Why I hate the GAA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elroy

Sheridan genuine question here, i admit im too lazy to search the answer myself. Not a fan of cricket, watch the odd clip here and there, so understand the basics, but how can a game of cricket end in a draw?

---

In the long version (ie any game where both sides get two innings, lasting three, four or five days), the winning side needs to both

a) score more runs overall, and

b) take 20 wickets (unless the other side has voluntarily declared, or waived away, some of the remaining wickets, in an effort to win the game themselves more quickly.

Draws in the long game are frequent because often two strong batting teams effectively cancel one another out- a lot less than 40 wickets fall in the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schumi

Test matches last 5 days, if neither team has won the match by the end of the last day it's a draw. In the first test, England still had batsmen in at the end of the match so Australia hadn't won. It usually happens when some time is lost because of rain

---

In that game, about 10% of the playing time was lost to rain (rather less than forecast by local fans in Cardiff :) ). The game is designed to allow enough time to ensure a result even with half a day lost.

Also, many drawn games don't lose any time to rain.

PS one source of confusion is the difference between following on (where the team batting second trails the other by more than a set figure- 200 in international matches, and can be asked to bat third as well), and declaring (where the batting team waives wickets). In the first example, the trailing side can still win by making a big score in the third innings then taking 10 wickets in the fourth for a higher aggregate score. Note that in this example the side batting first also bats fourth. Anyone still awake?

PPS I find hurling much easier to watch than G-football, maybe because the lack of a tackle is less of a problem in the former?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheridan

One has to chuckle at synchronised knuckle-dragging being compared favourably to the infinitely nuanced sport of cricket. If you don't like cricket it's because you don't understand it, and if you don't understand it it's because you're stupid.

That hurling-as-culturally-significant-pastime which the Irish establishment has attempted to fashion into a truism has really done a number on the populace if even people intelligent enough to appreciate football believe it. Let's have a look at the cold, hard facts.

Football
Origin: England (codified 19th cent.)
Export vectors: Emigration, industry, empire.
Coverage: Universal.

Cricket
Origin: England (codified 18th cent.)
Export vectors: Empire, military, diplomacy.
Coverage: Advanced post-colonial societies in both hemispheres.

Gaelic Games
Origin: Ireland (codified 19th cent.)
Export vectors: Mass emigration on biblical scale, military, industry.
Coverage: Monosyllabic farmhands called Ger on small, rainy Atlantic island.

---

Cricket isnt difficult to understand and I do find myself watching the odd game of it when there is nothing else on the box,but lets be honest here,test cricket is far from edge of the seat stuff and is quite often extremely boring.So boring in fact that to enjoy a game alot of fans that go to it treat it as a fancy dress party or just a big booze up!
Im far from a big GAA fan and to be honest I cant wait for the Premiership and Spanish football to start back so I dont have to watch GAA on a sunday but a good game of hurling is far more skillful and exciting than any game of cricket Ive ever watched

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elroy

. Gaa Football suffers from the fact that it doesnt have a defined tackle (as arguably does hurling) and also due to the over-reliance of teams on a hand passing game, takes the skill of kicking the ball out of the game. It amazes me the amount of gaa players who miss straight forward goal chances or penalties in gaelic football.

The attitudes of alot of gaa people towards football has turned me off the game in the past. They almost have an inferior complex that whenever there is a game on they feel the need to come out with statements like "you wont find any entertainment in the world that matches this ger" etc etc. .

---

good post man, agree with most of it
I cant stand the Gah to be honest - but still would look at it all (its a sport after all, with good gambling available on it too!)

I often think why some never go for a goal when they get a free just outside the box (whats the gaa term here?). For the Down game a while ago, the down player had a free only 15/20 yards from the goal and went for the free (like they all do), but why not a chance a goal. Yes i know the goal has 4 players standing to block but they are half asleep and wouldnt be expecting a shot on goal.
If you remember Koeman years ago who nearly always scored from frees from way out, then why not from 15/20
(and i did see it successfully tried once years ago by Down in an ulster match

I also hate the way Gah fans always go on about football - jesus remember the days when they used to go on about "all the diving in soccer". I swear GAA is worse for cheating and diving now than a good football game? :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

What the hell kind of post is that? I've played all of the sports mentioned, and I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Instead of making a point, you've come across as incredibly ignorant. Cop yourself on.

---

Think you're the one who has come across as ignorant here mate. You are so bloody self righteous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheridan

Let's have a look at the cold, hard facts.

Football
Origin: England (codified 19th cent.)
Export vectors: Emigration, industry, empire.
Coverage: Universal.

---

Hmmm ...I've never been very comfortable with the highlighted bit and I can only assure you it's not post-colonial begrudgery not allowing me give credit where it's due. Codification happened in England to be sure and fair play to them -but there were games which are ancestral to football and which informed that codification being played in many, many countries and with many local variants thereafter. Even without leaving the island of Britain the game that was being played in Scotland at the time of codification probably bore more resemblance to modern football than the game being played in England. Though, again, there were lots of regional and town to town variations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheridan

Gaelic Games
Origin: Ireland (codified 19th cent.)
Export vectors: Mass emigration on biblical scale, military, industry.
Coverage: Monosyllabic farmhands called Ger on small, rainy Atlantic island.

---

I can't bring myself to agree with this at all unless you at very least consider placing an 'óg' after Ger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

and cricket is good because you say it is?

---

Its not just good, its great, Rico is never wrong. :D

Had an arguement with a lad who played minor for derry and played irish league with coleraine and under age for Norn Iron at the weekend. He is a very good gaelic player(also a boxing champion) and i can only assume he is a good soccer player too. I was saying to those present(a gaelic team), that you get away with a lot less skill in gaelic than you would in soccer, and people of natural ability at soccer or other sports will generally be good at gaelic, if they have any strength at all, but those who are good at gaelic would not necessarily be any good at soccer(mcshane springs to mind as an example of the kind of gaelic fella you would see on a soccer pitch). We agreed in the end that thats probably just the case for the spine of the team i.e. the full back, centre back, half forward and full forward but those on the wings and/or forwards would require a lot more skill. He piked up and said having played both to a high enough level, he found that gaelic was far more skillful than soccer. I couldn't really argue with that because I did neither(relative to him playing for NI and not the very top of soccer and not the very top at gaelic either), and at the end of the day you really can only judge on people who have experience as oppossed to spectators such as most of us here....

Paul please you know thats just nonsense - please tell me you dont believe what that muppet said - that Gah is more skillful than football:eek:

i have played the rugby, gah and football and def football is way out on its own in these three sports for skill and general entertainment

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennocelt

Paul please you know thats just nonsense - please tell me you dont believe what that muppet said - that Gah is more skillful than football:eek:

i have played the rugby, gah and football and def football is way out on its own in these three sports for skill and general entertainment

---

I love both hurling and gaelic football, but not as much as association football.The attitude of some GAA heads drives me nuts though. The way some of them will re-arrange juvenile training so that it clashes with soccer training is deplorable...its all about putting the kids in an awkward position. in addition the way GAA heads go on about soccer and "sure jaysus you could have nera score in a soccer match.....". Well at least with two mismatched teams there is a chance of a shock or tight game. Now, if say Kilkenny are playing Offally in Leinster hurling, you know straight away that there is going to be a hammering.In addition, a lot of GAA heads have jumped on the Munster rugby bandwagon over last few years, probably beacuse they regard it as a tough game, not like "those soccer lads diving around the place".

Finally, when it comes to skill, imo soccer is far more skillful than Gaelic football - main reason being that the use of hands makes any sport easier to play. For that reason I rate the skill in soccer higher ithan in hurling also.(though hurling is a lot more skillful than gaelic football)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Den Perry

main reason being that the use of hands makes any sport easier to play

---

I take it Hockey is more skillful than Hurling so by this warped logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

I take it Hockey is more skillful than Hurling so by this warped logic.

---

No - as the hockey stick is held in the hands, not the feet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Den Perry

No - as the hockey stick is held in the hands, not the feet

---

Yes but they can't catch the ball or hold it in their hands as they can in Hurling so surely by your original logic this would mean it is more skillful? Of course by your more recent logic darts, tennis, snooker, golf, chess, etc. are all lacking a bit on skill stakes seeing as you hold the dart, racket, cue etc with your hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

Yes but they can't catch the ball or hold it in their hands as they can in Hurling so surely by your original logic this would mean it is more skillful? Of course by your more recent logic darts, tennis, snooker, golf, chess, etc. are all lacking a bit on skill stakes seeing as you hold the dart, racket, cue etc with your hands.

---

While I agree that Den Perry's argument is specious, but while all of the sports you mention do require certain skills (some of them unexpected - regular chess players have been shown to be much faster at certain dexterity tasks: watch this video to see why), none of them is as physically skilled as hurling or (assoc.) football. Tennis requires great agility, positioning and power (in the serve), but I don't think Nadal or Federer are as skillful as Messi. I suppose the argument is a little pointless - it's hard to quantify what we mean anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

While I agree that Den Perry's argument is specious, but while all of the sports you mention do require certain skills (some of them unexpected - regular chess players have been shown to be much faster at certain dexterity tasks: watch this video to see why), none of them is as physically skilled as hurling or (assoc.) football. Tennis requires great agility, positioning and power (in the serve), but I don't think Nadal or Federer are as skillful as Messi. I suppose the argument is a little pointless - it's hard to quantify what we mean anyway.

---

I agree (not necessarily about the Messi-Federer/Nadal comparison). I'm not saying one is more skillful than the other anyway, I'm just saying it's ridiculous to base it on whether you're allowed to use your hands or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

While I agree that Den Perry's argument is specious, but while all of the sports you mention do require certain skills (some of them unexpected - regular chess players have been shown to be much faster at certain dexterity tasks: watch this video to see why), none of them is as physically skilled as hurling or (assoc.) football. Tennis requires great agility, positioning and power (in the serve), but I don't think Nadal or Federer are as skillful as Messi. I suppose the argument is a little pointless - it's hard to quantify what we mean anyway.

---

I probably did over generalise, by stating any sport. What I really meant to say was that even though hurling is a very skillful sport, I feel the fact that one can use their hands makes it easier to play than soccer. The issues of balance, control and even protecting the ball are far more difficult without use of the hands

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Den Perry

association football.

"sure jaysus you could have nera score in a soccer match.....".

---

I HATE the term "association football" or the "garrison game" for that matter.

Ya i often hear that line, my usual argument is along the lines of tactics in football and been able to appreciate them and understand them to the extent that i can enjoy a nil nil as much as a 4-4. Tactics in football/hurling are fairly rare lets be honest, its only in recent times, that teams have tinkered with fielding teams not in the standard 1 - 15 shape.

One other point that occurs to me about gaa games (and i enjoy watching them in general) is that alot of the time you may as well not bother watching the first 40 mins or so of a game, its only really in the last ten mins that it comes to life i.e. a perfect example is the recent cork v galway and galway v waterford games. Dull enough first halves, only in the last ten mins that the games come to life and are genuinely exciting, now i appreciate there are exceptions to this but I often feel if you join a gaa game half way through you havent missed as much as if you missed the first half of a football game.

You can say that about many sports.

Anyway enjoy cricket & hurling!
Happily see the former played at Croke and the latter at Clontarf/Stormont(if possible!)....

Hid comments yesterday were typical of the narrowminded s hite that some GAA heads come out with. Sheflin was beeing booed and he commented along the lines of that not being regular at hurling and someting you'd associate with soccer. Are these cretins so insecure that they have to knock another sport to promote their own?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Den Perry

Hid comments yesterday were typical of the narrowminded s hite that some GAA heads come out with. Sheflin was beeing booed and he commented along the lines of that not being regular at hurling and someting you'd associate with soccer. Are these cretins so insecure that they have to knock another sport to promote their own?

---

But there is a lot of stupid booing in soccer. I wouldn't take it too much to heart. To be fair as well l I think the crowd yeaterday were booing the bad referring decision and not Shefflin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

But there is a lot of stupid booing in soccer. I wouldn't take it too much to heart. To be fair as well l I think the crowd yeaterday were booing the bad referring decision and not Shefflin.

---

Whether there is a lot of stupid booing in soccer or not, there is no need for that clown to mention it. I'm sorry but I am taking it to heart...its typical of the self righteous ****e that some of the hurling commentators / analysts come out with...by the way there is a lot of booing in rugby and gaelic football also. why didn'y he mention them? For the record, I think the fans were booing Shefflin