|
Post by kerrygold on Jan 28, 2019 21:26:06 GMT
Looking forward to this game at the weekend after a hugely positive start to PK's journey in charge of Kerry.
|
|
|
Post by wayupnorth on Jan 29, 2019 9:33:39 GMT
Just hope it’s not snowed off like the Monaghan match last year or if it is the traveling supporters get plenty of notice.
|
|
|
Post by oldschool on Jan 29, 2019 12:03:57 GMT
Really looking forward to this one. Hoping to see a bit more of Kerry's class. I would love to see them taking full advantage of the mark. Monaghan really used it to their advantage last Sunday. Exciting times.
|
|
|
Post by Mickmack on Jan 29, 2019 12:32:34 GMT
McManus caught a ball without raising his hands last sunday for Monaghan. The play was stopped and his got a free shot from about 40 yards because the guy who passed the ball to him was inside his own 45. I hope that rule is scrapped anyway.
|
|
|
Post by dc84 on Jan 29, 2019 13:58:42 GMT
McManus caught a ball without raising his hands last sunday for Monaghan. The play was stopped and his got a free shot from about 40 yards because the guy who passed the ball to him was inside his own 45. I hope that rule is scrapped anyway. Be fairly hard to enforce if its only over the head catches tbf
|
|
|
Post by oldschool on Jan 29, 2019 15:38:08 GMT
Imagine if we still had K Donaghy!!!!!! Tommy Walsh should be able to make hay with this attacking mark If the rule is in let's play it. I saw Tyrone playing for frees last Sunday.
Even though we beat Tyrone and played great football and with great heart I feel our kick out still needs work.
|
|
|
Post by dc84 on Jan 29, 2019 16:22:16 GMT
Imagine if we still had K Donaghy!!!!!! Tommy Walsh should be able to make hay with this attacking mark If the rule is in let's play it. I saw Tyrone playing for frees last Sunday. Even though we beat Tyrone and played great football and with great heart I feel our kick out still needs work. Patience! First game for new management and first game for new goalie!
|
|
|
Post by colinsworth1 on Jan 29, 2019 18:19:13 GMT
McManus caught a ball without raising his hands last sunday for Monaghan. The play was stopped and his got a free shot from about 40 yards because the guy who passed the ball to him was inside his own 45. I hope that rule is scrapped anyway. Be fairly hard to enforce if its only over the head catches tbf I think what mick Mack was saying is that high or low it’s not our game .wait until teams fully utilize this it’s going to be used wholesale . But I understand what the rules people were trying to do and that is kick the ball more often. By caving in too early on the limited hand pass it means now we ll need some incentive to kick . If we had kept the limited hand pass then we could have made the foreign looking advance mark redundant as we would be guaranteed more kicking . But fair play for Croke Park trying and having an open mind . Now if we could get rid of the pass back to the keeper that would be a help .
|
|
|
Post by dc84 on Jan 29, 2019 19:42:22 GMT
Be fairly hard to enforce if its only over the head catches tbf I think what mick Mack was saying is that high or low it’s not our game .wait until teams fully utilize this it’s going to be used wholesale . But I understand what the rules people were trying to do and that is kick the ball more often. By caving in too early on the limited hand pass it means now we ll need some incentive to kick . If we had kept the limited hand pass then we could have made the foreign looking advance mark redundant as we would be guaranteed more kicking . But fair play for Croke Park trying and having an open mind . Now if we could get rid of the pass back to the keeper that would be a help . Id tend to agree even if it would suit us more than most! Its a bit gimmicky alright agree on handpass biggest blight on the game mote than Dublin dominance or two tiers makes games unwatchable at times.
|
|
|
Post by givehimaball on Jan 29, 2019 20:12:47 GMT
McManus caught a ball without raising his hands last sunday for Monaghan. The play was stopped and his got a free shot from about 40 yards because the guy who passed the ball to him was inside his own 45. I hope that rule is scrapped anyway. I'll be shocked if the rule isn't scrapped. I think what's going to kill this rule is the fact that a player gets the same reward (a free shot at the posts) for catching a pretty simple pass as a player gets for being fouled. Players are going to cop pretty quickly that outside the parallelogram area if there's any chance that a player looks like taking an offensive mark, there's zero reason not to foul them. Also I expect that by the end of the league the number of goals scored will be down significantly because there will be lots of instances where forwards will simply stop and take a tap-over kick as opposed to having to take on defenders and trying to beat a keeper, especially in cases where blanket defences are set/in place. Malachy Clerkin also had a good article on the sin-bin rule in the Time today. There's been zero explanation of how making life easier for those who commit fouls is supposed to improve the quality of the game. Previously where a player would think twice about making a possible black card, now there's far less disincentive to taking a black card, especially early on in a game. The fact that the majority of black cards tended to be given late on, says that players are well able to guage the value of taking a black card for the team. Reducing the level of punishment players face for committing offences will only lead to an increase in offences. The fact that the 10 minutes in the sin bin continues to run for injuries/disruptions to play, mean that this rule if adopted would reduce the punishment for committing fouls and increase the incentive for teams to slow down play and waste time. Utter lunacy. www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/are-the-new-sin-bin-rules-just-letting-players-off-the-hook-1.3773808
|
|
|
Post by colinsworth1 on Jan 29, 2019 21:05:07 GMT
McManus caught a ball without raising his hands last sunday for Monaghan. The play was stopped and his got a free shot from about 40 yards because the guy who passed the ball to him was inside his own 45. I hope that rule is scrapped anyway. I'll be shocked if the rule isn't scrapped. I think what's going to kill this rule is the fact that a player gets the same reward (a free shot at the posts) for catching a pretty simple pass as a player gets for being fouled. Players are going to cop pretty quickly that outside the parallelogram area if there's any chance that a player looks like taking an offensive mark, there's zero reason not to foul them. Also I expect that by the end of the league the number of goals scored will be down significantly because there will be lots of instances where forwards will simply stop and take a tap-over kick as opposed to having to take on defenders and trying to beat a keeper, especially in cases where blanket defences are set/in place. Malachy Clerkin also had a good article on the sin-bin rule in the Time today. There's been zero explanation of how making life easier for those who commit fouls is supposed to improve the quality of the game. Previously where a player would think twice about making a possible black card, now there's far less disincentive to taking a black card, especially early on in a game. The fact that the majority of black cards tended to be given late on, says that players are well able to guage the value of taking a black card for the team. Reducing the level of punishment players face for committing offences will only lead to an increase in offences. The fact that the 10 minutes in the sin bin continues to run for injuries/disruptions to play, mean that this rule if adopted would reduce the punishment for committing fouls and increase the incentive for teams to slow down play and waste time. Utter lunacy. www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/are-the-new-sin-bin-rules-just-letting-players-off-the-hook-1.3773808My take is slightly different in that more black cards will be given now by refs we all agree on that ,and if we recall why they were brought in ? It was to stop the Rubgy tackling that Dublin were doing in the last minutes of all Ireland finals eg 2017 v Mayp when four Dubs devoured 4 Mayo players for the last kick out by Clarke with the calculated knowledge that the sanction would not fit the crime . Ciaran Kilkenny threw all viirtue away and took one for the team that medal surely is on the bottom of the biscuit tin.( I’m blaming the rules not the player ) If that happened now one would hope that more than one would walk as refs feel more empowered to use this sanction for what in esssnce is a red card late in the game .
|
|
|
Post by dc84 on Jan 30, 2019 8:41:19 GMT
I think sitting out for ten minutes is more of a sanction than going off for the rest of the game and a sub coming on. Dublin played 50 minutes last sunday with 14 men it took its toll they looked out on their feet with 10 to go. The key is how teams capitalise, if for example cavan were down a man next sunday id love to see Kerry do a full press on any kickout. The flaw of course is that you can just pass it back to the goalie pity that wasnt looked at!
|
|
|
Post by Annascaultilidie on Jan 30, 2019 10:04:27 GMT
I think sitting out for ten minutes is more of a sanction than going off for the rest of the game and a sub coming on. Dublin played 50 minutes last sunday with 14 men it took its toll they looked out on their feet with 10 to go. The key is how teams capitalise, if for example cavan were down a man next sunday id love to see Kerry do a full press on any kickout. The flaw of course is that you can just pass it back to the goalie pity that wasnt looked at! If you are a man up you can mark their goalkeeper.
|
|
keane
Fanatical Member
Posts: 1,267
|
Post by keane on Jan 30, 2019 13:14:24 GMT
The new mark could have the effect of reducing the effectiveness of blankets. As we saw with Monaghan getting an easy kick pass inside the 45 is of great value to the attacking team. This may force defenses into tight man marking, getting back towards the backs&forwards, man against man style attacking and defending we all remember fondly.
|
|
|
Post by themanfromthewest on Jan 30, 2019 13:40:52 GMT
I think sitting out for ten minutes is more of a sanction than going off for the rest of the game and a sub coming on. Dublin played 50 minutes last sunday with 14 men it took its toll they looked out on their feet with 10 to go. The key is how teams capitalise, if for example cavan were down a man next sunday id love to see Kerry do a full press on any kickout. The flaw of course is that you can just pass it back to the goalie pity that wasnt looked at! If you are a man up you can mark their goalkeeper. Absolutely, go man v man, push up and turn the screw for that ten minutes, their goalie cannot accept the ball if there is a man in front of him. If teams are afraid to do that then they can’t complain if the other team plays keep ball.
|
|
|
Post by dc84 on Jan 30, 2019 14:29:34 GMT
The new mark could have the effect of reducing the effectiveness of blankets. As we saw with Monaghan getting an easy kick pass inside the 45 is of great value to the attacking team. This may force defenses into tight man marking, getting back towards the backs&forwards, man against man style attacking and defending we all remember fondly. Id be for it from that sense teams will be forced to at least push to midfield as stopping good ball in will be crucial.
|
|
Joxer
Fanatical Member
Posts: 1,364
|
Post by Joxer on Jan 30, 2019 15:23:29 GMT
The new mark could have the effect of reducing the effectiveness of blankets. As we saw with Monaghan getting an easy kick pass inside the 45 is of great value to the attacking team. This may force defenses into tight man marking, getting back towards the backs&forwards, man against man style attacking and defending we all remember fondly. This is nail on head I think and the real reason the offensive mark has been introduced. I don't agree that handpassing is the biggest blight on the game...for me, its the mass defence. This change with the offensive mark will I believe have two effects...it will encourage more kicking into offensive positions where at least a small bit of space can be created...once the forward wins it in the air, its giving up a scoring chance as far as the defensive team is concerned. The counter measure is surely to push up and try and prevent the delivery into the oppositions forwards, reducing the obsession with the mass defence. Hopefully, it works that way!
|
|
|
Post by dc84 on Jan 30, 2019 15:45:58 GMT
The new mark could have the effect of reducing the effectiveness of blankets. As we saw with Monaghan getting an easy kick pass inside the 45 is of great value to the attacking team. This may force defenses into tight man marking, getting back towards the backs&forwards, man against man style attacking and defending we all remember fondly. This is nail on head I think and the real reason the offensive mark has been introduced. I don't agree that handpassing is the biggest blight on the game...for me, its the mass defence. This change with the offensive mark will I believe have two effects...it will encourage more kicking into offensive positions where at least a small bit of space can be created...once the forward wins it in the air, its giving up a scoring chance as far as the defensive team is concerned. The counter measure is surely to push up and try and prevent the delivery into the oppositions forwards, reducing the obsession with the mass defence. Hopefully, it works that way! Hopefully indeed! The handpassing and blanket go hand in hand really no point kicking it into a massed defence and if playing that system no one to kick to! Also if we had t.walsh clifford and geaney to aim at wouldnt be too bad....
|
|
|
Post by onlykerry on Jan 30, 2019 15:52:29 GMT
I think the craziest part of the offensive mark is putting more pressure on the ref to calculate with his lazer eyes if the kick pass is 20 mt or more. We already see the disparity in interpretation of what 13 mt looks like when a ref is advancing a free or mark for interference. Why do the rule makers keep heeping subjective calls onto the shoulders of (already overburdened) referees. The rule book needs simplification not more complication.
|
|
|
Post by Annascaultilidie on Jan 30, 2019 16:14:55 GMT
The new mark could have the effect of reducing the effectiveness of blankets. As we saw with Monaghan getting an easy kick pass inside the 45 is of great value to the attacking team. This may force defenses into tight man marking, getting back towards the backs&forwards, man against man style attacking and defending we all remember fondly. This is nail on head I think and the real reason the offensive mark has been introduced. I don't agree that handpassing is the biggest blight on the game...for me, its the mass defence. This change with the offensive mark will I believe have two effects...it will encourage more kicking into offensive positions where at least a small bit of space can be created...once the forward wins it in the air, its giving up a scoring chance as far as the defensive team is concerned. The counter measure is surely to push up and try and prevent the delivery into the oppositions forwards, reducing the obsession with the mass defence. Hopefully, it works that way! The new handpassing rule also had the effect of making teams that employ a mass defense toothless in attack. If you have nobody up to kick it to... and you can't handpass... how can you attack?
|
|
|
Post by givehimaball on Jan 30, 2019 16:18:50 GMT
The new mark could have the effect of reducing the effectiveness of blankets. As we saw with Monaghan getting an easy kick pass inside the 45 is of great value to the attacking team. This may force defenses into tight man marking, getting back towards the backs&forwards, man against man style attacking and defending we all remember fondly. Or it just gives more of an incentive to defensive managers to drop more men back and congest space as much as possible so that those in forward line don't have acres of space to make runs into. I definitely wouldn't be using the example of the Dublin defence as to how this will typically go, given Gavin has said they did nothing in terms of preparing for the trial rules. The way I see it it this rule penalises teams who don't keep players back and punishes those teams the more players they commit when attacking. I think it's far more likely that this rule will lead to single and double sweeper type defences than old-style man against man style attacking and defending. If a defender is marking from behind, the advantage is always with the forward in terms of catching the mark. If you are setting up a defensive system with this mark, you will have to tell the man-markers to compete for the ball from the side or from the front, especially around the goal area. I don't think people have copped that the rule allows for shots at goal - if a player makes a clean catch just outside the small parallelogram they will have a free keep from just outside 4.5 metres - so you will have the spectacle of 15 men on the goal-line and a forward blasting as hard as they can in the hope it sneaks through. To deal with the situation where you have a forward and a back competing, you need another defender to provide cover in case the forward wins possession,the back is out of position to defend the goal and the forward playes on. A sweeping defender will also provide the covering option of picking up any breaking ball (which is likely to increase if the amount of balls kicked in increases). The fact that a forward can get an offensive mark anywhere inside the 45 metre line means that this rule increases the logic of having as many men as possible congesting space, especially in the key scoring arc area in front of the posts. Managers will be setting up their defensive systems so that any marks they do concede are as far away from goal as possible and as far out the wings/into the corner as possible. I really can't see how this rule would possibly lead to old-style man-to-man systems. There doesn't appear to be any logic to reverting to a man-on-man system when defending.
|
|
|
Post by givehimaball on Jan 30, 2019 16:31:00 GMT
The new mark could have the effect of reducing the effectiveness of blankets. As we saw with Monaghan getting an easy kick pass inside the 45 is of great value to the attacking team. This may force defenses into tight man marking, getting back towards the backs&forwards, man against man style attacking and defending we all remember fondly. This is nail on head I think and the real reason the offensive mark has been introduced. I don't agree that handpassing is the biggest blight on the game...for me, its the mass defence. This change with the offensive mark will I believe have two effects...it will encourage more kicking into offensive positions where at least a small bit of space can be created...once the forward wins it in the air, its giving up a scoring chance as far as the defensive team is concerned. The counter measure is surely to push up and try and prevent the delivery into the oppositions forwards, reducing the obsession with the mass defence. Hopefully, it works that way!Which is more likely from managers - playing 6 defenders in their traditional positions and relying solely on the midfield and forwards to stop balls coming in or dropping your half-forwards back inside the 45 metre line , congesting space, allowing defenders more freedom to compete against the forward they are marking for the balls that do come in, secure in the knowledge that there is 3 sweeping players, who don't have specific man-marking duties, around them to provide cover, pick up breaking ball, while telling your midfielders and remaining forwards to put pressure on the opposition players kicking the balls in, especially given that if the forward does make a clean catch, they have a free kick at the posts/goals?
|
|
|
Post by Mickmack on Jan 30, 2019 18:09:17 GMT
It appears to me that due to the combo of unlimited handpassing plus the new mark, a manager would need his head examined if he didnt pack the defence and then counter attack
|
|
|
Post by clarinman on Jan 30, 2019 18:44:33 GMT
It appears to me that due to the combo of unlimited handpassing plus the new mark, a manager would need his head examined if he didnt pack the defence and then counter attack I don't think too many managers will spend too much time working on a defensive system for the forward mark. Why bother when it's back to the old rules for the championship.
|
|
|
Post by givehimaball on Jan 30, 2019 18:58:07 GMT
It appears to me that due to the combo of unlimited handpassing plus the new mark, a manager would need his head examined if he didnt pack the defence and then counter attack Don't forget about the rule that the ball must go forward from sideline kicks (expect inside the 21 metre line) This just adds more incentive for managers to pull men back and congest the area as much as possible especially when the opposition have a side-line ball outside the 21 metre line. Any player who gets a sideline ball has three options 1) try to find a team-mate 2) shoot at the posts 3) deliberately play it backwards and (if the ref doesn't miss it) contest the throw-ball. The obvious defensive tactic when one side has a line-ball 25/30 metres out is to pull 12/13 men back and swamp the area and give the team with the sideline no easy chances to keep possession by finding a team-mate. Even if the side with the sideline do succeed in finding a player with possession from the side-line ball, the defending team will have numerous men to bottle the player up/swamp him/put pressure on him. The second option of shooting for the posts sounds attractive but the scoring rate from sideline balls tends to be fairly low overall - Sean O'Se's score the last day got a fair bit of notice because of just how difficult a skill it is to score from the side-line. Still I can see sides having a cut (especially if they have a talented dead-ball specialist) [The option to try to shoot would probably not be as attractive for a lot of club or underage sides] I can definitely see a situation where a team that does opt to have a shot at the posts from the line-ball will commit one, maybe 2 players on the edge of the square in case the ball drops short/comes back off the post/maybe see if they can flick it on for a score [they won't be able to claim a mark because you can't claim a mark from a deadball] but pull the rest of the players back to set them into their defensive position so that they don't get caught out by a quick break. I could even see situations (especially if a side don't have a decent left-legged deadball shooter) where management instruct players to blatantly kick it backwards (especially late on in a game with a goal being needed) , given the penalty is a throw-ball and they might have a better chance of winning these compared to the other options [trying to pass it to a player surrounded by 13/14/15 defenders or a very low percentage shot at the posts with much higher odds that it drops short [with a whole chunk of players back the opposition are odds on to win it] or goes wide [teams won 70% of their own kickouts in last year's league according to DontFoul and in the championship the team kickoing out won 77%]. Overall it looks as the committee who came up with the current trial rules did very little in the way of thinking of how they would work in real-life games.
|
|
|
Post by givehimaball on Jan 30, 2019 19:09:00 GMT
It appears to me that due to the combo of unlimited handpassing plus the new mark, a manager would need his head examined if he didnt pack the defence and then counter attack I don't think too many managers will spend too much time working on a defensive system for the forward mark. Why bother when it's back to the old rules for the championship. It seems some teams are thinking of the impact of these rules e.g. Monaghan and the mark, while others e.g. Dublin are doing nothing in terms of working on the rules because they won't be in for this year's championship. However if they do get passed they will be in for next year's league and championship and at a minimum it will be 4 more years after that before they can get reversed so it's worth having the discussion of what's likely to happen if the rules do get approved. Also for a whole lot of teams (especially the more defensive teams) they don't have to do a whole lot in terms of changing their defensive systems due to these trial rules, simply tweak them a bit - the defensive teams will stick with the status quo of dropping players back, slow up the game at every opportunity, continue to congest the area in front of goal with as many bodies as possible. In my opinion these rules overall make life easier for defensive sides and do very little to help the more attacking sides.
|
|
|
Post by sullyschoice on Jan 30, 2019 20:41:13 GMT
So anyway, what do we think about the Cavan game.
|
|
|
Post by sullyschoice on Jan 30, 2019 20:50:13 GMT
Gavin Crowley is reported as being a major doubt for Sunday after going off with a dead leg after 10 minutes of Sigerson cup.
|
|
|
Post by dc84 on Jan 31, 2019 7:52:23 GMT
Im going to stick my neck out and say we will win by 3 to 4 points. Talking to people who were at the Galway Cavan game they said cavan really struggled up front and once galway moved Walsh to 11 cavan couldnt deal with his pace think tom Sullivan, obrien etc will make hay. Think it will be low enough scoring and o sheas frees once again the difference Cavan 0-10 Kerry 1-11
|
|
|
Post by john4 on Jan 31, 2019 10:49:59 GMT
Kerry played 12 competitive matches last year in league and championship, and conseeded one or more goals in 11 of those 12 matches. Clare being the exception. If we succeed in keeping our net from moving on Sunday, it will be the first time since July 2017 that this will have happened in 2 consecutive matches. This would be a serious foundation going forward.
|
|