Waterford GAA Discussion Thread 3 Updated Mod Note Post 1

Dick phelan · 19-07-2016 02:45AM

He won''t and shouldn't make tons of changes for Sunday, look the Munster Final was shocking but the lads aren't suddenly terrible most of the team should stay the same, We do need more pace in the team and a better goal threat, i'd like to see Stephen Bennett and maybe Dunford come into the team for Brick and Maurice. Can't see Paudi being dropped to important with the frees, Gleeson maybe to come in as well, Hopefully the lads turn up on Sunday, they need to redeem themselves and save the season, a defeat would be a disaster a massive setback, a win while i don't see us beating KK, a SF keeps us as a top 4 team.

cul beag · 19-07-2016 07:10AM

robopaddy2 wrote: »

I don't know how Maurice is in there after basically one good season in the county jersey. Seamus Prendergast is the obvious omission there. He was fantastic for us for the guts of 15 years. If you had to put in any of the current crop based on ability surely it would be Gleeson. Frampton instead of Moran at wing back would be my choice (those of us the remember the lean nineties know what a fantastic player he was for us). Other than that hard to argue. SOK probably deserves no.1 as he has been our most technically gifted keeper for a long time although Clinton Hennessey arguable more consistent.

All the players that won All Stars have made the selection and that includes Maurice Shanahan. And going by that then they all had to be accommodated in the choosing of the side. Bar Cullinane and Socky the other 13 were award winners so realistically they were never going to leave out any of the All Stars. Safe decision by the judges because can you imagine if it came down to really having to choose between Hartley,Brick and Ken for the centre back spot lets say! I know where my vote would be going! So like all all star selections they accommodated fellas instead of making the hard/right calls.

crottys lake · 19-07-2016 12:26PM

Giveitfong wrote: »

Waterford’s heavy defeat in the Munster Final came as quite a shock to Waterford’s dumbfounded supporters. The Waterford team which lost by a similar margin in the 2011 final was a shambles of a selection, and the team knew it going out on the field. This year’s team had earned a well-deserved reputation over the last two years as a highly-competitive and skillful outfit with a massive work rate and fighting spirit.

The rubbish spewed out in the aftermath of the game from a wide range of so-called “pundits” says more about their knowledge of hurling than it does about the Waterford team. Clearly last week’s outcome was freakish and, I believe, very unlikely to happen again. At the same time, something obviously went wrong and we need to know what it was.

While playing nowhere near their potential, Waterford were clearly the better team in the first half during which they had 19 shots at goal compared to 12 for Tipperary. However, while their shooting early on was good, their failure to score between the 14th and 35th minute really killed them. During this period they had ten bad misses – three in the 19th minute alone. Had they converted even half of these and not conceded a very soft goal they would have been six points up at half time, which would have given them something to fight for and put some pressure on Tipperary.

In the second half, Tipperary had a simple tactic – play long ball into the Waterford goal area and hope to get enough good ball from this to get a winning score. They bunched four or five forwards in the D outside the large Waterford square and as the ball arrived one forward went up for the ball and the others fanned out hoping for a break. This tactic worked well beyond their expectations due to a combination of good play on their part, poor defending by Waterford (especially bunching and poor match-ups in challenging for incoming ball), and good luck. For example, for their fifth goal, the incoming ball bounced sideways off somebody’s helmet straight into the path of Seamus Callanan who duly finished to the net.

Waterford actually won a lot of ball in the second half. Despite playing into the strong wind and being forced to hit long puckouts due to the Tipperary full forwards pushing up on the Waterford full backs, Waterford won half of their own long puckouts. However, their use of the ball was very poor, either playing it in to double-marked forwards or giving the ball away altogether.

Tipperary were up for a battle in what were very difficult conditions, and Waterford needed to be prepared to at least match this. However, compared with their normal level of performance, Waterford were very flat, lacking in drive and focus. At half time on the Sunday Game, Ger Loughnane remarked that Waterford were “mentally slow”. They were also physically inferior on the day. I counted 13 cases of Waterford players losing possession under pressure (i.e. turnovers) compared with just one for Tipperary. I also counted 19 cases of Waterford giving the ball away to unmarked Tipperary players, either due to playing the ball under pressure or poor shot selection.

There are a lot of stories going around about the Waterford panel being subjected to a very demanding programme of preparation for the Munster Final. I have heard of six training sessions in the week before the week of the Final, of workouts in Colligan Wood and of players waking up extremely tired facing into the day’s work. If these stories are true it raises serious questions about the team’s management. This is the kind of work you do in February and March, with the focus on developing explosive force in the summer months.

This would certainly provide an explanation for Waterford’s flat performance last week. It is also possible that, with most media pundits predicting a Waterford win, and with their own supporters more confident than I have ever seen them before, the team may have gone into the game in more relaxed mood than was warranted.

Of course, there is no guarantee that if Waterford had gone into the game really “up for it”, they would have prevailed against a Tipperary outfit which brought massive focus, determination and physicality to bear in addition to their high skill levels. One wonders in particular if Waterford need to be more flexible in terms of adapting to prevailing physical conditions. The wet conditions alone called for a more direct style of play, all the more so with the very strong wind at their back in the first half. With Maurice Shanahan at full forward and Patrick Curran and Shane Bennett on either side of him, who knows what would have happened if Waterford had adopted the tactics which Tipperary employed in the second half.

In the longer run, questions have to asked about the over-defensive nature of Waterford’s playing formation. This is more about the tactic of flooding midfield and leaving very few forwards up front than it is about using a sweeper (a lot of so-called pundits are unable to make this distinction). On the Sunday Game, both Ger Loughnane and Henry Shefflin were critical of this aspect of the Waterford setup, with Shefflin insisting that you need to be more courageous in order to win championships. Derek McGrath has pointed to Waterford’s good scoring rate over the last two years, but there is evidence that this doesn’t work against the better teams. Waterford only scored 16 points in last year’s Munster Final and only 18 against Kilkenny in the All-Ireland Semi-final.

I am inclined to see Derek McGrath’s approach as very similar to that of Jack Charlton when he was in charge of the Irish soccer team. Charlton’s strategy was based on stopping the opposition from scoring, and in this he was very successful. However, when it comes to World Cup and Euro finals, you need more than this. Charlon had an exceptional group of talented players available to him, and I always thought that he could have made better use of them.

Charlton, of course, played for Leeds, a team that was very good at winning leagues but hopeless at winning cups. They ground out their weekly away draws and home wins, but when it came to the bit of magic needed when games had to be won, they were found wanting.
I see a lot of parallels with the current Waterford setup. Waterford currently have upcoming strike forwards with great potential in Patrick Curran and the two Bennetts. Yet, just as Jack Charlton had John Aldridge wearing his feet to stumps (his own words) chasing long balls into the corners, last year Derek McGrath had Stephen Bennett operating far from goal playing a poorly-defined and thankless role. Similarly, Shane Bennett is wandering around the field hoping the ball will come his way.

We all know what Patrick Curran and Stephen Bennett are capable of close to goal, and we saw further evidence of it last Wednesday in Walsh Park. I have no problem with Waterford continuing to operate a sweeper. Most counties do it and in Tadhg de Búrca we have the best in the business. But I think we should plant Stephen Bennett and Patrick Curran close to goal and concentrate on delivering good early ball into them. In three plays they could do more damage than six players spending an hour fighting for ruck ball in the midfield area.

On the basis of recent games I am also coming around to the idea of locating Austin Gleeson at centre back. I don’t think the current practice of moving him around makes adequate use of his prodigious talent. I’m not normally a fan of Ger Loughnane, but on that Sunday Game programme he spoke a lot of sense. Of Austin Gleeson he said “he doesn’t know where he is playing and what he is doing.” I accept that the Clare Under-21 team are not the best measuring rod, but Gleeson looked very comfortable and imperious in a fixed half back position last Wednesday night. We need to get him to focus more on delivering early ball to the full forwards rather than running with it, but with Tadhg de Búrca filling in behind him, I would give him his head.

Finally, in relation to de Búrca, a writer in one of the Sunday papers said that a key factor in Tipperary’s win in the Munster Final is that they put men in on de Búrca, thereby stifling him. I have watched a recording of the game several times. De Búrca got possession a lot more than any other player, and I did not note even one occasion where he was stopped, dispossessed or blocked by his markers, while his use of the ball was frequently very good. He was not as good under the high ball as he normally is, but he was still easily Waterford’s best player on the day.

You got it absolutely spot on there Giveitfong with that analysis. I posted before that match about how I thought Stephen Bennett should be playing and I have no doubt but that he is our best chance of goals if left near the square and not asked to do the impossible like last year. It was no surprise to me at all what he did in the under 21 match and I have to say the 11/4 with Paddy Power to be an anytime goalscorer was a gift from God. I maintain that Bennett is an outstanding forward and would start on my team no matter the circumstances.

I also agree with your point about Aussie. He would be best at wing forward in my opinion but that is a role that needs discipline nowadays and am not too sure that the young man is ready for that yet. He needs a one dimensional task where he cannot wander too much and perhaps on Sunday they might consider him for a man marking job on Lee Chin which would mean he would basically be our centre back and it would also give him a small licence to push forward and pick off some long range points, much like Ken used to do. It would also nullify Chin who many see as Wexford's biggest threat.

It is too late to change our 'system' if we have one anyway. We might need to adapt our tactics ever so slightly if anything. I agree with you about the so called 'sweeper' set up. Every team is employing tactics in one way or another and we should keep our shape for this game. I would expect Tadhg to do very well on Sunday and help Barry and co to keep a lid on McDonald. I think Wexford will follow the Tipperary route and go straight down the middle for our jugular. I think we will be ready this time and rather than playing into their hands instead they might play into ours.

Roll on Sunday.

cornerboy · 19-07-2016 01:21PM

Its not the first time we froze in a major final.

hurler on de ditch · 19-07-2016 09:08PM

Giveitfong wrote: »

Waterford’s heavy defeat in the Munster Final came as quite a shock to Waterford’s dumbfounded supporters. The Waterford team which lost by a similar margin in the 2011 final was a shambles of a selection, and the team knew it going out on the field. This year’s team had earned a well-deserved reputation over the last two years as a highly-competitive and skillful outfit with a massive work rate and fighting spirit.

The rubbish spewed out in the aftermath of the game from a wide range of so-called “pundits” says more about their knowledge of hurling than it does about the Waterford team. Clearly last week’s outcome was freakish and, I believe, very unlikely to happen again. At the same time, something obviously went wrong and we need to know what it was.

While playing nowhere near their potential, Waterford were clearly the better team in the first half during which they had 19 shots at goal compared to 12 for Tipperary. However, while their shooting early on was good, their failure to score between the 14th and 35th minute really killed them. During this period they had ten bad misses – three in the 19th minute alone. Had they converted even half of these and not conceded a very soft goal they would have been six points up at half time, which would have given them something to fight for and put some pressure on Tipperary.

In the second half, Tipperary had a simple tactic – play long ball into the Waterford goal area and hope to get enough good ball from this to get a winning score. They bunched four or five forwards in the D outside the large Waterford square and as the ball arrived one forward went up for the ball and the others fanned out hoping for a break. This tactic worked well beyond their expectations due to a combination of good play on their part, poor defending by Waterford (especially bunching and poor match-ups in challenging for incoming ball), and good luck. For example, for their fifth goal, the incoming ball bounced sideways off somebody’s helmet straight into the path of Seamus Callanan who duly finished to the net.

Waterford actually won a lot of ball in the second half. Despite playing into the strong wind and being forced to hit long puckouts due to the Tipperary full forwards pushing up on the Waterford full backs, Waterford won half of their own long puckouts. However, their use of the ball was very poor, either playing it in to double-marked forwards or giving the ball away altogether.

Tipperary were up for a battle in what were very difficult conditions, and Waterford needed to be prepared to at least match this. However, compared with their normal level of performance, Waterford were very flat, lacking in drive and focus. At half time on the Sunday Game, Ger Loughnane remarked that Waterford were “mentally slow”. They were also physically inferior on the day. I counted 13 cases of Waterford players losing possession under pressure (i.e. turnovers) compared with just one for Tipperary. I also counted 19 cases of Waterford giving the ball away to unmarked Tipperary players, either due to playing the ball under pressure or poor shot selection.

There are a lot of stories going around about the Waterford panel being subjected to a very demanding programme of preparation for the Munster Final. I have heard of six training sessions in the week before the week of the Final, of workouts in Colligan Wood and of players waking up extremely tired facing into the day’s work. If these stories are true it raises serious questions about the team’s management. This is the kind of work you do in February and March, with the focus on developing explosive force in the summer months.

This would certainly provide an explanation for Waterford’s flat performance last week. It is also possible that, with most media pundits predicting a Waterford win, and with their own supporters more confident than I have ever seen them before, the team may have gone into the game in more relaxed mood than was warranted.

Of course, there is no guarantee that if Waterford had gone into the game really “up for it”, they would have prevailed against a Tipperary outfit which brought massive focus, determination and physicality to bear in addition to their high skill levels. One wonders in particular if Waterford need to be more flexible in terms of adapting to prevailing physical conditions. The wet conditions alone called for a more direct style of play, all the more so with the very strong wind at their back in the first half. With Maurice Shanahan at full forward and Patrick Curran and Shane Bennett on either side of him, who knows what would have happened if Waterford had adopted the tactics which Tipperary employed in the second half.

In the longer run, questions have to asked about the over-defensive nature of Waterford’s playing formation. This is more about the tactic of flooding midfield and leaving very few forwards up front than it is about using a sweeper (a lot of so-called pundits are unable to make this distinction). On the Sunday Game, both Ger Loughnane and Henry Shefflin were critical of this aspect of the Waterford setup, with Shefflin insisting that you need to be more courageous in order to win championships. Derek McGrath has pointed to Waterford’s good scoring rate over the last two years, but there is evidence that this doesn’t work against the better teams. Waterford only scored 16 points in last year’s Munster Final and only 18 against Kilkenny in the All-Ireland Semi-final.

I am inclined to see Derek McGrath’s approach as very similar to that of Jack Charlton when he was in charge of the Irish soccer team. Charlton’s strategy was based on stopping the opposition from scoring, and in this he was very successful. However, when it comes to World Cup and Euro finals, you need more than this. Charlon had an exceptional group of talented players available to him, and I always thought that he could have made better use of them.

Charlton, of course, played for Leeds, a team that was very good at winning leagues but hopeless at winning cups. They ground out their weekly away draws and home wins, but when it came to the bit of magic needed when games had to be won, they were found wanting.
I see a lot of parallels with the current Waterford setup. Waterford currently have upcoming strike forwards with great potential in Patrick Curran and the two Bennetts. Yet, just as Jack Charlton had John Aldridge wearing his feet to stumps (his own words) chasing long balls into the corners, last year Derek McGrath had Stephen Bennett operating far from goal playing a poorly-defined and thankless role. Similarly, Shane Bennett is wandering around the field hoping the ball will come his way.

We all know what Patrick Curran and Stephen Bennett are capable of close to goal, and we saw further evidence of it last Wednesday in Walsh Park. I have no problem with Waterford continuing to operate a sweeper. Most counties do it and in Tadhg de Búrca we have the best in the business. But I think we should plant Stephen Bennett and Patrick Curran close to goal and concentrate on delivering good early ball into them. In three plays they could do more damage than six players spending an hour fighting for ruck ball in the midfield area.

On the basis of recent games I am also coming around to the idea of locating Austin Gleeson at centre back. I don’t think the current practice of moving him around makes adequate use of his prodigious talent. I’m not normally a fan of Ger Loughnane, but on that Sunday Game programme he spoke a lot of sense. Of Austin Gleeson he said “he doesn’t know where he is playing and what he is doing.” I accept that the Clare Under-21 team are not the best measuring rod, but Gleeson looked very comfortable and imperious in a fixed half back position last Wednesday night. We need to get him to focus more on delivering early ball to the full forwards rather than running with it, but with Tadhg de Búrca filling in behind him, I would give him his head.

Finally, in relation to de Búrca, a writer in one of the Sunday papers said that a key factor in Tipperary’s win in the Munster Final is that they put men in on de Búrca, thereby stifling him. I have watched a recording of the game several times. De Búrca got possession a lot more than any other player, and I did not note even one occasion where he was stopped, dispossessed or blocked by his markers, while his use of the ball was frequently very good. He was not as good under the high ball as he normally is, but he was still easily Waterford’s best player on the day.

crikey' very long winded ,nothing that has not being said from all the posters here ,but your final paragraph kind of summed it up ,in your praise for TDB,i would,like most Waterford supporters would love to see him perform better ,he has one of the handiest jobs on the team,being a spare man,and yes he got his hands on quite a bit of ball sweeping up,but his performance against a direct opponent was woeful to say the least,if you can remember or have it recorded,have a look again,he was totally cleaned out ,im not sure he actually won ONE ball in a 50/50 ,NOT ONE!,feel free to correct me if im wrong ,but hey ,what would i know!

cul beag · 19-07-2016 10:57PM

Id be expecting a backlash from us on Sunday. I don't think we will ever be as bad again although I do think it will be dour to watch again as I have a feeling we will be even extra defensive going by his comments the last day. I hope I'm wrong on that front but I doubt I will be. Waterford by 7-8pts

Dick phelan · 20-07-2016 12:10AM

Waterford by 3-4 points for me.

Gardner · 20-07-2016 01:32AM

robopaddy2 wrote: »

Best 15 of the past 25 years as voted for on wlr

1. SOK, 2 Noel Connors, 3 Sean Cullinane, 4 Eoin Murphy, 5. Tony Browne, 6 Fergal Harrtley, 7. Kevin Moran 8. Stephen Molumphy 9. Brick Walsh 10. Dan 11. Ken 12. Kelly 13. Mullane 14. Mauriice Shanahan 15. Flynn

A lot of people must have short term memories thats all I say

Would have Damien Byrne ahead of Cullinane anyday. The fact that Cullinane couldn't dislodge him from the full back position until he retired vs Tipp in 96 speaks volumes.

McCarthy asked him to come back in 98 to play full forward and a discussion I had with Gerald recently he simply said i "magine bugs vs Pat o Neill as Anthony was a good player but lacked that bit guts" he admitted to me though that was Waterford best chance of winning an all Ireland either under himself or Justin.

EICVD · 20-07-2016 01:41AM

I loves me county*

* My county isn't Waterford.......

robopaddy2 · 20-07-2016 02:27AM

Dick phelan wrote: »

Waterford by 3-4 points for me.

I reckon so too. In one sense it s not a bad thing going into the game on the back of such a heavy beating. It gives the lads ammunition to come out and fight like dogs and should rid us of any complacency, or the hangover of an agonising close defeat. Our lads will be hurt badly and keen to prove a point. Wexford are always very dangerous and will be on a high after their win over Cork. They ll feel they have a lot less to lose going into the game.

Deise_2012 · 20-07-2016 07:09AM

I know 2 lads who saw the training sessions the week after the Tipp game. The players went down Monday and Tuesday and they were still in shock after the game, also the u21 lads were missing so the training session wasn't in full flow, the Thursday after the u21 game, they went training again, to say they upped the tempo would be an understatement, they absolutely flaked the shi*t out of each other.
They're gonna win Sunday, no doubt about it but I hope they leave Paddy Maurice and Shane/Stephen Bennett inside and let them at it

Clonmel1000 · 20-07-2016 07:53AM

robopaddy2 wrote: »

I reckon so too. In one sense it s not a bad thing going into the game on the back of such a heavy beating. It gives the lads ammunition to come out and fight like dogs and should rid us of any complacency, or the hangover of an agonising close defeat. Our lads will be hurt badly and keen to prove a point. Wexford are always very dangerous and will be on a high after their win over Cork. They ll feel they have a lot less to lose going into the game.

So you reckon losing the Munster final by 21 points to Tipp isn't a bad thing? Jesus!

robopaddy2 · 20-07-2016 07:58AM

Clonmel1000 wrote: »

robopaddy2 wrote: »

I reckon so too. In one sense it s not a bad thing going into the game on the back of such a heavy beating. It gives the lads ammunition to come out and fight like dogs and should rid us of any complacency, or the hangover of an agonising close defeat. Our lads will be hurt badly and keen to prove a point. Wexford are always very dangerous and will be on a high after their win over Cork. They ll feel they have a lot less to lose going into the game.

So you reckon losing the Munster final by 21 points to Tipp isn't a bad thing? Jesus!

As if you don't know what I mean. Smart arse

hurler on de ditch · 20-07-2016 03:08PM

Clonmel1000 wrote: »

So you reckon losing the Munster final by 21 points to Tipp isn't a bad thing? Jesus!

exactly

Deise189 · 20-07-2016 04:38PM

Tickets on sale now for the U-21 final. Hopefully be a big crowd there. Not often we get to hold a Munster Final! Any one have any idea what the name of the terrace is across from the stand? You have to pick a terrace on tickets.ie. Although I'm sure you could move around on the night.

PTH2009 · 20-07-2016 04:48PM

Deise189 wrote: »

Tickets on sale now for the U-21 final. Hopefully be a big crowd there. Not often we get to hold a Munster Final! Any one have any idea what the name of the terrace is across from the stand? You have to pick a terrace on tickets.ie. Although I'm sure you could move around on the night.

just about to ask that question.

i imagine its the Western Terrace but could easilty be the Eastern Terrace ???. North terrace is the terrace you enter across from the presentation primary school i think ??

sum balls there making of this, for a one stand stadium lol

dishdash · 20-07-2016 09:43PM

Giveitfong wrote: »

Waterford’s heavy defeat in the Munster Final came as quite a shock to Waterford’s dumbfounded supporters. The Waterford team which lost by a similar margin in the 2011 final was a shambles of a selection, and the team knew it going out on the field. This year’s team had earned a well-deserved reputation over the last two years as a highly-competitive and skillful outfit with a massive work rate and fighting spirit.

The rubbish spewed out in the aftermath of the game from a wide range of so-called “pundits” says more about their knowledge of hurling than it does about the Waterford team. Clearly last week’s outcome was freakish and, I believe, very unlikely to happen again. At the same time, something obviously went wrong and we need to know what it was.

While playing nowhere near their potential, Waterford were clearly the better team in the first half during which they had 19 shots at goal compared to 12 for Tipperary. However, while their shooting early on was good, their failure to score between the 14th and 35th minute really killed them. During this period they had ten bad misses – three in the 19th minute alone. Had they converted even half of these and not conceded a very soft goal they would have been six points up at half time, which would have given them something to fight for and put some pressure on Tipperary.

In the second half, Tipperary had a simple tactic – play long ball into the Waterford goal area and hope to get enough good ball from this to get a winning score. They bunched four or five forwards in the D outside the large Waterford square and as the ball arrived one forward went up for the ball and the others fanned out hoping for a break. This tactic worked well beyond their expectations due to a combination of good play on their part, poor defending by Waterford (especially bunching and poor match-ups in challenging for incoming ball), and good luck. For example, for their fifth goal, the incoming ball bounced sideways off somebody’s helmet straight into the path of Seamus Callanan who duly finished to the net.

Waterford actually won a lot of ball in the second half. Despite playing into the strong wind and being forced to hit long puckouts due to the Tipperary full forwards pushing up on the Waterford full backs, Waterford won half of their own long puckouts. However, their use of the ball was very poor, either playing it in to double-marked forwards or giving the ball away altogether.

Tipperary were up for a battle in what were very difficult conditions, and Waterford needed to be prepared to at least match this. However, compared with their normal level of performance, Waterford were very flat, lacking in drive and focus. At half time on the Sunday Game, Ger Loughnane remarked that Waterford were “mentally slow”. They were also physically inferior on the day. I counted 13 cases of Waterford players losing possession under pressure (i.e. turnovers) compared with just one for Tipperary. I also counted 19 cases of Waterford giving the ball away to unmarked Tipperary players, either due to playing the ball under pressure or poor shot selection.

There are a lot of stories going around about the Waterford panel being subjected to a very demanding programme of preparation for the Munster Final. I have heard of six training sessions in the week before the week of the Final, of workouts in Colligan Wood and of players waking up extremely tired facing into the day’s work. If these stories are true it raises serious questions about the team’s management. This is the kind of work you do in February and March, with the focus on developing explosive force in the summer months.

This would certainly provide an explanation for Waterford’s flat performance last week. It is also possible that, with most media pundits predicting a Waterford win, and with their own supporters more confident than I have ever seen them before, the team may have gone into the game in more relaxed mood than was warranted.

Of course, there is no guarantee that if Waterford had gone into the game really “up for it”, they would have prevailed against a Tipperary outfit which brought massive focus, determination and physicality to bear in addition to their high skill levels. One wonders in particular if Waterford need to be more flexible in terms of adapting to prevailing physical conditions. The wet conditions alone called for a more direct style of play, all the more so with the very strong wind at their back in the first half. With Maurice Shanahan at full forward and Patrick Curran and Shane Bennett on either side of him, who knows what would have happened if Waterford had adopted the tactics which Tipperary employed in the second half.

In the longer run, questions have to asked about the over-defensive nature of Waterford’s playing formation. This is more about the tactic of flooding midfield and leaving very few forwards up front than it is about using a sweeper (a lot of so-called pundits are unable to make this distinction). On the Sunday Game, both Ger Loughnane and Henry Shefflin were critical of this aspect of the Waterford setup, with Shefflin insisting that you need to be more courageous in order to win championships. Derek McGrath has pointed to Waterford’s good scoring rate over the last two years, but there is evidence that this doesn’t work against the better teams. Waterford only scored 16 points in last year’s Munster Final and only 18 against Kilkenny in the All-Ireland Semi-final.

I am inclined to see Derek McGrath’s approach as very similar to that of Jack Charlton when he was in charge of the Irish soccer team. Charlton’s strategy was based on stopping the opposition from scoring, and in this he was very successful. However, when it comes to World Cup and Euro finals, you need more than this. Charlon had an exceptional group of talented players available to him, and I always thought that he could have made better use of them.

Charlton, of course, played for Leeds, a team that was very good at winning leagues but hopeless at winning cups. They ground out their weekly away draws and home wins, but when it came to the bit of magic needed when games had to be won, they were found wanting.
I see a lot of parallels with the current Waterford setup. Waterford currently have upcoming strike forwards with great potential in Patrick Curran and the two Bennetts. Yet, just as Jack Charlton had John Aldridge wearing his feet to stumps (his own words) chasing long balls into the corners, last year Derek McGrath had Stephen Bennett operating far from goal playing a poorly-defined and thankless role. Similarly, Shane Bennett is wandering around the field hoping the ball will come his way.

We all know what Patrick Curran and Stephen Bennett are capable of close to goal, and we saw further evidence of it last Wednesday in Walsh Park. I have no problem with Waterford continuing to operate a sweeper. Most counties do it and in Tadhg de Búrca we have the best in the business. But I think we should plant Stephen Bennett and Patrick Curran close to goal and concentrate on delivering good early ball into them. In three plays they could do more damage than six players spending an hour fighting for ruck ball in the midfield area.

On the basis of recent games I am also coming around to the idea of locating Austin Gleeson at centre back. I don’t think the current practice of moving him around makes adequate use of his prodigious talent. I’m not normally a fan of Ger Loughnane, but on that Sunday Game programme he spoke a lot of sense. Of Austin Gleeson he said “he doesn’t know where he is playing and what he is doing.” I accept that the Clare Under-21 team are not the best measuring rod, but Gleeson looked very comfortable and imperious in a fixed half back position last Wednesday night. We need to get him to focus more on delivering early ball to the full forwards rather than running with it, but with Tadhg de Búrca filling in behind him, I would give him his head.

Finally, in relation to de Búrca, a writer in one of the Sunday papers said that a key factor in Tipperary’s win in the Munster Final is that they put men in on de Búrca, thereby stifling him. I have watched a recording of the game several times. De Búrca got possession a lot more than any other player, and I did not note even one occasion where he was stopped, dispossessed or blocked by his markers, while his use of the ball was frequently very good. He was not as good under the high ball as he normally is, but he was still easily Waterford’s best player on the day.

That's a really great piece of analysis....better than anything I read in the paper, and fairly balanced.
Thanks for posting

Whiplash85 · 20-07-2016 11:24PM

dishdash wrote: »

That's a really great piece of analysis....better than anything I read in the paper, and fairly balanced.
Thanks for posting

To be honest I Think its a pile of drivel. More holes in that analysis than a swiss cheese and massive straw clutching going on.

Where to start.

Tipp being more motivated to win is a weird one. I would have thought that having doled out the mother and father of all eviscerations in 2011 and lost previous 4 times to Tipp that Waterford might have had a motivational angle coming into the game.

Analogies with Jack Charlton. Ireland under Charlton actually won important knock out games. Waterford haven't.

Losing ball under pressure through carrying it and being turned over or hitting it to double marked players. So what is it then? Tipp won because ye are predictable and there is no flexibility to adapt within the Waterford "system".

Incidentally it wasn't a freak occurence as he alluded to. Waterford played with a sweeper in 2011 as well and lost by 21 points. So this is just a case of history repeating itself. Happened numerous times before that as well.

Hitting pot shots and looking at the wide count and using that as a crutch is pathetic as well. Waterford always hit a lot of wides because they dont play the percentages and take shots from out the field. They are NOT good scoring chances.

I cant even be bothered referring to bits about Waterford training 6 times a week and Colligan Woods. Absolute Bull****.

But I agree with his theory that Tipp were lucky on the day. Haha. Do me a favour...

Deise2016 · 21-07-2016 01:25AM

PTH2009 wrote: »

just about to ask that question.

i imagine its the Western Terrace but could easilty be the Eastern Terrace ???. North terrace is the terrace you enter across from the presentation primary school i think ??

sum balls there making of this, for a one stand stadium lol

I'd imagine the bank is the northern terrace.

As for Sunday lads why can't I get tickets in the uncovered section for Sunday?

All that's coming up online is Block 212 in the old stand.

What kind of a crowd will we be looking at.

25,000 max I reckon.

Cake Man · 21-07-2016 02:06AM

Just out of curiosity to see if there is much of an advantage of being at home at U21 level (statistically speaking), I've considered all Munster U21 results going back as far as 2009, as per the Munster GAA results webpage.

In the 7 years, there have been 31 games played until now and as is the case with U21, there will always be a home/away team. I counted 17 games in which the home team won (55%) and 14 in which the away team won (45%). Some of these games were settled after extra time and counted as a home/away win.
4 of the 17 home victories and 3 of the 14 away victories were in the Munster final.

This would lead me to believe that home advantage isn't hugely significant and as can be seen, 3 of the last 7 Munster final were won by the away team - one of which included Clare beating us at home in 2009. I know 31 probably isn't a massive sample size but given that U21 is pure knockout, it limits the amount of games. Would still happily prefer to be at home in any case.

robopaddy2 · 21-07-2016 03:39AM

Whiplash85 wrote: »

dishdash wrote: »

That's a really great piece of analysis....better than anything I read in the paper, and fairly balanced.
Thanks for posting

To be honest I Think its a pile of drivel. More holes in that analysis than a swiss cheese and massive straw clutching going on.

Where to start.

Tipp being more motivated to win is a weird one. I would have thought that having doled out the mother and father of all eviscerations in 2011 and lost previous 4 times to Tipp that Waterford might have had a motivational angle coming into the game.

Analogies with Jack Charlton. Ireland under Charlton actually won important knock out games. Waterford haven't.

Losing ball under pressure through carrying it and being turned over or hitting it to double marked players. So what is it then? Tipp won because ye are predictable and there is no flexibility to adapt within the Waterford "system".

Incidentally it wasn't a freak occurence as he alluded to. Waterford played with a sweeper in 2011 as well and lost by 21 points. So this is just a case of history repeating itself. Happened numerous times before that as well.

Hitting pot shots and looking at the wide count and using that as a crutch is pathetic as well. Waterford always hit a lot of wides because they dont play the percentages and take shots from out the field. They are NOT good scoring chances.

I cant even be bothered referring to bits about Waterford training 6 times a week and Colligan Woods. Absolute Bull****.

But I agree with his theory that Tipp were lucky on the day. Haha. Do me a favour...

Why so bitter? What did you want to see written? That the result was an accurate reflection in the gulf between the sides? A bit delusional yourself if you believe that

Whiplash85 · 21-07-2016 11:26AM

robopaddy2 wrote: »

Why so bitter? What did you want to see written? That the result was an accurate reflection in the gulf between the sides? A bit delusional yourself if you believe that

Some of the analysis is akin to "if only we had put out the child of Prague before the game the conditions would have suited more". I think Kilkenny and Tipp in that order are the 2 best teams in the country by some distance. Then there is Galway marooned in third position (pardon the pun). And then you have a whole host of counties like Waterford, Wexford, Dublin, Clare, Limerick who can all beat each other on any given day. Then theres Cork (less said the better).

The "Pundits" who the original poster hypothesised lead Waterford into a relaxed state after tipping them to win all week also includes John Mullane who said “I firmly believe now that we can go the whole way. I know we don’t want to get carried away, but it’s going to take one hell of a team to beat this Waterford team.”

You just have to find better excuses or fundamental reasons for losing rather than the dog ate my homework. I cannot fathom how the likes of Mullane and a few of the old guard are putting this team on a pedestal saying they were better than the Waterford team of the mid noughties. There was matchwinners all over that team, a few munster medals, legends of the game like McGrath, Browne and Flynn. Epic contests with a star studded Cork team. An AI appearance, hurler of the year awards. They would strike fear into any team and played with flair.

By comparison this team has done nothing and will continue to do nothing within the straitjacket of a system.

O Riain · 21-07-2016 01:37PM

Whiplash85 wrote: »

robopaddy2 wrote: »

Why so bitter? What did you want to see written? That the result was an accurate reflection in the gulf between the sides? A bit delusional yourself if you believe that

Some of the analysis is akin to "if only we had put out the child of Prague before the game the conditions would have suited more". I think Kilkenny and Tipp in that order are the 2 best teams in the country by some distance. Then there is Galway marooned in third position (pardon the pun). And then you have a whole host of counties like Waterford, Wexford, Dublin, Clare, Limerick who can all beat each other on any given day. Then theres Cork (less said the better).

The "Pundits" who the original poster hypothesised lead Waterford into a relaxed state after tipping them to win all week also includes John Mullane who said I firmly believe now that we can go the whole way. I know we don t want to get carried away, but it s going to take one hell of a team to beat this Waterford team.

You just have to find better excuses or fundamental reasons for losing rather than the dog ate my homework. I cannot fathom how the likes of Mullane and a few of the old guard are putting this team on a pedestal saying they were better than the Waterford team of the mid noughties. There was matchwinners all over that team, a few munster medals, legends of the game like McGrath, Browne and Flynn. Epic contests with a star studded Cork team. An AI appearance, hurler of the year awards. They would strike fear into any team and played with flair.

By comparison this team has done nothing and will continue to do nothing within the straitjacket of a system.

So is it the system or the players that is not up to scratch? You say the players are not worth anything but then blame the system. Which is it?

A lot of these players are very young, still under 21 but up to this point they have won every competition there is to win except for senior competitions. That will come with age.

Everybody seems to be blaming Waterford for the recent 'demise' of hurling. I can tell you one thing, hurling has never been strong. At any one time you only have about 2 or 3 teams max that could be counted as real All Ireland contenders and then frequent trashing handed out to the other teams. Those teams that get thrashed by the genuine contenders would then be able to hand out epic beatings to weaker teams themselves. The gulf is massive, not enough counties involved and not enough teams who could actually win the bloody thing.

Hurling has been on it's knees for a long long time now, don't blame Waterford for that. But then, people in Kilkenny and Tipperary would be happy with hurling being dead as a sport in Ireland as long they keep winning the All Ireland. Absolutely disgraceful way of thinking. They should be delighted that a tiny little county in the South East is trying it's best to keep the hurling tradition alive when the likes of Wexford and Offaly have disappeared off the face of the planet.

Edit: Up to this year, all the teams outside of the big three have won a total of 35 All Ireland's between them. That's 1 less than Kilkenny have in total.

The Big Three: 96
All other teams: 35

Yeah, hurling was always strong in the whole Island of Ireland.

O Riain · 21-07-2016 01:41PM

Up to this year, all the teams outside of the big three have won a total of 35 All Ireland's between them. That's 1 less than Kilkenny have in total.

The Big Three: 96
All other teams: 35

Yeah, hurling was always strong in the whole Island of Ireland.

bruschi · 21-07-2016 02:44PM

O Riain wrote: »

They should be delighted that a tiny little county in the South East is trying it's best to keep the hurling tradition alive when the likes of Wexford and Offaly have disappeared off the face of the planet.

yes, lets thank everyone for how great Waterford is keeping hurling tradition alive considering how Wexford have disappeared off the face of the planet.

I am genuinely curious as to how you think you are so far above Wexford? Nevermind even on the hurling field in games against each other, nor any recent AI wins, but the fact you are the ones keeping the tradition alive. Brilliant!

Talk about a high horse, superiority complex and condescending all in one post.

Whiplash85 · 21-07-2016 03:59PM

O Riain wrote: »

So is it the system or the players that is not up to scratch? You say the players are not worth anything but then blame the system. Which is it?

A lot of these players are very young, still under 21 but up to this point they have won every competition there is to win except for senior competitions. That will come with age.

Everybody seems to be blaming Waterford for the recent 'demise' of hurling. I can tell you one thing, hurling has never been strong. At any one time you only have about 2 or 3 teams max that could be counted as real All Ireland contenders and then frequent trashing handed out to the other teams. Those teams that get thrashed by the genuine contenders would then be able to hand out epic beatings to weaker teams themselves. The gulf is massive, not enough counties involved and not enough teams who could actually win the bloody thing.

Hurling has been on it's knees for a long long time now, don't blame Waterford for that. But then, people in Kilkenny and Tipperary would be happy with hurling being dead as a sport in Ireland as long they keep winning the All Ireland. Absolutely disgraceful way of thinking. They should be delighted that a tiny little county in the South East is trying it's best to keep the hurling tradition alive when the likes of Wexford and Offaly have disappeared off the face of the planet.

Edit: Up to this year, all the teams outside of the big three have won a total of 35 All Ireland's between them. That's 1 less than Kilkenny have in total.

The Big Three: 96
All other teams: 35

Yeah, hurling was always strong in the whole Island of Ireland.

Another absolute load of waffle and condescension. Could you point out in my post where I said the current side aren't worth anything?
By the way Wexford have been far more successful at minor and U21 in recent years than Waterford. Won numerous underage titles and beating Kilkenny and Dublin sides (who have been financially backed to the hilt). Have Waterford beaten Wexford ever in championship hurling in senior. Indeed Wexford have won an All Ireland in recent memory in 1996. You could get a right land on Sunday if Wexford reappear on that planet of yours where you reside.

Whiplash85 · 21-07-2016 04:05PM

Whiplash85 wrote: »

Another absolute load of waffle and condescension. Could you point out in my post where I said the current side aren't worth anything?
By the way Wexford have been far more successful at minor and U21 in recent years than Waterford. Won numerous underage titles and beating Kilkenny and Dublin sides (who have been financially backed to the hilt). Have Waterford beaten Wexford ever in championship hurling in senior. Indeed Wexford have won an All Ireland in recent memory in 1996. You could get a right land on Sunday if Wexford reappear on that planet of yours where you reside.

Plus people are not lamenting the relative weakness of the game in other counties. Its the optics. No one goes to see a game which is like an arm wrestle. They go to see entertaining one on one duels, high catches, great goals, kevin Broderick style points or a goal like Austin Gleeson scored in his break through year v's Cork. You dont get a scent of that normally when Waterford play.

Having said all that hurling needs a strong Cork at the top table again. It is not good for the GAA and hurling to see their demise. Kilkenny on the other hand....

con89 · 21-07-2016 05:49PM

Waterford have beaten Wexford in championship hurling. 2008, the sides have only met once in the championship since.

I wouldn't refer to 1996 as recent. And Wexford haven't been anywhere near AI success since. 5 semi final appearances in 20 years (the most recent of which was in 2007), and no AI final appearance since either.

I'm not saying we'll definitely beat them sunday, but what I am saying is, they certainly haven't been contenders recently.

con89 · 21-07-2016 07:09PM

I think the point O'Riain is making, is that Wexford, should possibly, have done better over the past 20 years.

They have a far bigger pick (population 150,000) than the likes of Carlow, Kilkenny, Waterford, Clare, Westmeath, Offaly, Kerry, Laois etc (and considering their footballers are still rooted to division 4), yet they've never been seen as real championship contenders since 1996.

PTH2009 · 21-07-2016 10:07PM

Galways Alan Kelly referee Sunday in our game

Don't knw much about him TBH

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

Comments

Waterford GAA Discussion Thread 3 Updated Mod Note Post 1