Tipperary Hurling Tipperary GAA Premierview

A RICHY DESERVED REWARD ! 2001



Nicky English’s work with the Tipperary team through the last few years got a deserved reward, when the Blue and Gold added the McCarthy Cup to the Munster and National League titles won earlier in the year. It was remarkable that Tipperary went into the final with such a good record all year, and yet received such little credit for it. The Tuam Herald spoke in the week after Galway’s win over Kilkenny of people queuing outside the Galway GAA office for tickets to the All-Ireland winning celebrations ! Were this to happen in a certain other county, no doubt it would be considered “arrogant”! Perhaps this reaction from Galway was a hangover from the hype that surrounded their semi-final opponents in mid-Summer, but it does highlight the lack of regard in which the Munster champions were held, and it must have given the Tipperary team and mentors immeasurable pleasure to win the All-Ireland final in these circumstances. They also put to rest the myth that winning a League title is in some way detrimental to a team's All-Ireland chances.

Many of the players such as Philip Maher and Declan Ryan who I expected to come up trumps on the day, did so in a big way. Maher’s constant interceptions were vital and his clearances brought huge relief especially considering that the displays of Healy and Broderick in the Galway attack provided such a threat. Broderick was especially good and his elusive and intelligent running had Eamon Corcoran and Paul Kelly in turn chasing shadows. Broderick has often threatened this sort of performance over the past few years, but his finishing tended to let him down, but in this game he took all the right decisions and anybody who can discommode Eamon Corcoran has to be given huge credit. Declan Ryan had caused huge problems for Michael Healy in the League semi-final due to his size and strength, and whatever about the difference between League and championship hurling, the difficulty Healy has in dealing with big full-forwards was unlikely to change, as evidenced by the problems he encountered in the quarter-final against Derry. Of course, Declan Ryan brings so much more to the game than physical power, and his laying-off of the ball plus his touch and craft made him a huge influence in the final.



There is no doubt that the moving of John Carroll to centre-forward was the final piece of the Tipperary jigsaw, and not only did Carroll bring a new dimension to the forwards, but the release of Eddie Enright to midfield brought immense rewards to the team, as Enright thrived in the open spaces of his new surroundings, and his pace and economy in striking make him ideal for the position. Enright’s midfield partner Thomas Dunne was nothing short of magnificent on the day, and it is wonderful that it was on the biggest stage that he produced such a stylish and classy performance. He certainly deserves to go down as one of the greatest players of his generation.

The game didn't really happen for Eugene O'Neill and indeed the ball didn't seem to go in his direction very much, but the sharpness of Eoin Kelly, Mark O’Leary, and Lar Corbett (apart from some early wasted possession) epitomised the economy and thrift which Nicky English has developed among his forwards over the past twelve months. The contrast with the profligacy of last year’s Munster Final and All-Ireland quarter-final was as dramatic as it gets. Corbett’s work-rate was amazing and one wonders what a player this fellow can become with further experience, and a bit more heft allied to his terrific pace. When was the last time that two nineteen-year-olds played in an All-Ireland winning forward-line ? There is huge credit due to Nicky English, and his judgement of hurlers appears to be excellent, and his ability to think clearly in tight situations certainly stood Tipperary in good stead all year, as every game they played brought its own dilemmas. Nicky will be especially pleased with the way every Tipperary substitute in the final played so well.

The main difference between Tipperary and Galway up front, was the variety of options that Tipp had when it came to scoring. Every Tipp forward was capable of scoring much more easily than most of their Galway counterparts, who tended to need too much time and effort in order to create and take scoring chances. John Carroll's point which was caught straight from a puck-out, and struck over the bar with minimum time in possession, was a stark example of this difference. In fairness to the Galway forwards they were being harassed and pressured constantly by a superbly disciplined and coached Tipperary defence, which meant that many of their wides were shots being hit under extreme pressure, and at least some of their carrying of the ball was forced upon them. Alan Kerins’ performance again left something to be desired and his misses were similar to his poor efforts in the semi-final against Kilkenny. He did have an indirect hand in the first goal when after his shot was brilliantly saved by Brendan Cummins, Cloonan scored from the rebound. Cummins also made a vital match-winning save from Broderick late in the game, and must surely be a very strong contender for the Hurler of the Year award, although Philip Maher will also have strong support, as indeed will Eamon Corcoran despite a less than his usual brilliant level of performance in the All-Ireland Final.

In contrast to Cummins, Michael Crimmins in the Galway goal was quite jittery, which was not unexpected in my opinion. Tipperary’s second goal was the stuff of nightmares from a defensive perspective and is the second successive year that Crimmins has conceded a soft goal, last year’s one being from Andy Comerford in the semi-final. Another good performance from Richie Murray at midfield, and a solid if unspectacular display from Liam Hodgins at centre-back were among the other highlights for Galway. Mark Kerins failed to make the same headway against David Kennedy as had done in the semi-final, but this should not raise eyebrows as Kennedy does a wonderfully solid and dependable job for Tipperary.

One factor which threatened to overshadow the Tipperary victory was the predictable whinging over the refereeing performance. It was particularly nauseating to hear this coming from Joe Rabbitte. Rather than looking for a scapegoat in the shape of Pat O’Connor, Joe would be better served watching the video of the game and critically analysing his own performance, even if this is the last exercise most players will contemplate. The charging and over-carrying of which Rabbitte was guilty in the final was so predictable that I referred to it in the preview of the match. Rabbitte indulges in this consistently and his constant attempts to carry the ball rather than lay it off quickly, militate against him being the effective target man, that his bulk and ball-winning capacity suggest he could be. Denis Walsh of the Sunday Times was the only journalist that I read who quite rightly said that every free given against Rabbitte was correct. The frees against him were for either charging or over-carrying, and indeed in most cases he was guilty of both. Peter Finnerty’s article in the Sunday Independent was at best a pathetic sop to his Galway constituency, or at worst evidence that he is quite ignorant of the rules governing a player’s behaviour while in possession. Surely the media’s role in this area should be educational, rather than reinforcing the natural myopic prejudices of embittered “supporters” ?



The Connacht Tribune referred to an incident involving Rabbitte in the 51st minute of the game and suggested that “any other referee in the country – a free-in, Pat O’Connor – a free-out”. If this is true, it is a shameful indictment of refereeing standards as Rabbitte took twelve steps during this incident, and had David Kennedy’s hurley in his grasp for the last four of these. How can people watch a game and then write such poor, ill-informed commentary as this ? Or do they bother to watch the game in its entirety before writing about it ? I can understand the Monday morning papers having deadlines, but we should expect better from weekly provincial papers and Sunday papers, who should have ample time to verify the accuracy of what they write. I should acknowledge that Martin Storey and Babs Keating were other contributors to the papers who saw the referee’s performance for what it was – pretty good for the most part, and certainly one that did Galway no harm whatsoever.

The Tipperary defence was outstandingly disciplined in the way they dealt with the threat of Rabbitte. It was a remarkable achievement to concede only five frees in the second half, when you consider the pressure that was exerted on the Tipp defence. Having said this, some of the play was easy to defend against and played into the defender's hands. If you are dealing with a player such as Rabbitte, by keeping both hands on the hurley (thereby resisting the temptation to grab a jersey with your free hand) and standing your ground, you are putting the onus on the player to think on his feet. This is a major weakness in Rabbitte’s play and his lack of vision and awareness when in possession must be very frustrating for his fellow forwards. Of course, much of this must be attributable to poor coaching. While you cannot instil the natural vision and awareness of a Declan Ryan into every player, there is no excuse for a player trying the same ploy all the time when it clearly isn't working. This reminded me of Eamon Morrissey's frustrating day against Brian Corcoran in the '92 All-Ireland Final, when he was continually being blocked down and lacked the resourcefulness to try something else.

If Rabbitte has been exposed to good coaching then it must be assumed that he doesn’t have the cool decision-making head required to implement the theory at this level. Another aspect of his play in the final which would give the average coach grey hairs was his constant efforts to rise the ball in a crowd of players. He would do well to watch John Power of Kilkenny, who will never make a second attempt to lift a ball under pressure but will whip on the sliothar, thereby allowing the other forwards to avail of the breaking ball, especially if they are loose as a result of the extra defenders Power may have sucked into close combat.

It may not win you too many All-Star awards, but it will win matches. Players as fleet of foot as Kevin Broderick and Fergal Healy would be expected to thrive on such ball breaking from clusters of players.

Rabbitte’s day was effectively over when he was moved to full-forward. They may as well have taken him off directly, as he has been tried there over the years, and doesn’t have the ability to play in confined spaces, which is why Athenry and Galway have been using him at wing-forward for some time now. He is good at winning possession in one-on-one isolated situations and if Galway can harness this ability properly, by improving his ability to dovetail with the other forwards, the incremental benefit to the team would make them a very formidable force when you consider how close they got to Tipp in the final.

Despite Joe Rabbitte's criticisms of the referee he neglected to mention that despite the fact that Fergal Healy over-carried by four or five steps for Galway’s second goal, the goal was allowed to stand. Joe also missed – as did every single newspaper – a blatant free-in for Tipp when Eoin Kelly had his hurley held by Michael Crimmins, when he had an open goal in front of him with a minute left. Ger Canning and Cyril Farrell didn’t want to know either even though it was the most obvious free you will ever see.

Perhaps in time Galway people will also realise that Kevin Broderick’s “goal” was not disallowed. It was never flagged in the first place, as the whistle had long gone, which is why Philip Maher allowed the Galway man to run by him unimpeded. Broderick’s body language when the ball hit the net, and his delayed celebration suggests to me that he was well aware that whistle had gone, but simply played on (as any player should) in case he was mistaken. By all means let us comment on poor refereeing decisions but at least let us be honest in doing so.

In this vein, Martin Breheny wrote a disgraceful article last week, when he criticised the match programme communications campaign upon which the referee's association has embarked. Incredibly, Breheny lambasted the request for criticisms of refereeing performances to be specific ! Surely if a referee is operating within very specific parameters i.e. the rules, then he is surely entitled to be judged on how he applied the specific rules and not by some dubious "general impression" technique. I consider this to be the only way to judge a referee's level of performance. Pointing out the number of frees that the official awarded to either team - an insinuation of bias - is hardly relevant, without specifying a number of situations where obvious frees were denied. It is shocking to see a member of the media showing such disdain for fair assessment of referees. Surely this educational initiative from the refereeing body is something to be lauded, and while it won't appease the bar-stool critics who thrive on the vague and general, one would have assumed that a media which constantly moans over refereeing standards would welcome this rather than berate it. Every single judgement a referee makes in a match is specified by rule, and referees are at least due a similarly educated and intelligent analysis of their performances.

From a Tipperary perspective it was a hard-won championship and all the more richly deserved for that, and no amount of ill-informed commentary can detract from this fact. When you consider the youth of many of the team it makes the achievement even praiseworthy. With the achievements of the Tipperary Seniors, the Cork Minors, and the Limerick Under 21s, the comments we had to endure over the Summer concerning the standard of hurling in Munster (when the competitiveness of Leinster was questioned) have been shown to be just as hollow as we suspected.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RULE 21 – TIME TO LET GO ? 2002



As one of the great monolithic organisations of this country, the GAA is rarely short of critics or controversies, but probably the most emotive and enduring controversy that affects the GAA is the so-called rule 21. This rule is stated in the GAA Official Guide in the area covering membership of the association. Rather than generally comment on the content of a rule with which most people are familiar, it is perhaps more appropriate to state the rule in its exact terminology; “Members of the British armed forces and police shall not be eligible for membership of the Association. A member of the Association participating in dances, or similar entertainment, promoted by or under the patronage of such bodies, shall incur suspension of at least twelve weeks”.

Two other definitions are worth noting before delving further into the rule 21 argument. One is the stated “Basic Aim” of the GAA – “The Association is a National organisation which has as its basic aim the strengthening of the National Identity in a 32 county Ireland through the preservation and promotion of Gaelic Games and pastimes”. The other one which might be considered pertinent to this debate is the GAA’s stated position in “rule 8” – (a) The Association shall be non-party political. Party political questions shall not be discussed at its meetings, and no Committee, Club, Council or representative thereof shall take part, as such, in any party political movement. A penalty of up to twenty-four weeks suspension may be imposed for infringement. (b) The Association shall be non-sectarian. Perhaps the key thing to take out of this rule is that the GAA considers itself “non-party political”. It clearly does not deny itself the right to express opinions on political matters. It simply does not associate itself with any political party or organisation.

The GAA was founded during one of the most volatile periods of modern Irish history, as the national question came to the fore in political circles. In terms of mobilising the masses for future national requirements, the foundation of the GAA was very significant at this time, and the association itself was ideally positioned to benefit from the national mood. This "mood" was very much for quenching the huge English influence that had pervaded the country for many years. On day one, in keeping with the atmosphere that prompted its foundation, the new association excluded from membership, policemen, soldiers, and other people associated with “Britishness”. This anti-British stance would simply have been in keeping with the motives that influenced virtually any other organisation that was founded in rural Ireland around this time. Of course, as time passed, the GAA and the Irish Republican Brotherhood - if not quite being "inextricably linked" - shared huge mutual membership, and the GAA became a "breeding ground" where many of those who subsequently were huge players on the national question, first cut their organisational teeth.

It is remarkable that 117 years later, despite huge political changes, this rule is still such a source of controversy. Indeed some would suggest that the remarkable thing is that the rule still exists at all. Others would no doubt suggest that it is remarkable that the rule is still "required"! The infamous “Ban” i.e. the prohibition on GAA members playing or promoting sports considered quintessentially British, had been dropped at times by the GAA, before its final deletion in 1971, but despite affecting less “GAA people” this rule banning “British armed forces and police” from membership is still with us.

Given the nature of things when the GAA was founded, and indeed for the best part of 40 years after, there was a very obvious justification for this rule. The attention and suspicion from the Dublin Castle authorities, which surrounded both the GAA and the IRB, was ample cause to beware of anyone sympathetic to the British point of view. Of course, the GAA as an organisation itself -with its 32 county ethos - was automatically in conflict with the British anyway, so naturally it was hardly advisable to allow those who were “hostile” to infiltrate the association’s ranks. Many years have passed since this could be considered a reasonable interpretation of the situation, at least in the majority of the GAA’s strongholds ; although some GAA members in the six counties might justifiably argue that this reality has not changed for them over the years. Nevertheless, the question is continually being asked - even within the GAA - as to how the retention of rule 21 can be justified. This is what I hope to examine in this article i.e. the division between the argument for deleting the rule, and the counter-argument for maintaining the status quo, and how the GAA might handle the issue in the future.

The argument for deleting the rule from the GAA's books tends to come from two quarters. Firstly, from within the GAA, where it is an annually recurring issue at county board conventions around the country, and secondly of course from the media and political commentators who are consistently criticising the rule. Much of the criticism centres on the fact that the rule is considered largely symbolic and is seen to serve little or no practical purpose for the GAA, yet leaves the association open to charges – whether justified or not - of bigotry and sectarianism.

This quote from Tom Humphries in the Irish Times

- when the Joe McDonagh led attempt to delete rule 21 floundered - articulates this media point of view ;

“mainstream republicanism has stopped holding up its dead and its wounded as justification for eternal war, why should the GAA be persisting ? For a great and unique sports body with so much to offer, it was a sad day”

However, another comment from the same journalist demonstrates how depending on circumstances such views are not always on such a sure footing ;

“As one who has stood with defiant club secretaries in the charred rubble of burned out clubhouses, who has seen murdered GAA men buried in coffins with jerseys draped over them, who has heard the stories of intimidation and harassment that GAA people in the north has been subjected to, this column has always been a little reluctant to issue statements on the status of rule 21. From the warmth of a Dublin newspaper office it is easy to talk tough about rule 21".

The feeling usually articulated in the Dublin media tends to see sport as an ideal way to foster an apparent mood for change and reconciliation, and that the GAA should be giving the lead in this area by dropping rule 21. There is a striking contradiction between this stance and the views of much of the media when rugby teams toured South Africa during the apartheid years, another case where sport and politics collided. In those days, the view tended to be that by including the country in world sport, the abhorrent political system in the country was being legitimised. If one holds this view, then surely for the sake of consistency, is it not fair to say that dropping rule 21 legitimises the RUC, warts and all ?

Taken at face value it is difficult to argue that the existence of this rule does not damage the association’s image. However, it is also easy to overestimate the level of damage it does. Even those who call for the abolition of the rule would concede that in practical terms it matters little, as the average RUC or British Army member hardly shares all our childhood ambitions of starring in Croke Park. The GAA will not be deluged by an influx of new members on the morning after this rule is dropped.

The fact that the presence of the rule is symbolic is not lost on anybody either, but the question is if this makes it any easier to dismiss the rule. It affects a minority of potential GAA members, and therefore represents a "stone in the shoe" in image terms, rather than being central retardant to the everyday workings of the association. On a purely intellectual level, a rule such as this does seem to be untenable, but of course there is huge emotion built into the debate, and indeed for members of the GAA in the six counties, it is not just an emotive subject for discussion, but is a very real issue which affects them daily. It is, of course, from this quarter that the most vociferous calls for the rule's retention come.

When it comes to defending rule 21, the arguments are much more striking and emotional. There are many incidents over the years, which can be pointed to by the GAA community in the six counties, which impact on one’s thoughts far more than any concerns about the GAA’s public image. It is important to note at this stage, that for the nationalist community in the six counties, there are huge perceived links and collusion between the “security forces” and loyalist extremists. A case in point here is the conviction in 1988 of former UDR member Steven Fletcher for the provision of the murder weapon that was used in the killing of the solicitor Pat Finucane. The UDR (now the Royal Irish Regiment) is the local "Ulster" branch of the British Army. Another factor in building this perception is a comment made in a BBC interview by Bobby Philpott - a former loyalist ;



"the RUC has been indispensable in the loyalist assassination campaign".



By the same token, it is only consistent to point out that for those on the other side of the community, the GAA represents a link with militant republicanism, and in fairness a rule banning British security forces from membership hardly challenges this perception. To this end the UDA announced in 1991 that it considered GAA members to be "legitimate targets" – so the chances are that anyone reading this article is a “legitimate target”.

GAA clubhouses have been a very popular target for loyalist terrorists over the years, with clubs such as Ballycran having their clubhouse burnt down twice. In February 1988, Aidan McAnespie, a footballer with the Aghaloo O’Neills club in Tyrone was shot dead; shot from behind by a British Army machine-gun, on his way to a football match.

In 1973 another man from the same club, Francie McCaughey, was milking cows when he was killed, as the cow-house door was booby-trapped by the UFF. The provocation provided by these two men? Well, they were active members of the local GAA club. McCaughey even had the audacity to spearhead an attempt to buy a pitch for the club.

Most people will be familiar with one of the most famous clubs in Ireland, Bellaghy Wolfe Tones, former All-Ireland club champions, and producer of many good footballers over the years for successive Derry teams. Sean Brown was a member of this club. He, being a metalwork teacher, did a huge amount of “handy-man” type jobs for the club, and his expertise was called for especially after the clubhouse was burnt down twice. His last job for the club was to install new security gates at the club premises, in order to offer some protection against loyalist attacks. As he drove through these gates in May 1997, he was shot dead by loyalist paramilitaries.

These are just a few examples of some of the more well-known cases of harassment and attacks aimed at GAA people in the six counties. Of course, there is a multitude of anecdotal evidence of checkpoints being set up by the RUC on the day of big GAA matches, and of players constantly being searched and hassled as they go to and from training. There are also the well-chronicled stories of the occupation of Casement Park in the early 1970s and the setting up of British army helicopter base in Crossmaglen Rangers ground, which are almost cultural reference points for the GAA community in the six counties. Even more recently, on August 22nd last, there were three bombs located at GAA clubs, and hoax claims of bombs at two others.



One of the most interesting quotes I have come across in relation to the subject of rule 21 is this one from a GAA member defending the rule;

“How’s this for a scenario ? On the twelfth of July (sic), you go to the Garvaghy Road and the GAA has rescinded rule 21. And you get the same scenario you got a year ago, where people are not allowed to go to their Mass. Where they’re batoned off the streets by the British army and RUC. How do you square that ? Do you put the thumbs up to the fella who’s beating you across the head and say “See you at the match tomorrow, pal” ? I don’t think so”.



Okay, it is pretty emotive stuff, but it does make you think about it in a way that you may not have done before, if you live in the comfort-zone of the twenty-six counties.

One of the difficulties that may be caused at least in part by the existence of rule 21, is a sort of vicious circle that has developed between the security forces and the GAA community in the six counties. Perhaps partly - and I stress partly - because of this rule, the RUC and the British army deliberately make life difficult for those with links to the association, while at the same time those very people who they harass can justify the retention of the rule on the basis of the treatment they receive. Of course, this is a rather simplistic analysis, because the rifts in this corner of the country run far deeper than anything that a GAA rule could cause.

The institutionalised human rights abuses that have affected the nationalist people over the years are a far more serious and wide-ranging issue. For example, does the fact that the rule barring RUC members from joining the GAA is considered sectarian not speak volumes for the RUC as a body ? If it genuinely represented the entire community, could a rule excluding its members be described as sectarian ? Why is the nationalist community so under-represented in the RUC ? Even Sean McNulty, an RUC officer and the most celebrated “victim” of the rule under discussion – as an All-Ireland minor medalist with Down in 1977 – has said that he understands why the rule exists - which coming from somebody within the RUC, who joined the force with full knowledge of this rule and how it would affect him personally - is a remarkable statement.



As I pointed out at the outset, the GAA in its stated basic aim speaks of “strengthening of the National Identity in a 32 county Ireland”. Would it not be fair to say that extending membership to “security forces” whose very existence flies in the face of a 32 county Ireland, would contravene this basic aim ? Is the GAA not being utterly consistent in retaining the rule on this basis ? Simple logic dictates that any other stance on this issue would necessitate the GAA revising the basic tenets of its philosophy.



Much has been made of the funding that the GAA receives from the British government. Is an organisation that gives so much back to the community, not entitled to such funding ? The argument that an exclusion rule such as rule 21 precludes entitlement to such funding doesn’t wash, in an environment where the former First Minister of the Stormont Assembly is a member of the Orange Order, which to put it mildly is hardly a paragon of inclusiveness. Depriving the GAA of proper funding which recognises its vital role in society, would only further alienate the nationalist community. Then again perhaps that is the motivation behind some of the complaints concerning such funding.



People can reasonably point out that whatever about the situation concerning the GAA/British security forces relationship, it still does not justify a rule of exclusion on the books of a sporting organisation, given the conventional wisdom that sport should be outside of politics. The main problem with this thesis is that it only justifies not creating a rule. In this case the rule already exists, is of great significance to many people, and as such cannot be readily dismissed with such convenient idealistic argument. The GAA faces the problem of moving its rules out of the political arena, but must show a safe pair of hands in doing so.



It was said by GAA President Joe McDonagh after the abortive attempt to delete the rule at the 1998 GAA congress, that the creation of a satisfactory police force which was seen to represent all sections of the community in the North was a necessary catalyst when it came to any movement on rule 21. Of course, this represented a climb-down for McDonagh on that occasion, as he was gung-ho in his initial efforts to rush through change. The lack of progress in relation to police reform in the north and the breakdown in the ceasefires of the loyalist groups, have shown that these attempts to delete the rule at that time clearly were ill-judged and premature.



The dilemma concerning a commitment to revisit the rule 21 issue when “a satisfactory police force” is in place, is how does the GAA measure this, or decide when this objective has been achieved ? Does it take its lead from the Nationalist political parties - given that it wants to be seen as non-party political, or does it simply consult its own members ? If the latter is to be the case, then should the entire membership (who will be entitled to vote on any proposed rule changes) take its lead from its northern colleagues, who clearly would be in the best position to gauge the atmosphere and opinion in their own back-yard ?



The GAA needs to find a way to deal with this issue, without in any way marginalising any sections of its membership. It has lived with this rule and all the associated criticism for over a century. Living with it for a few more years if it in any way supports the most vulnerable members of the association, is surely something that the GAA owes the people who have fostered the organisation under the most trying circumstances. The will is in the GAA to change the rule, there is no doubt about that, but the time and circumstances must be right. It is fair to say that judging from the public pronouncements of leading officials such as Joe McDonagh, Jack Boothman, and likely future president Albert Fallon, it is not the issue of whether rule 21 should be retained or not that exercises the GAA’s mind, but controlling the manner and circumstances of its deletion.

One assumes that the “right circumstances” will be found in time to come, but the key issue for the GAA at this stage is to recognise this, and not to jump too soon. An inability to get this rule change through congress would be publicly embarrassing for the association, and would lead to renewed and invigorated criticism. One wonders if the modern-day policy of political correctness, and apologies for historical wrongs perpetrated will stretch to the GAA/British Army saga. Will the British ever publicly apologise for the monstrous atrocity at Croke Park on Bloody Sunday ? This is an action which was completely unjustified even in the context of the time. Naturally people will say “that was a lifetime ago” and brush off this suggestion as over the top nationalist rhetoric. But the passage of time does not alter the brutality of this event. Will we ever hear an apology for it ? Would it not be a reasonable quid pro quo gesture – in a spirit of reconciliation - if and when rule 21 is abandoned by the GAA ?

However unlikely this scenario may be, surely the suffering endured by the community that the GAA represents is worth something ? The GAA must stand up and be counted right now, and not to allow this rule to be jettisoned by nothing more than wishy-washy political correct commentary which concerns itself with public image. Neither should it be influenced by accusations of sectarianism and bigotry, often coming from sources which themselves epitomise the terms. This rule has been carried for too long in the face of constant criticism, to now let it go without some acknowledgement for the suffering endured by GAA members at British hands. Let us hope that the GAA leadership has it in them to recognise this. Let them remember than the only gain from losing the rule will be good PR, and if any organisation has the resilience to survive without a short-term injection of good PR, then it is the GAA. There is far greater vindication awaiting the association if the proper conditions for the deletion of the rule are in place at the time it is consigned to history.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raising the Banner- Reviewed by Mulcair. 2.12.02

Ger Loughnane was asked recently what was the best sports book he's read, and his reply was quite telling in terms of how his own book would be styled. He said his favorite book was "Sacred Hoops" by Phil Jackson who coached the Chicago Bulls basketball team, and "I loved it because it is not an account of every game, but is about the entire philosophy and approach to coaching". Unfortunately this is also how Loughnane's own book is written, and it is much the worse for it. Further alarm bells rang for me when I read in Loughnane's preface to the book that he agreed to do the book on condition that "there would be no long-winded accounts of matches in the book as these were already well-documented and that there would be no holding back".


It is an unusual style in that it is written as a biography i.e. in the third person, with Loughnane's own contribution appearing intermittently in italicized text. At different stages of the book the writer John Scally rather sloppily falls into writing in the
first person as if he was Loughnane and makes it rather confusing to follow at times.
Much had been made of the controversy that this book was going to stoke up, and indeed the Daily Star gleefully told us that the book was going to "rock the GAA to its core". We were also promised much documentary evidence to back up some of the outlandish claims that Loughnane has made over the years. In reality, he backs up virtually nothing that he has ever said.

He provides plenty of documentary evidence in relation the 1997 and 1998 alright, but it is all rather bland and pointless. He reproduces documents received from the Games Administration committee of the GAA, and from the Munster Council inviting him to appear before them and confirming various penalties he had incurred. Nobody has ever questioned that he attended these meetings so documentary evidence of this kind is superfluous to say the least. It puts one in mind of the guy in the exam who doesn't have a bull's notion how to answer the question but throws everything he knows at it whether it's relevant or not.

In mentioning the Colin Lynch case he tells us there's a GAA rule which states that the referee's report is final. The rule in question states "the referee's decision on any question of fact or in regard to shall be final". This rule implies that if a referee stated that he cautioned Colin Lynch for a specific incident, then that is the end of that particular incident, as happened in the case of Diarmuid O'Sullivan assault on Brian Begley in the 2000 Munster semi-final. It does NOT preclude any committee looking into other incidents not mentioned in the report. In that respect it is inaccurate to interpret this rule as saying that the referee's report is the final and only statement on a match. It is only incidents to which the referee's report refers, i.e. "the referee's decision" that are protected by this rule. Of course, the suspensions imposed on Paul Delaney and Michael Ryan in 1995 appear to conflict with this rule but I'm sure Ger Loughnane's sense of fair play doesn't quite stretch to getting exercised about that.
The issues surrounding the referee's report are detailed in rule 1.6 of the "Control of Games" rules, and nowhere does it attribute such power or status to a referee's report, as to suggest that issues occurring outside the referee's vision cannot be dealt with by a disciplinary committee.



On page 154 of the book he mentions another GAA rule which he seems to badly misinterpret. He suggests that there is a rule which allows the committee in charge of a game to deal with the facts of a match on evidence from member at the match (as was done in the 1998 Munster Final) only where the referee's report is not submitted within 14 days. This is a distortion of the rule as the word only is Loughnane's own word, and fundamentally changes the interpretation of the rule. The actual wording of the rule 110 (rule 138 according to Loughnane) is "where a referee fails to submit his report within a period of 14 days after the game, the Committee in charge has power to deal with the facts of the match on the evidence available from members at the match". This rule in no way restricts any committee taking evidence from members at a match irrespective of the time when the referee's report is submitted. It simply points out the procedure for dealing with a case where no referee's report turns up, or for some reason is delayed .

He mentions a case where Paidi O'Se allegedly received advice through a third party (a leading GAA figure in Cork apparently) which emanated from an unnamed (naturally) official based in Munster who he calls "Mr.X". It's a typical Loughnane yarn in the sense that it's a "friend of a friend". He said on the "Last Word" radio programme that nobody has denied this story. That is an incredible statement, as Paidi O'Se denied it in a prominent Sunday newspaper article ! Mr. X or the third party haven't been named so how can they be expected to deny anything if they aren't named ?! Loughnane also fails to say which rule was allegedly broken in this case anyway, which given his own exactness concerning some rules is inconsistent. Neither does he say whether the official in question was a member of the Games Administration Committee in which case it certainly could be argued that it was unethical, if not directly in contravention of the rules. I would suggest that everybody who ever appears in front of such a committee will seek the advice of those who have good working knowledge of the rules and committees, whether they are inside or outside their own county. If Loughnane wants to even insinuate corruption or wrong-doing (and it seems he desperately wants to) then he'll have to come up with proper evidence for once - rather than half-baked innuendo about nothing in particular. There has been a constant stream of rumour about Loughnane's "revelations" that were to appear in this book. It was time to produce the goods or else get off the pot. Yarns such as this will impress the small minority in Clare who share Loughnane's seige mentality, but putting such wishy-washy unimportant hearsay into a book as part of his "case" against the world reflects very badly on the former Clare manager.

In fact, building a case for the defence seems to consume most of Loughnane's energy. He neglects to mention important issues such as the alleged racist abuse visited upon Sean Og O'Halpin. This was mentioned a few times in a Sunday newspaper by Kevin Cashman. Does he not have a view on this ? It is a hugely serious allegation. Similarly, he doesn't elaborate on the "Don Corleone" characterisation of Frank Murphy in 1998. Instead he devotes a few chapters to a good whinge about the alleged inconsistencies concerning disciplinary issues during 1997 and 1998. Of course, there were apparent inconsistencies, but for him to suggest that Clare were the sole victims and that the GAA was one organised conspiracy against Clare was rubbish.




Some of it is alarming, such as his physical attack on Stephen MacNamara in the week of the 1995 All-Ireland Final, where he held his head to the ground while roaring at him. To put it mildly it doesn't exactly challenge the stereo-typical view of Loughnane as a manager who operated more on a "fire and brimstone" level than the more cerebral and considered approaches that we see from other successful managers. This incident is all the more shocking when you consider the way Loughnane threw around the word "abuse" on his Late Late Show appearance in relation to relatively trivial issues. Similar stories concerning his thoughts of flattening Stephen MacDonagh as Limerick ran out of the tunnel for the 1995 Munster Final, and having each Clare selector designated to tackle a specific Waterford selector if things got out of hand in the 1998 replay almost defy belief, and as I already said they simply reinforce the image which many people have of him.

He definitely has a serious chip on his shoulder concerning GAA officials, as he recounted an incident on an All-Star tour where Galway's PJ Molloy was barracking the GAA president who was giving a speech at a function. Molloy was subsequently warned about his behaviour and Loughnane considered this "heavy-handed" ! I'm not sure what he expected to happen. This is a man who banished a player from the Clare panel for having a few pints !!

One of the difficulties from the outset is the fact that he decided to go back into the frame of mind he was in at the time the various events he recounts actually happened. He will not allow himself or the readers the sense of perspective that a few years of a gap normally creates. In this vein he regrets not having even more of a go at Eamon Cregan after the 1997 All-Ireland Final. He mentioned on the Late Late Show that he was wrong to refer to Cregan's job, but rejected the opportunity to give this comment the permanency of print. He states his commitment in the book to speaking his mind on the Sunday Game programme, but clearly doesn't accord the same privilege to Eamon Cregan. The current Limerick manager's comments that the 1997 All-Ireland wasn't a "great" hurling match, and that Declan Ryan's "point" actually was a point from Cregan's vantage point, are still unacceptable "criticisms" of Clare in Loughnane's eyes, even tough they seem to be fair comment. In other words, speak your mind on the Sunday Game, but if Clare have won an All-Ireland it's bad form to do so. He slates Cregan's coaching methods when he was with Clare, and seems to suggest that this precludes him from commenting on anything to do with Clare. It's an argument full of holes, but it's Ger's party, and he'll cry if he wants to.


Some of the book is simply laughable, for example where he is hyping the Clare up at Cusack Park before a Munster Championship game and he takes a step forward every so often and the team moves back, to the point that they end up in the net with him shouting in at them !!! And in case any of you thought that Timmy Ryan, the hurling "coach" from d'unbelievables sketch is imaginary, consider this comment ; "they reminded me of the Clare 1995 team. Every game was a war of attrition". What team was he talking about ? The Wolfe Tones (Shannon) Under 14s !!! Another funny/peculiar story he recounts is this "For all the big matches, I would sit on my own, about two seats from the front, on the coach from the airport into Croke Park.
All the players were at the back. Every two minutes, I'd look straight back at them but not a word would be said. Then I'd turn around again". It sound like a real fun trip !!

For seasoned Loughnane watchers there are al the predictable contradictions which define the man. The most striking one is in relation to the substitution of Eamonn Taaffe in the 1995 All-Ireland Final. Loughnane says that he took a decision to substitute Taaffe, and had the slip of paper in his hand when Taaffe scored. A few sentences later he claims that the substitution was planned in order to create a break in play to give Clare a chance to regroup after their goal, a goal which of course one would have to have foreseen in order to have the slip of paper ready before it was scored !! To quote Loughnane exactly "that's why Eamonn Taaffe came off when the goal was scored. Eamonn would not have been taken off only that I wanted the game stopped to give everyone on our side a chance to regain composure". Every single situation must be (even retrospectively) turned into a tactical masterstroke by Loughnane.

Other more trivial contradictions between Loughnnane's accounts of events and Mike MacNamara's are evident in the reasons both give for the sixteen-man Clare All-Ireland photo. According to MacNamara it was decided to include Fergal Hegarty in the photo as a sort of compensation for the fact that the Clare selectors were dumping on him, but in Loughnane's view this was a ploy to stymie those who wished to sell
the Clare photo as "official". Another trivial incident also causes conflicting recollection between these two, that's when the were leaving their hotel for Shannon Airport before a match in Dublin they decided to use the back exit rather than have the bother of turning the bus. They found that the back gate was closed, and in MacNamara's account, himself, Jim McInerney, and another player got off the bus, lifted the gate off the hinges and away they went. According to Loughnane, he was one of the people incolved, and of course for him this was a deeply symbolic event, showing that nothing was going to stand in their way, which is in line with his tendency to read major things into incredibly minor events on the days of matches.
As I have said the last two issues are trivial but the conflicting accounts of them suggest that perhaps at least some of this Clare story is being made up as they go along. Loughnane's book doesn't shed a whole lot of light on his relationship with MacNamara but one cannot help but think that they are not quite open in giving each other the acknowledgement that both clearly feel is their due for Clare's success story.

One seriously ill-advised concept used in the writing of this book was to devote three of the book's eleven chapters to telling the "ten rules of leadership" and speaking of the individuals in his team through this thematic style. It doesn't work, and a lot of the language is incongruous with the story being told, and more suitable for some sort of management manual. People are far more interested in the personalities, and yes the individual games too, than Loughnane gives them credit for. Of course, the Clare story has been given huge coverage in the newspapers and magazines over the past five years, but it has never been told in its entirity from Ger Loughnane's perspective before. Neither has the story of the first twenty-five years of his hurling involvement. He didn't really need to find a new angle. The net effect of the style of the book is that any issue which did not come under the umbrella of the ten rules of leadership or the "hard-done-by" story of 1997/98 is glossed over.




This had the potential to be a great book, as the story of the Clare renaissance was so full of drama and incident that most fiction writers would struggle to match it. Unfortunately this book is far too mixed up in trying to prove Ger Loughnane right on every issue to be the defining book of a remarkable hurling era. He scarcely mentions his Harty Cup days at St.Flannan's, sums up his entire club career in a few paragraphs, and most remarkably of all scarcely refers to the bulk of his senior championship career. He simply dabbles in his own playing days only to prove a point, be it how much self-belief he instilled in his players compared to his own days, or to try to belittle Gerald McCarthy. We are none the wiser as to the comparative influence that Loughnane and Mike MacNamara wielded during the Clare era. According to both their books it seemed as if each of them saw himself as the leader, and the primary influence. Perhaps an objective assessment is needed. Loughnane has been involved in hurling for 30 years, his story is worth more than the self-indulgent diatribe that this book represents. It is also a disappointing offering from John Scally as his excellent book on Dermot Earley proves what a good writer he can be. The Clare team and the hurling public also deserve better. The book would have sold well anyway. And despite the Daily Star's headlines and Loughnane's the GAA's core is still very much intact as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LET'S HOPE FOR A CHAMPIONSHIP SHAKE-UP ! 2002



Looking ahead to 2002, it is more difficult than ever to speculate with any confidence as to how the hurling championship will unfold. The main reason is that on this occasion we have the new “qualifier” system into which will go eight teams including Galway and the Ulster champions. The will add a new dimension to the competition, and hopefully will provide a breath of fresh air such as the football championship enjoyed last year. Of course, football has a natural advantage over hurling as with its much broader base of strong counties, it will always be able to throw up a multitude of new, attractive, and competitive pairings. Hurling’s very limited base may well become even more obvious with the advent of the new system, but given the huge imbalance in the competitiveness of the different provincial championships over the past few years, something new must be tried.

The main difficulty with the new system is that it has simply evolved in piecemeal fashion, with no apparent thought as to the future status of the provincial championships. The Munster and Leinster championships are now in a sort of no-man’s land, in that they are not directly relevant to the All-Ireland series anymore. Only the Ulster championship is capable of eliminating a team from the championship in the coming year.

Whatever degree of public debate there is on the championship format seems to be driven by the fact that at the end of the first round of the championship, the likes of Brian Lohan and Ken McGrath won’t be hurling for nine months. Do these guys not have clubs?! Starting with a blank page would surely have produced a much more satisfactory system than the patched up version of the existing one that we will have this year. It hardly changes the world if Brian Lohan plays two games a year rather than one, does it?



Tipperary happily sit at the top of the hurling tree having on the “double” or even the “treble” if you consider that victory in the Munster Final was not essential to continued progress, at least theoretically anyway. It was a remarkable achievement for Tipperary to achieve such success and consistency, especially when newcomers such as Costello, Corbett, and Kelly hadn’t started a senior championship before last year. To win the All-Ireland final without the huge influence of the Mullinahone duo, John Leahy and Brian O’Meara, was an achievement worthy of much more recognition that has been afforded the team. Without wanting to appear carping, I often wonder what Tipperary has to do to get proper acknowledgement from the media. The nearest we seem to get is a sort of back-handed compliment from the likes of Enda McEvoy, when he says that Tipperary produces more good hurlers than any other county, our players dominate virtually every Fitzgibbon Cup, and therefore it’s not a matter of if Tipp will win an All-Ireland, but when. It doesn’t work quite as simply as that.



The media not giving due recognition is hardly new. One could cite the appalling omission of John Leahy from the 2000 All-Stars selection as another example. He played four games, won man-of–the–match in two of them, scored a point in another which easily exceeded the much-heralded effort from Kevin Broderick against Kilkenny, in terms of the skill requirement. Remember that Leahy was actively being tackled by Cathal Moore when he sold his “dummy” and scored the point, whereas the already-running Broderick’s “opponent” was standing with his arm aloft, doing a passable impression of the statue of liberty, albeit a slightly less mobile version. Despite the lack of recognition from the media and the predictable begrudgery of other elements, or perhaps because of them, Tipperary can hold their heads high and revel in a magnificent achievement.



One of Tipperary’s greatest players and a key member of the 2001 side, Declan Ryan, has since said that his days in the Blue and Gold are over. Declan had a long and fruitful career with the Premier county, and was never less than a vital player over the years. He had a superb debut season in 1988 starting - as he finished - at full-forward. He produced terrific performances in both the Munster and All-Ireland Finals, poaching a host of scores off Jim Cashman and Gerry McInerney respectively, and picking up an All-Star award. By the following year, he was used at midfield from about the tenth minute of the Munster Semi-Final until the All-Ireland Final, when he resumed his more usual role on the “forty”. Further glory came his way that year as All-Ireland under-21 winning captain, when he partnered Leahy at midfield. A county senior championship medal, with Holycross being the final victims polished off the perfect year.



Some of his greatest individual performances came during this time, such as the Munster semi-final against Limerick in 1990, and the All-Ireland semi-final against Galway the following year, both performances embellished with goals. Much is spoken of his duels with Jim Cashman of Cork, but much of the “analysis” is wide of the mark. He had much the better of Cashman in the 1988 Munster Final, and was second best to Cashman in 1990, though he was a long way from being the reason for losing that match. In the 1991 Munster Final in Cork, Jim Cashman was awarded the man-of–the–match award by his former team mate Donal O’Grady, but any viewing of the match video shows Ryan’s contribution to the Tipp cause in a good light. Another 1-1 in their 1992 encounter is to the Tipp man’s credit.



Despite the hype surrounding events in the ’91 replay, Ryan and Cashman were not marking each other, and I would defy any reasonable person to watch that match on tape and then suggest that Declan’s pull on Cashman was deliberate. Pulling without due care and attention is about the only charge that might stick. The fact that Cashman was fit to finish the game suggests that this particular incident was blown out of all proportion. Indeed, Jim Cashman more than anybody else acknowledges this.



The loss of Declan through a knee injury in the ’93 All-Ireland semi-final, was a fatal blow to Tipp on top of their other injuries that day. Declan returned from that knee injury to poach two goals in the ‘94 League Final against the same opposition, when John Leahy gave arguably the greatest individual display of the decade. Declan’s form dipped significantly in 1995 and into early ’96, but was back in the Munster Final that year, tormenting the Limerick defence and laying on a goal for Liam Cahill. 1997 was a memorable year for the big Clonoulty man, and two great clashes with Sean MacMahon, plus a terrific display against Wexford earned him another deserved All-Star award to go with the 1988 one. As in '88 Declan's All-Star coincided with Clonoulty winning the Dan Breen cup. Their late comeback against defending champions Boherlahan in the semi-final, coming from seven points down to two ahead in a couple of minutes, will live long in the memory of those who hadn’t already left the Stadium!



Declan led Tipp in ’98 in a very disappointing defeat against Waterford and the following year was left off in a tactical move for the replay against Clare. Hindsight shows that the visible deflation of the Tipperary supporters when the announcement was made in Pairc Ui Chaoimh was well founded, as was the elation on the Clare side as related in his book by Mike MacNamara. Injury to Declan in 2000 was probably the killer blow to a young Tipp team’s chances that year, but the problems that Declan caused to Diarmuid O’Sullivan in the National League last April suggested that he was back and ready to play a huge role again in 2001. This he certainly did, and the rare achievement of an All-Ireland medal in a third decade is a just reward. Easily the best centre-forward of his time in my view, Declan’s departure will leave a huge void not only in Nicky English’s options, but in the Tipp supporters’ affections.



Tipperary now have the problem of replacing Declan Ryan and how the cope with that dilemma will more than any other single factor decide their fate this year. Attempting to retain the All-Ireland title – one presumes the League won’t be paramount – will be a tricky assignment for Tipp having been drawn to play in the first round. Tipp will be expected to win another title in the next few of years, but to do so this year again will require a quick resolution of the full-forward issue, and ideally a fit John Leahy. To achieve both is a big ask. But what of the other counties?



A Cork team that is under new management, seems to have lost a lot of impetus in the past couple of years. The loss of Brian Corcoran to retirement will be a blow to them as Pat Mulcahy is hardly a championship centre-back. However, their biggest problem seems to be a lack of skilled, direct, robust ball-winning forwards. Seanie McGrath and Joe Deane were only marginal players last year, but the good form of Alan Brown will be a boost to players like this. Brown’s first touch will never be his main asset, but he is strong and good in the air, and if he had more vision and awareness he could be a very effective player for Cork. As it is, he is too easily bottled up and tends to take too much out of the ball. The best thing Cork have going for them is the championship draw. They got the draw they would have wanted and are now only one winnable game away from a potentially long year. It is difficult at this point to see how Cork can improve enough to win an All-Ireland but then again it wouldn’t be the first time that they defied the form-book!



Cork’s opponents, Waterford, are also under new management in the form of Justin McCarthy. Waterford played as good a twenty minutes of hurling as we saw last year but their biggest problem is that they mix the good with the bad. The defending for a couple of the Limerick goals was appalling. They desperately need to sort out the defensive chaos that was in evidence in Pairc Ui Chaoimh last June. If they can achieve this, and get Paul Flynn to somewhere within an asses’ roar of the level of fitness required for this level of hurling they could be a threat. They also need to develop a level of resilience such as Tipperary displayed - an ability to survive when things are going badly. Certainly not All-Ireland champions, but with the potential to damage the aspirations of others nonetheless.



On the back of their under-21 successes, Limerick are being touted as the coming team but will lack the element of surprise this season. They looked very impressive at times last year, but on the debit side of the argument is the fact that they only struggled past a weakened Cork team. They allowed Waterford a lead which on most days would be fatal, and contrived to lose to an inferior Wexford team, in what should have been a comfortable victory for them had they scored their frees. Limerick people would no doubt point to Tipperary’s narrow escape against Wexford, but the fact of the matter is that Tipperary had enough in the bank to survive when things went pear-shaped in that game, unlike the Shannonsiders.



They may also learn the hard way that under-21 players cannot be promoted en masse into the Munster senior championship, so the back- to-back under-21 victories, while reassuring, provide no short-term guarantees. Many of Cork's 1997/98 under-21 winners who are now struggling would testify to this. In 2002 Limerick will have to face a battle-hardened Tipperary or Clare, which will provide its own disadvantages. Of course, the other side of this particular coin is that have a second chance whatever may happen. Eamon Cregan needs to sort out the role in which Limerick intend to use Ciaran Carey. For all his ability, when he plays in the half-back-line he slows play down too much by constantly carrying the ball, and generally looks too loose. At least at midfield he is closer to the opposition's goal and can aspire to scoring or setting up scores. Perhaps most importantly of all, the further out from goal he gets caught in possession – an occupational hazard for this type of player – the greater the safety-net to bail Limerick out. They could also do with leaving Clem Smith to concentrate on his Ahane career. One also wonders about the extra pressure that Limerick’s new media policy will put on their captain. Anything less that a vintage Mark Foley would be detrimental to Limerick’s ambitions. I can't see the McCarthy Cup back in Limerick yet.



Clare are the other team in Munster, and on their day are well capable of making life difficult for any team. They still retain a quota of great players in the Lohans, MacMahon, and Jamesie O’Connor. However, where they have problems they are major ones. It should be said that the difficulty of the forwards in garnering scores commensurate with possession levels is not new for Clare. Even at their peak of '97/'98 this was a difficulty, but the problem is magnified now that possession is not as plentiful.



Almost as if to compensate for these shortcomings, the defenders adopted a sort of kamikaze role in 2001. Some of the antics – even when perpetrated in the general area of the ball – were disgraceful. If they meet a referee who is prepared to take action in situations like these they will finish games with less than the full complement regularly. As Darragh MacManus pointed out in an article in High Ball magazine, the lack of general reaction to the Clare tactics was remarkable. The ensuing Clare complaints about the refereeing - given the leniency the man in the middle showed them - left a sour taste.



Clare desperately need to unearth two scoring forwards, and find a replacement for Ollie Baker. Clare will give anybody a huge game, no doubt, but can you seriously see them winning four or five close games as will be required to win an All-Ireland? Clare are poised to become a very ordinary side in three or four years time based on current trends.



Outside of Munster, Galway should be capable of being a force again. They need a new goalkeeper – a fact already recognised by their selectors – and a bigger, stronger full-back, as a basic requirement. Michael Healy will always do well on a DJ Carey type of full-forward but struggles when confronted by a more traditional target-man type of player, who doesn't need a certain type of ball played to him. The Joe Rabbitte situation is a tricky one for them. He is a good player to win possession, but uses it badly so often that he seriously devalues his potential contribution to the team. Galway will also need to consider moving away from the constant ball-carrying system they use.



About this time of the year, many pundits will be dusting down their annual prediction that because of their recent minor success, we are about enter a period of Galway hegemony. This argument ignores their difficulty in translating their minor success even to under 21 level, a grade which surely is a more reliable - if not quite infallible – indicator of future returns, as the financial small print habitually advises.



The return of Rory Gantley would be a boost, but more consistent and effective contributions from Alan Kerins and Joe Rabbitte are badly required along with improvements at the back. Those who rush annually to predict a Galway All-Ireland victory can rest assured that they will inevitably be right eventually. However, without quite a bit of tweaking to the current team there is no guarantee that it will be next year. Galway get a second chance if they lose their first round game in the qualifier system, so in that sense they have a level playing field with the Munster and Leinster counties. However, unlike the their counterparts in the provinces, they lose this benefit after round one. So if Galway draw the likes of Laois and Dublin in the first round - a game they'd surely win, they will lose the second-chance option when confronted with stiffer opposition in the next round. So Galway will view the first round draw with mixed feelings!



Inevitably the Ulster teams will continue to struggle against the other provinces. The province has been given the ultimate insult by not allowing any of its teams - even its champions - the same second-chance afforded to others. One would have thought that the Ulster counties were exactly the sort of teams at which second-chance system is aimed. Is it fair that Galway, despite steadfastly refusing to enter any provincial championship, are given a second chance, but a team such as Derry which needs it far more badly is not ? Surely it would help the Ulster counties to have more quality games in the Summer, even if it amounted to only one more outing. Ulster has slipped significantly since the days of the fine Antrim team of '89-'91, and clearly is being marginalised by the new system. Derry must be expected to emerge from the province again, but they will struggle after that.



Leinster will be the focus of much interest this year, as the hurling public will be hoping for signs of renewal and competitiveness. Kilkenny will be aiming to equal the Leinster record of five-in-a-row that they set between 1971 and 1975. It has to be said that the current team has put itself in line for this piece of history without achieving anything approaching the status of the previous team to win five titles – at least in the eyes of the more discerning observers. In fairness to the current Kilkenny team, it is a high standard by which to be judged, and the fact that they have been so dominant without being consistently outstanding, is a criticism of the state of Leinster hurling generally rather than of this Kilkenny team in particular.



In the annual debate over the respective merits of Leinster and Munster hurling, the proponents of the southern province’s supremacy tend to point to the strength in depth in the South compared to its “rival”. There is no real counter-argument to this in my view. Patently the third, fourth, and fifth teams in Munster are streets ahead of their Leinster counterparts.



It is less common but more interesting to look at the other end of the spectrum. What does the performance of strongest team in Leinster, tell us about the state of hurling in the province. Would Kilkenny’s level of dominance simply be replicated if they were in the South, as some would have us believe? In the past six years Kilkenny have contested twenty-four Leinster championships in all grades of inter-county hurling. They have won an impressive sixteen of these! Taken at face value it is an excellent performance, and suggests a hurling county in great health. However, scratching under the surface we find that incredibly only two of these sixteen provincial titles have been converted to All-Ireland titles! Two titles in five years is not necessarily a poor performance. However, in the context of their provincial record it is a stunning statistic. It tells a sorry tale of the standard of Leinster hurling, when as the Provincial secretary Michael Delaney said “Kilkenny are dominating without doing a whole lot”.



There is much talk about promoting hurling in Dublin but surely questions have to be asked about other Leinster counties such as Offaly. We are told that an All-Ireland title gives a county a huge shot in the arm in terms of promoting the game among the youth. Why then is the game not being played all over Offaly - surely a county without the unique problems presented by Dublin? They have been fortunate to win four All-Ireland titles in the last twenty-one years, but don’t have never threatened to really become a consistent powerhouse of the game at all levels. Fr.Tom Fogarty is at the helm this year in Offaly, and as happened in Tipperary he takes over at the end of the natural life-cycle of a relatively successful team. I suspect that the remains of the decent Offaly team of the 1990s may not give him reason to have the same level of ambition as the Tipperary team he managed. Nor would the next level of player in Offaly be as capable at championship level as his Tipperary counterpart. Might it be cynical to suggest that in going for an outside manager, and by-passing their own many All-Ireland medal winners, Offaly are already preparing a generally acceptable scapegoat?



In fairness to Wexford, their under-21s have enjoyed a modest level of success in recent years, winning more Leinster titles than Kilkenny; but at senior level they still look at long way off the pace. They could have done without the self-deluding rhetoric of the likes of Larry O'Gorman and Tony Dempsey last Summer - when in reality it was through fluke rather than judgement, that they became superficially and temporarily competitive. It doesn't change the reality that they will not survive long while they are relying on a goalkeeper and wing-back for goals, or dusting down the likes of Martin Storey to play to the gallery.



One senses that Kilkenny are not the force they were and as a unit the current team is close to the end. Their three "key" forwards are well over the thirty mark, and John Power will be looking at his thirty-seventh year by the time the championship comes around. The age-profile of what are considered to be their most crucial players, makes one wonder about the effectiveness of their under-age structure, the virtues of which Liam Griffin will enthusiastically extol to anyone who cares to listen. We are led to believe that this is the model to which all other counties should aspire. Where then is all this young blood then? One gets the feeling that Kilkenny have already seen the crest of the particular wave they’ve been on since 1998. How quickly will they descend?



Suffice to say Kilkenny are vulnerable to a competitive team within their province, but with the current state of their opposition it would be foolhardy to bet against them making history. It is difficult to see them winning an All-Ireland though, even allowing for the massive advantage they enjoy of probably getting to an All-Ireland semi-final without seriously being threatened. How other counties would enjoy the prospect of not having to hit their peak performance until August!



The hurling championship desperately needs a shake-up, and the decline of the Leinster hurling championship is the loudest alarm bell currently sounding. One fears that the words of Enda McEvoy four years ago are coming to pass “People who say that the Leinster senior hurling championship is in decline may have seen nothing yet”. In the meantime, we are stuck with an increasingly irrelevant and unwieldy provincial championship system, which rather like the European Soccer Champions League, takes an age to knock teams out, thereby creating a high percentage of non "do-or-die" games. Whatever about the championship format, last year’s All-Ireland finalists look to be the teams to beat over the next year or two, with due regard for Jim Barry’s historical warning of Cork’s mushroom-like ability to come overnight.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------