Mayo GAA Discussion Part 2

Shurimgreat

homewardbound11 wrote: »

No one talked of the risk of Henley under high ball . 2012 and 2016 were enough for me.

The reason we were cleaned st mid field was that out natural half back line were in the full back positions . Breaking balls were lost as was the transition into attack .

We didn't have the power to hold of players in the forward line and that caused players to be isolated . All of the above is easily rectified so I wouldn't panic just yet .
the

The arguments around Hennelly are long settled, he's nowhere near the class of goalie as Clarke, that's been proved time and time again.

TCDStudent1

seligehgit wrote: »

It's a tad mindboggling why we aren't following the Tyrone template of flooding players back,Dublin seem to struggle most with that setup.At the very least the relatively successful use of Kevin Mc as a sweeper,same seems to have gone in cold storage.Going man to man with the Dubs is suicidal.

Its strange - when Mayo were playing Dublin last year, a lot of people were saying to push up on Dublin's kickouts. Now after the weekend's defeat, most are saying to not push up!

Donal55

Shurimgreat wrote: »

The arguments around Hennelly are long settled, he's nowhere near the class of goalie as Clarke, that's been proved time and time again.

I've found it interesting listening to all the commentary since the match that most observers appear to be laying the blame on the Mayo goalkeeper and his inability to kick out effectively.

Now I'm not complaining as one who was shouting for the Dubs on Saturday, but I think it's a bit rich when the forward lines as well as the midfield were virtually non existent.

Sports journalists all day today, including David Brady, all highlighted Clarkes weaknesses. Justified they are but my concern is that a man who saved Mayo from an even bigger hiding may become the scapegoat when other players of equal status were gone awol and do appear to have slipped under the media's radar. It's evident on this thread also that a lot of Mayo supporters here are criticising Clarke whilst the rest of a very poor team escape unscathed.

seligehgit

Donal55 wrote: »

I've found it interesting listening to all the commentary since the match that most observers appear to be laying the blame on the Mayo goalkeeper and his inability to kick out effectively.

Now I'm not complaining as one who was shouting for the Dubs on Saturday, but I think it's a bit rich when the forward lines as well as the midfield were virtually non existent.

Sports journalists all day today, including David Brady, all highlighted Clarkes weaknesses. Justified they are but my concern is that a man who saved Mayo from an even bigger hiding may become the scapegoat when other players of equal status were gone awol and do appear to have slipped under the media's radar. It's evident on this thread also that a lot of Mayo supporters here are criticising Clarke whilst the rest of a very poor team escape unscathed.

Ah I simply think the aftermath of a dismal performance by all and sundry has been taken off on a not unimportant tangent.

There are numerous posts offering due recognition to our issues all over the park.

Blackjack

Donal55 wrote: »

I've found it interesting listening to all the commentary since the match that most observers appear to be laying the blame on the Mayo goalkeeper and his inability to kick out effectively.

Now I'm not complaining as one who was shouting for the Dubs on Saturday, but I think it's a bit rich when the forward lines as well as the midfield were virtually non existent.

Sports journalists all day today, including David Brady, all highlighted Clarkes weaknesses. Justified they are but my concern is that a man who saved Mayo from an even bigger hiding may become the scapegoat when other players of equal status were gone awol and do appear to have slipped under the media's radar. It's evident on this thread also that a lot of Mayo supporters here are criticising Clarke whilst the rest of a very poor team escape unscathed.

There's no doubt there was an all systems failure and few of our players could come away from Croke Park with their heads up.

By the same token our Manager took an awful lot of criticism for dropping Clarke last year but the reasoning for doing so was plain for all to see.

At the same time, if we're going to have a game like this then this is also the time to have it.

We have a bit of time to regroup for the Cavan game and if they lose to Tyrone and to us, our Division one status is assured and a bit more experimentation, if that's what's needed, can be done vs Tyrone and Donegal.

rrs

Will the O Shea's be back for the Cavan game?

Audioslaven

Blackjack wrote: »

By the same token our Manager took an awful lot of criticism for dropping Clarke last year but the reasoning for doing so was plain for all to see.

.

It was a complete and utter mistake made by Rochford. We would have won if Rochford didn't go pricking around with the goalie. Clarke is a far superior goalie to any other option we have, irrespective of any criticism that is loaded on him after last saturday. I think you really need to apply this criticism across the complete team as alot of guys went totally missing. Also, who knows the level of training that was done during the week as Mayo looked tired.

PhoneMain

Donal55 wrote: »

I've found it interesting listening to all the commentary since the match that most observers appear to be laying the blame on the Mayo goalkeeper and his inability to kick out effectively.

Now I'm not complaining as one who was shouting for the Dubs on Saturday, but I think it's a bit rich when the forward lines as well as the midfield were virtually non existent.

Sports journalists all day today, including David Brady, all highlighted Clarkes weaknesses. Justified they are but my concern is that a man who saved Mayo from an even bigger hiding may become the scapegoat when other players of equal status were gone awol and do appear to have slipped under the media's radar. It's evident on this thread also that a lot of Mayo supporters here are criticising Clarke whilst the rest of a very poor team escape unscathed.

Have to agree with this. I think a big failing of ours is that we haven't found a really good inside forward. Andy Moran 1 to 1 inside with Fitzsimons is really hard to watch and while AM battled manfully, he was often beaten to the ball or isolated when he got it. I can't understand how we're not producing better inside forward, lads who can get a couple of metres from their marker and kick a point. Also, I was really disapointed with some of the shot selection, Regan attempted a terrible one in the first half, was in a decent place to kick but didn't settle and just ended up pulling wildly on it!!

That said, we'll be there or there abouts come August/September. Also, how often to Dublin look unbeatable in Spring and they're a lot more vulnerable come Autumn. I've a sneaky feeling they wont do 3 in a row this year.

km79

Audioslaven wrote: »

It was a complete and utter mistake made by Rochford. We would have won if Rochford didn't go pricking around with the goalie. Clarke is a far superior goalie to any other option we have, irrespective of any criticism that is loaded on him after last saturday. I think you really need to apply this criticism across the complete team as alot of guys went totally missing. Also, who knows the level of training that was done during the week as Mayo looked tired.

I do think they looked very leggy and that has happened in the league before
Hopefully that's all it was
And maybe he doesn't want to show his hand cos surely he will employ the sweeper against them if we meet again
Been a while since we played it now though .......maybe will roll it out against Tyrone again

Shurimgreat

Donal55 wrote: »

I've found it interesting listening to all the commentary since the match that most observers appear to be laying the blame on the Mayo goalkeeper and his inability to kick out effectively.

Now I'm not complaining as one who was shouting for the Dubs on Saturday, but I think it's a bit rich when the forward lines as well as the midfield were virtually non existent.

Sports journalists all day today, including David Brady, all highlighted Clarkes weaknesses. Justified they are but my concern is that a man who saved Mayo from an even bigger hiding may become the scapegoat when other players of equal status were gone awol and do appear to have slipped under the media's radar. It's evident on this thread also that a lot of Mayo supporters here are criticising Clarke whilst the rest of a very poor team escape unscathed.

Agreed. Goalkeepers can play a part in their own third of the field but have little or no influence when it goes to the other 2/3s of the field which is where Mayo were badly let down against Dublin.

That said, I think what happens to Mayo in March has no influence on what happens later in the year. Perhaps a few hidings is what Mayo need at this stage to shake off complacency and find out their weaknesses.

But I repeat, Hennelly is not the answer, unless we want history to repeat itself.

Shurimgreat

Blackjack wrote: »

This. The last 10 minutes of the drawn game showed why Clarke was dropped, his kickouts were wayward and Dublin picked up 3 or 4 points directly from them. It really was something Rochford had to try to address and unfortunately for Hennelly, he didn't have a great day either - 1 kickout lead to Keegan being sent to the bench and the Penalty incident both gamechangers we didn't need.

Clarke is a far better shot stopper and better at all aspects of the game bar the kickouts, where Hennelly is much better and far better at the long range shots.

And yet he was responsible for several wayward kick outs in the replay last year, probably more than Clarke in the drawn game. Including the one that got Keegan black carded. Also wayward against Galway in Connacht. Not a great shots-stopper either and unreliable under a dropping ball. The only box he supposedly ticks is long frees and yet he's unreliable at those too.

Clarke wins out all day long.

Stoner

I think keepers have never been under more pressure. Constantly guys are belittled for having meltdowns where as the reality is that they've never been analysed or prepared for as much before.
A year ago very few people knew that Clarke's kickouts "hung in the air too much"

MayoAreMagic

TCDStudent1 wrote: »

Its strange - when Mayo were playing Dublin last year, a lot of people were saying to push up on Dublin's kickouts. Now after the weekend's defeat, most are saying to not push up!

Would have to agree. In fairness, Holmes and Connelly were lambasted for not pushing up - be it by pundits or fans - and offering Dublin a corner back to give the ball to. Now that is what everyone is doing...

Truth be told it is actually a good example of people commenting on a tactic while not really understanding it.

Personally I think the whole kickouts thing is a sign that we aren't governing them properly and that weakness in the rules is being exploited. At the end of the day, we want the game played with the ball out in open play rather than the it becoming a game decided on set plays from dead balls. Therefore I believe we need some smart rules around kickouts. The most obvious one would be some form of reset of positions before the ball is kicked.

Donal55

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Would have to agree. In fairness, Holmes and Connelly were lambasted for not pushing up - be it by pundits or fans - and offering Dublin a corner back to give the ball to. Now that is what everyone is doing...

Truth be told it is actually a good example of people commenting on a tactic while not really understanding it.

Personally I think the whole kickouts thing is a sign that we aren't governing them properly and that weakness in the rules is being exploited. At the end of the day, we want the game played with the ball out in open play rather than the it becoming a game decided on set plays from dead balls. Therefore I believe we need some smart rules around kickouts. The most obvious one would be some form of reset of positions before the ball is kicked.

Ha Ha Ha. So you want the rules changed to allow players to get back because Cluxton's kick outs are by passing them!
Why dont we just give Mayo a 6 point start you clown.

MayoAreMagic

Donal55 wrote: »

Ha Ha Ha. So you want the rules changed to allow players to get back because Cluxton's kick outs are by passing them!
Why dont we just give Mayo a 6 point start you clown.

Little to do with Cluxton. His kickouts generally go short anyway and there is still nothing stopping him from booming it out after a reset.

Maybe view the thing as a gaa man rather than a dublin gaa man. There is too much focus on kickouts at present.

Blackjack

Audioslaven wrote: »

It was a complete and utter mistake made by Rochford. We would have won if Rochford didn't go pricking around with the goalie. Clarke is a far superior goalie to any other option we have, irrespective of any criticism that is loaded on him after last saturday. I think you really need to apply this criticism across the complete team as alot of guys went totally missing. Also, who knows the level of training that was done during the week as Mayo looked tired.

There's no doubt that Clarke is a better shot stopper, better under the high ball and unquestionably better at commanding the square.

However to say we would have won if Clarke was in goal is indeed stretching it.

Rochford had to make some changes - if he hadn't, and we had lost as a result of anything, not least Clarke's kickouts, he would have been castigated for not making a change.
We all have the benefit of hindsight now and while Hennelly did drop the ball - in every sense for the penalty - but also for some of the other kickouts, the Margin of victory was a single point. Can we say with certainty that if he had caught that ball instead of fluffing it we would have won by 2?. I don't think we can.

naughto

Donal55 wrote: »

Ha Ha Ha. So you want the rules changed to allow players to get back because Cluxton's kick outs are by passing them!
Why dont we just give Mayo a 6 point start you clown.

Now Donal play nice no one is allow call mayoaremagic a clown bar me that is.

On a different not I see the rossie thread is dead wasint this time last yr certain posters where having a right go at us cos we where playing so sh1te and they where beating be 4 and behinde them, it's funny how things change

MayoAreMagic

Blackjack wrote: »

There's no doubt that Clarke is a better shot stopper, better under the high ball and unquestionably better at commanding the square.

However to say we would have won if Clarke was in goal is indeed stretching it.

Rochford had to make some changes - if he hadn't, and we had lost as a result of anything, not least Clarke's kickouts, he would have been castigated for not making a change.
We all have the benefit of hindsight now and while Hennelly did drop the ball - in every sense for the penalty - but also for some of the other kickouts, the Margin of victory was a single point. Can we say with certainty that if he had caught that ball instead of fluffing it we would have won by 2?. I don't think we can.

Spot on. Would we have scored that goal? It came off hennelly's long kickout... You just have to judge the thing on it's merits and it would have been a different game for both teams. I do think it was a mistake, but I wouldn't be saying that we would have won either.

Fr Tod Umptious

naughto wrote: »

Now Donal play nice no one is allow call mayoaremagic a clown bar me that is.

On a different not I see the rossie thread is dead wasint this time last yr certain posters where having a right go at us cos we where playing so sh1te and they where beating be 4 and behinde them, it's funny how things change

Yep I don't even feel like going over there and taking the piss.

What was the famous quote from last year from that thread, it was about the state of the Hyde, and it went something like "counties like Offaly built a stadium, but we are building a team"

Always_Running

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Yep I don't even feel like going over there and taking the piss.

What was the famous quote from last year from that thread, it was about the state of the Hyde, and it went something like "counties like Offaly built a stadium, but we are building a team"

In fairness a fine playing surface in the Hyde now and they are building a new team with both Shines,C Cregg,S Kilbride,D Keenan,N Collins,N Carty,S Purcell,G Claffey and the 3 Dalys gone from last years team/panel

TCDStudent1

Blackjack wrote: »

There's no doubt that Clarke is a better shot stopper, better under the high ball and unquestionably better at commanding the square.

However to say we would have won if Clarke was in goal is indeed stretching it.

Rochford had to make some changes - if he hadn't, and we had lost as a result of anything, not least Clarke's kickouts, he would have been castigated for not making a change.
We all have the benefit of hindsight now and while Hennelly did drop the ball - in every sense for the penalty - but also for some of the other kickouts, the Margin of victory was a single point. Can we say with certainty that if he had caught that ball instead of fluffing it we would have won by 2?. I don't think we can.

But its not the benefit of hindsight. On the morning of the game, when the rumour broke that Hennelly was starting, most people questioned it. I did not meet one person who thought it was a good idea before the game & I talked to a lot of people about the match on that day! Everybody said that it was a very risky change to make. They had the foresight to see that it was a change wrought with danger. Everybody was talking about Hennelly that morning which was already putting huge pressure on him.

During his Corofin tenure, Rochford was very highly rated. However, some Corofin people felt he liked to make changes like this so that he would look a bit of a genius when they came off. In the AI replay, it made him look somewhat foolish with the way things panned out in the game.

I agree that you cannot say Mayo would have won if Clarke started. For all we know, Clarke would have had a bigger howler than Hennelly! Anyway, this is covering very old ground - I do not think the risk of changing goalkeeper for a high pressure game like an AI final replay came anywhere close to outweighing the benefits that it might bring. That was as clear to me (and many others) before the game as it was afterwards.

naughto

Always_Running wrote: »

In fairness a fine playing surface in the Hyde now and they are building a new team with both Shines,C Cregg,S Kilbride,D Keenan,N Collins,N Carty,S Purcell,G Claffey and the 3 Dalys gone from last years team/panel

There has to be a big reason why so many are leaving would you leave a team if they thought they could challenge for the all ireland.

danganabu

TCDStudent1 wrote: »

In the AI replay, it made him look somewhat foolish with the way things panned out in the game.

Don't think it made him look foolish as all, the reasoning was perfectly sound and valid and he had the balls to make the big call. The fact that it didn't work out doesn't make him foolish.

Identifying a problem and ignoring it because its the safer option, that would be foolish!

Shurimgreat

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Spot on. Would we have scored that goal? It came off hennelly's long kickout... You just have to judge the thing on it's merits and it would have been a different game for both teams. I do think it was a mistake, but I wouldn't be saying that we would have won either.

We lost our footballer of the year because of Hennelly. We also dropped a proven All-Star goalkeeper.

Hennelly does not bring anything Clarke doesn't. He had a number of wayward kickouts and a couple of good ones. No different to Clarke with regards kickouts really.

The main point is he's an accident waiting to happen on the big day.

I can't believe people are advocating a return to Hennelly.

PARlance

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I can't believe people are advocating a return to Hennelly.

I think you're having that argument with yourself tbh.

Blackjack

danganabu wrote: »

Don't think it made him look foolish as all, the reasoning was perfectly sound and valid and he had the balls to make the big call. The fact that it didn't work out doesn't make him foolish.

Identifying a problem and ignoring it because its the safer option, that would be foolish!

This

Fr Tod Umptious

Blackjack wrote: »

This

That too.

blanch152

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Little to do with Cluxton. His kickouts generally go short anyway and there is still nothing stopping him from booming it out after a reset.

Maybe view the thing as a gaa man rather than a dublin gaa man. There is too much focus on kickouts at present.

Mayo don't have a keeper who can kick the ball out and can't cope with the way that Cluxton kicks it out, so you want a rule change!!!!!!

Audioslaven

TCDStudent1 wrote: »

But its not the benefit of hindsight. On the morning of the game, when the rumour broke that Hennelly was starting, most people questioned it. I did not meet one person who thought it was a good idea before the game & I talked to a lot of people about the match on that day! Everybody said that it was a very risky change to make. They had the foresight to see that it was a change wrought with danger. Everybody was talking about Hennelly that morning which was already putting huge pressure on him.

During his Corofin tenure, Rochford was very highly rated. However, some Corofin people felt he liked to make changes like this so that he would look a bit of a genius when they came off. In the AI replay, it made him look somewhat foolish with the way things panned out in the game.

I agree that you cannot say Mayo would have won if Clarke started. For all we know, Clarke would have had a bigger howler than Hennelly! Anyway, this is covering very old ground - I do not think the risk of changing goalkeeper for a high pressure game like an AI final replay came anywhere close to outweighing the benefits that it might bring. That was as clear to me (and many others) before the game as it was afterwards.

I am with you on this but I think we would have won as Dublin got gifted 5/6 points. Anyway some people in Galway also feel Rochford under delivered at Corofin with the team he had.

Oldtree

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Yep I don't even feel like going over there and taking "a" piss.

Yep, toilets are awful in the hyde

SpatialPlanning

If it's a case of kickouts vs shot stopping, I'd stick with Clarke. For the simple reason that our defence is too easily penetrated by teams like Dublin and Kerry. Having Clarke there probably saves us 3-6 points a game. If his kickouts go awry, we should still have the defensive solidity to account for most errors. He is also more of a presence than Hennelly and I think he offers the team more. In saying that, we are very lucky to have two such options available to us.
Rather than focus on poor execution of a kickout, I'd be more inclined to look at our kickout strategy. If we have an extra man at the back, why aren't we fully utilising him? If another team pushes up then our midfield should be more than able to hold their own in the air. I'm also a little concerned that we were so poor at winning the second ball last week. How can Dublin have 2 players waiting for the breaking ball when no Mayo player is in the vicinity?

Shurimgreat

PARlance wrote: »

I think you're having that argument with yourself tbh.

Am I? I'm reading on here people questioning Clarke and saying his kickouts are costing the team. His kickouts are no better or worse than most other goalies.

I think we need to move away from the focus on kickouts.

There was a lot wrong in the game against Dublin, mainly that we were far too open and also looked leggy, which is understandable at this stage of the year.

Our kickouts were the least of our problems. And the goalkeeping situation has also been settled. Clarke all day long. Hennelly, a nice guy I'd say, but just too unreliable when it counts.

RD10

With respect to roscommon, a training session would have been of more benefit to mayo 2 weeks ago, total mismatch and too many people got ahead of themselves thinking thats it we're great now after that match and for the life of me i cannot see why. so many errors were glossed over.
we beat roscommon and everyone thinks we're the best team in the country, we have a woeful night against dublin and everyone has turned on them again.slating them every chance they get.
point is we are not as good as everyone taught we were and we are definately not as bad as last saturday night.
I was at the match, it was just a bad night all round for everyone. yes we have problem areas but we'll be back again stronger next week.
each and everyone of the lads had a poor night but it was just one poor night and the attitude was bad on sat night.
Remember its still only march we're in. we will improve.
From what ive seen so far this year though(and the past few years) i have a problem with a few players. Evan regan really has got buckets of chances and not one game has he impressed me in over the past 2 seasons.
he hasnt made an impact in ANY game so why they are persisting on playing him? in fact he's well and truly beaten by his opposite number in nearly every game. thrown off the ball, cant win ball, wide after wide, two wild shots the last night etc etc.
jason gibbons is not good enough in midfield either imo. we've played four league matches now and i dont think ive seen him field a ball yet.
he may usually be our second choice midfield partner but surely if hes good enough to be that, he can field the odd high ball and really go at the game. He dosnt command midfield either and at the minute to me its like he's just filling in until the regulars come back and take their places rather than really trying to nail down a spot.
kevin mcloughlans persistant fouling is quite annoying and he's constantly kicking away silly balls, and oftentimes under no pressure. i'd say it happens at least twice every match.
everyone knows our back line are woeful exposed at times and we NEED to sort this out..clarke cant keep saving us. i expect we will focus on tightening things up in the next few games.
I wish everyone get off hennelly's case aswell. yes he had a bummer last year, if you were thrown into an all-ireland final like that and in the circumstances he was (dropped after galway game) you'd be a bag of nerves too. few bad kickouts yes and the penalty but can we please stop trying to totally destroy this lads confidence..we all know he is a Lot better than the year he had last year.
he saved our asses in manys a game before..
although i agree clarke is a more comanding figure and id be veering more towards him at the minute myself, hennelly is every bit as good as others keepers.
And finally everyone calling for aidan o shea to return and everything is going to be hunky dorey again...i highly doubt he is the answer to our prayers. big role yet to play yes but he is not the be and end all. everybody else needs to check their attitudes and i expect we'll do that for the cavan game.
diarmuid looks wrecked still. i remember seeing him up the far corner at one stage and in the next play he was right back down beside me the other end, he's doing the work of ten men, he's up and down the pitch in every game working hard, be wont be able to keep it up, others need to start helping him.
Now ive had my rant im off!
However before i go, a shout out to brendan harrison who is keeping up the good work and continueing his good form from last season despite only being back from his hip injury.

PARlance

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Am I? I'm reading on here people questioning Clarke and saying his kickouts are costing the team. His kickouts are no better or worse than most other goalies.

I think we need to move away from the focus on kickouts.

There was a lot wrong in the game against Dublin, mainly that we were far too open and also looked leggy, which is understandable at this stage of the year.

Our kickouts were the least of our problems. And the goalkeeping situation has also been settled. Clarke all day long. Hennelly, a nice guy I'd say, but just too unreliable when it counts.

A lot are highlighting Clarke's weakness surrounding the kick out and some are giving some opinions on why Clarke was dropped for the replay but I don’t see anyone "advocating a return for Hennelly". You're just going off on a tangent with that one.

km79

PARlance wrote: »

A lot are highlighting Clarke's weakness surrounding the kick out and some are giving some opinions on why Clarke was dropped for the replay but I don’t see anyone "advocating a return for Hennelly". You're just going off on a tangent with that one.

Exactly

Shurimgreat

PARlance wrote: »

A lot are highlighting Clarke's weakness surrounding the kick out and some are giving some opinions on why Clarke was dropped for the replay but I don’t see anyone "advocating a return for Hennelly". You're just going off on a tangent with that one.

I don't see his kickouts a particular problem. The guy is a proven keeper. The Dublin game is a blip I'd say for all concerned as it was one of those very poor performances Mayo are capable of usually once or twice a year.
He's still the best keeper we have and most counties would bite your arm off to have him. We have no alternative to him at the moment.

It was a stupid obsession with kickouts that played a part in getting Clarke dropped for the replay last year, so lets not make that mistake again.

danganabu

Shurimgreat wrote: »

It was a stupid obsession with kickouts that played a part in getting Clarke dropped for the replay last year, so lets not make that mistake again.

Kick-outs are probably the single most important aspect of the modern game, there are on average, in a championship match, 40-45 kick-outs, and with teams ability now to retain possession once it is won without a successful kick-out strategy you are basically at nothing. Of course its not all down to the keeper, but they are the one constant in the formula.

blinding

Kick it out to Aiden O'Shea and have big Shemozzle if he does not catch it.....

I am a tactical genius (Okay I have only one Tactic )

MayoAreMagic

blanch152 wrote: »

Mayo don't have a keeper who can kick the ball out and can't cope with the way that Cluxton kicks it out, so you want a rule change!!!!!!

I think you need to widen your viewpoint past your own county. Cluxton wont be around forever, what then for Dublin? Also, it was in fact cluxton that had the biggest meltdown to date under these type of tactics, in the semi against Kerry. Every keeper will suffer over this.

It's not about Cluxton or Clarke, it is about the amount riding on what is supposed to be a simple restart of play and the whole ethos of spending that much time coming up with tactics to spoil kickouts to score, rather than good sweeping, attacking moves from down the field. It isn't a good direction for the game to be going in, not to mention very harsh on goalkeepers.

No more than getting 15 men behind the ball, it is a bit of a joyless direction for the game to be going in. Surely we should be looking to see the ball in open play more and not teams having to kick the ball backwards on a kickout for fear of losing it?


I think the change of where a kickout is taken from after a score was a mistake and this has come about from that. Even reintroducing that could have a positive effect.

blanch152

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

I think you need to widen your viewpoint past your own county. Cluxton wont be around forever, what then for Dublin? Also, it was in fact cluxton that had the biggest meltdown to date under these type of tactics, in the semi against Kerry. Every keeper will suffer over this.

It's not about Cluxton or Clarke, it is about the amount riding on what is supposed to be a simple restart of play and the whole ethos of spending that much time coming up with tactics to spoil kickouts to score, rather than good sweeping, attacking moves from down the field. It isn't a good direction for the game to be going in, not to mention very harsh on goalkeepers.

No more than getting 15 men behind the ball, it is a bit of a joyless direction for the game to be going in. Surely we should be looking to see the ball in open play more and not teams having to kick the ball backwards on a kickout for fear of losing it?


I think the change of where a kickout is taken from after a score was a mistake and this has come about from that. Even reintroducing that could have a positive effect.

"teams having to kick the ball backwards on a kickout" - I have never ever seen this happen. Can you link to an example (apart from Bellmullet on a soft windy day)?

Yes, we all want to see the ball in open play as much as possible, therefore we are going to introduce a new rule that requires all players to go back into position as slowly, I mean as quickly, as possible before the kickout can be taken so that the time the ball is out of play is reduced to five minutes while all of this takes place?

The speed of the game and the amount of time the ball is in play have improved dramatically since they allowed quick kickouts. Only one rule change needed in football - reduce to 13-a-side to reduce the effectiveness of the mass defence as the smaller number of players can't cover the same amount of space. Then you will see "good sweeping, attacking moves from down the field."

MayoAreMagic

blanch152 wrote: »

"teams having to kick the ball backwards on a kickout" - I have never ever seen this happen. Can you link to an example (apart from Bellmullet on a soft windy day)?

Yes, we all want to see the ball in open play as much as possible, therefore we are going to introduce a new rule that requires all players to go back into position as slowly, I mean as quickly, as possible before the kickout can be taken so that the time the ball is out of play is reduced to five minutes while all of this takes place?

The speed of the game and the amount of time the ball is in play have improved dramatically since they allowed quick kickouts. Only one rule change needed in football - reduce to 13-a-side to reduce the effectiveness of the mass defence as the smaller number of players can't cover the same amount of space. Then you will see "good sweeping, attacking moves from down the field."

Im pretty sure cluxton did it in the 2015 semi, however even kicking it sideways is the same thing. I said backwards as going on trends that is most likely the next thing we are going to see teams doing more of - ie stretching the press of the opposition to create a gap in it.

As for the bit about slowing ir down - im pretty sure that is timewasting and there is rules already in place for this, not that thus is relevant to thus point. You might be getting confused with a different point there.

Re 13 a side, teams can still push up on kickouts in the same manner. It doesnt really solve this issue

blanch152

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Im pretty sure cluxton did it in the 2015 semi, however even kicking it sideways is the same thing. I said backwards as going on trends that is most likely the next thing we are going to see teams doing more of - ie stretching the press of the opposition to create a gap in it.

As for the bit about slowing ir down - im pretty sure that is timewasting and there is rules already in place for this, not that thus is relevant to thus point. You might be getting confused with a different point there.

Re 13 a side, teams can still push up on kickouts in the same manner. It doesnt really solve this issue

Your idea would slow the game down as kickouts couldn't be taken until teams were back in set places, while 13-a-side creates more space on the pitch, better for kickouts (even Clarke's wayward ones), better for attacking play.

Your idea is designed to deal with the fact that Cluxton's and Clarke's kickouts embarrass Mayo and you want to find a way to deal with them regardless of the consequences.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

"teams having to kick the ball backwards on a kickout" - I have never ever seen this happen. Can you link to an example (apart from Bellmullet on a soft windy day)?

Rule 2.7 (a).

"The ball shall travel 13 meters before being played by another player of the defending team"

There is nothing in the rules to prevent a goalkeeper taking a kick-out kicking the ball backwards.

MayoAreMagic

blanch152 wrote: »

Your idea would slow the game down as kickouts couldn't be taken until teams were back in set places, while 13-a-side creates more space on the pitch, better for kickouts (even Clarke's wayward ones), better for attacking play.

Your idea is designed to deal with the fact that Cluxton's and Clarke's kickouts embarrass Mayo and you want to find a way to deal with them regardless of the consequences.

Im not tied to one particular idea. Im more pointing out that we need to move away from this set play ethos, where players are getting picked in games for their ability on a kickout. Otherwise we are heading for stoke city v Wimbledon in every other game.

Re the design of my idea, it is to help clarke against dublin, cluxton against kerry, durkin against kerry, the galway keeper against mayo a few years back, etc etc. It is to help goalkeepers and make the game more about football than set plays. You are just focusing on clarke v dublin because your interest doesnt go beyond your own county

danganabu

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Im not tied to one particular idea. Im more pointing out that we need to move away from this set play ethos, where players are getting picked in games for their ability on a kickout. Otherwise we are heading for stoke city v Wimbledon in every other game.

Re the design of my idea, it is to help clarke against dublin, cluxton against kerry, durkin against kerry, the galway keeper against mayo a few years back, etc etc. It is to help goalkeepers and make the game more about football than set plays. You are just focusing on clarke v dublin because your interest doesnt go beyond your own county

I think its the irony that I like best :D

MayoAreMagic

danganabu wrote: »

I think its the irony that I like best :D

That is the thing though, it does go beyond my own county. It suits all teams because it would improve the game. All teams includes mayo, I accept, but it also includes everyone else. Im just trying to look at the bigger picture and address the direction the game is going. Maybe if we did that we wouldn't have to be constantly fighting fires with our rule making.

Going by your logic, you can only have a good suggestion when it will never be of any use to your own team. So the guy coming up with the mark needed a small midfield pairing in his local team. It is just a parochial, stale way of approaching everything, where the end result is nothing gets done.

As you say yourself, and I quote - 'Kick-outs are probably the single most important aspect of the modern game'. My question is, should they actually be so important? Is the kick out/kick off the most important part of soccer? Is the restart the most important part of rugby? Rugby in particular have rules to avoid this sort of thing, where the restarts occur from out the field and the only ones near your own goals are for particular circumstances.

flasher0030

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

That is the thing though, it does go beyond my own county. It suits all teams because it would improve the game. All teams includes mayo, I accept, but it also includes everyone else.

Going by your logic, you can only have a good suggestion when it will never be of any use to your own team. So the guy coming up with the mark needed a small midfield pairing in his local team. It is just a parochial, stale way of approaching everything, where the end result is nothing gets done.

As you say yourself, and I quote - 'Kick-outs are probably the single most important aspect of the modern game'. My question is, should they actually be so important? Is the kick out/kick off the most important part of soccer? Is the restart the most important part of rugby? Rugby in particular have rules to avoid this sort of thing, where the kicks occur from out the field.

You’re not coming out too well on this one. I think you should go back to giving the Dubs a piece of your mind about the excessive funding they received.

MayoAreMagic

flasher0030 wrote: »

You’re not coming out too well on this one. I think you should go back to giving the Dubs a piece of your mind about the excessive funding they received.

flasher0030 wrote: »

What Nonevernomore stated is true. How is that trolling. Have a look back at the various GAA threads, and you will see it mentioned several times. For you to come along and "flash your badge", just because you do not like the funding issue to be raised again is wrong.

I'll leave that to yourself man...

Shurimgreat

danganabu wrote: »

Kick-outs are probably the single most important aspect of the modern game, there are on average, in a championship match, 40-45 kick-outs, and with teams ability now to retain possession once it is won without a successful kick-out strategy you are basically at nothing. Of course its not all down to the keeper, but they are the one constant in the formula.

No they are not, as proved by last years all-Ireland final.

We dropped the best keeper in the country for a goalie who supposedly had a vastly superior kickout.

You know the rest.

A keepers role is far more than just about kickouts, otherwise you could put anyone in goals who can kick the ball well.

We really need to put this kickout sh*te to bed or we will be back to making the same mistakes as the past. The debate is over, done. Anyone who questions Clarke being Mayo's number one goalie is clueless about football.

Fr Tod Umptious

Shurimgreat wrote: »

No they are not, as proved by last years all-Ireland final.

We dropped the best keeper in the country for a goalie who supposedly had a vastly superior kickout.

You know the rest.

A keepers role is far more than just about kickouts, otherwise you could put anyone in goals who can kick the ball well.

We really need to put this kickout sh*te to bed or we will be back to making the same mistakes as the past. The debate is over, done. Anyone who questions Clarke being Mayo's number one goalie is clueless about football.

It's not that simple.

No one suggested that Hennelly "had a vastly superior kickout".

The reasoning was that part of the Dublin game plan was to traget the Clarke kickout.

If you take Clarke's kickout away (alter the kickout strategy) then you take part of Dublin's game plan away.
Making them come up with an alternative.


That's what we are dealing with in 21st century football, minute levels of analysis of where you can find an advantage.