I think you're reading an awful lot into a 30-second video we don't know the contents of to be honest.Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo
On Prime Time, Aiden Fitzmaurice says only one senior member of FAI staff objected. (He kind of stutters when he talks about the players - I can't tell if he's saying there were any issues there)
If one person is offended (and if it was only staff and players at the meeting, and if players wouldn't have known what was on the video to object in advance, and if one English-born staff member left the set-up straight afterwards, it does look like you could add 2+2), does that mean it was offensive? Or could that one person be just a bit too highly-strung?
I agree. But I don't see that that isn't what happened?
Again, I agree. 30 seconds sounds brief enough to me though?
But that's exactly my point. You ask what other videos you'd show for other games - Coleman's tackle, Henry's handball, etc. My point is there's lots of variations on the same theme, as per the UCD example. You pick and choose which one suits the case best. A bit of "800 years" for a game against England sounds perfectly harmless. For different games you have different approaches.
This would tie in with the new 'project player' bull$h1t the rugby team has now.
It's essentially wearing green that makes you 'Irish', nothing else.
Maybe the IRFU players could do with a history lesson too. Might make them appreciate the importance of the jersey.
The informer needs to be taken out of the group for sure. Would love to know who it was.
Folding my way into the big money!!!
Where is the anti-English sentiment? There may be an acknowledgement of history alright (the Brits don't have a great track record) but I don't know if I've seen anyone here being Anti-English. Context is always important.
Only idiots are anti any race of people. But you can have a problem with a country's establishment without being racist.
The British establishment have consistently been very poor in dealing with Ireland.
Folding my way into the big money!!!
A simple solution would be to release the video and let people assess for themselves. If its a non-story the Daily Mail will look (again) for what they are.
We don't know who snitched but one account is that it wasn't a player but one of the FAI staff,
who leaked it out to an English paper, who then go on to manufacture an outrage at an irish manager's understanding and expresssion of an aspect of anglo irish history.
The rest is click bait.
After the ceremony at Cannes when La Palme d'Or was awarded to Ken Loach for TWTSTB, a panel member Samuel Jackson (no less) was questioned by an english journo about was he aware of the innacurate content and anti english bias in the film. He replied to the effect that 'you english are all the same, your ancestors went around the world on a mission of rape, pillage, plunder and enslavement and now you're outraged by and want to control how that historical experience is given account to'.
People would probably give out about the amateur production values or something.
People who want to give out will always find something to give out about.
That is very true but it changes the story and angle of attack. Remove the faux outrage about the English, make the source look daft in the process. May not help the case for SK's reign but its a start. It wont stop people calling it out of depth, misguided, desperate, etc. It could could be spun as the coaching team wanting to grow the sense of value to wearing the shirt even if up against it and and may be defeated short term but there are long term possibilities - the idea at the centre of Irish history and hence representing Ireland today in honour blah blah. So well intended, not anti-English its just that that is who the old battles tended to be with. Or maybe the whole thing should just be starved and let die!! (to be resurrected after every negavtive result if SK continues or will be the 'Im the gaffer' moment if he doesnt).
Last edited by Nesta99; 20/11/2020 at 11:04 AM.
I think it wouldn't be a good idea. It just fuels the story.
I love how they only leaked it after the England game. If it bothered them that much, they’d have done it straight away.
It’s just petty **** stirring, trying to get the man sacked. Pathetic. Same as when Roy Keane said something mean to poor old Harry Arter, who couldn’t be arsed to train or turn up. Don’t run to the papers or your mates, if you’ve got a problem, deal with it direct.
The Guardian story someone linked to earlier said
"Kenny left a number of his squad uncomfortable by the contents of the video...Indeed, it is believed some players objected to what they were shown."
So it seems to be a bit more than one member of the coaching team.
30+ seconds on the Henry incident before we play France is ok; 30+ seconds on historical/political Anglo-Irish relations seems a bit less sensible it feels tangential.Again, I agree. 30 seconds sounds brief enough to me though?
These are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT themes. As I've said Henry/Coleman reference bad incidents in recent FOOTBALL MATCHES to motivate. The UCD example references using DISPARAGING COMMENTS about the football team from media/social media as motivation. The vs Slovan example was using THE TEAMS PAST GOOD PERFORMANCE to positively motivate the players.But that's exactly my point. You ask what other videos you'd show for other games - Coleman's tackle, Henry's handball, etc. My point is there's lots of variations on the same theme, as per the UCD example.
I hadn't head about that one, I knew he defended Colin Farrell after an English journalist tried to claim him as British. Can't find the original clip, but he mentions it here in an interview with Ryan Tubridy
Moving beyond the video incident, a question for all the advocates of Kenny. At what point would you begin to question the tenability of his position?
How bad would the results / performances need to get before you would consider him to be unviable as our manager? Or are you of the opinion that results and performances don't matter? If that is the case and its more about "building for 2024" (or even 2044) how do you measure if that long term project is succeeding?
I would say if we were winless (and goalless) at the end of March that I would probably think he is the wrong choice for the project, while maintaining that the project is worth pursuing. And that's conditional on us not having another COVID disaster in terms of squad selection.
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
After the next campaign he should be judged like every other manager - any talk before that is premature. He is going to get 8-10 qualifiers and 3 or 4 friendlies in the summer. After that the FAI should take a look and assess. Not before. I suspect if we finish 2nd or 3rd in a group he will get the 2024 campaign any lower than that and he will get the heave.
What sacres me, is we have only played one good team and lets be honest we were easily beaten. What happens if we meet a spain or a Croatia? My view is he still entitled to the WC campaign. He needs to learn very fast that international football is unforgiving
I see many journalists are stating that using a motivational video before a game is amateurish and smacks of desperation, and is a sign that a manager is out of his depth. For them and other commentators I have seen on twitter, a proper manager would have a video that concentrated on a tactical analysis on the opposition; system of play, strengths, weakness etc. The proper top level manager would have his players so prepared and focused, that there would be no need for a motivational ploy that would created a little bit of resentment towards the opposition.
I make two points on this. Have the people with these views ever been involved in a significant game even at a low level, so that they can dismiss past history/event with the other side as irrelevant in motivating players.
The fact that Kenny has not managed in England seems to be an undercurrent in this story as well. Perhaps those who feel strongly that this fact disqualifies him should be more upfront. (btw I am talking about Irish journalists and commentators here, have not really looked at what the offended English have had to saw)
There is great story about Jack Charlton showing the players a video of Bulgaria playing before a fixture against them at the team hotel. After a while some of those in the room started pointing out there very few people at the game. It turns out that the tape the FAI sourced was of the Bulgarian u-21 team. Jack once this was pointed out to him, said that the senior team will have the same style of play anyway, and ordered to switch off the video and ended the team meeting. Tony Cascarino's book has that story, I think.
We have absolutely no reason to think that Kenny hadn't done just that in the coaching in the days before. A 3 minute motivational video in the moments before a game is not the time for tactical prep.
One member of the coaching team objected in advance (source - the Indo/Prime Time).
If the Guardian is going off the leak, I wouldn't be entirely comfortable taking it as 100% truth. How many is some and how objectionable did they find it? If 24 of the 26 players found it great and two objected, does that not say more about the 2 objectors than the video?
Both are factual historical incidents. Both could help motivate a squad. Nobody's asking the Irish players to go out and shoot the Sasanaigh to gain revenge for the Famine FFS. It's a 30-second slot to get a bit of a derby feel going.
First off, STOP ****ING SHOUTING! You're not Donald Trump.
Secondly, that they are different themes is my exact point. There's more than one way to skin a cat here. You choose which is the most suitable. A bit of "800 years" for a match against England - why not? The Irish team going to Stuttgart were listening to rebel songs. No outrage then.
What scares is me is that Ireland are s**t and a large minority of fans don't seem to realise this and think it's all the managers fault we are not getting results and not their unrealistic expectations. The current squad is the weakest squad we've had since the Charlton era. Our two best plyers are arguably Doherty & Coleman who play in the same position. There may be some promise in the U21s coming through, but it'll take time for alot of them to come through and there's no guarantee they'll be good enough
I really don't see what a change of manager would achieve and who exactly do people think would want the job? The days of the FAI/Denis O'Brien paying stupid money for a big name manager are over
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks