Should Dublin Football be split?

DONTMATTER

odyssey06 wrote: »

And the team of the late 1980s and early 1990s beat Wexford, Offaly and nearly beat Kilkenny in Leinster final - no back door in those days alas.
The beat Kilkenny away in a league campaign and lost to Galway in league semi final.

Yes, this season, they destroyed Offaly this season, but so did Wexford.

The question should be what has happened hurling in Laois, Antrim and Wexford. Dublin are operating now just a notch above where they were in 1991. Those other 'nearly' teams have fallen aside.

As I said i don't know the late 80's/90's team that well. Other counties had good one of teams around that time also. Antrim got to an All Ireland final.

Dublin have struggled in hurling from the days when they had barely a Dublin player on their team up to the financial doping. Aside from this team in the late 80's/early 90's who actually won nothing. As I've shown you, just before the funding they were getting beatings off Laois and Offaly and losing to Westmeath.
Since the funding, Dublin have won numerous underage titles, a national league title and a senior Leinster championship.

Will I tell you what happened to Laois, Antrim, Westmeath and Carlow? While Dublin were raking it in they were left to rot. Hurling people in these counties were asking why can't they get some funding, look what it's doing for Dublin. After a couple of years of this what happened? Croke Park threw them some scraps to be divided amongst them.
Some of these counties had gone to Croke Park with well costed and thought out plans. The door was closed on them.

DONTMATTER

odyssey06 wrote: »

They money's bought nothing for Dublin. It's 15 against 15 on the pitch and they won those finals fair and square. You've shown nothing, just a list of titles and a list of funding. Correlation is not causation. Your correlation argument doesn't even stand up for Dublin hurling, or where are their All Irelands?

When did every county in the GAA ever get equal funding? When was the last year Kerry hurlers got the same funding as Kerry footballers, or Kilkenny footballers get the same funding as Cork hurlers? When did Leitrim as a county get the same funding as Galway?

Equal funding to every county is unfair to the players of larger counties, in any sport funding, facilities and coaching will flow to where the players are.

Like I asked before, when will Dublin be paying all the money back? You would have won all those titles anyway right?

I've shown the improvements and titles the money has won in both football and hurling. 1 All Ireland since 1983 pre funding, 5 post funding. Minows in hurling pre funding, National and Leinster titles post funding. 23 underage titles in football and hurling post funding also.

I've told you, we can look at solutions after we face the reality that something must be done. I don't believe every county should get an equal amount of money but that's for a later date. At the moment, Dublin are getting multiples of every other county. Way beyond proportion.

Powerhouse

DONTMATTER wrote: »

I keep repeating it because it shows what money can buy. It's been proved time and again in other sports. This shows that the GAA is no different. Money = success.

You keep using the phrase "I showed" or "it shows" quite inappropriately. You are implying some kind of inevitable linear relationship between funding and sporting success. There simply is not enough evidence there yet anyway to support your conclusions.

I've already taken you up on that point, take away the senior football titles from both lists and you're still left with 25 v 8! That's 25 provincial and All Ireland's in the last 10 years v 8 in the previous 18. You can't just ignore these facts because it doesn't suit you.

And I've dealt with this. Eight of the titles since 2008 have been hurling, and not one All-Ireland in any inter-county grade. and the record is nothing to write home about really. It seems good only when compared with a period where they literally won nothing. But take those out and the difference is statistically much less significant i.e. it can be attributed to luck or chance or matches that might have been lost narrowly in other times. But I have dealt with this issue several times already - I presume your claim that I am ignoring "these facts" is for rhetorical effect because it certainly is not true. You seem to have convinced yourself that these figures are beyond question but they are far shakier than you think. And at no level do they prove any causal link between funding and ultimate success.

And again with the minor titles, they've won 5 Leinsters in recent years and they concentrate on the 18-21 age group.

You have mentioned this a few times. Can you expand on this - what is your evidence?

You'll basically do anything but mention the money. It's ok, I've heard all this before. All the excuses have been done, all the deflection, all the whataboutery. The facts speak for themselves.

Ok then...………"the money"...…..there I mentioned it. Not sure what it achieves but it might get us over that hurdle!

Cause and effect. Dublin received truck loads of money, Dublin won truck loads of titles.

That's correlation, not cause and effect. The two conditions exist simultaneously but that does not mean one causes the other. That's a link that's far more difficult to make than just repeating it and claiming you're shown it.

odyssey06

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Like I asked before, when will Dublin be paying all the money back? You would have won all those titles anyway right?
I've shown the improvements and titles the money has won in both football and hurling. 1 All Ireland since 1983 pre funding, 5 post funding. Minows in hurling pre funding, National and Leinster titles post funding. 23 underage titles in football and hurling post funding also.
I've told you, we can look at solutions after we face the reality that something must be done. I don't believe every county should get an equal amount of money but that's for a later date. At the moment, Dublin are getting multiples of every other county. Way beyond proportion.

Dublin had a good hurling team in the early 60s, late 80s to early 90s and now in the 2010s. But it's all down to money with this team? That pattern contradicts your argument.

Perhaps you don't realise it, but your argument is insulting to all the players who have donned the Dublin jersey during that period, sweated for the team, and won and lost games.

Dublin are already paying the money back. Last year Dublin weren't even the biggest recipients of GAA funds. Capital grants to Cork for stadium redevelopment saw to that. Cork are getting multiples of Carlow, how is that fair?

You seem to want to reset the clock to some mythical time of equality which never existed.

None of this implies GAA funding should be set in stone to some formula that was become outdated.
The GAA should be looking at how best to use their funding from year to year. The reality of the situation is that the GAA needs to be strong in Dublin lest it become a regional sport like rugby league. Inevitably that should lead to more funding to Dublin, that's where the kids are - kids that rugby union and soccer and cricket also have their eye on. In the future the focus might be on the commuter belt of Kildare, Meath, Louth, Wicklow.

It would be entirely reasonable to prioritise funding for Dublin hurling, for the long term health of the sport another serious hurling county is needed - as long as the other counties are not forgotten about or taken for granted.

DONTMATTER

Powerhouse wrote: »

DONTMATTER wrote: »

I keep repeating it because it shows what money can buy. It's been proved time and again in other sports. This shows that the GAA is no different. Money = success.

You keep using the phrase "I showed" or "it shows" quite inappropriately. You are implying some kind of inevitable linear relationship between funding and sporting success. There simply is not enough evidence there yet anyway to support your conclusions.

I've already taken you up on that point, take away the senior football titles from both lists and you're still left with 25 v 8! That's 25 provincial and All Ireland's in the last 10 years v 8 in the previous 18. You can't just ignore these facts because it doesn't suit you.

And I've dealt with this. Eight of the titles since 2008 have been hurling, and not one All-Ireland in any inter-county grade. and the record is nothing to write home about really. It seems good only when compared with a period where they literally won nothing. But take those out and the difference is statistically much less significant i.e. it can be attributed to luck or chance or matches that might have been lost narrowly in other times. But I have dealt with this issue several times already - I presume your claim that I am ignoring "these facts" is for rhetorical effect because it certainly is not true. You seem to have convinced yourself that these figures are beyond question but they are far shakier than you think. And at no level do they prove any causal link between funding and ultimate success.

And again with the minor titles, they've won 5 Leinsters in recent years and they concentrate on the 18-21 age group.

You have mentioned this a few times. Can you expand on this - what is your evidence?

You'll basically do anything but mention the money. It's ok, I've heard all this before. All the excuses have been done, all the deflection, all the whataboutery. The facts speak for themselves.

Ok then...………"the money"...…..there I mentioned it. Not sure what it achieves but it might get us over that hurdle!

Cause and effect. Dublin received truck loads of money, Dublin won truck loads of titles.

That's correlation, not cause and effect. The two conditions exist simultaneously but that does not mean one causes the other. That's a link that's far more difficult to make than just repeating it and claiming you're shown it.

There's been numerous studies done on the link between financial power and success. It's irrefutable. The evidence is there for all to see, I'm not making it up.

yeah if you take loads of the titles they won out of account it does look a bit better. So you've taken out the senior footballers titles, the underage hurlers, the senior hurlers. Any others you want to take out?
The numbers are huge, it's not a few lucky wins, it's a definite trend and it coincides with the funding. These figures are beyond question! Which titles did Dublin not really win?

From knowing people involved in the running of this.

It shows again that you're not here to discuss the money seriously. Deflection and excuses are your only aim.

This is like dealing with flat earthers. They can't face the obvious no matter how much it stares them in the face.

odyssey06

DONTMATTER wrote: »

I've shown the improvements and titles the money has won in both football and hurling. 1 All Ireland since 1983 pre funding, 5 post funding. Minows in hurling pre funding, National and Leinster titles post funding. 23 underage titles in football and hurling post funding also.

Your statistics are selectively chosen.

In the 1970s Dublin footballers won 6 Leinster titles in a row, and reached 6 All Ireland finals in a row, winning 3 of them. The current Dublin team's achievements are on a par with that team, so are the 1970s and 2010s the aberration or were the single titles of the 1980s and 1990s the aberration?

Between 1970 and 1990 only 5 counties won All Ireland football titles - Kerry, Dublin, Offaly, Meath and Cork. The resurgence of Ulster football in the 1990s and 2000s added another 5 counties to the list, but since 1970 Galway's two titles are the only ones to go west of the Shannon.

In the last ten years, five different teams have won football All Irelands.

Funding alone doesn't come close to explaining those patterns.

DONTMATTER

odyssey06 wrote: »

Dublin had a good hurling team in the early 60s, late 80s to early 90s and now in the 2010s. But it's all down to money with this team? That pattern contradicts your argument.

Perhaps you don't realise it, but your argument is insulting to all the players who have donned the Dublin jersey during that period, sweated for the team, and won and lost games.

Dublin are already paying the money back. Last year Dublin weren't even the biggest recipients of GAA funds. Capital grants to Cork for stadium redevelopment saw to that. Cork are getting multiples of Carlow, how is that fair?

You seem to want to reset the clock to some mythical time of equality which never existed.

None of this implies GAA funding should be set in stone to some formula that was become outdated.
The GAA should be looking at how best to use their funding from year to year. The reality of the situation is that the GAA needs to be strong in Dublin lest it become a regional sport like rugby league. Inevitably that should lead to more funding to Dublin, that's where the kids are - kids that rugby union and soccer and cricket also have their eye on. In the future the focus might be on the commuter belt of Kildare, Meath, Louth, Wicklow.

It would be entirely reasonable to prioritise funding for Dublin hurling, for the long term health of the sport another serious hurling county is needed - as long as the other counties are not forgotten about or taken for granted.

How many players were from Dublin in the 60's? The late 80's/early 90's team is the only one which can't be explained. The current success wave is down to the money.

The only insulting thing is the hard work and effort by all counties who've tried to compete fairly only to come up against a financially doped team.

Funds for centres of excellence and county grounds are separate to this. If not we'd have to include the funding for Dublin's home ground, Croke Park.

No, a time where everyone competed with what they had, not with how much they had.

This is another of the list of excuses that I've heard for years. Dublin could lose kids to other sports. You know other sports are played in every other county?

I've already shown that the other counties were left to rot while Dublin thrived off the back of the funding. How can anyone justify that? Now that's insulting.

odyssey06

DONTMATTER wrote: »

There's been numerous studies done on the link between financial power and success. It's irrefutable. The evidence is there for all to see, I'm not making it up.

If there's a study on a comparitive situation to GAA - the impact of development funding on a geographically based sport - we're all ears.

Charles Babbage

There is a level of denial in here that wouldn't be found in discussing Brexit in the Daily Express.

Of course funding alone does not explain everything, but having a growing monster that is also getting more funding per capita in many cases is madness. Nobody can realistically defend this.

It is simple enough.
- money must be spent at the grassroots so that every kid in Dublin has a chance of playing Gaelic games
- that investment must not be allowed create outsized clubs or an outsized county that is all out of proportion in national competitions.

DONTMATTER

odyssey06 wrote: »

Your statistics are selectively chosen.

In the 1970s Dublin footballers won 6 Leinster titles in a row, and reached 6 All Ireland finals in a row, winning 3 of them. The current Dublin team's achievements are on a par with that team, so are the 1970s and 2010s the aberration or were the single titles of the 1980s and 1990s the aberration?

Between 1970 and 1990 only 5 counties won All Ireland football titles - Kerry, Dublin, Offaly, Meath and Cork. The resurgence of Ulster football in the 1990s and 2000s added another 5 counties to the list, but since 1970 Galway's two titles are the only ones to go west of the Shannon.

In the last ten years, five different teams have won football All Irelands.

Funding alone doesn't come close to explaining those patterns.

No, to show the pattern you have to take the recent years pre and compare them with post funding. County football was in an awful state in the 70's. Things had completely changed, it was an entirely different landscape in the 90's and naughties.
As you've pointed out, many more teams came into contention, the Leinster championship could have been won by nearly anybody. That's all changed. Why? Hint - It was the funding.

DONTMATTER

odyssey06 wrote: »

If there's a study on a comparitive situation to GAA - the impact of development funding on a geographically based sport - we're all ears.

You think this level of funding in an amateur sport wouldn't have an even bigger impact?

odyssey06

DONTMATTER wrote: »

This is another of the list of excuses that I've heard for years. Dublin could lose kids to other sports. You know other sports are played in every other county?
I've already shown that the other counties were left to rot while Dublin thrived off the back of the funding. How can anyone justify that? Now that's insulting.

You have shown no such thing. Funding doesn't explain why Offaly are a pale shadow of themselves in both codes against the other teams in Leinster (excluding Dublin).

It's not that Dublin could lose kids to other sports, it's that the GAA could which is actually the important point.

Dublin is the home stadium for Ireland's international soccer and rugby teams. The reigning European club rugby champions. Test cricket even.
How many other counties can say that?

It's only natural to expect that counties having a major city in them will attract more development funding. To reset the clock you would need to abandon the whole idea of development funding.

odyssey06

Charles Babbage wrote: »

There is a level of denial in here that wouldn't be found in discussing Brexit in the Daily Express.

Of course funding alone does not explain everything, but having a growing monster that is also getting more funding per capita in many cases is madness. Nobody can realistically defend this.

Debating tactic #1 - tar the people on the opposing side by reference to a different group.

Debating tactic #2 - straight out insult the opposing side by describing the team they are defending as a "growing monster"

Debating tactic #3 - "Nobody can realistically defend this." Dismiss without rebuttal all the opposing points by saying they are unrealistic.

Nobody here is saying GAA development funding should be set in stone, but language like "growing monster" and "madness" is just going to get people's backs up. It would be better if we could hear some positive suggestions for how to strengthen Leinster football excluding Dublin, and some exact figures on how much say Kildare got... rather than the current empasis on stopping Dublin.

odyssey06

DONTMATTER wrote: »

You think this level of funding in an amateur sport wouldn't have an even bigger impact?

Would it? Players can't be paid, or bought. It's a totally different situation to Manchester United or even the Dallas Cowboys.

An international team sport (and not one that's mechanical such as cycling or rowing) would probably be the closest equivalent.

DONTMATTER

odyssey06 wrote: »

You have shown no such thing. Funding doesn't explain why Offaly are a pale shadow of themselves in both codes against the other teams in Leinster (excluding Dublin).

It's not that Dublin could lose kids to other sports, it's that the GAA could which is actually the important point.

Dublin is the home stadium for Ireland's international soccer and rugby teams. The reigning European club rugby champions. Test cricket even.
How many other counties can say that?

It's only natural to expect that counties having a major city in them will attract more development funding. To reset the clock you would need to abandon the whole idea of development funding.

I have shown it.

More deflection, other counties well being has nothing to do with Dublin's funding.

Soccer, rugby, cricket are played in every other county too. should the GAA not care about the kids we lose there? Leinster rugby are European champions, not Dublin rugby.

There's more development funding and then there's what Dublin gets.

DONTMATTER

odyssey06 wrote: »

Would it? Players can't be paid, or bought. It's a totally different situation to Manchester United or even the Dallas Cowboys.

An international team sport (and not one that's mechanical such as cycling or rowing) would probably be the closest equivalent.

Millions have been pumped into Dublin GAA to create players at an elite level. This is a fact. How can this not have an impact?

odyssey06

DONTMATTER wrote: »

No, to show the pattern you have to take the recent years pre and compare them with post funding. County football was in an awful state in the 70's. Things had completely changed, it was an entirely different landscape in the 90's and naughties.
As you've pointed out, many more teams came into contention, the Leinster championship could have been won by nearly anybody. That's all changed. Why? Hint - It was the funding.

You have no explanation for the changes from the 1970s to the 1990s beyond "county football was in an awful state" - but it had nothing to do with money?

If it's so easy to dismiss the 1970s as "county football was in an awful state" then maybe Dublin football was in an awful state in the latter decades, and Dublin hurling was in an awful state in the 1990s and now they are just getting their act together?

Maybe the Leinster championship right now is in an awful state - and it's awful state has nothing to do with money?

odyssey06

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Soccer, rugby, cricket are played in every other county too. should the GAA not care about the kids we lose there? Leinster rugby are European champions, not Dublin rugby.
There's more development funding and then there's what Dublin gets.

Where do Leinster play? They play in Dublin. It's Dublin kids that go to their home games. Half their line up was born in Dublin.

Is there much rugby played in Kerry or cricket games held in Kilkenny?

Nobody is saying the GAA should abandon the other counties, but any realistic allocation of development funding will see the cities get the most. Any realistic allocation of hurling development funding will look at how the second rank of counties can be strengthened.

Powerhouse

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Powerhouse wrote: »

There's been numerous studies done on the link between financial power and success. It's irrefutable. The evidence is there for all to see, I'm not making it up.

yeah if you take loads of the titles they won out of account it does look a bit better. So you've taken out the senior footballers titles, the underage hurlers, the senior hurlers. Any others you want to take out?
The numbers are huge, it's not a few lucky wins, it's a definite trend and it coincides with the funding. These figures are beyond question! Which titles did Dublin not really win?

From knowing people involved in the running of this.

It shows again that you're not here to discuss the money seriously. Deflection and excuses are your only aim.

This is like dealing with flat earthers. They can't face the obvious no matter how much it stares them in the face.

The rhetoric wouldn't look out of place on political posters. Keep the message simple and repetitive and keep driving it home. It doesn't prove anything though.

The period 1990-2008 which you use for comparison purposes was one of acknowledged underachievement by Dublin. In the 1972-1990 period (the previous 18 years) Dublin won over 30 titles in hurling and football and that even covers a period of around five years when they didn't even field under-21 hurling and football teams which might well had added a title or two (especially provincial) to that figure.

In that broader context the 2008-present day figure, while very good, is not off the charts especially when you factor in the decline of other counties in Leinster which boosts the number of Leinster titles won by Dublin by teams which did not stand out nationally. These figures, while attractive to someone using all the context of an abacus, arguably mean little, for example, Cork have 11 Munster under-21 championships since 2000 but only one senior All-Ireland.

The real headline (that aspect I imagine appeals to you) figures are the success of Dublin's senior footballers and under-21s which, unlike all other figures, are standout figures nationally. But neither of them prove that the success is due to funding alone. The funding argument is difficult to make convincingly (which presumably is why you rely on simply repeating the point, alluding to mysterious "studies" and claiming that you have proven your claim) and easy to undermine as it is essentially a circumstantial argument which needs much more time to be developed. However, for some reason, time is one thing you don't appear to have. You seem to need to make this claim now and to hell with nuance and context!

DONTMATTER

odyssey06 wrote: »

You have no explanation for the changes from the 1970s to the 1990s beyond "county football was in an awful state" - but it had nothing to do with money?

If it's so easy to dismiss the 1970s as "county football was in an awful state" then maybe Dublin football was in an awful state in the latter decades, and Dublin hurling was in an awful state in the 1990s and now they are just getting their act together?

Maybe the Leinster championship right now is in an awful state - and it's awful state has nothing to do with money?

There was barely any county competitive. It really was a low ebb in the 70's, you had the northern counties unable to compete really for other reasons. But even it had something to do with money or not, it is irrelevant to what we're discussing.

Dublin may have been in an awful state in later decades in hurling and football, the same as every other county, they had their good times and they had their bad times. But they competed fairly.

This has changed since the naughties, Dublin no longer compete on a level playing pitch. And as I've already shown, they've collected numerous titles in football and hurling because of this.

DONTMATTER

odyssey06 wrote: »

Where do Leinster play? They play in Dublin. It's Dublin kids that go to their home games. Half their line up was born in Dublin.

Is there much rugby played in Kerry or cricket games held in Kilkenny?

Nobody is saying the GAA should abandon the other counties, but any realistic allocation of development funding will see the cities get the most. Any realistic allocation of hurling development funding will look at how the second rank of counties can be strengthened.

It's still called Leinster rugby, not Dublin rugby. Is there no provincial teams in the other provinces? is there no players from other Leinster counties on the Leinster team?

Yes.

As I said, there's a higher level of development funding but what Dublin get's is outlandish. So why were the second tier counties left to rot, apart from Dublin?

Powerhouse

DONTMATTER wrote: »

No, to show the pattern you have to take the recent years pre and compare them with post funding. County football was in an awful state in the 70's. Things had completely changed, it was an entirely different landscape in the 90's and naughties.
As you've pointed out, many more teams came into contention, the Leinster championship could have been won by nearly anybody. That's all changed. Why? Hint - It was the funding.

Many teams may have been in contention by what was the standard like? In the naughties only one Leinster team even qualified to play in an All-Ireland final and they were well beaten. I'd be slow to look back at that as some golden era for Leinster football just because a bunch of relatively ordinary teams shared the title around. It didn't take funding to alter that, just better organisation and the passage of time for the once in a generation team from these counties such as Laois and Westmeath to move on. Dublin were routinely beating these counties before that as well.

DONTMATTER

Powerhouse wrote: »

DONTMATTER wrote: »

The rhetoric wouldn't look out of place on political posters. Keep the message simple and repetitive and keep driving it home. It doesn't prove anything though.

The period 1990-2008 which you use for comparison purposes was one of acknowledged underachievement by Dublin. In the 1972-1990 period (the previous 18 years) Dublin won over 30 titles in hurling and football and that even covers a period of around five years when they didn't even field under-21 hurling and football teams which might well had added a title or two (especially provincial) to that figure.

In that broader context the 2008-present day figure, while very good, is not off the charts especially when you factor in the decline of other counties in Leinster which boosts the number of Leinster titles won by Dublin by teams which did not stand out nationally. These figures, while attractive to someone using all the context of an abacus, arguably mean little, for example, Cork have 11 Munster under-21 championships since 2000 but only one senior All-Ireland.

The real headline (that aspect I imagine appeals to you) figures are the success of Dublin's senior footballers and under-21s which, unlike all other figures, are standout figures nationally. But neither of them prove that the success is due to funding alone. The funding argument is difficult to make convincingly (which presumably is why you rely on simply repeating the point, alluding to mysterious "studies" and claiming that you have proven your claim) and easy to undermine as it is essentially a circumstantial argument which needs much more time to be developed. However, for some reason, time is one thing you don't appear to have. You seem to need to make this claim now and to hell with nuance and context!

I'll keep repeating it for as long as you claim the world is flat.

There's different reasons for what Dublin won or what other team won on those earlier periods. It's completely irrelevant to what we're discussing though. If not we could go all the way back to the 19th century.
Really I should just have used the 10 years prior to the funding and the 10 years after. That would have been a fair timeline to study the effect of financial doping.

The current day figure is off the charts but as I told you ages ago, even if Dublin won 0 titles, it still would be anti the very ethos of the GAA. It's an unprecedented level of funding.
You can continue to claim the earth is flat, that's why I said that it's up to the rest of us to stand up. If it's left to Dublin and GAA hq nothing will be done. They don't care as long as their winning/making money.

DONTMATTER

Powerhouse wrote: »

Many teams may have been in contention by what was the standard like? In the naughties only one Leinster team even qualified to play in an All-Ireland final and they were well beaten. I'd be slow to look back at that as some golden era for Leinster football just because a bunch of relatively ordinary teams shared the title around. It didn't take funding to alter that, just better organisation and the passage of time for the once in a generation team from these counties such as Laois and Westmeath to move on. Dublin were routinely beating these counties before that as well.

This was a time when every county competed with what they had. Counties like Westmeath and Laois put a lot of effort into improving their standards and they reaped the rewards. It may not have been of the highest standard but it was fair and open. This all changed with the funding for Dublin.

Drummerboy2

What about amalgamating the weaker counties, why should Dublin be punished for being successful.
I think whats happening in the rest of Leinster is that rugby is starting to take a strong foothold and attracting a lot of the best athletes in these counties. Dublin has always had that challenge.

DONTMATTER

Drummerboy2 wrote: »

What about amalgamating the weaker counties, why should Dublin be punished for being successful.
I think whats happening in the rest of Leinster is that rugby is starting to take a strong foothold and attracting a lot of the best athletes in these counties. Dublin has always had that challenge.

Why should every other county be punished for Dublin's financial doping?

DONTMATTER

1.5 million on average every year since 2005. This money was just for developing elite talent. Dublin had millions extra to pay for senior team preparations and whatever else. Think about it, 1.5 million every year just on underage structures. But of course this has nothing to do with the 43 titles Dublin have won since.

odyssey06

Drummerboy2 wrote: »

What about amalgamating the weaker counties, why should Dublin be punished for being successful.
I think whats happening in the rest of Leinster is that rugby is starting to take a strong foothold and attracting a lot of the best athletes in these counties. Dublin has always had that challenge.

Its tricky. Amalgamation worked for irish rugby to coalesce completely around the provincial structure to be able to compete in europe. It didnt seem to work in scotland.
I think it would be messy identity wise to have some county based sides and then some amalgamated teams like tara or ossory or whatever. But as a Dub I am second guessing here.

Powerhouse

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Powerhouse wrote: »

There's different reasons for what Dublin won or what other team won on those earlier periods. It's completely irrelevant to what we're discussing though.

You finally went off message and caught yourself out! There are indeed many reasons quite unrelated to funding which determine success. Those reasons did not cease to exist in 2008 and it is completely relevant to what we're discussing. Like I said before you have fallen into the oldest logical fallacy of them all i.e. confusing correlation and causation.

Powerhouse

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Think about it, 1.5 million every year just on underage structures.

And yet just one Minor All-Ireland hurling or football title to show? Not exactly sporting viagra is it?

odyssey06

Just noting that even among non dubs it is 2 to 1 against splitting so this isnt just dubs v the rest.

Drummerboy2

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Why should every other county be punished for Dublin's financial doping?

I think you will find the vast majority goes to the clubs to promote the games. Lets be honest some of the smaller counties will never win an all Ireland. Its OK for Kerry to dominate but not the Dubs.

harpsman

blanch152 wrote: »

You would have to ask Kerry or Kilkenny supporters that question, it really isn't one for a Dublin thread, well not yet anyway.

I asked the question to anyone who wants to answer it. I’d be interested to know a Kilkenny supporters opinion.

As for your statement that it’s not a question for a Dublin thread 😱

harpsman

Powerhouse wrote: »

harpsman wrote: »

I was just wondering as a matter of interest: would people prefer to support a team that wins say 4-5 provincials and 1-2 all irelands per decade or a team that wins 8-9 provincials and 4-5 all irelands?


Personally Id much rather my team won the lesser amount; personally i think the only thing more depressing than supporting a team that has virtually no chance of winning is supporting a team that has virtually no chance of losing.

QUOTE]

I very much doubt if this is the case in reality. Generally most supporters I have ever made have little concern privately for the general health of a sport once their team is winning. If you watch the English soccer teams people support it's more often than not the well-known successful teams because people enjoy the vicarious glow that comes from success and enjoy belittling anyone associated with teams that have a lack of success. It is also evident in the crowds that follow successful GAA teams - there seems to be far less attraction to games when the team is less successful.

Your last statement is definitely wrong. The crowds at Dublin games were better 15-20 years ago when they weren’t dominant.

You appear to have misunderstood the question. I’m not talking about unsuccessful teams. I’m talking about the choice between a successful team and a completely dominant one- unless you consider 5 provincial and 2 all Ireland’s a decade unsuccessful

DONTMATTER

Powerhouse wrote: »

DONTMATTER wrote: »

You finally went off message and caught yourself out! There are indeed many reasons quite unrelated to funding which determine success. Those reasons did not cease to exist in 2008 and it is completely relevant to what we're discussing. Like I said before you have fallen into the oldest logical fallacy of them all i.e. confusing correlation and causation.

I was nowhere near caught out. Of course there's many reasons unrelated to funding which determines success. Who ever said otherwise?
This doesn't change the fact that the multi millions pumped into Dublin gaa has led to their recent success. What affect do you think the money had?

DONTMATTER

Powerhouse wrote: »

And yet just one Minor All-Ireland hurling or football title to show? Not exactly sporting viagra is it?

How many Leinster titles at minor? How many u21 titles? That puts that one to bed.

DONTMATTER

Drummerboy2 wrote: »

I think you will find the vast majority goes to the clubs to promote the games. Lets be honest some of the smaller counties will never win an all Ireland. Its OK for Kerry to dominate but not the Dubs.

I've already shown where the money goes and all the paid officers overseeing it.
What smaller counties do is irrelevant, what Kerry does is irrelevant. Dublin financially doping is the only relevant part.

harpsman

FWIW if Dublin won nothing in the next ten years I’d still be for splitting it up. Here’s the population stats

Munster 1.2m. 6 teams
Connaught 0.5m 5 teams
Ulster 1.0m (Irish) 9 teams
Leinster excl Dublin 1.2m 11 teams
Dublin 1.4m. 1 team

It’s a complete waste of resources having only one team from a place with a quarter of the country’s population. You can probably add another quarter of a million to Dublin population in next couple of decades too

blanch152

harpsman wrote: »

Your last statement is definitely wrong. The crowds at Dublin games were better 15-20 years ago when they weren’t dominant.

Were they?

blanch152

harpsman wrote: »

FWIW if Dublin won nothing in the next ten years I’d still be for splitting it up. Here’s the population stats

Munster 1.2m. 6 teams
Connaught 0.5m 5 teams
Ulster 1.0m (Irish) 9 teams
Leinster excl Dublin 1.2m 11 teams
Dublin 1.4m. 1 team

It’s a complete waste of resources having only one team from a place with a quarter of the country’s population. You can probably add another quarter of a million to Dublin population in next couple of decades too

If you are going to allow for participation rates in Ulster, you are going to have to allow for them everywhere.

blanch152

DONTMATTER wrote: »

No, to show the pattern you have to take the recent years pre and compare them with post funding. County football was in an awful state in the 70's. Things had completely changed, it was an entirely different landscape in the 90's and naughties.
As you've pointed out, many more teams came into contention, the Leinster championship could have been won by nearly anybody. That's all changed. Why? Hint - It was the funding.

The one thing that is absolutely clear from this thread is that there is now universal acknowledgement that the current Dublin team is the greatest team to have played the game of Gaelic Football.

Whether or not you believe, as the likes of Dontmatter do, that this team was created and forged by money, that does not take away from the need to acknowledge them as the GOAT. In fact, you cannot make the argument that Dublin needs to be split, without first acknowledging the superiority and claims to greatness of the current Dublin team, otherwise, why need to split?

Powerhouse

harpsman wrote: »

Powerhouse wrote: »

Your last statement is definitely wrong. The crowds at Dublin games were better 15-20 years ago when they weren’t dominant.

ful

Not all that wrong maybe. 2000 Leinster final Dub v KIldare attendance 51,156. 2017 final same pairing attendance 66,734.

Powerhouse

DONTMATTER wrote: »

How many Leinster titles at minor? /QUOTE]


In the last five years, less than Kildare.

blanch152

Powerhouse wrote: »

Not all that wrong maybe. 2000 Leinster final Dub v KIldare attendance 51,156. 2017 final same pairing attendance 66,734.

It is much harder to get a ticket on the day for All-Ireland semis and finals.

Time was, and I was there, that you could sit in Wynn's nursing a pint of Guinness for hours and expect to pick up a spare one.

odyssey06

harpsman wrote: »

FWIW if Dublin won nothing in the next ten years I’d still be for splitting it up. Here’s the population stats

Munster 1.2m. 6 teams
Connaught 0.5m 5 teams
Ulster 1.0m (Irish) 9 teams
Leinster excl Dublin 1.2m 11 teams
Dublin 1.4m. 1 team

It’s a complete waste of resources having only one team from a place with a quarter of the country’s population. You can probably add another quarter of a million to Dublin population in next couple of decades too

Cork has nearly 50% of the population of Munster.
Galway has nearly 50% of the population of Connaught.
How is that not a waste of resources?

In Dublin's 1.4 million you are actually including players living there who play for other counties. There is a county size population of people in Dublin who weren't born in Ireland who don't know the first thing about Gaelic football or Hurling and have no interest in doing so.

IN 2015 Dublin had 40,000 registered GAA players, Cork had 33,000 and Galway had 21,000. Dublin had three times the population of Connaught but less registered GAA players than in that province.

harpsman

blanch152 wrote: »

The one thing that is absolutely clear from this thread is that there is now universal acknowledgement that the current Dublin team is the greatest team to have played the game of Gaelic Football.

Whether or not you believe, as the likes of Dontmatter do, that this team was created and forged by money, that does not take away from the need to acknowledge them as the GOAT. In fact, you cannot make the argument that Dublin needs to be split, without first acknowledging the superiority and claims to greatness of the current Dublin team, otherwise, why need to split?

The problem with that argument is that it’s not really one team. It’s a constant progression to the point where you have maybe 3? Of the 2011 team starting this year.

Kerry 78-86 had 11 players who started both and won 7 from 9.

I do agree Dublin 2011-...... are better but maybe not one team

Powerhouse

harpsman wrote: »

Powerhouse wrote: »

You appear to have misunderstood the question. I’m not talking about unsuccessful teams. I’m talking about the choice between a successful team and a completely dominant one- unless you consider 5 provincial and 2 all Ireland’s a decade unsuccessful

I understood the question alright. I just simply took the example of people following English soccer teams where their allegiance is not decided by an accident of birth and they can choose any team. Most people choose a successful team which suggests to me that human nature wants to see constant success.

Someone from Dublin here said that he'd nearly shout for the opponents in the Leinster championship for the laugh which is grand but shows that he realises that there is zero chance of losing. But you won't get him shouting for Kerry against Dublin because it enhances the general experience of winning if Kerry manage to win a second title this decade and Dublin remain stuck on a mere 5. Supporters of a successful team do want strong competition (as that reflects well on their team when they win) but they will never actively want titles to be spread around.

blanch152

harpsman wrote: »

The problem with that argument is that it’s not really one team. It’s a constant progression to the point where you have maybe 3? Of the 2011 team starting this year.

Kerry 78-86 had 11 players who started both and won 7 from 9.

I do agree Dublin 2011-...... are better but maybe not one team

You have to leave out 1975 to get that statistic from Kerry. In order to do the same with Dublin, you would have to leave out 2011 which was Gilroy's team, not Gavin's.

Furthermore, it is now a 21 or 22-man game, and there is similar variance between the 2013 Gavin team and the current team as seen in the Kerry team of the 1970s/80s. Of the 20 players used by Gavin in the 2013 All-Ireland final, 15 saw action in the 2017 All-Ireland final. That is a similar percentage to the 11 out of 15 you quote. If you include MacAuley and Daly who were on the bench, but didn't feature, you have 17 of the 20 used in 2013 still involved. Of the three who are gone, Bastick and Brennan have retired, while O'Carroll is off in New Zealand. Hardly a radical changing of the guard.

For 2018, Connolly is the only one of that 2013 team who can be added to the list of definite departures, and hopefully it is only temporary. O'Gara hasn't featured yet and may not. Brogan, O'Sullivan and McCaffrey will feature once they recover from long-term injuries, so I would expect at least 15 of the 20 involved in 2013 to play a part in the 2018 campaign. With Connolly returning next year, that could go up to 16 in 2019.

Powerhouse

harpsman wrote: »

The problem with that argument is that it’s not really one team. It’s a constant progression to the point where you have maybe 3? Of the 2011 team starting this year.

Kerry 78-86 had 11 players who started both and won 7 from 9.

I do agree Dublin 2011-...... are better but maybe not one team

Not sure this is a realistic distinction. The Kilkenny hurlers won 2006-09 but had only eight of the same starters in the '06 and '09 years and they are never regarded as different teams. If we think of a 'team' as being pretty much the exact same players year in year out it is very rare we could speak of a team having any sort of run as a homogenous group.

Gael85

blanch152 wrote: »

You have to leave out 1975 to get that statistic from Kerry. In order to do the same with Dublin, you would have to leave out 2011 which was Gilroy's team, not Gavin's.

Furthermore, it is now a 21 or 22-man game, and there is similar variance between the 2013 Gavin team and the current team as seen in the Kerry team of the 1970s/80s. Of the 20 players used by Gavin in the 2013 All-Ireland final, 15 saw action in the 2017 All-Ireland final. That is a similar percentage to the 11 out of 15 you quote. If you include MacAuley and Daly who were on the bench, but didn't feature, you have 17 of the 20 used in 2013 still involved. Of the three who are gone, Bastick and Brennan have retired, while O'Carroll is off in New Zealand. Hardly a radical changing of the guard.

For 2018, Connolly is the only one of that 2013 team who can be added to the list of definite departures, and hopefully it is only temporary. O'Gara hasn't featured yet and may not. Brogan, O'Sullivan and McCaffrey will feature once they recover from long-term injuries, so I would expect at least 15 of the 20 involved in 2013 to play a part in the 2018 campaign. With Connolly returning next year, that could go up to 16 in 2019.

Exactly change of management will result in changeover of players.12/19 from 2011 team were still involved on panel last year. 19/21 of 2013 team were involved last year winning team. When Gavin took over he gave debuts to Costello,Daly,Mannion and Rock. He gave McCaffrey and Cooper their first championship starts and had Kilkenny first full season. Paddy Andrews was also brought back after dropped by Gilroy. As amateur game and increase in demands of training intercounty panels will have a high turnover of players. Tyrone had a different team in 08 to 03. Same with Kerry 04 to 09.