Official 2011 All Ireland Hurling Championship Thread

[treaty_exile]

@Watch The Break

That’s a key point in fairness. I think there’s a misinterpretation of what tactics actually are and a lot of confusion because of it.

Tactics are just a set of principles or patterns that you adopt when you’re trying to achieve a certain objective. So when you engage in competitive activity you are by definition using some sort of tactics. I think people perceive of tactical planning as an extremely detailed and complex blueprint for how you will approach a game but it typically isn’t.

Kilkenny’s tactical approach builds upon their technical excellence which gives them obvious and major advantages, and because of those strengths they can choose to play the direct attacking game that they do. They dominate most teams in the air and have (or had) forwards who were vastly superior to their counterparts in other teams when it came to winning 50-50 ball. They can choose not to focus on running with the ball and creating overlaps because that doesn’t play to their strengths. But other teams don’t have that luxury. That doesn’t mean they are over-complicating the game, it simply reflects the reality that they’d be eaten alive if they tried to play like Kilkenny do. If a team could run up match winning scores by simply driving long ball down the field they’d do it! They don’t abandon that approach for the hell of it. They move away from it because it doesn’t work for them.

To reiterate the key point, tactics are not an extremely complex set of maneuvers that are outlined for players before each game, they are simply the principles that are coached into players and the patterns of play that are practiced. Every single team has these. Just because they don’t talk about it doesn’t mean they’re not there. The very fact that they exist however, tells you that there are elements to how a team sets out to win games that will ultimately influence their success. This is recognised in every field sport in the world. Hurling might be ‘different’, but it’s not that different.

this bit really needs to be forwarded to Messrs McIntyre and FitzGerald

[caoimhaoin]

Not sure has it been mentioned, but i only got a delayed viewing. I actually think Davy was just making sure Waterford didn’t get hammered last sunday. Now if true there is 2 ways of looking at it

a. He was thinking ahead and didn’t want the new lads taking a hammering and in the process got them used to playing the big guns in CP and they’ll be all the better for it in the long run.

b. Davy is concerned about his own welfare only and his image and didn’t want another hammering. It also keeps his optuions open in relation to both staying on or going back to Clare.

Having read and seen his interviews i’m inclined to think b. But i don’t really like Davy anyway and think he’s a bluffer, so maybe i’m biased. Any opinions?

[Gman]

I’d agree to an extent Kev. It did seem to me like Waterford were playing not to be hammered, and I never thought they really were in a position to win that game. Any time they started getting close, KK knocked over a couple of points. It was like they were toying with them. Waterford were set up that they wouldnt concede a huge amount, seen moreso in the last few minutes when they rigidly held their defensive positions despite KK only having one forward.

as to the logic behind it? dont know. but I do think Davy is a bluffer.

what was he on about when he said Walsh pushed a man and then there was a thrown handpass for the second goal? Walsh was no where near any player, and the only handpass I saw was Fennellys which was perfect?

[Watch_The_Break]

@caoimhaoin

Not sure has it been mentioned, but i only got a delayed viewing. I actually think Davy was just making sure Waterford didn’t get hammered last sunday. Now if true there is 2 ways of looking at it

a. He was thinking ahead and didn’t want the new lads taking a hammering and in the process got them used to playing the big guns in CP and they’ll be all the better for it in the long run.

b. Davy is concerned about his own welfare only and his image and didn’t want another hammering. It also keeps his optuions open in relation to both staying on or going back to Clare.

Having read and seen his interviews i’m inclined to think b. But i don’t really like Davy anyway and think he’s a bluffer, so maybe i’m biased. Any opinions?

The way I’d see it, and I know plenty would disagree, is that the ‘trying not to get hammered’ interpretation is just being super-imposed onto the game. It’s impossible to disprove so it’s a big of a bogus allegation. I don’t buy into the 'paralysed by fear" stuff being touted in the examiner at all. They knew they’d have to bolster their defence to live with the Kilkenny attack. The fact that they’re being blamed for doing that is a bit silly. As is the fact that they’re getting no credit for how well they did in stifling Kilkenny.

[fenwaypark]

@Watch The Break

That’s a key point in fairness. I think there’s a misinterpretation of what tactics actually are and a lot of confusion because of it.

Tactics are just a set of principles or patterns that you adopt when you’re trying to achieve a certain objective. So when you engage in competitive activity you are by definition using some sort of tactics. I think people perceive of tactical planning as an extremely detailed and complex blueprint for how you will approach a game but it typically isn’t.

Kilkenny’s tactical approach builds upon their technical excellence which gives them obvious and major advantages, and because of those strengths they can choose to play the direct attacking game that they do. They dominate most teams in the air and have (or had) forwards who were vastly superior to their counterparts in other teams when it came to winning 50-50 ball. They can choose not to focus on running with the ball and creating overlaps because that doesn’t play to their strengths. But other teams don’t have that luxury. That doesn’t mean they are over-complicating the game, it simply reflects the reality that they’d be eaten alive if they tried to play like Kilkenny do. If a team could run up match winning scores by simply driving long ball down the field they’d do it! They don’t abandon that approach for the hell of it. They move away from it because it doesn’t work for them.

To reiterate the key point, tactics are not an extremely complex set of maneuvers that are outlined for players before each game, they are simply the principles that are coached into players and the patterns of play that are practiced. Every single team has these. Just because they don’t talk about it doesn’t mean they’re not there. The very fact that they exist however, tells you that there are elements to how a team sets out to win games that will ultimately influence their success. This is recognised in every field sport in the world. Hurling might be ‘different’, but it’s not that different.

agree with all that

[caoimhaoin]

@Watch The Break

The way I’d see it, and I know plenty would disagree, is that the ‘trying not to get hammered’ interpretation is just being super-imposed onto the game. It’s impossible to disprove so it’s a big of a bogus allegation. I don’t buy into the 'paralysed by fear" stuff being touted in the examiner at all. They knew they’d have to bolster their defence to live with the Kilkenny attack. The fact that they’re being blamed for doing that is a bit silly. As is the fact that they’re getting no credit for how well they did in stifling Kilkenny.

Ya fine, bolster the defence, KK do that sure. But they didn’t really have a plan for attacking or winning the game. They seemed to be hoping Mullane and one or two others did well.As you say, it improssible to prove or otherwise, but i’m personally not overly convinced either by Davys management skills or his motives for the way he plays or the things he says.

[fenwaypark]

@caoimhaoin

Ya fine, bolster the defence, KK do that sure. But they didn’t really have a plan for attacking or winning the game. They seemed to be hoping Mullane and one or two others did well.As you say, it improssible to prove or otherwise, but i’m personally not overly convinced either by Davys management skills or his motives for the way he plays or the things he says.

kev,
what tactics would you have employed for waterford?

[caoimhaoin]

@fenwaypark

kev,
what tactics would you have employed for waterford?

No idea really fenway without having the players at my disposal. It was just a general attitude from the players and how the they weren’t geared up to go at it at the right times. Their managers comments and general attitude is erally what arose my suspicions though.

I personally think, in a general sense and if you are not Tipp, the way to go at KK is to be incredibly fit, go man to man and fight with them, almost literally. Now maybe W’ford were too young for that, but Dublin gave them a template in the league Final. I know the Dubs got a pasting later on, but they rattled them (and were weaker for Leinster Final) and i think Sunday they were there to be really rattled.

If Ritchie Foley could come on why couldn’t he start, i’d have started him.

[Big_Dan_Campbell]

@caoimhaoin

No idea really fenway without having the players at my disposal. It was just a general attitude from the players and how the they weren’t geared up to go at it at the right times. Their managers comments and general attitude is erally what arose my suspicions though.

I personally think, in a general sense and if you are not Tipp, the way to go at KK is to be incredibly fit, go man to man and fight with them, almost literally. Now maybe W’ford were too young for that, but Dublin gave them a template in the league Final. I know the Dubs got a pasting later on, but they rattled them (and were weaker for Leinster Final) and i think Sunday they were there to be really rattled.

If Ritchie Foley could come on why couldn’t he start, i’d have started him.

Waterford did rattle them physically and were well in the game until the second goal. the fact was that they hadn’t the forwards to put up a score to beat Kilkenny

[fenwaypark]

@caoimhaoin

No idea really fenway without having the players at my disposal. It was just a general attitude from the players and how the they weren’t geared up to go at it at the right times. Their managers comments and general attitude is erally what arose my suspicions though.

I personally think, in a general sense and if you are not Tipp, the way to go at KK is to be incredibly fit, go man to man and fight with them, almost literally. Now maybe W’ford were too young for that, but Dublin gave them a template in the league Final. I know the Dubs got a pasting later on, but they rattled them (and were weaker for Leinster Final) and i think Sunday they were there to be really rattled.

If Ritchie Foley could come on why couldn’t he start, i’d have started him.

FFS that this shite again. it only matters when it matters.

[fenwaypark]

@chewy louie

Waterford did rattle them physically and were well in the game until the second goal. the fact was that they hadn’t the forwards to put up a score to beat Kilkenny

+1

[Sidney]

@caoimhaoin

Ya fine, bolster the defence, KK do that sure. But they didn’t really have a plan for attacking or winning the game. They seemed to be hoping Mullane and one or two others did well.As you say, it improssible to prove or otherwise, but i’m personally not overly convinced either by Davys management skills or his motives for the way he plays or the things he says.

I was deeply unimpressed by the way Waterford started the second half. After the way they played in the first half and having really tested Kilkenny the least you expect is that they start the second half with a bit of fire in the belly. They were meek and mild against a team which was going through the motions. It was only later they realised Kilkenny were beatable on the day.

[The_Runt]

@caoimhaoin

No idea really fenway without having the players at my disposal. It was just a general attitude from the players and how the they weren’t geared up to go at it at the right times. Their managers comments and general attitude is erally what arose my suspicions though.

I personally think, in a general sense and if you are not Tipp, the way to go at KK is to be incredibly fit, go man to man and fight with them, almost literally. Now maybe W’ford were too young for that, but Dublin gave them a template in the league Final. I know the Dubs got a pasting later on, but they rattled them (and were weaker for Leinster Final) and i think Sunday they were there to be really rattled.

If Ritchie Foley could come on why couldn’t he start, i’d have started him.

Any manager using a league performance as a template for a championship performance would want his head examined

[Big_Dan_Campbell]

@The Runt

Any manager using a league performance as a template for a championship performance would want his head examined

Ger Loughnane was well known for throwing league games for use of a better word in order to provide motivation for when they would meet the same side in the champioship

[Watch_The_Break]

@chewy louie

Waterford did rattle them physically and were well in the game until the second goal. the fact was that they hadn’t the forwards to put up a score to beat Kilkenny

I thought Waterford actually did really well for 40 mins before rallying again briefly near the end. How many teams over the last 5 years have made Kilkenny look as ordinary as they did on Sunday? All of a sudden the Kilkenny in terminal decline narrative is back, replacing the ‘Kilkenny are back’ story that followed the Leinster final. It looks like their reward for working Kilkenny as hard as they did is to be told that they met a vulnerable Kilkenny and missed the chance. I think that’s very unfair.

Regarding their attacking play they moved the ball at great speed to supporting players around the middle which gave them a certain some scoring opportunities, but also gave them a platform for delivering targeted ball inside. They didn’t maintain that intensity throughout which is what ultimately defeated them. I don’t know that going both barrels with no additional measures taken to safeguard their defence would have worked. I think you’d find it difficult to come up with a credible argument that it would have. Making sure that Kilkenny didn’t rape them at the back had to be part of their plan and that necessarily leaves you short up front. You can’t have it both ways.

I found some of the post-match analysis a bit too critical of Waterford’s short game as well. There’ll always be an argument in hurling for moving the ball fast but what if it doesn’t work? If Hickey and Tyrell were winning every long ball that went it should they have carried on regardless? If long ball is generating a return then by all means, deliver it. But Waterford didn’t have the tools to make that style work and they had to try another way. You can criticise the overall preparation of the team and say they should be able to play that kind of game, but the fact is that it would have been disastrous if they had suddenly decided to play that way against Kilkenny on Sunday.

[Sidney]

What has happpened to Richie Foley? He was running pretty much a one man show for Waterford in the first league game this year against Dublin.

[fenwaypark]

@sid waddell

What has happpened to Richie Foley? He was running pretty much a one man show for Waterford in the first league game this year against Dublin.

he was injured for a good spell post league i believe

[fenwaypark]

@Watch The Break

I thought Waterford actually did really well for 40 mins before rallying again briefly near the end. How many teams over the last 5 years have made Kilkenny look as ordinary as they did on Sunday? All of a sudden the Kilkenny in terminal decline narrative is back, replacing the ‘Kilkenny are back’ story that followed the Leinster final. It looks like their reward for working Kilkenny as hard as they did is to be told that they met a vulnerable Kilkenny and missed the chance. I think that’s very unfair.

Regarding their attacking play they moved the ball at great speed to supporting players around the middle which gave them a certain some scoring opportunities, but also gave them a platform for delivering targeted ball inside. They didn’t maintain that intensity throughout which is what ultimately defeated them. I don’t know that going both barrels with no additional measures taken to safeguard their defence would have worked. I think you’d find it difficult to come up with a credible argument that it would have. Making sure that Kilkenny didn’t rape them at the back had to be part of their plan and that necessarily leaves you short up front. You can’t have it both ways.

I found some of the post-match analysis a bit too critical of Waterford’s short game as well. There’ll always be an argument in hurling for moving the ball fast but what if it doesn’t work? If Hickey and Tyrell were winning every long ball that went it should they have carried on regardless? If long ball is generating a return then by all means, deliver it. But Waterford didn’t have the tools to make that style work and they had to try another way. You can criticise the overall preparation of the team and say they should be able to play that kind of game, but the fact is that it would have been disastrous if they had suddenly decided to play that way against Kilkenny on Sunday.

WTB,
You are very articulate in making your points

[Sidney]

Watch the Break = An Moltoir

[cluaindiuic]

@cluaindiuic

[size=3][font=arial]I have to say that the tactics that Waterford employed were baffling. While the strategy of employing an extra midfielder worked quite well and they did win a lot of ball around midfield as a result, they failed to convert this possession into scores. At half time they were six points down and needed to try and get back into the game. Instead of identifying the problem at hand they continued with the third midfielder. The real problem now was that it resulted in more of the same and Kilkenny were 10 points up and coasting. Continuing with the extra midfielder meant that Kilkenny had an extra defender which made getting a goal which would bring them back into the game even more difficult to score. Stephen Molumphy had a decent goal chance but skied it. Then came the real white flag of surrender. 56[sup]th[/sup] minute. 9 points down. 21 yard free, Shanahan point. While Waterford got it back to 5 points at one point, Kilkenny powered on in the final 10 minutes and the game descended into a bizarre game of tennis. Waterford at this point persisted in their extra midfielder. It seemed as though the extra Waterford midfielder and the extra Kilkenny defender were just hitting ball back and forth to each other for the final 10 minutes. During which, Kilkenny hit a number of poor wides and Waterford routinely had 10 players within their own 45.[/font][/size]

[size=3][font=arial]This all begs the question: Did Waterford ever have any intention of attempting to win the game? I have no doubt the players tried their best and fought hard until the final whistle but they were never set up tactically in a manner which would put them in a position to realistically get within a goal of Kilkenny. When you are 3 goals down why take off 2 of your biggest goal threats? [Shane Walsh and Eoin Kelly, from 21 yard frees][/font][/size]

@caoimhaoin

Not sure has it been mentioned, but i only got a delayed viewing. I actually think Davy was just making sure Waterford didn’t get hammered last sunday. Now if true there is 2 ways of looking at it

a. He was thinking ahead and didn’t want the new lads taking a hammering and in the process got them used to playing the big guns in CP and they’ll be all the better for it in the long run.

b. Davy is concerned about his own welfare only and his image and didn’t want another hammering. It also keeps his optuions open in relation to both staying on or going back to Clare.

Having read and seen his interviews i’m inclined to think b. But i don’t really like Davy anyway and think he’s a bluffer, so maybe i’m biased. Any opinions?

Yeah, watching in the Hogan stand and still now I don’t understand the Waterford mindset.