Waterford GAA Discussion Thread 3 ***Updated Mod Note Post 1***

Tramore84

In my view Gleeson should stay where he is, he attacks space and is more likely to get that when he wins ball in the half back line. Don't be fooled by talk of the system, De Burca is an excellent hurler who should not be moved or dropped. Its suits us that everyone is talking about the system as it keeps the pressure off our players but its the players who are making this system work. I would like to see a Plan B at some stage, particularly if we are losing a game. Despite.my earlier posts, I don't think that Darragh Fives should start, should definitely come in at some stage though. Thought Barron looked tired in the 2nd half of Munster final and fives would be a great guy to bring in there.

Back to Gleeson, he has that x factor that none of our other players have at this point - the opposition don't know what he is going to do and you need someone like that in there. He provides so much entertainment that i wouldn't criticise him too much for poor deliveries /wides, he will learn quickly to take better options. Glad he is there.

conditioned games

JamieK wrote: »

Hi. I'm a selector of an under 16 team in South Tipperary that would be very competitive at "A" grade.

I didn't know where to ask but I thought why not here. Somebody from Tramore is asking for a challenge match but wasn't able to tell me what grade they would play at or what level they are. There would be no point in travelling unless the 2 teams were relatively well matched. I'd greatly appreciate if somebody could help me out here!! Thanks in advance.

Tramore play in division 1 at U16 but should really should be in Div 2 based on their first 2 games. Results can be viewed on http://www.waterfordgaa.ie/league/94271/u16_h_div1

Giveitfong

On Wednesday of last week, for the second time in four days, a Waterford hurling team held the opposition’s main scoring threat scoreless from play and did not concede a goal. Waterford lost both games.

The defeat in Ennis was particularly galling, given the contrast in inherent ability between the two teams. Fourteen of the Waterford team were training with the county seniors. Four of them were regular starters with the seniors and three were regular substitutes. Just two of the Clare team were on their seniors’ matchday 26 and only one – Shane O’Donnell – was a regular starter.

Yet Waterford set up with the primary focus on preventing O’Donnell doing damage. This had the effect of taking our best player – Tadhg de Búrca – out of the game as the well-drilled Clare team refused to send in the kind of ball on which de Búrca feasted against Cork. Instead, it was the Clare wing forwards – Bobby Duggan and Ian Galvin – who feasted (six points from play apiece) on Waterford wing backs who were missing most of the time while the Clare duo were shooting points for fun.

Meanwhile, Waterford’s defensive setup allowed Clare to always have a spare man against Waterford’s two-man full forward line. Given the strike capability in the Waterford team – Patrick Curran, the two Bennetts, Colin Dunford, Tom Devine, Austin Gleeson, Mikey Kearney – the folly of playing just two in the inside line is beyond belief. The Clare manager, Donal Moloney, actually suggested after the game that there might have been a different result had Waterford set up 15 on 15 for the game.

The Irish Examiner columnist PM O’Sullivan expanded on this theme in the issue of July 17. While he fully understood why the Waterford seniors would adopt a defensive formation given their experiences of last year and the inexperience of the team, to have the Under 21s following the same approach when they were 1/3 favourites made no sense to him at all. To quote from his column:

“Why field in a fashion that [the] available talent rendered unnecessary? Waterford set up as if they had to contain Clare, whereas the dynamic, in truth, ran the other way round…Waterford’s U21s constantly ran the ball into contact, losing possession. They passed short for the sake of passing short. They hit long range wides when a percentaged delivery was [the] proper option…Three points down with ten minutes left, Waterford surely had to push up 15 on 15. Here is where a system becomes a straitjacket.”

On the latter point, it is worth noting that, in the 59th minute, with Waterford two points down and desperately needing a goal, Tadhg de Búrca sent a long ball into the Clare goal area. There was only one Waterford player – Patrick Curran – within 40 metres of the Clare goal when the ball arrived, and he was double-marked. This is an indication of how deeply ingrained negative thinking has now become in the minds of the Waterford hurlers.

Apart from the setup (which was also used against probably the worst under 21 team ever to come out of Cork), the Waterford management failed on several other fronts. They clearly were unable to prepare the team mentally for what was bound to be a battle against a highly-motivated and well-prepared Clare outfit. This was apparent in the their extraordinarily high error count. I counted no less than 42 errors by the Waterford players, in the shape of fumbles, mi**** passes, turnovers conceded, running into trouble, sending balls straight to unmarked opponents, etc. Given that in a typical 60-minute game there is only about 30 minutes of actual playing time, this amounts to almost three errors every two playing minutes. Seven of Clare’s scores came directly from Waterford errors.

This error count does not include poor shooting. In my count, Waterford had nine bad misses to Clare’s four. Waterford missed four frees to Clare’s two. When you lose by just two points, these differences are crucial.
The Waterford mentors also fell down in terms of player placement and sideline management during the game. It is always said that good hurling teams are built on strong half back lines. Limerick’s marvellous win against the odds the following night was based to a large extent on heroic half back performances. Waterford started with Tom Devine and Michael Harney at wing back. Devine was completely off his game and unable to contain Duggan in the first half. The selectors subsequently moved him all over the place to little effect.

By contrast, Michael Harney, who had a solid first half, was replaced at half time for no obvious reason (he was not injured). It was only then that Ian Galvin roared into the game (five of his six points came in the second half). Waterford started the second half with Shane Bennett and Austin Gleeson – neither a good defensive player – at wing back. They subsequently moved Gleeson to full forward and brought Darragh Lyons – hardly a man-marker – to wing back. The carnage inflicted by the Clare wing forwards continued. The one player who might have made a difference here for Waterford – Kieran Power – was not even on the sideline, having walked away from the panel a couple of weeks previously.

Those watching the game on TV would not have been aware that Austin Gleeson spent 10-15 minutes of the second half at full forward, as during this period not one ball was played into him. In the first half, DJ Foran – operating at full forward – scored one point and earned a pointed free from three possessions. In the second half, only two balls came his way, one out on the wing and the other when he failed to hold a high ball into the Clare goalmouth. He was replaced almost immediately.

This is a player who had come to prominence in successive Waterford minor teams as a player able to win dirty ball in the half forward line and bring it towards goal. In the second half in Ennis Waterford were finding it hard to win ball in this area against a dominant Clare half back line. Why was Foran not brought out here rather than being taken off (especially as his replacement had no impact)?

One might also ask what function Mikey Kearney was supposed to be filling in the team. A player with plenty of scoring ability, he spent the game out the field in no man’s land and played the ball just four times in all. The same could be asked of Colin Dunford, whose explosive pace was very poorly used in this game (as indeed is the case with the county senior team). And why oh why was Tadhg de Búrca not brought out the field as the game slipped away from Waterford in the last ten minutes?

Like Waterford, Clare have made major strides in generating a continuous stream of talent from the under-age grades in recent years. However, unlike Waterford, Clare have been translating this talent into All-Ireland success at under-21 level (four titles in six years). In 2013, they won both the senior and under-21 All-Irelands with a considerable overlap between the two teams. They have been blessed with super coaches/managers (John Minogue, Paul Kinnerk, Gerry O’Connor, Donal Moloney). It is also clear that their county board has placed great importance in this grade and that there has been a lot of cooperation between the senior and under 21 mentors.

The contrast with Waterford’s appalling record of under-achievement in this grade could not be greater.

hurler on de ditch

Dick phelan wrote: »

I'm amazed people want to move De Burca he's been outstanding this year possibly our best player in fact, Let's not get carried away here we lost by 5 points to Tipp in a game where we hit some awful wides, the system needs slight tweeking not a complete transformation. Personally i'd play Curran and Darrah Fives if he is fit and move Aussie more forward. Outside of that i wouldn't make any changes and from a logical standpoint how much abuse would the management get if we lost to Dublin and De Burca had been moved people would be going mental at such a crazy decision. I'm confident about Sunday we should have more then enough to beat Dublin if we play our game, just hoping the shooting improves on the last day and that we see one or two more forward at times.

almost any player in the 15 could play that role of sweeper ,running around sweeping up loose balls ,marking no one and nobody marking you .when he played in the U21 game he was not at this majestic best,so jury out on this one

JamieK

conditioned games wrote: »

Tramore play in division 1 at U16 but should really should be in Div 2 based on their first 2 games. Results can be viewed on http://www.waterfordgaa.ie/league/94271/u16_h_div1

Thanks a million. Might stay clear!!

tomwaterford

hurler on de ditch wrote: »

almost any player in the 15 could play that role of sweeper ,running around sweeping up loose balls ,marking no one and nobody marking you .when he played in the U21 game he was not at this majestic best,so jury out on this one

I taught he did well in the u21....even though it was obvious to all there that he was dead on his feet 10 mins into the second half....like really struggling

HatchetMan7

Giveitfong wrote: »

On Wednesday of last week, for the second time in four days, a Waterford hurling team held the opposition’s main scoring threat scoreless from play and did not concede a goal. Waterford lost both games.

The defeat in Ennis was particularly galling, given the contrast in inherent ability between the two teams. Fourteen of the Waterford team were training with the county seniors. Four of them were regular starters with the seniors and three were regular substitutes. Just two of the Clare team were on their seniors’ matchday 26 and only one – Shane O’Donnell – was a regular starter.

Yet Waterford set up with the primary focus on preventing O’Donnell doing damage. This had the effect of taking our best player – Tadhg de Búrca – out of the game as the well-drilled Clare team refused to send in the kind of ball on which de Búrca feasted against Cork. Instead, it was the Clare wing forwards – Bobby Duggan and Ian Galvin – who feasted (six points from play apiece) on Waterford wing backs who were missing most of the time while the Clare duo were shooting points for fun.

Meanwhile, Waterford’s defensive setup allowed Clare to always have a spare man against Waterford’s two-man full forward line. Given the strike capability in the Waterford team – Patrick Curran, the two Bennetts, Colin Dunford, Tom Devine, Austin Gleeson, Mikey Kearney – the folly of playing just two in the inside line is beyond belief. The Clare manager, Donal Moloney, actually suggested after the game that there might have been a different result had Waterford set up 15 on 15 for the game.

The Irish Examiner columnist PM O’Sullivan expanded on this theme in the issue of July 17. While he fully understood why the Waterford seniors would adopt a defensive formation given their experiences of last year and the inexperience of the team, to have the Under 21s following the same approach when they were 1/3 favourites made no sense to him at all. To quote from his column:

“Why field in a fashion that [the] available talent rendered unnecessary? Waterford set up as if they had to contain Clare, whereas the dynamic, in truth, ran the other way round…Waterford’s U21s constantly ran the ball into contact, losing possession. They passed short for the sake of passing short. They hit long range wides when a percentaged delivery was [the] proper option…Three points down with ten minutes left, Waterford surely had to push up 15 on 15. Here is where a system becomes a straitjacket.”

On the latter point, it is worth noting that, in the 59th minute, with Waterford two points down and desperately needing a goal, Tadhg de Búrca sent a long ball into the Clare goal area. There was only one Waterford player – Patrick Curran – within 40 metres of the Clare goal when the ball arrived, and he was double-marked. This is an indication of how deeply ingrained negative thinking has now become in the minds of the Waterford hurlers.

Apart from the setup (which was also used against probably the worst under 21 team ever to come out of Cork), the Waterford management failed on several other fronts. They clearly were unable to prepare the team mentally for what was bound to be a battle against a highly-motivated and well-prepared Clare outfit. This was apparent in the their extraordinarily high error count. I counted no less than 42 errors by the Waterford players, in the shape of fumbles, mi**** passes, turnovers conceded, running into trouble, sending balls straight to unmarked opponents, etc. Given that in a typical 60-minute game there is only about 30 minutes of actual playing time, this amounts to almost three errors every two playing minutes. Seven of Clare’s scores came directly from Waterford errors.

This error count does not include poor shooting. In my count, Waterford had nine bad misses to Clare’s four. Waterford missed four frees to Clare’s two. When you lose by just two points, these differences are crucial.
The Waterford mentors also fell down in terms of player placement and sideline management during the game. It is always said that good hurling teams are built on strong half back lines. Limerick’s marvellous win against the odds the following night was based to a large extent on heroic half back performances. Waterford started with Tom Devine and Michael Harney at wing back. Devine was completely off his game and unable to contain Duggan in the first half. The selectors subsequently moved him all over the place to little effect.

By contrast, Michael Harney, who had a solid first half, was replaced at half time for no obvious reason (he was not injured). It was only then that Ian Galvin roared into the game (five of his six points came in the second half). Waterford started the second half with Shane Bennett and Austin Gleeson – neither a good defensive player – at wing back. They subsequently moved Gleeson to full forward and brought Darragh Lyons – hardly a man-marker – to wing back. The carnage inflicted by the Clare wing forwards continued. The one player who might have made a difference here for Waterford – Kieran Power – was not even on the sideline, having walked away from the panel a couple of weeks previously.

Those watching the game on TV would not have been aware that Austin Gleeson spent 10-15 minutes of the second half at full forward, as during this period not one ball was played into him. In the first half, DJ Foran – operating at full forward – scored one point and earned a pointed free from three possessions. In the second half, only two balls came his way, one out on the wing and the other when he failed to hold a high ball into the Clare goalmouth. He was replaced almost immediately.

This is a player who had come to prominence in successive Waterford minor teams as a player able to win dirty ball in the half forward line and bring it towards goal. In the second half in Ennis Waterford were finding it hard to win ball in this area against a dominant Clare half back line. Why was Foran not brought out here rather than being taken off (especially as his replacement had no impact)?

One might also ask what function Mikey Kearney was supposed to be filling in the team. A player with plenty of scoring ability, he spent the game out the field in no man’s land and played the ball just four times in all. The same could be asked of Colin Dunford, whose explosive pace was very poorly used in this game (as indeed is the case with the county senior team). And why oh why was Tadhg de Búrca not brought out the field as the game slipped away from Waterford in the last ten minutes?

Like Waterford, Clare have made major strides in generating a continuous stream of talent from the under-age grades in recent years. However, unlike Waterford, Clare have been translating this talent into All-Ireland success at under-21 level (four titles in six years). In 2013, they won both the senior and under-21 All-Irelands with a considerable overlap between the two teams. They have been blessed with super coaches/managers (John Minogue, Paul Kinnerk, Gerry O’Connor, Donal Moloney). It is also clear that their county board has placed great importance in this grade and that there has been a lot of cooperation between the senior and under 21 mentors.

The contrast with Waterford’s appalling record of under-achievement in this grade could not be greater.

Mullane, who's a selector with the U21 team, claimed that the reason they set up with a sweeper was because that's the way Clare set up first. How true that is i don't know but i'd agree with everything you said there. It seemed to me that they were trying to get every player on the senior panel thats under 21 on the starting 15 rather than actually picking your best players that are suited to that particular position. Putting Devine wing back on someone with pace was mind boggling and Kearney is a corner forward full stop. Any thoughts of who should be the U21 manager for next year as the county board really need to get this right?

Deise Hurler

HatchetMan7 wrote: »

. Any thoughts of who should be the U21 manager for next year as the county board really need to get this right?

Think the under 21 management put great effort into it this year and the challenge games against the senior club teams in the county were a great idea. However that's 2 years in a row we have been overly defensive despite having great attacking options. And it has cost us on both occasions. Would love to see Paul Flynn doing the job. Reading his columns in the paper you know he wouldn't play so defensively. Has formerly being a county under 21 selector and managed Ballygunner under 21s to a county title last year. Also coached Down seniors to a Christy Ring title and was previously Carlow under 21 manager.

robopaddy2

hurler on de ditch wrote: »

almost any player in the 15 could play that role of sweeper ,running around sweeping up loose balls ,marking no one and nobody marking you .when he played in the U21 game he was not at this majestic best,so jury out on this one

For once I agree with you on someting. At the end of the day a sweeper is a loose man. And a loose man at this level should be mopping up everything no matter who he is. Easy to look good being a loose man. Not saying De Burca isn't quality, just think we shouldn't be blowing him up too much either. You've got to consider the role he plays.

Horseboxhead

just on my point re putting Tadgh de burca to wing back, this is not a slight on the lad, he often does not get enough credit for the job he does because of being the spare man, and by moving him to wing back, it allows him to express all the facet's of his game too, he is a wonderfull athlete, big physical srtong man, great reader of the game , good defencive instincts, brave as a lion, and strong as a bull, but with a lovely touch, and why does everyone compare him badly to Austin Gleeson , and talk about "imagination" and "off the cuff", as if that is not all about Decision making, and then use it as a tool to place slight on de Burca, as if to confirm he does not have this when he has it in Abundence, he is just confining to within the structures of team play, and this x factor ****e, christ spare me, I have stated here before that Gleeson is potentially one of the best hurlers that will ever come out of waterford, as he has everything, but he is trying too hard to be the new Ken Mcgrath, when based on all his physical Characterisitics, and hurling ability, he should be better, and that is how highly i rate him, but he might just always be what he is now, and if that is all there is then ok, he is still a Waterford senior hurler,of awsome potential, where as de burca has arrived, still waiting for Gleeson to come.

pkc1

I can't speak for any of the management but if we agree (and PM O'Sullivan seems to) that the "system" is beneficial to the senior team (in that it allows us to paper over the age old problem of conceding goals) then surely exposing the U21's to as much of the system as possible is a good idea?

I agree with the general point that going 15 on 15 would have given the U21's a better chance of beating Clare but is that not narrow thinking? Is it that the management (both senior and U21 together) have a longer term view than that? Why place more value in an underage competition than in the long term development of players for the senior panel?

Now you can argue that the system isn't the way forward for the senior team either, that it will never allow us to beat the best teams, and in that case all Waterford teams should be setting up differently. But the journalist's angle of "fair enough with the seniors but nonsense for the U21's" would be very short sighted IMO, and in any walk of life that's the worst type of management.

culbaire

pkc1 wrote: »

I can't speak for any of the management but if we agree (and PM O'Sullivan seems to) that the "system" is beneficial to the senior team (in that it allows us to paper over the age old problem of conceding goals) then surely exposing the U21's to as much of the system as possible is a good idea?

I agree with the general point that going 15 on 15 would have given the U21's a better chance of beating Clare but is that not narrow thinking? Is it that the management have a longer term view than that? Why place more value in an underage competition than in the long term development of players for the senior panel?

Now you can argue that the system isn't the way forward for the senior team either, that it will never allow us to beat the best teams, and in that cause all Waterford teams should be setting up differently. But the journalist's angle of "fair enough with the seniors but nonsense for the U21's" would be very short sighted IMO, and in any walk of life that's the worst type of management.

Next year Waterford needs a NEW U-21 manager and NEW U-21 selection committee. There were enough talented players at U-21 level to win an All Ireland. Manager AND selection committee made a proper mess of it.

blueflame

Would have to disagree totally that a different approach for the U21s would be shortsighted. Many of these lads may never get to play senior with the county, and those who are will probably play in different positions. It is unfair that you would consider adjusting a system just to suit the fact that the senior team play to it. You make the most of the resources at your disposal for the benefit of the entire team. By not doing so you are asking a large portion of your squad to make huge sacrifice and depriving them of an opportunity to win and All Ireland medal.

Facts are facts, we had a seriously talented panel of players at our disposal this year and we did not make the most of them. We played a system that did not suit the team and one has to wonder why.

As a matter of interest can anyone shine a light on the position of Cian Leamy and William Hassey who were the corner backs on our Minor All Ireland winning team. I saw almost all the minor games that year and those two lads really impressed me as out and out corner backs in the mould of Noelie Connors, yet this year we played in my opinion to converted corner backs on the U-21 side. I think Shane McNulty and Connor Gleeson are two really fine hurlers and rate them very highly but again in my opinion are much more suited out the field and felt they struggled in both games against Cork and Clare. Not sure of other opinions but have to say that i was left to wonder where these two lads had gone.

Tramore84

I think a different approach should have been tried against Clare - adapting our system when we are behind during a game would surely have been beneficial. Sticking rigidly to the system despite the scoreline does not make sense unless Management believes the players could not adapt. Surely the U21s is the place to try new things?. That was the most disappointing aspect of the game on Ennis.

The result was bad but its not a disaster. Limericks U21 victories hardly did them much gud and I think a lot of Clare's current issues are down to fatigue because of their U21/colleges success.

PTH2009

weather is going to play a factor in the match on sunday. It will suite Dublin as the rain will slow the game down and dublin play at a slower pace

culbaire

HatchetMan7 wrote: »

Mullane, who's a selector with the U21 team, claimed that the reason they set up with a sweeper was because that's the way Clare set up first. How true that is i don't know but i'd agree with everything you said there. It seemed to me that they were trying to get every player on the senior panel thats under 21 on the starting 15 rather than actually picking your best players that are suited to that particular position. Putting Devine wing back on someone with pace was mind boggling and Kearney is a corner forward full stop. Any thoughts of who should be the U21 manager for next year as the county board really need to get this right?

Typical Mullane nonsense. There is no excuse for the way the team was set up.

culbaire

Giveitfong wrote: »

On Wednesday of last week, for the second time in four days, a Waterford hurling team held the opposition’s main scoring threat scoreless from play and did not concede a goal. Waterford lost both games.

The defeat in Ennis was particularly galling, given the contrast in inherent ability between the two teams. Fourteen of the Waterford team were training with the county seniors. Four of them were regular starters with the seniors and three were regular substitutes. Just two of the Clare team were on their seniors’ matchday 26 and only one – Shane O’Donnell – was a regular starter.

Yet Waterford set up with the primary focus on preventing O’Donnell doing damage. This had the effect of taking our best player – Tadhg de Búrca – out of the game as the well-drilled Clare team refused to send in the kind of ball on which de Búrca feasted against Cork. Instead, it was the Clare wing forwards – Bobby Duggan and Ian Galvin – who feasted (six points from play apiece) on Waterford wing backs who were missing most of the time while the Clare duo were shooting points for fun.

Meanwhile, Waterford’s defensive setup allowed Clare to always have a spare man against Waterford’s two-man full forward line. Given the strike capability in the Waterford team – Patrick Curran, the two Bennetts, Colin Dunford, Tom Devine, Austin Gleeson, Mikey Kearney – the folly of playing just two in the inside line is beyond belief. The Clare manager, Donal Moloney, actually suggested after the game that there might have been a different result had Waterford set up 15 on 15 for the game.

The Irish Examiner columnist PM O’Sullivan expanded on this theme in the issue of July 17. While he fully understood why the Waterford seniors would adopt a defensive formation given their experiences of last year and the inexperience of the team, to have the Under 21s following the same approach when they were 1/3 favourites made no sense to him at all. To quote from his column:

“Why field in a fashion that [the] available talent rendered unnecessary? Waterford set up as if they had to contain Clare, whereas the dynamic, in truth, ran the other way round…Waterford’s U21s constantly ran the ball into contact, losing possession. They passed short for the sake of passing short. They hit long range wides when a percentaged delivery was [the] proper option…Three points down with ten minutes left, Waterford surely had to push up 15 on 15. Here is where a system becomes a straitjacket.”

On the latter point, it is worth noting that, in the 59th minute, with Waterford two points down and desperately needing a goal, Tadhg de Búrca sent a long ball into the Clare goal area. There was only one Waterford player – Patrick Curran – within 40 metres of the Clare goal when the ball arrived, and he was double-marked. This is an indication of how deeply ingrained negative thinking has now become in the minds of the Waterford hurlers.

Apart from the setup (which was also used against probably the worst under 21 team ever to come out of Cork), the Waterford management failed on several other fronts. They clearly were unable to prepare the team mentally for what was bound to be a battle against a highly-motivated and well-prepared Clare outfit. This was apparent in the their extraordinarily high error count. I counted no less than 42 errors by the Waterford players, in the shape of fumbles, mi**** passes, turnovers conceded, running into trouble, sending balls straight to unmarked opponents, etc. Given that in a typical 60-minute game there is only about 30 minutes of actual playing time, this amounts to almost three errors every two playing minutes. Seven of Clare’s scores came directly from Waterford errors.

This error count does not include poor shooting. In my count, Waterford had nine bad misses to Clare’s four. Waterford missed four frees to Clare’s two. When you lose by just two points, these differences are crucial.
The Waterford mentors also fell down in terms of player placement and sideline management during the game. It is always said that good hurling teams are built on strong half back lines. Limerick’s marvellous win against the odds the following night was based to a large extent on heroic half back performances. Waterford started with Tom Devine and Michael Harney at wing back. Devine was completely off his game and unable to contain Duggan in the first half. The selectors subsequently moved him all over the place to little effect.

By contrast, Michael Harney, who had a solid first half, was replaced at half time for no obvious reason (he was not injured). It was only then that Ian Galvin roared into the game (five of his six points came in the second half). Waterford started the second half with Shane Bennett and Austin Gleeson – neither a good defensive player – at wing back. They subsequently moved Gleeson to full forward and brought Darragh Lyons – hardly a man-marker – to wing back. The carnage inflicted by the Clare wing forwards continued. The one player who might have made a difference here for Waterford – Kieran Power – was not even on the sideline, having walked away from the panel a couple of weeks previously.

Those watching the game on TV would not have been aware that Austin Gleeson spent 10-15 minutes of the second half at full forward, as during this period not one ball was played into him. In the first half, DJ Foran – operating at full forward – scored one point and earned a pointed free from three possessions. In the second half, only two balls came his way, one out on the wing and the other when he failed to hold a high ball into the Clare goalmouth. He was replaced almost immediately.

This is a player who had come to prominence in successive Waterford minor teams as a player able to win dirty ball in the half forward line and bring it towards goal. In the second half in Ennis Waterford were finding it hard to win ball in this area against a dominant Clare half back line. Why was Foran not brought out here rather than being taken off (especially as his replacement had no impact)?

One might also ask what function Mikey Kearney was supposed to be filling in the team. A player with plenty of scoring ability, he spent the game out the field in no man’s land and played the ball just four times in all. The same could be asked of Colin Dunford, whose explosive pace was very poorly used in this game (as indeed is the case with the county senior team). And why oh why was Tadhg de Búrca not brought out the field as the game slipped away from Waterford in the last ten minutes?

Like Waterford, Clare have made major strides in generating a continuous stream of talent from the under-age grades in recent years. However, unlike Waterford, Clare have been translating this talent into All-Ireland success at under-21 level (four titles in six years). In 2013, they won both the senior and under-21 All-Irelands with a considerable overlap between the two teams. They have been blessed with super coaches/managers (John Minogue, Paul Kinnerk, Gerry O’Connor, Donal Moloney). It is also clear that their county board has placed great importance in this grade and that there has been a lot of cooperation between the senior and under 21 mentors.

The contrast with Waterford’s appalling record of under-achievement in this grade could not be greater.

Powerful analysis. Cant disagree with anything in your post. It spells out the reality. It will probably fall on deaf ears. We will be told about the "great effort " put in by the U-21 selectors and Manager. Waterford does not win too many All Irelands. It is so annoying to see one thrown away again this year.

HatchetMan7

culbaire wrote: »

Typical Mullane nonsense. There is no excuse for the way the team was set up.

Fair enough but reading Mullanes articles in the independent it seemed like he was not a fan of the way the senior team was set up so defensively which is why i was sure that the U21 team would play a more traditional 15 on 15.

tomwaterford

HatchetMan7 wrote: »

Fair enough but reading Mullanes articles in the independent it seemed like he was not a fan of the way the senior team was set up so defensively which is why i was sure that the U21 team would play a more traditional 15 on 15.

Though realistically does anyone think the senior team will be still set up so defensively next year or the year after??


As Waterford have a set of forwards coming through which have absolutely massive potential
Bennetts,paddy curren,shanhan,Mahoney,dunford,dillion,Ray Barry?,possibly Ryan donnelly....play shanhan and mahony centre/full forwards

Look it....it's prob a year or two early to expect them to line up 15v15 as well they are trying to build a new team....but if they can carry this work rate though and build the system more attacking there is a forward line capable of big score there

Mountainlad

Seriously doubt Waterford are going to line out 15 v 15 again under McGrath though I'd expect us to become gradually more positive. And to be honest, I think it's proper order too.

3-3-2-3-3 was the easiest, least complicated way to organize a team when the association was founded. To believe that this tactic unaltered over 125 years in a game that has developed too become vastly different to what it was from the outset is extremely naive. Think about it, hurleys are shorter more lightweight, the ball is lighter and travels further and faster. Scoring postions have changed, players are fitter and stronger etc. So when everything about the approach has pretty much changed, why is it assumed that 15 v 15 should be the ultimate tactical goal?

The key point should be that the tactic should be developed around the players at the teams disposal. Play to your strengthens, protect your weaknesses. I would say the management team have done the latter very well this year. I think they have also achieved some level of the former. There is scope for improvement and I think that's a given with any team, there's also the consideration that it's a young team and as players improve it wi be easier to adapt the tactic.

But, more has to be found if we expect to still be around at business end this year. It may be a case of September coming to soon, but I think there has to be some change on the field. Plenty of suggestions here, and some look to have a lot of merit. At the end of the day though the management teams knows better than anyone the tactics employed and the role each individual's plays so they will know best what effects the changes potentially will have. They haven't lost to date so there was no cause for change.

I wouldn't expect a drastic change but a positional switch could well be on the cards.

Deise_2012

Mountainlad wrote: »

Seriously doubt Waterford are going to line out 15 v 15 again under McGrath though I'd expect us to become gradually more positive. And to be honest, I think it's proper order too.

3-3-2-3-3 was the easiest, least complicated way to organize a team when the association was founded. To believe that this tactic unaltered over 125 years in a game that has developed too become vastly different to what it was from the outset is extremely naive. Think about it, hurlers are shorter more lightweight, the ball is lighter and travels further and faster. Scoring postions have changed, players are fitter and stronger etc. So when everything about the approach has pretty much changed, why is it assumed that 15 v 15 should be the ultimate tactical goal?

The key point should be that the tactic should be developed around the players at the teams disposal. Play to your strengthens, protect your weaknesses. I would say the management team have done the latter very well this year. I think they have also achieved some level of the former. There is scope for improvement and I think that's a given with any team, there's also the consideration that it's a young team and as players improve it wi be easier to adapt the tactic.

But, more has to be found if we expect to still be around at business end this year. It may be a case of September coming to soon, but I think there has to be some change on the field. Plenty of suggestions here, and some look to have a lot of merit. At the end of the day though the management teams knows better than anyone the tactics employed and the role each individual's plays so they will know best what effects the changes potentially will have. They haven't lost to date so there was no cause for change.

I wouldn't expect a drastic change but a positional switch could well be on the cards.

Team named tonight?

Alf Tupper

Giveitfong wrote: »

On Wednesday of last week, for the second time in four days, a Waterford hurling team held the opposition’s main scoring threat scoreless from play and did not concede a goal. Waterford lost both games.

The defeat in Ennis was particularly galling, given the contrast in inherent ability between the two teams. Fourteen of the Waterford team were training with the county seniors. Four of them were regular starters with the seniors and three were regular substitutes. Just two of the Clare team were on their seniors’ matchday 26 and only one – Shane O’Donnell – was a regular starter.

Yet Waterford set up with the primary focus on preventing O’Donnell doing damage. This had the effect of taking our best player – Tadhg de Búrca – out of the game as the well-drilled Clare team refused to send in the kind of ball on which de Búrca feasted against Cork. Instead, it was the Clare wing forwards – Bobby Duggan and Ian Galvin – who feasted (six points from play apiece) on Waterford wing backs who were missing most of the time while the Clare duo were shooting points for fun.

Meanwhile, Waterford’s defensive setup allowed Clare to always have a spare man against Waterford’s two-man full forward line. Given the strike capability in the Waterford team – Patrick Curran, the two Bennetts, Colin Dunford, Tom Devine, Austin Gleeson, Mikey Kearney – the folly of playing just two in the inside line is beyond belief. The Clare manager, Donal Moloney, actually suggested after the game that there might have been a different result had Waterford set up 15 on 15 for the game.

The Irish Examiner columnist PM O’Sullivan expanded on this theme in the issue of July 17. While he fully understood why the Waterford seniors would adopt a defensive formation given their experiences of last year and the inexperience of the team, to have the Under 21s following the same approach when they were 1/3 favourites made no sense to him at all. To quote from his column:

“Why field in a fashion that [the] available talent rendered unnecessary? Waterford set up as if they had to contain Clare, whereas the dynamic, in truth, ran the other way round…Waterford’s U21s constantly ran the ball into contact, losing possession. They passed short for the sake of passing short. They hit long range wides when a percentaged delivery was [the] proper option…Three points down with ten minutes left, Waterford surely had to push up 15 on 15. Here is where a system becomes a straitjacket.”

On the latter point, it is worth noting that, in the 59th minute, with Waterford two points down and desperately needing a goal, Tadhg de Búrca sent a long ball into the Clare goal area. There was only one Waterford player – Patrick Curran – within 40 metres of the Clare goal when the ball arrived, and he was double-marked. This is an indication of how deeply ingrained negative thinking has now become in the minds of the Waterford hurlers.

Apart from the setup (which was also used against probably the worst under 21 team ever to come out of Cork), the Waterford management failed on several other fronts. They clearly were unable to prepare the team mentally for what was bound to be a battle against a highly-motivated and well-prepared Clare outfit. This was apparent in the their extraordinarily high error count. I counted no less than 42 errors by the Waterford players, in the shape of fumbles, mi**** passes, turnovers conceded, running into trouble, sending balls straight to unmarked opponents, etc. Given that in a typical 60-minute game there is only about 30 minutes of actual playing time, this amounts to almost three errors every two playing minutes. Seven of Clare’s scores came directly from Waterford errors.

This error count does not include poor shooting. In my count, Waterford had nine bad misses to Clare’s four. Waterford missed four frees to Clare’s two. When you lose by just two points, these differences are crucial.
The Waterford mentors also fell down in terms of player placement and sideline management during the game. It is always said that good hurling teams are built on strong half back lines. Limerick’s marvellous win against the odds the following night was based to a large extent on heroic half back performances. Waterford started with Tom Devine and Michael Harney at wing back. Devine was completely off his game and unable to contain Duggan in the first half. The selectors subsequently moved him all over the place to little effect.

By contrast, Michael Harney, who had a solid first half, was replaced at half time for no obvious reason (he was not injured). It was only then that Ian Galvin roared into the game (five of his six points came in the second half). Waterford started the second half with Shane Bennett and Austin Gleeson – neither a good defensive player – at wing back. They subsequently moved Gleeson to full forward and brought Darragh Lyons – hardly a man-marker – to wing back. The carnage inflicted by the Clare wing forwards continued. The one player who might have made a difference here for Waterford – Kieran Power – was not even on the sideline, having walked away from the panel a couple of weeks previously.

Those watching the game on TV would not have been aware that Austin Gleeson spent 10-15 minutes of the second half at full forward, as during this period not one ball was played into him. In the first half, DJ Foran – operating at full forward – scored one point and earned a pointed free from three possessions. In the second half, only two balls came his way, one out on the wing and the other when he failed to hold a high ball into the Clare goalmouth. He was replaced almost immediately.

This is a player who had come to prominence in successive Waterford minor teams as a player able to win dirty ball in the half forward line and bring it towards goal. In the second half in Ennis Waterford were finding it hard to win ball in this area against a dominant Clare half back line. Why was Foran not brought out here rather than being taken off (especially as his replacement had no impact)?

One might also ask what function Mikey Kearney was supposed to be filling in the team. A player with plenty of scoring ability, he spent the game out the field in no man’s land and played the ball just four times in all. The same could be asked of Colin Dunford, whose explosive pace was very poorly used in this game (as indeed is the case with the county senior team). And why oh why was Tadhg de Búrca not brought out the field as the game slipped away from Waterford in the last ten minutes?

Like Waterford, Clare have made major strides in generating a continuous stream of talent from the under-age grades in recent years. However, unlike Waterford, Clare have been translating this talent into All-Ireland success at under-21 level (four titles in six years). In 2013, they won both the senior and under-21 All-Irelands with a considerable overlap between the two teams. They have been blessed with super coaches/managers (John Minogue, Paul Kinnerk, Gerry O’Connor, Donal Moloney). It is also clear that their county board has placed great importance in this grade and that there has been a lot of cooperation between the senior and under 21 mentors.

The contrast with Waterford’s appalling record of under-achievement in this grade could not be greater.

Brilliant analysis and very much in tune with Paul Flynn's summation on the News and Star!

IanVW

@WaterfordGAA: SH Team v Dublin.Keeffe,SFives,Coughlan,Connors,De Burca,Gleeson,Mahony, Barron,D.Fives,Moran,Shane Bennett,Dillon, Shanahan, Walsh, Dunford

HatchetMan7

IanVW wrote: »

@WaterfordGAA: SH Team v Dublin.Keeffe,SFives,Coughlan,Connors,De Burca,Gleeson,Mahony, Barron,D.Fives,Moran,Shane Bennett,Dillon, Shanahan, Walsh, Dunford

Am I wrong in thinking Gleeson ended up in the forward line when Darragh Fives came on for Dillon in Munster final

Deise_2012

Looks like Gleeson will be half forward on Sunday

hurler on de ditch

Deise_2012 wrote: »

Looks like Gleeson will be half forward on Sunday

looks like 12 across the back and 3 in the other half

HatchetMan7

hurler on de ditch wrote: »

looks like 12 across the back and 3 in the other half

That's the problem with being on de ditch every now and again you fall off and hurt your head.

Deise_2012

HatchetMan7 wrote: »

That's the problem with being on de ditch every now and again you fall off and hurt your head.

He was very quiet after the Cork game, straight back on here after the munster final

HatchetMan7

That's definitely a stronger looking team than the Munster final i would say. Hopefully Gleeson is in the forward line along with Shane Bennett, Brick, Dillon and Shanahan and Dunford in his roaming role. Looking forward to seeing Shane Bennett get on from the start.

Dick phelan

Happy with the team although i would have started Curran, Seems like Gleeson will be half forward which signals a more positive attitude. Roll on Sunday hopeful and confident of a Waterford victory.