I want our coverage back...

Korat

The Talking Bread wrote: »

In that case all sports apart from GAA were minority sports

Yes, that would be a fact.

The Talking Bread

Korat wrote: »

Yes, that would be a fact.

Except, it isn't. There was large and growing participation in soccer back then. Every sport can't be a minority sport, just because it isn't the most popular.
Nowadays, what sports to you are minority sports and compare them to soccer back then?

Korat

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Except, it isn't. There was large and growing participation in soccer back then. Every sport can't be a minority sport, just because it isn't the most popular.
Nowadays, what sports to you are minority sports and compare them to soccer back then?

Soccer was a scumbag sport in the mid '80s. Liverpool were the popular team at the time and after Hysel most normal people associated soccer with hooliganism and anti-social behaviour.

A certain type of person was attracted to the game back then.

noodler

adox wrote: »

For lads that apparently have no real understanding of rugby union youse have an awful lot to say.

The win at the weekend was historic. Fair enough if you dont like rugby but at the same time youse are looking foolish on here with your uninformed opinions.

Ah here, it was only Canada!

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

Korat wrote: »

Soccer was a scumbag sport in the mid '80s. Liverpool were the popular team at the time and after Hysel most normal people associated soccer with hooliganism and anti-social behaviour.

A certain type of person was attracted to the game back then.

Poppycock! Fair enough, soccer was definitely more popular in the towns and cities, but certainly not the reserve of scumbags. That's like saying only Protestants played Rugby before 1999.

The Talking Bread

Korat wrote: »

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Except, it isn't. There was large and growing participation in soccer back then. Every sport can't be a minority sport, just because it isn't the most popular.
Nowadays, what sports to you are minority sports and compare them to soccer back then?

Soccer was a scumbag sport in the mid '80s. Liverpool were the popular team at the time and after Hysel most normal people associated soccer with hooliganism and anti-social behaviour.

A certain type of person was attracted to the game back then.

And when this sort of ignorant sh1te begins to be your reply rationale, therein where the argument, if ever there was one ends.

Soccer was not a minority sport before Charlton and it most certainly wasn't a sport of hooligans.

Grow up.

Korat

The Talking Bread wrote: »

And when this sort of ignorant sh1te begins to be your reply rationale, therein where the argument, if ever there was one ends.

Soccer was not a minority sport before Charlton and it most certainly wasn't a sport of hooligans.

Grow up.

I witnessed the change first hand from hardly anyone knowing about or giving a crap about the Irish soccer team apart from the stereotypical 'howya' to the entire country coming to a standstill to watch games.

Where is your version of the '80s coming from?

eagle eye

Korat wrote: »

I witnessed the change first hand from hardly anyone knowing about or giving a crap about the Irish soccer team apart from the stereotypical 'howya' to the entire country coming to a standstill to watch games.

Where is your version of the '80s coming from?

In the early 80's in a GAA school in the west of Ireland the big hall was opened and all the students were brought into the hall to watch every World Cup qualifier that was on during school hours.

I was one of those kids so I can tell you that things came to a standstill long before the Charlton era. I can tell you that my relatives in other parts of the country also got to watch the games during school hours too.

Cookiemunster

Korat wrote: »

I witnessed the change first hand from hardly anyone knowing about or giving a crap about the Irish soccer team apart from the stereotypical 'howya' to the entire country coming to a standstill to watch games.

Where is your version of the '80s coming from?

Your personal experience is not representative of the whole country.

BTW the whole country doesn't come to a stand still now to watch games unless it's a game at the finals.

Fr Tod Umptious

eagle eye wrote: »

In the early 80's in a GAA school in the west of Ireland the big hall was opened and all the students were brought into the hall to watch every World Cup qualifier that was on during school hours.

I was one of those kids so I can tell you that things came to a standstill long before the Charlton era. I can tell you that my relatives in other parts of the country also got to watch the games during school hours too.

Yea we did the same, again the west of Ireland.

Games were usually on during the day on a Wednesday and the TV was rolled out and we all sat around watching it.

The Talking Bread

Korat wrote: »

Soccer was a scumbag sport in the mid '80s. Liverpool were the popular team at the time and after Hysel most normal people associated soccer with hooliganism and anti-social behaviour.

A certain type of person was attracted to the game back then.

eagle eye wrote: »

In the early 80's in a GAA school in the west of Ireland the big hall was opened and all the students were brought into the hall to watch every World Cup qualifier that was on during school hours.

I was one of those kids so I can tell you that things came to a standstill long before the Charlton era. I can tell you that my relatives in other parts of the country also got to watch the games during school hours too.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Yea we did the same, again the west of Ireland.

Games were usually on during the day on a Wednesday and the TV was rolled out and we all sat around watching it.

Jaysus lads what sort of "scumbag" schools did ye attend............:D

Korat

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...

I must have lived in a completely different environment, every boy in the school I went to had a ManU, Liverpool or Everton bag and collected Panini stickers. There was plenty of interest in Irish games despite a pretty miserable run in the early to mid 80s, but everyone was glued to the tv watching NI in Spain and Mexico as almost a substitute. The Irish triple crown winners went unnoticed in rural Ireland and the whole Celtic Tiger and explosion of interest in rugby was 20 years away. Cycling, boxing and athletics were popular alright, at least to watch, but can't really say huge numbers actually participated.

Fr Tod Umptious

Deleted User wrote: »

I must have lived in a completely different environment, every boy in the school I went to had a ManU, Liverpool or Everton bag and collected Panini stickers. There was plenty of interest in Irish games despite a pretty miserable run in the early to mid 80s, but everyone was glued to the tv watching NI in Spain and Mexico as almost a substitute. The Irish triple crown winners went unnoticed in rural Ireland and the whole Celtic Tiger and explosion of interest in rugby was 20 years away. Cycling, boxing and athletics were popular alright, at least to watch, but can't really say huge numbers actually participated.

That's how I remember it too, in rural Mayo.

Soccer was always up there with GAA when it came to sports people were talking about.
Liverpool winning the European Cup, NI in two world cups, Kevin Moran getting sent off in an FA cup, Bradford City fire, Hysel, etc etc all resonated far more than Ireland winning a triple crown.

sky88

I think the simple fact is that the coverage is going to biased to whatever sport is doing the best. Rugby at the minute is on a higher level then the football team.

Cienciano

sky88 wrote: »

I think the simple fact is that the coverage is going to biased to whatever sport is doing the best. Rugby at the minute is on a higher level then the football team.

It's hard to judge because of the number of teams that play the sports at a high level. But considering that so many countries play soccer at a high level and so few rugby teams do, I would put the soccer team ahead of the rugby team.

Bridge93

Cienciano wrote: »

It's hard to judge because of the number of teams that play the sports at a high level. But considering that so many countries play soccer at a high level and so few rugby teams do, I would put the soccer team ahead of the rugby team.

It isn't, you're using conjecture to try prove a hypothesis that is impossible to prove in any way. There is no way to quantify two sports against each other. Results are what we can work off really and on that basis the rugby team are going through a stronger faze than the football team. and there is nothing wrong with that. It is probably the first sustained period of a stronger rugby team we've ever had. the football team has always been the pride and joy while the rugby boys got routinely beaten.
Give it time and the cycle will swing the other way again such is the way these things go. A stronger emphasis from the top to develop grassroots (how likely that is with the current setup is unclear) and football could well be back soon as our strongest output.
I'm just happy we've two teams out competing on a world level and succeeding. We're blessed compared to what previous generations had to put up with.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Bridge93 wrote: »

It isn't, you're using conjecture to try prove a hypothesis that is impossible to prove in any way. There is no way to quantify two sports against each other. Results are what we can work off really and on that basis the rugby team are going through a stronger faze than the football team. and there is nothing wrong with that. It is probably the first sustained period of a stronger rugby team we've ever had. the football team has always been the pride and joy while the rugby boys got routinely beaten.
Give it time and the cycle will swing the other way again such is the way these things go. A stronger emphasis from the top to develop grassroots (how likely that is with the current setup is unclear) and football could well be back soon as our strongest output.
I'm just happy we've two teams out competing on a world level and succeeding. We're blessed compared to what previous generations had to put up with.

It's very easy to quantify because it is way more difficult to reach the top in soccer than it is in rugby because there are more people competing in soccer which means the achievement of the soccer players in getting to the top of their group and qualifying for the European championships is much greater because they have had to knock so many other people out of the way on their way to achieving what they than the rugby team/players have.

8-10

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

which means the achievement of the soccer players in getting to the top of their group and qualifying for the European championships is much greater because they have had to knock so many other people out of the way on their way to achieving what they than the rugby team/players have.

Teams that Ireland knocked out of the way and qualified ahead of:

Scotland
Georgia
Gibraltar
Bosnia

jaykay74

Posted by Dirty Dingus McGee
which means the achievement of the soccer players in getting to the top of their group and qualifying for the European championships is much greater because they have had to knock so many other people out of the way on their way to achieving what they than the rugby team/players have.

8-10 wrote: »

Teams that Ireland knocked out of the way and qualified ahead of:

Scotland
Georgia
Gibraltar
Bosnia

So thats 4. And to qualify for the rugby world cup Ireland had to... ?

8-10

jaykay74 wrote: »

So thats 4. And to qualify for the rugby world cup Ireland had to... ?

I have said already in this thread that these sports should not be compared and coverage is not based on success.

Dirty Dingus McGee

8-10 wrote: »

Teams that Ireland knocked out of the way and qualified ahead of:

Scotland
Georgia
Gibraltar
Bosnia

3 of which are of a pretty good standard.

8-10

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

3 of which are of a pretty good standard.

Your post implied we topped the group though was my point. I agree they're good standard.

jaykay74

8-10 wrote:

Your post implied we topped the group though was my point. I agree they're good standard.

"getting to the top of their group"... Surely refers to current campaign I would have thought. 2 separate points, current and last campaign. That's how I read it anyway...

8-10

jaykay74 wrote: »

"getting to the top of their group"... Surely refers to current campaign I would have thought. 2 separate points, current and last campaign. That's how I read it anyway...

Ah got it, yep apologies I misread. It is great that we're top right now but I won't be counting anything until we've got the qualification in the bag.

Chardee MacDennis

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: »

That's like saying only Protestants played Rugby before 1999.

west brits you mean :pac::pac:

Bridge93

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

It's very easy to quantify because it is way more difficult to reach the top in soccer than it is in rugby because there are more people competing in soccer which means the achievement of the soccer players in getting to the top of their group and qualifying for the European championships is much greater because they have had to knock so many other people out of the way on their way to achieving what they than the rugby team/players have.

That's a pretty simplistic way of looking at it. India, China and the US have the most players playing football. If numbers competing is the criteria for difficulty why are they not the 3 best in the world? Bangladesh and Indonesia would also be in the top 10. Even to narrow it to registered male players the US, Canada, Japan and South Africa should all be in the Top 10 by your reckoning.
There are a number of different factors that are impossible to quantify against each other

patmac

Really looking forward to the rugby tomorrow, great win against Austria last week.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Bridge93 wrote: »

That's a pretty simplistic way of looking at it. India, China and the US have the most players playing football. If numbers competing is the criteria for difficulty why are they not the 3 best in the world? Bangladesh and Indonesia would also be in the top 10. Even to narrow it to registered male players the US, Canada, Japan and South Africa should all be in the Top 10 by your reckoning.
There are a number of different factors that are impossible to quantify against each other

Way way more people play soccer therefore it is more difficult to get to the top of the pile in in the sport than in rugby.It is really not that difficult a point to understand.More competition makes it more difficult to be these best.The rugby team and players have nowhere near the level of competition to face that the soccer team and players have.

8-10

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

The rugby team and players have nowhere near the level of competition to face that the soccer team and players have.

But in the context of this thread, does or should that have any bearing on how much coverage it gets on tv?

I maintain that it should only get coverage if it is popular enough to get a good audience. If it's based on success or level of competition I think that's a bad thing

Also, does any sport come close to the level of international competition? I feel this argument is skewed by how different it is than regular sports. What would come close if not rugby? Cricket maybe?

Dirty Dingus McGee

8-10 wrote: »

But in the context of this thread, does or should that have any bearing on how much coverage it gets on tv?

I maintain that it should only get coverage if it is popular enough to get a good audience. If it's based on success or level of competition I think that's a bad thing

Also, does any sport come close to the level of international competition? I feel this argument is skewed by how different it is than regular sports. What would come close if not rugby? Cricket maybe?

No other sport comes close.That's why they deserve more credit than they get and why the rugby team have gotten too much credit in comparison.

Basketball is now the world second biggest global team sport but it's still a good bit behind.

8-10

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

the rugby team have gotten too much credit in comparison.

But this isnt about credit, it's about tv coverage. I'm saying it shouldn't be based on stature of the sport but on popularity.

Do you think basketball should get more coverage than rugby here because of stature? It surely only comes down to popularity.

Cookiemunster

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

No other sport comes close.That's why they deserve more credit than they get and why the rugby team have gotten too much credit in comparison.

Basketball is now the world second biggest global team sport but it's still a good bit behind.

They rugby team has won things and draw in some of the largest audiences on RTE every year. That's why they get the coverage they do. It's not hard to understand.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Cookiemunster wrote: »

They rugby team has won things and draw in some of the largest audiences on RTE every year. That's why they get the coverage they do. It's not hard to understand.

I understand why they get coverage but a lot of the hype and positive coverage they receive is undeserved.

The Lost Sheep

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

I understand why they get coverage but a lot of the hype and positive coverage they receive is undeserved.

Why is it undeserved? What coverage is undeserved?
All too often some of the main media personnel in other sports are simply way too negative. That isn't rugbys fault and criticism cant be thrown at rugby because football analysts etc are too critical of their own sport

8-10

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Why is it undeserved? What coverage is undeserved?
All too often some of the main media personnel in other sports are simply way too negative. That isn't rugbys fault and criticism cant be thrown at rugby because football analysts etc are too critical of their own sport

In fairness success aside the current Irish soccer team isn't great to watch. Against Georgia and Austria first half in particular I thought we were poor and deserved the criticism. Results have been excellent but I do think criticism is healthy. Same applies to the rugby team, however you can't really make that argument after the last 2 autumn internationals.

Wait until the All Black's trounce us tomorrow and there'll be negate coverage! If we even run them close though itll be a cracker of a game and I can't wait. And it doesn't clash with the Liverpool match so for the second week in a row it's soccer followed by the rugby....perfect coverage!!!

Korat

It would be great to bring Football Italia back to Irish tv. I think it was a Eurosport package and was on Network Two a year or two before Channel 4 got into it, after Gazza went to Italy. That was when Serie A was it's peak and Italian football seems to be on the up again now.

I always enjoyed those highlights packages more than the pundit based MotD format which is about shoving pundit opinions down the viewers throat.

8-10

Korat wrote: »

It would be great to bring Football Italia back to Irish tv. I think it was a Eurosport package and was on Network Two a year or two before Channel 4 got into it, after Gazza went to Italy. That was when Serie A was it's peak and Italian football seems to be on the up again now.

I always enjoyed those highlights packages more than the pundit based MotD format which is about shoving pundit opinions down the viewers throat.

Eurogoals was always a good roundup on Eurosport. Football Italia was amazing though, mainly because it was the best league in Europe back then

Bowlardo

Leroy42 wrote: »

So what was all that coverage of the Euros about?

Every game was live. With hours of punditry both before and after the games.

Every newspaper, news report etc gives loads of coverage to Ireland during the big comps.

You say Ireland took beating NZ for 111 years, how often has ROI beaten Brazil or Argentina, or won the world cup or Euros? We beat a 2nd string Italian team with nothing to play for and you'd swear we had won the whole thing.

ROI play a staid type of football, and countries like Iceland showed that being small is no excuse.

we beat Germany then current World Champions only a year ago

Korat

Bowlardo wrote: »

we beat Germany then current World Champions only a year ago

Not the first time that's happened though. Ireland beat them 2-0 in Germany, when they were holders, before the 1994 WC.

Fr Tod Umptious

Korat wrote: »

Not the first time that's happened though. Ireland beat them 2-0 in Germany, when they were holders, before the 1994 WC.

That was a friendly

The Golden Miller

8-10 wrote: »

Eurogoals was always a good roundup on Eurosport. Football Italia was amazing though, mainly because it was the best league in Europe back then

From top to bottom it arguably still is

kfallon

Korat wrote: »

Not the first time that's happened though. Ireland beat them 2-0 in Germany, when they were holders, before the 1994 WC.

And we beat Holland in Holland few months before that too (also a friendly)

The Talking Bread

The Golden Miller wrote: »

8-10 wrote: »

Eurogoals was always a good roundup on Eurosport. Football Italia was amazing though, mainly because it was the best league in Europe back then

From top to bottom it arguably still is

Not a hope.

wadacrack

Puts it all into perspective. No real comparison between Rugby union (just one code of Rugby) compared to football

"Reaching the second round of a Euros might seem humdrum compared to beating the All Blacks or winning two belts in UFC but, when you properly weigh up the numbers, the Irish football team have been massive over-achievers:

- the second smallest European country to qualify for consecutive tournaments, after Slovenia 2000-'02
- the fifth smallest country to reach the quarter-finals of a World Cup or European Championship
- the third smallest to reach the second stage of a World Cup twice or more
- and the second smallest in the world to qualify for a World Cup or Euros at least six times.



http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/international-soccer/miguel-delaney-irish-on-course-to-overachieve-once-again-35229417.html

johnnyryan89

wadacrack wrote: »

Puts it all into perspective. No real comparison between Rugby union (just one code of Rugby) compared to football

"Reaching the second round of a Euros might seem humdrum compared to beating the All Blacks or winning two belts in UFC but, when you properly weigh up the numbers, the Irish football team have been massive over-achievers:

- the second smallest European country to qualify for consecutive tournaments, after Slovenia 2000-'02
- the fifth smallest country to reach the quarter-finals of a World Cup or European Championship
- the third smallest to reach the second stage of a World Cup twice or more
- and the second smallest in the world to qualify for a World Cup or Euros at least six times.



http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/international-soccer/miguel-delaney-irish-on-course-to-overachieve-once-again-35229417.html

Had Ireland qualified outta their group in the Euros in 2012 I'd have it up there as a great achievement and not because of who they came up against but because you had to finish first or second, while it was great to see Ireland get into the knockout stages of a major tournament the fact they finished third in qualifing and third in the group stages meant in any other previous year you wouldnt have made it to the Euros in the first place and then wouldnt have made it out of the group with third place finishes.

noodler

johnnyryan89 wrote: »

Had Ireland qualified outta their group in the Euros in 2012 I'd have it up there as a great achievement and not because of who they came up against but because you had to finish first or second, while it was great to see Ireland get into the knockout stages of a major tournament the fact they finished third in qualifing and third in the group stages meant in any other previous year you wouldnt have made it to the Euros in the first place and then wouldnt have made it out of the group with third place finishes.

Yeah, regardless, beating Germany, Bosnia and Italy are massive achievements.

johnnyryan89

noodler wrote: »

Yeah, regardless, beating Germany, Bosnia and Italy are massive achievements.

Beating Germany and Italy is a great achievement for a country our size but Bosnia are a team we should be beating.

wadacrack

johnnyryan89 wrote: »

Beating Germany and Italy is a great achievement for a country our size but Bosnia are a team we should be beating.

Simply not true.

wadacrack

wadacrack wrote: »

Puts it all into perspective. No real comparison between Rugby union (just one code of Rugby) compared to football

"Reaching the second round of a Euros might seem humdrum compared to beating the All Blacks or winning two belts in UFC but, when you properly weigh up the numbers, the Irish football team have been massive over-achievers:

- the second smallest European country to qualify for consecutive tournaments, after Slovenia 2000-'02
- the fifth smallest country to reach the quarter-finals of a World Cup or European Championship
- the third smallest to reach the second stage of a World Cup twice or more
- and the second smallest in the world to qualify for a World Cup or Euros at least six times.



http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/international-soccer/miguel-delaney-irish-on-course-to-overachieve-once-again-35229417.html

Meh. NZ only unbeaten team at football World Cup 2010. Beat that.

Bridge93

johnnyryan89 wrote: »

Had Ireland qualified outta their group in the Euros in 2012 I'd have it up there as a great achievement and not because of who they came up against but because you had to finish first or second, while it was great to see Ireland get into the knockout stages of a major tournament the fact they finished third in qualifing and third in the group stages meant in any other previous year you wouldnt have made it to the Euros in the first place and then wouldnt have made it out of the group with third place finishes.

I would argue qualifying for Euro 2016 was a greater achievement than 2012.
In 2012 the stars aligned perfectly. We had a very easy group with no superpower to run away with it guaranteeing a spot and the on,y other team of note was a poor Slovakia. We were almost guaranteed 2nd and if we hadn't played crap at home to Russia may have knocked the group.
We then got the worst team to ever make the playoffs in Estonia.

In 2016 we had the world champions to basically guarantee top spot and then 3 teams fighting for two spots as per 2012 (taking Germany out the three teams competing for 2016 qualification were as good as the three competing in 2012). But we then had a far tougher qualifier against Bosnia compared to Estonia.

2012 we were blessed with the route we got. 2016 we got the hardest group nullifying the perceived easier qualification due to more teams that time around. The playoffs were of a different level.