Gilesy made an interesting point on Off The Ball the other night.
He said that he has never gone in for this thing of rooting for the underdogs. I've always had a soft spot for the underdog and I thought that everybody did.
Then Gilesy started giving it all it all this and that about how the top players produce it week in, week out and that's why they are the top players. The underdogs meanwhile are simply not as good and the fact that have it in them to occasionally produce a big performance only leads to the question why they don't play like that all the time.
Roy Keane has said similar such things in the past and so there and then, listening to Off The Ball on Thursday night I completely changed my mind about always backing the underdog. I had no sympathy for Scotland this morning in spite of their valiant effort and I didn't really care that Tonga had miraculously beaten France so why did I ever feel the need to back the underdog in the first place.
No matter how talented a team or a player is or conversely how untalented a team is, you still have to produce it on the day. It's also not strictly true to say that the better players are better simply because they worked harder, natural talent goes a hell of a long way as well.
The underdog might even be the Champion of tomorrow, like the Clare hurlers in the 1990's. That group of players probably were more focused than any team that went before them and Loughnane did to a large extent revolutionise how teams were prepared.
The great thing about sport (and life indeed) is that having more resources and being more talented can still be overcome by using what you've got to the best of your ability. Though I suppose ultimately Gilesy is right, even that depends on the top dogs taking their eye off the ball.
He said that he has never gone in for this thing of rooting for the underdogs. I've always had a soft spot for the underdog and I thought that everybody did.
Then Gilesy started giving it all it all this and that about how the top players produce it week in, week out and that's why they are the top players. The underdogs meanwhile are simply not as good and the fact that have it in them to occasionally produce a big performance only leads to the question why they don't play like that all the time.
Roy Keane has said similar such things in the past and so there and then, listening to Off The Ball on Thursday night I completely changed my mind about always backing the underdog. I had no sympathy for Scotland this morning in spite of their valiant effort and I didn't really care that Tonga had miraculously beaten France so why did I ever feel the need to back the underdog in the first place.
No matter how talented a team or a player is or conversely how untalented a team is, you still have to produce it on the day. It's also not strictly true to say that the better players are better simply because they worked harder, natural talent goes a hell of a long way as well.
The underdog might even be the Champion of tomorrow, like the Clare hurlers in the 1990's. That group of players probably were more focused than any team that went before them and Loughnane did to a large extent revolutionise how teams were prepared.
The great thing about sport (and life indeed) is that having more resources and being more talented can still be overcome by using what you've got to the best of your ability. Though I suppose ultimately Gilesy is right, even that depends on the top dogs taking their eye off the ball.
