Ger Gilroy: Why is it okay for Mayo to start a mutiny but not Galway?
The curious difference in the response to the Galway and Mayo players had me wondering this week.
Why was it ok for Mayo players to express their frustration with management but somehow the Galway hurlers are supposed to be mute?
Apparently "due process" was followed so the Galway players didn't have a leg to stand on, at least according to the line being pushed by various correspondents and pundits.
The county board had followed the GAA rules and re-appointed the manager, so that's the end of the matter.
Nothing to see, move along.
The message seemed to be that GAA correspondents and pundits had closed ranks behind the county board and had enough of the uppity players.
The Mayo lads, though, are a great bunch so they can get rid of the two managers. Sure that's different, we know them and like them. It's a peculiar inconsistency.
Should the players have a say in the running of the team which they dedicate all their spare time for no material benefit? Yes. Is it ludicrous we still have to have conversations like this today? Yes.
The persistent doomsday scenario from various GAA dinosaurs is that the lunatics will be running the asylum if we allow them a role in managing the team.
The Galway hurling team lives eternally in the shade of some elemental club rivalries, occluded by personal politics which make it seem more Greek tragedy than sport. The chorus say the players are bad. The chorus is wrong.
The Galway players are entitled to their say and to air their grievances.
Anthony Cunningham is entitled to have his say too, but ultimately if the bulk of the players have decided your time is up then history shows that you have to go.
There is no coming back from a disaffected group of committed amateurs. It means too much to them.