Defensive tactics runing the game for 98% of people?

[Redhand Santa]

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.

So you're saying one team can attack with 14 players while the other can only defend with 10? That'll definitely lead to high scoring games?

I'm not against having to leave 3/4 players up but how do you police it? Is it 4 specific players? Does an office stand at the half way line counting? Does that mean needing two officials at every club games including underage?

[thewobbler]

Lenny/ Hound.

Sorry lads, but you're out looking for the woods when you're surrounded by trees on this one.

A team whose primary intent is to retain possession will do so in the area of the field where it engages the least resistance

While you're seeing this as something that can be solved by "pushing up man on man" but under the current rules it's simply not true.

1. Unless your keeper pushes up too, then your opponents will always have a numerical advantage in their defensive end, courtesy of their own keeper.
2. If one or more of your defenders pushes up to close the gap, then the possession team changes their zone to the other end.
3. When those defenders return to their own end, the ball is then returned back into the space they've now vacated.
4. And this is the key bit: They're going through this process slowly. Apart from the occasional snap to make space, most of their players are walking/jogging into position. So they're not using much energy. Unlike their opponents, who now have had 5 or 6 going full tilt into space in vain attempts to close down their opponent's free man. Plus 2 or 3 who've done all this and watched the ball sail 80 yards back over their heads to the place they've just left.

Physically, this is punishing to play against. Mentally, it's soul destroying.

And man to man doesn't stop it. If it was that simple, the best teams in each county would simply play man on man.

But they can't, and they don't. Because mentally they would be be destroyed. And there's only one result that follows this.

[Hound]

wobbler, it's just not true to say the keeper makes keep-ball possible. If you've only a single spare man, then you're not going to be able to play keep-ball for any length of time. Keep-ball is only possible when the opposition have pretty much everyone back.

The best teams do play man to man. That's why at least 80% of the best GAA matches over the last 10 years involved two of Dublin, Kerry, Mayo. Many barnstorming, exciting, thrilling matches.

The "press" is the big thing in English soccer at the moment, the good teams will be doing this more and more in gaelic. No coincidence that Tyrone played more aggressive defence all over the pitch last year, rather than just hang everyone back and hope for the mistake.

[rosnarun]

no rule changes needed . just allow players to Tackle each other in the way they always used  and turn a blind eye to lads who get a slap for acting the ****
same as has happened for the last 100 years

[full moon]

no rule changes needed . just allow players to Tackle each other in the way they always used  and turn a blind eye to lads who get a slap for acting the ****
same as has happened for the last 100 years

Totally agree. Think people are blaming the blanket defence which is just a symptom of the problem.

Frees are given against backs now for the slightest touch or infringement. Almost impossible as a defender these days, unless you tackle in packs and corner the attacker with 3 or 4 lads.

Way too many soft frees being given for nothing. Even a hard shoulder now could be given as a free. Only way teams defend is swarming in numbers. Until that changes, blanket defences will stay.

[SCFC]

I think 98% is a bit high!

There's still plenty of decent football out there to be watched. Yeah, sometimes there's a stinker and there's often a one sided game that's virtually unwatchable (my own Laois involved in the losing side of a few of them in recent times) but in general there's still enough decent games out there to keep most of us interested.

[Keyser soze]

no rule changes needed . just allow players to Tackle each other in the way they always used  and turn a blind eye to lads who get a slap for acting the ****
same as has happened for the last 100 years

Totally agree. Think people are blaming the blanket defence which is just a symptom of the problem.

Frees are given against backs now for the slightest touch or infringement. Almost impossible as a defender these days, unless you tackle in packs and corner the attacker with 3 or 4 lads.

Way too many soft frees being given for nothing. Even a hard shoulder now could be given as a free. Only way teams defend is swarming in numbers. Until that changes, blanket defences will stay.

For me the way the game is refereed is why the game is so defensive. ATM a player who is tackled by 3 or 4 players, usually batin the crap out of him, will invariably get blew up for overycarrying. Whereas a player in a 1 on 1 situation is liable to get a free in if the defender so much as touches him. Any manager worth his salt knowing this is not going to leave his defender in the latter situation where the referee is giving all the leeway to the attacker. No he will pull the bodies back and bate the crap of the forward with multiple defenders to turn the ball over or get a free out.  This happens consistently in games we have all seen it in every game played over the last 15 years. If more robust tackling 1 on 1 was allowed and no multiple tacklers allowed there would be less advantage in bringing the bodies back.

PS Wee Martin talks a load of crap lol

[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.

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.

Let me rephrase. The rules shouldn't. There shouldn't be an 'ideal' of how teams should play imposed by Croker. Leaving aside the 'what it is' argument, you are literally banning tactics.

[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.

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.

This is my point.

Retaining possession is bad so ban it.

Leaving aside the philosophical implications, how do you propose to ban keeping the ball?

[hoynevalley]

Teams need to play the "kerry way" Outstanding kick passing and none of this basketball garbage. Too many sides keeping 15 behind the ball, wouldnt happen in the kingdom county.

[Farrandeelin]

Teams need to play the "kerry way" Outstanding kick passing and none of this basketball garbage. Too many sides keeping 15 behind the ball, wouldnt happen in the kingdom county.

Yes indeed, Kerry: the purest of the pure.

[Wildweasel74]

To be honest fball these days is pure crap in general, a few good games hid the fact that the standard of fball is down, look how many lads can score a free from the ground, practically non existent, that bad you depending on u keepers to do it. To beat a high standard defensive team you have to mirror it to beat it, you play open fball you get beat, simple as that. Only reason teams play defensive fball is cause they get beat one on one in open fball cause the better players will win out. Playing defensive hids players limitations and gives them a chance. It's only in the case of Dublin with so many good scoring options that playing defensive against them only kept the score down.

[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.

So you're saying one team can attack with 14 players while the other can only defend with 10? That'll definitely lead to high scoring games?

I'm not against having to leave 3/4 players up but how do you police it? Is it 4 specific players? Does an office stand at the half way line counting? Does that mean needing two officials at every club games including underage?

Yes teams can attack with as many players as they like but the opposition must leave 4 players in their forward line. It would be risk v reward. Teams could attack in big numbers but if it breaks down there would be unmarked men at the other end. It would definitely add to the excitement.

[thewobbler]

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.

This is my point.

Retaining possession is bad so ban it.

Leaving aside the philosophical implications, how do you propose to ban keeping the ball?

I explained that above. I'm not proposing banning anyone keeping the ball. What I'm proposing (no backwards passing over either '65) is conceived to:

1. Reward defending teams for pushing up, by reducing the area available for their opponents to "keep ball" by 40 then 60%, as and when you push them out. Think of how enticing and rewarding this would be for a team chasing down a 3-4 point deficit in the closing minutes. Push up, push them out, make them play the ball.

2. Tilt the balance of territorial football vs possession football a little back towards territory, by virtue of if you move the ball quickly into an opponent's half as they push up, that's when you'll enjoy more room in their half.

3. And in doing the above, force the current litter of conmen "coaches" who are ruining our sport through their retain the ball first, retain the ball always football. I promise you that any f**ker with a loud voice and a willingness to drop players can "coach" 15 men to play this shitty variant of the game. It is the most soulless and skill-less way to play football.

——

You know the most galling thing about their turgid muck that our game has been reduced to?

It's this.

We're now entering 10 full years since Jimmy ruined football. And in those 10 years, apart from Jimmy getting Donegal over the lien, I cannot think of a genuine shock result of importance that arose from employing these tactics.

It's been a giant f**king waste of everyone's time. And it needs to end.

[RadioGAAGAA]

no rule changes needed . just allow players to Tackle each other in the way they always used  and turn a blind eye to lads who get a slap for acting the ****
same as has happened for the last 100 years

Totally agree. Think people are blaming the blanket defence which is just a symptom of the problem.

Frees are given against backs now for the slightest touch or infringement. Almost impossible as a defender these days, unless you tackle in packs and corner the attacker with 3 or 4 lads.

Way too many soft frees being given for nothing. Even a hard shoulder now could be given as a free. Only way teams defend is swarming in numbers. Until that changes, blanket defences will stay.

Yep. Agreed.

I point the finger at the journos for yapping on about all these bad defenders stopping much vaunted forwards from "expressing themselves" - via whatever means necessary.

Now, a defender pretty much cannot touch an attacker - so the result is both sides having to cram the defence otherwise they're getting a hammering.