www.uibhfhaili.com

manfromdelmonte wrote:Improving in every game.
They'll give the final a right rattle

Yes, they have improved greatly in every match since the County final and there is no reason to fear the Vins, just go out and play like they can and we can win that Leinster title.

I am loving the way the bookies are not giving Rhode a chance in this. I wouldnt be surprised to see a shock being pulled here. Looking forward to it already

Killeighman wrote:I am loving the way the bookies are not giving Rhode a chance in this. I wouldnt be surprised to see a shock being pulled here. Looking forward to it already

Not even remotely correct. The bookies are giving Rhode a 17% chance, or saying that they have around five points to find. That's a very, very different thing. They are giving Rhode the same chance of winning this game as they are giving Clare of winning the Munster hurling championship next year - yet nobody is saying that Clare have no chance.


I may have to start a campaign against the use of phrases like "no chance" and "written off" in the GAA. It's an absolute blight on us all and is the biggest barrier to quality analysis out there.

Lone Shark wrote:

Killeighman wrote:I am loving the way the bookies are not giving Rhode a chance in this. I wouldnt be surprised to see a shock being pulled here. Looking forward to it already

Not even remotely correct. The bookies are giving Rhode a 17% chance, or saying that they have around five points to find. That's a very, very different thing. They are giving Rhode the same chance of winning this game as they are giving Clare of winning the Munster hurling championship next year - yet nobody is saying that Clare have no chance.


I may have to start a campaign against the use of phrases like "no chance" and "written off" in the GAA. It's an absolute blight on us all and is the biggest barrier to quality analysis out there.

Isn't it fair to say that 17% chance of success is very little chance of success? It is not "no chance" as that would be 0%, but is it fair enough to say that 17% chance is in the "written off" category?

As you are keen to start a campaign, why don't you suggest the language that should be used, based on the % chance of winning? For instance, 0%, less than 10%, 10-20, etc... That way, there will be a common language for discourse. In the future, when someone says "The bookies have us as no hopers" than we would know that they indeed have the team as having a 15% chance of winning.

Just a thought.

Tullamore were 5/1 to beat rhode last year in final we all know how that ended, odds is only a number

I give up

Just on that. I said "no chance". Its commonly used among people but i'll be correct in saying there always is the chance. The bookies are not going to put up St Vincents "1-6" Rhode "No chance".. I was only using the common perception and im sure im not the only one using that perception of the phrase. Does anyone else on this think the bookies are giving Rhode "No Chance" by lookimg at the odds?

llkj wrote:

Lone Shark wrote:

Killeighman wrote:I am loving the way the bookies are not giving Rhode a chance in this. I wouldnt be surprised to see a shock being pulled here. Looking forward to it already

Not even remotely correct. The bookies are giving Rhode a 17% chance, or saying that they have around five points to find. That's a very, very different thing. They are giving Rhode the same chance of winning this game as they are giving Clare of winning the Munster hurling championship next year - yet nobody is saying that Clare have no chance.


I may have to start a campaign against the use of phrases like "no chance" and "written off" in the GAA. It's an absolute blight on us all and is the biggest barrier to quality analysis out there.

Isn't it fair to say that 17% chance of success is very little chance of success? It is not "no chance" as that would be 0%, but is it fair enough to say that 17% chance is in the "written off" category?

As you are keen to start a campaign, why don't you suggest the language that should be used, based on the % chance of winning? For instance, 0%, less than 10%, 10-20, etc... That way, there will be a common language for discourse. In the future, when someone says "The bookies have us as no hopers" than we would know that they indeed have the team as having a 15% chance of winning.

Just a thought.

I'll admit I'm biased on this as a lot of the frustration stems from people putting words in my mouth after the fact, translating a tentative nod one way or another into a summary dismissal of one team's motor skills to the point of suggesting that they are the equivalent of the Craggy Island over-eighty all-priest five a side team.

However I would say that a 17% chance, or 5/1, is consistent with saying that a team is a clear underdog, needs significant improvement to compete, highly unlikely to win, any similar term. Put it another way - Kerry were 5/1 or bigger to win the All Ireland up to and including their All Ireland semi-final replay against Mayo. Very few people would have picked them to win, I certainly didn't, but no-one would have said they were no-hopers either. Yet apparently a 5/1 price here is saying just that.

I would say that if the price is 10/1 or bigger to win the match, then that kind of talk is maybe warranted. The only team I can ever remember winning a match at odds of that magnitude is the Tullamore hurlers vs Birr in the quarter final the year they won the championship.

Lone Shark wrote:
I'll admit I'm biased on this as a lot of the frustration stems from people putting words in my mouth after the fact, translating a tentative nod one way or another into a summary dismissal of one team's motor skills to the point of suggesting that they are the equivalent of the Craggy Island over-eighty all-priest five a side team.

It's actually the Craggy Island over 75s all priest five a side team. Like, come on, over 80s would have "no chance".

Really think Rhode have a good chance here and will be having a wee punt on it.

It's two teams playing against each other, each has a 50/50 chance of winning . Let's keep to the matter of playing the game , I'd be more interested to here about tactics and game plans !!

this will be Rhodes all ireland it will be do or die for most in this final, vincents won it last year and i think this might tip it for Rhode and they seem to be getting better in every game if they all click in the final and Niall Mac has a good day i think Rhode will beat them handy, as Pat Flangan said its time we talked up or county again and not be beaten before the games are played, so Rhode by 5 for me.

ThIs b one sided

I'm loving the positivity around rhode but St. Vincents are another step up from anything that Rhode have played all year. I think only St. Vincent's complacency can beat them on the day as they should have too much for Rhode all over the field.

Can't see Rhode having the players to hold Connelly or Quinn quiet for the game while rhode's scoring will ultimately fall on Anton & Niall to keep Rhode in it.

St.Vincents led a decent Garrycastle team by 10 pts before completely switching off & letting them right back into it, you can't imagine that they'll be so careless in the final & if they build a nice lead then they could really kick for home.

All that been said, I'd love to see Rhode win & give football in the county a real lift.

mickey wrote:ThIs b one sided

you keep writeing rhode off mickey you might get it right some day