|
Let's stick to the topic.
Jim Gavin got his selection wrong and mayo got there's right.
If there had only been allowed three subs I don't think Dublin would have won with the team that started.
Although i think he would have started a different team with only subs allowed.
I'm not saying that it would make alot of difference but been allowed six subs compared to three favours the bigger teams.
And it would make a manages job alot harder.
tom84 (Cavan) - Posts: 334 - 18/09/2017 23:16:26
2047818
Link
0
|
|
Dublin have just won 3 in a row
Threads like this are being set up
What a wonderful time to be alive :D
waynoI (Dublin) - Posts: 13650 - 19/09/2017 02:36:20
2047875
Link
4
|
|
Replying To centerfield: "allowing teams to have 6 subs clearly plays into the hands of the Dubs.
If the GAA want to have a championship that is more competitive they need to revert back to the 3 sub rule.
There is no reason why players shouldn't be able to go for 70 min given the fitness levels nowadays.
i don't see any county outside of Dublin and Kerry ever producing more than 18 players of the required standard
if you had only 3 subs you would have to hold one in reserve till late in the game
The Dubs are using the subs system almost like a semi interchange system and burning teams off with their subs late in the game" Mother of sweet divine ....I fear for the youth.
Marse (Dublin) - Posts: 217 - 19/09/2017 09:22:08
2047900
Link
0
|
|
Replying To cavanman47: "I will admit, I don't know how long it takes the Dublin players to get to training.
But having read John Leonard's book, he says he used to show up to training an hour early only to find that cluxton was there 2 hours early practicing frees.
Tom Parsons was on newstalk last week and he spends those same 2 hours in his car driving to castlebar.
Take from that what you will.
(On a completely separate note, I live and work in Dublin and face its traffic every day and it's nothing compared to other large cities - try London, Dubai, Paris, LA, Chicago on for size!)" But maybe that's just Cluxton, he's a teacher and I believe with him living on the northside he's probably closer to the training ground than most (to be honest I don't know where exactly that is).
If he's finished up at 4 in the afternoon, he probably has much better chance of making it to training earlier. But like I said, that's just Cluxton. Not all non Dubs playing county football are making 2 to 3 hour commutes. I know some are, and I know it's a tough ask but it's not exclusive to people outside Dublin.
Sweeping generalizations of the commuting time for one team to another doesn't really help the argument about going back to the 3 sub rule anyway
keithlemon (Australia) - Posts: 920 - 19/09/2017 10:25:14
2047931
Link
0
|
|
Replying To keithlemon: "But maybe that's just Cluxton, he's a teacher and I believe with him living on the northside he's probably closer to the training ground than most (to be honest I don't know where exactly that is).
If he's finished up at 4 in the afternoon, he probably has much better chance of making it to training earlier. But like I said, that's just Cluxton. Not all non Dubs playing county football are making 2 to 3 hour commutes. I know some are, and I know it's a tough ask but it's not exclusive to people outside Dublin.
Sweeping generalizations of the commuting time for one team to another doesn't really help the argument about going back to the 3 sub rule anyway" Naming 2 specific players is hardly a sweeping generalisation.
What I'm getting at with travel time vs number of subs is simple - a player who has to commute for 2 hours a few times a week is less likely to stick around for a spot on the bench. I know ourselves in Cavan have had some of our best players opt out in recent years because of commuting time from Dublin
cavanman47 (Cavan) - Posts: 5012 - 19/09/2017 10:43:52
2047940
Link
0
|
|
Replying To cavanman47: "Naming 2 specific players is hardly a sweeping generalisation.
What I'm getting at with travel time vs number of subs is simple - a player who has to commute for 2 hours a few times a week is less likely to stick around for a spot on the bench. I know ourselves in Cavan have had some of our best players opt out in recent years because of commuting time from Dublin" I was referring to your original post in regards generalizations:
"Dublin have the advantage of their players not having to travel 2 or 3 hours three times a week for a place on the bench. This allows them to keep their best 24/25 players on the county setup. A luxury no other county enjoys."
I agree with you in that the commitment necessary, be it time away from home, training required or in this case travel times can all be a factor in lads being able to make it at the top level. But that doesn't mean the same factors don't effect Dublin players either.
keithlemon (Australia) - Posts: 920 - 19/09/2017 11:09:33
2047950
Link
1
|
|
I really think the gaa should consider no substitutions and either 17 a side or the 21 a side prior to that. This would leave little space for Dublin's attack and also make the kickouts more difficult for Cluxton.
In the interest of equality in the game today. It would also be fairer on over weight people as they're would be less running in the game. And let's face it gaelic football has become a skinny fast man's game. Why should the 60% obese male population be excluded from county football?
Laois76 (Laois) - Posts: 1270 - 19/09/2017 22:20:32
2048333
Link
31
|
|
I for one am in favor of this anyway. Not for the reasons of the opening post. I am not interested in making rules to hinder Dubs. I am in favor of smaller intercounty panels and limiting the power of the intercounty management. The better teams will still win. In AFL, there are 18 players on the field and three interchange.
You could do the same for GAA, three interchange rather than subs.
I think 6 subs allows for potentially more cynicism. More guys on yellows getting subbed and so on. Obviously cynical play has always been there regardless of sub numbers.
Subs were introduced for injured players initially. Now we have subs for blackcards, tactics, GPS, blood injuries etc. I think 3 is enough. Smaller panels and more time for others to play games with their clubs. I don't see how it hinders anyone if everyone plays by same rules.
bennybunny (Cork) - Posts: 3917 - 19/09/2017 22:39:19
2048348
Link
1
|
|
One bread for Dublin to have a new team to field more players, another to stop them fielding them.
Personally it's a bad idea, player welfare should be paramount, they need to be protected from injury, burnout and fatiuqe.
TheUsername (Dublin) - Posts: 4445 - 19/09/2017 22:43:25
2048351
Link
2
|
|
Replying To Laois76: "I really think the gaa should consider no substitutions and either 17 a side or the 21 a side prior to that. This would leave little space for Dublin's attack and also make the kickouts more difficult for Cluxton.
In the interest of equality in the game today. It would also be fairer on over weight people as they're would be less running in the game. And let's face it gaelic football has become a skinny fast man's game. Why should the 60% obese male population be excluded from county football?" I must say, this IS funny -- and 6 people gave it a thumbs up! Think I'll give it one myself for the comedy gold!
PoolSturgeon (Galway) - Posts: 1903 - 19/09/2017 23:11:36
2048364
Link
2
|
|
I have to agree with a lot of posters on here regarding the subs rule. look!! its not always about Dublin so can we just leave the word out of the thread for a while. I have seen this as an issue from the top right to the bottom of club football. I've seen cavan teams beaten in recent years by teams who had more experience in reserve. Its happened to about 28 of the 33 teams in the all ireland series over the years. I do think the 6 sub rule has raised the overall standard of the panel, if this was to change back to 3 i would be convinced that you'd see an evening of the playing field in the overall picture. Its not about giving Dublin a handicap!!!!
theweanling (Cavan) - Posts: 414 - 20/09/2017 09:29:01
2048421
Link
0
|
|
Anyone if any sport has had to change the rules to try stop one team winning/dominating? I know horse racing places weights on the better horses, maybe that's the way to go. A few bits of lead down the Dublin players socks will do the job.
poguemahone (Dublin) - Posts: 365 - 20/09/2017 09:45:40
2048428
Link
0
|
|
Replying To bennybunny: "I for one am in favor of this anyway. Not for the reasons of the opening post. I am not interested in making rules to hinder Dubs. I am in favor of smaller intercounty panels and limiting the power of the intercounty management. The better teams will still win. In AFL, there are 18 players on the field and three interchange.
You could do the same for GAA, three interchange rather than subs.
I think 6 subs allows for potentially more cynicism. More guys on yellows getting subbed and so on. Obviously cynical play has always been there regardless of sub numbers.
Subs were introduced for injured players initially. Now we have subs for blackcards, tactics, GPS, blood injuries etc. I think 3 is enough. Smaller panels and more time for others to play games with their clubs. I don't see how it hinders anyone if everyone plays by same rules." Yeah when put that way I can see the merit in reducing the amount of subs used. 3 subs works well in soccer for example but there are only 11 players per team there so maybe reduce the subs in Gaelic Football to 4?
There would be less disruption to games as well as less injury time too if the subs were reduced and it would be a slight help to weaker teams. It would make the initial team selection a lot more important too.
MesAmis (Dublin) - Posts: 13707 - 20/09/2017 09:49:15
2048431
Link
3
|
|
Replying To tom84: "Let's stick to the topic.
Jim Gavin got his selection wrong and mayo got there's right.
If there had only been allowed three subs I don't think Dublin would have won with the team that started.
Although i think he would have started a different team with only subs allowed.
I'm not saying that it would make alot of difference but been allowed six subs compared to three favours the bigger teams.
And it would make a manages job alot harder." Re; "If there had only been allowed three subs I don't think Dublin would have won with the team that started."
Well not really, like you say Dublin likely would likely adapt to the 3 subs and may have started a different team. Plus it was 2 subs , Kevin Mc and particularly Connolly who had big impacts on the game. Mayo would have been in a pickle too. Moran and Boyle was predecided that they couldn't do the 70 minutes. That's 2 subs gone straight away. To be honest , don't see the point in arguing various scenarios where Mayo would have won without getting into silly scenarios.
We need to be honest here. Mayo were beaten by a point this year and last year. If they had won these games and say they'd won in 2015 (after again giving Dublin a tough two game SF), then they would be the 3-in-row champs. Would anyone be calling for rule changes to handicap them in some way? Even if it was Kerry who done another 3 back to backs, there would be calls for changes? Nothing for Kilkenny in the hurling either. Or if Galway win next year again, not a problem. This is unique to Dublin.
poguemahone (Dublin) - Posts: 365 - 20/09/2017 10:16:09
2048448
Link
1
|
|
Replying To poguemahone: "Re; "If there had only been allowed three subs I don't think Dublin would have won with the team that started."
Well not really, like you say Dublin likely would likely adapt to the 3 subs and may have started a different team. Plus it was 2 subs , Kevin Mc and particularly Connolly who had big impacts on the game. Mayo would have been in a pickle too. Moran and Boyle was predecided that they couldn't do the 70 minutes. That's 2 subs gone straight away. To be honest , don't see the point in arguing various scenarios where Mayo would have won without getting into silly scenarios.
We need to be honest here. Mayo were beaten by a point this year and last year. If they had won these games and say they'd won in 2015 (after again giving Dublin a tough two game SF), then they would be the 3-in-row champs. Would anyone be calling for rule changes to handicap them in some way? Even if it was Kerry who done another 3 back to backs, there would be calls for changes? Nothing for Kilkenny in the hurling either. Or if Galway win next year again, not a problem. This is unique to Dublin." Where else has 1.5 million people to draw from?
Oldtourman (Limerick) - Posts: 4321 - 20/09/2017 10:24:30
2048452
Link
0
|
|
Replying To neverright: "You're right to point this out because most of us people down the country don't realise that players travelling to training in far flung places like Kerry, Mayo or Donegal have it much easier than Dublin players getting to and from training sessions. However, I don't know why they time training sessions to coincide with rush hour traffic - it must be tough for Dublin lads to get off work that early." Well half the Mayo in Dublin, so your M50 argument do not hold much weight.
Oldtourman (Limerick) - Posts: 4321 - 20/09/2017 10:27:55
2048453
Link
0
|
|
Replying To poguemahone: "Re; "If there had only been allowed three subs I don't think Dublin would have won with the team that started."
Well not really, like you say Dublin likely would likely adapt to the 3 subs and may have started a different team. Plus it was 2 subs , Kevin Mc and particularly Connolly who had big impacts on the game. Mayo would have been in a pickle too. Moran and Boyle was predecided that they couldn't do the 70 minutes. That's 2 subs gone straight away. To be honest , don't see the point in arguing various scenarios where Mayo would have won without getting into silly scenarios.
We need to be honest here. Mayo were beaten by a point this year and last year. If they had won these games and say they'd won in 2015 (after again giving Dublin a tough two game SF), then they would be the 3-in-row champs. Would anyone be calling for rule changes to handicap them in some way? Even if it was Kerry who done another 3 back to backs, there would be calls for changes? Nothing for Kilkenny in the hurling either. Or if Galway win next year again, not a problem. This is unique to Dublin." It isn't unique to Dublin, some Ulster teams were convinced the black card was brought in to stop them being successful. Since its introduction Dublin have done a 3-in-a-row but it would be a foolish person who would say it is thanks to the black card. Limiting the number of subs to 3 would have some positives and some negatives and should be considered. Dublin fans saying it would have most effect on them means the current 6 sub rule is most beneficial to them. When the number of subs allowed was increased it clearly then must have made the championship more unbalanced in favour of the stronger counties and that can not be a good thing.
Soma (UK) - Posts: 2630 - 20/09/2017 10:35:14
2048458
Link
0
|
|
Replying To centerfield: "allowing teams to have 6 subs clearly plays into the hands of the Dubs.
If the GAA want to have a championship that is more competitive they need to revert back to the 3 sub rule.
There is no reason why players shouldn't be able to go for 70 min given the fitness levels nowadays.
i don't see any county outside of Dublin and Kerry ever producing more than 18 players of the required standard
if you had only 3 subs you would have to hold one in reserve till late in the game
The Dubs are using the subs system almost like a semi interchange system and burning teams off with their subs late in the game" Which teams did they burn off late in the game this year? They had every match bar the final won long before the subs had any impact
tiobraid (Tipperary) - Posts: 4119 - 20/09/2017 11:05:32
2048470
Link
0
|
|
Why did you remove this post mods? Are we so politically correct that we can't say obese? Dr. Eva Orsmond can say it? My proposals re. subs, what's wrong with them??
I really think the gaa should consider no substitutions and either 17 a side or the 21 a side prior to that. This would leave little space for Dublin's attack and also make the kickouts more difficult for Cluxton.
In the interest of equality in the game today. It would also be fairer on over weight people as they're would be less running in the game. And let's face it gaelic football has become a skinny fast man's game. Why should the 60% obese male population be excluded from county football?
Laois76 (Laois) - Posts: 1270 - 20/09/2017 11:35:53
2048484
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Laois76: "Why did you remove this post mods? Are we so politically correct that we can't say obese? Dr. Eva Orsmond can say it? My proposals re. subs, what's wrong with them??
I really think the gaa should consider no substitutions and either 17 a side or the 21 a side prior to that. This would leave little space for Dublin's attack and also make the kickouts more difficult for Cluxton.
In the interest of equality in the game today. It would also be fairer on over weight people as they're would be less running in the game. And let's face it gaelic football has become a skinny fast man's game. Why should the 60% obese male population be excluded from county football?" I see you put it back up now where it was in the thread. Thank you.
Laois76 (Laois) - Posts: 1270 - 20/09/2017 11:45:57
2048492
Link
0
|