A whiff of Cordite

[enby]

Totally agree. No proper analysis of how they won the game or how they might put one over the Stormers

[FtD]

You're kidding yourself if you think you're going to get proper analysis on OTB for anything.

[TerenureJim]

The AIL final deserved more time, there’s an interesting story there on the league and the club game being the forgotten man of Irish rugby coverage even though it’s quite well supported at local community level and is massively responsible for where we’re at given generational involvement by families in minis etc delivering players to schools and provinces etc.

[Serb]

The AIL final deserved more time, there’s an interesting story there on the league and the club game being the forgotten man of Irish rugby coverage even though it’s quite well supported at local community level and is massively responsible for where we’re at given generational involvement by families in minis etc delivering players to schools and provinces etc.

Bernard Jackman did a few minutes on it on The 42 members podcast today. Obviously not extensive coverage but had some good things to say. I think he also published a piece on Sunday maybe about Clontarf in the AIL? Haven’t read it now but I think it was about them.

[blockhead]

The AIL final deserved more time, there’s an interesting story there on the league and the club game being the forgotten man of Irish rugby coverage even though it’s quite well supported at local community level and is massively responsible for where we’re at given generational involvement by families in minis etc delivering players to schools and provinces etc.

Bernard Jackman did a few minutes on it on The 42 members podcast today. Obviously not extensive coverage but had some good things to say. I think he also published a piece on Sunday maybe about Clontarf in the AIL? Haven’t read it now but I think it was about them.

Against the head did highlights and a chat about it, not much but all the provinces were involved this weekend too.

[macboomba]

They've never won anything. They've had a losing record for 17 years in a row. They've only won 134 wins out of 401 games in the league over 19 seasons. They've only qualified for the European Cup once in the last twelve years and have never in their history qualified for the knock-outs. They don't produce many international players. Attendances are miserable. They've been b*tching and moaning about the name and the identity of the club since it started Newport to Cardiff is 24km by road. It's like having a professional rugby franchise in Dublin and one in Greystones.

There are so many reasons against it being viable as a professional platform, and very few for it.

Jesus!

Please never compare Newport and Greystones ever again. I've paid a fortune for this house and can't afford to go into negative equity.

[blockhead]

It is sad to some clubs going to the wall but the rugby calendar is full of games that make no money and don't interest the wider public. I don't know how rugby solves this issue but more cross hemisphere travel shouldn't be the solution. Flying regularly to the UK, Italy and once a year to SA to play in front of meager crowds has no future.

Expect more and more drastic changes to the global club structure until they finally find something that works. How many years down the line that is or how many clubs go broke in the process is anyone's guess. But I absolutely doubt in 20 years from now, there'll be a thread opened for Leinster's run of the mill URC game to Joburg, Parma or Newport.

I was think about this earlier Suisse ... I wasn't sure which part your comment to put in bold as most pertinent, because I agree with all of it.

Some of these teams won't survive.

"[Due to] the signing of the 2023 rugby agreement between the WRU and the clubs, the Dragons became obligated to return to private ownership by July, ending direct control of the WRU over the club" [source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragons_RFC ].

They're f*cked. You'd want to be an absolute moron to buy the Dragons.

They've never won anything. They've had a losing record for 17 years in a row. They've only won 134 wins out of 401 games in the league over 19 seasons. They've only qualified for the European Cup once in the last twelve years and have never in their history qualified for the knock-outs. They don't produce many international players. Attendances are miserable. They've been b*tching and moaning about the name and the identity of the club since it started Newport to Cardiff is 24km by road. It's like having a professional rugby franchise in Dublin and one in Greystones.

There are so many reasons against it being viable as a professional platform, and very few for it.

Can't all be Leinster/Stormers. Every league in many sports have teams who never win anything, spend most of their time at the bottom of whatever league they are in. Only one team wins at the end of the season. You can't have a league with without the little guys.
Even if you take out the Judgement day crowd, Dragons still had an average crowd of over 5,000. Impressive for a small town.
If Greystones were getting that in Div2B we'ed all be very impressed.

[hugonaut]

They've never won anything. They've had a losing record for 17 years in a row. They've only won 134 wins out of 401 games in the league over 19 seasons. They've only qualified for the European Cup once in the last twelve years and have never in their history qualified for the knock-outs. They don't produce many international players. Attendances are miserable. They've been b*tching and moaning about the name and the identity of the club since it started Newport to Cardiff is 24km by road. It's like having a professional rugby franchise in Dublin and one in Greystones.

There are so many reasons against it being viable as a professional platform, and very few for it.

Jesus!

Please never compare Newport and Greystones ever again. I've paid a fortune for this house and can't afford to go into negative equity.

My apologies. I am very fond of Greystones and thus know the distance from Dublin ... that was the only point of comparison.

[suisse]

OTB this morning 23 min piece. First 8 mins Munster. Next 5 on how shite Ulster are. Then patronising pats on the head for Connacht 3 mins. Quinlan, in fairness, praises Leinster for 3 but then they start questioning Max staying for 2 mins and just over a minute on AIL final.
I know, I know its my fault for tuning in

My take on OTB's rugby coverage is you can pick and choose which contributors you want to listen to because from Monday morning to Friday, the talking points are the same. This is what happens when, in a 16 team tournament, there's only discussion or debate on 2 teams. If they gave 7 rugby segments a week, you can skip at least half of those and not be missing out on much.

You can do that because the exact same talking points are on RTE (Jackman +1) and the42. Sometimes I forget what I've been listening to because it all sounds the same.
Of OTB's weekly stable...
Alan Quinlan Monday. Skip.
MNR (Thornley and Hayes). 50/50 on whether to skip.
Janes Tracy. Listen.
Keith Wood. Listen.
BoD. Skip.
WNR (O'Connor plus 1). Listen (unless there's another "Grand Slam winner").
Alan Quinlan Friday. Skip.
RoG. 50/50.

I will listen when they call in outsiders like Chris Jones of the BBC. They're usually the most interesting segments and I feel there isn't enough.

[suisse]

You're simply never going to get any AIL coverage on OTB. It is only this season they've started to mainstream their League of Ireland coverage but that comes in the form of one weekly interview with Vinny Perth. But that's how they treat foreign leagues, like the weekly massaging of Graham Hunter's ego. There isn't a discussion on League of Ireland. It is have Perth tell them about attendances and young players. Their football coverage is incredibly narrow, with the only proper debates and discussion on English football. Obviously they're not going to devote 50% of their airtime to LoI but it how they deal with it. Get Vinny on to talk about Turner's Cross

Rugby is the same. A very narrow look at the sport, Ireland, Leinster and Munster.

[wixfjord]

My take on OTB's rugby coverage is you can pick and choose which contributors you want to listen to because from Monday morning to Friday, the talking points are the same. This is what happens when, in a 16 team tournament, there's only discussion or debate on 2 teams. If they gave 7 rugby segments a week, you can skip at least half of those and not be missing out on much.

You can do that because the exact same talking points are on RTE (Jackman +1) and the42. Sometimes I forget what I've been listening to because it all sounds the same.
Of OTB's weekly stable...
Alan Quinlan Monday. Skip.
MNR (Thornley and Hayes). 50/50 on whether to skip.
Janes Tracy. Listen.
Keith Wood. Listen.
BoD. Skip.
WNR (O'Connor plus 1). Listen (unless there's another "Grand Slam winner").
Alan Quinlan Friday. Skip.
RoG. 50/50.

I will listen when they call in outsiders like Chris Jones of the BBC. They're usually the most interesting segments and I feel there isn't enough.

Yeah you couldn't be listening to them 'Grand Slam winning' (in inverted commas for some reason) women talking about men's rugby anyway.

[Degz]

My take on OTB's rugby coverage is you can pick and choose which contributors you want to listen to because from Monday morning to Friday, the talking points are the same. This is what happens when, in a 16 team tournament, there's only discussion or debate on 2 teams. If they gave 7 rugby segments a week, you can skip at least half of those and not be missing out on much.

You can do that because the exact same talking points are on RTE (Jackman +1) and the42. Sometimes I forget what I've been listening to because it all sounds the same.
Of OTB's weekly stable...
Alan Quinlan Monday. Skip.
MNR (Thornley and Hayes). 50/50 on whether to skip.
Janes Tracy. Listen.
Keith Wood. Listen.
BoD. Skip.
WNR (O'Connor plus 1). Listen (unless there's another "Grand Slam winner").
Alan Quinlan Friday. Skip.
RoG. 50/50.

I will listen when they call in outsiders like Chris Jones of the BBC. They're usually the most interesting segments and I feel there isn't enough.

Yeah you couldn't be listening to them 'Grand Slam winning' (in inverted commas for some reason) women talking about men's rugby anyway.

She's so Munster focused (yes, she's a Munsterwoman but she needs to be an unbiased pundit) and doesn't generally offer anything insightful despite having more rugby experience than a lot of her media colleagues.

I would avoid Keet Wood for almost the exact same reasons. He's got nothing to offer anymore.

Frankly, I generally prefer listening to the journos (ROC and GT).

[suisse]

My take on OTB's rugby coverage is you can pick and choose which contributors you want to listen to because from Monday morning to Friday, the talking points are the same. This is what happens when, in a 16 team tournament, there's only discussion or debate on 2 teams. If they gave 7 rugby segments a week, you can skip at least half of those and not be missing out on much.

You can do that because the exact same talking points are on RTE (Jackman +1) and the42. Sometimes I forget what I've been listening to because it all sounds the same.
Of OTB's weekly stable...
Alan Quinlan Monday. Skip.
MNR (Thornley and Hayes). 50/50 on whether to skip.
Janes Tracy. Listen.
Keith Wood. Listen.
BoD. Skip.
WNR (O'Connor plus 1). Listen (unless there's another "Grand Slam winner").
Alan Quinlan Friday. Skip.
RoG. 50/50.

I will listen when they call in outsiders like Chris Jones of the BBC. They're usually the most interesting segments and I feel there isn't enough.

Yeah you couldn't be listening to them 'Grand Slam winning' (in inverted commas for some reason) women talking about men's rugby anyway.

Lol. Nice fake outrage.

Yes, I don't want to listen to female former amateur players just like I wouldn't listen to a male pundit who spent an entire career playing for Coolmine discussing SA physicality against Ireland.

You also bulldozed past the part avoid skipping BoD and Quinlan to share your outrage. As I said, the talking points don't change from pundit to pundit, programme to programme, station to station, so there's no reason to listen to people I've no interest in listening when someone else will be asked to discuss the same issues.

[suisse]

My take on OTB's rugby coverage is you can pick and choose which contributors you want to listen to because from Monday morning to Friday, the talking points are the same. This is what happens when, in a 16 team tournament, there's only discussion or debate on 2 teams. If they gave 7 rugby segments a week, you can skip at least half of those and not be missing out on much.

You can do that because the exact same talking points are on RTE (Jackman +1) and the42. Sometimes I forget what I've been listening to because it all sounds the same.
Of OTB's weekly stable...
Alan Quinlan Monday. Skip.
MNR (Thornley and Hayes). 50/50 on whether to skip.
Janes Tracy. Listen.
Keith Wood. Listen.
BoD. Skip.
WNR (O'Connor plus 1). Listen (unless there's another "Grand Slam winner").
Alan Quinlan Friday. Skip.
RoG. 50/50.

I will listen when they call in outsiders like Chris Jones of the BBC. They're usually the most interesting segments and I feel there isn't enough.

Yeah you couldn't be listening to them 'Grand Slam winning' (in inverted commas for some reason) women talking about men's rugby anyway.

She's so Munster focused (yes, she's a Munsterwoman but she needs to be an unbiased pundit) and doesn't generally offer anything insightful despite having more rugby experience than a lot of her media colleagues.

I would avoid Keet Wood for almost the exact same reasons. He's got nothing to offer anymore.

Frankly, I generally prefer listening to the journos (ROC and GT).

Her Munster focus or bias doesn't bother me. James Tracey is no different when talking about Leinster, Stephen Ferris about Ulster.

[wixfjord]

My take on OTB's rugby coverage is you can pick and choose which contributors you want to listen to because from Monday morning to Friday, the talking points are the same. This is what happens when, in a 16 team tournament, there's only discussion or debate on 2 teams. If they gave 7 rugby segments a week, you can skip at least half of those and not be missing out on much.

You can do that because the exact same talking points are on RTE (Jackman +1) and the42. Sometimes I forget what I've been listening to because it all sounds the same.
Of OTB's weekly stable...
Alan Quinlan Monday. Skip.
MNR (Thornley and Hayes). 50/50 on whether to skip.
Janes Tracy. Listen.
Keith Wood. Listen.
BoD. Skip.
WNR (O'Connor plus 1). Listen (unless there's another "Grand Slam winner").
Alan Quinlan Friday. Skip.
RoG. 50/50.

I will listen when they call in outsiders like Chris Jones of the BBC. They're usually the most interesting segments and I feel there isn't enough.

Yeah you couldn't be listening to them 'Grand Slam winning' (in inverted commas for some reason) women talking about men's rugby anyway.

Lol. Nice fake outrage.

Yes, I don't want to listen to female former amateur players just like I wouldn't listen to a male pundit who spent an entire career playing for Coolmine discussing SA physicality against Ireland.

You also bulldozed past the part avoid skipping BoD and Quinlan to share your outrage. As I said, the talking points don't change from pundit to pundit, programme to programme, station to station, so there's no reason to listen to people I've no interest in listening when someone else will be asked to discuss the same issues.

Oh it's not 'outrage', it's amusement that you've again laid bare your bias.

Here's your previous post on the matter.

The whole panel of experts thing in rugby, especially, is absolutely ridiculous these days. On RTE on Friday, we had a former Ireland coach on the left. On the right, a 100-cap number 8 commonly regarded as the best ever in his position for Ireland (plus decorated). In the middle, we had a person who held down a 9-5 job whilst playing amateur rugby on the weekends in front of a few family members and friends. There are obviously better platforms to use Coughlan's expertise - namely, the Women's 6N - but a European Cup QF is not one of them.

And why rugby? OTB broadcasts plenty of football but rarely any female contributors. What about GAA? What's so uniqie about rugby?

So basically you've an issue with female pundits who haven't played to the highest level in the men's game and yet you're happy enough to listen to journalists like Chris Jones, ROC and Thornley? Don't remember any of those playing pro rugby.

For some reason a women's 6N Grand Slam doesn't count either does it not?

As I said before, better to remain silent and be thought an absolute misogynistic plonker than to speak and to remove all doubt.

[Degz]

Yeah you couldn't be listening to them 'Grand Slam winning' (in inverted commas for some reason) women talking about men's rugby anyway.

She's so Munster focused (yes, she's a Munsterwoman but she needs to be an unbiased pundit) and doesn't generally offer anything insightful despite having more rugby experience than a lot of her media colleagues.

I would avoid Keet Wood for almost the exact same reasons. He's got nothing to offer anymore.

Frankly, I generally prefer listening to the journos (ROC and GT).

Her Munster focus or bias doesn't bother me. James Tracey is no different when talking about Leinster, Stephen Ferris about Ulster.

It wouldn't bother me if she had tactical or forensic input. Ferris has a modicum of that. Hayes doesn't, and therefore comes across as a supporter.

Maggie Alphonsi has way better input than Keith Wood, as far as I'm concerned. Fiona Hayes doesn't.

[wixfjord]

She's so Munster focused (yes, she's a Munsterwoman but she needs to be an unbiased pundit) and doesn't generally offer anything insightful despite having more rugby experience than a lot of her media colleagues.

I would avoid Keet Wood for almost the exact same reasons. He's got nothing to offer anymore.

Frankly, I generally prefer listening to the journos (ROC and GT).

Her Munster focus or bias doesn't bother me. James Tracey is no different when talking about Leinster, Stephen Ferris about Ulster.

It wouldn't bother me if she had tactical or forensic input. Ferris has a modicum of that. Hayes doesn't, and therefore comes across as a supporter.

Maggie Alphonsi has way better input than Keith Wood, as far as I'm concerned. Fiona Hayes doesn't.

I don't think Hayes is a good communicator at all, don't get me wrong.

The reason I believe that isn't because she's a woman, or hasn't played the game professionally, it's because she speaks too quickly and is hard to follow.

There's a big difference between that and what suisse is saying, which is basically:

Male journalists who've never played the pro game? Give me more of that.
Female ex players who've won Grand Slams and are still involved in the game at a high level? Nah can't listen to em mate.

Fiona Coghlan is a far better analyst than many of the names mentioned above, yet falls into suisse's 'person with a vagina who also hasn't played the pro game' bucket so suisse doesn't like her.

[blockhead]

Hayes is all right, full of enthusiasm.
Rugby is lucky in this country in the amount of coverage that it gets. Other sports would kill for the this level of exposure in the papers, telly, podcasts etc. For a minor sport in Ireland, it packs a punch in the media.
I've heard UK podcasters on a number of occasions be very impressed by the amount of coverage the sports gets here.

[riocard911]

Fiona Hayes is more insightful than Alan Quinlan, IMO. All he does is hmms and haws, while she at least points out tactical stuff on the pitch.

[jezzer]

Hayes and Quinnie are like the polar extremes that all good presenters should avoid.

One has nothing to say
One has everything to say

Loved Quinnie as a player, can't listen to him as a pundit. Hayes can't be listened to - it's like I accidentally put Spotify on 3x .