|
Replying To countyman2022: "Very good point regards relegation. It is a funny one though, easier pre lim Q final for any of those teams coming 5th rather than coming 3rd or 4th." True. I didn't like the format at all when it was 1st explained to me. Now I'm of a mind to see how it plays out.
Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 14123 - 27/08/2024 14:32:46
2567155
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Timbertony: "Ref could always say in the report that he didn't see the incident fully and then CB could follow up with a ban? Where blatant red card offences are missed/ignored, Id have no issue with "trial by social media"." Trial by social media though ha ha . Theres cans of worms amd then there's lorry loads of worms .
Formertownie (Wexford) - Posts: 305 - 27/08/2024 14:34:37
2567157
Link
0
|
|
Replying To countyman2022: "Very good point regards relegation. It is a funny one though, easier pre lim Q final for any of those teams coming 5th rather than coming 3rd or 4th." And another way of looking at it, suppose a few different clubs thought that way in the future? You will only get an "easier" fixture if you are the only club who doesn't go all out in the groups. Suppose 2 of the stronger teams in each group think that way from the start?
Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 14123 - 27/08/2024 14:39:31
2567158
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Timbertony: "Ref could always say in the report that he didn't see the incident fully and then CB could follow up with a ban? Where blatant red card offences are missed/ignored, Id have no issue with "trial by social media"." Not on twitter so I only saw it when a mate sent it on the Whatsapp yesterday. Was a pretty blatant red. I'm sure a man with his experience must've been kicking himself after it.
Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 14123 - 27/08/2024 14:41:51
2567159
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Viking66: " Replying To Pikeman96: "I don't think anybody's been arguing that the games played so far have been significantly less intense. It's more the case that they're significantly less meaningful.
A perfect example was Oulart-The Ballagh v Crossabeg-Ballymurn in Bellefield on Sunday - a real dramatic match which Crossabeg seemed to have won with an injury time goal, only for Oulart to then score a goal themselves even later.
Last year, that result would have put Crossabeg out of the championship proper, and straight into a relegation final.
This year, they're still in the championship, and worst case scenario, would have two chances to avoid relegation instead of just one. So, plain to see that last Sunday's match was far less meaningful than it would been the old way.
Supporters of the new system might argue that the Crossabeg-Ballymurn situation is actually a good thing. Instead of lads being despondent and out of the championship after four matches, they can still look ahead with at least some degree of hope and optimism.
But at what cost? We now have a group stage of a championship that's far less meaningful than it could be, and to my mind, than it should be." So do away with groups. Or have smaller ones. Plenty of pretty meaningless group games the last 2 years. Our last 2 group games last year, and the year before, meant absolutely nothing."
Seems only way you could claim last two group games last year were "meaningless" is because you'd already won the first three, and so were assured of a top four qualification spot after just three rounds. In other words, it's only because the first three were so meaningful, that you could regard the last two as meaningless.
Don't know how you can say it about '22. You only had four points after the first three games that year. Four points wouldn't have guaranteed you qualification in the top four from that group that year (St. James' ended up going out in fifth place, on four points). It was actually the two points you got from beating St. James' in Round 4 that put you through ahead of them. So surely that was a meaningful match?
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2648 - 27/08/2024 14:46:06
2567161
Link
0
|
|
How about One group of 12 teams
4 rounds of games, open draw each round
After the 4 rounds
1 v 8
2 v 7
3 v 6
4 v 5 in quarters
9 v 12
10 v 11 relegation semis
lefty (Wexford) - Posts: 221 - 27/08/2024 14:59:58
2567164
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: " Replying To Viking66: "[quote=Pikeman96: "I don't think anybody's been arguing that the games played so far have been significantly less intense. It's more the case that they're significantly less meaningful.
A perfect example was Oulart-The Ballagh v Crossabeg-Ballymurn in Bellefield on Sunday - a real dramatic match which Crossabeg seemed to have won with an injury time goal, only for Oulart to then score a goal themselves even later.
Last year, that result would have put Crossabeg out of the championship proper, and straight into a relegation final.
This year, they're still in the championship, and worst case scenario, would have two chances to avoid relegation instead of just one. So, plain to see that last Sunday's match was far less meaningful than it would been the old way.
Supporters of the new system might argue that the Crossabeg-Ballymurn situation is actually a good thing. Instead of lads being despondent and out of the championship after four matches, they can still look ahead with at least some degree of hope and optimism.
But at what cost? We now have a group stage of a championship that's far less meaningful than it could be, and to my mind, than it should be." So do away with groups. Or have smaller ones. Plenty of pretty meaningless group games the last 2 years. Our last 2 group games last year, and the year before, meant absolutely nothing."
Seems only way you could claim last two group games last year were "meaningless" is because you'd already won the first three, and so were assured of a top four qualification spot after just three rounds. In other words, it's only because the first three were so meaningful, that you could regard the last two as meaningless.
Don't know how you can say it about '22. You only had four points after the first three games that year. Four points wouldn't have guaranteed you qualification in the top four from that group that year (St. James' ended up going out in fifth place, on four points). It was actually the two points you got from beating St. James' in Round 4 that put you through ahead of them. So surely that was a meaningful match?"]Sorry my mistake Pikeman, I'm still in denial over the Oulart result in the 2022 group stage, we were much more competitive in the final!!! The Jimmy's result WAS the 3rd result in my head!
But the point still stands, at the business end of the group stages there were plenty of dead rubbers as more than just us had already qualified for the QFs, and that's just at Intermediate.
Compare that to the year before, when we were in a 3 team group of death with the eventual 2 finalists, followed by a relegation semi final against Cushinstown. All 3 games were really meaningful.
Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 14123 - 27/08/2024 21:02:11
2567216
Link
0
|
|
Replying To lefty: "How about One group of 12 teams
4 rounds of games, open draw each round
After the 4 rounds
1 v 8
2 v 7
3 v 6
4 v 5 in quarters
9 v 12
10 v 11 relegation semis" Not a bad idea, but you could end up in a relegation semi final just by being unlucky in the draw.
Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 14123 - 27/08/2024 21:05:15
2567218
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Viking66: "Not a bad idea, but you could end up in a relegation semi final just by being unlucky in the draw." Thats true luck of the draw, ya play 4 teams current system ya play 5
lefty (Wexford) - Posts: 221 - 28/08/2024 08:33:18
2567270
Link
0
|
|
@Viking - honestly don't think anybody would want to go back to the "Covid Championships" format, of four groups of three.
And remember that like this year, everybody went through after the groups in those years anyway - the top teams straight to a quarter-final, and the second- and third-placed teams to a preliminary quarter-final. It was basically this year's system divided by two.
For what it's worth, your relegation semi-final against Rathgarogue-Cushinstown was actually your fourth match, after you'd lost a preliminary quarter-final v Buffers Alley. And yes, I know you're going to say at least that meant you had four meaningful matches.
Anyway, even in what was the usual way of two groups of six (with top four going through), I'm not sure there were as many dead rubbers as you say. Think the only way you could accurately describe a match as a dead rubber if it was between two teams already guaranteed a top four spot, and neither of them caring whether they actually finished first, second, third or fourth.
Any match involving a team not yet guaranteed a top four spot, or battling to avoid bottom spot and a relegation final, wouldn't have been a dead rubber, even if it didn't mean as much to the other team involved.
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2648 - 28/08/2024 10:36:33
2567298
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: "@Viking - honestly don't think anybody would want to go back to the "Covid Championships" format, of four groups of three.
And remember that like this year, everybody went through after the groups in those years anyway - the top teams straight to a quarter-final, and the second- and third-placed teams to a preliminary quarter-final. It was basically this year's system divided by two.
For what it's worth, your relegation semi-final against Rathgarogue-Cushinstown was actually your fourth match, after you'd lost a preliminary quarter-final v Buffers Alley. And yes, I know you're going to say at least that meant you had four meaningful matches.
Anyway, even in what was the usual way of two groups of six (with top four going through), I'm not sure there were as many dead rubbers as you say. Think the only way you could accurately describe a match as a dead rubber if it was between two teams already guaranteed a top four spot, and neither of them caring whether they actually finished first, second, third or fourth.
Any match involving a team not yet guaranteed a top four spot, or battling to avoid bottom spot and a relegation final, wouldn't have been a dead rubber, even if it didn't mean as much to the other team involved." Sorry Pikeman but that's what I meant. Under the current system it does matter if you finish 1st or 2nd, or 3rd or 4th. In 2022 and 2023 it really didn't matter to us where we finished once we made the top 4. I suppose in 2022 in the other group teams would have been looking to avoid Oulart, so looking to avoid finishing 4th. But in our group we didn't feel that it would be better to play any of the other teams in particular. And we didn't know where they were going to finish even if we did have a preference.
And obviously under the current system 5th or 6th carry the threat of relegation, so noone wants to finish in those places if they can help it. Additionally this year, in Intermediate, any team with designs on a run at the business end of the championship would likely be looking to finish in the top 4, thereby avoiding Rathnure in a potential QF, assuming of course that Rathnure win their last group game, which they might not. There is a helpful guide to all the permutations in all the grades on the Wexford GAA website since yesterday BTW.
I guess what I'm saying, and why I'm not coming out against the new system yet, is that there are too many variables still in play to say that any team in any grade can try, or could have tried, to be too clever and not try to win all their games. Which is the inference of many of the posts on this thread.
Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 14123 - 28/08/2024 11:29:17
2567331
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: "@Viking - honestly don't think anybody would want to go back to the "Covid Championships" format, of four groups of three.
And remember that like this year, everybody went through after the groups in those years anyway - the top teams straight to a quarter-final, and the second- and third-placed teams to a preliminary quarter-final. It was basically this year's system divided by two.
For what it's worth, your relegation semi-final against Rathgarogue-Cushinstown was actually your fourth match, after you'd lost a preliminary quarter-final v Buffers Alley. And yes, I know you're going to say at least that meant you had four meaningful matches.
Anyway, even in what was the usual way of two groups of six (with top four going through), I'm not sure there were as many dead rubbers as you say. Think the only way you could accurately describe a match as a dead rubber if it was between two teams already guaranteed a top four spot, and neither of them caring whether they actually finished first, second, third or fourth.
Any match involving a team not yet guaranteed a top four spot, or battling to avoid bottom spot and a relegation final, wouldn't have been a dead rubber, even if it didn't mean as much to the other team involved." At the same time I agree the group stages are a phoney war. I'm just saying that's what they always were to an extent. I'm not sure yet whether the new system is better, or worse, than last years as far as that goes. I'll have a better idea next Monday, but I'm not going to make my mind up altogether until after the finals. And the way it's looking so far I'm likely to decide it probably isn't any better or worse.
Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 14123 - 28/08/2024 11:58:23
2567343
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Viking66: " Replying To Pikeman96: "@Viking - honestly don't think anybody would want to go back to the "Covid Championships" format, of four groups of three.
And remember that like this year, everybody went through after the groups in those years anyway - the top teams straight to a quarter-final, and the second- and third-placed teams to a preliminary quarter-final. It was basically this year's system divided by two.
For what it's worth, your relegation semi-final against Rathgarogue-Cushinstown was actually your fourth match, after you'd lost a preliminary quarter-final v Buffers Alley. And yes, I know you're going to say at least that meant you had four meaningful matches.
Anyway, even in what was the usual way of two groups of six (with top four going through), I'm not sure there were as many dead rubbers as you say. Think the only way you could accurately describe a match as a dead rubber if it was between two teams already guaranteed a top four spot, and neither of them caring whether they actually finished first, second, third or fourth.
Any match involving a team not yet guaranteed a top four spot, or battling to avoid bottom spot and a relegation final, wouldn't have been a dead rubber, even if it didn't mean as much to the other team involved." At the same time I agree the group stages are a phoney war. I'm just saying that's what they always were to an extent. I'm not sure yet whether the new system is better, or worse, than last years as far as that goes. I'll have a better idea next Monday, but I'm not going to make my mind up altogether until after the finals. And the way it's looking so far I'm likely to decide it probably isn't any better or worse."
alwaysasub (Wexford) - Posts: 451 - 28/08/2024 13:27:37
2567372
Link
0
|
|
I'm just looking and half smiling at Viking's last few words.
"Probably isn't any better or worse" basically means is probably the same, which means we're all wasting time talking about it anyway! :)
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2648 - 28/08/2024 16:50:50
2567408
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: "I'm just looking and half smiling at Viking's last few words.
"Probably isn't any better or worse" basically means is probably the same, which means we're all wasting time talking about it anyway! :)" Yep. It's going to take more than format changes to improve the standard of our club championships. We need players to be more skilful, better developed mentally and physically. And that starts from u8s to u12s, and needs to be kept going up to minor. At every club.
Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 14123 - 28/08/2024 20:13:54
2567432
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: "I'm just looking and half smiling at Viking's last few words.
"Probably isn't any better or worse" basically means is probably the same, which means we're all wasting time talking about it anyway! :)" Yep. It's going to take more than format changes to improve the standard of our club championships. We need players to be more skilful, better developed mentally and physically. And that starts from u8s to u12s, and needs to be kept going up to minor. At every club.
Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 14123 - 28/08/2024 20:13:59
2567433
Link
0
|
|
There aren't 16 good enough teams to compete at Senior level, 8 would be too small a number, and any other number than 12 would be very difficult to organise
I have two different ideas:
(a) Two groups of 6; 1st goes straight through to the SFs; 2nd plays 3rd in the other group and vice-versa in the QFs; 4th and 5th are done for the year; 6th plays off in the relegation final
Rationale here is that coming 1st gives you a bye straight to the SFs (A bit like winning Leinster puts you in an AISF) and that whoever comes 4th probably lost more in the group stages than they won so they don't really deserve to be in the knock-out stages
(b) Top 6 teams in Senior A and next 6 teams in Senior B; Top two in Senior A go straight to the SFs; 3rd and 4th in Senior A play 1st and 2nd in Senior B; 5th and 6th in Senior B play off in the relegation final
Whoever comes 6th in Senior A gets "relegated" to Senior B the next year and whoever comes 1st in Senior B gets "promoted" to Senior B the next year
Can still win the Championship from Senior B although can get relegated to Intermediate from Senior B whereas you can't in Senior A
ElGranSenor (Wexford) - Posts: 358 - 28/08/2024 21:28:14
2567440
Link
0
|
|
Replying To ElGranSenor: "There aren't 16 good enough teams to compete at Senior level, 8 would be too small a number, and any other number than 12 would be very difficult to organise
I have two different ideas:
(a) Two groups of 6; 1st goes straight through to the SFs; 2nd plays 3rd in the other group and vice-versa in the QFs; 4th and 5th are done for the year; 6th plays off in the relegation final
Rationale here is that coming 1st gives you a bye straight to the SFs (A bit like winning Leinster puts you in an AISF) and that whoever comes 4th probably lost more in the group stages than they won so they don't really deserve to be in the knock-out stages
(b) Top 6 teams in Senior A and next 6 teams in Senior B; Top two in Senior A go straight to the SFs; 3rd and 4th in Senior A play 1st and 2nd in Senior B; 5th and 6th in Senior B play off in the relegation final
Whoever comes 6th in Senior A gets "relegated" to Senior B the next year and whoever comes 1st in Senior B gets "promoted" to Senior B the next year
Can still win the Championship from Senior B although can get relegated to Intermediate from Senior B whereas you can't in Senior A" I agree 100% with the first part of your post.
Then, of the two suggestions you make, I'd have a preference myself for the first one, but they're both good ideas. Problem however would be getting the clubs to either of them at the annual meeting to decide the championship format.
The first one was actually proposed from the top table a year or two back. Think it might even have been a proposal from the Chairman himself. But there was such opposition from clubs that it was either taken off the table altogether or else voted down by a massive margin (can't remember for sure). The "problem" that clubs saw with it was that only six teams would go through instead of eight, and so from their own point of view, they'd be lessening their own chances.
Your second suggestion would also only see six teams going through, so I'd expect there'd be similar opposition to that.
Just a feeling, but I suspect a factor in at least some people voting for this year's system was how everybody would go through. Basically a case of "we'd still be at the business end anyway, and if we can put run of four matches together, we'd be county champions no matter how badly we did in the first five".
Going back from a system with 12 teams going through to one with only six teams going through would be a massive change for anyone thinking like that.
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2648 - 29/08/2024 00:16:57
2567459
Link
0
|
|
Replying To ElGranSenor: "There aren't 16 good enough teams to compete at Senior level, 8 would be too small a number, and any other number than 12 would be very difficult to organise
I have two different ideas:
(a) Two groups of 6; 1st goes straight through to the SFs; 2nd plays 3rd in the other group and vice-versa in the QFs; 4th and 5th are done for the year; 6th plays off in the relegation final
Rationale here is that coming 1st gives you a bye straight to the SFs (A bit like winning Leinster puts you in an AISF) and that whoever comes 4th probably lost more in the group stages than they won so they don't really deserve to be in the knock-out stages
(b) Top 6 teams in Senior A and next 6 teams in Senior B; Top two in Senior A go straight to the SFs; 3rd and 4th in Senior A play 1st and 2nd in Senior B; 5th and 6th in Senior B play off in the relegation final
Whoever comes 6th in Senior A gets "relegated" to Senior B the next year and whoever comes 1st in Senior B gets "promoted" to Senior B the next year
Can still win the Championship from Senior B although can get relegated to Intermediate from Senior B whereas you can't in Senior A" B is pretty much the Limerick model.
Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 14123 - 29/08/2024 06:09:33
2567465
Link
0
|
|
A thought occurs to me this morning.
Going into Round 5, just about all the talk here is about formats, rather than actual matches, predictions, and permutations. Is that a sign in itself that generally speaking, the Round 5 results aren't as meaningful as they used to be?
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2648 - 29/08/2024 10:48:45
2567490
Link
0
|