Waterford GAA Discussion Thread 2013- Mod Warning Post #1

Mountainlad

hardybuck wrote: »

It would definitely not be too early. On Tuesday we're into October. Most years we've teams playing in late July or early August. As this was a particularly unsuccessful year decisions were made far earlier on.

Gym programmes last all year, and vary for each individual. For certain people, it involves putting on bulk and muscle. For others it will involve core flexibility and strengthening work.

If you disband a team at the end of the season you risk having lads go unmonitored. This is something you really don't want for lads in the 19-23 sort of development years.

Are you going to hold trial games in November/December - I'm not sure if that's allowed? If you hold trials in January and pick a whole new squad you've got 30 lads starting their training far too late in the year. The trial games would be a risk in themselves if lads haven't been training for a number of months beforehand.

Realistically, what would it achieve anyway? In a squad of 30 you might get 3 or 4 new faces every year.

Well essentially there is no panel now as there is no management team. The players aren't co-ordinate in a collective group at the moment. Maybe Pat Flanagan would have them on gym programmes if he was still with them.

But any training they might be doing now is off their own bat. No way were they gymming in August though.

I do agree with the importance of it. But that doesn't mean a panel should just follow on. As soon as there is a manager a panel will be picked, but there wasn't a manager in August. There is currently no Waterford Senior hurlign panel, and that is a fact. Whether that means they shouldn't be allowed have a vot e like they did is something I'm undecided on.

hardybuck

Mountainlad wrote: »

Well essentially there is no panel now as there is no management team. The players aren't co-ordinate in a collective group at the moment. Maybe Pat Flanagan would have them on gym programmes if he was still with them.

But any training they might be doing now is off their own bat. No way were they gymming in August though.

I do agree with the importance of it. But that doesn't mean a panel should just follow on. As soon as there is a manager a panel will be picked, but there wasn't a manager in August. There is currently no Waterford Senior hurlign panel, and that is a fact. Whether that means they shouldn't be allowed have a vot e like they did is something I'm undecided on.

Yeah, and in fairness it's a long time since we've had teams exiting the Championship in early-mid July. You couldn't be basing the normal situation on this year.

And again, if we were doing it properly, and perhaps we are, the likes of Flanagan and others would be working for the County Board and not just the senior hurlers. They would then work with some or all of the teams as required. The fate of the senior county manager shouldn't have too much impact upon them.

Black Suir

Waternut wrote: »

Cbs team was - murray, culloo, nugent, cronin, coffey, daly, lyons, barry, curran, o'connel, shine, O'Grady, morrisey, donnelly and curran

Where was young Lyons. He was one of their better players last year.

Black Suir

hardybuck wrote: »

It would definitely not be too early. On Tuesday we're into October. Most years we've teams playing in late July or early August. As this was a particularly unsuccessful year decisions were made far earlier on.

Gym programmes last all year, and vary for each individual. For certain people, it involves putting on bulk and muscle. For others it will involve core flexibility and strengthening work.

If you disband a team at the end of the season you risk having lads go unmonitored. This is something you really don't want for lads in the 19-23 sort of development years.

Are you going to hold trial games in November/December - I'm not sure if that's allowed? If you hold trials in January and pick a whole new squad you've got 30 lads starting their training far too late in the year. The trial games would be a risk in themselves if lads haven't been training for a number of months beforehand.

Realistically, what would it achieve anyway? In a squad of 30 you might get 3 or 4 new faces every year.

Surely they are unmonitored anyway as we don't have a manager or selectors in place to keep and eye on them.

Black Suir

hardybuck wrote: »

Yeah, and in fairness it's a long time since we've had teams exiting the Championship in early-mid July. You couldn't be basing the normal situation on this year.

And again, if we were doing it properly, and perhaps we are, the likes of Flanagan and others would be working for the County Board and not just the senior hurlers. They would then work with some or all of the teams as required. The fate of the senior county manager shouldn't have too much impact upon them.

I fully agree. If we had one physical trainer working with all county teams we might be able to have more duel players as well.

Waternut

Black Suir wrote: »

Where was young Lyons. He was one of their better players last year.

Half back

Black Suir

Just heard on WLR that Michael Ryan is now not standing for the Waterford SH job.

Something however crossed my mind in the last few days and I have not seen anyone say it on here.

We know there was ten to twelve players at the meeting back in August and the rest of the panel were contacted from the meeting by phone.

We don't know or do we, but I would love to know the final outcome of the vote. How many voted they did not want him, how many voted to keep him and if there was any that did not vote.

I don't know if all those at the meeting were for or against keeping Michael Ryan, or if there was a split. If there was a split were players given a chance to say why they think that he should stay or go. The players that were not present would not have heard these for and against arguments, and I wonder would they have had their opinion changed in listening to what was said or if they would have stuck to their guns and voted as they did.

Black Suir

Waternut wrote: »

Half back

Thanks. I only looked in the forward to see where he played.

hardybuck

Black Suir wrote: »

Surely they are unmonitored anyway as we don't have a manager or selectors in place to keep and eye on them.

As I say, we're not in a normal situation. If there is difficulty in making an appointment and this thing drags on further, then we're in a far from ideal situation in terms of conditioning. How long will the selection committee take to make a recommendation? Will the recommendation be accepted by the delegates? These things have the potential to drag on.

If you disband a panel at the end of every season, I don't think you can do trials until Jan, and then you've no work done over winter. You're making the emergency situation we're approaching an annual event. I can't really see the benefit of it either?

An interesting insight into the preparations required in a lower tier county such as Carlow: http://www.hoganstand.com/Carlow/ArticleForm.aspx?ID=201215

Waternut

I wasn't at the game but I thought my friend said he was playing in the half back line???

seananigans

deiseach wrote: »

One of the things the current pickle demonstrates is that the business of 'consulting' squads on the status of the manager is a fudge. The players effectively have a veto over who the manager is. Spare us any flannel about how they never said they were unwilling to play under Michael Ryan. No manager can hope to function when the whole world knows the players have no confidence in him. Maybe this is a good thing. There's something to be said for getting any grievances out in the open rather than letting them fester. The problem is that the players don't have to deal with the consequences of their actions. You can see people already lining up to lambast the County Board over the new manager even though they weren't the ones who brought us to this situation.

It's not something I like, but if we are going to insist on this consultation then we should formalise the players veto. At the end of a manager's term, whether that be two or three years, the players get the chance to express no confidence in the incumbent. This way, they have their fingerprints all over the decision rather than being able to vote no confidence while at the same time claiming that they weren't really dissing the current manager. It might soften the players cough if they realised that they are owning their decision in the eyes of the public. And who knows? They might be really good at making these calls and we're all better off as a result. At least we'd be able to assess this with a proper sample size rather than lurching from one crisis to the next, never learning the lessons of the past.

I think after this one, they will be well careful what they do for years to come

seananigans

Black Suir wrote: »

Just heard on WLR that Michael Ryan is now not standing for the Waterford SH job.

Something however crossed my mind in the last few days and I have not seen anyone say it on here.

We know there was ten to twelve players at the meeting back in August and the rest of the panel were contacted from the meeting by phone.

We don't know or do we, but I would love to know the final outcome of the vote. How many voted they did not want him, how many voted to keep him and if there was any that did not vote.

I don't know if all those at the meeting were for or against keeping Michael Ryan, or if there was a split. If there was a split were players given a chance to say why they think that he should stay or go. The players that were not present would not have heard these for and against arguments, and I wonder would they have had their opinion changed in listening to what was said or if they would have stuck to their guns and voted as they did.

http://www.hoganstand.com/ArticleForm.aspx?ID=201734&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

This appears to be backed up

deiseach

I can't say I blame Ryan for not wanting to go in front of an interview panel again. Had he done so, it would have demonstrated another quirk of this player consultation process. He's being interviewed after being subjected to a vetting process from the players, something that has not happened to the other candidates!

Deise_2012

Waternut wrote: »

I wasn't at the game but I thought my friend said he was playing in the half back line???

He was named as number 21 but played as a sweeper between half and full backline line. Serious hurler, should be expecting to see him on next years minor panel.

Deise_2012

Horseboxhead wrote: »

is it possible to get a breakdown of the teams plus a bit of a match report on the game between Dungarvan CBS and Lismore CBS Yesterday?.

https://twitter.com/andrisleanach/status/382851228188688384/photo/1

hardybuck

deiseach wrote: »

I can't say I blame Ryan for not wanting to go in front of an interview panel again. Had he done so, it would have demonstrated another quirk of this player consultation process. He's being interviewed after being subjected to a vetting process from the players, something that has not happened to the other candidates!

If the consultation had not happened, would we have made a quiet re-appointment behind closed doors and without any formal process or consideration of alternative candidates?

robopaddy

deiseach wrote: »

I can't say I blame Ryan for not wanting to go in front of an interview panel again. Had he done so, it would have demonstrated another quirk of this player consultation process. He's being interviewed after being subjected to a vetting process from the players, something that has not happened to the other candidates!

To be fair it was time for Michael to move on from this whole thing anyway. He has retained his dignity throughout it all and for his own sake Im glad he has decided not to let his name to go forward again because in reality it was a non-runner.

deiseach

hardybuck wrote: »

If the consultation had not happened, would we have made a quiet re-appointment behind closed doors and without any formal process or consideration of alternative candidates?

There would still have to be formal process of some description for re-appointment. Had the consultation ended up with the players backing Michael Ryan, would anyone have felt the need to run the rule over alternative candidates? Given the paucity of options, why would we have bothered? As I said earlier, if we are going to have the consultation then the outcome of that consultation should have consequences. We shouldn't have this situation where the players can pass judgement on a man yet behave as if they haven't done that.

hardybuck

deiseach wrote: »

There would still have to be formal process of some description for re-appointment. Had the consultation ended up with the players backing Michael Ryan, would anyone have felt the need to run the rule over alternative candidates? Given the paucity of options, why would we have bothered? As I said earlier, if we are going to have the consultation then the outcome of that consultation should have consequences. We shouldn't have this situation where the players can pass judgement on a man yet behave as if they haven't done that.

Stick to the point. You're rambling off there talking about passing judgement all that messing.

If situations like this are to be avoided in future, then there needs to be learnings taken away from it.

One big issue for me is that it would appear that there isn't a process in place for the appointment or re-appointment of managers. The lack of current options may or may not reflect future scenarios, and we shouldn't let the current situation dictate to future policy.

robopaddy

So if it does come down to between Queally and McGrath who do people fancy out of the two?

If I had to pick one it would be Queally on the grounds that he has a bit more experience about him. He served as a selector under Davy in 08 & 09 so he would have first hand experience (on what NOT to do some might say), Hes worked with the u21s albeit for one season and he has had relative success and experience at club level. I think its much and muchness between the 2 but Queally maybe has earned it a small bit more.

Mountainlad

robopaddy wrote: »

So if it does come down to between Queally and McGrath who do people fancy out of the two?

If I had to pick one it would be Queally on the grounds that he has a bit more experience about him. He served as a selector under Davy in 08 & 09 so he would have first hand experience (on what NOT to do some might say), Hes worked with the u21s albeit for one season and he has had relative success and experience at club level. I think its much and muchness between the 2 but Queally maybe has earned it a small bit more.

Would probably favour Queally too although one of my concerns is that he was part of a management in a time where I really didn't enjoy the hurling we played.

premierstone

Looking at the two candidates left in the race, I think there will be alot of people who were in the anti Michael Ryan camp eating alot of humble pie in 12 months time.

premierstone

Mountainlad wrote: »

Would probably favour Queally too although one of my concerns is that he was part of a management in a time where I really didn't enjoy the hurling we played.

Good point and look at the style of play the u21's attempted against Clare this year, it was the complete opposite of what I would consider Waterford hurling to be, what style of hurling has his teams had on the clubscene??

deiseach

hardybuck wrote: »

Stick to the point. You're rambling off there talking about passing judgement all that messing.

If situations like this are to be avoided in future, then there needs to be learnings taken away from it.

One big issue for me is that it would appear that there isn't a process in place for the appointment or re-appointment of managers. The lack of current options may or may not reflect future scenarios, and we shouldn't let the current situation dictate to future policy.

I don't see how I'm going off the point. The only 'rambling' is by people who think that the players were not asked to pass judgement on Michael Ryan. The idea that such a consultation is non-binding is ridiculous. If we're going to have the consultation then let's follow it though to its logical conclusion.

Mountainlad

premierstone wrote: »

Good point and look at the style of play the u21's attempted against Clare this year, it was the complete opposite of what I would consider Waterford hurling to be, what style of hurling has his teams had on the clubscene??

In fairness I only saw them once and probably their worst performance of the year, but Passage played a sweeper against Ballygunner, but only after they conceded a goal and went about 5 down within 8 mins of the game.

I thought he did a good job in the u21, beating that Clare team would have been some achievement. But at the same time, with the talented young forwards I see on the minor team and some of the lads their at Senior now I don't want to see us playing negatively.

premierstone

Mountainlad wrote: »

I thought he did a good job in the u21, beating that Clare team would have been some achievement.

This is true and thats why I asked about the club teams because an argument could be made with the u21's he was simply cuting his cloth to measure and that under Davy's regime his influence was most likely minimal as Davy doesn't take alternative opinions too often.

Deise_2012

I would prefer to see Queally getting the job. If he does I think he'll bring Darragh Duggan in as one of his hurling coaches, bit of an unknown to some but he has worked wonders with the Dungarvan harty cup team the last few years and has transformed Abbeyside's hurling campaign this season. In fairness to Peter Queally too, the sending off of Paudie Pender was a major turning point in the Waterford Clare u21 game, maybe it was negative style of hurling alright but look at Clare's results in the following games to the final, they were getting the job done 0-14 to 0-11 when the sending off occured

deisedude

premierstone wrote: »

Good point and look at the style of play the u21's attempted against Clare this year, it was the complete opposite of what I would consider Waterford hurling to be, what style of hurling has his teams had on the clubscene??

To be fair to him. i saw Passage earlier in the year and thought he had really brought on their hurling. They had some decent build up play. That said any group game must be taken with an inch of salt

alllcounty

Passage also won the st mollerans tournament at the start of the year beating drom & inch in the final. Not an easy competition to win as some of the best teams in tipp, kk and wat compete in it. Not sure if a waterford club team ever won it before.

sid wallace

premierstone wrote: »

Looking at the two candidates left in the race, I think there will be alot of people who were in the anti Michael Ryan camp eating alot of humble pie in 12 months time.

People will have to get over Michael Ryan. There was absolutely no continuity, rhyme or reason to his management. We were through three back room teams in just over a year and we were promised a fourth if he got reappointed. He presided over a situation in 2012 where we exited the championship earlier than in 2011 and a situation in 2013 where we in turn exited the championship earlier than in 2012. That's a steady decline no matter how you look at it and he presided over it. He got a good run at it and that was his record. Sooner or later a halt had to be called to his reign. In typical fashion the county board were always going to be too weaselly to do it, so it was left to a group of players (again) to do the needful.