I have one question, where are the other Clare players in all this?

Parkinson seems to have made no effort to contact them.

None of them have spoken out.

Are they all scared sheep? or is there more to this?

Davy Fitz does Clare hurling no favours with his antics in my own opinion, but no one else has said a word, bit strange?

witnof (Dublin) - Posts: 1604 - 26/03/2015 08:13:14    1706648

witnof

I have one question, where are the other Clare players in all this?

Exactly there are two words I'd have for these rules. If these where multi million pound players fair enough, amateuers? What sort of person would allow themsleves to be subjected to this type of nonsense.

arock (Dublin) - Posts: 4903 - 26/03/2015 19:21:38    1706868

Like most media analysis of all things GAA the most extreme of cases is presented and all hell breaks loose . Most team codes of behaviour are formulated by the players with team management acting as facilitators . This helps to create a team ethos and sets the parameters within which the group operates . The most important aspect of any team is that everyone involved knows where they stand and is committed to the path the group has chosen to walk . Management imposing codes of behaviour is pointless and ultimately could undermine the group .

Greengrass (Louth) - Posts: 6031 - 26/03/2015 20:02:10    1706881

Greengrass

+1

People give the media far too much respect.

The Championship needs to start and then we'll have something proper and transparent to talk about!

Ban (Westmeath) - Posts: 1421 - 27/03/2015 10:35:52    1706949

Exactly Ban . And when the championship starts a lot of the media will pick up on negativity , sensationalise it and try to pass that off as credible analysis . The theme "the ills of football" seems to be flavour of the month and is noticeably being pushed by Martin Breheny at the moment .

Greengrass (Louth) - Posts: 6031 - 27/03/2015 11:43:10    1706973

The comparison to schools doesn't stand up in my view. Schools are supposed to be meritocracies, you get what you earn irregardless of background etc. Uniform has socioeconomic considerations behind it as having richer kids donning high cost apparel in relation to poorer families goes against that ethos.

For socks and boots etc all we're really talking about is colour. I fail to see the logic behind such reasoning to be honest. How exactly does the colour of a pair of boots affect psyche or performance more than a hurl grip etc?

It's nonsense, it should be called out for what it is; authoritiarism. At least there could be a debate regarding whether that's a good approach or not.

seany16 (Dublin) - Posts: 1658 - 27/03/2015 12:33:10    1706989

It's extreme . That particular code of behaviour is not representative of most codes of behaviour .

Greengrass (Louth) - Posts: 6031 - 27/03/2015 15:03:58    1707040