Printable View
Eh that separation by what exactly? An all gay male team...hypocritical to say the least.
Get over yerself, ye .. :D
I think this kinda thing coming from him is just as bad. A team shoudn't be all one or the other. Sorry yer not one of us ye cant play. Sounds a bit like having your cake and eating it.
The reason they set up that team was so those who feel excluded from football can feel included. The team provides a safe and secure outlet for expression and celebration of their gay identity in an environment that is otherwise cold. Very different dynamic. Being on the inside - in the dominant group - and being on the outside makes all the difference. Martin is on the inside; gay footballers are still on the outside.
There's an argument that identity politics can perpetuate a sense of difference, certainly, but there'd be no need to solidify around this "different" characteristic if the maligned/excluded group weren't ostracised for it in the first place. I think accusations of hypocrisy completely misunderstand the power dynamic here.
Ultimately, it's up to the broad footballing fraternity to include the LGBTQ community and to make sure they feel included. The door has to be opened for them. The community don't have the power to dictate or force their own inclusion.
Ah its going to the positive discrimination side. Maybe they let anyone "in" but to me its just as annoying as those who get on their high horse from the other side.
Anyone see the joe.ie video? Its taking the **** with the video. Have to say I enjoyed it, song is crap but video is awful funny. I dont like McGregor at all but the "Zlatans a bumb" is class.
"Aye killybegs"
It's not a separation thing to have all gay team, it's a positive affirmation, nor is it hypocritical for Francis Fitz to take issue with the 'queer' comment.
I think most everybody understood that O'Neill sincerely apologised for the use of the word, he has nothing else to be apologising for, except perhaps some of the quality of his jokes.
No the hypocritical wasn't in reference to him getting upset or taking issue with the queers comment.
On the contract extension to end of WC 2018, I think they both still have to justify getting an extension. Under other qualifying criteria circumstances we would have failed to get even a play off spot. Not enough evidence so far for me to be contented with. In a sense making that qualification spot gives a veneer of success to what would have been a failure in other campaign, that's why I think they still have to prove their worth and these Finals are as good a test as any.
Giles seems to think it will have a positive effect on the players at the tournament but can't say if they actually deserve the extension. But I suppose if has enough positive effect then the extension will have been justified.
Fair enough there is a distinction.You claimed he was hypocritical for making comments in relation to the 'queer' comment, namely the the separation, the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
And I say it wasn't hypocritical in the least.
Do you take issue with, say, the concept of gay bars or feel discriminated on account of their existence? Why do you think the concept emerged? It wasn't for the purpose of excluding the dominant culture from being able to have a safe and enjoyable night out. It was to provide a safe space for the excluded. The dominant culture already have plenty of spaces to go and drink, talk, dance or whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Same concept applies to the gay football team. Your sexuality (assuming you identify as straight) isn't a barrier to your involvement in or enjoyment of football. For gay people, it can be, so they set up their own team. Nobody is being marginalised by that. You still have your outlet and they have theirs, otherwise denied to them because of prevailing attitudes.
Aye, the finals are where we'll really be tested. It's the pinnacle. I mean, if we have a really bad finals, there'll be valid questions, surely. I'm not saying we will have a bad finals - I'm more positive than in 2012 - just that it's a bit premature when they could see how we get on first.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
On the other hand, it does tie them down. Was speaking to Predator outside the forum and he suggested it'd secure them in case they have a good tournament as clubs could be after them then.
Anone can go into a gay bar. Stutts frequents them very often I have been in gay bars too. What has that got t do with anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
How can you on one hand all inclusive and all this, and then have an "all gay" team. thats not inclusive. I don't care what your argument or reasoning behind it, its not inclusive, so dont come out using seperation and inclusive or other words to that effect then.
Ya thats what i was getting at with the results, lest we forget that it was a failure to qualify for any other campaign based on results. Plus his win ratio is below kerrs and traps. Though thats as much to do with his nonchalant approach to friendly games.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
The tournament criteria changes all the time, it's a bit pointless beating the achievement of qualification with that stick. Trap wouldn't have qualified if there were only eight teams in the finals as there was up until 1992. Plus, it's not as if all other factors are always completely equal. It was arguably more difficult for Ireland to finish in the top three in this particular group that the top two in the ones under Trap. Poland never imploded like Bulgaria or Slovakia, and Scotland were in a much better place as well.
Even if we had lost to B&H (in a pretty normal way, obviously not getting tanked or something) then I still think O'Neill would deserve the chance of another campaign, given our improvement as the group progressed and the knowledge that it's not always easy to hit the ground running. He's done enough over the years to prove he's a good manager so he'd still have been worth sticking with I think, even though I was probably saying the opposite this time last year, I just got the feeling his heart wasn't fully in it at the time.
One campaign is very little really to get an international team playing in your own image. Like I mentioned earlier, Wales had a bit of a horror show in Coleman's first campaign but it was well worth their while showing some patience and sticking with him, Hodgson too has recovered well after a poor finals tournament and you could add Michael O'Neill to the list of examples.
Criteria changes, points for matches dont.
I don't have those stats to hand, but wouldn't read much into them anyway. Things change, the quality of the opposition, the quality of our own players, a couple of breaks here and there, etc. etc., which are all important when measuring performance.
The win over Germany was a massive plus for O'Neill. That was so badly needed it was nearly worth a contract extension on it's own!
But the broad footballing world isn't inclusive of the LGBTQ community, so what do you suggest those who are excluded or peripheralised do instead of setting up a team to express their identity or in which they might feel more comfortable? Just opt out of participation in football altogether? To accuse them of hypocrisy for "not being inclusive" of straight people when they've set up a team to provide an outlet for themselves is to be blind to their experience and situation. Straight people have hundreds of football clubs they can join and enjoy anywhere without fear or discomfort. Many openly gay people evidently feel they don't have that luxury or option open to them (and they have good reasons to think that), so they set up their own team instead. They can still criticise the dominant culture that excludes them whilst protecting/celebrating their own identity. It absolutely isn't hypocritical. The power for change lies with the dominant culture. Once the dominant culture loses its stigma over being gay, the need for a gay football team will subside.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Many gay bars deny entry to people they suspect aren't gay as they want to protect what is a safe space for gay people or provide somewhere for a minority/marginalised group to express and celebrate their identity without having to worry about people taking issue with them. I only mentioned gay bar entry policies as there's an analogy there. I wouldn't exactly describe that as exclusion/discrimination of straight people though. Literally-speaking, it may well be, but to see it as nothing more than a mirror of dominant society's exclusion of gay people is to wilfully ignore the underlying reasons for the preservation of gay-friendly zones and the power dynamic at play.
There's a new book out on football and homophobia by a guy called Dr. Andy Harvey, a friend of a friend. I saw him speak last year and the basic thrust is that as part of a concerted action by the FA, the clubs, fan groups, LGBT supporters groups and Stonewall things are getting a lot better in football. A 70 year old gay Arsenal fan said things have improved markedly since the darkest days.
As for a contradiction between seeking inclusivity and all-LGBT teams, I don't see it. After years of repression and forced anonymity people can now be bold in proclaiming their sexuality and if forming a team or club is their way of doing it that's fine. It's also a way of associating with each other through a shared interest. It's no different to immigrant clubs around the world, or London Irish / Welsh / Scottish etc in rugby.
To be honest I had never seen a Q added to LGBT before Danny's posts today. I do see it as a bit odd if LGBT folk can call themselves the Q word whereas others can't. That said I think the context of MON's quote rendered the word highly inappropriate but still....
I suppose it's similar for gay people as to how "n*gger" is for black people. That word is so taboo for non-black people to say or use that many won't even put it in quote marks when referring to it and will instead just call it "the 'N' word". I have hesitations with just putting it in print myself, but I think it's pretty obvious there's no intent whatsoever when it's placed inside quote marks. It's simply a reference to something others say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Yet, plenty of black people will use it to self-refer, as a term of affection or cultural/communal embrace. Mind you, it isn't universally viewwed as acceptable by black people. Many object to even black people using it to self-refer as a term of endearment.
Both words had pejorative origins and still possess such connotations whilst having simultaneously been reclaimed as forms of defiance by those who were or are subjected to their deployment.
In the acronym, 'Q' refers to "queer" obviously and acts as an umbrella for those who fall outside both "straight" and the LGBT categories. It'd include, for example, those who don't identify with the traditional Western binary concept of gender (maybe they identify with a third gender or another), those who don't identify with any gender at all (agender) or those who are gender/sexuality-fluid.
ok, this is getting waaaaay off topic. Can we move the sexual politics to the off topic, or current affairs forum?
Always enjoy Brian Kerr's articles.
http://www.independent.ie/sport/socc...-34791241.html
Good article. And he's right!! Paul Green played very well that night against Sweden. I always felt he got a bit of a raw deal from fans. I remember him being our man of the match in an early O'Neill friendly against Bulgaria(?) too. There have been much worse players to pull on the green jersey. Also felt Darron Gibson was out of order for, perhaps inadvertently, singling him out in Euro 2012.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks
Algeria I think. His debut?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fixer82
No, sure he was at Euro 2012 when Trap was manager. His debut was in a friendly in the RDS just before the World Cup that Henry ensured we didn't qualify forQuote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Pretty sure Green made his debut against Algeria and scored. Think we played Paraguay in the other game of a double header before the 2010 World Cup.
Personally thought he looked average enough in the game, goal aside.
Sweden is probably one of the only games where Green looked serviceable imo.
Green's debut was against Paraguay, his first start was against Algeria. Nearly knocked himself unconscious with the goal too.
Might be best not trying to explain this one Marty :love:
https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...cd&oe=58093739
Martin O’Neill thinks critics are missing the point
And FAI are looking into arranging a friendly for November.
This might not go down too well with some of the purists on here :)
Clough's principles still hold key to success - but it's not all about attacking, says O'Neill
Indeed it doesn't go down well. When I click on a link, I like it to open into the relevant page.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
Yet another example of very sloppy standards infecting this discussion board.
Somehow you managed to annihilate the link with your paste action.:)
Oops... fixed.
Not a happy bunny with these guys. I thought selecting Brady in the hole when we had Hoolahan was a wrong call and they did nothing about it after one of the most turgid first halves I have witnessed for a long time. Surely Brady's strength is crossing not slide rule passes and dominating possession. Only substitutions made were forced upon them. Bringing on O'Shea to hold on to a 1-0 against Georgia was only going to invite more pressure which duly materialised. I waited for and was duly rewarded with the usual press conference by O'Neill talking up the opposition. Also is there an issue with Arter which possibly they are not handling too well ?
I am of course happy with the result and that's all that matters at the end of the day but are we really witnessing Trap II the sequel ?
Well said Owls Fan.
I hadn't been that deflated since Glasgow, but at least things improved a bit after that game. I was slightly encouraged by O'Neill's interview, in that he did realise himself that it was awful. Okay, he talked the opposition up a little but also accepted our own failings and didn't just point to the result as he had done in Serbia. We somehow have four points when we really should have zero.
I know what you're saying, and I agree with it. But if I said to you that we should really have 6 instead of four, I don't think I'd be wrong either. A different mindset of a manager would have won in Belgrade. At this level, with a squad of players long exposed to the routine of international football, to get the start we got in Belgrade and capitulated before showing extreme testicular fortitude, is not good enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
The buck stops with the manager. Part of me hoped last year he'd leave for pastures new, and even an enjoyable Euro's hasn't changed that. If anything, the Belgian performance probably compounded it.
I don't know if we "should" have lost last night necessarily. Arguably a draw was a fair result. We both hit the woodwork. They had the two best chances other than that (shot wide on the turn late in the first half, and Randolph's save at the near post shortly after); we had a goal disallowed. The goal that was scored was a bizarrely scrappy goal. So while we deserved to win on the basis of scoring a goal where they didn't, I think on the balance of play, a draw would have been the fairest result. So I think we should be on 1 point after the first two games, but here we are on 4.
I'd look at it more like we could and probably should have been 0-2 down at half time. The shot on the spin and the one where they hit crossbar and post, in particular, as well as Randolph's save just before half time. The one at his near post was going wide anyway to be fair. Would we have come back from 0-2 down? Maybe, but unlikely. We had a couple of chances in the second half but the game had taken on a different kind of context by then and McClean's goal was rightly disallowed so no arguments there. Simply put, they were clearly the better team overall I thought.
I don't think you can say we should have been 2-0 down because they had two chances though.
We probably deserved to be 1-0 down, and then shaded the second half - scored, hit the post, had another ruled out, I presume correctly, though it was tight?
I don't know who was the better team overall. I think either way, to have been the better team of the two on the night isn't a particularly high accolade.
Could have won, maybe, we'll never know. I'm not defending the way we played, how could I, but there are really no guarantees that the result would have been any better if we had only come out of our shell a bit more. Serbia would probably have welcomed us trying to play a bit. I can see why people say they were there for the taking but so were we, as we always are really against decent opposition. I think when two fairly evenly matched teams play each other the away side is always going to be fairly content with a point, especially when they equalise with a few minutes left. We were so bad that we just don't know what would have happened if the approach/performance had been different, it would have just been a completely different game all round.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingdom
I don't really think we have any grounds for assuming we'd have taken them if we'd just got the finger out, passed the ball around and went at them. We might have, or we might have went home with a moral victory for our performance and no points on the board, like Scotland in Germany that time (not that I'm comparing Serbia to Germany). One point very much gained for me, but that has been discussed to death with Paul o'Shea and co. in fairness who are firmly in agreement with you on this.
Just thinking back to the B&H away game in the fog, did we play well that night, or was everybody just happy with the positive result despite us never remotely threatening their goal before or after Brady scored? I'm not sure what my point is exactly but there seems to be a far bigger outrage with regards the Serbia game. I was and still am willing to forgive the performance in Belgrade, there were some factors in our favour but overall I think it was a very difficult early season assignment, bit of a Euro hangover, playing a side that have been waiting for this game for basically a year or more, horrible pitch, etc.
I'd be much less forgiving about the approach and performance last night, and indeed the unwillingness to try to rectify it. Following his interview and the interviews with some of the players though, I would concede that at least O'Neill didn't send the team out to play like that. It may still have been a cave man approach, but at the very least he would have expected a higher and more intensive press where we would cause them problems and, crucially I think from his point of view, win set pieces where Clark and Duffy might flourish. I don't think there's anything O'Neill could say to convince me that he was right not to start Hoolahan though, that was probably the most soul destroying thing for me. I thought we had moved on from that sort of conservatism, in the home games at least.
I'm slow to get on his back too much. By hook or by crook he seemed to eventually find a system that suited us near the end of the last qualification campaign, basically the kind of diamond thing with an out of position McCarthy and two up front. He delivered our best result in years against Germany and followed it up with a very good playoff win and a solid Euros, Belgium game aside. I don't think it can be overstated how badly we needed that win over Germany or the restoration of some pride at the Euros after our awful campaign in Poland. It seems like a couple of steps backwards at the moment but at least he shows the willingness to adapt and change after we play poorly. We should have a more settled side by now though, it's still a bit all over the place, as it is tactically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingdom
Typed much more than I intended there - some of it is replying to you, but most of it is general waffle, just so you know. :)
The only possible defence of not picking Hoolahan I can think of is his seeming inability to play 2 games in 4 days. Maybe MON thought we could spare him at home to Georgia and use him away to good effect against a weaker Moldova. Just a guess...
The lack of Hoolahan surprised me alright - especially when Brady went off injured. Hoolahan was the logical replacement, not Whelan, a holding mid (even if Hendrick ultimately took Brady's position)
But Hoolahan has previously been used more in the home games than the away games - so I don't understand why he'd now play in Moldova and not against Georgia.
I presume Brady is out injured for Sunday btw? That'll be one forced change, and maybe Hoolahan will come back in. But wouldn't be too sure.