Defensive tactics runing the game for 98% of people?

Started by onefineday, January 27, 2022, 11:44:31 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

onefineday

Donegal great Martin McHugh claims Gaelic football is at a concerning "crossroads", with defensive tactics ruining the enjoyment of the game for "98% or 99%" of people.

The 1992 All-Ireland winner said he is particularly "fearful" for club football" which he reckons is "terrible in all counties, not just Ulster".

McHugh, father of current Donegal star Ryan, was speaking at the launch of the Allianz Football League just hours after watching Letterkenny IT beat UCD by 0-7 to 0-6 in a Sigerson Cup arm wrestle on Tuesday evening.

He was aghast that, in perfect conditions, the score was just 0-2 to 0-1 at half-time, while he said the second half of the recent Donegal-Derry McKenna Cup semi-final almost put him to sleep.

McHugh believes one particular rule change is badly needed to help rescue the game: That teams must keep at least three attackers high up the pitch at all times.

"I think clubs are following county football and I think club football, really, it's terrible to watch and I've watched a lot of club football," said McHugh. "They're trying to copy the county teams and they're not capable of doing it because they haven't got the players to do it.

"So I think definitely, Gaelic football, if people are going to be paying money in to watch it, or paying money to watch streaming and everything else, it's at a crossroads.

"I've been talking to people about this, they're going to have to take in a rule that we keep three players up the field at all times.

"Now people say about not [allowing] kicking the ball back, maybe that will come into it and I would also take away the forward mark and I would have it that each team would have to keep three players up the field at all times.

"I think we need that in Gaelic football at the minute because it's not a great spectacle. If you're big into tactics and big into that, you may enjoy it... 1% will study all that end of it, the other 98% or 99% just go for enjoyment.

"We want to see goals, we want to see enjoyment. That definitely has gone out of Gaelic football at the minute."

McHugh, father of 2012 All-Ireland winner Mark, isn't convinced the players even enjoy the way the game is being played.

"Maybe the players will tell you they do enjoy it, I don't know, I find it hard to think that they are enjoying the way football is at the minute," he said.

"Gaelic football, to me, seems to have gone, tactically, that you stop the good player and let the so-called weaker players have the ball all the time, let them have the ball.

"If you're not going to see our good players playing football then we have to, from a rules point of view, take in something that's going to help our good players to shine."

McHugh, who managed Cavan to Ulster success in 1997, feels the game is moving towards a version of rugby league.

"I'm very fearful for club football because I've been at a lot of club games; club football is terrible in all counties, not just Ulster, in all counties," said the pundit.

"It's copying inter-county football and they're not capable of doing it and it makes for a terrible spectacle."

Speaking about Letterkenny IT's surprise win over UCD in Convoy on Tuesday evening, which secured a Sigerson Cup quarter-final spot, McHugh said it was a difficult watch.

"We had 40 basically inter-county players playing a game on a perfect night, on a perfect pitch, everything perfect, and the game ended seven points to six," he sighed.

"I think it was two points to one at half-time. In the second half of the Derry-Donegal game in the McKenna Cup, you could have went to sleep. That's just the way football is. People say it's going like rugby league; it definitely is the way it's being played."
."

https://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/arid-40794108.html

I have to say I agree completely.  What surprises me is how few people seem to agree, I know this board isn't necessarily representative of the 98% and may be more aligned with the 1% who find it tactically intriguing (and I can see that too at high level intercounty - but it may be the intensity and athleticism of what's on show disguises the offering at times), but is there anything less watchable than what would be decent club teams cancelling each other?
Two teams thinking they can play Dublin style 'keep-ball' (a curse on the game at any level tbh), giving defences time to set up etc... 
McHugh gives some examples, and he's right, it's not just Ulster, it's everywhere, the Dublin county final being another fine example.  I saw a few other Dublin club games this year, same thing, teams (with healthy sprinklings of all ireland medals) cancelling each other, defending en-masse and taking their frees. 

Even for young players, I know a number of young lads who are on underage development squads, tactics are very much part of the offering, remove spontaneity, protect possession, play to the gameplan - it really takes the fun out of it for them.  Yes, the possibility of pulling on a county jersey in championship keeps them there, but there's little enjoyment - and this for the 15, 16 and 17yo.

As a starting point, what is the consensus on here, do we need changes?  Do people find much of what is on view appealing to watch?  Or do many still hold the view that our game is fine and what we need is for people to stop tinkering with the rules?
Indeed, am I now the old lad who pined for the catch and kick game of the 50's, who I used to decry as being out of touch when I kicked ball 20 odd years ago??

I'm not sure what the answer is, but anything is worth trying in my opinion, 3 men always up is a start, I would also consider not allowing teams to go back over their own half way line again, keeping keepers inside their own 45 (no more free kicks - or at worst giving 30 secs to take a free from the moment of awarding it).  The forward mark seemed like a good idea, but was flawed in definition which allowed people to take advantage of it with short passes into the chest, so time to get rid I think.

Ed Ricketts

There were 20 more scores in Carlow on the same night and in the same competition as that LIT - UCD game.

There were 10 more scores in the second half in Armagh on the same night and in the same competition as that Donegal - Derry game.

There will always be shite tactics, shite teams, shite games. But there will also always be refreshing tactics, good teams, entertaining games.

It's a very GAA thing to try to make an issue out of an outlier. You're not sure of the solution because there isn't really a problem.
Doc would listen to any kind of nonsense and change it for you to a kind of wisdom.

shark

Quote from: onefineday on January 27, 2022, 11:44:31 PM


I have to say I agree completely.  What surprises me is how few people seem to agree, I know this board isn't necessarily representative of the 98% and may be more aligned with the 1% who find it tactically intriguing (and I can see that too at high level intercounty - but it may be the intensity and athleticism of what's on show disguises the offering at times), but is there anything less watchable than what would be decent club teams cancelling each other?
Two teams thinking they can play Dublin style 'keep-ball' (a curse on the game at any level tbh), giving defences time to set up etc... 
McHugh gives some examples, and he's right, it's not just Ulster, it's everywhere, the Dublin county final being another fine example.  I saw a few other Dublin club games this year, same thing, teams (with healthy sprinklings of all ireland medals) cancelling each other, defending en-masse and taking their frees. 

Even for young players, I know a number of young lads who are on underage development squads, tactics are very much part of the offering, remove spontaneity, protect possession, play to the gameplan - it really takes the fun out of it for them.  Yes, the possibility of pulling on a county jersey in championship keeps them there, but there's little enjoyment - and this for the 15, 16 and 17yo.

As a starting point, what is the consensus on here, do we need changes?  Do people find much of what is on view appealing to watch?  Or do many still hold the view that our game is fine and what we need is for people to stop tinkering with the rules?
Indeed, am I now the old lad who pined for the catch and kick game of the 50's, who I used to decry as being out of touch when I kicked ball 20 odd years ago??

I'm not sure what the answer is, but anything is worth trying in my opinion, 3 men always up is a start, I would also consider not allowing teams to go back over their own half way line again, keeping keepers inside their own 45 (no more free kicks - or at worst giving 30 secs to take a free from the moment of awarding it).  The forward mark seemed like a good idea, but was flawed in definition which allowed people to take advantage of it with short passes into the chest, so time to get rid I think.

If recent history has thought us anything, it's that this is not true. There will always be 2nd/3rd order effects with rule changes.

themac_23

As a massive basketball fan id say the only way to stop players messing about with the ball and keeping ball for 2 mins before half time because their team is 2pts up and dont want to make a mistake is some kind of shot clock. obviously not as short as the basketball one but when the ball passes the teams own 45 they have 2 mins to shoot, but to be honesty I think the tide is changing naturally and a lot of teams are going more direct again


Milltown Row2

Whatever rule is brought in there will be a tactic to ruin what the rule was brought in for.

If you go and watch a game from the 70's, even a top ended one, then watch a top end game from now and tell me which one is thought out and which one is kamikaze style
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

thewobbler

Quote from: themac_23 on January 28, 2022, 09:11:25 AM
As a massive basketball fan id say the only way to stop players messing about with the ball and keeping ball for 2 mins before half time because their team is 2pts up and dont want to make a mistake is some kind of shot clock. obviously not as short as the basketball one but when the ball passes the teams own 45 they have 2 mins to shoot, but to be honesty I think the tide is changing naturally and a lot of teams are going more direct again

Rule change: players who pass the ball backwards over either 65m line are penalised.

Penalty: opposing team is awarded a free (from hands or ground) from the offending team's 45m line.

Purpose of rule change: to minimise the pitch area available for a team in which to play "keep ball". Currently it is the most nullifying experience in football to press hard, and force a team out of their own trenches, to watch them literally boot the ball 80m back into the trenches when an "easy out" pass isn't available. Witness every game going back 10 years, but most of all witness a wonderful footballer like Ciaran Kilkenny happily applying this dagger multiple times a game.

HokeyPokey

I feel like it's dying off and less of an issue.
I think the big issue was the fatality of Dublin just always winning.
There will always be teams who will be defensive.

themac_23

Quote from: thewobbler on January 28, 2022, 09:33:00 AM
Quote from: themac_23 on January 28, 2022, 09:11:25 AM
As a massive basketball fan id say the only way to stop players messing about with the ball and keeping ball for 2 mins before half time because their team is 2pts up and dont want to make a mistake is some kind of shot clock. obviously not as short as the basketball one but when the ball passes the teams own 45 they have 2 mins to shoot, but to be honesty I think the tide is changing naturally and a lot of teams are going more direct again

Rule change: players who pass the ball backwards over either 65m line are penalised.

Penalty: opposing team is awarded a free (from hands or ground) from the offending team's 45m line.

Purpose of rule change: to minimise the pitch area available for a team in which to play "keep ball". Currently it is the most nullifying experience in football to press hard, and force a team out of their own trenches, to watch them literally boot the ball 80m back into the trenches when an "easy out" pass isn't available. Witness every game going back 10 years, but most of all witness a wonderful footballer like Ciaran Kilkenny happily applying this dagger multiple times a game.

Good point, you see teams work it out through a press then instead of going forward and trying to work a score they turn and play the safe option 30 yard pass back. its seen as' rebuilding an attack' but its anything but, its a safe option and I think it makes it look like players dont want to misplace a pass etc, players dont take chances with tough passes anymore its all safe balls so as not to be the player who gives the ball away.

Baile Brigín 2

If team A play a certain tactic it's up to team B to try and pick it apart. If two managers semd out defensive teams then no rule change will 'fix' that.

The default setting is to t**ker with the rules, rather than encourage tactical innovation. It's a consistently bad idea.


ck

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on January 28, 2022, 10:04:48 AM
If team A play a certain tactic it's up to team B to try and pick it apart. If two managers semd out defensive teams then no rule change will 'fix' that.

The default setting is to t**ker with the rules, rather than encourage tactical innovation. It's a consistently bad idea.

Incorrect. If two managers send out defensive teams then of course rules can 'fix' it! How can you say a rule can't address it?

What McHugh is saying is fundamentally correct. If the problem is that teams just pull everyone back then a rule can address this, easily. I am intrigued by top level tactics where I know the players, counties and what's at stake. Where I don't know these, the game is horrible. Awful to watch.
I watched a stream recently of a Sigerson game. Turned it off after 20mins. Brutal sh*te altogether.

ck

I would propose the following;

End the attacking mark
15 players (although I would love to see a 13 a side game)
A minimum of 4 players (3 is not enough) must be in their attacking half at all times. (Attackers only, defenders can vacate their own half)
This can be any players, not just forwards.
Where a team ends up with 3 players or less a free kick is awarded on the 21m line.
Should 3 offences occur (in the case of a team trying to close a team out) a penalty is awarded on the 4th offence.

thewobbler

#12
Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on January 28, 2022, 10:04:48 AM
If team A play a certain tactic it's up to team B to try and pick it apart. If two managers semd out defensive teams then no rule change will 'fix' that.

The default setting is to t**ker with the rules, rather than encourage tactical innovation. It's a consistently bad idea.



Believe  it or not BB, "defensive" football is not the scourge on our game. The real problem is that the impetus to attack is minimal for all teams, and especially so when in front. And the rules as they currently stand cater in full for an advantage to be gained by retaining the ball for endless periods in the most unskilled manner imaginable.

A rule change here isn't a hopeful thing. It's a necessity.

lenny

Quote from: thewobbler on January 28, 2022, 11:36:56 AM
Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on January 28, 2022, 10:04:48 AM
If team A play a certain tactic it's up to team B to try and pick it apart. If two managers semd out defensive teams then no rule change will 'fix' that.

The default setting is to t**ker with the rules, rather than encourage tactical innovation. It's a consistently bad idea.



Believe  it or not BB, "defensive" football is not the scourge on our game. The real problem is that there impetus to attack is minimal for all teams, and especially so when in front. And the rules as they currently stand cater in full for an advantage to be gained by retaining the ball for endless periods in the most skilled manner imaginable.

A rule change here isn't a hopeful thing. It's a necessity.

100% disagree. If a team puts everyone behind the ball inside their own half their opponents are under no obligation to risk giving away posession by running into traffic or kicking the ball away. When a team keeps the ball in a very boring way for minutes at a time I would always put the blame on the team who've retreated into their own third of the pitch ie the team who've set up defensively. It's only sensible for the other team to try to draw them out by keeping the ball and recycling it.

Hound

Quote from: lenny on January 28, 2022, 11:48:50 AM
Quote from: thewobbler on January 28, 2022, 11:36:56 AM
Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on January 28, 2022, 10:04:48 AM
If team A play a certain tactic it's up to team B to try and pick it apart. If two managers semd out defensive teams then no rule change will 'fix' that.

The default setting is to t**ker with the rules, rather than encourage tactical innovation. It's a consistently bad idea.



Believe  it or not BB, "defensive" football is not the scourge on our game. The real problem is that there impetus to attack is minimal for all teams, and especially so when in front. And the rules as they currently stand cater in full for an advantage to be gained by retaining the ball for endless periods in the most skilled manner imaginable.

A rule change here isn't a hopeful thing. It's a necessity.

100% disagree. If a team puts everyone behind the ball inside their own half their opponents are under no obligation to risk giving away posession by running into traffic or kicking the ball away. When a team keeps the ball in a very boring way for minutes at a time I would always put the blame on the team who've retreated into their own third of the pitch ie the team who've set up defensively. It's only sensible for the other team to try to draw them out by keeping the ball and recycling it.
Absolutely.
Retaining the ball is actually very difficult. But made easy when the opposition leave 4 or 5 players unmarked because they're camped inside their own 45 waiting for their opponents to lose patience and play in a low percentage pass.