Squad reduction ‘anti-player’ claims rejected

COMPETITION review chiefs in Croke Park have rejected claims that the decision to reduce inter-county panels from 30 to 24 is an “anti-player” move.

Competitions Review Task Force chairman Padraic Duffy insisted the restriction, which comes into force next January, is aimed at freeing up players to play with their clubs.

However, an angry Jarlath Burns, former chairman of the Players Committee, joined the chorus of criticism yesterday, labelling it as 'humiliating' to players.

Duffy insisted: "The reaction to this has been unfair and unreasonable. Administrators have a responsibility to look at the big picture. We can't just look at the needs of inter-county players, or the needs of clubs only. We want a fair and balanced approach."

He emphasised that the rule will have no influence over the size of panels, simply the number of players who can be brought on a match day.

"Our concern is for the clubs because of the way the inter-county programme has expanded. The leagues are being played from February to the end of April and then you have preparations for the championship. And, if a county is involved well into the summer, clubs see very little of their players. During the leagues in particular, when a lot of club games are played, we say that players who are not going to be in serious consideration for selection are far better off being allowed to play with their clubs.

"Nobody is restricting the number of players county managers have in training. We are simply saying that on match day, 24 players is sufficient. Leaving the others free to play with their clubs will facilitate the playing of club fixtures. Our thinking was based on trying to strengthen the club. I honestly feel that there are quite a few players on county panels between numbers 24 and 30 who would far prefer on a match day to be able to play with their club rather than sit on the bench knowing they have no realistic chance of getting on.''

While he appreciates that around championship time it will be difficult for managers to be restricted to togging out 24 players, that was what sport "was all about". "Tough decisions have to be made at certain times,'' he added.

Jarlath Burns pointed out that the Players Committee never proposed panels be raised to 30: "What we said was that panels be kept at 24. Even if there are 24 names in the programme, if they want to have that bit of bureaucracy, that's okay. But, at least if a fellow has trained for six or seven months, he should be able to run out on to the field.

"Brian McAlinden [in Armagh] never carried a panel above 22. He believed it was important that every player believed he had a real good chance of being on the team. That way every player really put it in in training. He felt with a panel of more than 25, there's too much of a comfort zone for the four or five fellows who know they'll never be played.

"Other managers carry a big panel so that in a game situation in training they can play a full game. But, not every manager feels it appropriate to have a panel of 30.

"We say, if a fellow is invited on to a panel and ends up number 25 or 26, it's not his fault. He has been asked on to the panel. The least dignity he deserves is to be given a jersey, a togs and a pair of socks on the day of the match. I keep saying that if the word 'pro' is the opposite of 'con,' then the word Congress is the opposite of progress.

"Once again that has been proven. I feel that among people going to Congress, there is such a lack of understanding into the psyche of players, maybe they don't fully understand what county players are thinking and the kaleidoscope of emotions they go through as they are approaching matches. Players asked to come on panels feel honoured, they do the same training, but don't get the glamour of the players who are playing. On the day of a match they are told, 'sorry lads, you can't tog out, we'll give you a ticket and you can sit in the stand'.

"What an absolute humiliation that is. It's just crazy and a disgrace.''

Burns did agree that players on the fringes of county panels should have the freedom to play with their clubs. "They're neither getting games with their county nor their club and they are vegetating. I have always felt that the first 21 should be named at the start of the year and beyond number 21, fellows can play with their clubs.''