How the Dubs Burgled the Banks

The week between the drawn game I and the replay was filled with controversy about the facilities at Pairc Vi Chaoimh, the lack of live television coverage, the possibility of a pitched battle between the Red and Blue armies and the psychological effect on the Dublin players of playing in a southern climate. Brendan O hEither reports on Dublin's successful sojourn south.

Little was heard from the training camps. We did hear that Dublin heads were cool. They had a long look, with many stops and starts, at a video of the match and Heffernan said that they now knew where they went wrong and would work to ensure that there would be no repetition. Most of the news from the Cork camp was of the possible effect of the home venue. With hindsight it is now possible to speculate that it had the effect of making the players tense and overanxious to treat their supporters to a famous Victory Cois Laoi.

People seemed to forget that not only have Dublin a good "away" record in the National League but that a large body of supporters sustain them during that damp and dreary campaign. The doubts expressed about Dublin's ability outside Croke Park may have given the team an extra incentive. As we shall see, from looking at the figures for frees in both matches, a trip to the country seems to sharpen their appetite for football as well as flexing their more aggressive muscles.

Both games were very tactical, with Cork trying to overcome and disrupt Dublin's very public plans. They had, after all, played four matches in the Leinster Championship. In the drawn game, after a nervous start, Cork gained an obvious advantage only to throw a four point lead away when the mentors decided to pull back their forwards and play out the remaining minutes defensively. It should have been clear to them on reflection that Ray Hazley had no business at all on the 21 yard line when he gave the all-important pass to Barney Rock, thirty seconds from time. A study of the video would have shown them that their own tactics, during the final ten minutes, were respo~sible for luring him into that' position.

But if the Cork camp studied the video it was a fruitless exercise. In the replay Dublin corrected most of their faults and weaknesses and improved their physical fitness as well. Cork's strength in the drawn game was never seen in the replay. Their midfield was out-played and outsmarted and their two most dangerous forwards in the first game, Dinny Allen and John Allen, failed to score. As the game went on the team began to melt at midfield and long before the end it was a rather soggy mess.

In the drawn game Dublin's major weaknesses were at mid-field, where the addition of John Caffrey as a third man (another very open secret weapon) was nullified by Cork's use of the puncheddown ball, and a ragged display by Jim Roynane left Brian Mullins playing uphill for long periods; at full back where John Allen gave Gerry Hargan a bad time; at centre half back where Tommy Drumm was strangely ill at ease for long periods; and most particularly at wing half forward, with both Rock and Duff almost played right out of the game.

From this Cork's strength will be obvious but the fact that they threw the game away could be attributed to bad thinking on the side-line as much as the amazing profligacy of their forwards when enjoying a period of sustained possession in front of goal. And, despite his total of two goals and one point, one had ffngering doubts about the commitment of their most experienced forward, Denis Allen.

The only similarity between both matches was that Dublin began as if they wanted the final result ensured by half-time. In the first match the plan went wrong and they were a goal down at the interval: in Pairc Ui Chaoimh they led by four points but already Cork looked exhausted tactically and even when they came within four points of Dublin in the second half they never looked like winning, merely struggling on as best they could.

Tactics and planning apart it must be said that Dublin were much the fitter side in the replay. Their backs were faster to the ball than the Cork forwards and the tenacity of their forwards, even when Dublin led by eight points, seemed to amaze the Cork backs, apart from the excellent Jimmy Kerrigan.

But Brian Mullins' display was astounding. For periods during the drawn game he allowed the opposition to crowd him, force him into errors in passing, cause him to drop the ball and lose his footing. However, his presence, one always felt, was an essential part of this Dublin side. In Cork he lorded it over all and sundry and reserved his special skills for the final quarter; as well as airing his knuckles on two occasions and also displaying his hitherto unknown qualities as a peacemaker.

The early switch between Barney Rock and John Caffrey led the Cork mentors into the foolish trap of sending Jimmy Kerrigan into the corner back position where his attacking potential was lost. When he was sent back it was already too late. But apart from this switch, which cannot have come as a total
surprise to Cork, Dublin set out to play the game as they set out to play the drawn one. By doing so they presented some points which will come between Mattie McDonough and a full night's sleep for some weeks to come.

Skills apart, is there any limit to the capacity for fitness and total commitment displayed by this side in Pairc Vi Chaoimh? The answer is that there does not seem to be and that any team hoping to beat them must aim for this standard as an essential first step.

By what methods were all the weak links, which we mentioned, repaired in the space of a week? The answer seems to be that Kevin Heffernan, using some mixture of persuasion and pressure, can get his players to spend hours eliminating individual faults and learning to combine in a variety of tactical moves. Dublin's running off the ball and use of the last yard of the width of the pitch should be studied by all coaches who wish to see their charges mount the Hogan Stand on some future third Sunday in September.

The interpretation of the advantage rule and the application of the rule concerning the personal foul by referee, PJ. McGrath, in both games, has caused some comment.

His efforts to keep play moving is commendable but it is also a reflection on the central weakness of Gaelic football: the absence of a clear rule on tackling a player in possession. It is not P.I. McGrath's fault that the personal foul h1S become a joke. When it was adopted we had a procession of players sent off for a few Sundays; now, having your name taken is almost an insurance policy against having it taken a second time.

If the result of the first game, and all the ri-ra that followed, almost obliterated the memory of much bad and sloppy football, the comprehensive manner of Dublin's victory should not be allowed to conceal the fact that some of their fouling was both deliberate and crude.

The figures tell the story. There were 22 frees in the first game: 12 to Dublin and 10 to Cork. In the replay, with the same referee, there were 33 frees: 25 to Cork and 8 to Dublin. Four Dublin players, Holden, Hazley, Mullins and Duff were booked by the referee and one felt that only the one-sided nature of the last quarter prevented a really ugly outburst of fighting at one stage.

Some of the Dublin players must learn, or be taught, that there is a fairly clear line between total commitment, which is to be admired, and dirty play, which is to be condemned outright. On one or two occasions on Sunday, Ciaran Duff seemed to have cast himself in the role of the pitcher that went too often to the well. He came back intact and it is to be hoped that having proved, once and for all, that their teeth are indeed sharpawai from home, the Dublin team will now concentrate on that - which they can do best: play a basically flawed but exciting game at its highest competitive level of excellence.

Tags: