Mike Sheahan retires

[Butane]

In this thread: People having trivial gripes about a guy who's been writing articles on football for longer than they have been alive.

 

[winty]

Lost all respect from me after a 4-0 start he proclaimed the 'cracks were appearing'. I loved how Robbo continually mentioned it to Mike during the season

Then there was the one in 2009 when he was talking down Matty Scarlett and saying he didn't play on the best forwards, using a Geelong-Sydney game when Taylor played on Hall as an example. Unfortunately for Sheehan, Scarlo was actually a late withdrawal in that game. Bit hard to play on Barry Hall when you're sitting in the stands.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

didnt dislike him but never found a journo who changed his opinion on teams so quickly then Mike. One week he would be down on a team and the next they are world beaters.

Classic example was tipping us to beat Geelong in Geelong last year (2010). When it didn't happen, his opinion of us turned 180 degrees in the space of 7 days.

Amazingly fluid in his opinion.

 

[ThatsjustDappa]

Just a journo who says some things not particularly insightful.

Ridiculuous that the Hun has used the words "Footy Legend" for Mike, I mean jesus, they give out 'legend' like confetti these days what's next, a Hall of Fame BF poster....


(Yeah I know the Hun sucks)

 

[HyperAgressiveDonk]

what's next, a Hall of Fame BF poster....

That would be me

 

[Slattery_20]

Classic example was tipping us to beat Geelong in Geelong last year (2010). When it didn't happen, his opinion of us turned 180 degrees in the space of 7 days.

Amazingly fluid in his opinion.

Almost every article contains an out clause.

"If X happens, and I think it will, side Y will win this game..."
That side gets blitzed by 450 points in the first quarter...
he'll recap, and say "I pointed out, in my preview on the Zth, that they needed X to happen to have any sort of chance..."

One way to avoid being categorically wrong; but really I wish he were more raw, more balls-out, prepared to get it wrong occasionally.

 

[Hank93]

Is he going to be finishing on "On the Couch"? Great career Mike

 

[E Shed]

That would be me

Noob

 

[GreatBradScott]

O Mikey, we hardly knew thee.

 

[JUBJUB]

Didn't he "retire" 3-4 years ago from the Hun and was only going to write a couple of stories a week ?
Two more "retirement" annoucements and you'll out do a boxer or Farnsey.

 

[Bully187]

Mike was asked on sen this morning if he could compare the game now till across his whole writing career, he goes 'well the top teams always play the best brand of footy to watch, in those terms the game will always be in a good state the only thing is i think theyve sanitised the game a bit too much'. Spot on, even a nerd like mike sheehan reckons the game has been too sanisited.

 

[Jascave]

As well as writing about VFL/AFL, Mike Sheahan was also a cricket writer for the Age in the 1970s. And it was there on the 1977 Australian cricket tour of New Zealand that Sheahan noticed John Cornell and Austin Robertson was spending a lot of time with the team on that tour, especially Dennis Lillee. History shows it was the beginning of the cricket revolution, that came to be know as World Series Cricket.

Sheahan was also very good at breaking news stories. None better than in mid-1982 when as the chief football writer for the Herald, he broke the news that first Tom Hafey was sacked as coach of Collingwood, and then a couple of days later, announced that the Bulldogs had dismissed Royce Hart.

 

[FRUMPY]

Not really a big deal, he is still writing for the herald sun, just not as much. Still doing his top 50 which seems to polarise the footy community. Found his articles the last 5 years to be pretty unrelaible and he would change his mind each week on topics/teams.

If a team won convincingly one week (doesnt matter who they play) then they are a team on the rise and on the right path. Then that team goes and gets smacked the next week and they are in real trouble. He seemed to base his articles on week to week results and not on who they played or the general trend of the season.

Plus his love for Franklin and Rioli was sickening when watching on the couch.

 

[Barnzy]

In this day and age of shock analysis, people may criticise him for his fence-sitting; however, he usually gives both sides to a story and is fair, without talking too much bull shit. Although to be fair, of late, he's been more inclined to do so.

He would get criticized for his fence sitting because he would write an article stating a team is in trouble after a few losses but later on in the season if they get on a good run he would write an article stating how everything is going great at the club.

He is a muppet. If Mike coud pick one view and stick with it then I'd have a bit more respect for him as a journalist. I've never seen someone flip flop on views as much as I have with Mike over the years.

 

[Byron_Clanger]

Great career in the papers, as long as he stays on On the Couch with his pink shirts then that's all that matters

 

[Bunk Moreland]

+1 to the weathervane complaints. He was a shocker, particularly the last few years. A team would win, they were a huge flag show. 7 days later they’d lose, their season was over. It just got laughable.

I never really minded his articles but I think of late he’s fallen victim to trying to keep up a bit with the footy trash media and chase cheap headlines. The number of teams he’s write off on zero basis was astounding.

And I know the Top 50 is just his opinion but I could never help thinking it was an absolute wank, it was done purely for attention and to cause debate, rather than being his actual thoughts.

Probably a good time to go out, as he said the morning, if he keeps writing now his reputation can only go one way!

Did meet him once and had a brief chat, he was pretty engaging and seemed a good bloke. A former VFA player too, which many forget.

 

[PINNACLE HEALTH]

: Mike Sheahan retires

Lets prey he retires from On the Couch, the bloke has no idea and should be ever so thankful of every overpaid penny he has received from being a Journo!

 

[gPhonque]

I've always liked Mike. Find myself agreeing with him a lot of the time on On The Couch. Occasionally, I think he gets it very wrong... but we can't all agree all of the time.... and all in all, I'd much rather listen to him than Paul Roos (who is the master of not making up his mind, and having flimsy arguments that are often shot down in 5 seconds flat by Mike himself) or any other number of dumb ex-players/coaches now working in the media who can barely string two words together.

As for the Hun, at the end of the day, he gets paid to write headlines and sell papers. When that's your responsibility, you're going to piss people off and make mistakes regularly. That is why I never read the Hun. And people who judge him based on that are morons for 2 reasons: a) for reading the Hun to begin with, and b) for judging a guy based on what he writes in such a "newspaper." (except for Andrew Bolt who deserves to be hung, drawn and quartered based on what he writes in the Hun on a regular basis...)

But when he's on On The Couch, I think that's where he's best. He always offers a pretty sensible view on most things. Can't really argue with that.

edit: - I do also agree with the weathervane comments though. That does annoy me quite often. When a team wins, they're a flag chance; when they lose, the wheels are falling off and the world is ending. Sometimes I think he forgets that one team has to lose! But then, he's FAR from the only journo who does that these days.... they all do it.

 

[funk44]

Re: : Mike Sheahan retires

media hack who's opinion on teams changed with the weather. good riddance

 

[Starburns_]

Almost every article contains an out clause.

"If X happens, and I think it will, side Y will win this game..."
That side gets blitzed by 450 points in the first quarter...
he'll recap, and say "I pointed out, in my preview on the Zth, that they needed X to happen to have any sort of chance..."

One way to avoid being categorically wrong; but really I wish he were more raw, more balls-out, prepared to get it wrong occasionally.

His "top 50" didn't do that?

Credit to Sheahan he mostly wrote about football, unlike some of the muck-rakers out there in the footy media.

 

[Spanish_Fly]

Seemed to me a decent writer with good connections who knew a lot of what went on in and around footy, but not a lot of insight into the game itself. This was highlighted on "On the couch" when he would put forth an assertion, have it shot down by one of the actual experts with 5 seconds of reasoning and then just say "Oh, Oh, I was just playing devils advocate.."

 

[Spluff]

Seemed to me a decent writer with good connections who knew a lot of what went on in and around footy, but not a lot of insight into the game itself.

This sums it up for me. There are certainly worse journos around, but I never really listened to Mike all that much. Carved out a good career for himself though, and his articles were certainly a lot more readable than many.

 

[bradrowe#32]

Can't doubt his passion, but he was always a very middling journo.

 

[DTRAIN87]

So what did Sheehan say about Fitzroy?

 

[pazza]

Took over from Alf Brown which was no easy task - as it will be no easy task for Mike's replacement.