Meath vs Dublin 17th June

[Jinxy]

Dinny, you seemed to be obsessed with myopia (Myopiaphobia I believe it is called ). Dublin were not 8 points the better team yesterday but they WERE the better team. How is failure to kick the ball over the bar any more telling than failing to catch a ball, or slipping to allow a forward in behind you, giving away silly free's etc.? Lets not forget either that meath had their share of wides at pivotal moments in the 2nd half. GG hitting the post was massive. That goes in and we are all square coming into the final moments. At that stage it's anyones game. If Farrell started we would have had more than 2 dangerous forwards to look for during our dominant period in the first half. Instead we had 2 immobile inside forwards in Ward and Sheridan. All that fast low ball that went into Joe and came straight back out would have been perfect for Farrell. Did you see the point he kicked after GG hit the post? Through the eye of a needle. Dublin deserved their victory no doubt, but lets not stretch it.

[The Hill is Blue]

Well done to the Boys in Blue yesterday. They rose to the occasion both on the field and on the sideline.

They won't get carried away by the result – after all one swallow does not a summer make – but yesterday was a day to savour.

[Dinny Breen]

Firstly I meant to say that Bray was the only Meath forward that rose to the match, GG only showed his genius at times and I thought he was under-utilised by Meath. Fay was of course exceptional.

If GG's shot had gone in we'd probably have won. If we'd used him properly, he'd have won it on his own.

Hardy, this is a quote from you, hence why I feel the need to make the point that Dublin created way more chances than Meath, so if they had scored all their chances they would have won by more than the 4 points, the fact that they created more opportunities than Meath and even allowing for Keaney and Brogan mis-firing still won by 4, I just feel an 8 point difference would have been a truer reflection of the game I witnessed as a neutral.

I think a lot people got carried away with Meaths performance in the first game simply because it was Meath. They still have a lot to do for me to believe they are back..

Supporters from competing counties cannot be objective in their opinions certainly not in days after a game when passions are still high, Hound been the best example in a while, so Hardy and Jinxy although I can feel your excitement in this Meath team I wouldn't be too excited as it could be an Emperor without any clothes...

[INDIANA]

i'd have to agree with dinny- i know i'm biased but- i watched the match back and i came to the conclusion had we taken our chances we'd have won easier. granted not taking your chances is  a flaw- but we dominated the breaks and only for bray - our backs excelled.
I wouldn't agree with dsfm - casey was too far off his man and allowed him to run at him. you can't let a forward like bray get the ball. Obviosuly meath should have started farrell but geragthy didn't lead when meath needed him. He stands around with his hands on his hips waiting for armchair service to come in. any ball out to the wing in the latter stages and geragthy can't get it because he doesn't have 70 mins anymore.
Have to be honest though dublin need to raise it about 30% to get near the top 2- the tight finish will stand to them though- dublin badly needed a finish like that. i didn't see anything from either team though that suggests they'd beat kerry and tyrone yet. You have to quantify who tyrone are missing - donegal were shite but they were still unbeaten all year.

[Hardy]

Of course if you took more chances you'd win by more. If we'd taken more chances we'd have won. When it starts raining the ground gets wet. For God's sake.

I think you misunderstand Geraghty's role - it was to stay on the edge of the square and beat Henry(which he did with ease any time he had the chance). But he didn't get enough service - to the extent that he did break ranks and come out to forage at times in the second half.

[INDIANA]

Unless the ball comes in high Geragthy is in trouble. i think they are wasting their time playing it out to the wing for him . Farrell and bray would be a good inside line- not sure where they will accomodate geragthy because himself and farrell are very similar in style-in that they like to be the main man up front.

[Hardy]

Sorry - I edited my first post there - it was gobbledegook before.

Unless the ball comes in high Geragthy is in trouble.

See above. Have you ever seen Geraghty play before? There was one man in trouble in there and it wasn't Geraghty.

[Dinny Breen]

Of course if you took more chances you'd win by more. If we'd taken more chances we'd have won. When it starts raining the ground gets wet. For God's sake.

That is not the point, Dublin created more chances, a lot more than Meath because simply they were the better team, maybe I should give the Meath defence more credit but the Dublin forwards were poor yesterday. You seem to think Meath competed wel andl had a chance to win, they competed but they're a limited team and never looked like winning, 9/10 I would expect Dublin to beat them.

[Hardy]

Of course if you took more chances you'd win by more. If we'd taken more chances we'd have won. When it starts raining the ground gets wet. For God's sake.

That is not the point, Dublin created more chances, a lot more than Meath because simply they were the better team, maybe I should give the Meath defence more credit but the Dublin forwards were poor yesterday. You seem to think Meath competed wel andl had a chance to win, they competed but they're a limited team and never looked like winning, 9/10 I would expect Dublin to beat them.

We're all limited teams. Do you really think Meath had no chance to win?

The point I'm disputing is that the team that creates the most chances is the better team. That's nonsense. The team that wins is the better team, better by the amount by which they won. That's how the game works.

For example, the Meath team of '87-'88 created relatively few chances. The full forward line typically carved out wins from about 40% midfield possession and had a conversion rate of over 80%. The team shot two wides in the AIF replay of '88. Their wides per game were rarely over 5. By your argument, they were inferior to the teams they beat because Dublin, Mayo, Roscommon and Cork on several occasions – the teams they played and beat in the big games - nearly always had more possession and way more chances than Meath. Strangely, though, Meath managed to win all those games.

But no argument on one thing – Dublin were the better team. By four points as it turned out. Not 8-9 as you bizarrely claim.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Chances created in a game indicate that the team with the greater amount of them (all else being equal) has the greater potential to be better, no more no less. It's all about scoring in the game itself, scoring chances carved out are an irrelevance in the game itself,  otherwise there'd be points too in football for wides (as per Aussie Rules).

[Dinny Breen]

I think this is becoming a question of semantics, maybe I should use my language better.  The amount of possession and chances they had, they could have won the game by 8 points. They were the better side at creating chances, how anyone can argue that is beyond me, were they the better side at converted the chances I don't know as I don't have the stats available and I'd be surprised myself if they were. Putting everything into context tackling, positioning, primary possession won, distribution, chances created, shot selection, subsitutions Dublin were easily the better side and I find it bizarre that someone cannot understand the abstract notion that a team looked 8 points better than the opposition (have you never done a handicap bet) or maybe you just watch everything through a black and white TV. I never said Meath didn't have a chance I just said they never looked like winning...

Anyway I'll take my abstruse mutterings from this thread and we'll all bizarrely agree Dublin were the better team by 4 points.

[INDIANA]

dinny it's ok i agree with you .
your explanation is perfect - that was my gut instinct on watching it  a second time. if you consider alan brogan missed 1-5 on his own.

[Hardy]

I find it bizarre that someone cannot understand the abstract notion that a team looked 8 points better than the opposition (have you never done a handicap bet)

Ah now it's not lack of understanding at all. I understand very well that people say this all the time, but I contend that it means nothing. A team could have 90% of the possession, shoot 25 wides and score three points, while the other team shoots no wides and five points  from their 10% possession. Which is the better team?

Anyway I'll take my abstruse mutterings from this thread and we'll all bizarrely agree Dublin were the better team by 4 points.

Wahey! Anyway – there's two of us in it and you can't beat a few abstruse mutterings for  a bit of crack.

[Dinny Breen]

A team could have 90% of the possession, shoot 25 wides and score three points, while the other team shoots no wides and five points  from their 10% possession

What's Kildare got to do with this 

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

dinny it's ok i agree with you .
your explanation is perfect - that was my gut instinct on watching it  a second time. if you consider alan brogan missed 1-5 on his own.

Yes, exactly, he MISSED 1-5 on his own, i.e., he didn't score them. That's bad shooting, plain as. But potentially, on another day, he'd put them under and over, but on this particular day he wasn't good enough. Possession per se means nothing of itself unless you're good enough to score from the chances created.  Dublin didn't miss as many against Mayo in the first half of the semi last year, and what happened... they collapsed, for whatever reason.  These wides on Sunday, perversely, may have kept them on their toes, and kept complacency at bay.

I understand very well what's being said here, my point is that it's a total irrelevance.