Combined Soccer vs AFL threads - please post here

[ClintonGrybus]

- No soccer is best
- no afl is best
- no soccer is best
- no afl is best
- no soccer is best
- no afl is best
- no soccer is best



personally i think boobs are best

Mmmm Boobies, Pizza, beer.

 

[saintsrule]

The article is true. Soccer was the beautiful game and in some extents still is, however the diving the other problems have made the game worse.

This also might interst people here.
From today's Age by Tim Colebatch. Quite timelyI thought

www.theage.com.auHome » Opinion » Article
Lovely game, but badly in need of serious reform

It's not just Australians asking that. All over the world, fans are asking how "the beautiful game" can allow its results to be decided by such random officiating.

The Americans, who had the tough luck to get German dentist Markus Merk as referee for their deciding match against Ghana, are fuming. Never mind that Merk awarded 32 fouls their way as against only 16 to Ghana — matching the record he set a round earlier between Australia and Brazil. What made them mad was that Ghana scored the winning goal from a penalty kick that neutrals agreed was undeserved.

The Koreans too are fuming. In their final match against Switzerland, referee Horacio Elizondo awarded 20 fouls against them as against eight for them, ignored a Swiss handball in the penalty area, and overruled the linesman's offside call to allow a Swiss goal.

The Tunisians are just as livid. They were eliminated after referee Carlos Amarilla decided Ukraine's star striker Andriy Shevchenko had been tripped and awarded him a penalty kick, from which he scored the lone goal of the match. The video replay suggested that in fact Shevchenko tripped over his own feet.

I could go on, but you get the picture. Game after game has been decided not by the skills of the two teams, but by refereeing decisions at critical moments.

The beautiful game has a problem. In no sport on earth are more matches decided by the chance fate of refereeing decisions. If the ref sees a critical decision your way, you win. If he sees it the other team's way, you lose.

Sure, random decisions can decide the outcome in any sport. But in soccer they matter far more often, because it is such a low-scoring game that one goal often decides the result.

And what makes soccer such a low-scoring game is primarily the offside rule. By preventing forwards from playing forward, it limits teams to a handful of scoring opportunities. So forwards become professional actors, divers in search of penalties, and the result of the entire match frequently depends on how the ref judges those critical moments.

On many a winter day standing on the sidelines of a soccer field, heart rising and falling as decisions went one way or the other, I found myself contrasting FIFA, the governing body of world soccer, with the much-maligned AFL.

The AFL might get a lot of smaller decisions wrong, as it did last week, but it has got a lot of the big ones right. It has been willing to innovate, and that has allowed the game to evolve to a higher level.

The AFL was right to replace one umpire with two, and now three. That relieves umpires of the pressure of having to call every decision on the field, and reduced the number of umpiring errors. That also reduced their influence on the outcome, and made for a better game.

It was right to allow players to take time out on the bench, then return to the field. That makes for a higher-quality game, gives coaches more flexibility, and gives spectators a better game to watch.

It was right to impose a salary cap and egalitarian draft rules so that clubs at the bottom can pick themselves up. In the past 20 years, most AFL teams have won a premiership. In UK soccer, by contrast, Manchester United has won eight of the last 14 championships, while in Italy, Juventus has won seven of the last 12.

In soccer, none of these innovations is possible. It may be the world game, but in this area of the world, Europe rules. And that means the balance between tradition and innovation leans heavily towards tradition.

And towards money. For months Italy has been rocked by an unfolding scandal over clubs and referees fixing matches so they could make money by punting on unexpected outcomes. It culminated last week when Juventus, AC Milan, Fiorentina and Lazio were all charged over allegations of match-fixing, illegal betting on results, and manipulation of referee assignments.

It is not that FIFA's rules never change. One charitable explanation of the refereeing at this World Cup is that it has now sent referees out with a mission to crack down on unsporting tackles, and some teams had not got the message. But go back through video replays of the matches, and that explanation is hard to accept.

What you see on the screen is a different problem: whether consciously or not, the referees are treating the top teams with kid gloves, while dealing harshly with outsiders such as Australia and the African teams.

By the end of the first round last weekend, the eight seeded teams had collected a net surplus of 101 fouls: that is, 101 more fouls awarded in their favour than against them. Italy alone had a net foul count of 26 in its favour, Brazil 19, Spain 18, Argentina 16 and so on. Yet Australia had 30 more fouls called against it than for it, Ghana 36, and Tunisia 26.

The core problem of soccer, however, is not referee bias, but referee overload and rules that make them too often the arbiters of who wins the match. It would help if there were two referees, so fewer decisions are called from way behind the play, and the pressure on refs is eased. It would help if, at top level, a video referee could intervene on decisions involving penalties and goals.

But the beautiful game should go further. Whether by scrapping the offside rule, or enlarging the net, it should allow more goals, so matches depend less on the referees, and more on the way the teams play the game.

Tim Colebatch is economics editor, and a former soccer dad and junior coach.

 

[Sir_Adrian84]

This also might interst people here.
From today's Age by Tim Colebatch. Quite timelyI thought

www.theage.com.auHome » Opinion » Article
Lovely game, but badly in need of serious reform

It's not just Australians asking that. All over the world, fans are asking how "the beautiful game" can allow its results to be decided by such random officiating.

The Americans, who had the tough luck to get German dentist Markus Merk as referee for their deciding match against Ghana, are fuming. Never mind that Merk awarded 32 fouls their way as against only 16 to Ghana — matching the record he set a round earlier between Australia and Brazil. What made them mad was that Ghana scored the winning goal from a penalty kick that neutrals agreed was undeserved.

The Koreans too are fuming. In their final match against Switzerland, referee Horacio Elizondo awarded 20 fouls against them as against eight for them, ignored a Swiss handball in the penalty area, and overruled the linesman's offside call to allow a Swiss goal.

The Tunisians are just as livid. They were eliminated after referee Carlos Amarilla decided Ukraine's star striker Andriy Shevchenko had been tripped and awarded him a penalty kick, from which he scored the lone goal of the match. The video replay suggested that in fact Shevchenko tripped over his own feet.

I could go on, but you get the picture. Game after game has been decided not by the skills of the two teams, but by refereeing decisions at critical moments.

The beautiful game has a problem. In no sport on earth are more matches decided by the chance fate of refereeing decisions. If the ref sees a critical decision your way, you win. If he sees it the other team's way, you lose.

Sure, random decisions can decide the outcome in any sport. But in soccer they matter far more often, because it is such a low-scoring game that one goal often decides the result.

And what makes soccer such a low-scoring game is primarily the offside rule. By preventing forwards from playing forward, it limits teams to a handful of scoring opportunities. So forwards become professional actors, divers in search of penalties, and the result of the entire match frequently depends on how the ref judges those critical moments.

On many a winter day standing on the sidelines of a soccer field, heart rising and falling as decisions went one way or the other, I found myself contrasting FIFA, the governing body of world soccer, with the much-maligned AFL.

The AFL might get a lot of smaller decisions wrong, as it did last week, but it has got a lot of the big ones right. It has been willing to innovate, and that has allowed the game to evolve to a higher level.

The AFL was right to replace one umpire with two, and now three. That relieves umpires of the pressure of having to call every decision on the field, and reduced the number of umpiring errors. That also reduced their influence on the outcome, and made for a better game.

It was right to allow players to take time out on the bench, then return to the field. That makes for a higher-quality game, gives coaches more flexibility, and gives spectators a better game to watch.

It was right to impose a salary cap and egalitarian draft rules so that clubs at the bottom can pick themselves up. In the past 20 years, most AFL teams have won a premiership. In UK soccer, by contrast, Manchester United has won eight of the last 14 championships, while in Italy, Juventus has won seven of the last 12.

In soccer, none of these innovations is possible. It may be the world game, but in this area of the world, Europe rules. And that means the balance between tradition and innovation leans heavily towards tradition.

And towards money. For months Italy has been rocked by an unfolding scandal over clubs and referees fixing matches so they could make money by punting on unexpected outcomes. It culminated last week when Juventus, AC Milan, Fiorentina and Lazio were all charged over allegations of match-fixing, illegal betting on results, and manipulation of referee assignments.

It is not that FIFA's rules never change. One charitable explanation of the refereeing at this World Cup is that it has now sent referees out with a mission to crack down on unsporting tackles, and some teams had not got the message. But go back through video replays of the matches, and that explanation is hard to accept.

What you see on the screen is a different problem: whether consciously or not, the referees are treating the top teams with kid gloves, while dealing harshly with outsiders such as Australia and the African teams.

By the end of the first round last weekend, the eight seeded teams had collected a net surplus of 101 fouls: that is, 101 more fouls awarded in their favour than against them. Italy alone had a net foul count of 26 in its favour, Brazil 19, Spain 18, Argentina 16 and so on. Yet Australia had 30 more fouls called against it than for it, Ghana 36, and Tunisia 26.

The core problem of soccer, however, is not referee bias, but referee overload and rules that make them too often the arbiters of who wins the match. It would help if there were two referees, so fewer decisions are called from way behind the play, and the pressure on refs is eased. It would help if, at top level, a video referee could intervene on decisions involving penalties and goals.

But the beautiful game should go further. Whether by scrapping the offside rule, or enlarging the net, it should allow more goals, so matches depend less on the referees, and more on the way the teams play the game.

Tim Colebatch is economics editor, and a former soccer dad and junior coach.

great article

 

[saintsrule]

I thought it was spot on and although I really enjoyed watching the World Cup, I could never follow a game where arbitrary and unfair decisions so often decide the result.

 

[Hadders]

great article

from such a seasoned expert on soccer as the "economics editor of The Age", "soccer dad" and "former junior coach"? hmmm

 

[Sir_Adrian84]

from such a seasoned expert on soccer as the "economics editor of The Age", "soccer dad" and "former junior coach"? hmmm

so only experts can speak. As saw in the game last night, one decision can make all the difference.

 

[Hadders]

so only experts can speak. As saw in the game last night, one decision can make all the difference.

so on that count you'd believe guus hiddink's opinion on interest rates because he's got a bank account?

 

[saintsrule]

from such a seasoned expert on soccer as the "economics editor of The Age", "soccer dad" and "former junior coach"? hmmm

He is a very intelligent and astute writer, not only on economic matters. The article is well thought out and demonstrates a thorough knowledge of soccer and genuine insight into the problems that blight it.

You don't have to be a politician to have an informed opinion on politics.

 

[Sir_Adrian84]

so on that count you'd believe guus hiddink's opinion on interest rates because he's got a bank account?

experts don't always get everything right.

 

[Sir_Adrian84]

He is a very intelligent and astute writer, not only on economic matters. The article is well thought out and demonstrates a thorough knowledge of soccer and genuine insight into the problems that blight it.

You don't have to be a politician to have an informed opinion on politics.

Exactly

 

[The Vegemite kid]

This also might interst people here.
From today's Age by Tim Colebatch. Quite timelyI thought

www.theage.com.auHome » Opinion » Article
Lovely game, but badly in need of serious reform

It's not just Australians asking that. All over the world, fans are asking how "the beautiful game" can allow its results to be decided by such random officiating.

The Americans, who had the tough luck to get German dentist Markus Merk as referee for their deciding match against Ghana, are fuming. Never mind that Merk awarded 32 fouls their way as against only 16 to Ghana — matching the record he set a round earlier between Australia and Brazil. What made them mad was that Ghana scored the winning goal from a penalty kick that neutrals agreed was undeserved.

The Koreans too are fuming. In their final match against Switzerland, referee Horacio Elizondo awarded 20 fouls against them as against eight for them, ignored a Swiss handball in the penalty area, and overruled the linesman's offside call to allow a Swiss goal.

The Tunisians are just as livid. They were eliminated after referee Carlos Amarilla decided Ukraine's star striker Andriy Shevchenko had been tripped and awarded him a penalty kick, from which he scored the lone goal of the match. The video replay suggested that in fact Shevchenko tripped over his own feet.

I could go on, but you get the picture. Game after game has been decided not by the skills of the two teams, but by refereeing decisions at critical moments.

The beautiful game has a problem. In no sport on earth are more matches decided by the chance fate of refereeing decisions. If the ref sees a critical decision your way, you win. If he sees it the other team's way, you lose.

Sure, random decisions can decide the outcome in any sport. But in soccer they matter far more often, because it is such a low-scoring game that one goal often decides the result.

And what makes soccer such a low-scoring game is primarily the offside rule. By preventing forwards from playing forward, it limits teams to a handful of scoring opportunities. So forwards become professional actors, divers in search of penalties, and the result of the entire match frequently depends on how the ref judges those critical moments.

On many a winter day standing on the sidelines of a soccer field, heart rising and falling as decisions went one way or the other, I found myself contrasting FIFA, the governing body of world soccer, with the much-maligned AFL.

The AFL might get a lot of smaller decisions wrong, as it did last week, but it has got a lot of the big ones right. It has been willing to innovate, and that has allowed the game to evolve to a higher level.

The AFL was right to replace one umpire with two, and now three. That relieves umpires of the pressure of having to call every decision on the field, and reduced the number of umpiring errors. That also reduced their influence on the outcome, and made for a better game.

It was right to allow players to take time out on the bench, then return to the field. That makes for a higher-quality game, gives coaches more flexibility, and gives spectators a better game to watch.

It was right to impose a salary cap and egalitarian draft rules so that clubs at the bottom can pick themselves up. In the past 20 years, most AFL teams have won a premiership. In UK soccer, by contrast, Manchester United has won eight of the last 14 championships, while in Italy, Juventus has won seven of the last 12.

In soccer, none of these innovations is possible. It may be the world game, but in this area of the world, Europe rules. And that means the balance between tradition and innovation leans heavily towards tradition.

And towards money. For months Italy has been rocked by an unfolding scandal over clubs and referees fixing matches so they could make money by punting on unexpected outcomes. It culminated last week when Juventus, AC Milan, Fiorentina and Lazio were all charged over allegations of match-fixing, illegal betting on results, and manipulation of referee assignments.

It is not that FIFA's rules never change. One charitable explanation of the refereeing at this World Cup is that it has now sent referees out with a mission to crack down on unsporting tackles, and some teams had not got the message. But go back through video replays of the matches, and that explanation is hard to accept.

What you see on the screen is a different problem: whether consciously or not, the referees are treating the top teams with kid gloves, while dealing harshly with outsiders such as Australia and the African teams.

By the end of the first round last weekend, the eight seeded teams had collected a net surplus of 101 fouls: that is, 101 more fouls awarded in their favour than against them. Italy alone had a net foul count of 26 in its favour, Brazil 19, Spain 18, Argentina 16 and so on. Yet Australia had 30 more fouls called against it than for it, Ghana 36, and Tunisia 26.

The core problem of soccer, however, is not referee bias, but referee overload and rules that make them too often the arbiters of who wins the match. It would help if there were two referees, so fewer decisions are called from way behind the play, and the pressure on refs is eased. It would help if, at top level, a video referee could intervene on decisions involving penalties and goals.

But the beautiful game should go further. Whether by scrapping the offside rule, or enlarging the net, it should allow more goals, so matches depend less on the referees, and more on the way the teams play the game.

Tim Colebatch is economics editor, and a former soccer dad and junior coach.

As a soccer follower I agree and disagree, usually the best side wins. Australia was on the wrong end of the stick with the penalty decision, but were fortunate with the red card. Italy were the better side on general play. And umpiring decisions can play a pivitol role in deciding AFL games as well.

For mine no game is better, AFL is brilliant and tests a players courage and skill. Soccer players at the top level have amazing skill.
Had the fortune of being in Sydney for the World Cup Qualifier and must admit I have never been to a better event. Interesting article from Gary Lyon on the issue...

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,19599343%255E20121,00.html

 

[saintsrule]

As a soccer follower I agree and disagree, usually the best side wins. Australia was on the wrong end of the stick with the penalty decision, but were fortunate with the red card. Italy were the better side on general play. And umpiring decisions can play a pivitol role in deciding AFL games as well.

For mine no game is better, AFL is brilliant and tests a players courage and skill. Soccer players at the top level have amazing skill.
Had the fortune of being in Sydney for the World Cup Qualifier and must admit I have never been to a better event. Interesting article from Gary Lyon on the issue...

No one is denying that soccer is a much bigger game on the world stage and I have found the World Cup rivetting viewing. My problem with the game is that on so many occasions a game is decided by a single arbitrary decision. At least with Aussie Rules, the three umpires system takes the pressure off one, this and the high scoring nature of the game ensure that a game is very rarely decided by poor umpiring decisions. The dramatic antics of soccer players playing for frees does not enhance the game at all. And one can't help but think that the 'traditional' soccer nations get more favourable treatment. Soccer is a wonderful game, but surely there are ways to make it better and less frustrating for players and onlookers alike.

 

[BuddyHawk]

Because the English and other European nations pretty much colonised everywhere, Africa, South America, Sub continent...they took soccer with them! also it's simple for the Poorer nations to play!

True in part, but doesn't take into account that outside of Great Britain, soccer wasn't particularly popular in Europe until early last century.

And the British were far less responsible for the spread of the sport than nations like Holland, Spain, France and Portugal - mainly because the British ruling classes have traditionally played cricket and rugby, while soccer has been the sport of the workers.

Soccer is the world's most popular sport because it is far simpler to play than most (not in terms of the skills required, but because of the comparative lack of equipment) and with the possible exception of track and field, gives athletes from poor nations the best chance of matching it with athletes from rich nations. Having said that, wealthy European nations are going to provide six of the World Cup's quarter-finalists, and most of the Argentine, Brazillian and Ghanaian players are based in Europe as well.

 

[sainters]

Im stunned to see the support of soccer in Australia, why do people care about a game that dosn't want us?

It's proven, they don't want Australia, America, and African nations, so they try there best to get them out of the WC as quick as possible, it's corupt, it's stupid they only care about European nations, Asian nations and South American nations, why? because that where the high preiced players come from so they have to protect them! it's rigged.

I only support the Socceroos, not soccer

Well done Socceroos, you tried your best against FIFA.

 

[saintsrule]

Im stunned to see the support of soccer here, why should we care about a game that dosn't want us!

It's proven, they don't want Australia, America, and African nations, so they try there best to get them out of the WC as quick as possible, it's corupt, it's stupid they only care about European nations, Asian nations and South American nations! it's rigged.

I only support the Socceroos, not soccer

Well done Socceroos, you tried your best against FIFA.

This is the kind of frustration that needs to be addressed by changing rules and number of referees. For all the sins of the AFL, they are not afraid of change!

 

[sainters]

This is the kind of frustration that needs to be addressed by changing rules and number of referees. For all the sins of the AFL, they are not afraid of change!

It's something that really needs to be addressed, im sick of seeing the games rigged because the South American, European and Asian teams have the gun players, so they need to protect them!

 

[Peter P]

And the British were far less responsible for the spread of the sport than nations like Holland, Spain, France and Portugal - mainly because the British ruling classes have traditionally played cricket and rugby, while soccer has been the sport of the workers.

A book called the "History of Football" I read some years ago - put a lot of the credit to the British workers - particularly the railway workers who went as part of British railways companies all over the globe, especially South America and Italy, and took their version of football with them.

 

[Peter P]

Interesting article in the Irish Independent (main national daily of Ireland) today. The FAI (Football Association of Ireland - Irish soccer's governing body) were reported as predicting the demise of Gaelic Football and Hurling in favour of Soccer when the Republic of Ireland started its run of playing in 3 World Cups including 2nd round progression during the 90s and Japan/Korea. But today Irish Soccer languishes at club level, although support for the national team remains high. The article may be a bit of hyperbole but it does have a point.

GAA take on the World Cup and win

Tuesday June 27th 2006

Huge crowds putGermany in shade

IT was the weekend that Gaelic Games took on the World Cup and won.

Not only did Dublin v Laois attract a bigger crowd than any of the four World Cup elimination ties played in Germany on Saturday and Sunday, but more people attended football and hurling games over the two days.

The total turnout at the four soccer games was 204,000, compared to at least 260,000 at GAA games.

The combined attendance at the GAA's inter-county championship games was 185,000, while, at a conservative estimate at least 2,500 per county watched club action, bringing the overall total to over 260,000.

The attendance of 67,790 at the Dublin v Laois game beat the crowd at the Germany-Sweden tie in Munich on Saturday by 1,790. The 53,286 attendance at the Cork-Tipperary Munster hurling final in Thurles was 1,286 more than the crowd at the England-Ecuador game in Stuttgart.

Fears that the World Cup would impact negatively on GAA attendances have proved groundless.

With the season still not at the halfway point, it's possible that last year's total attendance figure of 1.84 million will be surpassed.

The combined attendance of 121,076 in Croke Park and Semple Stadium, the Association's two largest grounds, was a huge boost, but the GAA will also be pleased by the 24,251 turnout (up 2,000 on the drawn game) for the Armagh-Fermanagh replay in Clones.

Almost 14,000 watched Mayo beat Leitrim by a point in the Connacht semi-final at Carrick-on-Shannon.

Good news

There was more good news too with the upward trend in attendances at both the Munster hurling championship and the All-Ireland first-round football qualifiers.

While the total Munster turnout of 147,809 was down 12,285 on last year, the decrease was accounted for by last year's first-round Limerick-Tipperary replay at the Gaelic Grounds, which attracted 20,812.

There were no replays in Munster this year, so in real terms, the attendance at the four games was up 8,527.

Attendances at the first-round football qualifiers over the last two weekends reached over 48,000 this year, up 21,000 on last year.

While 11,000 was accounted for by the Louth-Tyrone replay, it still leaves this year's crowds up by almost 10,000 on 2005.

Martin Breheny

 

[Kompany]

It's proven, they don't want Australia, America, and African nations, so they try there best to get them out of the WC as quick as possible, it's corupt, it's stupid they only care about European nations, Asian nations and South American nations, why? because that where the high preiced players come from so they have to protect them! it's rigged.

I only support the Socceroos, not soccer

Well done Socceroos, you tried your best against FIFA.

If they don't want the US, then how come they're that high in the FIFA ranking? Before the WC they were ranked 4th while in truth they are hardly a top 20 team. And why does the Central- and North American zone get 3,5 spots in the world cup, while every soccer fan knows that's too much? One thing's for sure, FIFA absolutely loves the US.

Protecting European nations? What about Italy and Spain in 2002? And what on earth has FIFA done wrong to any African side? You probably didn't know there are many more expensive African players than Asian, did you?

In soccer, decisions go with or against you. We've had some bull**** calls that cost us dear and Merk was an absolute disgrace (I've been following soccer for over 20 years and have never been that outraged about a referee before), but don't forget Japan should've had a penalty against us (+Timmy Cahill sent off), Vince Grella, who was on a yellow from the previous game, should've had a yellow (or maybe a red) for his studs up kick against Ronaldo's leg and Harry Kewell scored from an offside position.

There's no conspiracy, there's just bad bad refereeing.

 

[BuddyHawk]

A book called the "History of Football" I read some years ago - put a lot of the credit to the British workers - particularly the railway workers who went as part of British railways companies all over the globe, especially South America and Italy, and took their version of football with them.

A very good point - I guess I was thinking more in terms of why the game has never really taken off in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, at least compared to cricket, and why white South Africans have traditionally played cricket and rugby.

 

[DST]

Interesting article in the Irish Independent (main national daily of Ireland) today. The FAI (Football Association of Ireland - Irish soccer's governing body) were reported as predicting the demise of Gaelic Football and Hurling in favour of Soccer when the Republic of Ireland started its run of playing in 3 World Cups including 2nd round progression during the 90s and Japan/Korea. But today Irish Soccer languishes at club level, although support for the national team remains high. The article may be a bit of hyperbole but it does have a point.

GAA take on the World Cup and win

Tuesday June 27th 2006

Huge crowds putGermany in shade

IT was the weekend that Gaelic Games took on the World Cup and won.

Not only did Dublin v Laois attract a bigger crowd than any of the four World Cup elimination ties played in Germany on Saturday and Sunday, but more people attended football and hurling games over the two days.

The total turnout at the four soccer games was 204,000, compared to at least 260,000 at GAA games.

The combined attendance at the GAA's inter-county championship games was 185,000, while, at a conservative estimate at least 2,500 per county watched club action, bringing the overall total to over 260,000.

The attendance of 67,790 at the Dublin v Laois game beat the crowd at the Germany-Sweden tie in Munich on Saturday by 1,790. The 53,286 attendance at the Cork-Tipperary Munster hurling final in Thurles was 1,286 more than the crowd at the England-Ecuador game in Stuttgart.

Fears that the World Cup would impact negatively on GAA attendances have proved groundless.

With the season still not at the halfway point, it's possible that last year's total attendance figure of 1.84 million will be surpassed.

The combined attendance of 121,076 in Croke Park and Semple Stadium, the Association's two largest grounds, was a huge boost, but the GAA will also be pleased by the 24,251 turnout (up 2,000 on the drawn game) for the Armagh-Fermanagh replay in Clones.

Almost 14,000 watched Mayo beat Leitrim by a point in the Connacht semi-final at Carrick-on-Shannon.

Good news

There was more good news too with the upward trend in attendances at both the Munster hurling championship and the All-Ireland first-round football qualifiers.

While the total Munster turnout of 147,809 was down 12,285 on last year, the decrease was accounted for by last year's first-round Limerick-Tipperary replay at the Gaelic Grounds, which attracted 20,812.

There were no replays in Munster this year, so in real terms, the attendance at the four games was up 8,527.

Attendances at the first-round football qualifiers over the last two weekends reached over 48,000 this year, up 21,000 on last year.

While 11,000 was accounted for by the Louth-Tyrone replay, it still leaves this year's crowds up by almost 10,000 on 2005.

Martin Breheny

Nice try Martin, but you and everyone else on this planet knows that all those 4 games in Germany would of sold out 5 times over if they had the capacity to seat more. Hell there were estimates of 30,000 Australians alone outside the stadium in K town and at various other live sites across Germany.

Not to mention that at on average ticket prices were EUR $180.00 to probably no more than a donation on the way in the gate in Ireland.

DST

 

[BuddyHawk]

Interesting article in the Irish Independent (main national daily of Ireland) today. The FAI (Football Association of Ireland - Irish soccer's governing body) were reported as predicting the demise of Gaelic Football and Hurling in favour of Soccer when the Republic of Ireland started its run of playing in 3 World Cups including 2nd round progression during the 90s and Japan/Korea. But today Irish Soccer languishes at club level, although support for the national team remains high. The article may be a bit of hyperbole but it does have a point.

GAA take on the World Cup and win

Tuesday June 27th 2006

Huge crowds putGermany in shade

IT was the weekend that Gaelic Games took on the World Cup and won.

Not only did Dublin v Laois attract a bigger crowd than any of the four World Cup elimination ties played in Germany on Saturday and Sunday, but more people attended football and hurling games over the two days.

The total turnout at the four soccer games was 204,000, compared to at least 260,000 at GAA games.

The combined attendance at the GAA's inter-county championship games was 185,000, while, at a conservative estimate at least 2,500 per county watched club action, bringing the overall total to over 260,000.

The attendance of 67,790 at the Dublin v Laois game beat the crowd at the Germany-Sweden tie in Munich on Saturday by 1,790. The 53,286 attendance at the Cork-Tipperary Munster hurling final in Thurles was 1,286 more than the crowd at the England-Ecuador game in Stuttgart.

Fears that the World Cup would impact negatively on GAA attendances have proved groundless.

With the season still not at the halfway point, it's possible that last year's total attendance figure of 1.84 million will be surpassed.

The combined attendance of 121,076 in Croke Park and Semple Stadium, the Association's two largest grounds, was a huge boost, but the GAA will also be pleased by the 24,251 turnout (up 2,000 on the drawn game) for the Armagh-Fermanagh replay in Clones.

Almost 14,000 watched Mayo beat Leitrim by a point in the Connacht semi-final at Carrick-on-Shannon.

Good news

There was more good news too with the upward trend in attendances at both the Munster hurling championship and the All-Ireland first-round football qualifiers.

While the total Munster turnout of 147,809 was down 12,285 on last year, the decrease was accounted for by last year's first-round Limerick-Tipperary replay at the Gaelic Grounds, which attracted 20,812.

There were no replays in Munster this year, so in real terms, the attendance at the four games was up 8,527.

Attendances at the first-round football qualifiers over the last two weekends reached over 48,000 this year, up 21,000 on last year.

While 11,000 was accounted for by the Louth-Tyrone replay, it still leaves this year's crowds up by almost 10,000 on 2005.

Martin Breheny

Interesting article, as Australia's sporting landscape is very similar to Ireland's.

Like Ireland, we have an indigenous game (footy) that pulls in huge attendances week after week, but doesn't have much in the way of international competition. And like Ireland, we produce plenty of good soccer players who are invariably attracted to the glamour and cash of the bigger leagues (mainly the English Premier League).

Ireland has shown that it's possible to for two football codes to co-exist, namely because one has a domestic focus, while the other is very internationally based. Domestic soccer in Ireland is never going to be as popular as Gaelic Football, because the latter is too firmly ingrained in the country's cultural fabric. Added to that, top soccer players like Damian Duff and Robbie Keane are always going to move abroad. By the same token, the Irish national soccer team will always be massive, because it offers what Gaelic Football cannot: regular, quality international competition.

There's no reason why we won't have a similar situation in Australia: continued high levels of support for our local codes (footy and rugby league), and a lot of interest in soccer whenever the Socceroos are playing.

Although, the article was a bit mischevious to make the crowd comparision between GAA games and the World Cup, as the World Cup venues were filled to capacity. They would have got 200,000 to the Germany-Sweden match if the Munich ground was big enough.

 

[zero]

from such a seasoned expert on soccer as the "economics editor of The Age", "soccer dad" and "former junior coach"? hmmm

he wrote an article as a layman, with a laymans view of soccer. not an expert soccer article, he never claimed to have inside knowledge of the game, he wasnt discussing formations or anything like that.

seems like he was well qualified to write such an article, and well thought out and well written it was too.

 

[nicky]

It's something that really needs to be addressed, im sick of seeing the games rigged because the South American, European and Asian teams have the gun players, so they need to protect them!

I don't understand the benefit of protecting them.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Although, the article was a bit mischevious to make the crowd comparision between GAA games and the World Cup, as the World Cup venues were filled to capacity. They would have got 200,000 to the Germany-Sweden match if the Munich ground was big enough.

And they'd have got 100,000 to the Tipp-Cork hurling game if Semper Stadium had that capacity too. But point taken.

Interestingly the local pub, which was packed to capacity on Sunday arvo, had four large screens in various rooms. All four tellies were on the Hurling, and not a single one was on the England-Ecuador game.

As for World Cup "sell-outs", at the Socceroos-Japan game, it was announced on the loudspeaker during the match as a "sell-out", which made us all laugh as we were surrounded by hundreds of empty seats. And touts were still getting €150+ for tickets outside the ground.