I think the game is dying in front of us - Manus Boyle

[BennyCake]

Longer kickouts, limit fistpasses, can't kick backwards, so many players in opposition half etc... So many rules. I think only one rule would probably sort out all or most ills - less players.

It would be almost like the AI Sevens. More space, less or no blanket, longer kicking, skillful players would thrive, man to man would return etc.

Yeah, because with fewer players they'd have to go man for man, just like soccer - not. Fewer players might be a good idea especially at senior level but it is extremely unlikely to bring back man for man marking.

Well if there's more space meaning a rise in tricky skilful playes, they'll need to be marked tightly. With more space they could run riot.

[lenny]

Longer kickouts, limit fistpasses, can't kick backwards, so many players in opposition half etc... So many rules. I think only one rule would probably sort out all or most ills - less players.

It would be almost like the AI Sevens. More space, less or no blanket, longer kicking, skillful players would thrive, man to man would return etc.

Yeah, because with fewer players they'd have to go man for man, just like soccer - not. Fewer players might be a good idea especially at senior level but it is extremely unlikely to bring back man for man marking.

Well if there's more space meaning a rise in tricky skilful playes, they'll need to be marked tightly. With more space they could run riot.

My point was if it's reduced to 13 a side a lot of teams will still get 12 players behind the ball and leave one up front. With less players there will be even more of a need to get players back to crowd out the space and not allow easy scores from inside the scoring zone.

[thewobbler]

I'm sick of telling people this, but I'll do it one more time.

Reducing teams to 13 a side would put an even greater emphasis again on fitness, which will only increase dropout rates among players at all levels.

Reducing teams to 13 a side would put an even greater emphasis again on pace, which will only increase dropout rates among players at all levels.

Reducing teams to 13 a side would mean two more players consigned to the sub's bench, which will only increase dropout rates among players at all levels.


Think it out folks.

[Wildweasel74]

I played 11 a side at minor level and that's 25yrs ago, serious fitness needed, forwards were on fire, defenders struggled with all the space. All games were great attacking football, years later, 2001 on it had moved to 13 a side in Derry B for teams who couldn't field 15, No.6 and N0.11 of both teams contested the throw up, again the games were all good open games. cutting to 13 a side to see where it will go is a def option. there be no big drop out rate, games at that number were played in Derry at underage level for many years

[rrhf]

Gaelic football with15 now is a slowed down version of 7s football the last 20 years. Reducing numbers won't work. First coach to be brave enough to put 14 on 14 with good players will clean up.

[manfromdelmonte]

Gaelic football with15 now is a slowed down version of 7s football the last 20 years. Reducing numbers won't work. First coach to be brave enough to put 14 on 14 with good players will clean up.

what?
like most underage teams do?

[Il Bomber Destro]

Couldn't we just send a Terminator back in time to take out Jim McGuinness?

Mcguinness only slightly refined what harte had brought in with 13 or 14 players back in defence. I blame harte 100% for the rotten and unwatchable football that is played nowadays.

Talking much rubbish I see.

[sid waddell]

Gaelic football is being played to a superior level now than it has ever been.

The great matches we've seen this decade are the greatest matches of all time.

This won't fit the narrative, but it's a fact.

[Il Bomber Destro]

When will people realise the problem with football is not defensive systems but the widening gulf in class between teams?

The Donegal final looked to be pretty dire but go back 10 or 15 years ago and you would probably see some finals ending in similar scorelines. In 2006 for example in the most arrogant GAA county of the lot, Feale Rangers beat South Kerry by 1-04 to 0-06, sounds a classic doesn't it? The exact same scoreline also occurred between Dr Crokes and An Gaeltacht in 2000, what does that say for things?

Generally the club game doesn't have such a problem as there is not a wide gulf in place. Defensive football would be played by most clubs in Tyrone but that hasn't stopped there being a very exciting and entertaining club Championship this year, the final by all accounts was a bit of a disappointment but up until then it was very good.

Over the past few years the U21 Championship has been the best in the business for entertainment, it has thrown up a few great games. Some teams have approached those games very defensively and others not so much but it hasn't affected the quality and excitement.

I'm sick to my teeth hearing idiots lecture on what style of football teams should employ, Loads of counties would rather play open attacking football but it's competitive football and the gap between the haves and have nots is widening in such that a lot of counties feel their best hope of staying competitive is by playing a defensive system which can keep them in a contest longer and so be it.

I'd rather watch a dour tight game than a farce of a match where one side strolls it in a non-contest.

[Syferus]

I'm sick of telling people this, but I'll do it one more time.

Reducing teams to 13 a side would put an even greater emphasis again on fitness, which will only increase dropout rates among players at all levels.

Reducing teams to 13 a side would put an even greater emphasis again on pace, which will only increase dropout rates among players at all levels.

Reducing teams to 13 a side would mean two more players consigned to the sub's bench, which will only increase dropout rates among players at all levels.


Think it out folks.

How does soccer cope with the pressure of 11 a side! The heroes!

Reducing it to 13 v 13 would be a significant improvement when it comes to opening up the game without question, but it's one of the more nuclear options. It's a seismic change, which means some will be afraid of it and try to irrationally argue against it because they're used to the status quo. Some of these arguments against it are frankly laughable.

[thewobbler]

I'm sick of telling people this, but I'll do it one more time.

Reducing teams to 13 a side would put an even greater emphasis again on fitness, which will only increase dropout rates among players at all levels.

Reducing teams to 13 a side would put an even greater emphasis again on pace, which will only increase dropout rates among players at all levels.

Reducing teams to 13 a side would mean two more players consigned to the sub's bench, which will only increase dropout rates among players at all levels.


Think it out folks.

How does soccer cope with the pressure of 11 a side! The heroes!

Reducing it to 13 v 13 would be a significant improvement when it comes to opening up the game without question, but it's one of the more nuclear options. It's a seismic change, which means some will be afraid of it and try to irrationally argue against it because they're used to the status quo. Some of these arguments against it are frankly laughable.

Lol, I do wonder  at you. Wembley's pitch Is 57% the size of Croke Park.
Soccer is played in a considerably more congested space.


As for "frankly laughable", your response here is another clear indication that you put little or no thought into generating your opinions.

[Il Bomber Destro]

I'm sick of telling people this, but I'll do it one more time.

Reducing teams to 13 a side would put an even greater emphasis again on fitness, which will only increase dropout rates among players at all levels.

Reducing teams to 13 a side would put an even greater emphasis again on pace, which will only increase dropout rates among players at all levels.

Reducing teams to 13 a side would mean two more players consigned to the sub's bench, which will only increase dropout rates among players at all levels.


Think it out folks.

Spot on.

Reducing the no of players is what idiots suggest because they don't even understand the problem in the first place.

The game would be reduced to something like the rugby 7s where lads pick up the ball and run for goal the whole time, it would be akin to an under 12 game.

Defensive football is not the problem, it's a natural reaction to a problem - a widening gulf between the big teams and the little teams.

The prospect of changing rules of the the way the game is played because they don't like the way certain teams play is risible.

[Cunny Funt]

Gaelic football is being played to a superior level now than it has ever been.

The great matches we've seen this decade are the greatest matches of all time.

This won't fit the narrative, but it's a fact.

Its a opinion. My opinion is football played today especially in the latter stages of the championship is more low risk than ever before. Another opinion is Kerry,Tyrone who are two of the current top 4 teams collectively and individually wouldn't be a patch of 00s kerry,Tyrone teams and how good would those teams have been if they were exposed to the high range training and expertise that Dublin seniors are currently getting.

[thewobbler]

Gaelic football is being played to a superior level now than it has ever been.

The great matches we've seen this decade are the greatest matches of all time.

This won't fit the narrative, but it's a fact.

Its a opinion. My opinion is football played today especially in the latter stages of the championship is more low risk than ever before. Another opinion is Kerry,Tyrone who are two of the current top 4 teams collectively and individually wouldn't be a patch of 00s kerry,Tyrone teams and how good would those teams have been if they were exposed to the high range training and expertise that Dublin seniors are currently getting.

But the inverse of this is that the current Dublin and Mayo teams would absolutely destroy Dublin and Mayo from the noughties. And they both would have been in the top 4-5 teams in the noughties.

[LeoMc]

I do think that if there was a Nuremberg type-trial on the Modern Ills of Gaelic Football then in the dock would certainly be Mickey Harte and Jim McGuinness.

However, before we hang and draw them, may I remind ye some of the football played in the 70s and 80s from my memory was God awful.

Catch, fumble, pick off the ground, root it as far as you can, hit your opponent a belt.....

The difference is fitness and perepation is on an entirely different level at IC now. If these teams wanted to play football it would be far better as a spectacle than the 70s.

thats what the auld lads miss . every ball was a contest and best man won the ball. it was not so much about skill as brawn and pure determination.
i think a lot of the current issue are ariding out of soccer counties like donegal where posssesion is king . you can see the same thing in rugby where iits almost an offence to turn over the ball.
6 new rules this year to stop it happening

Would agree in that a few rule changes could help greatly. I think the following rules would assist the game.

* No turning back after you cross the half way line ie: Not allowed to bring possession back into own half
* Minimum of 4 players to play in attacking half at all times
* When ball kicked in from outside 45 and caught inside 21 a mark is given

If we want the game to improve we have to stop expecting coaches and managers to "throw off the shackles" and "go for it" (as the Sunday game lads would put it) and instead give them an incentive to "go for it". Rule changes are the only answer.

Whatever about rule changes I certainly don't think the 'minimum of 4 players in the attacking half' will work in practice. I do a good bit of coaching with young kids, and we play in these blitzes where there's a similar rule to that. It's obviously not designed to counter negative play, but rather to try stop a strong young lad running all over the field and dominating everything.

However what it does show, and what would be worse at adult level, is that you can't strictly enforce a rule like that. Imagine the scenario. A ball is cleared out the field by the defending team, however it's not going to make halfway. The 'forward' has to stand on the halfway line waving at the ball to reach him like a child calling a bold dog. The lad marking him, unencumbered by any such rule, drives forward into the opposition half, picks up the ball and launches an attack.

Or likewise a defender wins a ball and starts to launch a counter attack. He's bombing forward and his marker is chasing hard and tackling. When they reach halfway, what happens? The marker is pulled back on his leash like the Bulldog in Tom and Jerry?

In a free flowing game like gaelic football, it's very difficult to enforce a rule whereby a man has to stop pursuing a ball until it reaches his zone. Especially when others in the same zone can go ahead and do what they like.

Imagine the frustration of that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vkKIxzKjZA

I wouldn't necessarily be in favour of the rule as I think it's overly complicated tbh. However, the first problem you mention is easily solved by keeping 5 forwards in the opposition half. The second would be countered by imposing a similar requirement on the defenders - have to keep 4 back.

Like I said though, too difficult to police in practice imo

How does that solve the problem of forwards not being able to go back to collect a clearance or a defender having to stop their attacking run?