Is the Premiere League rubbish?

I agree, by and large, although I just don't ever see our players having much ambition to play anywhere else other than Britain. Nor do I see any incentive for those countries to look to Irish players when they have a large pool of better domestic and foreign young talent to choose from.

More self-sufficiency would be invaluable. The GAA has huge merits as a sporting association but I was delighted to hear Jerry Kiernan criticise the award of several hundred thousand euros by the government to improve London GAA facilities, when Irish athletics is on its knees. My local municipal track here in London would be Ireland's national stadium. The GAA sucks resources from international sports and distracts attention too. It's not just money that's needed, it's stronger governance and leadership. As a country we're too passive and too acceptant of the fact that we get our football fix vicariously via the Premier League.

I'm glad Mark asked about lessons from the World Cup. I think it'll be useful to start a thread on this once it's all over but a few random things for me:
Of the big countries that have done well, their star players - and notably the goalscorers - have lived up to their billings.
Of the big countries that have done badly, the main goalscorers have not delivered.
Of the lesser countries that have done well, unity and sense of purpose, as well as proper team cohesion, has been what has been of most benefit to those that succeeded.
Some countries have been a complete flop due to a number of factors. Cameroon and Ivory Ciast were a particular disappointment, probably due to bad organisation and bad attitude.
Plenty of goals from corners, especially near post corners.
Defending has been poor, suggesting that good defending - which we should be capable of - can be a useful starting point.
There's definitely room to mix fancy football with some directness.
Substitutions can matter. 24 goals from subs so far, and several games have changed after coaches have changed things.
Some countries were a bit of a flop down simply to being not good enough, e.g., Japan. There's no shame in just not being good enough and no need for the self loathing that accompanied our poor showing in 2012.
Tournament fan culture is different to club fan culture. Not better, not worse, just different. Critics of Irish fans in Gdansk take note.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

Yes, but unless you undo the last say few hundred years of history for various reasons, we're never going to have the population to justify this. Plus large parts of the current populace, rightly or wrongly, are significantly into other sports!

---

That's a weak excuse imo. Smaller countries have been able to do it. It's got nothing to do with population but structure and philosophy of the game over here. We must be only a handful of nations who ignore our domestic game and follow a foreign league. We seen to think that it's England or busted. We can't start complaining about 'foreign mencenaries' stopping the development of our players coming through a 'foreign system'. We need to start working on the grass roots here and set-up a professional system and league here in Ireland so our players won't get lost in the English system and if all else fails have a good domestic league to earn their trade or to return to.

But I think that horse has bolted!

I'm not sure the competition from other sports is as great as people think. I'd say rugby takes more players from Gaelic football than from footy, for example. Most sporty kids would have exposure to other games and those with a gift for one over the other are likely to favour that sport, or be spotted by a scout and encouraged down that path.

Look at Mikey Drennan, also a super hurler. And Noe Baba, whose brother is a super rugby player, or Sam Byrne whose brother is also a rugby player. I'd love to hear from those who know the Babas and the Byrnes if the rugby playing sibling also had a special gift for footy, or whether he was just a talented athletic kid whose abilities better suited rugby. John Egan is by all accounts an unbelievable GAA player but chose footy, as did David Meyler. There are lots of tales of good GAA footballers who had trials at English clubs - yer man Geraghty of Meath in the 90s springs to mind - but who weren't taken on. Jason Sherlock? Seamus Coleman wasn't lost to GAA despite being very good.

Maybe football is losing some potentially good goalkeepers to GAA?

Of rugby players my guess is that only out halves and full backs really have the skills required to be top footballers, with maybe the odd second row or back row forward having the attributes of a centre-back. Even talented out halves, such as the genuinely world class Sexton, might not have the spatial awareness required of a world class football playmaker. Tony Ward was a world class ten in his day, but didn't necessarily stand out in the LOI when he played. Maybe if he had been nurtured as a footballer? I'm not sure to be honest.

I'd say Sexton and Kearney might have had the ability to be good footballers, and I've no doubt Richard Dunne would have been an incredible rugby player, but by and large I don't think football is losing out to rugby that much.

Public "buy in" is another matter of course.

I'd love to hear the views of someone on the ground, e.g., an FAI development officer.

The only people are think a (relatively) strong domestic league wouldn't help develop players and in turn help the national team are those who don't want to be part of it.

There is simply no other way Irish football will develop unless we do it ourselves

The best players will always move to better paying leagues in the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

The best players will always move to better paying leagues in the end.

---

Like the GAA.

Of course, to my post above I should have added that the GAA and to a lesser extent rugby, make the prospect of a viable professional football league far more challenging.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

The only people are think a (relatively) strong domestic league wouldn't help develop players and in turn help the national team are those who don't want to be part of it.

There is simply no other way Irish football will develop unless we do it ourselves

The best players will always move to better paying leagues in the end.

---

does anyone not believe a strong domestic league is needed to improve things?

I'd add that the whole football pyramid needs to be far better connected, but that is all part of the stronger league I guess.

English players & managers for the most part are woefully one dimensional in tactics and style of play. I've always thought it would benefit their national team if more players went abroad early in their careers to experience other football and cultures, of course when your paying kids cast sums of money to finish 16th in the premier league it would be remiss of agents to actually look at expanding their clients horizons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by centre mid

English players & managers for the most part are woefully one dimensional in tactics and style of play.

---

Unlike Cesare Prandelli:)

I do agree though. How many countries do the Swedish players play in? And the Croats?

However, I do think that while qualification for these tournaments should still be a realistic objective, say at least one in every 3, maybe 2 in 3, I think it's becoming clear that European second seeds are finding it very hard to get out of groups. Countries that I look up to include Sweden and Denmark, regular qualifiers, as well as Croatia. And if you look at countries like Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary: these guys really have been in the doldrums.

Good footballing sides like Turkey, Czechs, Serbia didn't qualify either. In normal times only 4 European second seeds ever qualify.

My message here is mixed I suppose. It's damned hard to qualify and damned hard to get out of your group if you do qualify, unless you get a lucky draw - like getting Italy, England and Uruguay :)

But at the same time it's not unrealistic to look at countries like Bosnia and Croatia, the Scandies and Costa Rica even and think that the ingredients in their good performance over the years are things that we could also be capable of. We're not as good as we could be and some things are within our ability to control.

Anyway, let's discount the Stan campaign. We weren't far off under Kerr, not far off WC 2010 under Trap, we did qualify for 2012 and the last campaign was one too far for Trap. We're consistently there or thereabouts. I think we tend to be a bit too English - too extreme in both optimism and pessimism.

The qualification process for the WC is intrinsically flawed though, Australia will pretty much always qualify through Asia but how many times will they qualify from their group? Its also virtually impossible to make it fair, that just the way it is.

Scando countries many moonsago took steps though to improve switching to summer league etc, Spain radically changed their approach to teaching kids football, Germany also dramatically changed the structure of their whole approach to administrating the game, the list goes on. England built St Georges park, we built Abbotstown.

Except Spain & Germany (& Eng.) have huge popuations in comparison!

We only have a limited playing pool. And lots of potential players choose to follow other sports...another reason why it'll always be hard to, er, maintain a strong national soccer league.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

We only have a limited playing pool. And lots of potential players choose to follow other sports...another reason why it'll always be hard to, er, maintain a strong national soccer league.

---

any thoughts on my earlier comment (post 23 above) that not many of these would be likely to be good enough footballers anyway, or that regardless of what sports kids play, the good footballers will probably always play football? It's only my hunch...

Maybe, but most sportsmen tend to be good at all team sports they're exposed to, so things like family or cultural links have a greater influence. In deciding their final sporting path?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by centre mid

The qualification process for the WC is intrinsically flawed though, Australia will pretty much always qualify through Asia but how many times will they qualify from their group? Its also virtually impossible to make it fair, that just the way it is.

---

Of all the countries, why pick on Australia?

Who qualified from their group in 2006, lost out on goal difference in 2010 in a group with Germany and Ghana, and played alright this year too.

Then you look at the bottom side to qualify from South America (Uruguay) and North America (Mexico) - both through their groups.

Not too much strength in depth in Africa or Asia, but the number of qualification spots reflects that. I don't think qualification is intrinsically flawed at all.

Yep, but I still think football has unique skill and spatial awareness requirements whereas athleticism and coordination can go a lot further in other sports. We might lose some mediocre players to other sports but I'd say we miss very few really good footballers. Really good footballers probably get into our system. Then we make a mess of them!

I'd love to know if the Baba and Byrne siblings that play rugby did so simply because the rugby people did a better job at recruitment, because they were good at both but preferred rugby, or whether they went with the sport they were comparatively better at.

I'm going to raise the class thing again though, but in a different context than in the other thread. Very few good footballers come from the better schools in any country, mainly due to the hours needed to succeed. On that basis I doubt we lose that many good players to rugby. Footballers almost invariably have to sacrifice their education. Rugby and GAA players can attend university.

I'd be pretty sure as well that only a few positions in rugby are filled by players whose physical attributes and talents are needed to be good at football. I know some very good rugby players who couldn't pick a pass on a football pitch, but they have good strength, speed and eye-hand coordination.

As for GAA, Coleman, Egan and Drennan are examples of multi-coders who chose football. Are these exceptions or are they representative? Does GAA really take away our best potential football players? My hunch is that GAA would take away a lot of ok players, who'd be important to make sure the overall standard of the domestic league is at least a certain minimum, probably higher than now, but it wouldn't necessarily be taking away the really good football players.

I remember reading about Tony Grealish. Loved his GAA but it was obvious to everyone and himself that he had a real gift for football, so he went with that.

I would say one problem about having kids schooled across all sports is that there is a lot of merit in the "hoof it into space" option in both GAA and rugby. That seeps through into our football too, but it's exactly what we need our football players to be doing less of. Patience and precision are more important in football.

http://m.independent.ie/sport/gaelic...-29090624.html

I loved reading that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

http://m.independent.ie/sport/gaelic...-29090624.html

---

That's brilliant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

Yes, but unless you undo the last say few hundred years of history for various reasons, we're never going to have the population to justify this. Plus large parts of the current populace, rightly or wrongly, are significantly into other sports!

---

Denmark, Norway, Scotland and Croatia are countries with very similar populations to our own, yet they can all sustain leagues whose qualifying clubs are generally more competitive on the European stage than Irish clubs. There are exceptions now and again - we've often knocked out Swedish sides in Europe even - and I'm not saying they do amazingly well, but, by and large, they do perform better than we do and they're in much healthier footballing states domestically than we are. Surely, aspiring to at least consistently match their endeavours is a realistic target. It is worth noting that there are other hobbies and distractions in those countries too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

Maybe, but most sportsmen tend to be good at all team sports they're exposed to, so things like family or cultural links have a greater influence. In deciding their final sporting path?

---

On the face of it, it would seem obvious that practicing a single focus would ensure greater development and ability in that field, but I don't think it necessarily needs to be a case of deciding a single sporting path or one interest being paramount or the only way. Well, not until down the line when someone comes to making a professional decision anyway. There can be a cross-over of interests surely. The ability to play football and an ability to play, say, GAA/rugby/basketball need not be mutually exclusive, if you know what I mean. I do acknowledge that the limited availability of time and energy will constrain those involved in multiple activities, but ability in one field need not necessarily eat into the ability to perform in another. Many people participate in, and can be adept at, various sports without necessarily encroaching upon their respective abilities in each. You can have sporting polymaths juggling multiple disciplines too. Perhaps the athleticism and agility required for one can even complement the skills required for another. Many suggest Seamie Coleman wouldn't be the footballer he is if it weren't for his involvement in the GAA.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/socc...-30387012.html

England could go the way of Ireland in the near future warns Scholes.