He fared little better against Tipp down in Thurles the next day. The writing was on the wall. He’d never been quick but it had got to the point where his lack of mobility was becoming a liability.
Form doesn’t just mean competitive games. It encompasses performances for his club, in training, in ‘A versus B’ games and Challenge matches. So he could easily have done enough there to earn a start. And it’s all relative – he only needed to be better than whoever he was competing with for that spot.
Kelly and Schutte are injured. Gough was ahead of him but got injured for Saturday. What’s so illogical about that?
Think you’re underestimating the effect losing Crummy had on the game. For a start we lost a big physical wing back, part of a line that were shading the battle with their Half Forward line at the time. And that despite the fact that in the first half, many of Nash’s wind assisted puck outs and clearances were going beyond the half forward line which meant they were trying to win ball whilst facing their own goal. That was a definite factor in Cork taking so many shots from way out the pitch and racking up a heap of wides in the process. In the second half those puckouts into the wind favoured us much more, as half backs always prefer to be coming onto a ball. Our problem was that Cork now had an extra man in defence which gave them the alternative of utilizing the short puck out. Had we been able to push up and force them to go long continuously I think we’d have had them snookered and given ourselves a platform to win the game. Likewise our half forwards were doing okay on the long puck outs when the numbers were even but the percentages shifted against us once they had an extra man in defence, hence the spectacle of us often using the short puck out with the breeze.
Youth is great but it brings with it inexperience and Crummy’s inexperience (let’s hope it was just that and he doesn’t turn out headless) that led him to go charging in when on a yellow was the difference between us losing and picking up a morale-boosting win on the road.
For the record I don’t agree with all his selection decisions, no more than I do Jim Gavin’s. While I’ve criticized Cronin and can see why Cunningham doesn’t rate him, I’d personally at least have him on the panel, he remains a rough diamond but there’s potential there. I think Sean McGrath has merited more chances and I’d have given Joey Boland more game time this year. But I don’t believe his non-selection of any of them rates as a travesty.
Disagree. He was told in plain English not to play for two weeks. He chose to play for his Club six days later. He got disciplined and got the hump. It’s that simple. It doesn’t suit the agenda of a lot of people around here to accept that Danny was in the wrong but he was.
You’re the only person I’ve heard claim there’s a problem between Cunningham and Cian Boland. As said, he hasn’t started either of the Under 21’s games either so that sits at odds with your continued inferring that there’s anything spurious about the claims that he’s recovering from an injury.
For what it’s worth I think the ultimate reason (or at least the one I’ve been told) Keaney wasn’t on the panel this season was rather petty on Cunningham’s part. And as I’ve said previously I think he was plain wrong in how he dealt with Mikey Carton. Neither had a long term future with us though (no more than Nolan or Simmo did) so while the circumstances of their departures may have left a sour taste, in the greater scheme of things it doesn’t really matter why they’re not involved and in our best interests longer term that they aren’t. That’s the harsh reality of it.
By all accounts, Cunningham does seem to have an abrasive nature that rubs a lot of people up the wrong way. But I can only judge the man by his results and performances relative to how he’s managing the necessary overhaul of the playing squad and for me all things considered he’s doing well enough to continue.