Messages

I recall the old Fingal League used to field a team in the Dublin SFC but I'm not sure if they were ever seriously competitive. The Kerry structure definitely sounds like one particularly beneficial for getting players prepared.

That's cleared a lot up for me AZ, I was always confused by the formats. Cheers.

That's likely enough alright. Any idea when we'll know what they have lined up for next weekend?

I was in Newbridge today. Athy have a lot of positives but they faded in both halves. They really dominated both halves and made life difficult for Carbury going forward but gave away some cheap scores towards the end of both periods. That was as much to do with fatigue from their up-tempo game as any defensive lapses. They'll need to adjust for that in Leinster.

More important than all of that, check out this pic I took of a pimped out Micra owned by a Carbury fan one would assume http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s720x720/314866_10150308407547483_646257482_8359150_390189950_n.jpg

Beat me to it, the expense is definitely the main issue for a lot of lads.

Try to look at rule changes from a perspective of 'can this make officiating better' when making any rule. Introducing the likes of hawkeye for example may only work at a high level but they won't make officiating at the lower levels worse. By contrast changes to the square ball other than total removal*, make life a lot harder for those refereeing at a lower level. Improving officiating tools available at the top level that doesn't increase the burden on the lower levels seems reasonable to me.

That isn't elitism, that's just using the available resources**.

*I know total removal is an option but I'm just using a practical example.
** Emphasis on available. The Rabo/Magners whatever league in Rugby has only partial video replay usage. In some games it isn't available, such as Leinster's last two home games, whereas in others it is. Where it is available they use it.

How long gone?

mylestheslasher - Changing a rule after seeing an abject failure to adapt over several decades is different to the knee jerk response of what is less than 10 years (with the Donegal approach, literally 1).

In the two most significant changes in soccer history, the abandoning of the backpass and the reduction of third last defender to second last defender with offside, it was based on a massive sample over time.

My biggest gripe with Rugby is the frequency of rule changes which have radical impacts year to year on how the game is played without forcing teams to develop counter strategies.

Teams, the good teams in particular that you refer to, should be given ample opportunity to adapt. With time we should see more variety in the game, different teams trying different methods. What you call negative play could have long term benefits for the attacking side of the sport as teams look for new ways to overcome it.

If you try to beat a team by copying its approach entirely you will always be at a disadvantage as the other guys knows what he's doing better than you but if you work from your own strengths and try something different the potential for success is greater as your opponenent must now work out your game. That's what McGuinness realised with Donegal this season. He's not the first manager to have adopted that mentality and he won't be the last.

The argument that there is 'no fix' is too fatalistic and really underestimates the capabilities of those developing teams for league and championship campaigns. Catenaccio in soccer in the 1960s was eventually solved, likewsie the swarms used by Tyrone & Dublin, the 45-45 version of it used by Donegal, and pretty much every other strategy has or will be beaten by a different tactic.

Organic development of the game, allowing those managing and playing to innovate is better for the long term development of the sport rather than constant tinkering once something new and scary appears.

The problem with getting rid of the square ball rule is that it could really unbalance the game. The rule is clearly flawed, no question, but if it's removed there needs to be some other changed made to try and adapt for it.

Talent will out. We shouldn't legislate against innovation, even if the aesthetics of that innovation don't appeal to all*. Donegal and Tyrone play by the same rule book as everybody else, including all natural footballers. If they can't beat 'lesser talented' players then perhaps we need to redefine what talent is as I expect players and teams to be able to adapt for what's put in front of them and find a way to beat with. If every team played the same way, the sport would get samey very fast. One of the appeals of the Championship is the different kind of tests teams must go through before a champion is crowned.


*Personally I like to watch free flowing attacking Football with accurate shooting but I appreciate the strengths of defence oriented teams.

Ended in early December based on the Googling I did so probably not.

Given the prospect of another snowmaggeddon, I wouldn't be confident of the 18 December date for the Leinster Final.

I'm not sure what you mean by "considered view", I genuinely don't. I know the view that was propagated largely was negative even though Donegal basically looked at the fundamentals available to them and turned that into the most dramatic turnaround of any county in 2011.

Despite the low-scoring, I genuinely believe the All-Ireland semi-final was a classic. I am aware it is a minority view but tactically it was a 70 minute war. I watched it as a Dublin fan but re-watched it after I already knew the result and found it really quite fascinating to take in without being concerned with the result.