Fair point Appendage, should I start a seperate match thread altogetherā¦ 
[quote=āTurenne, post: 463222ā]
Basically, what Cork are trying to do a lot of the time is isolate Aisake with the full back with no support from the corners or the center back and get him to run at the fucker - worst case scenario you get a free, best case you he gets a goal. [/quote]
:blink:
Seriously will you ever give over the hard on you have for Aisake, that is the biggest load of bollocks I have read in a whileā¦
Thereās your problem, heās run at them, not around them. I was dead in line with him for one ball he got Saturday night, he had a good yard on Lawlor, but instead of going on past him, he turned back into him and tired to win his free. He either got blown up or dispossessed. If he had kept going straight he would have made it much more difficult for Lawlor.
Good reply. :rolleyes:
Fair enough point, he does want to run through players a little too much, and this thing of putting his arm/hurley into the top half of the defending player to push him off could easily be seen as charging. Suprised he has yet to be caught for it.
He got blown for two frees on Saturday night, I think the first was for over carrying but he was at the far end of the pitch from me for the 2nd, can you remember what it was for? it looked like it was for charging from where I was but I couldnāt be sure.
Tickets are ā¬35 for the hurling Sunday and the Hill isnāt open.
Expect another empty Croker for it.
:o
Shocking shite from Croke Park, they are just flogging it now.
For all the plaudits for Lawlor, Iād still be surprised if Richie Power didnāt destroy him.
Not to add fuel to the fire, but Aisake has no touch and apparently no idea what to do if the ball isnāt dropping into his hand ten yards from goal. Cork have gone from being the most tactically astute team in the country, to adopting the most neanderthal method in gaelic games.
To be honest Iām glad, because if some 6ā7" giant with very little hurling could be thrown into the inter-county game and make a massive impact then it would diminish the sport greatly for me. That sort of shit is what football is for.
Would be shocked if there is more than 25,000 thereā¦Presume Cork wonāt travel due to playing the last two weekends and the fact that it is Antrim, while Galway fans are terrible to travelā¦Would nearly have made more sense to play Tipp V Galway in Limerick or Ennis and Antrim V Cork in Portlaoiseā¦
Cork will have nothing there, only the Dublin Cork crowd.
I donāt think anyone is saying he is the finished article, he looked very green against Clare and made a good few errors but got away with them, thought he was solid Saturday night but as you say he was up against a limited hurlerā¦He won a few balls and took them out of defense well rather than just looking to clear his lines, in fairness Power on his day is a class act in terms of his touch and movement if a little inconsistent, it will be interesting to see how Lawlor will go against a Canning or a Kelly/Corbett in a few weeks
For all the plaudits for Lawlor, Iād still be surprised if Richie Power didnāt destroy him.
Of course he will, Lawlor is mediocre as fuck.
Not to add fuel to the fire,
apparently no idea what to do if the ball isnāt dropping into his hand ten yards from goal.
Yes, we saw that in the first Waterford game for example, when he picked up the ball ten yards out and buried it in the net. And he was shite when we played Tipp as wellā¦ :lol:
His touch has improved significantly - it still isnāt great, but its much better then it was this time last year and not as bad as people suggest.
Seriously, lads obssession with Aisake purely because of his surname and height is hilarious. The rest of the Cork attack must be delighted, most of them did less then Aisake did but everyone wants to pick on the 6ā7" giraffe. :huh:
http://anmoltoir-hurling.blogspot.com/
CORK TACTICS AND WATERFORDāS BETTER ACCURACY KEY FACTORS IN DĆISE VICTORY
Counting and evaluating individual plays is a key element in the analyses of hurling games presented in this column. Carrying this out for last Saturdayās Munster Final replay between Cork and Waterford was an unusually difficult task, for two reasons. Firstly, the playing of extra time meant that it would take longer than usual to complete the task. Secondly, the tightness of the exchanges made it unusually difficult to determine what actually constituted a play.
According to the system used by this column (which will be explained in greater detail whenever we get a quiet week in the hurling calendar), a play must confer a definite advantage on the team of the player making the play. A play does not necessarily involve actually striking the ball, but may include hooks, blocks and tackles where the ball is not struck. A lot of last Saturdayās game involved groups of players in āschemozzlesā rooting around trying to gain possession with the ball bobbing around without anyone obtaining a clear advantage. It can be difficult at times distinguishing in these situations plays which can be construed as working to the benefit of one team or another.
One consequence of the tightness of the exchanges, therefore, is that the ball was not being played (as we define it) a lot of the time. This is reflected in the low total number of plays which we eventually recorded. At 326, this was well below the average number of plays recorded in the six previous championship games this year for which play counts were computed which was 368. This includes the drawn Munster final for which the play count was 364 (which shows that the replay was a much tighter affair than the drawn game).
A second consequence of the tightness of the exchanges was that the average quality of play was well below normal (which would have been obvious anyway to any seasoned observer). In our rating system we give a score of one to undirected short kicks, flicks and knockdowns and most hooks and blocks especially in crowded situations where they are easy to administer. And there were a lot of such plays in last Saturdayās game. The average proportion of plays obtaining a score of one in the previous championship games this year was 23% ā last Saturday it was 36%.
And yet for all that, the game was a compelling contest which could have gone either way right down to the final whistle. In such games it is difficult to suggest that one or other team deserved to win, but in this case there are a couple of pointers as to why the final outcome was the correct one. Firstly, as in the drawn game, Waterford appeared to work that little bit harder, as reflected in a higher play count in all phases of the game: 93/83 in the first half, 76/73 in the second half and 55/50 in extra time for an overall count of 224/207 in favour of Waterford.
Despite this, Cork had the greater number of shots (or attempted shots) at goal, 32/27. This brings us to the second reason why Waterford deserved to win ā they were much more economical in converting shots into scores (63% to 44%).
A third reason why Waterford deserved to win was superior strategy and tactics. Essentially, Waterford simply repeated the game plan which they applied the first day, crowding midfield by withdrawing players from the forward line, having the six defenders holding their positions, employing Clinton Hennessy as a sweeper and denying Cork possession from their own puckouts. On the latter score Waterford won 62% of the Cork puckouts while breaking even on their own ā similar (but slightly better from Waterfordās point of view) statistics to the drawn game.
Waterfordās game plan might have worked to even better effect if they had been able to give better ball to their isolated forwards (especially John Mullane). However, frequently these balls were either too high or created one-on-one situations where Eoin Cadoganās strength was always going to work to his advantage (especially in the wet conditions).
Cork, by contrast, completely abandoned all semblance of their running game and resorted, from start to finish, to hitting either high balls in the general direction of the Waterford goal or directed long balls aimed at Aisake Ć hAilpĆn. The eschewal of the running game may have been related to the wet conditions, the absence of Jerry OāConnor (whose mobility appears to be fading in any case), Tom Kennyās recent injury record and the fact that Michael Cussen (employed for much of the game as a third midfielder) is obviously not suited to the running game. However, it is clear that the alternative was an abject failure.
During the course of the game, Cork sent no fewer than 23 long balls into the Waterford goal area and got possession from only five of them. The other key ploy - the directed long ball to Aisake Ć hAilpĆn - yielded better returns in terms of possession (Aisake got possession from six of nine long balls directed to him) but little in terms of results. Between long balls sent into the goalmouth, balls directed specifically to him, and other balls picked up, Aisake got possession ten times in all but only three of these yielded scores, two from passes by Aisake and one from a free after Aisake was fouled.
Given the low yield from long balls into the Waterford goal area, it is surprising that Cork never placed Michael Cussen at full forward at any stage (especially in view of the two goals he got against Waterford in the league). Cussen did a lot of hard work further out the field, but was rarely in a position where he could inflict serious damage on the opposition (the exception being where he earned Corkās second half penalty). As regards the latter, it was interesting seeing the Cork players having a conference out in the field to decide who should take the penalty with Pat Horgan off the field. John Gardiner was eventually nominated, but his chest-high shot was easy meat for the defenders on the line. It was also interesting to note that, apart from Clinton Hennessy, the two players on the line for Waterford were the two midfielders (Richie Foley and Shane OāSullivan). Further evidence here of better forethought and preparation on the part of the DĆ©ise men.
When Dan Shanahan scored Waterfordās goal, there was still almost eight minutes left on the clock, but Cork panicked and immediately went in search of a goal instead of looking for points which were more easily scored. In the period up to the 19th minute of extra time (after which Cork absolutely had to go for goal) we identified five situations where Cork could have shot for a point but didnāt. It is also worth noting that the only time Cork managed to threaten the Waterford goal in those hectic closing minutes was when the ball was worked in from the left via a passing movement leading to Cathal Naughtonās shot which Tony Browne stopped with his helmet.
Another example of players not thinking on their feet relates to the failure of both sides to make allowance for the wind direction when shooting for points. The wind was blowing diagonally across the field towards the town end of the new (Ryan) stand which meant that shots at the town end goal were likely to drift left and shots at the country goal were inclined to go right. In the first half, Cork hit five wides to the left of the town goal (Waterford had no wides in this half). In the second half, Waterford proceeded to hit the same number of wides at the same goal (three of them in the space of a few minutes by Eoin Kelly) while Cork hit one wide to the right of the country goal.
In extra time, Cork hit three shots wide to the right of the country goal and one wide to the left of the town goal while Waterford hit one wide to the right of the country goal (Eoin Kelly again). Thus, in total, between them the two teams managed to hit 16 wides either left of the town goal or right of the country goal. Given all the professionalism that now goes into the preparation of county teams in hurling, is it not surprising that the mentors on both sides were unable to instruct their charges on how to handle the wind (it obviously is too much to expect the players to figure it out themselves)?
The same two players who led the play count in the drawn game did so again in the replay. Not surprisingly, Michael Brick Walsh was way ahead of everyone else with 60 quality points from 28 plays (based on a quality rating scale of 1-4). Walsh had a powerful first half, was much quieter in the second, and then stormed back into the game in extra time. For Cork, Cathal Naughton again came top of the list with 51 points from 24 plays.
In second place for Waterford was the amazing Tony Browne with 43 points from 20 plays. Nineteen of those points came in extra time when Browne hit more ball and earned more points than any other player on the pitch. Other Waterford players to break the 30 points mark were Shane OāSullivan (37/16), Richie Foley (36/21) and Stephen Molumphy (32/17). In a game whose total play count was ten per cent down on the drawn game, the fact that Richie Foley doubled his quality points total had a significant bearing on the outcome of the the game.
It may surprise some that Corkās second busiest player ā by some distance ā was Michael Cussen who worked hard right through and emerged with a very impressive 45 points from 26 plays. Other Cork players to break the 30-point mark were John Gardiner (33/17) and Tom Kenny and Niall McCarthy (both 31/16). It is a sure reflection of Corkās abandonment of the running game that Ben OāConnor managed only 11 plays and 22 points compared with 16/35 in the drawn game. In fact OāConnor had only three plays in the second half and a single play in extra time (frees and sidelines are not included in the count).
One suspects also that Pat Horgan has been a major victim of Corkās new attacking strategy. Between the two games he only played the ball seven times and was completely marginalised. Surely Cork need a more varied approach which can bring such a talented player into the game.
Finally, on our regular topic of time allowed for stoppages, during the course of the game there were 15 stoppages for injuries and issuing of yellow cards. Based on the time between play coming to a halt and the referee blowing his whistle to resume play, these stoppages lasted 12 minutes & 13 seconds in total, while the amount of added time played by the referee was 7 minutes 54 seconds, leaving a shortfall of 4 minutes 19 seconds ā a long time in hurling terms (although it is unlikely that those in attendance at Thurles could have taken much more!). Surely it is time to emulate the women footballers and introduce the time clock.
[b]Team Play Counts (Quality Points in brackets):
Waterford: Hennessy C 7 (14), Connors N 8 (18), Lawlor L 6 (13) Murphy E 6 (12), Browne T 20 (43), Walsh M 28 (60) Prendergast D 15 (28), OāSullivan S 16 (37), Foley R 21 (36), Moran K 14 (25), Molumphy S 17 (32), Kelly E 14 (27), Mullane J 12 (25), Walsh S 9 (19), Prendergast S 9 (13), McGrath E 4 (6), Nagle J 4 (8), OāHalloran B 8 (13), Shanahan M 2 (3), Shanahan D 4 (10), McGrath K 0 (0).
Cork: Cusack D 7 (14); Murphy S 7 (12); Cadogan E 14 (25); Murphy B 12 (23); Gardiner J 17 (33); Curran R 10 (20); OāNeill S 4 (9); Kenny T 16 (31); Naughton C 24 (51); OāConnor B 11 (22); Cussen M 26 (45); McCarthy N 16 (31); Murphy K 9 (18); Ć hAilpĆn A 10 (16); Horgan P 3 (4); Ryan R 9 (20); OāSullivan P 7 (19); Egan W 2 (5); OāFarrell L 3 (5).[/b]
Fantastci again, thats the best yet iāve read.
Ray Ryan starting v Antrim and Horgan benched, as they say around these parts, you must be seethingā¦
The ork Senior Hurling team to play Antrim on Sunday at 2pm in Croke Park will line out as follows:
-
Donal Og Cusack
(Cloyne) -
Shane Murphy 3. Eoin Cadogan 4. Brian Murphy
(Erins Own) (Douglas) (Bride Rovers) -
John Gardiner 6. Ronan Curran 7. Ray Ryan
(Na Piarsaigh) (St. Finbarrs) (Sarsfields) -
Tom Kenny 9. Cathal Naughton
(Grenagh) (Newtownshandrum) -
Ben OāConnor 11. Michael Cussen 12. Niall McCarthy
(Newtownshandrum) (Sarsfields) (Carrigtwohill) -
Paudie OāSullivan 14. Aisake Ć hAilpĆn 15. Kieran Murphy
(Cloyne) (Na Piarsaigh) (Sars - Capt.)
:rolleyes:
Incredibly poor treatment of Horgan.
Given the lack of options in the half back line would Paudie be worth a shot back there, supposedly his best position and was allegedly outstanding there for the 21ās last yearā¦