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

corny

Bambi wrote: »

Lane actually kept Kerry in the game in the first half, handed them scorable frees for borderline infringements. Different story at the other end.

Don't worry about that. Lets focus on Murchans steps.

13-4 was the free count at half time. Mostly disciplined tackling from both sides but the ref only intervened when Kerry had the ball. I'd love to know why?

Watch the sequence leading up to Fitzsimons ticking. Watch how O'Callaghan is man handled by O'Brien and how he touches Morley 60 seconds later. How one can be a free and the other is ignored is a mystery. Actually O'Shea was allowed grab McCaffreys arm in that sequence too. Free out was given!

Someone said he was consistent.....yeah he was consistent in being inconsistent.

FrancieBrady

Just for clarification: My definition of a 'dirty player' is not one who is robust or who occasionally fouls nor would he need to specifically injure someone.
A 'dirty player' is one who routinely chooses to foul when fair means fail him.
Cooper is not unique in that regard, and I only mentioned him when he was nominated as a 'gentleman'. He isn't on the field of play imo.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Just for clarification: My definition of a 'dirty player' is not one who is robust or who occasionally fouls nor would he need to specifically injure someone.
A 'dirty player' is one who routinely chooses to foul when fair means fail him.
Cooper is not unique in that regard, and I only mentioned him when he was nominated as a 'gentleman'. He isn't on the field of play imo.

Once again, a unique definition comes to your rescue.

You painted a picture of Cooper that was not universally shared and you are backtracking to say it meant something else.

mountgomery burns

threeball wrote: »

A shot clock is not the answer. Kerry went deep and zonal yesterday and it served them badly. They should have went man for man. That would have forced Dublin into longer kickouts, it wouldn't allow them to play pass the parcel across the 45 and would have prevented the spare man overlap which was always there due to their defensive tactics.

If teams want to stop clock management from another team then they need to employ tactics that prevent it. Many teams are trying to be far too clever now and have ignored the benefits of a more traditional approach where it's merited.

Don't agree with this at all to be honest with you. The perfect example being the goal, one instance when there is no argument that Kerry had a conventional setup for that play and Murchan tore down the middle of the defense unopposed.

I thought that was poor enough from Kerry but it would contradict your point about going man on man. As would there defensive frailities in previous games up until the final. Kerry's tactic of lumping the ball in early yielded no dividends and meant that they gave away a 4 points head start. They also conceded the goal, if neither of those had happened they would have been right there at the death.

No doubt the better team won the match, but Kerry did enough to keep themselves in it against the best team in the Country so I would be slow to criticize them tactically. Ultimately, over the course of 150 minutes of football class is going to win out. That's what happened on Sunday. Giving the Dubs more space by pushing up the field would have been kamikaze stuff. I don't think Kerry were overtly negative they just weren't naive.

Just on the shot clock thing, surprised people even responding to that. Absolute nonsense

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Once again, a unique definition comes to your rescue.

You painted a picture of Cooper that was not universally shared and you are backtracking to say it meant something else.

What?

I reacted to people calling him a gentleman. A dirty player - one who uses foul play far too often - is not a gentleman in my 'unique' definition of one.

I don't know if it is 'universally' shared or not, nor do I care much. I am sure enough of my own opinion not to be hiding in the herd.

TheCitizen

lotmc wrote: »

Interesting that we saw two very different styles of refereeing between the two games. Gough refereed the first game by the book, whilst the replay saw a lot more discretion being used by Lane.

Had Lane reffed the first game, I reckon Dublin would have won handily as Cooper would not have walked.

Why was Gough not reffing the replay? Is that normal that they would change a ref like that?

Gough reffed the first game to the letter of the law which is fine, that's what he's supposed to do. The criticism of him was completely wrong.

BonnieSituation

TheCitizen wrote: »

Why was Gough not reffing the replay? Is that normal that they would change a ref like that?

Yes it is.

See 2016 and the plethora of hurling replays the last decade.

beggars_bush

Snow Garden wrote: »

A ref will never count the steps where a player is being fouled.
It was a fabulous goal especially since it was straight from the throw in.

who was fouling him?
Moran put his hand in (the wrong one) and didn't get the ball.
where was the foul though.

overcarrying isn't negated by someone being fouled.

liogairmhordain

TheCitizen wrote: »

Why was Gough not reffing the replay? Is that normal that they would change a ref like that?

After controversies in the replays of the 1996 all-Ireland football final and 1998 munster hurling final, it was decided to change referees for replays from then on.
pat mceneaney (who had refereed both mayo-meath games in 1996) refereed the drawn 2000 final, but brian white took over for the replay.

Tomw86

beggars_bush wrote: »

who was fouling him?
Moran put his hand in (the wrong one) and didn't get the ball.
where was the foul though.

overcarrying isn't negated by someone being fouled.

Moran fouled him as you alluded to.

It was as much of a foul as the penalty in the first game. Without that penalty Dublin win.

crossman47

Tomw86 wrote: »

Moran fouled him as you alluded to.

It was as much of a foul as the penalty in the first game. Without that penalty Dublin win.

The penalty was saved!

rm75

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What?

I reacted to people calling him a gentleman. A dirty player - one who uses foul play far too often - is not a gentleman in my 'unique' definition of one.

I don't know if it is 'universally' shared or not, nor do I care much. I am sure enough of my own opinion not to be hiding in the herd.

There's no "gentlemen" playing sport at the highest level (at least on the field). You simply cant get to that level by being a gentleman.

The reaction to one sending off has been completely OTT. I'd view Cooper as relatively clean for a top level defender, there are certainly far worse than him out there. Not like he has a history of sendings off either.

As Tomas O'Se said, you need to be a bit of a "scumbag" and he meant it as a compliment despite people taking that comment out of context !

FrancieBrady

rm75 wrote: »

There's no "gentlemen" playing sport at the highest level (at least on the field). You simply cant get to that level by being a gentleman.

Well take that up with those calling him a 'gentleman' because i certainly wasn't.

rm75

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well take that up with those calling him a 'gentleman' because i certainly wasn't.

Having witnessed him interact with kids he's a gentleman off the field anyway.

Tomw86

crossman47 wrote: »

The penalty was saved!

They got a point from the save though!

threeball

mountgomery burns wrote: »

threeball wrote: »

A shot clock is not the answer. Kerry went deep and zonal yesterday and it served them badly. They should have went man for man. That would have forced Dublin into longer kickouts, it wouldn't allow them to play pass the parcel across the 45 and would have prevented the spare man overlap which was always there due to their defensive tactics.

If teams want to stop clock management from another team then they need to employ tactics that prevent it. Many teams are trying to be far too clever now and have ignored the benefits of a more traditional approach where it's merited.

Don't agree with this at all to be honest with you. The perfect example being the goal, one instance when there is no argument that Kerry had a conventional setup for that play and Murchan tore down the middle of the defense unopposed.

I thought that was poor enough from Kerry but it would contradict your point about going man on man. As would there defensive frailities in previous games up until the final. Kerry's tactic of lumping the ball in early yielded no dividends and meant that they gave away a 4 points head start. They also conceded the goal, if neither of those had happened they would have been right there at the death.

No doubt the better team won the match, but Kerry did enough to keep themselves in it against the best team in the Country so I would be slow to criticize them tactically. Ultimately, over the course of 150 minutes of football class is going to win out. That's what happened on Sunday. Giving the Dubs more space by pushing up the field would have been kamikaze stuff. I don't think Kerry were overtly negative they just weren't naive.

Just on the shot clock thing, surprised people even responding to that. Absolute nonsense

The Murchan goal wasn't man on man as his marker was no where to be seen.

Edgware

sk9 wrote: »

Steps excuse has me yawning. It is never called up, you'd swear that some of you were watching your first game of football. Kerry goal last week was minimum 6 steps.

If Lane was in the mood to blow for the foul on Murchan, he would have blew for the penalty for Con in the first half, and Moran goes on a black card. Wouldn't have changed the game.

What goes around comes around. Over the years Kerry players have got away with fouling on and off the ball under the guise of "manly play". You win some you lose some

mountgomery burns

threeball wrote: »

The Murchan goal wasn't man on man as his marker was no where to be seen.

Is that meant to be a joke? He was behind him and ran into Fenton, had no chance of getting back then. How does one man getting beaten to the ball suddenly leave a player with 80 yards of space to run into?

All I can say is I find very hard to see how giving Dublin extra space to run into when they break through into Kerry's half would help keep them in a game with them. A recipe for disaster

threeball

mountgomery burns wrote: »

threeball wrote: »

The Murchan goal wasn't man on man as his marker was no where to be seen.

Is that meant to be a joke? He was behind him and ran into Fenton, had no chance of getting back then. How does one man getting beaten to the ball suddenly leave a player with 80 yards of space to run into?

All I can say is I find very hard to see how giving Dublin extra space to run into when they break through into Kerry's half would help keep them in a game with them. A recipe for disaster

He was miles off him before Murchan even got the ball. Then the full back and centre back went AWOL. An u10s team wouldn't have left the space down the middle that Kerry did on that play.

Bonniedog

The Murchan goal was one of the very few occasions Kerry had defensive lapses of the sort that were exploited by Tyrone, and Cork and Mayo in the league final

Defence improved hugely over the Summer. So could be a bit like Dublin in transition between 2009 hiding and competing seriously in 2010, and winning in 2011.

Be interesting to see what tactics they deploy next year. Seeming to tire might simply be a case of not being used to that intensity for two 80+ minute games.

mountgomery burns

threeball wrote: »

He was miles off him before Murchan even got the ball. Then the full back and centre back went AWOL. An u10s team wouldn't have left the space down the middle that Kerry did on that play.

I agree it was poor but it was one time where they had to have 8 men positioned in front of their back 6 and they were caught badly. I think as an example it's a good counter argument against anyone saying the dropped too deep at times.

As Bonniedog has said, their defense was much improved and a good part of the reason as to how they were so competitive against a team that is unbeaten in I think 36 championship games. Quality won out, it's as simple as that.

robbiezero

mountgomery burns wrote: »

I agree it was poor but it was one time where they had to have 8 men positioned in front of their back 6 and they were caught badly. I think as an example it's a good counter argument against anyone saying the dropped too deep at times.

As Bonniedog has said, their defense was much improved and a good part of the reason as to how they were so competitive against a team that is unbeaten in I think 36 championship games. Quality won out, it's as simple as that.

Why do teams bother lining up 15 on 15 for the throw-in, is there a rule that says you must have 6 either side of 65 for the throw in?

robbiezero

Still think it was a mistake to concede the kick-outs. Granted they had been opened in the drawn game, from what I remember it was twice, both similar plays with a Dublin lad coming behind the last line of 4 to pluck the ball over a Kerry head (Howard and Rock) and 1-1 was conceded from it, but I thought it had worked quite well and a small bit of work on it might have improved things e.g. a tactical foul if a clean catch by a Dub - Donegal were masters of it this year, the foul that isn't a pull-down and looks almost a genuine tackle attempt, but serves the purpose of slowing the attack.
7 points it is thought the Dubs got from their kick-outs and also the factor of the mental and physical sapping of the Kerry energy from chasing the Dubs for minutes at a time which seemed to take a heavy toll on their last 20 minutes. 3 points conceded directly from 4 long kicks in the first 5 minutes was quite a tactical error too.

Strumms

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What?

I reacted to people calling him a gentleman. A dirty player - one who uses foul play far too often - is not a gentleman in my 'unique' definition of one.

I don't know if it is 'universally' shared or not, nor do I care much. I am sure enough of my own opinion not to be hiding in the herd.

He is a gentleman, pure and simple. Anyone who’d know him would back that up. Does he use his physicality on the pitch to the best of its application ? He does of course. He is though a cultured footballer, a tough as teak defender but with a footballing skill set almost unrivaled for a defender in the game. To call him a dirty player or any such is ignorant I’m afraid and rather a lazy bout of labeling that is also inaccurate. Still it’s easy to be bitter. It takes more humility and intelligence to admit the reality.

rm75

threeball wrote: »

He was miles off him before Murchan even got the ball. Then the full back and centre back went AWOL. An u10s team wouldn't have left the space down the middle that Kerry did on that play.

They did the same with Davey Byrne , probably reckoned wasnt a threat and better off focusing on the danger men!!

Snow Garden

threeball wrote: »

He was miles off him before Murchan even got the ball. Then the full back and centre back went AWOL. An u10s team wouldn't have left the space down the middle that Kerry did on that play.

Strange to see that much open space at throw-in time. Maybe it was a planned move. I have seen it before at club level but it usually involves a give-and-go pass somewhere. Basically the fast fecker waits for the breaking ball and runs towards goal like the wind while most of the forwards drag their markers to the wings. The move is done to take advantage of players not switched on or concentrating in the first minute of the 2nd half.

60% of the time, it works every time.

Superb goal and the ref was great to allow advantage when he was being pulled back by Moran.

Snow Garden

robbiezero wrote: »

Still think it was a mistake to concede the kick-outs. Granted they had been opened in the drawn game, from what I remember it was twice, both similar plays with a Dublin lad coming behind the last line of 4 to pluck the ball over a Kerry head (Howard and Rock) and 1-1 was conceded from it, but I thought it had worked quite well and a small bit of work on it might have improved things e.g. a tactical foul if a clean catch by a Dub - Donegal were masters of it this year, the foul that isn't a pull-down and looks almost a genuine tackle attempt, but serves the purpose of slowing the attack.
7 points it is thought the Dubs got from their kick-outs and also the factor of the mental and physical sapping of the Kerry energy from chasing the Dubs for minutes at a time which seemed to take a heavy toll on their last 20 minutes. 3 points conceded directly from 4 long kicks in the first 5 minutes was quite a tactical error too.

Agree, big mistake to allow Dublin easy kickouts. Cluxton had them pitch perfect too. I thought Dublin would win handy when I saw the easy possession.

threeball

mountgomery burns wrote: »

threeball wrote: »

He was miles off him before Murchan even got the ball. Then the full back and centre back went AWOL. An u10s team wouldn't have left the space down the middle that Kerry did on that play.

I agree it was poor but it was one time where they had to have 8 men positioned in front of their back 6 and they were caught badly. I think as an example it's a good counter argument against anyone saying the dropped too deep at times.

As Bonniedog has said, their defense was much improved and a good part of the reason as to how they were so competitive against a team that is unbeaten in I think 36 championship games. Quality won out, it's as simple as that.

If these blanket defences are so effective why are teams coughing up bigger scores than ever. The average score in matches is gone through the roof. The fact is there is zero accountability. For decades the average winning score in games was around the 14 to 15pt range. We now have games routinely with over 25pts, sometimes without goals being scored. Yes on a heavy crap pitch you might limit a good team to 10pts. Once you get to Croker you're done for. Look what happened to Tyrone two years ago. I'm not saying the better team didn't win but Kerry didn't do themselves any favours setting up as they did and conceding possession from every kick out.

threeball

Snow Garden wrote: »

threeball wrote: »

He was miles off him before Murchan even got the ball. Then the full back and centre back went AWOL. An u10s team wouldn't have left the space down the middle that Kerry did on that play.

Strange to see that much open space at throw-in time. Maybe it was a planned move. I have seen it before at club level but it usually involves a give-and-go pass somewhere. Basically the fast fecker waits for the breaking ball and runs towards goal like the wind while most of the forwards drag their markers to the wings. The move is done to take advantage of players not switched on or concentrating in the first minute of the 2nd half.

60% of the time, it works every time.

Superb goal and the ref was great to allow advantage when he was being pulled back by Moran.

Don't think it was pre-planned as Moran should have caught the throw in but randomly punched it instead straight in the Murchans path and the Dublin CF and FF ran for the wing. Now whatever about the CB following his man in that position there's no excuse for a FB to leave the edge of the square. The danger was obvious 45m out but the FB persisted in following O Callaghan. Basic defending is lost in this unaccountable muddle that the defensive systems are. Everyone is too reliant on having 2 or 3 others to give them a dig out and are less than useless when they get isolated.

blanch152

mountgomery burns wrote: »

Don't agree with this at all to be honest with you. The perfect example being the goal, one instance when there is no argument that Kerry had a conventional setup for that play and Murchan tore down the middle of the defense unopposed.

I thought that was poor enough from Kerry but it would contradict your point about going man on man. As would there defensive frailities in previous games up until the final. Kerry's tactic of lumping the ball in early yielded no dividends and meant that they gave away a 4 points head start. They also conceded the goal, if neither of those had happened they would have been right there at the death.

No doubt the better team won the match, but Kerry did enough to keep themselves in it against the best team in the Country so I would be slow to criticize them tactically. Ultimately, over the course of 150 minutes of football class is going to win out. That's what happened on Sunday. Giving the Dubs more space by pushing up the field would have been kamikaze stuff. I don't think Kerry were overtly negative they just weren't naive.

Just on the shot clock thing, surprised people even responding to that. Absolute nonsense

The goal came direct from the throw-in. You can’t set up with a sweeper from a throw-in, neither are you pressing the opposition kick-out, so it is a unique situation, and one that Dublin have targeted for scores.