Rhode v Kilmacud - Replay

[True Red]

Have to start the ball rolling on this one.

In all honesty Rhode were very unlucky when they could have forced it to extra time but on the balance of the two games i think that Kilmacud were just that little bit better than them.

Have to say though that Stephen Darby's comment regarding "professional fouling" in the aftermath of the match was entirely accurate. It was plain to see that Kilmacud were intent on not allowing Rhode build up their attcks from their full and half-back lines by cynically fouling their opposite numbers when they were coming out with the ball. This allowed the Kilmacud half forward line to funnel back in beside (and behind) their midfield and cut out the space that Niall McNamee and Mark Cole thrive on.This tactic reminded me very much of Meath in the late 90's.

As well as that Kilmacud always kept their 3 man full forward line intact even when they were defending so that when they won the ball in their defence one long 40 yard punt meant that their forwards were there to win it.

Rhode in contrast were bringing all of their men back in an effort to win the ball and at one point in the first half I counted Niall McNamee as the only Rhode man in the Kilmacud 45.This meant that he was their only outlet and on a couple of occasions he was been gang tackled by hungry Kilmacud defenders.

[Lone Shark]

I'm not sure I'd agree that Kilmacud were better - I would say that Rhode might have played marginally better at most aspects of the game, but they were let down by some seriously preventable scores conceded. I understand that there is more pressure at a higher level of the game, but with that said the two goals were eminently stoppable.

The first day out both Cosgrove and Vaughan took scores that you just had to applaud, they would have been worthy of the last Sunday in September - yesterday they never got those, other than Davoren's last one and one from Magee and as such Rhode should have been able to keep them to less than 2-6.

There is certainly a cynicism to their game all right, and it's a pity, because they have good enough footballers not to need it. I expect them to beat Sars, but lose out to Salthill.

[True Red]

I certainly think that you are doing Kilmacud a disservice there by saying that they are not better.

Lets be honest here.Kilmacud dominated the second half for 20 mins and if Vaughan and Cosgrove had their shooting boots on then by the time Rhode mounted their formidable and admirable comeback routine Crokes would have been out of sight.According to today's Indo they kicked 10 wides(with Vaughan accounting for 7). I would argue that 6 of those were definitely kickable and as already stated would have have left them home and hosed.

I would say that Rhode might have played marginally better at most aspects of the game

What aspects of the game would that be? In the first half they kicked at least 5 balls out over the sideline and it took them 23 minutes to register their first score. From my reckoning Kilmacud dominated 2/3's of the match and if that means that they werent the better side well then I dont know what they would have to do to show that they were the worse side.

As for the goals Rhode conceded, YES they were preventable.

But they werent stopped.Kilmacud made their own luck and took their chances when they fell to them.

And before I am accused of some sort of Anti-Rhode bias i was hoping that they would beat Crokes on Sunday.Mainly beacuse Vaughan is little scummer and Cosgrove is a nancy boy.

[Lone Shark]

The lads didn't have their shooting boots on because as a rule they went for ridiculous shots, notwithstanding Vaughan's atrocious freetaking record on the day. That to me is not a sign of dominance, that's a sign of poor forward play. To say six of them were kickable is one thing, but I would define kickable as shots that should be 60% shots or better - that they weren't at least not unless you are something really out of the ordinary.

The main area where Kilmacud were better was around the middle, where they had three midfielders to Rhode's one. In general ball movement, tackling, interplay etc I would have given the edge to Rhode.

[black and red exile]

I must say im with True Red on this one. Over the two games Crokes were a little bit better than Rhode, and in all fairness if Kilmacud, and in particular [the irratating little shitbag Vaughan] had converted half of the wides they kicked in the second half especially,then yes, Rhode's comeback would have just put respectability on the scoreboard. Having said that, Loan Shark hit the nail on the head by stating that Rhode were completely cleaned out at midfield, the Magees size and strenght were always going to be a huge handicap for Alan and Fergal especially with the kickouts.

[Bord na Mona man]

I didn't see either of the Kilmacud Crokes games, but yet again Rhode's low score total is disappointing.
For a very good forward line, by club standards.
What are other people's views on this?

Judging by reports, Rhode's tendency to over elaborate in defence seems to have cost them two-fold:
- Unforced errors near their own goal that lead to scores conceded.
- And secondly getting the ball up the field far too slowly to catch Kilmacud on the break.

Maybe their problem is that they have too many footballers who would rather work the ball out of defence, when maybe a few no-nonsense hoofers would have been more effective?

[True Red]

Some good points by BnaMona man.Agree totally that there was too much over elaboration by Rhode in working the ball out of their defence but this is the ethos of their game.Short passes in the full and half back lines which eventually and usually end up in the hands of Alan McNamee who then launches an accurate diagonal pass in the direction of his brother Niall.This usually ends up in a score.

It didnt work on Sunday however.

A couple of hoofers would have been entirely effective but as i stated earlier, Rhode had only Niall up there to win them (especially in the first half)and he was then gang tackled if he won posession.

Just to get back to one of LShark's points,

The main area where Kilmacud were better was around the middle, where they had three midfielders to Rhode's one. In general ball movement, tackling, interplay etc I would have given the edge to Rhode.

Does the above mean that Rhode were a better side even though Kilmacud won the match?Would Lone Shark be of the opinion that Kilmacud Crokes dont deserve to be in the Leinster Final and if not,Why not

[naasmanxrhode]

I agree that Crokes were the better side over the 2 legs, but only marginally and both games were there to be won by Rhode.
Rhode backs who were magnigicent should have been a bit more agressive especially with Vaughan and maybe to a lesser extent with Cosgrave. Imagine what former Rhode greats like 'The Iron Man', Mulligan or Martin Heavy would have done to that w*nker Vaughan. I would say that he would have been in Portlaoise hospital very early on, in the drawn game.
The battle at midfield was the major problem and Rhode management were a little slow in trying to repair this area. Why have 10 or 12 subs togged out unless you are going to use them. I could'nt understand bringing in Eddie Byrne for the last 2 minutes. You needed pace at that stage.
On a very positive note for Rhode and Offaly it was great to see Barry back. Maybe Rhode were too cautious with his fitness and should have introduced him 10 minutes into the second half. Roll on next year??????

[Fit For Junior]

Lads, I only saw the replayed game, and I thought that Kilmacud deserved to shade the tie. In terms of intensity this was a level above anything Rhode have had to deal with in the county and they can be proud of themselves for their efforts. In both halves they were slow out of the blocks, conceded the goals early, and were then left with mountain to climb to get back into the game. As mentioned here already Kilmacud's dominace in the middle of the pitch was ultimately the difference between the two sides - I thought Rhode might have tried to vary the kickouts (try a few short ones) or tried something different to play around this, but at a vital time in the game, kilmacud were wining all the possesion from rhode's kickouts. Also most of the high ball into Niall was won by his marker, and since most of the rhode forwards were playing out around the middle of the pitch there were'nt many options when they did move forward. If they do want to win leinster in future years then they need to be able to change aspects to their game on the day. But I guess teams learn from playing games like this and hopefully this will be seen as a stepping stone if in the future they do win a provincal title (assuming they win the county first !!!).
I thought the gamesmanship of some the kilmacud boys was disgraceful, (especially feigning injury and time wasting) and the referee seemed to loose control of it all. There were definitely a lot more than 4 minutes extra time to be played. All this just made it much more dissapointing when rhode could'nt get that equaliser at the end. Vaughan, in spite of his ability, seems to be a right dickhead and i'd say we'll be seeing more of this from him in future years with the dubs.
All in all, Kilmacud did deserve it, but fair play to rhode for never throwing in the towel and almost forcing an extra half hour. Niall Darby was my man of the match for Rhode.

[Lone Shark]

Unless some travesty of justice occurs, then the team that scores the most deserves to be in the Leinster final - but I do think it's a bit trite to assume that the team that wins is automatically the team that played better. I do think Rhode were marginally better on the day overall. The backs made two early mistakes and it cost them four points. That's two split seconds that could have gone differently and left them two points in front at the end rather than behind. Or alternatively it was four points that Kilmacud didn't have to do anything to get.

Kilmacud were miles better in midfield, but that's why I though Barry Malone should have been brought on around the middle. His aggression and power might have disrupted the Magees, and he could hang tight and let the likes of Byrne, Alan Mac and Kilmurray do the running.

Put it another way - most people seem to think Kilmacud played better - how many people would have fancied Kilmacud to edge it if it went to extra time?

[True Red]

Or alternatively it was four points that Kilmacud didn't have to do anything to get.

Disagree with that as they still had to put the ball in the net and over the bar and no matter what level you are playing it is never easy to do that.

Put it another way - most people seem to think Kilmacud played better - how many people would have fancied Kilmacud to edge it if it went to extra time?

I for one think that Kilmacud would probably have edged it anyways as they were creating a lot more chances than Rhode were and when they did decide to take them Rhode would probably have been beaten.However its all hypothetical.

[Lone Shark]

Or alternatively it was four points that Kilmacud didn't have to do anything to get.

Disagree with that as they still had to put the ball in the net and over the bar and no matter what level you are playing it is never easy to do that.

The goal was where a guy just slid at it and the point was a 21m free in front of the posts - they were as easy as scores come.

Put it another way - most people seem to think Kilmacud played better - how many people would have fancied Kilmacud to edge it if it went to extra time?

I for one think that Kilmacud would probably have edged it anyways as they were creating a lot more chances than Rhode were and when they did decide to take them Rhode would probably have been beaten.However its all hypothetical.

As with all sports it's a matter of opinion - I certainly would have taken even money Rhode if it went to extra time. However I would also say this - they were creating extra chances because (a) their midfield was dominant, which I have certainly agreed with, and (b) they were taking pot shots from anywhere - usually Vaughan. Rhode didn't have as many wides because the shots they went for were high percentage shots, other than Niall's great point in the first half. I would say that that's a refelction of Rhode's better judgement and shot selection than a statement of Kilmacud's dominance.

Tis all moot now anyway sadly.