That will also come back to haunt you
Informative rating.
1 Like
righeo.
Sarsfields should have been relegated years ago. Always flirting with relegation final or in it. Maudlintown have now one of the best club grounds in the country with excellent clubhouse with gym and meeting rooms and are very progressive. Joeys (yep, people tend to call them that, or as Mick Reade calls them in the free press 'reggae boys) will only go so far, to clannish but have their own ground up in Whiterock Hill. Vols have a very underrated underage system going for them at the moment (are currently in the semi final of roinn 1 u21 semi final I believe after being postponed 5x). Clonard are a joke with some of their committee in some form of role in Wexford GAA either on Wexford Park committee or on on Coiste na nog committee. Have the worst clubhouse being rented off the peters.
1 Like
One thing I will say, in Wexford GAA, the greatest outrage is the amount of amalgamated clubs there are at underage. Case example: Adamstown/Taghmon fielding an amalgamated team. Two big clubs. Or the likes of Horeswood, Castletown, Kilanerin, these are big big clubs. And then they take the piss by grading them in at premier/roinn 1 grades whereas I believe they should be just thrown into a group to play each other and let the clubs who are putting effort into going on their own group.
They’re all predominantly football clubs so hardly surprising they need to amalgamate
Happing in hurling as well @Mac, crazy amount of amalgamations in underage. Davidstown combined with Marshalstown last year for minor hurling and still lost to Ballyhogue in the shield final 
1 Like
They are big clubs but hwood have been struggling at underage for about 8 years i’d say, look to their senior tema and there’s very little youth to be seen.
I dont generally agree with amalgamation but i did play on an amalgamated tema myself which was produced a lot of good footballers who back boned successful teams for the next decade. If the amalgamation is out of necessity i think that is more than fair, however if it is out desperation to win a few medals there is no way it should be allowed. In the current climate i think a lot of the teams are in the latter category.
why is it different for football clubs macintosh?
As count says, I too played with an amalgamated club once I went past U14 after years of either not fielding or barely scraping together teams and playing lads who were 4 or 5 years under the age grade. You would probably consider our club to be a “big club” too, but being a big club, or whatever definition you have for that, does not guarantee numbers at underage. Our club this year has 7 players aged between 14 and 16. There is no way at all that they can field a juvenile team without amalgamating. Same goes for our minors. We have about 5 exceptional players at minor, and another 5 decent players, and thats it. Combined with 16’s, if we had to go on our own, we might field the bare 15, but could not be sure that the 14/15 year olds would play minor. So what should be done for that? Make people have more children spread out over the years? When we participated in a premier minor final a few years back, we had a panel of 19 players as opposed to our opposition that day who had a panel of 28. It’s all well and good to look at clubs and just because they are senior to think they shouldnt be amalgamating, but if the numbers arent there, what do they do? Our amalgamated team last year played Glynn, at the time an intermediate club. So 2 senior clubs amalgamating had a panel of 21 for the game, Glynn had a panel of 43. They had 2 teams at that age group. We cant compete with those sort of numbers. Martins are getting similar, and fair play to them for being able to have so many and keep so many going.
Granted, there are clubs amalgamating for the sake of it, but they are few and far between from what I see of numbers at underage in clubs.
2 Likes
Hmm, it was early this morning and I was sure yer man said it was a hurling problem so thats why I replied about football. Having read the post back it appears I misread that. Apologies to all.
Whats the main factor behind the clubs not having enough underage players for teams? Are they losing kids to other sports or is it factors to do with that specific area and not as many children in that area as there once was?
My own assessment would be the drop in the birth rate.
but it could obviously be any number of factors but it is no shock that clubs in the so called commuter belt around Wexford are not stuck in anyway.
I think one factor is that kids arent playing a few grades at once anymore. I played U14 when I was 9. I doubt that would happen these days. It was the only way we fielded teams, was to have a heap of young players in the team. Numbers are also slightly down on what they once were too and also the fact when we played, everyone was more or less forced to play, whereas now kids are more able to say fuck off I’m not playing that shite.
very true, i remember lining out for u21 at 16 and our goalie being 14…
As opposed to our club where we had 21 year olds playing U16
2 Likes
really? ive heard of that happening but usually in Cushinstown.
The fact is that doesnt happen any more due to new rules, you can only play one grande above your age and must be in your firstt year minor to play mens
Ah it happened a bit at U14 and U16 where we might have had a lad or 2 playing under a different name but only in his first year out of that age group and never in a game of any importance (we weren’t good enough to get to a game of any importance in reality) as it would probably have been known to the opposition
Yep, that’s a good shout alright.
I would never be one to question a club legend like yourself, but what year was that? I know there was an amalgamation at U21 after the minor win in 97,and I thought it was there the whole way through until 03 or 04. Was there a gap in between that I dont recall?
Usually helped if the fella (ringer) wasn’t much use either, so as not to stand out.