I think Dunphy is just a cartoon character at this stage and he does not annoy me any more as I know why he is there. RTE has Spillane for the GAA, George Hook for the Rugby and Dunphy for the football. Its there way of stirring it up a bit. At least it leads to more interesting debate. When I watchted the first leg of Chelsea Liverpool I could not get over the difference of post match analysis. Phil Thompson was going on about how great Liverpool where and how great Hyppia and Traore were. On RTE they were saying both players were crap and that it was a terrible match and a terrible advert for the English game. I had to agree with RTE. Of course Dunphy then went over the top and said that there was no way they could keep a clean sheet and they did etc. Dunphy's main problem is that he never qualifies his statements. If he felt that Liverpool would concede a goal he should have said that "if Liverpool continue to defendl ike this and Chelsea show a bit more variety to their play, I cant see Liverpool keeping a clean sheet". That would have been fair comment but he leaves himself open to looking stupid in the hope of stirrling up controversy. But give me RTE any day over ITV and most of Skys coverage too. In my view the Scots are the best at analysis, Strachan, Gray, Hansen (if a bit repititive) Ferguson was quite good when he was on too. Gerry Armstrong is very good too and I liked Brian Kerr when he did the world cup.
Bookmarks