of nothing.

Fair enough you like that sports journalist philosophy stuff. But jayus Graham Hunter for example. Pure waffler.

To be fair, you've just said how you no longer listen to the show and are actively talking about what the show is like on here.

And you suggest in depth analysis is analysis of nothing.

I don't know what to tell you.

gormdubhgorm

Tell me how wrote: »

To be fair, you've just said how you no longer listen to the show and are actively talking about what the show is like on here.

And you suggest in depth analysis is analysis of nothing.

I don't know what to tell you.

Not true saw a few you tube clips recommended recently where I asked on here are things changing? After I saw it.

It was not trying to be clever stuff, just an interview by people I had not seen before. Bit of 'go' in them as I said. Was hoping there was a bit of an OTB clear out tbh!

southstar

deisedude wrote: »

Genuine question. If some of ye hate the show so much why do ye keep listening to it?

You know what you are getting at this stage

I don't hate it...in fact won a weekend in London with premiership game included a couple of years ago..Just find it a bit jaded...analysis/back story pieces seem more and more to focus on being right on/lazy woke bull****...and thats what irritates the **** out of me.Most punters I know are interested in backround/back story but not what appears as repetitive clumsy agenda driven narrative..and Joe/Ger do that "I feel your pain " voice so well.....and that is bloody painful...almost the antithesis to sport itself

Tell me how

southstar wrote: »

I don't hate it...in fact won a weekend in London with premiership game included a couple of years ago..Just find it a bit jaded...analysis/back story pieces seem more and more to focus on being right on/lazy woke bull****...and thats what irritates the **** out of me.Most punters I know are interested in backround/back story but not what appears as repetitive clumsy agenda driven narrative..and Joe/Ger do that "I feel your pain " voice so well.....and that is bloody painful...almost the antithesis to sport itself

Some people going out of their way to clarify that they are so selfishly motivated that anything which references concern for others in society today is to them, BS.

The world in 2020.

monstermag

Denis O'brien it's you isn't it? Tell me how is your pseudonym, it's okay we all have a cross to bearðŸ˜

Tell me how

monstermag wrote: »

Denis O'brien it's you isn't it? Tell me how is your pseudonym, it's okay we all have a cross to bearðŸ˜

And rinse and repeat.

Denis O'Brien the well known advocate of cause for the downtrodden of course. Really stands to reason that he would be behind a radio station that would be seen by some as a platform for progressive ideas.

deisedude

deisedude wrote: »

Genuine question. If some of ye hate the show so much why do ye keep listening to it?

You know what you are getting at this stage

I've been listening on and off for 13 years. I enjoy the show at times, but I think the quality has gone downhill a little of late, which is no surprise given the sheer volume they are churning out.

I still listen in regularly and enjoy certain segments. There are a few presenters I enjoy and some I don't.

I don't see why you can't want something to be better, especially if you've spent so much time listening in.

I don't get the people who hate it so much but I equally don't understand how some people on here seem to believe that it is above criticism or that expressing a desire for it to be better is whingeing or negativity for the sake of it.

southstar

Tell me how wrote: »

Some people going out of their way to clarify that they are so selfishly motivated that anything which references concern for others in society today is to them, BS.

The world in 2020.

The self righteous hissy fit would sit well with Ger all right ....You could almost eat yoursrlf

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

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.

I think you may have me confused with someone else. I haven't been counting but I would guess that the majority of my posts about the show are positive. I have defended presenters from what I consider unwarranted criticism, defended some of the reasons for some of the pieces they have aired and also posted about some of the pieces and interviews I have enjoyed.

I really don't like the constant crap on here about the show being some form of left-wing conspiracy, but I also resent the idea that someone can't be critical of the show in some way without being branded a whinger or being negative for the sake of it. It seems to be that you have to belong to one camp or another. I'm somewhere in the middle.

You post from the point of view of enjoying the show, grand, but you seem to have lost your critical faculties. Surely, part of enjoying a show is wanting the standards to be high all the time and being capable of criticism at times when you feel it's warranted. Is there anything you don't like about it? That was the question I had asked you to answer.

You don't seem capable of doing anything other than defending the show. I would find your posts more credible if you didn't spend all your time just arguing back at people who make a criticism, including those that are valid. Maybe you see yourself as being there to redress the balance given some of the OTT and, at times, hysterical nonsense that is posted by some of the haters. I don't know, but if you do I would find that very odd.

It was me who posted about the Dadcast. I have young kids, it popped up in the highlights on the app and I listened in. It was utter garbage. Am I not allowed to say that? Or am I only allowed to post positive things? Is saying anything negative just whingeing?

Surely be to God we can have an honest debate about the show and its content around here without falling into one of the extreme camps that seem to have formed...I'm not sure which one is more bloody annoying or childish.

southstar

The show becomes tiresome when it too pitches in with silly iterations of the culture wars...just leave it out or give it a rest...get some balance

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

I think you may have me confused with someone else. I haven't been counting but I would guess that the majority of my posts about the show are positive. I have defended presenters from what I consider unwarranted criticism, defended some of the reasons for some of the pieces they have aired and also posted about some of the pieces and interviews I have enjoyed.

I really don't like the constant crap on here about the show being some form of left-wing conspiracy, but I also resent the idea that someone can't be critical of the show in some way without being branded a whinger or being negative for the sake of it. It seems to be that you have to belong to one camp or another. I'm somewhere in the middle.

You post from the point of view of enjoying the show, grand, but you seem to have lost your critical faculties. Surely, part of enjoying a show is wanting the standards to be high all the time and being capable of criticism at times when you feel it's warranted. Is there anything you don't like about it? That was the question I had asked you to answer.

You don't seem capable of doing anything other than defending the show. I would find your posts more credible if you didn't spend all your time just arguing back at people who make a criticism, including those that are valid. Maybe you see yourself as being there to redress the balance given some of the OTT and, at times, hysterical nonsense that is posted by some of the haters. I don't know, but if you do I would find that very odd.

It was me who posted about the Dadcast. I have young kids, it popped up in the highlights on the app and I listened in. It was utter garbage. Am I not allowed to say that? Or am I only allowed to post positive things? Is saying anything negative just whingeing?

Surely be to God we can have an honest debate about the show and its content around here without falling into one of the extreme camps that seem to have formed...I'm not sure which one is more bloody annoying or childish.

It's the fcuking non stop negativity, the 'non-woke' drum beating, the wailing and gnashing of teeth at anything that resembles a progressive thought that seems to form the basis of most contributions to the thread that are infuriating for me.

And the frequent 'I've stopped listening but......' just adds to that sense of frustration I have when reading this thread.

I've previously listed things I haven't liked about the show, but for some reason I must be the only one who can see those posts.

I can be judgemental and critical as much as the next in the name of improvement but I am not about to open the door to a pile on when that is what any discussion will become and there is enough of it already.

Tell me how

southstar wrote: »

The show becomes tiresome when it too pitches in with silly iterations of the culture wars...just leave it out or give it a rest...get some balance

They are covering real world topics in the context of sport or the people who are participating in sport. Why do think this should not be done?
What do you mean by balance?

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

It's the fcuking non stop negativity, the 'non-woke' drum beating, the wailing and gnashing of teeth at anything that resembles a progressive thought that seems to form the basis of most contributions to the thread that are infuriating for me.

And the frequent 'I've stopped listening but......' just adds to that sense of frustration I have when reading this thread.

I've previously listed things I haven't liked about the show, but for some reason I must be the only one who can see those posts.

I can be judgemental and critical as much as the next in the name of improvement but I am not about to open the door to a pile on when that is what any discussion will become and there is enough of it already.

If you've posted critical things in the past fair enough, but I must have missed them or maybe they drowned in the cess pit. I stopped posting here for a few months when I felt the lunatics took over the asylum with the non stop anti-woke rhetoric, so maybe it was then.

I remember being a Patriots fan in the 2000s and somebody started a blog called 'All things Bill Belichick' as a counter to a lot of the unwarranted criticism they felt he got from media and fans at the time. The irony was that it was not all things Belichick, it was just all the positive things in the media about him and fawning reports and posts by the author. It was ridiculous because you can't redress the balance by simply ignoring some obvious truths and issues. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Anyway, I'm happy to hop the ball on here any time. I like the show but can see its flaws too. I would love if it was better but it's also the best out there at the minute.

But as I said, I think railing at anyone that holds a contrary view to you lacks a little maturity and perspective, but as you say maybe it's borne from frustration. I feel that too, but I don't think it's right for anyone, from any side, to shout down contrary opinions just because you don't agree with them or feel your own are more worthy. Again, I just think that's a naive way to look at the world.

For what it's worth, I really enjoyed Joe's interview with Eric Donovan the other night. Joe let Donovan off and didn't get in the way and he gave some amazing insights into the psychology of a prize fighter and what it's like to take a big, fight ending hit. I learned a lot and thought it made for great radio. There was a genuineness to the exchange between interviewer - respect I would imagine - and the sportsman, very little bull**** and nothing got in the way of the listener getting the most out of it. Just great stuff.

Jayesdiem

All you lads are good guys and I’m sure we’d get on like a house on fire over a pint in real life (no I’m not asking). For example, and changing subject slightly, I’m a staunch, dyed in the wool, Irish republican but have had tremendous fun with equally ravenous Belfast orangemen, who are not enemies to me, just normal people with a different point of view. We should be able to have heated discussion here without calling people’s character into question. Joe, Richie et al are all of the woke disposition but if there was an abandoned baby in a burning house, I’d bet my bottom dollar they’d risk their lives to rescue them. So when we criticise someone for being “woke” or condescending, that is what we are saying they are, no more or no less. It gets heated on here because people read between the lines and assume a different meaning than what was meant. Joe or TMW = woke does not mean Joe or TMW is a bad guy.

Ahwell

Jayesdiem wrote: »

All you lads are good guys and I’m sure we’d get on like a house on fire over a pint in real life (no I’m not asking). For example, and changing subject slightly, I’m a staunch, dyed in the wool, Irish republican but have had tremendous fun with equally ravenous Belfast orangemen, who are not enemies to me, just normal people with a different point of view. We should be able to have heated discussion here without calling people’s character into question. Joe, Richie et al are all of the woke disposition but if there was an abandoned baby in a burning house, I’d bet my bottom dollar they’d risk their lives to rescue them. So when we criticise someone for being “woke” or condescending, that is what we are saying they are, no more or no less. It gets heated on here because people read between the lines and assume a different meaning than what was meant. Joe or TMW = woke does not mean Joe or TMW is a bad guy.

"Woke" is a derogatory term, but I would maintain that the opinions expressed by the OTB crew are more reflective of their audience than yours are. Ireland is a fairly socially liberal place these days. We've seen this in various recent referendums and we can see this in their JNLR figures. Which are rock solid.

The notion that there has been this ideological shift in the show is a complete fallacy. The original presenter was Ger Gilroy. Ken Early was far more forthright in is opinions then Joe or Nathan. If McDevitt, Early and Murph were still presenting the show they would cover the exact same stories and would more or less adopt the same positions on those topics. I can say this with a degree of certainty because they are doing just that on their own podcast.

Jayesdiem

Ahwell wrote: »

"Woke" is a derogatory term, but I would maintain that the opinions expressed by the OTB crew are more reflective of their audience than yours are. Ireland is a fairly socially liberal place these days. We've seen this in various recent referendums and we can see this in their JNLR figures. Which are rock solid.

The notion that there has been this ideological shift in the show is a complete fallacy. The original presenter was Ger Gilroy. Ken Early was far more forthright in is opinions then Joe or Nathan. If McDevitt, Early and Murph were still presenting the show they would cover the exact same stories and would more or less adopt the same positions on those topics. I can say this with a degree of certainty because they are doing just that on their own podcast.

That’s fine. Don’t assume though that I don’t have liberal views myself. The only reason I can’t stand organisations like BLM is because they create the exact division they purport to oppose. That solves nothing. Social division will only cease to exist once it’s not being talked about anymore. OTB’s job is not to see that achieved, it’s to discuss the sporting world.

Ahwell

Jayesdiem wrote: »

That’s fine. Don’t assume though that I don’t have liberal views myself. The only reason I can’t stand organisations like BLM is because they create the exact division they purport to oppose. That solves nothing. Social division will only cease to exist once it’s not being talked about anymore. OTB’s job is not to see that achieved, it’s to discuss the sporting world.

What you personally think of the BLM is not really the issue. When organisations like the Premier League decree that the names of players were to be replaced by “Black Lives Matter” for the opening 12 games, the badge on the shirt is designed by a Premier League player and all players take the knee before each game then it becomes part of "the sporting world". Can you name any sporting outlet here or in the UK that didn't cover this story?

Jayesdiem

Ahwell wrote: »

What you personally think of the BLM is not really the issue. When organisations like the Premier League decree that the names of players were to be replaced by “Black Lives Matter” for the opening 12 games, the badge on the shirt is designed by a Premier League player and all players take the knee before each game then it becomes part of "the sporting world". Can you name any sporting outlet here or in the UK that didn't cover this story?

I wasn’t watching that closely but if they’d done it to the extent that OTB did, I would be surprised. Possibly TalkSport but they would have done it from the pragmatic, rational point of view whereas OTB will throw all support behind it regardless of its perceived wrongs.

Ahwell

Jayesdiem wrote: »

I wasn’t watching that closely but if they’d done it to the extent that OTB did, I would be surprised. Possibly TalkSport but they would have done it from the pragmatic, rational point of view whereas OTB will throw all support behind it regardless of its perceived wrongs.

I don't get to listen to TalkSport much these days, but having a look at their written contain on BLM, WLM flag...etc., it is not that different from OTB's.

southstar

I object to sportsmen being dragged along with this nonsense...God forbid you might not take the knee...oh please ffs...black or white...it puts you in an invidious position ..
Feck off with your manipulative drivel...it's really all about you

Ahwell

southstar wrote: »

I object to sportsmen being dragged along with this nonsense...God forbid you might not take the knee...oh please ffs...black or white...it puts you in an invidious position ..
Feck off with your manipulative drivel...it's really all about you

The Premier League players weren't dragged along, the BLM shirt tribute was proposed by a group of Premier League captains and PFA representatives. As was taking the knee.

Jayesdiem

Ahwell wrote: »

The Premier League players weren't dragged along, the BLM shirt tribute was proposed by a group of Premier League captains and PFA representatives. As was taking the knee.

Yeah but try doing a James McClean on it and see what would have happened to you (if you were a player in the PL).

The intolerance of tolerance

Ahwell

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Yeah but try doing a James McClean on it and see what would have happened to you (if you were a player in the PL).

The intolerance of tolerance

His fellow players haven't had a go at McClean for not wearing the poppy, it's mostly a section of rival fans. I doubt the people who have been abusing McClean would be in favour of players taking the knee.

generalgerry

southstar wrote: »

I object to sportsmen being dragged along with this nonsense.

Yeah this is what gets to me as well. Some of the sports people just want to talk about the damned sport (imagine that) and leave all the political stuff to others. but I switched on the show the other night at about 7.05 to hear Damien Delaney awkwardly commenting on some race issue they decided to focus. It almost like an initiation. In some organisations you must prove your commitment by killing someone, on OTB you prove your commitment by taking up violin lessons.

Jayesdiem

generalgerry wrote: »

Yeah this is what gets to me as well. Some of the sports people just want to talk about the damned sport (imagine that) and leave all the political stuff to others. but I switched on the show the other night at about 7.05 to hear Damien Delaney awkwardly commenting on some race issue they decided to focus. It almost like an initiation. In some organisations you must prove your commitment by killing someone, on OTB you prove your commitment by taking up violin lessons.

This is the rite of passage to the Church of Woke and joking aside, is a real phenomenon. With the lack of prominence of religion worldwide, people have attempted to fill the void and this is how they are doing it. Unfortunately, sport is being seen as a vehicle to achieve this.

dominatinMC

Ah lads, I think this thread has gotten a bit out of control :pac:

I agree with a lot of the sentiment expressed on here, and there is merit in both sides of the debate. Personally, I have an interest in the wider conversation around sport. In that regard, I'm not a huge fan of the analytical approach - baldly looking at statistics, etc. But I also feel that OTB pontificate/lecture/soapbox a bit too much for my liking. As a result, I listen to the show less and less these days. I still enjoy some segments, but I agree with others that there seems to be an editorial agenda to promote cultural and political issues. That is their prerogative, I've no problem with it, there is obviously an audience for it, but I just don't like some aspects of it. I feel some issues stray too far from their core remit of sport.

Also, I think the catalyst for this latest debate on here was last Sundays paper review when Joe (I think ?) projected that a female, Muslim referee must have experienced racism during her career. AFAIK, it wasn't mentioned in the article, so why assume/presume anything then. Really unnecessary in my view, and definitely adds credence to the narrative of them being PC for the sake of it.

Piehead

dominatinMC wrote: »

Ah lads, I think this thread has gotten a bit out of control :pac:

I agree with a lot of the sentiment expressed on here, and there is merit in both sides of the debate. Personally, I have an interest in the wider conversation around sport. In that regard, I'm not a huge fan of the analytical approach - baldly looking at statistics, etc. But I also feel that OTB pontificate/lecture/soapbox a bit too much for my liking. As a result, I listen to the show less and less these days. I still enjoy some segments, but I agree with others that there seems to be an editorial agenda to promote cultural and political issues. That is their prerogative, I've no problem with it, there is obviously an audience for it, but I just don't like some aspects of it. I feel some issues stray too far from their core remit of sport.

Also, I think the catalyst for this latest debate on here was last Sundays paper review when Joe (I think ?) projected that a female, Muslim referee must have experienced racism during her career. AFAIK, it wasn't mentioned in the article, so why assume/presume anything then. Really unnecessary in my view, and definitely adds credence to the narrative of them being PC for the sake of it.

That was a case of the mask slipping - any chance of having the woke cucktard agenda added to must be sniffed out at all costs !

Ahwell

generalgerry wrote: »

Yeah this is what gets to me as well. Some of the sports people just want to talk about the damned sport (imagine that) and leave all the political stuff to others. but I switched on the show the other night at about 7.05 to hear Damien Delaney awkwardly commenting on some race issue they decided to focus. It almost like an initiation. In some organisations you must prove your commitment by killing someone, on OTB you prove your commitment by taking up violin lessons.

Ex-players have been asked to comment on these issues on Sky sports, BT Sport, ESPN, Radio 5 Live and Talksport over the past few months. Why should OTB be any different? The notion that this story shouldn't be covered is just absurd and the proof it is absurd is the fact that it has been covered by every mainstream sports station - at length.

dominatinMC

dominatinMC wrote: »

Ah lads, I think this thread has gotten a bit out of control :pac:

I agree with a lot of the sentiment expressed on here, and there is merit in both sides of the debate. Personally, I have an interest in the wider conversation around sport. In that regard, I'm not a huge fan of the analytical approach - baldly looking at statistics, etc. But I also feel that OTB pontificate/lecture/soapbox a bit too much for my liking. As a result, I listen to the show less and less these days. I still enjoy some segments, but I agree with others that there seems to be an editorial agenda to promote cultural and political issues. That is their prerogative, I've no problem with it, there is obviously an audience for it, but I just don't like some aspects of it. I feel some issues stray too far from their core remit of sport.

Also, I think the catalyst for this latest debate on here was last Sundays paper review when Joe (I think ?) projected that a female, Muslim referee must have experienced racism during her career. AFAIK, it wasn't mentioned in the article, so why assume/presume anything then. Really unnecessary in my view, and definitely adds credence to the narrative of them being PC for the sake of it.

That segment from the paper review last week has been overblown a bit. It was fairly innocuous. Joe started the review with the piece as he said he had spotted it late and it had not been discussed in the pre-show meeting or discussion via text. I thought it was an interesting topic but admit that any discussion of a topic like that will inevitably lead to some virtue signalling. Not sure why people seem to get so exercised by it, though. The rest of the show was fine.

For what it's worth, I think the show needs to cast its net a little wider for guests on the paper review. The pool seems to be fairly shallow and the same people seem to appear all the time. Ryle Nugent and MT Ní Cheallaigh on today so I'll probably give it a swerve as neither is a strong contributor.

cmac2009

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That segment from the paper review last week has been overblown a bit. It was fairly innocuous. Joe started the review with the piece as he said he had spotted it late and it had not been discussed in the pre-show meeting or discussion via text. I thought it was an interesting topic but admit that any discussion of a topic like that will inevitably lead to some virtue signalling. Not sure why people seem to get so exercised by it, though. The rest of the show was fine.

For what it's worth, I think the show needs to cast its net a little wider for guests on the paper review. The pool seems to be fairly shallow and the same people seem to appear all the time. Ryle Nugent and MT Ní Cheallaigh on today so I'll probably give it a swerve as neither is a strong contributor.

Wholly agree with the last paragraph, very weak contributors again this week and it seems to be a regular occurance recently.

Jayesdiem

cmac2009 wrote: »

Wholly agree with the last paragraph, very weak contributors again this week and it seems to be a regular occurance recently.

Is MT Ni Cheallaigh the Dublin S&C coach? If so, she is the most banal contributor of all on the show. She provides little to no insight on any topic, whether it be close to home or not and I suspect this is because being directly involved with an inter county team means she understandably needs to remain neutral on many topics (other than the ones it’s important to be seen to be irate about). Contributors like these should not be brought on the show. Their hands are tied and this impedes any type of an interesting view, much like a Dublin footballer in a pre-match interview: “we know Leitrim are a really tough outfit and we’re going to have to be on our guard today bla bla bla”.

Faugheen

I thought MT was bang on the money calling out Colm O’Rourke and Pat Spillane for their entitled bollocks and unnecessary attacks towards Ronan Glynn.

But she’s a woman so the losers here will hate that lefty liberal soap-boxing wokeness.

Higgins5473

I have no opinion on the utter muck posted by the same two regular belligerents as an aside. Essays of boredom.

But back to the show....can they not get a phone call sorted for a contributor on a lengthy call such as a paper review, was whoever that was on today on her laptop speaker?

Tell me how

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Is MT Ni Cheallaigh the Dublin S&C coach? If so, she is the most banal contributor of all on the show. She provides little to no insight on any topic, whether it be close to home or not and I suspect this is because being directly involved with an inter county team means she understandably needs to remain neutral on many topics (other than the ones it’s important to be seen to be irate about). Contributors like these should not be brought on the show. Their hands are tied and this impedes any type of an interesting view, much like a Dublin footballer in a pre-match interview: “we know Leitrim are a really tough outfit and we’re going to have to be on our guard today bla bla bla”.

She's also a sports psychologist, broadcastor and now entering 3rd year med student. She is very insightful on a range of topics. Would like to hear her on more often.

Higgins5473

Tell me how wrote: »

She's also a sports psychologist, broadcastor and now entering 3rd year med student. She is very insightful on a range of topics. Would like to hear her on more often.

Wow???! 3rd year. I thought it was only first. That’s ok then. She’s amazing.

She was excruciating to listen to off her laptop speaker let alone her content that I could hear.

Try sometime, just once on this thread to be objective. What exactly was so objective and worthwhile that was worth listening through what sounded like a didgeridoo

Tell me how

Higgins5473 wrote: »

Wow???! 3rd year. I thought it was only first. That’s ok then. She’s amazing.

She was excruciating to listen to off her laptop speaker let alone her content that I could hear.

Try sometime, just once on this thread to be objective. What exactly was so objective and worthwhile that was worth listening through what sounded like a didgeridoo

Is this because she is from Galway?

dr.kenneth noisewater

Jayesdiem wrote:

Is MT Ni Cheallaigh the Dublin S&C coach? If so, she is the most banal contributor of all on the show. She provides little to no insight on any topic, whether it be close to home or not and I suspect this is because being directly involved with an inter county team means she understandably needs to remain neutral on many topics (other than the ones it’s important to be seen to be irate about). Contributors like these should not be brought on the show. Their hands are tied and this impedes any type of an interesting view, much like a Dublin footballer in a pre-match interview: “we know Leitrim are a really tough outfit and we’re going to have to be on our guard today bla bla blaâ€.

No thats Cliona O Connor

Higgins5473

Tell me how wrote: »

Is this because she is from Galway?

Galway? No. That’s a very narrow minded and offensive accusation to make. I’m reporting this at once. How dare you. Tyrant named milking whatever your name is, pay attention. Horrendous accusation.

Jayesdiem

dr.kenneth noisewater wrote: »

No thats Cliona O Connor

I apologise to MTnC for the mix up.

Jayesdiem

Tell me how wrote: »

She's also a sports psychologist, broadcastor and now entering 3rd year med student. She is very insightful on a range of topics. Would like to hear her on more often.

Maybe if......and I’m not sure I’m even referring to the correct person now, she actually contributed something of substance? (and I’m not talking about safe opinions delivered with venom to create the illusion of being assertive and opinionated).

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote: »

I thought MT was bang on the money calling out Colm O’Rourke and Pat Spillane for their entitled bollocks and unnecessary attacks towards Ronan Glynn.

But she’s a woman so the losers here will hate that lefty liberal soap-boxing wokeness.

Agreed, she was bang on. But she did drift off into some soap boxing about people taking selfies on holidays which was a bit odd and unnecessary. I wasn't expecting much from the paper review as I'm not a huge fan of either contributor but I thought it was strong this week and Eoin managed it well. Good listen.

Higgins5473

Higgins5473 wrote: »

Wow???! 3rd year. I thought it was only first. That’s ok then. She’s amazing.

She was excruciating to listen to off her laptop speaker let alone her content that I could hear.

Try sometime, just once on this thread to be objective. What exactly was so objective and worthwhile that was worth listening through what sounded like a didgeridoo

Wow, that smacks of pure misogyny. I'm not a massive fan as I find she can allow herself to be dominated and can contribute little outside of GAA issues, but she was strong yesterday as GAA matters dominated, and seemed to be well on top of her brief. Enjoyed her contribution.