Down Club Hurling & Football

[PAULD123]

Midfield is a huge problem. I agree we have a star midfielder playing at fullback. I agree that he needs to be moved forward to midfield leaving the problem of who should play at fullback. What I don't understand is people's solutions. Why is everyone looking to find another defender to go in there? Presuming Dan moves forward and replaces Fitzpatrick or King (I'd prefer he replaces King) then why don't we just employ the replaced player at fullback? Just swap King for Gordon, King is an excellent catcher when the ball is coming straight at him and is good at getting rid of it to another red shirt, after that as a footballer he is limited. Isn't that the definition of a good fullback? Gordon's main strength at fullback is to nullify the aerial threat around the square, wouldn't King also do that. King's problem is the way opposition midfield's vary the location of the kick out so he isn't just catching in a small area. So why look for another fullback on the bench surely we have one on the field?

[redandblackareback]

Doom and gloom is all I read !! If we d went to Mayo this time last year and got a draw we d have been doing cartwheels folks!! Lets be a bit more upbeat, Galway at home which is a shoe in 2 points and also Armagh at home the same, although would have preferred to play them at Fortress Athletic Grounds 

[EagleLord]

Midfield is a huge problem. I agree we have a star midfielder playing at fullback. I agree that he needs to be moved forward to midfield leaving the problem of who should play at fullback. What I don't understand is people's solutions. Why is everyone looking to find another defender to go in there? Presuming Dan moves forward and replaces Fitzpatrick or King (I'd prefer he replaces King) then why don't we just employ the replaced player at fullback? Just swap King for Gordon, King is an excellent catcher when the ball is coming straight at him and is good at getting rid of it to another red shirt, after that as a footballer he is limited. Isn't that the definition of a good fullback? Gordon's main strength at fullback is to nullify the aerial threat around the square, wouldn't King also do that. King's problem is the way opposition midfield's vary the location of the kick out so he isn't just catching in a small area. So why look for another fullback on the bench surely we have one on the field?

At least when Dan Gordon plays at 3 he is composed on the ball and moves it forward, to a red shirt, starts attacks, thats a modern full back. Not just clear your lines stuff, thats breed of full back went away 10years ago now, more. Look at any good football team, and they will have man whos quick, does the simple thing and is composed on the ball, comfortable carrying it, started with Seamus Moynahan and Kerry. Conor Garvey would be an ideal full back, he's played there for the bridge many many times. But I know he is not happy to play at 3, he would rather be attacking more like at half back. And rightly so, he's well capable of it. King at 3 would be a disaster I think, if I were an opposition manager, I would just put my quickest forward at 14, King would be badly outdone for pace.

[umpire]

As always. good posts from Leo and Mourne Rover.

[PAULD123]

redandblackareback, I totally agree with you. I've been standing in the muck in rain sodden fields watching us play in the lower divisions and playing like we belonged there for years. It is an amazing treat to be back in the big time. We are lucky to be experiencing this sudden change in fortune for our county. many recent converts don't understand where we've come from. We have a young team still trying to establish themselves as one of the top contenders, we should be happy if we can just retain our place in Division 1. But you cannot help but see the enormous potential and the simple fact that we have a team that right now is in fact good enough to put it up to anyone in the country. And for all the praise they deserve, there is no doubt that midfield is and has been a problem. Yes it is great to be here but you can't just accept that as being enough, the boys want to push for more and rightly so. But Yes, I'll be happy just to avoid relegation, that will certainly be good progress.

[western exile]

Midfield is a huge problem. I agree we have a star midfielder playing at fullback. I agree that he needs to be moved forward to midfield leaving the problem of who should play at fullback. What I don't understand is people's solutions. Why is everyone looking to find another defender to go in there? Presuming Dan moves forward and replaces Fitzpatrick or King (I'd prefer he replaces King) then why don't we just employ the replaced player at fullback? Just swap King for Gordon, King is an excellent catcher when the ball is coming straight at him and is good at getting rid of it to another red shirt, after that as a footballer he is limited. Isn't that the definition of a good fullback? Gordon's main strength at fullback is to nullify the aerial threat around the square, wouldn't King also do that. King's problem is the way opposition midfield's vary the location of the kick out so he isn't just catching in a small area. So why look for another fullback on the bench surely we have one on the field?

At least when Dan Gordon plays at 3 he is composed on the ball and moves it forward, to a red shirt, starts attacks, thats a modern full back. Not just clear your lines stuff, thats breed of full back went away 10years ago now, more. Look at any good football team, and they will have man whos quick, does the simple thing and is composed on the ball, comfortable carrying it, started with Seamus Moynahan and Kerry. Conor Garvey would be an ideal full back, he's played there for the bridge many many times. But I know he is not happy to play at 3, he would rather be attacking more like at half back. And rightly so, he's well capable of it. King at 3 would be a disaster I think, if I were an opposition manager, I would just put my quickest forward at 14, King would be badly outdone for pace.

Might be at least worth trying out at training. Other defensive qualities King has are his quick reflexes and  his ability to disposes his opponent.

[whitegoodman]

The idea of Kalum King at full back does not stand up in my opinion.  He lacks pace and the idea of him marking any of the 6 cork, kerry or Tyrone forwards has me saying my prayers.  King was outstanding for the majority of last year (all ireland final excluded) and provides a great foil for a full fit attacking ambrose.  The lad isnt yet fully fit and given a couple more wks should be back to his best.....at midfield.

Besides Dan has been performing admirable at full back at is currently our best option there imo.

The lack of variation with the kickouts are more of a worry and i would blame management and goalkeeper 50/50.  Management should have a backup plan if as has been things are going well at midfield such as short kickouts and kickouts to the wing but mcveigh should also have the ability as an "all star" to see that things arent going well and take it upon himself to vary things to take the pressure off the 2 in the middle.

However as someone previously said, if someone said to me this time last year that we just drew with mayo in castlebar missing 4 regulars at the back and having come off the back of an all ireland final, i would be and am happy enough with that.

[thewobbler]

I don't think there is such a thing left as a genuine full back. The game doesn't allow it. If you actually have an athlete able to cover all angles aerial and on the ground, he would be wasted at full-back.

Eagle Lord's generalisation about them having to be a ball player in the modern game started and ended with Seamus Moynihan. Who only played there because Kerry had no other options.

There are two outstanding old-style full backs in Ulster in the shape of McMahon and Donaghy.  Powerful, decisive, strong in the air, safe hands. But McMahon, in particular, is moved out the field when he's placed against a player who just doesn't suit his game. Mickey Harte isn't daft enough to leave McMahon in a foot race against on onslaught of low, direct ball.

And I'd suggest that this is what Down's management (and supporters) have to learn. Gordon was excellent in the Championship last year at full-back, largely because he kept finding himself against taller, less mobile players - who he could dominate or, at worst, spoil. He though got ruined completely in the 2nd half against Cork because he didn't have the right combination of defensive experience and pace to either get in front of O'Connor, or to apply enough physicality to stop O'Connor getting in front. Cork became very aware of this at the start of the 2nd half, and exposed him to the point that at least half of Cork's scores came directly as a result of early low ball into O'Connor.

What McCartan should have done (and trust me, this isn't a pop at McCartan, this is a realisation I've had since the day), was either put a proper defender like Rafferty on O'Connor, or instructed McKernan to monitor the space in front. Or preferably, both. This might have opened up other avenues for Cork, but it would at least have closed off the one they were intent on pursuing.

Bearing this in mind, Gordon (or King, or even Colgan) is a very real option for full-back in a lot of games. As good as you can get. But sometimes you need to just put a warrior in that position, someone who relishes dirty defending. Down are hardly replete with defensive warriors, but Gordon would be well down the list. There's more than a few full-forwards who don't need 6' 3" worth of shepherding.


The lack of variation in kick-outs is perhaps a bigger issue. I've watched McVeigh enough times for the Kingdom to know that he can vary them up, and very accurately too. So it would appear to be orders from above; territory is more important than possession from restarts. But the two losses Down suffered last year, against Tyrone and Cork, were largely attributable to an inability to win their own kick-outs. Down's midfielders - whether it's Rogers, King, Gordon or Fitzpatrick - do seem to favour a clean catch to a clean break, which doesn't help. But the goalkeeper and management have to sometimes say enough is enough in that regard.

[EagleLord]

That brings up the mark rule in my mind again then Wobbler. The 4 players you mentioned prefer to catch the ball, rather than break, and rightly so. They are well-equipped to catch clean ball, and its a magnificant sight, which should be rewarded. Otherwise in midfield all you're going to have are spoilers. Cant think for the life of me why they got rid of the rule.

[thewobbler]

I don't believe in the mark rule. It lends itself to playing tall gombeens in midfield rather than footballers.

[EagleLord]

Disagree. Takes a fare amount of athletisism to catch a high ball in the middle. Its gombeens as you call them that just break it.

[Banana Man]

Disagree. Takes a fare amount of athletisism to catch a high ball in the middle. Its gombeens as you call them that just break it.

+1 Have to agree with Eagle Lord, it's a dying art and should be rewarded

[thewobbler]

Gents, I'll change my position slightly. Football is a game in which wee men and big men do battle on an even playing field. Having a mark gives the big men an unfair advantage. An athletic wee one won't out catch an athletic big men.

[downjim]

King was clearly unfit and he should not have played!!! Our management was slow to make decisions again!!! yes they have to be applauded for were we are at the minute but the same problems are creeping in again!!! Why does our centre half forward be taking frees in corner back in the second half..

[Blue Island]

Gents, I'll change my position slightly. Football is a game in which wee men and big men do battle on an even playing field. Having a mark gives the big men an unfair advantage. An athletic wee one won't out catch an athletic big men.

You posted earlier that there is no such thing anymore as a genuine full back. I think the same applies to midfielders now. Apart from Cork last year most top teams don't have big fellas in midfield anymore. Tyrone have not had a genuine midfielder in the old style since Plunket Donaghy in my opinion and have still managed to win three All-Irelands. Anyone over 6 3" usually struggles with the pace in the wider spaces of the bigger pitches and their contribution in catching that used to warrant a place has been nullified by the modern tactics of breaking the ball and crowding them if they do catch it. Obviously, in the old days all free kicks were taken off the ground and the requirement for big fielders to be on the end of them was more obvious.

I can see your point about a level playing field, but I believe the shape of Gaelic football players has become more generic now. Rugby caters for the tall, the fat and the athletic in different positions. I am not suggesting Gaelic football ever accommodated the fat, albeit some candidates do spring to mind,  but it used to accommodate a wider range of frames, including the taller build. The days of the taller less mobile bruisers is at an end, save for some exceptions.