Kilkenny never feared Galway
great to have this insight into Bolger’s mind.
Much and all as it would annoy the Jimmies on here, but I think O Hanlon is a serious weakspot in the team now. I havent been enamoured by his performances over the past couple of years but it is worse it is getting. I’d prefer to bring Jack O Connor to the half back line, retains that height and physicality, and bring in one of the quicker players like Dunbar or Dunne to the forward line. I doubt we’ll see it, O Hanlon is joint captain and obviously one of the mainstays of the team, but I think it would improve the side. Whether O Connor would go centre back or Paudi Foley, I think either way it would improve things both on the defensive central position and also improve scoring ability and goal threats in the forwards. It would weaken puck out winning ability in the half forward line, but realistically with our game plan, it is not a huge part of the set up.
How did Foley go in the sweeper role? Murphy seemed to be much better in an orthodox position himself.
Foley went fairly well and cut out a few balls and swept in behind a few times in each half. I’d like to see our extra defender, if we’re playing one, to be more influential rather than being stationed around the “D”. We let Dublin take short puck outs in the first half and I thought we could have pressed up on them.
Murphy marked Sutcliffe and spent a lot of time at centre back and a later spell at left half back. Dublin took a while in turn to figure out our puck outs. Foley was sweeping and O’Keeffe was darting back to give an option too. Sutcliffe and others were confused and, before they sent someone else up, Fanning had drilled a couple of nice 50 yards puck outs to Murphy who received, turned and banged them over from inside his own half.
O’Hanlon was nominally 6 but he’s playing that weird wing back shuttling up the line role that Davy likes and as highlighted by Derek McGrath last night. He was on Keaney and then David Treacy. He fumbled and lost an awful lot of ball. I agree that Jack O’Connor or someone would have the height and athleticism to play that role. Paudie Foley didn’t go that well yesterday either.
The full back line was good. Ryan did well on Rushe but had two sloppy clearances which Dublin returned over the bar in that second half spell where they went 5 up. K Foley, Murphy, O’Keeffe and McGovern coming deep kept us in it in that middle sector. Chin had a tremendous last 20 minutes and was good on the frees.
We lack some pace overall. We could really do with a fast cunt upfront if we’re withdrawing forwards and our half back line was caught for speed a few times.
1 Like
yeah thats exactly why I think the likes of Dunne, Dunbar or even Casey would be an option up front. Only for McDonald is a very good player, I dont think he should be there either. The structure Davy has in really doesnt suit the type of player he is. He is skilful and strong overhead, but lacks pace big time and has been really not fitting in for the last 3 years. Its unfortunate, any other set up in a more orthodox manner and he’d dominate. And I know more often than not he ends up playing as a half forward, but even so, if he was in full forward with a pair of quick corners either side, it would pose a much greater threat. It wont happen so no point really going on about it.
Good that Chin was spot on with the frees. Only missed one long range one. He was absolutely shocking on them in the Harriers club game in the first round, so to have this one should hopefully keep his confidence up. one of those things I think may come back to be a factor later on, but if he can keep up the accuracy, then it’ll be great.
@Gman - Casey and Dunbar strike me as posing a better threat when we need to change our game plan around the 50 mins mark and bring on fresh speedy legs. Maybe that’s a bit old fashioned in thinking that backs might have tired legs by that stage of the game
yeah that may work too.
No reason though to have Dunbar, Casey, Dunne and then McGovern and O Connor as viable options for pace and goal scoring threat with 3 of that 5 on the bench. Surely at least one of the 3 start to pose an early threat. I’d much rather be winning at 50 minutes bringing on a couple of pacy subs than having to chase the game at 50 minutes.
We have an abundance of grafting hard working forwards, both starting and on the bench, who can get a score or 2 in a game, but nothing that strikes fear into opposing backs who have to be on their guard early.
1 Like
Speed seems to one of our strengths, we should play to it,
Surround McDonald with speed, high ball towards him if the short game isnt working. We are far too predictable at present. I would be worried for the lack of pace in our half back line, we can carry one man with a lack of pace back there but not two.
Jim Bolger can fuck off too, i dont care how much money hes paying in…
Agreed. Made the same point pre-game. We’re currently too reactive and focused on trying to negate the opposition as opposed to being a little more attack minded and looking to impose ourselves on them.
It’s separate but somewhat related to Jim Bolger’s argument where he just wants us to lash it in. We could still play a short / running game if we had another fast lad inside but it may allow us to vary our game a bit more and release earlier balls in on occasion.
Thats it too. Hearing lads roar at matches “drive it in” when there is no one to drive it in to is just utterly pointless, Davy has his game plan, whether we like it or not, and it needs a fundamental positional change before we can just lump it in.
As you say though and like @count_of_monte_crist also mentions, having this positional change does not necessarily mean we have to give up on the short ball tactical game of working it through the lines and running at pace, but it would add to it and give a plan B which has been severely lacking for all of Davys reign and also raise the potential of unleashing Conor Mac to his full capabilities.
You’d wonder what the half time team talk consisted of
Thats ladies football, right? They’ve let girls into the CBS, cant be any other reason for it.
Unless they’re chaps who identify as ladies.
Not beyond belief
I know the pre-eminent hurling writer PM O’Sullivan thinks all this running around at pace is inefficient overall and he’s probably right.
When we get a move with pacy incisions, support runners and sharp passes then it looks excellent, e.g. Nolan’s save from Jack O’Connor, but it doesn’t flow often enough in games.
There’s also a fair few occasions where we’ve lads racing around the place to get free but then it breaks down and our defensive structure is loose. The highlights last night showed a few Dublin points where Cian Boland and others were able to solo run forward from their own half into acres of space and point without being challenged after we coughed up the ball.
The two goals actually came from a poor Dublin first touch being snapped up by us for the first and a defender being dispossessed on the way out for the second. But we did take the ball forward nicely, draw the defenders and work it to the loose player to finish well.
Not necessarily down to our short passing and running game though. Maybe the cumulative effect of defending all that running around leads to defensive mistakes. Maybe not. Fuck it, I dunno.
I’d just like to see us mix it up a bit and be more flexible.
2 Likes
@Gman, how does Parnell Park rank on the pitch size rankings? Seemed a large volume of scores taken from way out yesterday which would be unusual for both teams? Maybe it was just poor marking around the middle either though.
You could be onto something there!
1 Like
not exceptionally short to cause any major difference from other pitches. It is a bit narrower alright, but not hugely either and that wouldnt factor too much into long range scoring anyway. You see a lot more long range scores each passing year in hurling anyway.
Duignan out with the excuses again.