UROY > I am not by any means saying things are all bad under Cunningham, they are not. Also, I am assuming that he knows more about managing county teams then I do.
But just to handpick some of your points and give a counterview
Keaney - Yes, Keaney did get cleaned out in 2014, but I have seen him cleaned out of it in other years too, preceeding 2014, it happens every player that sometimes they just get a guy who is going better then them on the day. But when the guy is old, the assumption is made that it is age related when it that is not necessarily the case.
ROD - Yes, good point that I can't complain we are lacking half forwards who can win the ball and then complain about ROD being picked. But likewise the argument can't be made that guys are picked exclusively on form and ROD be picked. For what it is worth, I would have picked ROD as I think he is needed, I am not sure I would have been happy with my decision in hindsight, but I would have went with him.
Madden - I would also have picked Madden, but I would have picked him sooner in the year also. But basically my issue is with the lack of logic surrounding the selections, not the selections themselves.
Cork - In your previous post you mentioned that losing to Cork is not unexpected, that we avoided Munster opposition in the past and that is the standard we are at. Normally yes, you would be correct. Losing a tight game to Cork with 14 men would not be a disaster by any means - but I think this is not a good Cork team at all.. They might prove me wrong later in the championship, in which case I would have to concede this point - but I would have ranked us a 5 or 6 point better team then this Cork 2016 outfit.
But these are team selection issues, no two people ever agree on these and no one ever agrees with the manager. Actually I would worry if everyone did agree with the manager, and under Daly the team nearly picked itself which wasn't healthy. I am more concerned with the situation where guys are not available for selection.
If Sutcliffe was a one off, I would put it down to a difference of opinion or something. No one was there so we don't know how any message was delivered or how things are communicated (and that is infinitely more important then what the message is). So basically we just don't know. (The footballers had the exact same issue in the last few months and the player took his punishment and everything moved on, but the internal presentation of same might have been different).
But there is too much going on. Now it might well be a good thing in the end in that guys are getting a chance that wouldn't normally do so and in the long run it is beneficial, But I would prefer decisions like that to be by design, not by accident. The year is over now for the seniors, and I suspect 2017 will be different, there will either be a different manager or mediation of some sort - so most of this discussion is probably moot.
Yes, you don't reward sulking, but you also have to manage the situation where guys don't feel so hard done by. Management is about more then making decision, you need to inspire and lead, and this is possibly what is lacking. In an inter-county set up, where everyone is there voluntarily you can't just lay down the law, you need to finesse players and other people involved into your ways. Sure, there will always be people who kick against it, and then the law does have to be laid down - but it should be the exception rather then the rule.
But, having said the above, I am still very hopeful about the future - as I was before Saturday night. When you look at the players coming through we have a bigger crop of real quality then I think we have ever had in the past.