an moltoirâs views on the Waterford V Galway match
[color="#2288bb"]THE CONSISTENCY OF GALWAYâS INCONSISTENCY
Predicting the trends and outcomes of hurling matches is a game for fools and professional sports writers. Who could have envisaged Corkâs first round destruction of Tipperary last year, or Tippâs seven goal trouncing of Waterford in this yearâs Munster final?
Trying to draw a line of form between successive matches is equally futile. A case in point: In 2003, Waterford and Limerick played an epic, rip-roaring, free-scoring Munster semi-final which ended in a draw, 4-13 apiece. In the replay a week later, the same two teams produced a game of abysmal turgidity, with Waterford scraping over the line by 1-12 to 0-13, an extraordinarily low score for hurling at that level.
Prior to last Sundayâs All-Ireland Quarter Final between Galway and Waterford, the professional pundits mainly focused on Waterfordâs blow-out in the Munster Final and its psychological impact on the players, and on Galwayâs decisive qualifer victories against Cork and Clare. The Sunday Times assembled an expert panel which spent some time speculating on how Galway would fare against Kilkenny in the All-Ireland semi-final. Their advice for Waterford was to âthrow in the young ladsâ and âlet them offâ. Chief Sports Writer Denis Walsh expected a âdemoralised DĂ©iseâ to be no problem for a settled, in-form and âformidableâ Galway team high in confidence.
However, if one poked deeper into the entrails, one could have found alternative pointers. Waterford have a core of seasoned players, and last Sunday were seeking to qualify for their sixth semi-final in a row and their eighth in ten years. They won the Munster championship last year. They played a lot of good hurling in this yearâs national league, despite trying out a lot of new players, and came within a whisker of getting to the final. In their last league game, despite being seriously under strength, they put one over on a strong (on paper) Galway team which was also playing for a place in the final.
There clearly therefore was a lot of quality in the Waterford squad, with additional depth provided by the emergence of new young talent. Our analysis suggested that their Munster final performance was attributable, in large part, to Davy Fitzgeraldâs tactical ineptitude, team selection and player placement, and the impact this had on the teamâs collective morale. That said, despite Tippâs goal blitz, they never caved in, and kept plugging away to the end, racking up a creditable 19 points in the process.
For last Sundayâs game, Davyâs tactical concoctions were binned and a much stronger team was put on the field, with most players in their best positions. Instead of the âyoung ladsâ, the key additions to the team were Seamus Prendergast and Eoin Kelly, hardened veterans with something to prove. The rumour mill suggests that player power played a key role in this turnaround in approach. Waterford came to Thurles last Sunday to play hurling, and to do so with resolve and commitment. They will also no doubt have received a fillip by the way the countyâs minors recovered from their own poor showing in the Munster Final to beat Kilkenny decisively in the All-Ireland quarter final on Saturday night.
So how were Galway likely to respond to this challenge? There are several elements involved in answering that question. First of all, how good are they really? They had beaten a callow Clare outfit saddled with a naĂŻve tactical approach and shorn of a player for most of the second half, and had similarly won well over a Cork team weak in personnel and morale. However, against Dublin, a team of real substance (in both physical and hurling terms) they were, in a word, pathetic.
Secondly, did Galway believe all the media hype and expect that all they had to do was turn up last Sunday? Perhaps they should have heeded the words of former defender Greg Kennedy, quoted in the Sunday Times: âWe should beat Waterford if weâre tuned in but Iâd be wary of Waterford tooâ. Thirdly, how would a team of Galwayâs legendary flakiness cope with being 1/4 favourites in some betting emporia?
Another factor which may have been of some significance was the fact that the game was being played in Thurles, a pitch where Galway play rarely in the championship and where their record is not good: In the ten years prior to last Sunday they had played there just six times and lost four times. By contrast, Thurles is almost like a home from home for Waterford. They love playing there, partly because they nearly always win there: in the same time period, they played no less than 19 championship games in Semple Stadium, winning 13, drawing three and losing just three times. These things can be important, especially when you are trying to rediscover past form.
Well, we know at least some of the answers now. Last Sunday Galway were almost as bad as they were against Dublin (and for much of the second half they were worse). Denis Walshâs assertion (in the Sunday Times) that Waterford âdonât have the power to bully Galway like Dublin didâ looks foolhardy now, as does his suggestion that Galway âhave the better hurlers and the more balanced teamâ compared with Waterford.
While Galwayâs second half collapse seemed surprising after a reasonably competitive first half, on reflection there were telltale signs of what was to come. They did have a slight edge in obtaining primary possession, winning the majority of the puckouts (69% of Waterfordâs and 41% of their own). However, they were not able to turn this into territorial advantage, as they were only able to manage 13 shots in the half compared to Waterfordâs 19. This is attributable to a combination of poor use of the ball and the tenacity and force of Waterfordâs harrying and tackling.
There were also clear signs that Galway were not properly tuned in, as Greg Kennedy feared. James Skehill sent one puckout out over the sideline while Adrian Cullinane failed to control a short puckout which went out for a Waterford sideline. Shortly afterwards, Cullinane, in oceans of space, sent an intended long ball to Joe Canning out over the sideline while Tony Ăg Regan overhit a free intended for Canning with the ball bouncing harmlessly over the end line near the corner flag.
Galwayâs tactical use of Joe Canning was also hard to fathom. Given the ravaging they experienced in the Munster final, one might have expected the Waterford full back line (and goalkeeper) to be rather fragile psychologically, especially their inexperienced full back in whom Davy Fitzgerald clearly has little confidence. In the circumstances, one might have expected Galway to go for the jugular, placing Canning on the edge of the square and raining ball down on him. Kilkenny certainly would have done that with Henry Shefflin.
Instead, Galway placed Canning on the left wing where he became the target for both long balls and short passing movements. This strategy did yield a few points but never threatened the Waterford goal. In fact the only two times the Waterford goal came under threat in the first half was courtesy of their own mistakes â the first when Noel Connorsâs failure to clear the ball allowed Iarla Tannian in for the foul which yielded Canningâs penalty goal, and a misdirected attempt at a short pass from a sideline which allowed Damien Hayes to come in along the end line and place a pass in front of the incoming Iarla Tannian only for Darragh Fives to clear away the danger with a superb flick.
Two sure measures of the poverty of the Galway attacking strategy were the facts that Waterford goalkeeper Clinton Hennessy didnât have to play the ball once apart from puckouts and frees in the first half and that full back Liam Lawlor got his first touch of the ball in the second minute of added time. Even then, all he had to do was pick up, unmarked, a loose ball sent into the corner by Galway and unload it to full back colleague Fives to complete the clearance.
Ironically, when Galway did change tack and place Canning at full forward at the beginning of the second half, it had the effect of taking him completely out of the game such was the extent of the Galway collapse in the third quarter. Galwayâs lack of concentration and discipline was reflected in the fact that Waterfordâs first three points after the restart came from silly fouls â a needless tug on Brick Walsh in midfield, Donal Barry dragging Padraig Mahony down when he didnât even have the ball, and Dave Collinsâs stupid strike on Eoin Kelly as the ball was bouncing harmlessly wide.
When Waterford followed these up with two points from play, Galway visibly caved in, and only a sequence of poor shooting by the rampant Waterford forwards saved the westerners from total ignominy. It was nine minutes into the second half before Galway managed their first shot at goal of the half, and another minute before they got their first score. It took them another ten minutes to get their second score â and this was Joe Canningâs first time to play the ball in the half, over 20 minutes after the restart.
With substitute Cyril Donnellan winning some primary ball, and fellow substitute Barry Daly showing a level of effort rare in his colleagues, Galway did win some good possession in the final quarter, but they were largely reduced to shooting for goal from outside the 20 metres line and, while one of these did get through, overall there is little percentage in this. Thus Waterford sauntered to the finish line, their day capped off by TomĂĄs Ryanâs late goal, an event which was sullied by Tony Ăg Reganâs nasty blow across Ryanâs hand, delivered well after the latter had got his shot away.
The overall play count provides stark testimony to the poverty of the Galway effort. In the first half Waterford made 100 plays, amounting to 233 quality points (for an average of 2.33) in our system where plays are rated on a scale of 1-5, while Galway made 87 plays for a total of 194 quality points (average 2.23). Thus, not only were Waterford playing the ball more, but they were making better use of it. However, the extent of Galwayâs second half collapse was staggering. While Waterford increased their play count to 109 for a quality points total of 279 (an extraordinary average of 2.55), Galwayâs play count fell precipitously to just 63 for 144 quality points (average 2.29).
In essence what this means is that Waterford were twice as good as Galway in the second half. They won the majority both of their own (60%) and of Galwayâs (58%) puckouts, and at one stage in the third quarter they won six Galway puckouts in a row. They also had 24 shots at goal to Galwayâs 14, for an overall total of 43 shots to Galwayâs 27.
When compiling the individual play statistics, our initial main interest was to establish whether Kevin Moran or Brick Walsh would emerge as man of the match in terms of plays and quality points. However, it quickly became apparent that a third Waterford player was also very much in the running, this being midfielder Shane OâSullivan, whose excellent distribution in finding colleagues with well directed and weighted long passes was a particular feature of the game. Ultimately, Brick Walsh shaded the play count (24 to OâSullivanâs 23) but the roles were reversed in terms of quality points, with OâSullivan amassing 60 to Walshâs 57. Not far behind was Kevin Moran with 52 quality points from 20 plays.
Thus, between them, the Waterford midfielders (OâSullivan and Moran) made 43 plays for 112 quality points compared with just 27/60 for their opposite numbers (David Burke and Andy Smith and their replacements Barry Daly and Aidan Harte).
Similarly, the Waterford half back line of Tony Browne, Brick Walsh and David OâSullivan made 46 plays for 108 quality points compared with just 26 plays and 48 quality points for the Galway half backs (Donal Barry, Tony Ăg Regan and Adrian Cullinane, and Barryâs and Cullinaneâs replacements Kevin Hynes and John Lee). This is a measure of the extent of Waterfordâs dominance in the key ball-winning areas of the pitch over the course of the game.
Apart from OâSullivan, Walsh and Moran, Waterford had six other players who exceeded 30 quality points â John Mullane (45 points from 20 plays), Seamus Prendergast (38/18), Shane Walsh (37/12), Steve Molumphy (36/15), the remarkable Tony Browne (32/14) and Padraig Mahony (30/14 â showing that he is much more than just a freetaker). By contrast, Galway had only two players who broke the 30 point threshold â Joe Canning (43/17) and Shane Kavanagh (42/15) who, despite being subjected to a torrid time by Shane Walsh, still did a lot of good work (albeit some of it was done further out the field when Kavanagh was moved off Walsh in the second half).
Galway had some horror totals at the other end of the scoring spectrum. Donal Barry played the ball twice during 40 minutes on the pitch. One wonders how James Regan lasted the whole game as he only made three plays, the most significant of which was a gift of a point in the first half when Darragh Fives failed to control a short puckout which he didnât appear to be expecting. While Ger Farragher did reasonably well in the first half when Galway were still semi-competitive, he disappeared completely from view after the change of ends, getting his first second half touch in the 62nd minute. Once again, Farragher demonstrated that, while he can be devastating when Galway are on top and supplying him with good ball, he is of little use when the going gets tough and the supply dries up.
Other features of the Galway performance were that Andy Smith didnât play one ball during the 16 minutes he played in the second half, that Iarla Tannian managed just three ineffectual plays in the entire half, and that Cyril Donnellan amassed a very respectable 18 quality points from seven plays during his 32-minute second half stint.
So Galway go back to a drawing board that must be rutted by now with chalk marks. One imagines at this stage that it will take a Second Coming before they become serious All-Ireland contenders (and we are not talking about Joe Cooney here). Meanwhile, Waterford move on to a semi-final tilt against the Cats with nothing to lose but their increasingly weighty historical chains.
Play counts (plays/quality points)
WATERFORD (209/512): Hennessy C (3/9); Fives D (8/21); Lawlor L (9/23); Connors N (10/24); Browne T (14/32); Walsh M (24/57); OâSullivan D (8/19); OâSullivan S (23/60); Moran K (20/52); Prendergast S (18/38); Molumphy S (15/36); Mahony, P (14/30); Mullane J (20/45); Walsh S (12/37); Kelly E (10/25); Ryan T (1/4); Foley R, Casey S, Prendergast D (no plays).
GALWAY (144/338): Skehill J (2/5); Moore F (10/24); Kavanagh S (15/42); Collins D (6/13); Barry D (2/3); Regan T (10/18); Cullinane A (7/14); Burke D (11/21); Smith A (7/16); Gantley J (5/11); Farragher G (9/20); Canning J (7/43); Hayes D (13/29); Regan J (3/6); Donnellan C (7/18); Hynes K (4/7); Lee J (3/6); Harte A (4/10); Daly B (5/13).