(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post
|
The entire issue is the tackle rule. Massed defences are the symptom, not the problem. Fix the problem. Shot clocks, reducing numbers, limiting field positions etc. all miss the point entirely. Eddie the Exile (Monaghan) - Posts: 1058 - 26/04/2024 13:47:31 2540763 Link 1 |
|
Don't you think thats whats happening now?
brianb (Kildare) - Posts: 284 - 26/04/2024 14:12:22 2540766 Link 2 |
|
Fair enough but at least the blanket defence teams while they are keeping the score down they are struggling to win matches. Your proposal that a team could not go back when attacking would mean more turn-overs for the blanket defence teams and the shot clock the same.
sligo joe (Dublin) - Posts: 683 - 26/04/2024 15:05:14 2540778 Link 0 |
|
The entire issue is the tackle rule? Seriously? Lads this place is bananas. TheFlaker (Mayo) - Posts: 7896 - 26/04/2024 15:20:01 2540781 Link 2 |
|
Yes there would be more turnovers. I think it would encourage fast and direct forward play; the incentive would be to get the ball forward before the defence is set. If you can't do that - you'd have to try something speculative. You'd see more long range shots; more high contestable balls into the full forward line and quicker attacks.
brianb (Kildare) - Posts: 284 - 26/04/2024 15:40:17 2540784 Link 1 |
|
Maybe - and I'd like to think so - but it would need to be game tested before drawing conclusions - the advanced mark did not result in much overhead fielding as expected.
omahant (USA) - Posts: 2593 - 26/04/2024 16:13:39 2540789 Link 0 |
|
Surely you can see your proposals would benefit the negative managers/teams and penalise the positive teams. For example if you have maybe Dublin Kerry Mayo going out against an inferior team that team will sit back with a well coached 15 man defence and with your plans it will have a better chance of working. The blanket defence is the disease and your rule changes would reward it, the possession football is a symptom/reaction to the disease.
sligo joe (Dublin) - Posts: 683 - 26/04/2024 17:50:44 2540804 Link 0 |
|
Of course it always makes sense to get the ball forward b4 the defence is set the problem with your proposals is they favour the teams that set the defence from minute one. Possession football is only a symptom of the disease which is the blanket, the disease, the blanket needs addressing not the symptom or reaction to it.
sligo joe (Dublin) - Posts: 683 - 26/04/2024 18:37:08 2540805 Link 0 |
|
For every score, instead of a kickout from the team that's conceded, give the scoring team a sideline ball from outside the 45. Must go forwards. If they score direct from sideline the resultant sideline ball would be an indirect pass forward and reset. Might encourage more attacking play and not give the team that's conceded opportunity to slow down play from their own kickout after they've conceded. GreenandRed (Mayo) - Posts: 7346 - 27/04/2024 06:04:30 2540834 Link 0 |
|
I think possession football and the blanket defence are two sides to the same coin. It really frustrates me when I see a team genuinely try to play football but after a turnover spend the next 5 mins chasing the ball against a team that aren't trying to do anything with it. It's almost pointless chasing it as the possession team will happily play it back to the goalkeeper and repeat. Limiting the possession time or options will stop this and favour an adventurous team more.
brianb (Kildare) - Posts: 284 - 27/04/2024 09:25:40 2540851 Link 1 |
|
Shoulder tackle now only exists in theory, and modern players are too fit and spin away from it (not like the 70s or 80s where the man being tackled stood his ground to show it didn't bother him), so it ends up as a missed tackle (to chest pr back, and often dangerous / concussion too) and a foul. Just ban it, it'd not be missed. I agree with one-on-one tackling - only one player can tackle another player - that'd lead to a lot more gaps in defences opening up, be great for the game. And gor hte love of God get rid f the foirward mark - we're essentially giving the likes of the practically un-markable David Clifford a free for being able to receive a pass. He hardly needs the dig-out lol points50swiththeargyllsonthewrongfeet (Tyrone) - Posts: 240 - 27/04/2024 10:28:27 2540855 Link 0 |
|
Most people who look at the game think the 'tactical innovations' managers have brought in to how the game is played over the last 20 years have been very bad for the game. Most people think if we could get back to the basic attacking approach teams had to the game before the 'tactical innovations' came in it be very good for the game. Yes people at times here have talked about some fairly major rule changes to the game but most people would accept at this stage that only some major rule changes can break up the modern approach of prioritising keeping players back and holding onto possession rather than getting at the opposing team. Most people want to break up these tactics. Fair enough if you think the tackling suggestions will not work out as we are saying but its fairly clear at this stage you will be against anything that you think may actually undo the modern approach of prioritising keeping players back and holding possession. Without realising it you made the best argument on this topic for major changes to the rulebook when you posted in defence of modern coaching that when managing an intermediate team last year almost every team you played were super defensive so your team had to play keep ball tactics when facing them. This is especially true as you were talking about a graded competition where the teams should of being at a similar standard. The biggest problem with you is as a club team manager your too invested in the 'tactical innovations' managers/ coaches have made in the game over the last 20 years and so refuse to see the bigger picture. bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 1350 - 27/04/2024 10:33:55 2540856 Link 0 |