Former Offaly great Bryan slams modern game

[True Red]

taken from independent.ie


Thursday September 08 2011

HE'S a former Footballer of the Year, All-Ireland-winning captain and dual All Star, but is so disillusioned with aspects of the modern game that he didn't even watch the second half of the Dublin-Donegal All-Ireland semi-final.

Willie Bryan, who captained Offaly to their first All-Ireland title in 1971, said he could see little in the first half that was related to what he regarded as genuine Gaelic football and had no interest in watching more of the same after half-time.

"I enjoyed the Dublin-Galway minor game before it, but then there's nothing wrong with the game at that level. It's after that all the other stuff comes in. If football continues on the route it's on, it will drive people away. Supporters will pay to be entertained but not to watch the ball being handpassed around all day," he said.

Bryan, generally regarded as one of the best fielders in history, is disappointed to see an art he executed stylishly in the Offaly midfield for so long largely gone from the game, but is also concerned by other aspects.

He has put forward a number of suggestions, designed to improve the game for both players and spectators alike. "People might say that this is a past player longing for the good old days, but that's not what I'm about at all. Everyone knows the fitness levels present-day players have, so what I'm suggesting is that we combine that with the skills of the game."

He wants high fielding from kick-outs rewarded with a 'mark' which would only apply if the ball crosses the 45-metre line. "Fielding a high ball is a great art and has always gone down well with the public, but how much of it do we see nowadays? If the 'mark' was there, there would be an incentive to fetch the high ball because you know that when you come down, you can play the ball away rather than being swamped by opponents," he said.

He also wants a restriction of the handpass so that the ball must be played with the foot after two hand-passes. "That would stop endless hand-passing over and back across the field and also improve footpassing," he said.

He would incentivise kicking frees off the ground by insisting that if a team wanted its recognised free-taker to shoot for goal, he would not be allowed to kick from the hand. His proposal would allow the fouled player to take it out of the hand, but if somebody else is called upon, he would have to kick off the ground.

"That way, a team would have to decide between the fouled player, who may not be good on frees, kicking from the hand or the specialist kicker taking it from the ground," said Bryan.

He would also like to see frees scored (off the ground) from beyond the 45-metre line increased in value to two points. A similar reward would apply for line-balls.

"Look at Stephen Cluxton. He's only stroking the ball and yet he gets huge distances into his kicks," he said. "A skill like that should be rewarded. Increasing the value of long-rage frees to two points would encourage players to work on their ground-kicking."

- Martin Breheny

[llkj]

Personally I don't think the mark is much advantage to a team. If you catch the ball and then take a mark, it just slows things down and gives the opposition a chance to re-group and pick up their positions. In the modern game, the opposing midfielders and a couple of wing backs will just drop back, so you would probably end up just playing the ball short to hold onto the ball.

Also, with the kicking off the ground - I don't see what the big deal is in relation to this. So what if someone kicks it off the ground or out of their hands - it is not as if kicking it off the ground is some majestic skill that dazzles the crowds which must be kept alive. If a team have someone accurate at kicking it off the ground then let them fire away, but if not, then they shouldn't be punished for kicking the ball from their hands.

Also, in relation to goalkeepers taking free kicks, again - whats the big deal. It is only natural that they are the best people on the team at this. Most of the players playing today would never have played when frees could only be taken from the ground, so it is not a skill they would have ever had to practice. Goalkeepers on the other hand, practice this as one of their key skills , so it makes sense to have them give it a pop, if they fancy their chances. The only thing I would say is that sometimes it does slow the game down a lot... maybe an official time limit could be set within which a free must be taken. If outside that, then it is a throw up.

These are my thoughts, Willie has given his. What are yours?

[TheManFromFerbane]

Personally I don't think the mark is much advantage to a team. If you catch the ball and then take a mark, it just slows things down and gives the opposition a chance to re-group and pick up their positions. In the modern game, the opposing midfielders and a couple of wing backs will just drop back, so you would probably end up just playing the ball short to hold onto the ball.

I don't think so, the issue is that when the player lands he's surrounded by 4 players and tackled by one of them which means he can do nothing with the ball and it's perfectly legal. In the mark situation the player would land, look up and quickly make the pass, because it's in his interest to move it quickly for the reasons you've just given. Would definitely speed the game up and I'd like to see it come in alright.

[llkj]

In the mark situation the player would land, look up and quickly make the pass,

And the four players that were surrounding him will automatically stand aside and let him take it as quick as he likes? not on Keiran Mc Geeney or Jim Mc G watch.

[TheManFromFerbane]

If they don't it should be the same as not walking back when you win a free, i.e. brought forward 10 metres. I think it could work.

[Lone Shark]

I'll come at this from a supporter's perspective purely, simply because I don't think Jim McGuinness' tactics will ever filter down to Junior B or Junior C football.


On the whole, I find myself largely disagreeing with Willie Bryan. I respect his achievements and the weight of his opinion, but I don't find that the older football (pre the Kerry/Dublin revolution in the seventies) was all that watchable. It's not that there is anything wrong with catch and kick football as such, but the lack of variation or imagination, at least that I can see, is a bit of a flaw. The pace of the games seemed so slow, and it really was like fourteen individual outfield battles, in many cases, quite literally.

Also, while I can appreciate the skill involved in kicking a ball over the bar off the ground from forty metres out, it's not my idea of entertainment. I like the physical contest in Gaelic football, the speed and the creativity - not watching one guy demonstrate a skill and watching 29 lads stand and watch it. Fielding is spectacular when done well all right but I do think that teams have to be able to work within the rules to counteract an advantage. Niall McNamee doing his run, dummy and shaped kick from the left wing is a thing of beauty - but nobody is suggesting that players whould stand back and let him do it for the entertainment of the crowd. It means something because it's performed under pressure.

I think this issue is all about diagnosing the problem correctly before treating it. I remember back when I was a teenager and we had the era of the big servers at Wimbledon - Rusedski, Sampras, Ivanisevic etc. Everyone was complaining about how the games weren't a spectacle, but one writer summed it up by saying that the problem was not the lack of rallies, it was that the ball was rarely in play any more. As he put it - Greg Rusedski serving aces at 146mph is entertaining. Greg Rusedski sitting down between games eating a banana is not.

Tactics will always come and go - High fielders are getting bottled up, so quick, accurate wide kickouts are more common - I've no problem with that. Teams just need to do better at isolating their fielders so it's not an option to crowd them out. Ultra defensive tactics are absorbing - however denying quick frees, rising opposition players, feigning injury, long stoppages, these are not tactics, and these are the problem. My problem with Donegal wasn't that they chose to play Colm McFadden in one half and a fourteen man full back line, it was the systematic fouling to ensure that players had time to get back and fill in the fourteen vacancies, and the constant stoppages in the game because they know that seventy constant minutes at that pace of movement would be a struggle. If Jim McGuinness chooses to pick a Duracell Bunny like Mark McHugh as a wing forward instead of a scorer like Christy Toye, that's his right to do so. However the current system means that the game is spoiled so as to suit McHugh's way of playing - that's the problem.

Rob Carroll, the Dartfish statistics guy, is on Twitter and one of his key stats after every game is the amount of time the ball was in play - anything over 30 minutes out of seventy is good. If we address that, then we'll have a game again.

Some of the things that I would like to see that might change things:

(1) Proper stoppage time, policed with a game clock where possible, and if not, where the referee makes a sign to the crowd and players that the clock is stopped. Things like 45s in particular can take forever to get going.
(2) I think that fitness levels are such now that it's time to think about 35 minutes a half for all adult games, and 40 mins a half for senior intercounty.
(3) All free kicks can be taken from any point not nearer the goal, so a fouled player can release the ball backwards to be kicked quickly.

I would consider some form of experimental rule for team personal fouls also. I'm not sure what an acceptable number is, but in rugby you have the sin bin, it's done in basketball, there needs to be something done about "rotational fouling". After a certain amount, all infringements can be punished with a free from the 45m line, and after another amount, from the 20m line. The ref doesn't need the identity, just to tick the number as he goes. Again, some kind of warning symbol when a team gets close to the threshold. I haven't fully thought this through so I wouldn't be dashing to propose it as a motion at an AGM yet or anything, but if I was in charge of a team now, I'd be very keen to make sure that my team fouls the second they lose the ball so as to allow the defence to set - and that shouldn't be a profitable tactic.