Replay: All Ireland SFC Final Dublin v Kerry Saturday 14/09/2019 @ 6pm

BonnieSituation

Field east wrote: »

Was this more to do with Kerry backs committing almost no fouls within striking distance of the Kerry goals. So the highlight should be the few fouls committed by Kerry rather than most of Dublin’s scores coming from play

So now an astounding ratio of "in-play:free-kicks" should be discounted because Kerry didn't foul us [sic] that much. Sweet mother of god.

Is there anything we do worthy of credit from ye shower?

robbiezero

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

It's hard to do much with the ball when your shirt is being pulled for 20 metres

It wasn't. Moran gave a brief tug but couldn't hold on. Should have been a free in to Dublin and the goal disallowed. Doubt it would have made much difference either way.
Then Con should have had a penalty so it kind of balanced out.

blanch152

Still coming down after a fantastic Saturday evening.

Read through the thread, and there really are some blinkered bitter people out there. A couple of days before the final, we had one poster wondering what Kilkenny brought to the game - hope he was watching on Saturday. Some of the other stuff isn't worth responding to, but brings a smile to my face.

Lane reffed the game very strangely, letting an awful lot go, that tends to even things up because the team hanging on gets the breaks, and it kept Kerry in the game as a stonewall penalty and a couple of frees would have had Dublin out of sight before half-time. What goes around came around, after failing to blow for Moran's blatant tug on Murchan, he had to let the steps go, and Murchan scored a goal. It was a clever foul by Moran, pulling on Murchan's jersey just as he should have hopped the ball, which would usually have resulted in Murchan losing it. Ref didn't blow, as he didn't all day, and the rest is history.

One important thing missed by the officials was the targetting of McCaffrey from the outset. As soon as the ball moved out of the Dublin 45, he was either bodychecked or pulled back. Unfortunately for Kerry, this backfired, as by paying so much attention to Jack, they couldn't hold back the rest of the team.

I was disappointed by Kerry. The first day, they were brave and went full-court press on Dublin. I have always said that this is the only way you will beat Dublin, and they nearly did, despite conceding 1-2 from long kickouts. Dublin got 0-8 from their short kick-outs this time. Kerry effectively backed down in the replay, by conceding the kick-outs and I think that made the result inevitable. I was always relaxed in the game as a result.

The other noticeable thing on the kick-outs was that they consciously left Murchan and Byrne as the free men, not seeing them as dangerous as Cooper, Fitzsimons, McCarthy or McCaffrey and more likely to pass rather than drive forward. A mistake, as Byrne got a point, and Murchan didn't pass when through on goal. I can only think that the Kerry defenders were told to stick to their man and wait for the pass if Murchan goes on a run. Poor tactics with the subs as well. If you are going to bring on Tommy Walsh to play full-forward, hit the long ball to him. Keane got shown up a bit.

That being said, while Kerry made these mistakes, Dublin still had to beat them. Cluxton, Fitzsimons, Kilkenny, Mannion and O'Callaghan were outstanding. The three-minute spell to break down the Kerry massed defence ala Donegal must have broken the Kerry morale. No other team would have the composure, quality and excellence to maintain possession for that length of time. The ludicrous calls on this thread for a limit to possession are another silly idea that only helps massed defences. That massed defence from Kerry was another sign of them mentally conceding the front foot to Dublin.

There is an awful lot more to say about the final and this great Dublin team and will come back to it another time.

robbiezero

blanch152 wrote: »

Still coming down after a fantastic Saturday evening.

Read through the thread, and there really are some blinkered bitter people out there. A couple of days before the final, we had one poster wondering what Kilkenny brought to the game - hope he was watching on Saturday. Some of the other stuff isn't worth responding to, but brings a smile to my face.

Lane reffed the game very strangely, letting an awful lot go, that tends to even things up because the team hanging on gets the breaks, and it kept Kerry in the game as a stonewall penalty and a couple of frees would have had Dublin out of sight before half-time. What goes around came around, after failing to blow for Moran's blatant tug on Murchan, he had to let the steps go, and Murchan scored a goal. It was a clever foul by Moran, pulling on Murchan's jersey just as he should have hopped the ball, which would usually have resulted in Murchan losing it. Ref didn't blow, as he didn't all day, and the rest is history.

One important thing missed by the officials was the targetting of McCaffrey from the outset. As soon as the ball moved out of the Dublin 45, he was either bodychecked or pulled back. Unfortunately for Kerry, this backfired, as by paying so much attention to Jack, they couldn't hold back the rest of the team.

I was disappointed by Kerry. The first day, they were brave and went full-court press on Dublin. I have always said that this is the only way you will beat Dublin, and they nearly did, despite conceding 1-2 from long kickouts. Dublin got 0-8 from their short kick-outs this time. Kerry effectively backed down in the replay, by conceding the kick-outs and I think that made the result inevitable. I was always relaxed in the game as a result.

The other noticeable thing on the kick-outs was that they consciously left Murchan and Byrne as the free men, not seeing them as dangerous as Cooper, Fitzsimons, McCarthy or McCaffrey and more likely to pass rather than drive forward. A mistake, as Byrne got a point, and Murchan didn't pass when through on goal. I can only think that the Kerry defenders were told to stick to their man and wait for the pass if Murchan goes on a run. Poor tactics with the subs as well. If you are going to bring on Tommy Walsh to play full-forward, hit the long ball to him. Keane got shown up a bit.

That being said, while Kerry made these mistakes, Dublin still had to beat them. Cluxton, Fitzsimons, Kilkenny, Mannion and O'Callaghan were outstanding. The three-minute spell to break down the Kerry massed defence ala Donegal must have broken the Kerry morale. No other team would have the composure, quality and excellence to maintain possession for that length of time. The ludicrous calls on this thread for a limit to possession are another silly idea that only helps massed defences. That massed defence from Kerry was another sign of them mentally conceding the front foot to Dublin.

There is an awful lot more to say about the final and this great Dublin team and will come back to it another time.

He was playing advantage so didn't have to let the steps go, could and should have brought it back for the free-in.

FrancieBrady

ArielAtom wrote: »

The same could be said of Clifford behaviour for the complete game punching, pinching and mouthing in Coopers face looking for a reaction, classless from him to be honest and Cooper did not react, class from him.

In fairness, most counties he has played would see him as far from a 'gentleman' on the pitch as you could get.

If he can't win by fair means he will resort to unfair ones. Fact of life with Johnny I'm afraid.

blanch152

robbiezero wrote: »

He was playing advantage so didn't have to let the steps go, could and should have brought it back for the free-in.

Except he wasn't playing advantage. Every time, he played advantage in the game, he clearly signalled it. On this occasion, there was no signal.

Lane's instinct is to let things go and keep the game flowing. Last Saturday, it prevented Kerry getting a drubbing in the first half, Murchan's steps were karma.

robbiezero

blanch152 wrote: »

Except he wasn't playing advantage. Every time, he played advantage in the game, he clearly signalled it. On this occasion, there was no signal.

Lane's instinct is to let things go and keep the game flowing. Last Saturday, it prevented Kerry getting a drubbing in the first half, Murchan's steps were karma.

https://twitter.com/sportsfile/status/1172935784267177984/photo/1

chief orman

ArielAtom wrote: »

The same could be said of Clifford behaviour for the complete game punching, pinching and mouthing in Coopers face looking for a reaction, classless from him to be honest and Cooper did not react, class from him.

Cooper & Class don't go in the same sentence.

BloodyBill

robbiezero wrote: »

He was playing advantage so didn't have to let the steps go, could and should have brought it back for the free-in.

No sport in the world allows a player committ a foul (over carrying ) because he himself is being fouled (Jersey tug) except the GAA. Its ridiculous at this stage.

seligehgit

robbiezero wrote: »

Couldn't understand not contesting the kick-outs either. Granted they coughed up a few scores from the high press in the drawn game, but they did get a few scores themselves off it also and plenty possession. According to Sky, the Dubs got 7 points from their kick outs which is a huge portion of the 1-18.

Dublin are superb in possession of the ball and it is very difficult to get it back off them. It was no surprise that Kerry were out on their feet for the last 15 minutes with the effort they had to make to try and win back the ball.
The long ball game at the start gave Dublin 3 points also. Was a very strange tactic to employ. Even if Geaney had managed to win one of them, he would have been instantly surrounded by Dublin defenders.

Indeed I found it perplexing that Kerry largely surrendered the short kickouts in the second half.I do understand their fears considering McCaffrey's goal in the first game but I thought Dublin had too many easy out balls in the second half.

The Kerry players did seem to be very fatigued in the latter part of the second half.They looked out on their feet??

The_Kew_Tour

robbiezero wrote: »

It wasn't. Moran gave a brief tug but couldn't hold on. Should have been a free in to Dublin and the goal disallowed. Doubt it would have made much difference either way.
Then Con should have had a penalty so it kind of balanced out.

Watching it babk he was been pulled for about 5 steps. See your point alright but still think its better to reward a foul by bit of brilliance

ArielAtom

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In fairness, most counties he has played would see him as far from a 'gentleman' on the pitch as you could get.

If he can't win by fair means he will resort to unfair ones. Fact of life with Johnny I'm afraid.

So Clifford gets a free pass on his behaviour. It can't be one rule for one and another for the rest.

FrancieBrady

ArielAtom wrote: »

So Clifford gets a free pass on his behaviour. It can't be one rule for one and another for the rest.

Did I say that?

Cooper deciding to go around shaking hands doesn't a gentleman make. His on field behaviour for quite a long time has not marked him out as a sporting player, far from it and most counties would have experienced his peculiar interpretation of 'gentlemanly' behaviour.

ArielAtom

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Did I say that?

Cooper deciding to go around shaking hands doesn't a gentleman make. His on field behaviour for quite a long time has not marked him out as a sporting player, far from it and most counties would have experienced his peculiar interpretation of 'gentlemanly' behaviour.

Apologies, I'll re-phrase it. Do you condone Cliffords cynical behaviour? Yes, Johnny has earned his stripes, but on Saturday he was superb, not rising to the off the ball shyte he was targeted with. Maybe he has matured.

FrancieBrady

ArielAtom wrote: »

Apologies, I'll re-phrase it. Do you condone Cliffords cynical behaviour? Yes, Johnny has earned his stripes, but on Saturday he was superb, not rising to the off the ball shyte he was targeted with. Maybe he has matured.

You want me to judge the man on the basis of a one week turn around in his behaviour?

Sorry, I will have to see more to elevate him to 'gentleman' status.

ArielAtom

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You want me to judge the man on the basis of a one week turn around in his behaviour?

Sorry, I will have to see more to elevate him to 'gentleman' status.

Don't answer my question then.

FrancieBrady

ArielAtom wrote: »

Don't answer my question then.

The one you are asking to deflect from a point made about Cooper's reputation in general?

ArielAtom

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The one you are asking to deflect from a point made about Cooper's reputation in general?

I made a point about a players behaviour and asked you to answer a question, deflection is all on you shoulders here. By refusing to answer I feel you have given us your answer.

FrancieBrady

ArielAtom wrote: »

I made a point about a players behaviour and asked you to answer a question, deflection is all on you shoulders here. By refusing to answer I feel you have given us your answer.

Have you addressed Cooper's reputation in general? Nope, you haven't.

'Clifford was as bad' and 'He didn't resort to dirt this week' is the best we have gotten.

ArielAtom

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Have you addressed Cooper's reputation in general? Nope, you haven't.

'Clifford was as bad' and 'He didn't resort to dirt this week' is the best we have gotten.

No, I asked you a simple question, that you deflect to Coopers behaviour when I did'nt ask about his just more deflection from yourself. I've made my point. You refuse to answer. I think I'll leave you at it.

FrancieBrady

ArielAtom wrote: »

No, I asked you a simple question, that you deflect to Coopers behaviour when I did'nt ask about his just more deflection from yourself. I've made my point. You refuse to answer. I think I'll leave you at it.

You defended Cooper by pointing at somebody else. Text book deflection. 'Away up the yard' as they say around here.

Edgware

seligehgit wrote: »

Indeed I found it perplexing that Kerry largely surrendered the short kickouts in the second half.I do understand their fears considering McCaffrey's goal in the first game but I thought Dublin had too many easy out balls in the second half.

The Kerry players did seem to be very fatigued in the latter part of the second half.They looked out on their feet??

I thought that too. They are a very fit team physically but mental tiredness comes into play. Whatever plans they had in the dressingroom at half time, whatever optimism they had. coming out after half time disappeared with the Dublin goal. It was as if they suddenly realised that they were fated to be a bit part in the Drive for Five.
Dublin had been through this before and had the experience to know not to panic, slow it down and wait for the chances to come.

robbiezero

Edgware wrote: »

I thought that too. They are a very fit team physically but mental tiredness comes into play. Whatever plans they had in the dressingroom at half time, whatever optimism they had. coming out after half time disappeared with the Dublin goal. It was as if they suddenly realised that they were fated to be a bit part in the Drive for Five.
Dublin had been through this before and had the experience to know not to panic, slow it down and wait for the chances to come.

Ya, I think Dublin sapped the energy out of them, mentally and physically. They were chasing shadows for a lot of the second half largely due to the baffling decision to concede the kick outs.
In a way it was similar to the drawn game where mid-way through the second half the Dubs looked to be coasting, but then a fortuitous goal for Kerry gave them a massive lift for a ten minute spell and brought them back into the game (Spillanes goal was brilliant, but was the product of Dublin mistakes).
They had a chance of similar with O'Brien, but he really did very poorly for it, All he had to do was handpass over Coopers head for a very simple push to the net for Geaney.
That miss combined with some very poor wides as well as the excellent keeping of possession from the Dubs just sucked the life out of them.
I think there was another attacking gear in Dublin too had they needed it, if Kerry had managed to get that goal.

blanch152

robbiezero wrote: »

https://twitter.com/sportsfile/status/1172935784267177984/photo/1

OK, I got that one wrong, still haven't watched it all back on TV, recollection is from the game. However, Murchan took advantage and scored the goal, so why should it be called back?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In fairness, most counties he has played would see him as far from a 'gentleman' on the pitch as you could get.

If he can't win by fair means he will resort to unfair ones. Fact of life with Johnny I'm afraid.

Pretty unfair summation of Johnny Cooper.

He plays as close to the line as possible, see interview in the Irish Times for an indication of this mentality, but he is not thuggish in the way that many other defenders are.

robbiezero

blanch152 wrote: »

OK, I got that one wrong, still haven't watched it all back on TV, recollection is from the game. However, Murchan took advantage and scored the goal, so why should it be called back?

Because he took ~12 steps and fouled the ball.
I'm not familiar with the exact rules governing advantage but surely having advantage doesn't give you license to foul the ball?

yobr

blanch152 wrote: »

Pretty unfair summation of Johnny Cooper.

He plays as close to the line as possible, see interview in the Irish Times for an indication of this mentality, but he is not thuggish in the way that many other defenders are.

I suspect with 6 All Ireland medals at 29 years of age, Johnny won't be too bothered by certain aspects of the criticism about him.

Hammer Archer

blanch152 wrote: »

OK, I got that one wrong, still haven't watched it all back on TV, recollection is from the game. However, Murchan took advantage and scored the goal, so why should it be called back?

Advantage doesn't mean that you can commit a foul, technical or otherwise. If a player is fouled but can continue, the referee plays advantage. If, while that advantage is still being played, the player overcarries (or indeed commits any other foul), the referee should call the play back and award the free for the initial foul. Just like in rugby where a player can't simply chuck the ball forward because the referee is playing advantage.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

He plays as close to the line as possible,

Pretty lame euphemism for a player who is frequently just a dirty player tbh.

ArielAtom

Hammer Archer wrote: »

Advantage doesn't mean that you can commit a foul, technical or otherwise. If a player is fouled but can continue, the referee plays advantage. If, while that advantage is still being played, the player overcarries (or indeed commits any other foul), the referee should call the play back and award the free for the initial foul. Just like in rugby where a player can't simply chuck the ball forward because the referee is playing advantage.

Hammer, while you are technically correct it rarely is punished. Yes he overcarried, but if we analysed every carry by every player on Saturday it would probably be 50% of them.