How did Stephen Cluxton "revolutionise the game"?

bucketybuck

castletownman wrote: »

Anyway back on track, while I outlined my opinion on it earlier, I would echo a previous posters contention that it was DUBLIN itself rather than Cluxton individually that revolutionised the game.

I think I actually disagree with this.

Is the revolution supposed to be a keeper accurately picking out players in space as opposed to lumping the ball out to big midfielders?

Because before that can happen you need to have athletic, mobile players who aren't rigidly sticking to the old positional set-ups, who are all moving constantly around the field and acting as both attackers and defenders depending on whatever is needed at any minute in time. Have a team playing like that and it will be followed by the need for a very accurate keeper to take advantage of the fluid players in space. Flexible systems and players first, accurate keeper second.

And it was Tyrone who developed those systems before Dublin ever did. It was the likes of Dooher and also Galvin going box to box who made those runs and created that space for options on the kick out.

I agree with the earlier poster, Cluxton might have been the first and so far the best, but that type of keeper was a reaction to what was happening out the field, if it wasn't Cluxton it would have been somebody else.

corny

flasher0030 wrote: »

Against Mayo couple of years back, he was going short one minute, then hitting Paul Flynn, D Connolly etc. in the half forward the next minute. Kept A O’Shea running around in circles, getting nowhere until he became exhausted and had no impact on the game. His ability to hit the ball high enough to bypass whatever standers are in his way, long enough to reach his target, and accurate enough that the player can just run on to the ball has revolutionised how the game is played. And in a good way in my opinion.

This encapsulates the problem i have with this.

Dublin used their greater mobility in 2013 to create the option for Cluxton. He kicked it accurately of course but i can think of several keepers who if told, hit the runners breaking to the flanks, could do just as good a job. The point is Cluxton takes all the credit from the game. And i mean ALL the credit. No credit is given to the agility and pace of the runners making the option nor is any credit given to the management. I find this one strange since Cluxton only kicked the flanks in the second half. In otherwords he was told the plan at half time.

Same thing happened last year against Kerry. It coincidentally took until half time again for him to stop trying to take on the Kerry press and do the obvious thing in drilling over the top of them. Half time team talk?. Again Cluxton takes all the credit for the innovation of nullifying pushing up on the kick out and is single handedly revolutionising the game.:rolleyes:

Wouldn't change him for any keeper in Ireland but he's just part of the evolution in the game. He's not driving it. Never was.

bruschi

corny wrote: »

This encapsulates the problem i have with this.

Dublin used their greater mobility in 2013 to create the option for Cluxton. He kicked it accurately of course but i can think of several keepers who if told, hit the runners breaking to the flanks, could do just as good a job. The point is Cluxton takes all the credit from the game. And i mean ALL the credit. No credit is given to the agility and pace of the runners making the option nor is any credit given to the management. I find this one strange since Cluxton only kicked the flanks in the second half. In otherwords he was told the plan at half time.

Same thing happened last year against Kerry. It coincidentally took until half time again for him to stop trying to take on the Kerry press and do the obvious thing in drilling over the top of them. Half time team talk?. Again Cluxton takes all the credit for the innovation of nullifying pushing up on the kick out and is single handedly revolutionising the game.:rolleyes:

Wouldn't change him for any keeper in Ireland but he's just part of the evolution in the game. He's not driving it. Never was.

I'm glad someone from Dublin said this so the "lemon sucking" and bias accusations cant be thrown out.

But I agree with every word you say. And good points on the half time adjustments. Its based on the team talks, not really anything to do with Cluxton being inventive or changing things by himself. As I said earlier, huge credit should be given to management and the coordinated movement of the players, and obviously Cluxton himself for being able to be accurate with his kicks.

An excellent keeper, best of his generation, but the blowing up of what he is doing is exaggerated to the ultimate extreme. People thinking he is the best footballer to ever play the game of any position? please.

MayoAreMagic

blanch152 wrote: »

If it was DUBLIN itself that revolutionised the game, how come all the other counties haven't been able to replicate it and beat them? Answer: because they don't have another Stephen Cluxton.

At the end of the day, it was Cluxton's ability that revolutionised the game, the team took advantage of that.

True, but they also don't have the level of mobility and running power around the field that Dublin have. Like how useful would cluxton's low trajectory kickouts to the wing be to a team that weren't particularly mobile around the middle? Or to a cornerback who isn't very comfortable on the ball and loses it? Particularly if they came up against a team like Dublin themselves, who were far quicker onto ball. Would he get the praise he gets now?

Dublin's strengths out the field maximise cluxton's kicking ability and the Dublin possession game revolves around it (in fact Id go as far as to say that some Dublin defenders have been picked on their suitability to playing with Cluxton - Michael Fitzsimons would be comfortably Dublin's most natural and best defender to my mind, but maybe not as comfortable in possession as some others, and was dropped for a few years), but his kickouts are also reliant on the guys receiving them.

I suppose it is a bit like Messi at Barcelona. Messi is a great player, but would he have been just as outstanding if he hadn't been playing with iniesta, xavi, and all these guys? There is definitely a bit of a trade off there.

That isn't taking away from cluxton, it is more giving the Dublin outfield players the bit of credit they don't seem to get on this front.

MayoAreMagic

corny wrote: »

This encapsulates the problem i have with this.

Dublin used their greater mobility in 2013 to create the option for Cluxton. He kicked it accurately of course but i can think of several keepers who if told, hit the runners breaking to the flanks, could do just as good a job. The point is Cluxton takes all the credit from the game. And i mean ALL the credit. No credit is given to the agility and pace of the runners making the option nor is any credit given to the management. I find this one strange since Cluxton only kicked the flanks in the second half. In otherwords he was told the plan at half time.

Same thing happened last year against Kerry. It coincidentally took until half time again for him to stop trying to take on the Kerry press and do the obvious thing in drilling over the top of them. Half time team talk?. Again Cluxton takes all the credit for the innovation of nullifying pushing up on the kick out and is single handedly revolutionising the game.:rolleyes:

Wouldn't change him for any keeper in Ireland but he's just part of the evolution in the game. He's not driving it. Never was.

Agreed.
There was a lot more going on in that 2013 final than just cluxton kicking great kicks. The Dublin half forwards stayed high up the pitch to open space, their half backs sat very deep, which opened up a massive gap in the middle for Cluxton and indeed Dublin to isolate OShea in. It also worked to crowd the space of the mayo ff line, which was their scoring line. Furthermore it explains why an attacking half-back like mccaffrey wasnt really in the game, looked a bit uncomfortable and was ultimately taken off early - it just didn't suit his game.

The reality is a lot of this narrative stuff comes from the media, who are themselves just looking to sell papers to the masses, or indeed sometimes the journo wouldn't be hugely knowledgeable, or played much gaa in general.