I want our coverage back...

Korat

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.

Nonsense.

I'd argue the opposite as regards rugby coverage. I think domestic soccer particularly is overrepresented on the RTE schedule. TG4 shows more rugby than RTE, while RTE seems to show live LoI games regularly and some magazine show. I presume there are commercial reasons for this because when you look at the crowds attending games Pro-12 rugby is of much more public interest than the LoI.

The Talking Bread

johnnyryan89 wrote: »

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 analysis and format is pretty decent to be fair but the time is stupid. When you see such sh1te like Vogue's whatever or Rep of Telly getting the Primetime slot, its no wonder LOI hasn't progressed, popularity wise, despite the quality clearly improving

johnnyryan89

The Talking Bread wrote: »

The analysis and format is pretty decent to be fair but the time is stupid. When you see such sh1te like Vogue's whatever or Rep of Telly getting the Primetime slot, its no wonder LOI hasn't progressed, popularity wise, despite the quality clearly improving

Still just a little annoyed that they dont do any coverage of the first division but shouldn't be a problem this year as Limerick will be in the Premier Division but the time the show gets is a joke.

The Lost Sheep

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

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.

It is completely different. Ireland beating New Zealand is very different to Ireland beating Canada. Is ROI beating Oman the same as ROI beating Brazil??

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.

Ireland beating NZ is hugely significant. Beating worlds best side, that were going for a world record in terms of successive wins. A side that have won the last 2 world cups is very significant. What exactly is being made of that win than it was?

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's a bit pathetic is it not. I don't follow soccer or GAA too much but I would never ever want a sport to "die off"

kksaints wrote: »

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.

I don't think so. I see huge crossover between soccer and rugby at home in Tipp and where I now live in Galway. Plenty of crossover between each but GAA doesn't have more to fear about losing players as kids can by and large play GAA and rugby as in many cases seasons don't overlap.

Omackeral

The Talking Bread wrote: »

The analysis and format (of Soccer Republic)is pretty decent to be fair but the time is stupid. When you see such sh1te like Vogue's whatever or Rep of Telly getting the Primetime slot, its no wonder LOI hasn't progressed, popularity wise, despite the quality clearly improving

Good point. I enjoy Soccer Republic and thinks it's a good round up show but I get to see it cos I'm allowed stay up til whenever I want! How's 11:30pm on a Monday night supposed to get kids invested? They should be your target audience as much as anyone.

Corholio

Korat wrote: »

Nonsense.

I'd argue the opposite as regards rugby coverage. I think domestic soccer particularly is overrepresented on the RTE schedule. TG4 shows more rugby than RTE, while RTE seems to show live LoI games regularly and some magazine show. I presume there are commercial reasons for this because when you look at the crowds attending games Pro-12 rugby is of much more public interest than the LoI.

You're comparing 'domestic' soccer to provincial rugby, much less teams to concentrate on. They don't show games regularly, there are often big gaps where no matches are shown for weeks. It certainly isn't overepresented, it's the national league in this country and they have ticked along doing the bare minimum for the past few years. My point was about Nugent, if you don't think he's had an imbalanced influence on it, fair enough. I do.

Korat

Corholio wrote: »

My point was about Nugent, if you don't think he's had an imbalanced influence on it, fair enough. I do.

What specifically has happened with RTE sports coverage to make you think Ryle Nugent is pushing more rugby onto the tv schedule?

Third_Echelon

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Ah here... In modern times, let's say post-WW2, it wasn't exactly the lords of the manor toddling down to the local rugby club to play. It was professionals with jobs that had to take time off work. Particularly in the 70s and 80s a lot of players were under pressure from their employer because they missed a load of time due to touring if they were lucky enough to be an international player. Towards the late 80's early 90s large firms hired international players as a kind of a poster boy thing, e.g. Big accounting firms, solicitors etc. These guys were the minority.

They were still amateur and drank a lot! The level of fitness and nutrition of professional soccer players around the same time was light years ahead of rugby union. Union had a lot of catching up to do when they turned pro in 1995. It still took a good 10 years to finally leave behind the amateur ethos.

You really can't compare the two. It's just not a fair comparison.

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

There are no friendlies in Rugby. Pre 1987 there was no world cup, so all international games were top level competitive games and that has continued. Every game in international rugby counts towards World Cup qualification and seeding. Ireland are lucky enough these days to be a top ranked nation and usually do well enough to qualify for the next world cup by doing well in the previous world cup pool stage.

Again, the same structure doesn't exist in soccer. Soccer has a designated qualifying tournament, rugby doesn't. It's based on different factors.

Korat wrote: »

What specifically has happened with RTE sports coverage to make you think Ryle Nugent is pushing more rugby onto the tv schedule?

Exactly. RTE pretty much show the same games as they always have done. Autumn, 6 Nations, World Cup. Even that has changed in recent years with TV3 taking world cup games. They have the 6 Nations now too from next year I think it is (can't remember if its 2017 or 2018 that they get it).

Pro 12 is shared among RTE, TG4, BBC NI and Sky on the island of Ireland. Sky taking more bit by bit.

There will be more soccer than rugby on RTE very soon.

It's a silly topic really...

Skylinehead

Third_Echelon wrote: »

There are no friendlies in Rugby. Pre 1987 there was no world cup, so all international games were top level competitive games and that has continued. Every game in international rugby counts towards World Cup qualification and seeding. Ireland are lucky enough these days to be a top ranked nation and usually do well enough to qualify for the next world cup by doing well in the previous world cup pool stage.

Again, the same structure doesn't exist in soccer. Soccer has a designated qualifying tournament, rugby doesn't. It's based on different factors.

What's the difference between that and football? Friendlies in football also count towards seeding. Just because it isn't called a friendly doesn't make them different.

Third_Echelon

Skylinehead wrote: »

What's the difference between that and football? Friendlies in football also count towards seeding. Just because it isn't called a friendly doesn't make them different.

Match Status FIFA Ranking Method:

Friendly 1.0 x multiplier
World Cup and Regional Championship qualifier 2.5 x multiplier
Continental Cup and Confed Cup 3.0 x multiplier
World Cup finals match 4.0 x multiplier

Therefore, FIFA think that a friendly game is 1/4 the value of a world cup finals game.

In Rugby Rankings:

Any test game is treated the same.
Any world cup finals game gets a 2.0 x multiplier.

Roughly speaking then, a test game in rugby is the same value as World Cup or European championship qualifying game.

From this I would say that a test game in rugby is a lot more important than a friendly in soccer according to each governing body's ranking system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Rankings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Rugby_Rankings

There are of course other factors to the formulas, but this part of the formula is the only one that fits the current discussion about how much worth a game type has.

Corholio

Korat wrote: »

What specifically has happened with RTE sports coverage to make you think Ryle Nugent is pushing more rugby onto the tv schedule?

Womens rugby, U-20's rugby etc started appearing on RTE, which in isolation I've no problem with at all, but many times on the same night a big Irish football game would never be shown or hardly mentioned that evening. I'm specifically blaming RTE but hard not to put Nugent into the equation considering his background.

johnnyryan89

Corholio wrote: »

Womens rugby, U-20's rugby etc started appearing on RTE, which in isolation I've no problem with at all, but many times on the same night a big Irish football game would never be shown or hardly mentioned that evening. I'm specifically blaming RTE but hard not to put Nugent into the equation considering his background.

They've been showing u20s games before he ever became head of sport and the womans matches have just replaced the B teams matches.

Corholio

Corholio wrote: »

Womens rugby, U-20's rugby etc started appearing on RTE, which in isolation I've no problem with at all, but many times on the same night a big Irish football game would never be shown or hardly mentioned that evening. I'm specifically blaming RTE but hard not to put Nugent into the equation considering his background.

Jesus yeah, women's rugby. That was a grim phase when RTE pretended that we should get excited about our team qualifying for some World Cup final or semi final and you just wanted to point out that...no one cares. No one had ever cared, it was a non event, it was possibly the least interesting women's sport after we went down through football, athletics, tennis, golf etc. etc. it was just Ryle Nugent grasping at straws...tag rugby for nurses and ban Gardai elevated to a position it did not deserve...

Skylinehead

Third_Echelon wrote: »

Match Status FIFA Ranking Method:

Friendly 1.0 x multiplier
World Cup and Regional Championship qualifier 2.5 x multiplier
Continental Cup and Confed Cup 3.0 x multiplier
World Cup finals match 4.0 x multiplier

Therefore, FIFA think that a friendly game is 1/4 the value of a world cup finals game.

In Rugby Rankings:

Any test game is treated the same.
Any world cup finals game gets a 2.0 x multiplier.

Roughly speaking then, a test game in rugby is the same value as World Cup or European championship qualifying game.

From this I would say that a test game in rugby is a lot more important than a friendly in soccer according to each governing body's ranking system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Rankings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Rugby_Rankings

There are of course other factors to the formulas, but this part of the formula is the only one that fits the current discussion about how much worth a game type has.

Yes, they're worth more, but isn't that just because there's less teams and less games to play? If rugby had the qualifying process that football had, those would be recalculated pretty quickly.

I'm not one for the rugby v football argument, I enjoy both, but there is absolutely no chance that the Canada match was anywhere near the importance of the Austria match. If it was, there wouldn't be a second string side out there.

The Talking Bread

Also, just to point something out. A lot of people were pointing out the attendance at Aviva yesterday as a level of the importance and significance to fans of rugby of the game and using it as a measuring bar against Irish friendlies and, indeed, competitive games.

Yesterdays game was played on a Saturday night with the opportunity for most fans to hit the pubs after and no work the next day, or school.

All Irish friendlies are played at 8pm on a bloody Tuesday night and for obvious monetary reasons, Delaney et al entered into a contract with the Oman FA to play 3 friendlies. I am pretty sure if Ireland were playing a half decent team on a Saturday night in soccer friendly we would fill or near fill the stadium.

Its an oft ignored factor when discussing attendances comparisons between the 2 sports that the fact most of our games, even our competitive games, are played midweek. I think we have 2 Saturday games and we had one Friday game. The rest are Sundays or Mondays or Tuesdays.

Rugby games? All weekend games and even the 6 Nations Sunday matches are on in the early afternoon to cater for attendances.

The IRFU have a very good bond with the rugby fans whilst the FAI don't have that connection for many reasons also so that comes into play with fans unwillingness to fork out money to go watch Oman on a cold Tuesday night with work/school the next day.


So a bit of perspective is needed in that regard.

super_furry

Really don't get the issue at all. It's not as if the Austria game wasn't shown, it was.

OldRio

Just to point out. RTE do not show Pro 12 Rugby. They do not show the Rugby World cup. They do not show the European Rugby. They will not be covering the Six Nations in a year or two.

Where is all this Rugby on RTE?

The Talking Bread

OldRio wrote: »

Just to point out. RTE do not show Pro 12 Rugby. They do not show the Rugby World cup. They do not show the European Rugby. They will not be covering the Six Nations in a year or two.

Where is all this Rugby on RTE?

The Talking Bread

super_furry wrote: »

Really don't get the issue at all. It's not as if the Austria game wasn't shown, it was.

Exactly! You would swear people are p1ssed off because they don't get to listen to a few more Dunphy tired cliches, Wes Hoolahan studio w@nking, Damien Duff and his wikipedia of facts,ten angles of McClean's goal and Janko's miss and Martin O Neill tearing shreds into Tony Donoghue!
Also, I didn't watch it, but someone mentioned that RTE had further analysis on digital internet platform after they had to cut to the ruby game? I don't know what format that took, was it a continuing of the studio analysis and how long?

If so, at least that was decent.


Personally, I think Ireland have the need for a sports channel now and there is plenty of content. They don't have to have it with live content always of course and there is plenty of back catologue footage worth showing.

I just think it's worth considering. I doubt that it would incur huge costs and would certainly bring in some viewing figures and positive response from a public that is very disdained with RTE's overall coverage, nevermind it's sports coverage.

8-10

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Exactly! You would swear people are p1ssed off because they don't get to listen to a few more Dunphy tired cliches, Wes Hoolahan studio w@nking, Damien Duff and his wikipedia of facts,ten angles of McClean's goal and Janko's miss and Martin O Neill tearing shreds into Tony Donoghue!

I think certain people are p1ssed off because they don't like rugby and are bitter that it's popular and on tv.

noodler

Alot of the last few pages of this thread was dedicated to an absurd assertion that the Rugby result on Saturday was somehow as important as the football one.

8-10

The Talking Bread wrote: »

All Irish friendlies are played at 8pm on a bloody Tuesday night

So this is clearly not true

johnnyryan89

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Personally, I think Ireland have the need for a sports channel now and there is plenty of content. They don't have to have it with live content always of course and there is plenty of back catologue footage worth showing.

I just think it's worth considering. I doubt that it would incur huge costs and would certainly bring in some viewing figures and positive response from a public that is very disdained with RTE's overall coverage, nevermind it's sports coverage.

Not a bad shout this.

The Talking Bread

8-10 wrote: »

So this is clearly not true

? I can't remember any Irish home soccer friendlies (maybe before the Euros) that didn't take place on a "school night", as it were. Even competitive matches, there has been slim pickings of Friday night or Saturday games.

8-10

The Talking Bread wrote: »

? I can't remember any Irish home soccer friendlies (maybe before the Euros) that didn't take place on a "school night", as it were. Even competitive matches, there has been slim pickings of Friday night or Saturday games.

We have had 4 friendlies in the Aviva this year, 2 of them on a Friday night - Switzerland and Netherlands.

Attendance for Switzerland was 35k, Netherlands was 42k

Capacity is 51k and I don't think either of those would have been a sellout on a Saturday either

And we've only had 1 friendly there since the Euro's....they weren't that long ago!

The Talking Bread

8-10 wrote: »

We have had 4 friendlies in the Aviva this year, 2 of them on a Friday night - Switzerland and Netherlands.

Attendance for Switzerland was 35k, Netherlands was 42k

Capacity is 51k and I don't think either of those would have been a sellout on a Saturday either

And we've only had 1 friendly there since the Euro's....they weren't that long ago!

Fair enough, I stand very corrected! I actually wasn't in country for Switzerland game so I actually completely forgot about that! Especially considering that was on Sky, that was a disappointing turnout. Holland game also. Generally speaking, over the years, most of our friendlies have been on a Sunday to Wednesday basis.

42K is hardly a small attendance either. TBH, I think on a Saturday evening, there is an argument that the Holland game would have attracted a few thousand more? There is logic to that argument.

Surely you understand my point on the fact that people make a huge deal about our low friendly attendances and use Test matches for Rugby, mainly on a Saturday and Sunday afternoon as the barometer

8-10

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Surely you understand my point on the fact that people make a huge deal about our low friendly attendances and use Test matches for Rugby, mainly on a Saturday and Sunday afternoon as the barometer

I get it but I don't think it makes a huge difference. I think what is a stronger argument for you is the way tickets are sold. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong), you could only get a Canada rugby ticket if bought in combination with a NZ or Australia (or all 3)? This is why it's a sell out, people want to see NZ or Australia more, but have to also buy the Canada ticket.

Pretty sure the FAI used to do that too? I recall going to friendlies against the likes of China or Canada to get a ticket for a Brazil/Italy type game?

kfallon

8-10 wrote: »

Pretty sure the FAI used to do that too? I recall going to friendlies against the likes of China or Canada to get a ticket for a Brazil/Italy type game?

Back in around 2004ish, to get a ticket for the Brazil friendly it came in a package with the friendlies with Czech Republic and Romania.

The Romania game, as it turned out, was Keane's return to the fold after Saipan.

Stheno

You could buy tickets for the Canada game on their own or as part of a package.

8-10

kfallon wrote: »

Back in around 2004ish, to get a ticket for the Brazil friendly it came in a package with the friendlies with Czech Republic and Romania.

The Romania game, as it turned out, was Keane's return to the fold after Saipan.

Yep that's it, I went to all of these but only really cared about seeing Ronaldo, Ronaldinho et al

wp_rathead

noodler wrote: »

Alot of the last few pages of this thread was dedicated to an absurd assertion that the Rugby result on Saturday was somehow as important as the football one.

The Canada game or NZ game?

The Talking Bread

wp_rathead wrote: »

The Canada game or NZ game?

Obviously the former. I don't think anyone can doubt the significance and level of achievement the NZ win was. There were a select few here trying to claim the Canada result meant more than the Austrian result because we are more competitive in rugby.
It was a stupid claim in most people's opinion.

noodler

noodler wrote: »

Alot of the last few pages of this thread was dedicated to an absurd assertion that the Rugby result on Saturday was somehow as important as the football one.

I think one person said it, and I dont think anyone agreed with it.

howiya

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Personally, I think Ireland have the need for a sports channel now and there is plenty of content. They don't have to have it with live content always of course and there is plenty of back catologue footage worth showing.

I just think it's worth considering. I doubt that it would incur huge costs and would certainly bring in some viewing figures and positive response from a public that is very disdained with RTE's overall coverage, nevermind it's sports coverage.

Maybe we could call it Eir Sport

The Talking Bread

howiya wrote: »

Maybe we could call it Eir Sport

I meant RTE, clearly smart a$$!!!. (hence the back catologue reference!)

howiya

The Talking Bread wrote: »

I meant RTE, clearly smart a$$!!!. (hence the back catologue reference!)

Not trying to be smart but I don't see the need for another sports channel. The sports broadcasting market in Ireland is already very fragmented.

RTE
TG4
TV3
Eir/BT
Sky Sports Mix
Sky Sports Subscription

RTE having a dedicated sports channel would only dilute their current schedules and create a need to fund additional programming to replace whatever they move from RTE1/2 to the dedicated sports channel. It's a complete non runner

Korat

I think national teams are a second team to most soccer fans.

Getting suddenly patriotic is a visceral reaction to being called up on it.

The Talking Bread

Korat wrote: »

I think national teams are a second team to most soccer fans.

Getting suddenly patriotic is a visceral reaction to being called up on it.

Disagree. International soccer is completely different sphere to club football so there is no such thing as a second team in that regard. Games week in, week out for one, a game on average every 2 months for the other. You can separate them as "teams", . I would be pretty sure the majority of Irish people who support soccer would take more joy out of positive results for the national team than a win at the weekend against Burnley (providing you are not a Burnley fan!)

Likewise, some soccer fans may not even care about their club team (if they have one. Follow the results, yeah, but emotional attachment, on average ratio, would fall on the national team)


There is no such thing as second and first favourite teams in respect of international soccer/club soccer.

Bridge93

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Disagree. International soccer is completely different sphere to club football so there is no such thing as a second team in that regard. Games week in, week out for one, a game on average every 2 months for the other. You can separate them as "teams", . I would be pretty sure the majority of Irish people who support soccer would take more joy out of positive results for the national team than a win at the weekend against Burnley (providing you are not a Burnley fan!)

Likewise, some soccer fans may not even care about their club team (if they have one. Follow the results, yeah, but emotional attachment, on average ratio, would fall on the national team)


There is no such thing as second and first favourite teams in respect of international soccer/club soccer.

I would agree in part. But you only need to look in some of the bigger clubs' threads during international breaks to see where loyalties lie for a few. I feel, a bit like the players themselves, that if the international games are the highest level a team you support/play for is at then you're more likely to throw your weight fully behind it than if your club team plays champions league and finals regularly.
Look at the fight our guys at low end prem and championship teams show compared to the English superstars down the years. I think the same applies to fans in some cases

noodler

Bridge93 wrote: »

I would agree in part. But you only need to look in some of the bigger clubs' threads during international breaks to see where loyalties lie for a few. I feel, a bit like the players themselves, that if the international games are the highest level a team you support/play for is at then you're more likely to throw your weight fully behind it than if your club team plays champions league and finals regularly.
Look at the fight our guys at low end prem and championship teams show compared to the English superstars down the years. I think the same applies to fans in some cases

Its not something I'll ever understand when I read the Liverpool thread during international breaks.

Even when Ireland aren't doing well I love keeping tabs on NI, Wales and Scotland as well as watching some of the better players have to go back and slum it with their national team for pride.

The Talking Bread

Bridge93 wrote: »

I would agree in part. But you only need to look in some of the bigger clubs' threads during international breaks to see where loyalties lie for a few. I feel, a bit like the players themselves, that if the international games are the highest level a team you support/play for is at then you're more likely to throw your weight fully behind it than if your club team plays champions league and finals regularly.
Look at the fight our guys at low end prem and championship teams show compared to the English superstars down the years. I think the same applies to fans in some cases

As you said, A few! Those threads our toxic! Repetitive infighting and the same posters and god help if you have a different view!

Kingp35

Korat wrote: »

I think national teams are a second team to most soccer fans.

Getting suddenly patriotic is a visceral reaction to being called up on it.

Ireland are by far and away my number 1. There is simply no comparison between club team winning and Ireland winning.

Omackeral

Kingp35 wrote: »

Ireland are by far and away my number 1. There is simply no comparison between club team winning and Ireland winning.

For you perhaps.

Big difference if you go to your club matches every week though. That's not a shot at anyone btw, it just stands to reason that if you invest your time every week and go there, you maintain a big attachment. I'd say Dundalk smashing BATE Borisov meant similar or even more to them than the Austria result did. Similarly, for me, Bohs beating Rovers is always absolute heavenly nirvana.

The Talking Bread

Omackeral wrote: »

For you perhaps.

Big difference if you go to your club matches every week though. That's not a shot at anyone btw, it just stands to reason that if you invest your time every week and go there, you maintain a big attachment. I'd say Dundalk smashing BATE Borisov meant similar or even more to them than the Austria result did. Similarly, for me, Bohs beating Rovers is always absolute heavenly nirvana.

I assumed what the original poster who started this debate was referring to the "English club/National team" ,first team/second team claim.

Although not specified.

I think, again, your local LOI team who you invest in would be a different sphere again.

And that isn't me criticising LOI or in anyway belittling the likes of Dundalk before you think such! I am just saying there is a difference between being Irish based and supporting an English club and supporting your local LOI club!

It's all about emotional attachment and your proximity to Bohs allows for such, but all in all, for most fans the National team is far from a "second team" to English club supporters. As, again, they are in two different spheres.

Omackeral

I know that but it really irks me when people say ''of course you should feel more for the National Team, you're Irish'' as if you're the unpatriotic/weird one! It's much easier for them to say it. I wonder if you asked the same Club vs Country question in England what types of responses you'd get. I don't think you're belittling anyone by the way, it's a good and fair post.

The Talking Bread

I don't think anyone said that! The guy was just expressing where his loyalties lie to be fair. I doubt he was telling anyone how they should feel!!

Omackeral

Sorry I meant in general, not particularly here on this thread although his statement does kinda support that notion. There's a few Club vs Country threads on here too from over the years and that's always an abundant trait of ''how could you pick your club over your country, you're Irish!'' as if it's the de facto stance that you must follow a non-Irish team. Anyway, I digress.

The Talking Bread

Omackeral wrote: »

Sorry I meant in general, not particularly here on this thread although his statement does kinda support that notion. There's a few Club vs Country threads on here too from over the years and that's always an abundant trait of ''how could you pick your club over your country, you're Irish!'' as if it's the de facto stance that you must follow a non-Irish team. Anyway, I digress.

There is no right or wrong, but I a sure if you done a national survey from soccer fans, most would choose national level success and/or progression/achievements over their clubs. And then of course you have those that don't have an interest in soccer in general but always support the national team.

Not all fans are this way, but most would be. As I said the whole structural set up of club football, large squads, transfers, international payers, regularity of tournaments, etc etc is an entirely different universe to international football so "first team, second team" claim doesn't make sense!

Obviously LOI team attachment is closer to the "first team, second team" issue but still a "little" bit different.

Some fans are attached to United but also have a big support for another club team, whether abroad (ie you spend time working in a European city and start taking interest in that team) or even in lower league football.

I think different levels of emotions arise, in all scenarios.

Again, I am assuming all this based on my perception of most fans perspective but its just a judgment assumption, but I would be fairly confidence that most fans can differentiate the different universe's club and national teams fall under.

Korat

Soccer was a minority sport as much as rugby in Ireland until the '90s. The Charlton years and the new English Premier League gave soccer it's time in the sun just as Barry McGuigan had done for boxing and Sean Kelly/Stephen Roche had done for cycling around the same time. Boxing and Cycling, even athletics, were more popular sports than soccer until the 1988 Euros.

Irish soccer has been riding a wave of good fortune and the good years have been taken for granted. Every other sport has feared extinction if they don't protect and increase their base.

John Delaney sums up Irish soccer in my opinion.

The Talking Bread

Korat wrote: »

Soccer was a minority sport as much as rugby in Ireland until the '90s. The Charlton years and the new English Premier League gave soccer it's time in the sun just as Barry McGuigan had done for boxing and Sean Kelly/Stephen Roche had done for cycling around the same time. Boxing and Cycling, even athletics, were more popular sports than soccer until the 1988 Euros.

Irish soccer has been riding a wave of good fortune and the good years have been taken for granted. Every other sport has feared extinction if they don't protect and increase their base.

John Delaney sums up Irish soccer in my opinion.

In that case all sports apart from GAA were minority sports, if you take that line of logic? Maybe we weren't as successful but it wasn't exactly a "minority sport" in any way before Charlton came along. The reason it became much more popular obviously was success, as our teams from 1986 onwards began to consist of top players, relatively speaking.

It is arguable that tv exposure to the 1966 World Cup and England's success was a real turning point in terms of increasing popularity of the sport in Ireland. It was an era when soccer clubs and local leagues began sprouting up. Believe it or not, most Irish soccer fans actually got behind England which, and considering the whole 50th anniversary of the Rising etc, this seems odd.

Places back then that soccer was more (but still relatively low) popular were the likes of Dublin, Cork, Waterford, Sligo and Dundalk.

Obviously the Euro 88 and most definitely Italia 90 really ensured soccer's prime popularity (after GAA) but from 66 onwards, it incrementally grew from a minority sport.