Dublin v Derry

[DuffleKing]

Scoring rate has nothing got to do with it. People are bemoaning defensive set ups and and the closure of space off in defence. We're debating rule changes to keep players in the attacking half ffs.
Any idiot should acknowledge that a major benefit of numbers behind the ball is the space it creates in your own forward line and the opportunity to counter attack and score it presents. It does however require a daft opposition who will push up and leave that space.

That's why "defensive" teams last year scored heavily against daft set ups like Dublin and Mayo.

Of course gameplan and tactics offer a max improvement of circa 10% I would estimate. Its always about the best players and which team has the most.

[Wildweasel74]

your lucky Donegal v Tyrone is not on TV the day, you get a real eye opener, or the Monaghan v Donegal game a few weeks back were Monaghan scored 9 time, Donegal 5, (1 from play)

[Zulu]

It's not the tip of the iceberg, that's the point. It's gone one sweeper to getting everybody back because that's the best way to keep the other team to a low score. In turn, teams have cottoned on to this and now mirror the tactic and hold onto the ball so as not to turn it over while fruitlessly charging at massed defences. Therefore football will be turned into a game where you don't need defensive skills, be able to kick or be skilful and simply a game with one tactic, get everybody back when you don't have the ball and retain possession when you do. Anybody who can't see we are going down a dangerous path is simply covering their eyes and justifying it on the grounds on competitiveness. Sport has to be more than that. By the way the idea that teams like Tyrone/Derry would be trounced if they played more orthodoxly is nonsense, or if true, perhaps they should look at what they are doing with development squads.

Benny ultimately there are no attacking strategies that can effectively overcome a team that fills up their own scoring zone with all their players. It is the ultimate defensive strategy so it isn't the tip of any iceberg. The only way this is going is down and we shouldn't be complacent about it.
Tyrone have been trounced at least twice by Dublin in recent years. Tactics to the level we are seeing are relatively new to gaelic games, the tactics will evolve, this is the tip of the iceberg, if you think that this is the pinnacle of tactical play then you are a little less on the ball than I thought. Coaches have developed effective defensive tactics, the logical step is attacking tactics. I sit and wait patiently for this to happen.....

[INDIANA]

Scoring rate has nothing got to do with it. People are bemoaning defensive set ups and and the closure of space off in defence. We're debating rule changes to keep players in the attacking half ffs.
Any idiot should acknowledge that a major benefit of numbers behind the ball is the space it creates in your own forward line and the opportunity to counter attack and score it presents. It does however require a daft opposition who will push up and leave that space.

That's why "defensive" teams last year scored heavily against daft set ups like Dublin and Mayo.

Of course gameplan and tactics offer a max improvement of circa 10% I would estimate. Its always about the best players and which team has the most.

Sorry that's nonsense. When a team puts 15 men behind the ball in a field sport where you can only propel the ball accurately 40-45 yards depending on wind conditions it becomes all about the scoring rates.
If both teams setup with 13v 2 set-ups you end up with exactly the same as last night- a complete stalemate like the AI Final last year. So that's a nonsense argument to start blaming the attacking team. It has to be the only sport in the world bar rugby union currently where it's better not to have the ball.

People will not go to watch games where the score-lines are 0-8 to 0-4. We have people comparing Gaelic Football to soccer which is also nonsensical. Soccer has an offside rule which makes it a completely different sport. An offside rule that is weighted in favour of the attacking team.

Soccer has made some effort to reward teams that want to score goals- let's see if Gaelic Football follows suit.

[lynchbhoy]

Derry would not normally be a overly defensive team. They are having a bad league and were probably just afraid to getting a beating that would set them back for the summer. The weather conditions make it more difficult to score too.

Ulster have got a reputation for defensive football but you do not win if you cannot score. Compared to the 70s and 80s Ulster teams have been doing much better of late. Most have decent forwards. Top forwards are few throughout the country. In Ulster I feel for example, Murphy and McBearty are quality forwards in Donegal, Quigley in Fermanagh, O'Hare in Down, McManus in Monaghan. Tyrone have Cavanagh and McCurry. Young McShane looks useful too. In my own county aside from Jamie Clarke, Dyas and Stefan Campbell are top forwards. The thing is the game is about attacking and defence. Not just one or the other.

I also find it funny how many give off about the game and yet love how Southampton or Chelsea play soccer. How great they think it is when a minnow defends for 90 minutes to hold a premiership team. Then there are the others who say gaelic is nowhere near as good as rugby. A game that their own experts believe is getting too technical and defensive. A game were it is considered good play to kick the ball out! Not all teams have great players. They use what they have to try and win. It is up to the better team to overcome this. For me that is what makes the game fascinating.

You don't like being criticised up there because you think invented the game.
My suggestion is that ulster forms his own association and develops it's own brand of puke football and let the other 26 counties concentrate on playing Gaelic Football. That way no-one will ever question the rubbish most of your counties are dishing up.
You've got Donegal, Tyrone, Monaghan, Cavan  and Derry all playing Gaelic Football's version of the Black Death

In 2014 Kerry were the most defensive team in the country. They won the All Ireland
In 2012 Donegal were the most defensive team in the country. They won the All Ireland
In 2011 Dublin were the most defensive team in the country. They won the All Ireland

All 26 county teams

+1
Absolutely correct
However these teams knew how to quickly counterattack and score too!

Derry haven't got to that part yet!

The 70's had Kerry pull back wing forwards and half back line leaving forwards in acres of space. Allowing their ultra fit and highly skilled players to take full advantage.
Mick odwyer the architect of puke football of the modern era!

Whatever about Derry being adequate at creating a blanket defence, they are woeful at trying to play against one! Last night was decent viewing by comparison!
Dub fans need to chill out. It's only March and Dublin will improve. Jim Gavin not quite as tactically astute as gilroy as last night demonstrated to me at least!

[Zulu]

Clueless Benny? Dublin are doing quite well against teams who show no ambition whatsoever. Better conditions and with all their players back and fully fit they'll rip these defensive teams apart. They only conceded 0-4 tonight.

Feck me you were impressed by the Dubs? They only conceded 0-4 because Derry are shite and didn't try to attack. Tyrone aren't great and should have beaten them last time out and the Donegal game last year highlighted all their flaws that are still there, have they improved from then? What evidence have you seen to suggest they'll be better against a Donegal style set up this summer than last?

Any team that sets up that defensively are going to be shite going forward, though Derry were admittedly particularly bad. Donegal got every break going last year and I'd imagine that Dublin will simply leave their half backs in their positions when faced with a blanket defence which is all they need to do to beat such teams. It's not rocket science, the blanket defence has been sussed and all the Ulster teams are doing is making games which could be 2-14 to 1-12  into 0-8 to 0-5. Dublin aren't showing their hand yet but anyone, like the boys on Setanta, who thing they aren't working on it in training are simple.

Or  2-21 to 0-16, 2-25 to 1-12 or 3-20 to 1-10,like Laois,Wexford and Meath done last year.
Kerry are probably the only team capable of  beating Dublin in an attacking open game,and I have my doubts whether they would be up to the task either.
Trying to go out and playing open attacking football against Dublin is suicide. There is nothing wrong with what Derry did tonight,Keep it low scoring and close and try and nick it.
This general whinging (Not attacking you on this Zulu) about defensive football and blanket defences is getting pretty tiresome at this stage.

Why is it tiresome BH? It isn't good to watch defensive football so why not criticise it? Football is a rough and tumble game best played at pace where you try and beat your opponent not simply not lose to them.

Why is it all about being "good to watch" Zulu? Defensive games/blanket defences are about trying to beat you opponent,in a war of attrition whereby you manage to outlast your opponent.
I thought this game was about winning,not going out and looking good/stylish.
Blanket defences simply give many teams a better chance of getting something out of a game against superior opponents with better individual players,than going out and playing nice open football and getting slaughtered.

Any sport, especially an amateur one, that is only about winning is a defunct one. Soccer and NFL for example changed rules to make their games more attractive and they deal in billions of pounds and the livelihoods of thousands annually. We don't yet you're saying our league is a results business??? Not a chance.

Remind me of this? Every soccer game I see has eleven players behind the ball. In fact, almost every field sport I can think of has a defensive style of mass numbers behind the ball and protecting the areas from which you are likely to concede scores.

Soccer changed the offside rule and the back pass rule to make the game more attractive. Gaelic football had a defensive style too, marking. That's no been replaced by zonal defending in numbers. Why do some defenders of this nonsense try to suggest that there was no defending in football before or that teams would get torn to shreds if they didn't get everybody behind they ball?

[Zulu]

The ironic thing about lads supporting this type of football and claiming it is good defending is it is the killing the defensive skills of football. You no longer need players with good defensive skills because with so many players behind the ball you just need to shuffle the attacker wide, not dispossess or mark him. This stuff will eradicate many of the skills of football and many of the things that made the game such a thrilling spectacle. We will be left with a one dimensional, largely unwatchable, game where the same teams will still win anyway but the journey will be a whole lot less satisfying for the spectator.

[DuffleKing]

How did the offside rule encourage attacking play?

That you think anyone explaining the merits of a defensive approach are supporters speaks volumes about your overall understanding of the concept. I hate numbers behind the ball and the spectacle it creates, however I can fully accept that its within the rules that have existed for generations.

What bugs me about these debates is that they are full of lazy views glibly repeated because people don't understand the motivations of that approach. It also strikes me that so many coaches decry the defensive approach (usually shortly before they adapt it) because they don't have the energy or application to work out an approach to beat it.

Personally I see the uber defence as a challenge but one that can be beaten with reasonably matched players if you have a smart team. The solution only minimally includes kicking the ball, which is the problem for most of us.

But tactics will evolve. The first overly defensive team of my lifetime was the Kerry team of the 80s then when they were eclipsed the game moved on. When an established pattern of beating the uber defence prevails, teams will change their approach and we'll have a renaissance. Then some smart ass will watch the Kerry Golden years again and off we go.

[DuffleKing]

Scoring rate has nothing got to do with it. People are bemoaning defensive set ups and and the closure of space off in defence. We're debating rule changes to keep players in the attacking half ffs.
Any idiot should acknowledge that a major benefit of numbers behind the ball is the space it creates in your own forward line and the opportunity to counter attack and score it presents. It does however require a daft opposition who will push up and leave that space.

That's why "defensive" teams last year scored heavily against daft set ups like Dublin and Mayo.

Of course gameplan and tactics offer a max improvement of circa 10% I would estimate. Its always about the best players and which team has the most.

Sorry that's nonsense. When a team puts 15 men behind the ball in a field sport where you can only propel the ball accurately 40-45 yards depending on wind conditions it becomes all about the scoring rates.
If both teams setup with 13v 2 set-ups you end up with exactly the same as last night- a complete stalemate like the AI Final last year. So that's a nonsense argument to start blaming the attacking team. It has to be the only sport in the world bar rugby union currently where it's better not to have the ball.

People will not go to watch games where the score-lines are 0-8 to 0-4. We have people comparing Gaelic Football to soccer which is also nonsensical. Soccer has an offside rule which makes it a completely different sport. An offside rule that is weighted in favour of the attacking team.

Soccer has made some effort to reward teams that want to score goals- let's see if Gaelic Football follows suit.

You offered scoring rates as some sort of mitigation for teams who play defensive football. I say to you that this is obvious nonsense as they will only score highly against stupid teams who leave space in their defence. You make the point for me citing last night.

Counter attack is a fundamental approach to every sport in the world. I didn't see the Dublin game but Its been mooted that Derry have no counter attacking strategy - what's Dublin's excuse?

Strikes me that if you don't stand toe to toe with the Dublin team and play football "as its supposed to be" then its just not fair and the rules need changed and Ulster (or is it the black north?) should be cut adrift.

A better idea would be to use some of that huge pot of money producing a conveyor belt of beautifully balanced, conditioned and skilled players and buy some coaching brains to try to produce teams that will work for each other and play with some capacity to make tactical decisions on the pitch.

[INDIANA]

How did the offside rule encourage attacking play?

That you think anyone explaining the merits of a defensive approach are supporters speaks volumes about your overall understanding of the concept. I hate numbers behind the ball and the spectacle it creates, however I can fully accept that its within the rules that have existed for generations.

What bugs me about these debates is that they are full of lazy views glibly repeated because people don't understand the motivations of that approach. It also strikes me that so many coaches decry the defensive approach (usually shortly before they adapt it) because they don't have the energy or application to work out an approach to beat it.

Personally I see the uber defence as a challenge but one that can be beaten with reasonably matched players if you have a smart team. The solution only minimally includes kicking the ball, which is the problem for most of us.

But tactics will evolve. The first overly defensive team of my lifetime was the Kerry team of the 80s then when they were eclipsed the game moved on. When an established pattern of beating the uber defence prevails, teams will change their approach and we'll have a renaissance. Then some smart ass will watch the Kerry Golden years again and off we go.

It encourages attacking play because the benefit of the doubt in a split decision is given to the attacker. They also took away the back-pass. Tell me what has Gaelic Football done?

You're completely myopic similar to most Ulster Gaelic Football people I know when the merits of an uber defensive system is discussed. You invented it - so it's your baby and God help anyone who questions how anyone can be deemed to be a good defender any-more with 4 players to help him out.

[DuffleKing]

How did the offside rule encourage attacking play?

That you think anyone explaining the merits of a defensive approach are supporters speaks volumes about your overall understanding of the concept. I hate numbers behind the ball and the spectacle it creates, however I can fully accept that its within the rules that have existed for generations.

What bugs me about these debates is that they are full of lazy views glibly repeated because people don't understand the motivations of that approach. It also strikes me that so many coaches decry the defensive approach (usually shortly before they adapt it) because they don't have the energy or application to work out an approach to beat it.

Personally I see the uber defence as a challenge but one that can be beaten with reasonably matched players if you have a smart team. The solution only minimally includes kicking the ball, which is the problem for most of us.

But tactics will evolve. The first overly defensive team of my lifetime was the Kerry team of the 80s then when they were eclipsed the game moved on. When an established pattern of beating the uber defence prevails, teams will change their approach and we'll have a renaissance. Then some smart ass will watch the Kerry Golden years again and off we go.

It encourages attacking play because the benefit of the doubt in a split decision is given to the attacker. They also took away the back-pass. Tell me what has Gaelic Football done?

You're completely myopic similar to most Ulster Gaelic Football people I know when the merits of an uber defensive system is discussed. You invented it - so it's your baby and God help anyone who questions how anyone can be deemed to be a good defender any-more with 4 players to help him out.

Saying that possible advantage goes the attacker (if the linesman puts that ahead of the possibility of making a mistake for a goal) is laughable. That's the final inches of a run on goal - irrelevant completely to team set up and attacking intent.

I have no love for the uber defensive approach but I am not so arrogant or lazy as to dismiss or denigrate it because it frustrates me.

[Throw ball]

How did the offside rule encourage attacking play?

That you think anyone explaining the merits of a defensive approach are supporters speaks volumes about your overall understanding of the concept. I hate numbers behind the ball and the spectacle it creates, however I can fully accept that its within the rules that have existed for generations.

What bugs me about these debates is that they are full of lazy views glibly repeated because people don't understand the motivations of that approach. It also strikes me that so many coaches decry the defensive approach (usually shortly before they adapt it) because they don't have the energy or application to work out an approach to beat it.

Personally I see the uber defence as a challenge but one that can be beaten with reasonably matched players if you have a smart team. The solution only minimally includes kicking the ball, which is the problem for most of us.

But tactics will evolve. The first overly defensive team of my lifetime was the Kerry team of the 80s then when they were eclipsed the game moved on. When an established pattern of beating the uber defence prevails, teams will change their approach and we'll have a renaissance. Then some smart ass will watch the Kerry Golden years again and off we go.

It encourages attacking play because the benefit of the doubt in a split decision is given to the attacker. They also took away the back-pass. Tell me what has Gaelic Football done?

You're completely myopic similar to most Ulster Gaelic Football people I know when the merits of an uber defensive system is discussed. You invented it - so it's your baby and God help anyone who questions how anyone can be deemed to be a good defender any-more with 4 players to help him out.

Defensive systems are nothing new. Ulster teams did not invent it. Tyrone did bring it to another level in the 2003 semi final and Donegal did the same in 2011. But less complicated systems existed before that. When I was on the school team in the 80s our school team manager insisted that the wing half forwards played back in defence when the opposition had the ball. He was a Christian Brother from Leinster!

For the record all us Ulster folk do not love all things defensive. I hate it that a player can make a great catch from a kick out and immediately get surrounded so he loses the ball or overplays it. I do not mind funnelling players back to cover space but I hate the swarm tackle of 3,4 or 5 on one.

[Sidney]

If this match had been a person, it would have been the bastard hate child of Father Stone and Jim Allister.

[Zulu]

How did the offside rule encourage attacking play?

That you think anyone explaining the merits of a defensive approach are supporters speaks volumes about your overall understanding of the concept. I hate numbers behind the ball and the spectacle it creates, however I can fully accept that its within the rules that have existed for generations.

What bugs me about these debates is that they are full of lazy views glibly repeated because people don't understand the motivations of that approach. It also strikes me that so many coaches decry the defensive approach (usually shortly before they adapt it) because they don't have the energy or application to work out an approach to beat it.

Personally I see the uber defence as a challenge but one that can be beaten with reasonably matched players if you have a smart team. The solution only minimally includes kicking the ball, which is the problem for most of us.

But tactics will evolve. The first overly defensive team of my lifetime was the Kerry team of the 80s then when they were eclipsed the game moved on. When an established pattern of beating the uber defence prevails, teams will change their approach and we'll have a renaissance. Then some smart ass will watch the Kerry Golden years again and off we go.

I don't watch soccer much so I don't really know but the rules were changed to favour attacking play more.

You feel you need to explain to us the merits of defensive football? We know the merits of it but are concerned that teams are too defensive and the health of the game is under threat.

What are these motivations and I think you'll find we understand them just fine.

There is no way to beat the uber defensive strategies of certain teams, you can beat the team employing it but it involves lots of hand passing, little risk taking and keeping plenty of players back yourself. And this is the issue - the game as a spectacle which is an important element of any sport.

[cockahoop]

Im sorry lads but that was brutal stuff from derry,i am not niave enough to think we could  go toe to toe with the dubs but by god if thats the tactics were going to use in future i for one wont be paying good money to watch it,the dubs were 100% correct in booing it IMO