I want our coverage back...

Corholio

Third_Echelon wrote: »

One sport has been professional for 21 years, the other for well over 100 years... I agree that it's chalk and cheese comparison!

Rugby is still a developing sport in many nations, but the smaller nations are getting better. That's better for the sport overall.

That only backs up my point to be honest. I've no desire to not see Rugby develop, I hope it does but to compare rugby's greatness here and soccer's supposed low here isn't applicable or not even close imo, it's just a thing certain media and some like to spin. The whole 'If only the soccer boys played like the committed rubgy boys and not drive around in their ferrari's.....' type of crap that gets spouted when Ireland wins a game but disappears when the Ireland football team do well or when Ireland disappoint in a rugby tournament.

Third_Echelon

Corholio wrote: »

That only backs up my point to be honest. I've no desire to not see Rugby develop, I hope it does but to compare rugby's greatness here and soccer's supposed low here isn't applicable or not even close imo, it's just a thing certain media and some like to spin. The whole 'If only the soccer boys played like the committed rubgy boys and not drive around in their ferrari's.....' type of crap that gets spouted when Ireland wins a game but disappears when the Ireland football team do well or when Ireland disappoint in a rugby tournament.

Yeah, but who is spouting this? All depends on who is saying it. If its a lad down the pub, then it doesn't hold really.

Third_Echelon

Third_Echelon wrote: »

One sport has been professional for 21 years, the other for well over 100 years... I agree that it's chalk and cheese comparison...

Both were codified in the late 1800s.

There was no need for rugby to turn pro simply because of its origins - the upper class didn't need to earn a wage playing it.

Hence the split with rugby league, the faster and more athletic code of rugby, popular amongst miners in the North of England...but they needed to be paid for taking time off work.

Fr Tod Umptious

Have I just woke up on another planet ?

The soccer game was one of the most significant victories in the last 30 years, the rugby game was the equivalent to a soccer game v Oman.

Fr Tod Umptious

Corholio wrote: »

That only backs up my point to be honest. I've no desire to not see Rugby develop, I hope it does but to compare rugby's greatness here and soccer's supposed low here isn't applicable or not even close imo, it's just a thing certain media and some like to spin. The whole 'If only the soccer boys played like the committed rubgy boys and not drive around in their ferrari's.....' type of crap that gets spouted when Ireland wins a game but disappears when the Ireland football team do well or when Ireland disappoint in a rugby tournament.

The bit in bold is spot on.

Back in the spring of 2007 there was a debate on Off The Ball about whether rugby was more popular than soccer in Ireland.

The rugby team were trying to win a grand slam and had a world cup coming up, the soccer team were in the middle of the Stan era and had just scraped a win v San Matino, 2-1.

There was the narrative that rugby players were great warriors while soccer players were fancy fans.

The debate was inconclusive if I tecall , but once Stan WS gone and Trapp was in and we were going toe to toe with France in Paris a few years later it was clear that soccer will and always be toprugby was

Fr Tod Umptious

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Have I just woke up on another planet ?

The soccer game was one of the most significant victories in the last 30 years, the rugby game was the equivalent to a soccer game v Oman.

Correct. It was the football team's first competitive away win in 30 years, I believe. It's a big achievement.

In the last year, the rugby boys have had their first win over South Africa in South Africa, and their first win over the all blacks.

If I was Irish, I'd like to think I'd celebrate all these things, rather than comparing which sport is better, or which is a bigger deal.

Basil3

Basil3 wrote: »

I'm a football fan, and rugby fan...

Basil3 wrote: »

It was the football team's first competitive away win in 30 years...

Evidently not the biggest football fan...;)

Fr Tod Umptious

Basil3 wrote: »

Correct. It was the football team's first competitive away win in 30 years, I believe. It's a big achievement.

In the last year, the rugby boys have had their first win over South Africa in South Africa, and their first win over the all blacks.

If I was Irish, I'd like to think I'd celebrate all these things, rather than comparing which sport is better, or which is a bigger deal.

In the rugby equivalent of friendlies !

So what, Ireland beat Holland and Germany in the same month in friendlies in 1994

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Evidently not the biggest football fan...;)

I'm not Irish, so excuse me if I took what an Irish person told me about their football team as gospel.

I now see it was their first in 30 years over a higher ranked opponent.

Fr Tod Umptious

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

In the rugby equivalent of friendlies !

So what, Ireland beat Holland and Germany in the same month in friendlies in 1994

Rugby doesn't do friendlies.

Fr Tod Umptious

Basil3 wrote: »

Rugby doesn't do friendlies.

Not this cliché again.

What difference is there between the game v NZ in Chicago and a ROI game v Italy in NY ?

Or the game v Canada last night and ROI v Oman in Dublin ?

The answer is nothing.

Both count for world ranking points in their particular sport, nothing else.

Its because rugby has far less reach and the geography of the game means that these regular games v top tier opposition (NZ, AUs, SA) ate dressed up as something else other than friendlies.

Fr Tod Umptious

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Not this cliché again.

What difference is there between the game v NZ in Chicago and a ROI game v Italy in NY ?

Or the game v Canada last night and ROI v Oman in Dublin ?

The answer is nothing.

Both count for world ranking points in their particular sport, nothing else.

Its because rugby has far less reach and the geography of the game means that these regular games v top tier opposition (NZ, AUs, SA) ate dressed up as something else other than friendlies.

It's not a cliche. The clue is in the fact that football itself differentiates between friendly and competitive matches. Rugby does not.

Fr Tod Umptious

Basil3 wrote: »

It's not a cliche. The clue is in the fact that football itself differentiates between friendly and competitive matches. Rugby does not.

Because rugby can't afford to go around saying that it's only (top level) competitive games are the 6 nations, SH championship and WC.

As a result they call friendlies "test" matches to give them some significance.

Can you explain how rugby "test" matches are different than soccer "friendlies" ?

Star_Nupa

Basil3 wrote: »

Rugby doesn't do friendlies.

If there's nothing at stake, it's a friendly regardless of how you try and spin it.

Star_Nupa

Star_Nupa wrote: »

If there's nothing at stake, it's a friendly regardless of how you try and spin it.

Why don't you run out into the middle of a rugby pitch for 80 mins and tell me there's nothing at stake :pac:

It's amazing how close minded people are other sports, or is it just rugby? Does it also bother you that cricket doesn't do friendlies?

Mr. Guappa

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Not this cliché again.

What difference is there between the game v NZ in Chicago and a ROI game v Italy in NY ?

Or the game v Canada last night and ROI v Oman in Dublin ?

The answer is nothing.

Both count for world ranking points in their particular sport, nothing else.

Its because rugby has far less reach and the geography of the game means that these regular games v top tier opposition (NZ, AUs, SA) ate dressed up as something else other than friendlies.

The difference is promotion. Rugby does a fantastic job of promoting these games as though they are meaningful. The Aviva was packed last night for a second string Ireland side versus Canada. And fair play to the IRFU for that, the FAI could really take a page out of their book.

patmac

Christ some bitter and twisted guff spoken, I punched the air when Ireland beat the All Blacks and again last night when we beat Austria. For such a small nation it's been an amazing week.
Try it you might like it and leave the begrudgery are home.

Akrasia

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Because rugby can't afford to go around saying that it's only (top level) competitive games are the 6 nations, SH championship and WC.

As a result they call friendlies "test" matches to give them some significance.

Can you explain how rugby "test" matches are different than soccer "friendlies" ?

No, it's because international test rugby matches are usually played at the intensity of world cup matches, while soccer friendlies are often seen as warmups and exhibitions. (rare grudge matches aside)

Rugby players can't play as many matches as soccer players because the games are so physical that recovery periods are longer and injury is more common, so every international game is taken very seriously.

Lads, soccer and rugby are both sports. they're games. Neither of them are actually 'important'. But the value of them comes from how much entertainment and pride they deliver for the players and fans.

Qualification for the soccer world cup means an awful lot to soccer fans and the Irish public. Playing well in the autumn rugby internationals means an awful lot to rugby fans and when we host the rugby world cup it will be a completely different occasion if we go there with a chance of winning compared to if we are just making up the numbers.

8-10

This whole argument is ridiculous. I don't remember a single time when I've had to choose between which to watch. Both games are shown and rarely clash (the actual games I mean). We have an Irish soccer team and an Irish rugby team and I enjoy watching both. If I only wanted to watch one of them I'm well able also.

The actual issues are 1. Rights for certain Irish soccer games going to Sky a few years back instead of being free-to-air here, and 2. Broadband issues being a reason someone might miss some analysis. Neither of these are the sports' fault.

Boggles the mind why we need to argue why 2 different sports are somehow more important than the other when we should support both teams. If you don't like a sport don't watch it. I don't care for GAA but it gets a ridiculous amount of coverage from RTE and full pages in the papers all summer long. And is that equally competitive? Seems like theres only a handful of teams capable of winning the hurling each year, from counties like Tipp and Kilkenny with small % of the overall population.

But do I kick up a fuss about it? No because my opinion on the sport doesn't matter. People read it and watch it and enjoy it and its no skin off my nose.

Support your team and lobby your tds for broadband access. We should all be happy with the past 24hrs of sport here, regardless of which victory meant more (some might even argue McGregor)

Fr Tod Umptious

Basil3 wrote: »

Why don't you run out into the middle of a rugby pitch for 80 mins and tell me there's nothing at stake :pac:

It's amazing how close minded people are other sports, or is it just rugby? Does it also bother you that cricket doesn't do friendlies?

By that logic every rugby match in the world has the same significance of the Austria game last night.

The thing about the Irish cricket team is that people don't go on about it like its the most important sport in the country.
Its not and that's acknowledged, and I'd argue that Ireland have fared far better in cricket world cups relative to their ranking than the rugby them have done in their world cups.

Akrasia

Star_Nupa wrote: »

If there's nothing at stake, it's a friendly regardless of how you try and spin it.

What do you mean nothing at stake?

Players put their bodies on the line, and fans invest their emotions in the game. What else is there in sport.

Akrasia

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

By that logic every rugby match in the world has the same significance of the Austria game last night.

The thing about the Irish cricket team is that people don't go on about it like its the most important sport in the country.
Its not and that's acknowledged, and I'd argue that Ireland have fared far better in cricket world cups relative to their ranking than the rugby them have done in their world cups.

This thread was started by a soccer fan whinging about another sport taking away media coverage that he thinks soccer is entitled to.

It's not rugby fans who are demanding to be seen as superior to other sports

Fr Tod Umptious

Akrasia wrote: »

What do you mean nothing at stake?

Players put their bodies on the line, and fans invest their emotions in the game. What else is there in sport.

Therefore Ireland beating NZ is no different than Ireland beating Canada last night, or ROI beating Oman in a friendly.

Thanks for making my point.

8-10

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The thing about the Irish cricket team is that people don't go on about it like its the most important sport in the country.
Its not and that's acknowledged, and I'd argue that Ireland have fared far better in cricket world cups relative to their ranking than the rugby them have done in their world cups.

Again this is my main problem. Popularness shouldn't be solely driven by success. By that logic nobody should be covering the League of Ireland when there's other European teams to show who can actually win the CL. It should instead be based on who wants to watch given the knowledge that people have different tastes.

The reality is that people want to support the Irish team in the sport they want to watch. And you'll see its likely linked to sports they played in school or are popular in their area. Soccer is nationwide, rugby shares time with GAA depending on the area, and cricket is way down as we don't have enough facilities in schools to play it.

Saying that the most important sport is the one that fares best internationally and should get the most coverage is not a good idea. Would you be happier if a soccer qualifier wasn't shown because it clashed with an Irish cricket qualifier which is shown instead, just because they have a better chance in the competition? That doesn't make sense if more people want to watch the soccer...and its not fair

The point is it doesn't need to be a thing, there is no 1 sport that everybody will rally behind and watch no other. There are multiple and they get shown on tv based on how many want to watch. A profit-making station wouldn't do it otherwise

Fr Tod Umptious

Akrasia wrote: »

This thread was started by a soccer fan whinging about another sport taking away media coverage that he thinks soccer is entitled to.

It's not rugby fans who are demanding to be seen as superior to other sports

But rugby fans are not slow to claim the significances of their friendly win over NZ was something more than it was.

And as I said I woke up this morning thinking I was on another planet, people claiming that the game v Canada was as significant as the game v Austo.

Rugby is the 4th ranked sport in this country, it has a core following in south Dublin, Limerick city and among one section of the population in NI.
Other than that people could care less, tell watch if they are winning but won't if their not (see Munster as an example).

Soccer has a far wider reach and far more of the population have some sort of interest in soccer than have some sort of interest in rugby.

The FAI should be on the phone to all national broadcasters and print media in the wake of last night telling them if they want access to players, O'Neill etc. when the campaign recommences, they'd need to be seen to put an effort in in the meantime. And an appearance by Delaney on the Late Late promoting himself and his girlfriend doesn't count.

Fr Tod Umptious

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But rugby fans are not slow to claim the significances of their friendly win over NZ was something more than it was.

And as I said I woke up this morning thinking I was on another planet, people claiming that the game v Canada was as significant as the game v Austo.

Rugby is the 4th ranked sport in this country, it has a core following in south Dublin, Limerick city and among one section of the population in NI.
Other than that people could care less, tell watch if they are winning but won't if their not (see Munster as an example).

Soccer has a far wider reach and far more of the population have some sort of interest in soccer than have some sort of interest in rugby.

I think rugby is fairly comfortable with its position in Ireland. The two most watched sporting events in 2014 and 2015 were rugby matches, and the national side have no problems selling out the Aviva on a regular basis.

Clearly some people have an interest.

Father Hernandez

Basil3 wrote: »

Correct. It was the football team's first competitive away win in 30 years, I believe. It's a big achievement.

In the last year, the rugby boys have had their first win over South Africa in South Africa, and their first win over the all blacks.

If I was Irish, I'd like to think I'd celebrate all these things, rather than comparing which sport is better, or which is a bigger deal.

100% agree. Why bother comparing which is bigger,celebrate them both. As both a soccer fan and a rugby team I don't see why people are debating which is bigger and/or better.

Fantastic result against Austria last night, woke up delighted as I am with another great test win against a resilient Canadian team.

As for our coverage back, I thought it was a great doc and nice insights on the team themselves, family etc that we're all humans at the end of the day. I'm sure a lot on here would disagree if a new doc was made on how an Irishman is taking a sport by storm in mixed martial arts.

Why not celebrate our heritage

Cookiemunster

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Rugby is the 4th ranked sport in this country, it has a core following in south Dublin, Limerick city and among one section of the population in NI.
Other than that people could care less, tell watch if they are winning but won't if their not (see Munster as an example).

That idea is so out of date it's laughable. Have you heard of Connacht? You should also check out where the Munster and Leinster players are actually from. Plenty from counties that are not Dublin and Limerick.

Father Hernandez

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But rugby fans are not slow to claim the significances of their friendly win over NZ was something more than it was.

And as I said I woke up this morning thinking I was on another planet, people claiming that the game v Canada was as significant as the game v Austo.

Rugby is the 4th ranked sport in this country, it has a core following in south Dublin, Limerick city and among one section of the population in NI.
Other than that people could care less, tell watch if they are winning but won't if their not (see Munster as an example).

Soccer has a far wider reach and far more of the population have some sort of interest in soccer than have some sort of interest in rugby.

Cookiemunster wrote: »

That idea is so out of date it's laughable. Have you heard of Connacht? You should also check out where the Munster and Leinster players are actually from. Plenty from counties that are not Dublin and Limerick.

Agreed. I'm from North Dublin, does that mean I couldn't care less and won't watch if they're losing? Wouldn't be the first time the Catholic church has disagreed on something. Sorry Chewy Lewwy

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

kksaints

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Its actually the GAA that has more to fear from the growth of rugby as regard losing players to rugby. There isn't really much crossover between soccer and rugby compared with the GAA sports.

johnnyryan89

Patww79 wrote: »

Sooner rugby dies off again in this country the better. Less chance of losing a good soccer player to it then.

Ive actually seen it the other way round in Limerick, a lot more lads lost to soccer who were really good rugby players than lads who were really good at soccer but chose rugby instead.

Just comes down to which sport certain players prefer, there's a youngfella in Limerick at the moment playing u13s soccer and being looked at by clubs across the water but only a couple of months ago chose to go hurling training instead of playing a cup final with his club and this younfella would be the best player for his age group in Limerick. And even his coaches said it that hurling is his number choice and probably only a move across to England would be the only thing stopping him from playing hurling over soccer.

The Talking Bread

Akrasia wrote: »

What do you mean nothing at stake?

Players put their bodies on the line, and fans invest their emotions in the game. What else is there in sport.

The rewards, in term of going forward, are minimal. That is precisely what is meant, You are spinning things completely.

The fact is, going back to the original point, the soccer result last night FAR FAR outweighed the significance of a November test international against a very low ranked Canadian team, with everything amounting to nothing in terms of any competitive reward going forward.

Yeah, you blooded in a few players and yeah it keeps you in a position of maintaining a clean sweep (very unlikely) in your Noveber series but other than that it had no effect to tournament reward,

There was no chance Ireland, B team or not, were going to lose last night. Whilst the soccer result was an historic away win agains a team higher in ranking in a tournament qualifying group where there are 4 teams with high expectations to qualify from.


Spin as you will but you are talking utter nonsense. Even the Irish rugby players would say the same.

The Talking Bread

And just to clarify, I would argue/agree that last weeks win was more of an achievement, more historic, more unexpected and unprecedented. Arguably, more NB going forward also, as it builds confidence and gets that monkey off Ireland's back re NZ.

But you are dealing with 2 very different scenarios.

Korat

The original point was about coverage.

Everyone loves a good bandwagon, so there's lot attention when Ireland is doing well regardless of general interest in the sport. Athletics, Cycling, Golf, Boxing, lately everyone seems interested in UFC, have all gone through phases of great public interest because some local individual has done well.

Soccer has a huge advantage over other sports when it comes to getting media attention because of the level of public interest in the English Premier League the Champions League or FIFA World Cup, whether there's a local team or even an Irish player involved or not.

I think soccer in Ireland does very little to earn it's current level of exposure but perhaps it's the sense of entitlement expressed here that holds it back from putting in the kind of effort other sports know they need just to survive.

Corholio

Korat wrote: »

I think soccer in Ireland does very little to earn it's current level of exposure but perhaps it's the sense of entitlement expressed here that holds it back from putting in the kind of effort other sports know they need just to survive.

What current level of exposure is this now? and what sports are just 'surviving' on lots of effort?

Ah good old sense of entitlement eh, a nice discussion buzz killer when your points are being argued.

8-10

Again if it was the case that nobody was interested in the sport but they covered it on tv anyway then there would be an argument. But the fact is there is coverage because people do watch it and are interested. Arguing against it seems to be people who don't like watching rugby regardless of how well it's doing.

Also for those comparing last night's rugby to a friendly v Oman....would the Aviva be full for a friendly against Oman? It wasn't even full for an important qualifier v Georgia last year.

If you think Oman in a soccer friendly would be a sellout then you're not being genuine in this thread. If you don't think it would sellout then you either have to acknowledge that they aren't the same type of game or at least that rugby is popular enough to be on tv

LuckyLloyd

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Not this cliché again.

What difference is there between the game v NZ in Chicago and a ROI game v Italy in NY ?

Or the game v Canada last night and ROI v Oman in Dublin ?

The answer is nothing.

Both count for world ranking points in their particular sport, nothing else.

Its because rugby has far less reach and the geography of the game means that these regular games v top tier opposition (NZ, AUs, SA) ate dressed up as something else other than friendlies.

You're comparing football norms with another sport that evolved entirely differently. Apples with oranges. There was no Rugby World Cup until 1987 and as a consequence tours by International sides and Test Matches have always been the competitive backbone of the sport.

This thread is interesting as a window into a very regressive mindset. I watch a huge variety of sport and have competed in a diverse range of them over the years. I have always found those who are one eyed about "their" sport strange, but I don't get exposed to that way of thinking too often. You are all missing out on so much by not being able to appreciate things outside association football; nonetheless there should be a minimum amount of self awareness to conclude that you maybe don't understand that which you are not interested in. Or not. The world will move on either way.

WinnyThePoo

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But rugby fans are not slow to claim the significances of their friendly win over NZ was something more than it was.

And as I said I woke up this morning thinking I was on another planet, people claiming that the game v Canada was as significant as the game v Austo.

Rugby is the 4th ranked sport in this country, it has a core following in south Dublin, Limerick city and among one section of the population in NI.
Other than that people could care less, tell watch if they are winning but won't if their not (see Munster as an example).

Soccer has a far wider reach and far more of the population have some sort of interest in soccer than have some sort of interest in rugby.

No matter how many times you keep saying it. Test matches in rugby are not friendlies. No matter how many times you say it.

To only think its popular in Dublin and Limerick. Shows how willfully ignorant you are.

Who gives a **** about footballs FAR WIDER reach. What difference does that make?.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

WinnyThePoo

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Good stuff

Keep on trucking..

corny

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

12 counties in Leinster. By my reckoning Leinster rugby have lads from 9 of the counties on their books. Jesus sure Sean O' Brien is a farmer from fcuking Tullow!

Pathetic thread this. Also, funny when you've following the constant bitching on the rugby forum about RTE not showing Ireland V NZ last week. They can't win.

Dirty Dingus McGee

corny wrote: »

9 counties in Leinster. By my reckoning Leinster rugby have lads from 7 of the counties on their books. Jesus sure Sean O' Brien is a farmer from fcuking Tullow!

Pathetic thread this. Also, funny when you've following the constant bitching on the rugby forum about RTE not showing Ireland V NZ last week. They can't win.

There are 12 counties in Leinster.

Corholio

I don't agree with a lot of the dismissal of rugby here, even though I'm not really a rugby fan but there's a lot of valid points within the exaggerations imo. Nugent at RTE is the biggest factor though, since he took over it's been patently obvious that he's used to leverage much more rugby coverage. I'm sure if a football guy was in there he'd perhaps he'd do the same, but there's not and I think somewhere amongst the opinions is a very valid argument.

The Talking Bread

Corholio wrote: »

I don't agree with a lot of the dismissal of rugby here, even though I'm not really a rugby fan but there's a lot of valid points within the exaggerations imo. Nugent at RTE is the biggest factor though, since he took over it's been patently obvious that he's used to leverage much more rugby coverage. I'm sure if a football guy was in there he'd perhaps he'd do the same, but there's not and I think somewhere amongst the opinions is a very valid argument.

noone is dismissing ruby as far as I can see??? It is the dismissal of soccer because we aren't in the top echelon of teams as opposed to the ruby team's high ranking that is the main argument people are debating. The debate heated up when a poster suggested the rugby result yesterday was more significant than the soccer result! It was a nonsense statement as far as most people would be concerned, even the top rugby enthusiasts who would acknowledge the respective significance of both in grand scheme of things.

But to return to RTE's coverage, I actually don't think there is a massive bias but there is naturally going to be a perceived and noticeable preference when you have Nugent in charge. Personally I don't see any massively discernible bias worthy of getting irate about.

theoneeyedman

Speaking of RTE, they should advise their talking heads what the name of the stadium where the bestest performance by any team ever occurred. Invariably, their 'experts' refer to 'Soldier's Field', as opposed to the stadium on the outskirts of Chicago called Soldier Field!

I assume they will correct this for the commemorative DVD release.

Richard Hillman

I do not understand what this thread is about?

Not including the Euros or world cup, RTE show roughly 22-25 LOI games, 13 Champions League and about 5-6 Ireland matches.

For Rugby they show 15 six nations games, 3 Autumn internationals and 1 AIL game.

What more is wanted?

johnnyryan89

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I do not understand what this thread is about?

Not including the Euros or world cup, RTE show roughly 22-25 LOI games, 13 Champions League and about 5-6 Ireland matches.

For Rugby they show 15 six nations games, 3 Autumn internationals and 1 AIL game.

What more is wanted?

Dont you know if we dont get a two hour build up telling us what's gonna happen and a two hour post match discussion telling us what just happened then what's the point of even watching the games.

What does annoy me about RTE though is how poor soccer republic is though, surely they could put it on a different night and at a respectable hour for people to watch.

The Talking Bread

theoneeyedman wrote: »

Speaking of RTE, they should advise their talking heads what the name of the stadium where the bestest performance by any team ever occurred. Invariably, their 'experts' refer to 'Soldier's Field', as opposed to the stadium on the outskirts of Chicago called Soldier Field!

I assume they will correct this for the commemorative DVD release.

Oh, Christ! You sound great craic!!