"Soccer feeling like unloved child in tale of two sports"

Mal-Adjusted

How these threads don't get autolocked is beyond me. it always ends up the same. Rugby people go on about national and club achievements, soccer people get into a dick measuring contest about numbers and it always descends into personal opinions about skillsets.

Whosthis

MD1990 wrote: »

Alot easier at International level as there is only about 6 good rugby teams.
Compared to Soccer the most popular spot in the world.

The same could be said for soccer, have a look at the 32 teams in the last world cup, or any world cup for that matter, how many of those teams have a realistic chance of winning? If you can make a case for more than eight teams you're deluded.

Bridge93

Playing Devil's Adcovate, if you wanted you could argue you need more 'skill' in rugby. Any team in football can drop 10 men behind the ball and not get hammered allowing **** teams be somewhat involved and the odd time knick a result. You can't do that in rugby. If you don't have the required skill set you will lose and probably badly. You see far more shocks in football than rugby from less skillful teams.
As I said, Devils Adcovate. Probably no more right than the football argument. There is no way of proving anything. More people does not necessarily mean more skillful. It's all relative to the sport in question and the law of diminishing returns plays a part.
I presume due to more players England are more 'skillful' at football than Uruguay or Belgium and at rugby than New Zealand?

Dempsey

There is double standards in some ways but that article is a load of tripe. Its like something he wrote at the last minute whilst down in the pub

RedemptionZ

MD1990 wrote: »

Alot easier at International level as there is only about 6 good rugby teams.
Compared to Soccer the most popular spot in the world.

Yeah, the international sports environment suits rugby ergo rugby will find it easier to grow, that's the point I'm trying to make.

Francie Barrett

Success has an awful lot to do with the growth of rugby. I have friends in Cork who would have derided rugby as a sport for toffs in boarding schools. When Munster won the Heineken Cup, that changed everything. After that, there was barely a Cork man who didn't own a Munster rugby shirt and the flags were out in full force and you had a lot of young men trying to figure out the rules of rugby. Same thing happened in Leinster. Like Munster, there are areas in Dublin in particular where rugby has always been strong, but it wasn't until Leinster won a Heineken cup that the sport made the breakthrough to non-traditional fans.

CSF

Bridge93 wrote: »

Playing Devil's Adcovate, if you wanted you could argue you need more 'skill' in rugby. Any team in football can drop 10 men behind the ball and not get hammered allowing **** teams be somewhat involved and the odd time knick a result. You can't do that in rugby. If you don't have the required skill set you will lose and probably badly. You see far more shocks in football than rugby from less skillful teams.
As I said, Devils Adcovate. Probably no more right than the football argument. There is no way of proving anything. More people does not necessarily mean more skillful. It's all relative to the sport in question and the law of diminishing returns plays a part.
I presume due to more players England are more 'skillful' at football than Uruguay or Belgium and at rugby than New Zealand?

The ability to defend well and maintain shape is as much a skill as tiki-taka ball retention.

AdamD

CSF wrote: »

The ability to defend well and maintain shape is as much a skill as tiki-taka ball retention.

Its quite obviously not. Only a handful of teams in the world can play tiki-taka ball retention, but countless teams defend well and maintain shape.

CSF

AdamD wrote: »

Its quite obviously not. Only a handful of teams in the world can play tiki-taka ball retention, but countless teams defend well and maintain shape.

Countless teams do not defend well and maintain shape well.

Either way using a proportionate measure isn't an accurate measuring tape here as there'd be plenty of teams who have the players capable of playing possession football, but choose not to, for a variety of other reasons.

Comparing something that everybody wants to do (defend well) to something which might not be a priority due to having other qualities in your team (pacy wingers or a great physical target man), that comparison doesn't prove any point because it's not like for like.

Lots of players can keep the ball well, lots can defend well. 2 important skills that fit into a wider team gameplan.

Whosthis

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The double standard when it comes to drink and the media is spot on.

The two biggest club tournaments this side of the world ate sponsored by drink companies but there is hardly a word about it.

One of Irish rugby's biggest sponsor is a drinks company, yet there is hardly a bad word said about it.

If it were the FAI or the GAA the knives would be out for them.

But this "is rugby more popular than soccer" debate happened back in 2007, on Off the Ball no less, and again it was at a time when the soccer team were at a low ebb and the rugby team were winning.

But at the end of the day soccer will always prove more popular, people will always come back to soccer.

In the sense of being in the public consciousness rugby will never have an Italia 90, it will never have a Saipan, it will never have Henry hand ball.

Whatever you do, don't look at the pitch side advertising.

CatFromHue

Rugby is Ireland's mistress but Soccer is it's wife.

Rugby is at best Ireland's third sport, more than likely it's fourth, but Soccer competes, and you could say wins, with Gaelic Football for the No. 1 spot.

I think as Soccer has become more and more a non contact game people have questioned it's values but they still tune in, but it still has a big draw.

For the last 2 Rugby World Cups the Irish team has been expected to do well but the coverage never came anywhere near the same as when Ireland qualified for the last Euro's, so I think Early in his article was arguing with no one.

MarkSRFC21

NIMAN wrote: »

Trying not to troll here but rugby to me looks like a team of 15 players where maybe 5 or 6 are the skillful ones. The rest act like battering rams to help the 5 or 6 win games.

Of course I've never played rugby and I could be completely wrong! Its just how it looks to me.
.

Completely untrue. A huge amount of skill required from all 15 players on a pitch. What some players lack in skill in one aspect of the game they make up for in another aspect of the game. For example, a prop may not not be good at sidestepping or passing, but will excel in rucking and scrummaging. On the other hand, a centre, who would appear to be more skilful, may excel at passing and beating players, would struggle with other aspects of the game such as rucking.
The same point could be made against soccer. Centre halves could appear to be less skilful than strikers or wingers, but this is untrue as they both excel in different areas of the game

The Golden Miller

The media is extremely biased towards rugby as we are doing well in it. But what do people expect? Ireland is the land of band-wagoners. When Munster were the top provence in rugby, half of Leinster was supporting them over the Leinster rugby team. Then Leinster are better, and they are all back supporting Leinster as if they are die-hards. Same with thousands on the ship every week to watch their "local" premier league side. I suppose the rugby gives the media something to brag about. It's also easier to praise a sport and brag about it, when you aren't really into it, and just use it as a tool to say we are the best in something without really caring.

Contrast that to the Irish national team in football and the wider population really cares about it. Hence we all give out about it as we are sick of rubbish performances as we really want to see them do well. Getting to major tournaments in football is the main sporting aim of the nation when all is said and done. When the euphoria of being in a major tournament takes over, people don't give a fcuk about the rugby. I think the fact that soccer gets a raw deal from the media, shows more people really care about it. Opinions are so differentiating and hotly debated....people care. But rugby just gets a pat on the back without being scrutinized as it's just used as a tool to say we are the best at something, but beyond that the wider population don't care enough about it. When a big game rolls around for the football team, or major tournaments, rugby can't compete with it.

I suppose there's also the celtic tiger/d4 influence. Most of our major media outlets are based in south Dublin, and many of the top people in them come from affluenced "west brit" backrounds and probably grew up with rugby as their number one sport, so are really exposing us to their interests and agendas. Then during the boom years, everyone had their office jobs and were getting paid over 100 grand a year and started to get a bit pretentious and had notions above their station. And then rugby was the "in thing", and what better way to swing with the big dicks than suiting up and getting your free corporate box company tickets in the aviva, to drink some "Heino" with the executives watching the game. Rugby was the game of the affluenced and everyone thought they were better than they were and wanted in.

But scrape away the superficial band-wagoner support of the rugby team, and the Irish football team is still the biggest show in town. Infact, outside the traditional rugby hot spots, is still the only show in town and always will be (as a nation competing at international level)

i think (possibly because this is on the soccer forum) that some of the points here are naive.

the idea that rugby is a "west brit" sport while soccer is not makes no sense to me.

both gaa sports are more popular than either rugby or soccer

the idea that bandwagon supporters follow rugby because they are successful could easily said about soccer (italia 90,usa 94) its just that because of the timeline a lot of us have grown up with it being the number one non gaa sport unfortunately since korea/japan we've not had a good team so the support is fading.(incidentally i agree that as a country we are bandwagon supporters but i dont think we are alone in this whenever any country has success in a sport a section of that countries youth tends to find it appealing e.g. look at how big weightlifting became in iceland with jon pail sigmarsson)

also i dont think rugby is a "snob sport" anymore i can only speak for cork but i would say the middle class has largely gravitated towards rugby from soccer and in limerick it was never an upper class sport as far as i know.

finally i think the article has a degree of truth in that soccer players are more harshly treated by the media but i feel a lot of that is due to them being regarded as traditional celebrities more than rugby players. soccer players tend to live abroad making them less accessible to the media and the majority of them are millionaires. whereas iv seen irish rugby players getting there groceries in the supermarket they seem much more like local lads because of it.

ThunbergsAreGo

Guadalupe Handsome Spout wrote: »

i think (possibly because this is on the soccer forum) that some of the points here are naive.

the idea that rugby is a "west brit" sport while soccer is not makes no sense to me.

both gaa sports are more popular than either rugby or soccer

Not 100% sure that is true (of course open to correction)

W123-80's

I don't understand what The FAI and John Delaney are judged on??
In the time period 2007 to 2014 the IRFU have managed to increase their turnover from 48m to 68m the FAI have managed to go from 45m to 36m.
That is a very damning stat.

In my opinion there are three very clear criteria on which Delaney and his organisation should be judged;
1. International team performance
2. Domestic league performance
3. Grassroots football

These three points should take into consideration measures in place to develop the game domestically, initiatives to ensure LOI clubs are ran responsibly, 5/10 year plans for the domestic and grassroots game etc

As far as I can see, all three criteria above are entirely separate and all have there own agendas.
Grassroots football is geared towards winning at all costs. No encouragement from the FAI for 7 aside or 9 aside leagues at a regional level for the underage game.
Some County FA's are totally autonomous from the FAI in terms of how they run there leagues which is crazy.
I was at an U-12 cup final in Mayo a few months ago. It was played on Milebush, the county ground. This is an international size pitch to maximum size.
The goalies could barely get their kickouts beyond the 18 yard box. It was a totally pointless game of football. But it was played on a beautiful surface so everything is fine.

I could write a thesis on all that could be done to develop the game in Ireland, and maybe I will. But it would involve patience and an appetite to change.

naughtb4

naughtb4 wrote: »

Not 100% sure that is true (of course open to correction)

Hands up I'll admit it was an assumption il change to I believe them to be more popular

TheDoc

Interesting how everyone can read the exact printed words and take away so many different meanings.

Nowhere in that article did I see Early claiming Robbie Keane as world class. What was there, was him asking why isn't there debate about Keane being more recognized considering he is the active highest goalscorer in international football. In a game that vastly dwarves numbers compared to Rugby, there is an Irish player leading the charts, and his name never really comes into it when articles, debates or pundits discuss "the best".

Now personally I know why, it's all good being the countries main striker for over a decade, and being a decent player course he would score goals. But he is not world class, he is nowhere near it, and would be nowhere near lists of the best.

Ireland is in this odd state of flux, and typical in Ireland, we can't just like everything. We need to put our allegiances in something, and back it to the hilt, and belittle everything else.

A lot of my friends, particularly my family, have kept their football interest, but become much more hardcore in supporting Rugby. The province teams are strong and had success in European competition, the national team is strong and can compete with the best in Rugby. That comparison isn't there for rugby.

You can't go watch a LOI team play in the champions league, you can't watch Ireland compete with an elite team. It's about as a sport fan, wanting to attend and see entertainment, to see the best, to get that feeling of joy and victory. That's where rugby fits in lovely and where it has capitalised on. In a period where Irish football has been on the drastic decline, irish Rugby has grown. Strictly at the national team, where in football the various factors like quality, entertainment etc. has gone down, while rugby it's trajectory has only been on the up. Of course it's going to get in the numbers.

Every year I try get into LOI. I go to two games or so, and try get the feeling that it's something I want to watch. But I can't it's dire. It's really poor. I can see how fans of decades or have strong traditions in their families to LOI can get into it. But someone like me, football was tertiary. It was a GAA Football and Hurling household. It was only as a teen when my Dad was being spoken to and being asked to meet with scouts etc. that he started to even have an interest in football, bar coming down to just watch and support me on a weekend(perfect parent spectator, just watched, supportive etc.) So for someone like me, whose football upbringing was watching United on the telly, and the Premier league, going to watch LOI was tough and rough, and now it's even worse then when I was a teen and impressionable.

So it does itself no favours that the national league is pretty poor, and can't compete with what is essentially a world of football at my fingertips with TV or the internet. The national team suffered immensely too. Personally, I had some first hand bad experiences with the FAI and the underage teams that turned me kinda off the way it operates, coupled with how it appears the FAI and management would go hands and knees to get someone into the team with quality. Be it English, someone who quit (Keane) someone who retired but wants to use the team as a way for playtime(Given) or a scandalous executive who are getting on par with Blatter for cementing their re-election by greasing palms and putting cash in pockets.

Someone mentioned what is Delaney judged on. I don't ****ing know, and neither does he. He infamously told Pat Kenny and that the national team was about 1-2% percent of his interest and responsibility. You can disect that to outline how RETARDED that sort of prioritization is for the long term health of the game here. Separately, he then was famously quoted, again on newstalk for saying "well the national league is a very minor/small portion of the work I and the team do".

What the hell is he actually doing then, besides organizing deals and revenue generation to pay himself a ludicrous salary and fill the pockets of those who keep voting him back in. They are doing nothing at grass roots level, with the quality and standard degrading beyond a joke, and buckets of teenagers going to English academies without a hope in hell of becoming elite, or even making a career for themselves.

Gaelic Football and Hurling receive astronomical amounts of state and council funding, taxpayer money. It totally DWARVES that of soccer. When it comes to match days, All Irelands etc. the revenue generated is astronomical, the day is tremendous, the advertising is rife and the stadiums are packed.

The Rugby provinces are packed houses, the national team pack the Aviva and the revenue is massive and the financials are rock solid, as you can see from the figures in the article.

Football is the biggest sport in the world. It's the biggest sport in this country(you can get into the petty debates if you want, the data is there for all to see). The best footballers in the world are iconic, everyone knows their faces. You could put an All Ireland winning team in front of me, and not only could I not tell you a name, I couldn't tell you the county their from by their kit, so oblivious am I to GAA. The same for Rugby, although I'd probably name one or two at a push.

Serious questions have to be asked of the FAI. Early is making some fair points in his article, but where it really missed out is that the irish soccer fan, be it the LOI or the national team, are becoming more and more disenfranchised about the whole ordeal and affair, and with so much top quality football easily accessible abroad, it's becoming incredibly difficult to both put up the money and the effort to keeping the support going. Like even at a base level, the ticket pricing for the Aviva games are a disgrace.

Nalz

wow! long

TheDoc

Trilla wrote: »

wow! long

Get it into you!

Utopia Parkway

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

He's not wrong. Our rugby players are idolized compared to our football players.

Because the Ireland rugby team is currently a very good side. In the 90's we had a very good football team that were idolized while the rugby team was absolutely hopeless for the entire decade and came in for plenty of stick. Swings and roundabouts.

Ferris_Bueller

Good post by The Doc. There have been a few interesting posts in this thread which have got me thinking about things I wouldn't have noticed before, overall it just seems as if Rugby is a lot easier to follow for a casual sports fan at this particular time. They are playing competitive games, winning silverware, will compete at world cups, the players are all over the Irish media, clubs are successful and the facilities are better. It's so much easier to support a team that is winning, and it feels like that is the difference between the soccer team and the rugby team.

Take last nights match vs Poland for example. I would consider myself a big soccer fan and supporter of the national team, yet I didn't go to the Aviva last night. I couldn't justify paying €50 for a ticket and probably spending €150 overall (I only work part time) going to the match for a game that there was a good chance we could have lost. If I had of thought there's a good chance we could win this game I probably would have justified paying the money, but too many times have I gone up and spent a fortune and left feeling disappointed. With the Rugby, it is pretty much always going to be the case that Ireland will have a very good chance of winning a game against a close rival.

I think soccer will always be the more popular sport and it will capture the nation as a whole more, but for the time being rugby is the more popular to follow.

W123-80's

TheDoc wrote: »

Someone mentioned what is Delaney judged on. I don't ****ing know, and neither does he. He infamously told Pat Kenny and that the national team was about 1-2% percent of his interest and responsibility. You can disect that to outline how RETARDED that sort of prioritization is for the long term health of the game here. Separately, he then was famously quoted, again on newstalk for saying "well the national league is a very minor/small portion of the work I and the team do".

What the hell is he actually doing then, besides organizing deals and revenue generation to pay himself a ludicrous salary and fill the pockets of those who keep voting him back in. They are doing nothing at grass roots level, with the quality and standard degrading beyond a joke, and buckets of teenagers going to English academies without a hope in hell of becoming elite, or even making a career for themselves.

This times 1,000,000

seachto7

Ferris_Bueller wrote: »

Article written by Ken Early in the Irish times today.



What are peoples opinions on this? Personally I think this article sounds quite bitter and is biased but I can agree with some of the points he makes and have certainly been feeling rugby is becoming the most popular spectator sport in Ireland.

I've never been a fan of rugby, so my own view on this is probably skewed as well. But does anyone who follows both sports have anything to say about this article/topic? Is rugby viewed more favorably by the media? I've noticed it big time on the radio, there is always massive talk surrounding rugby matches when compared to soccer matches, but if that's what the public are interested in then they are only doing their job I suppose. I feel like Irish soccer is approaching it's lowest ever point since I've been around anyway, national team hasn't been doing well, league of Ireland teams have been going through a bit of a rough patch (although might be coming out of it now) and we have no players playing for top clubs in England or Europe anymore. Is the publics interest in soccer dying? Why has rugby become so popular all of a sudden?

As a soccer fan I hope it is only temporary but the IRFU have been doing fantastic work over the past few years, the Irish rugby team has been successful and Irish clubs are doing well too, literally the exact opposite to soccer.

The Irish, I think, in general, are attracted to successful teams, so the event junkies are on board for the rugby at the moment.
The soccer team had it in 88 and the 90s. I suppose a lot of people still think Ireland should be at those heights with football.
Add in the fact that we have professional rugby teams doing well who are based in Ireland.
Of course, it's also the "in" thing to be seen at the rugby, as if it's moving up the social ladder.
You could say the same about the GAA. Lads who are seen out get in trouble, not to mind lads who are out drinking.

seachto7

Ferris_Bueller wrote: »

Take last nights match vs Poland for example. I would consider myself a big soccer fan and supporter of the national team, yet I didn't go to the Aviva last night. I couldn't justify paying €50 for a ticket and probably spending €150 overall (I only work part time) going to the match for a game that there was a good chance we could have lost.

Well, it would have cost you €40 to see two quasi second string rugby teams at Thomond Park last Saturday in the pro 12.

Wacker The Attacker

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

The sad fact is Ireland are far more likely to win a Rugby match against a rival or good team like England or France (they beat both this year for example) than the Irish football are to do the same and as much as it shouldn't be the case "You only sing when your winning" etc is the case for many many supporters of all sports.

The Irish Rugby team being a pretty damn good team also can play some pretty entertaining stuff and that will get a crowd into it more too. Meanwhile The footballers will play to their strengths which might not exactly be entertaining.

This says more about the fan (I use the term "fan" loosely). I follow the irish football team home and away. In general the majority of Irish sports "fans" tend to jump the winning bandwagon. Remember the days when getting a ticket for an irish soccer international in the 90's was an ordeal.

It was estimated that 40,000 travelled to Euro 2012. Was this because "play to their strengths which might not exactly be entertaining" or was it because they were paying at the highest level of competition in europe for the first time in almost 25 years. The majority of these fans probably havent travelled to home games regularly since.

dfx-

seachto7 wrote: »

The Irish, I think, in general, are attracted to successful teams, so the event junkies are on board for the rugby at the moment.
The soccer team had it in 88 and the 90s. I suppose a lot of people still think Ireland should be at those heights with football.
Add in the fact that we have professional rugby teams doing well who are based in Ireland.
Of course, it's also the "in" thing to be seen at the rugby, as if it's moving up the social ladder.
You could say the same about the GAA. Lads who are seen out get in trouble, not to mind lads who are out drinking.

You'd also have to consider that the height of rugby is far away, in the big three of the Southern Hemisphere. Pubs are not packed out every week advertising Gloucester v Bath on big screens either or Harlequins v Northampton. Or Stade Francais v Toulouse. Because people have no interest. You could argue the winners of the six nations so often are Wales and Ireland in the past ten years. But their club game is dying on its backside, it's all about the national team. England and France have a huge club game with huge money, but don't win recently at a national level.

So when there is a 'important' game on, it catches on much more easily than saturation of club football. There isn't that international break annoyance. Rugby is refreshing in that comes around every six months and forgotten largely in between.

There's more ownership in the manufactured provinces, but there's no club game interest in rugby here as football. Ireland international sport does not do Ireland clubs. The provinces might have a huge problem ahead given England and France should dominate in Europe since they redesigned the tournament.

Maximus Alexander

If the rugby team stop winning and the football team have another purple patch, it will swing back the other way. It's just the way of things.

Ireland don't have a rich heritage in either sport, neither of them are tied to our national identity the way football might be in, say England, Germany or Brazil, or Rugby might be in New Zealand. The supporters for the most part just want to be entertained and watching your country do well is pretty entertaining.

I have no great love for rugby, despite playing it for a number of years and trying so hard to love it as a spectator. It just doesn't get me going the way football does, but I can definitely see the attraction of watching Ireland compete, and compete well, on the international stage.

tastyt

Utopia Parkway wrote: »

Because the Ireland rugby team is currently a very good side. In the 90's we had a very good football team that were idolized while the rugby team was absolutely hopeless for the entire decade and came in for plenty of stick. Swings and roundabouts.

Ya it's definitely swings and roundabouts regarding success usually, but footballs problem is the longer our league and youth structures are being ignored, and the more great work the Gaa and rugby do in schools and provinces the less likely it is that success will ever swing back in favour of our football team.

The IRFU and GAA put the FAI to shame.

tastyt

I know the thoughts of regional teams is sacrilegious to a lot of league of Ireland fans.

But just think of this, the IRFU went ahead and put their money into fully professional province teams and academies and as good as killed the club rugby game in Ireland. It's a gamble that they took and has worked hugely.

I'm not saying 4 teams is the way forward for football because you have to have enough to create a league but like it or not, and a lot of people won't, something drastic, revolutionary and long sighted has to be done for the good of the game in this country.

eagle eye

I don't think anybody has mentioned that Rugby went fully professional about 15/20 years ago. Players have become a lot better because they can dedicate themselves full time to the cause and the best coaches are in the game too because they get paid to be.

Soccer has been a professional game for a long, long time and had an advantage over other sports because of it. Obviously other sports will become more popular as they become better advertised, have better players, games, more media exposure and simply become more attractive and accessible to the public.

Rugby Union is still on the up and nobody has a clue how big it will get. The sevens being at the Olympics is going to make the game a lot bigger I think.

anncoates

Guadalupe Handsome Spout wrote: »

Hands up I'll admit it was an assumption il change to I believe them to be more popular

I think soccer is the biggest in terms of participation.

TINA1984

tastyt wrote: »

I know the thoughts of regional teams is sacrilegious to a lot of league of Ireland fans.

But just think of this, the IRFU went ahead and put their money into fully professional province teams and academies and as good as killed the club rugby game in Ireland. It's a gamble that they took and has worked hugely.

I'm not saying 4 teams is the way forward for football because you have to have enough to create a league but like it or not, and a lot of people won't, something drastic, revolutionary and long sighted has to be done for the good of the game in this country.

Who are these regional franchises going to play? a 4 team league of Munster FC, Connacht-Ulster FC, Leinster FC & Dublin FC? If you're going to have a lower level then provincial then surely the existing club teams at LOI and junior league level will suffice.

tastyt

TINA1984 wrote: »

Who are these regional franchises going to play? a 4 team league of Munster FC, Connacht-Ulster FC, Leinster FC & Dublin FC?

That's not my job to sort it out, that's why Delaney gets paid 360,000 a year

And if you read it properly i said a 4 Team competition obviously isn't the answer

seachto7

I can only speak for Limerick, and the city in particular, and I may well be out of the loop as well, but as far back as I can remember, and when I was playing, soccer was always very strong in the city. I would hazard a guess that it still is.

This thing about Limerick being a rugby city isn't all true. Junior soccer in Limerick city was, and maybe still is, the most popular game, and we have always had decent teams.

Why that doesn't kick on to Limerick city, I don't know. Maybe it's a case that lads might get a few quid playing for the top teams in Limerick city, can hold down a job, and don't have to travel up and down the country to do it.

Rugby is the glamour game in Limerick though.

CSF

tastyt wrote: »

That's not my job to sort it out, that's why Delaney gets paid 360,000 a year

And if you read it properly i said a 4 Team competition obviously isn't the answer

No but it was your idea, so it would be reasonable to think you'd have one.

Can't see that a lack of provincial segregation of our football teams is a cause of our plight IMO.

Leinster and Munster attract such interest because they're playing at such an elite level, and pretty successfully, again because of the small pool of rugby. Not because people feel some sort of intense association with their province.

If you ask someone where they're from, depending on the person asking you might get an answer of their town, their county, or their country. I can't remember telling someone I was from Leinster.

tastyt

CSF wrote: »

No but it was your idea, so it would be reasonable to think you'd have one.

Can't see that a lack of provincial segregation of our football teams is a cause of our plight IMO.

Leinster and Munster attract such interest because they're playing at such an elite level, and pretty successfully, again because of the small pool of rugby. Not because people feel some sort of intense association with their province.

If you ask someone where they're from, depending on the person asking you might get an answer of their town, their county, or their country. I can't remember telling someone I was from Leinster.

Fair enough, my point was that the IRFU made a move that wasn't going to be popular with clubs but did so for the greater good of the game.

As I said I don't know a fool proof way of saving the game here but I think you can agree that the league in its current state isn't attracting either investors, advertisement or many new fans.

And I'm not having a go at the clubs at all, I have been heavily involved with two clubs and know the Trojan work that goes on for little reward.

If I had one small suggestion it would be scrapping the graveyard of division 1 that achieves absolutely nothing. But that's the tip of the iceberg

Edit: Ireland is a very colloquial country and it's no suprise that the two most thriving sports associations have bought into this and use it as a huge marketing tool

CSF

tastyt wrote: »

Fair enough, my point was that the IRFU made a move that wasn't going to be popular with clubs but did so for the greater good of the game.

As I said I don't know a fool proof way of saving the game here but I think you can agree that the league in its current state isn't attracting either investors, advertisement or many new fans.

And I'm not having a go at the clubs at all, I have been heavily involved with two clubs and know the Trojan work that goes on for little reward.

If I had one small suggestion it would be scrapping the graveyard of division 1 that achieves absolutely nothing. But that's the tip of the iceberg

Edit: Ireland is a very colloquial country and it's no suprise that the two most thriving sports associations have bought into this and use it as a huge marketing tool

Of course we agree on the state of the league.

But there isn't an obvious quick-fix ideawise. Everything good that could be done needs investment, so money is the key. That money would have the same positive effect whether it was on Shelbourne, Bohs, Cobh, Dublin, Cork and Roscommon, or Leinster, Munster, Connacht.

The idea that if we suddenly call a team Dublin everyone will start to support it because it now suddenly represents them has been tried and failed. Hard to imagine the same wouldn't happen with provincial teams.

Idbatterim

couldnt read the times article, read the first two pages of this thread... I watched the Poland match yesterday and to be honest, it reconfirmed why I have gone off football to an extent, I am sick of seeing those cheating fairies going over like a ton of bricks or duping the referee into giving wrong decisions... The poles were at it all night.

Also with the stuff Trap was serving up, dinosaur age hoofball, I am not surprised some people have been turned off it. We have the weakest bunch of players we have had in decades... Also and this is a big one, we havent beat a side ranked higher than us, since the Dutch in 2001, it is a disgraceful statistic...

The rugby team go out all guns blazing, they have massive belief, the Irish soccer team, mentality is the exact opposite, until they are one down when they are in a "nothing to lose" scenario...

tastyt

CSF wrote: »

Of course we agree on the state of the league.

But there isn't an obvious quick-fix ideawise. Everything good that could be done needs investment, so money is the key. That money would have the same positive effect whether it was on Shelbourne, Bohs, Cobh, Dublin, Cork and Roscommon, or Leinster, Munster, Connacht.

The idea that if we suddenly call a team Dublin everyone will start to support it because it now suddenly represents them has been tried and failed. Hard to imagine the same wouldn't happen with provincial teams.

Ya I can see that. Dublin is a different animal though , it has a history of big loi clubs and a genuine loi community. It's sometimes easy to underestimate the influence the GAA has on the psyche of rural Ireland. Clubs like longford, Kilkenny , monaghan, athlone, Cobh, aren't big enough population areas to sustain a professional football team. They need support from a wider audience. However people from Tipperary or laois or offaly wouldn't go to Kilkenny or longford as they see the county rivalry that is inherent in these areas. It's sad but true. Of course you'll have proper die hard football fans that will go but the floating, casual fan that will swing to whatever sport is " in " doesn't feel affiliated to clubs in different counties.

I would love nothing more to be like the Europeans and have a proper football country but unfortunately because of our culture and history Wer almost programmed into being partisan about our part of the island. When you think about it, apart from huge European clubs most football teams are a representation of their communities.

I just believe that we cannot have a proper professional league, which would hugely help the national team, because of our small population, if we do not aggressively target Carlow, Kildare, Kilkenny, laois, offaly, mayo, leitrim,roscommon, monaghan, cavan, Tipperary, Kerry, Clare, Meath. It's too big an area to ignore

Bridge93

Idbatterim wrote: »

couldnt read the times article, read the first two pages of this thread... I watched the Poland match yesterday and to be honest, it reconfirmed why I have gone off football to an extent, I am sick of seeing those cheating fairies going over like a ton of bricks or duping the referee into giving wrong decisions... The poles were at it all night.

Also with the stuff Trap was serving up, dinosaur age hoofball, I am not surprised some people have been turned off it. We have the weakest bunch of players we have had in decades... Also and this is a big one, we havent beat a side ranked higher than us, since the Dutch in 2001, it is a disgraceful statistic...

The rugby team go out all guns blazing, they have massive belief, the Irish soccer team, mentality is the exact opposite, until they are one down when they are in a "nothing to lose" scenario...

Croatia
Colombia
Denmark
USA
Italy
France
Netherlands
Sweden
Portugal
Algeria
Paraguay
Bosnia
Poland
Czech Republic

All ranked ahead of Ireland at a time we beat them since that game. Some more than once.

CSF

tastyt wrote: »

Ya I can see that. Dublin is a different animal though , it has a history of big loi clubs and a genuine loi community. It's sometimes easy to underestimate the influence the GAA has on the psyche of rural Ireland. Clubs like longford, Kilkenny , monaghan, athlone, Cobh, aren't big enough population areas to sustain a professional football team. They need support from a wider audience. However people from Tipperary or laois or offaly wouldn't go to Kilkenny or longford as they see the county rivalry that is inherent in these areas. It's sad but true. Of course you'll have proper die hard football fans that will go but the floating, casual fan that will swing to whatever sport is " in " doesn't feel affiliated to clubs in different counties.

I would love nothing more to be like the Europeans and have a proper football country but unfortunately because of our culture and history Wer almost programmed into being partisan about our part of the island. When you think about it, apart from huge European clubs most football teams are a representation of their communities.

I just believe that we cannot have a proper professional league, which would hugely help the national team, because of our small population, if we do not aggressively target Carlow, Kildare, Kilkenny, laois, offaly, mayo, leitrim,roscommon, monaghan, cavan, Tipperary, Kerry, Clare, Meath. It's too big an area to ignore

What county would you put the Leinster FC stadium in then if not Dublin?

Monaghan and Kilkenny had teams. The interest wasn't there. Couldn't see those same locals trekking to Derry or Navan to see a provincial team

The geographical classifications of the teams isn't the problem. Football in Ireland won't take off in any way without a ****load of startup cash.

tastyt

CSF wrote: »

What county would you put the Leinster FC stadium in then if not Dublin?

Monaghan and Kilkenny had teams. The interest wasn't there. Couldn't see those same locals trekking to Derry or Navan to see a provincial team

The geographical classifications of the teams isn't the problem. Football in Ireland won't take off in any way without a ****load of startup cash.

I agree but I never suggested a Leinster fc ? I said different regions, doesn't have to be provinces. So what do you suggest, throw money at the clubs currently involved who have shown time and again that they have no idea what to do with it?

And why couldn't you see those people going to Derry or navan?? People from Waterford or cork rarely went to see Munster in limerick 15 years ago and now they go in their thousands.

The Golden Miller

Ye we are the only country who places any sort of importance on the county, because of the GAA. People identify by their county in Ireland, and we are the only country where that happens. It's a good and bad thing. Really bad for soccer. I live in Meath and you aren't gonna get any local person supporting a Dublin club, because of the ingrained GAA mentality, they feel they are supporting the rival and won't try or can't relate to a Dublin club 10-15 miles down the road. It's a big factor and is ridiculous.

But the main factor is us, the fans. As a nation we are the most gullible and superficial sports fans that I've ever come across. Despite county divisions, football thrived in Ireland before the BBC and match of the day was introduced. You could have up to 25,000/30,000 people at a club game before that. There is no going back from that now. Fans here are so short sighted, that the simply won't go to a club games "because the standard is crap". They don't realise that if everyone supporting the premiership followed the LOI, it would thrive. Massive amounts of money would be pumped through the turnstiles. Proper academies could be set up. In turn, if we were producing better players because of having better academies, more people would come to watch, especially if we got to the point our clubs could retain a few international players. But the superficial Irish fans, simply won't do that and would rather be down the local supporting Liverpool and United. Then they have the audacity to give out when our international team is doing crap, when it is directly their fault.

I hate the FAI and they do nothing to promote the league. It's left nearly up to the fans to promote it over social media. But in saying that, even if the FAI tried, there isn't much they could do in my opinion that would have much effect, unless they can change the ingrained national mentality of gloryhunting. Otherwise, no matter what they do, people will still continue to follow the premiership. But for the money the cnuts are on, they should be still trying a hell of alot harder than they are at doing something.

The future of Irish football looks bleak, at club level and international level. There's nothing on the horizon that shows any sign of change. We're gonna have to continue to rely on individual natural talent being nurtured at backward English academies, that are over-saturated with foreign players, where most Irish players will fail, become disillusioned and pack it in. Unless the mentality of the average sports fan in Ireland changes, Irish football will continue to fall further and further behind its European counterparts.

Idbatterim

Croatia
Colombia
Denmark
USA
Italy
France
Netherlands
Sweden
Portugal
Algeria
Paraguay
Bosnia
Poland
Czech Republic

how many of them were in a qualification campaign?

Korat

There are a lot of soccer fan scribes feeling sorry for themselves these days.

This piece is especially sad:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/official-ireland-falls-in-love-with-rugby-31102551.html

It all conveniently forgets that before Jack Charlton bandwagon came along the soccer team were even less popular nationally than they are now. Begrudging rugby's success plays to a stereotypical view of local soccer, that it's too busy looking over the fence to tend it's own garden.

The Golden Miller

That's a great piece. Over the top, but the sentiment is true

RedemptionZ

A lot of head in the sand stuff by certain fans, Irish soccer isn't in a healthy position and the future doesn't look much brighter. The mentality of (the majority) of irish fans is support the best teams over support the local teams. As another poster said, gloryhunting. The FAI are a shambles and incompetent but I don't know how you could change that culture, the mindset Irish fans have. The attachment people from Ireland feel with clubs from England is completely unnatural. I'm not saying the feeling of attachment isn't there, but looking at it on paper from a neutral perspective it seems ridiculous. Not having a go at anyone, I'm neither an EPL or an LOI fan. These people should be supporting local clubs, but the setup is such a shambles that a lot of people don't actually have a local club to support. There's just so many problems that the only way I could see soccer becoming as successful as it was in the 90s-2002 is for it to essentially fail, majority fans to eventually succumb to supporting rugby and GAA and then start fresh with a league that local people will have no problem supporting because they won't be supporting an overseas club in the same sport, their top teams would be their county GAA team and their local province. I just don't see how soccer can do anything but decline in popularity the way things are.

ArmaniJeanss

Idbatterim wrote: »

Also with the stuff Trap was serving up, dinosaur age hoofball, I am not surprised some people have been turned off it. We have the weakest bunch of players we have had in decades... Also and this is a big one, we havent beat a side ranked higher than us, since the Dutch in 2001, it is a disgraceful statistic...

Meh, its not really - its a side effect of the fact that we are generally always no 2 or no 3 seed in the group (and have even been number 1 seed in the group so it was impossible for us to beat anyone ranked higher) limiting the opportunities to win such games.
The no 1 seed is usually a top nation who we are a major dog against, and the number 2 seed (if not actually us) will be a difficult team. Having the better head 2 head after two draws (like against Slovakia in 2012 qualifying) would be regarded by lots of us as an actual victory even if it doesn't stop the alleged bad run.
We are sh1t in many ways, but the 'haven't beaten a team ranked above us' record is just stupid.

noodler

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Meh, its not really - its a side effect of the fact that we are generally always no 2 or no 3 seed in the group (and have even been number 1 seed in the group so it was impossible for us to beat anyone ranked higher) limiting the opportunities to win such games.
The no 1 seed is usually a top nation who we are a major dog against, and the number 2 seed (if not actually us) will be a difficult team. Having the better head 2 head after two draws (like against Slovakia in 2012 qualifying) would be regarded by lots of us as an actual victory even if it doesn't stop the alleged bad run.
We are sh1t in many ways, but the 'haven't beaten a team ranked above us' record is just stupid.

Over the same period:

Northern Ireland have beaten England, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, Russia, Greece

Wales have beaten Israel, Italy and Scotland.

Scotland have beaten us, France (twice) and Croatia (twice).

Thats just stuff that comes to mind - others may think of more.

Now, obviously, I prefer that we are usually a bit more consistent overall but I do think it is pretty amazing that we haven't had an 'upset' (at least as defined by seeds or rankings) over that time.