Defence wins games, wins championships.

So what is a blanket defence anyway? 12/13 men behind the ball, in their own half? Retreating wing forwards? Defensive lines? Attacking half backs? Forwards tackling? Defenders scoring?
I'd love to hear the input of some of our more tactically astute posters on this. What are the subtle differences (or maybe they are not so subtle) between a Donegal defence and a Mayo one? Between a Kildare defence and a Dublin one? Between Antrim and Cork?
Is it the number of players that retreat? Is it how high up the pitch that the first line of defence is set up? Is it how many men are committed forward whn they have the ball?
As far as I can tell there are many counties playing a somewhat defensive system at the moment with ourselves at one end of the spectrum and perhaps teams like Mayo/Kildare at the other?? How does a team be more "puke" than another one?

Well if I may be the first to contribute.......

A blanket defence could be any system in Gaelic Football where the emphasis is on regaining possession.

12/13 men behind the ball, retreating wing forwards, defensive lines, attacking half backs, forwards tackling, defenders scoring are all methods which may achieve this and also take advantage of it.

Ultimately around 2002/2003, Gaelic Football became a game of possession, as opposed to a game of territory and the defensive systems grew out of this.

Does this have a detrimental effect on the skills of Gaelic Football? Well I'm not sure. Even the best defensive systems still require enormous levels of fitness and athleticism, incredibly disciplined tacklers, brainy / aware players - when in attack mode, and at least one 'great' forward or a handful of very good ones. In my opinion.

As for Donegal? I still think they are three or four years off the times. Their success is not founded on any tactical nous in my opinion, it just happened to co-incide with a decline in Ulster Football. Or to put another way, the best teams - Tyrone and Armagh - have come back to the pack.

The modus operandi of the moment is Total Football. Made popular by Tyrone in 2008, Dublin, Kildare and Cork are all excellent exponents of this brand of football. Does it fall under the umbrella of blanket defence? Certainly involves a style of defending not too different to a blanket defence.

Some teams, the aristocrats if you like, have - for the large part - stuck with the basics of catch and kick football and just adapted their 'style' to negate the blanket defences and the total footballers. For example, Meath. We are happy that with some further tweaks under the watchful eye of Banty McEnaney, we will win an All-Ireland for the ages, sometime in the next five years.

Loyal, fair play to Meath indeed. But I was hoping for a bit more information on the differences in approach. How is total football different to puke football?

Puke football is a phrase coined by Pat Spillane back in 2003 to describe a team who defend en masse. He found this mass defending unpleasing to the eye, and metaphorically speaking, I think it made him sick. Hence the phrase: Puke Football.

Today it is over-used. In a broad sense, a team who take less than three passes to work the ball from goalie to full-forward line could be said to be playing puke football. At least that is my interpretation.

The problem a lot of people have with Donegal is that the game becomes ridiculously slow as a result of their mass defending. The build-up is laborious and such is the immense pressure on the attacking team, there are usually a lot of wides and shots dropped short. People prefer games where the play is stretched - players out of position, and lots of space for forwards to run into. But unfortunetely for them, Donegal simply refuse to let this happen. I agree it is not nice but if it wins trophies, then why not.....

Total football is different in my opinion. Forwards defend from the front and have no problem running the length of the pitch to make a match winning block. However the most eyecatching aspect of this gameplan is when defenders run up the field and get in on the act of scoring too. Everyone is comfortable in whatever role they are required to play. When played in Croke Park, by the best teams, I find this style highly entertaining.

Thank you for your kind comments in relation to Meath too.

On Friday, August 7th, 2009, JayoCluxton had this to say:

Jayo Cluxton wrote:What will be seen and accepted in future is that Tyrone re-invented Gaelic football. From the swarm/blanket defence Mickey Harte and co appled the logic into total interchangeability of positions - away from the rigidity of traditional 'set' positions. The result is that you have 14 guys that can and will slot in anywhere and most of them do. People talk about 13-a-side but the way Tyrone play the game it should be 17 a side.

Mickey Harte has moved GAA to a new level. Few see it now - but they will eventually.

Cork, Kildare and Dublin have copied the Tyrone blueprint, and it appears JayoCluxton has shown excellent foresight in his above post.

If I can go slightly off thread - more in response to the title of the thread than the opening post.
In the modern game and probably before that - In my opinion what wins all Irelands is a team that has at least 3 forwards who are capable of consistently scoring circa 3 points each from play and there are few teams that can boast this

Armagh 02 - McDonnell, Marsden, McConville - (mcentees and Clarkle also)
Tyrone 03 - Canavan,O Neill, Mulligan (Mcguigan, dooher, Cavanagh)
Kerry O4- O Cinneide, gooch Declan O sullivan, Mike Frank
Tyrone 05v - Mulligan, mcguigan,Cavanagh,O neill - Canavan
Kerry 06 - Gooch, D O Sullivan, Donaghy, Brosnan, Mike Frank
Kerry 07 - Gooch, D O sullivan, Donaghy, Brosnan, Sheehan
Tyrone 08 - McCullagh ?, Dooher,Cavanagh
Kerry 09 - Cooper- Walsh - D Osullivan
Cork 10- Goulding and O Connor and ????? ( the exception that proves the rule)

Cork did not have a 3rd player who nearly always scores heavy though O Neill(P&C), Kerrigan, Miskella all chipped in to a lesser extent on a consistent basis.

Going back further in years - Meath teams with Giles, Geraghty Murphy and O dowd for starters
or Galway teams with Fallon. Donnelan, Joyce and Savage.


_________________________
- Anyway the nub of my point is that in addition to whatever method of blanket defence or otherwise - you need at least 3 class consistent forwards who can score from play to win an all Ireland - The tyrone 08 team with an absent O Neill and a converted but still class Cavanagh - and Cork 2010 being possible exceptions but not by much . Which is why Dublin with 2 Brogans or Donegal with McFadden and Murphy or Down with Coulter and Clarke or Derry with 2 injured Bradleys etc etc are not contenders.

Some very good points there Omar emphasising the importance of forwards who can take scores from open play to win All Irelands but I also feel that another vital component to add to this is to have reliable free takers from both sides of the field where possible. This is an area that has hindered ourselves really since Canavan retired and with O'Neill out injured so often. The ability to convert pressure free kicks can sometimes be the difference in getting to an All ireland final (or Leinster final this year ), We probably would have even squeezed passed Donegal if we'd had a reliable left sided free taker that day. Think also back to Canavan in 2005 V Armagh as opposed to Ray Cosgrove against the same opposition in '02.

The reason Cork may have been the exception to the rule last year is because they are a strong running team and defences last year where forced to foul the likes of Pearse o Neill, Kelly and Kerrigan as they ran through on goal. Goulding and O'Connor were able to capitlise on this by driving over the resulting frees from most areas within the '45.

Interesting point Omar. Although can I put it to you that Tyrone in 2008 and Cork in 2010 played a brand of Total Football where the necessity for scoring forwards was possibly reduced. Midfielders scored, half-backs scored, even corner-backs got in on the act. The scoring load, like the defending load, was distributed more evenly throughout the team. So the lack of forward help for Alan and Bernard that may not count against Dublin? And Kildare - in the case of Leper and O'Flaherty? Also I would have thought McBrearty would be alongside Murphy and McFadden in terms of Donegal attacking threat?

[quote="Loyal2TheRoyal"]Although can I put it to you that Tyrone in 2008 and Cork in 2010 played a brand of Total Football where the necessity for scoring forwards was possibly reduced.[quote]

IMO you cannot compare the mobility/adaptability/fluidity of Tyrone 08 and Cork 10 - nothing like each other in the slightest. I seriously dunno what you do be watching Loyal.

Well everyone knows that Down is a county where attacking football is given full emphasis...an attitude that has made our brand of football delightful to watch...but in the era of the blanket defence often ineffective. People from different counties will say different things.....Kerrymen would be similar to ourselves and appreciate a nice open attacking game; Tyrone people would point to their own tactical and adaptable approach as the ideal way to play; and so as a Down man my view is this:

Gaelic football is an attacking game, a high scoring game. Creativity, flair, and skill are what every player should aspire towards....this does not come from any in-depth tactical approach but from the development of basic skills from a young age which grow into a beautiful natural approach to football. We would look to players like Benny Coulter, Mickey Linden, Colm McAlarney, Greg Blaney, Paddy Doherty as the ideal footballers (note that they are all forwards...defenders in Down have never really been held in the same light...in contrast to players like Conor Gormley and Ryan McMenamin in Tyrone) because their brand of football was, to a Down man, the sport in its purest form. These were players who did not need diagrams or surgical plans to go about their business, they did not have to resort to blanket defenses...they were simply footballers who tied on their boots and strutted their stuff.

I make no apologies for it but I despised the Tyrone style of play in 2003.....seeing the wonderful natural footballers of Kerry being harried to the ground, harried on the ground, unable to even get up and somehow giving away the free. Players like Ryan McMenamin and Kieran Hughes, in my eyes, just had this air of nastiness about them...a spitefulness that i didn't like. Armagh had been at it too for a number of years beforehand. So in my typical Down arrogance I scoffed these teams as nothing more than a band of poor footballers dragging the game down to the lowest depths to finally achieve some success.

But then Armagh went and won an All-Ireland while we got knocked out by Longford. Tyrone went on to do it in 2003. Suddenly these two were the top dogs. And as the years went on their styles developed, to a greater extent in Tyrone where they were able to change their style to remain constant contenders. So I said to myself....maybe these teams only did what they had to do to make a mark, to challenge the traditional powers rather than let them walk all over them, and once success came they were able to show a bit more flair and play with a greater degree of abandon. Tyrone's attacking displays in 2005 were much more refined than they were in 2003.

Opinions on puke football are just that: opinions. Being a Downman I have an opinion on what puke football is...though I cannot easily describe it. I suppose I use the term puke football when I see blanket defenses, a lack of natural footballing skill, and the absence of creativity in favour of rigid and lifeless gameplans, even if they are effective.

If a team wants to adopt a defensive approach then I suppose there is still skill in that...defence is indeed a skill in itself. Personally...I hope Down always remains an aesthetic footballing county..I'm very proud of our brand of football and yeah maybe I look down on other counties for their brand. But if a team decides to be defensive in the name of success, then fair play to them I suppose. I just hope it doesn't go any further than it already has done.

Jayo Cluxton wrote:

Loyal2TheRoyal wrote:Although can I put it to you that Tyrone in 2008 and Cork in 2010 played a brand of Total Football where the necessity for scoring forwards was possibly reduced.

IMO you cannot compare the mobility/adaptability/fluidity of Tyrone 08 and Cork 10 - nothing like each other in the slightest. I seriously dunno what you do be watching Loyal.

For the time being, I am happy to put Cork 2010 under the umbrella of Total Football - until somebody comes along with a better way of describing them. Whatever you want to call it, I don't believe it effects my original point? Which is that they play a type of game where the necessity for scoring forwards did not appear as high as in past All-Ireland winning teams.

A good question RMD and one i am not sure there is any definitive answer too.

IMO the whole concept of forwards playing as extra defenders is not something which suddenly appeared in 2002/2003 courtesy of Armagh or Tyrone. One only has to look at the career of the man who coined the phrase 'puke football' to see that he was quite often found on his own 14/21 yard line picking up possession from his own goalkeeper or defence.

The only thing that changed at the start of the noughties was that teams brought a new level of fitness to the table and consequently were able to execute the system much better, it may not have been the most pleasing on the eye but for teams such as Armagh and Tyrone it was a means to and end, that is winning an All-Ireland.

Who can forget the All Ireland semi final in 2003 between Tyrone and Kerry, to see the pressure the whole Tyrone team put on the Kerry team was almost a new phenomenen and unseen before, to see Dara O'Se kicking a ball away almost by way of submission showed just how rattled the Kerry team were, theY had no answer to the swarming of the Tyrone tackling.

From a Tyrone point of view it was great to see our guys making 'little' of the galacticos of the Kerry team. I dont mean that as any kind of insult to the Kerry team, but few if any of us expected the Tyrone team to show Kerry as little 'respect' as they did. And to beat them so convincingly was really a major breakthrough. For all other counties it may not have been that great to watch!!!!!

At this stage the system being used was more a system of stopping the other team from playing and hoping that an early ball into a 2 man full forward line would just edge us over the finishing line with a point or two to spare. Games were never high scoring, it was almost like the ethos used by the Italian soccer team, sit back and sit back absorb the pressure and just hope that somewhere along the line a counter attack would get you a score, enough counter attacks and you would win as long as you prevented the oppopsition from doing the same. Defence was the key word and attacking/scoring was a secondary consideration. For me that was real puke football, (though i dont like the phrase puke football).

Tyrone evolved the system into one of total football were there was a shift from making defence the number one priority to more of a system were attack was the order of the day. This required all 14 out field players having the fitness and skill level to allow them to operate both as a defender and an attacker, the interchangeability was there for all to see. A system definitely more pleasing on the eye, it still relied heavily on men tracking back when we didnt have the ball but the big difference was that when we regained posession we were not afriad to commit defenders forward in search of scores. And we all know how hard it is to stop a man travelling at speed on the overlap.

Other teams tried to mimic this but were the sytem failed was that the fitness levels werent there and more importantly the players being asked to carry out certain roles just werent up to it in terms of the skill set they had. And so the systems being used now are what i would call a compromise by some counties, they realise they have the 'athletes' at their disposal these athletes just dont have the full set of ball skills.

The systems are more scientific - look at Donegal, its all about zones. The forwards have a zone were the need to be in before they shoot whilst the defence know exactly the zone where the opposition 'shall not enter' as it will more than likely lead to a score. Their system is more about defending than attacking, granted they do have defenders who can score but its more the exception than the norm. Their system worked perfectly on Sunday and once they got the goal there was only going to be one winner

For me its not that pleasing to watch but like i said earlier if your a supporter of that county and it brings success its all great, if your a neutral or a supporter of the opposition trying to break down such a system it can be awful to watch (i remember Derry v Tyrone in Healy park in 2004 an awful game to watch but when the game was over you'd have been forgiven for thinking Derry had won SAM).

Not sure if this answers the question or nor RMD, but for me Puke football would be when the game plan is more about stopping the opposition than getting scores on the baord, and for me thats exactly the way McGuinness has set the Donegal team up. I am not sure they have a plan B and if a team were to get 3-4 points ahead of them i could see them buckling altogether.

This is exactly what I was trying to get at in my post. 'Puke football' has no real meaning, it's just some sort of construct, a way of describing football that is played in a way not to your taste. Bocerty points out that he sees Tyrone v Kerry 2003 as an exhibition of intense disciplined tackling and an example of how to stand up to Kerry. Had the game been played as a traditional 'go-for-scores' Kerry would have destroyed Tyrone that day.

Although I fully understand that Tyrone had no desire to stand by and watch Kerry skip around them and score at will, I just didn't like the style. And like I said maybe it's arrogance on my part. I don't want to turn this into a Tyrone-bashing because they were undoubtedly a great team but I always felt they brought a nastiness to the table...there was something about them that just prevented me from really liking them. And it's not just me...we all know that Tyrone probably don't get the credit they deserve because a lot of people simply didn't like them. They were almost too cute, often went down easy in tackles (dare I call it diving?). I remember one incident in 2003 where Gregory McCartan threw a ball at Brian McGuigan and he did a bit of a Rivaldo....McCartan walked. Even the evergreen Brian Dooher, as great a player as he is, was prone to take a fall easily. But this has slowly become a part of the game....even Kerry have been at it (Aidan O'Mahony....ugh).

As well as this we now see the tragedy in almost every game where a player goes to ground and is surrounded by opponents and literally can't even get himself to his feet and often a free is awarded against him. It's just a little bit sad in my opinion to see a fast paced and exciting sport degraded into this. But yet again....everyone is at it.

But then by 2008 Tyrone were playing brilliant stuff...which made me think, yeah they weren't the most likeable bunch at times but jaysus once they got a foothold in Gaelic football's hierarchy their level really improved. Contrast that to Down...a county that knows only one way to play...we go out an expect a good old-fashioned shootout and it got us nowhere between 1994 and 2010. To be fair we're doing a fair bit more handpassing than we used and starting to play the possession game a bit more and it seems to have worked well....many older people in the county might call it puke football though!

The Tyrone people here probably aren't going to like what I've said about their heroes but I can only say I respect the county's success and the brilliant players they have produced...and I fully accept that Tyrone just did what they had to do to win. It just wasn't to my liking and that's just my opinion!

Bluearmy you are perfectly entitled to your opinion and i dont take anything you say personally. One point i will pick up on though is the nastiness you say Tyrone brought to the table and the 'diving' you alluded to.

I agree that some of the antics of Tyrone players was at times unsavoury but again i think its a label we have inherited whcih we dont fully deserve. Armagh were famed for the knee in the back/chest/ribs/head and the greatest exponent was Francie Bellew, and yet he is seen as some sort of a legend. Ricey has a word in your ear (i know he had other tricks up his sleeve such as nut tickling) and he is called a scumbag by many. So in some respect i think Tyrone are hated more than say Armagh because we were slightly more successful and the word hatred could almost be repalced by jealous!!!!

As for the diving, i know big Sean was fond of the going to ground at the slightest touch and no doubt Samin is still agrieved at Jordan for the incident in the 2003 final but with due respect the likes of Dooher took an awful lot of abuse during games. The incident in the Westmeath game in Omagh when he went down is always brought up but look at it closely it was a full blown punch in the stomach and while it may not have been enough to knock him down i dont blame him for going to ground, the other alternative was to hit the Westmeath guy a smack in the mouth and head to the sideline with him!!!!

I think the reason Tyrone were 'hated' was more because they did get up to some unsavoury stuff but it still brought them huge success and they really rocked the establishment of the traditional football powers. It was all well and good for the 'aristocrats' to label the 'lesser' counties as rabbles who could only cheat their way to limited success...but when Tyrone started mixing great football with a little bit of dirt....they just couldn't handle it.

And yes I would agree that Armagh were at it long before Tyrone......the blanket defence really started to emerge in the Canavan/McAlinden era in Armagh...Tyrone just took it to a higher intensity.

But you really have to give Tyrone credit....a county which had largely underachieved in Ulster with its big GAA community suddenly produces a string of fantastic underage teams and a host of All-Ireland and provincial triumphs.

The 'puke football' of 2003 has given way to Tyrone becoming a county of genuine footballing pedigree. So I suppose one could say....power to the pukes if the end product is like Tyrone's.

i wouldnt say Armagh were at it long before Tyrone, in fact Tyrone teams of years gone by were probably a dirtier shower than the current crop but with the massive increase in media coverage it jsut gets noticed and reported more.

Take the Tyrone team of 86 and messrs O' Hagan, McGinn, Lynch etc all hard men who would take the head of you in an instance and as for talking in your ear, i'm told the stuff O' Hagan put of his tongue made Ricey look like an altar boy.

The system Tyrone employed in 2003 under Harte was as i say a means to an end. If you read Hartes books he talks at length about Tyrones record in Croker and in finals and he was determined to do all he could to make sure that Tyrones record at HQ would change.

Teams nowadays are back to concentrating on stopping teams from playing, defend in numbers and hopefully nick enough scores to win. Again take Donegal (not picking on them) they pack the defence and play the short passing game. And yet if we look at their strengths it is undoubtedly Murphy and McFadden and the quick ball in done more damage on Sunday than any other tactic they employed.

That said McGuinness has worked wonders, to get a team all working to the same system is the big secret in management, one weak link and it doesnt work!!!!

A good topic to discuss. This style of football is great for a commited team but does take time to bed in. Tyrone or armagh was not puke football because of the quality of footballers that they had. Part of armaghs tactic was the long diagional ball ino a 2 man full forward line.

But what made it so unpopular was when 2 lower quality teams tried to copy it eg fermanagh or dare I say monaghan. What Spillane has done is coin a phrase that is easy to say and insulting to the quality of footballer teams like armagh had.
Of course the teams involved had dirty qualitys but what winning team has not I ask.

Corks style of football I would call brute football not puke. Men like Pearse O Neil Canty, Walsh men who do the donkey work by hard running physical play which wins alot of frees. I just wish they played with a bit more joy!

scoopmine wrote:A good topic to discuss. This style of football is great for a commited team but does take time to bed in. Tyrone or armagh was not puke football because of the quality of footballers that they had. Part of armaghs tactic was the long diagional ball ino a 2 man full forward line.

But what made it so unpopular was when 2 lower quality teams tried to copy it eg fermanagh or dare I say monaghan. What Spillane has done is coin a phrase that is easy to say and insulting to the quality of footballer teams like armagh had.
Of course the teams involved had dirty qualitys but what winning team has not I ask.

Corks style of football I would call brute football not puke. Men like Pearse O Neil Canty, Walsh men who do the donkey work by hard running physical play which wins alot of frees. I just wish they played with a bit more joy!

the big question i always ask myself Scoop is this, if Tyrone had of playing say Dublin or Cork on that August day in 2003 and done the same with them would Spillane have used the term puke football?

Or was it just sour grapes that he had just watched a shower of upstarts from the sticks wipe the floor with the footballing aristocrats from the Kingdom? Lets face it (and i am not trying to rub anyones nose in it) but it was a very humbling day for many of the Kerry players, but i often wonder would Spillane have said the same if it wasnt Kerry who we had beaten.

Spillanes job is to get people talking the GAA's Eamon Dumphy. Often his points are to appeal to the bandwagon fairweather fan. Its why he writes for the rag Sunday World. I dont think Spillane can be humbled hes one of the greatest player of all time and the most known pundit.
To be honest the phrase if you want to be the best you gotta take out the best. In GAA terms thats Kerry. Tyrone did it in a way never seen before.

bluearmy1 wrote: Had the game been played as a traditional 'go-for-scores' Kerry would have destroyed Tyrone that day.

Your ignorance truly is staggering. I'll respond more later, and on your first post, which was also littered with nonsense, but I'll simply say the following:

1) The first half was a 'go for scores game', and Kerry scored 2 points. Tyrone scored 9, which is quite a good points total in any half. Tyrone pressed very high up the pitch, and turned over enormous amounts of ball. They also cleaned out the Kerry midfield. There was no defending for the first 35 minutes.

2) In 2003, Tyrone had Cavanagh, Dooher, McGuigan, Mulligan, Canavan, O'Neill, Cavlan - more than enough scoring power to compete with almost any side in any era.

3) If Kerry would have destroyed them in a 'go for scores game', then how come they didn't do so in 2005 or 2008, both of which were more open.

Really, for a fella who writes so much, so little of your diatribe is accurate.

TC displaying a bit of that Tyrone nastiness I was talking about earlier

1) There can be absolutely no argument that Tyrone's performance against Kerry was defensive. Being defensive doesn't mean you can't score. I used the term 'go-for-scores' for want of a better term.....so maybe I could have just said...a traditional open Gaelic football match. That game was anything but. Tyrone stifled the Kerry players in all areas of the pitch, surrounding them in all directions. Yes this tactic allowed Tyrone to gain possession from which they could score but it was still highly defensive in that Kerry players simply weren't allowed an inch of breathing space.

I stand by it...had Tyrone not used their blanket defense....had they allowed to the game to turn into a scorefest...they simply were not far enough down the road to take on Kerry in that type of game.

2) Tyrone had top quality forwards and everyone knows that. But the Tyrone of 2005 and 2008 were much more refined outfits than in 2003. There was less blanket defense and more open football.

Which leads to...

3) Come 2005 and 2008 Tyrone had built up a real swagger and confidence about themselves. They played a more fluid game. In 2005 and 2008 they simply did not need to use the same tactics that they used in 2003 to beat Kerry. Players like Cavanagh, McGuigan and Mulligan had grown immensely to compliment the old guard of Dooher and Canavan.

You may not feel that Tyrone in 2003 were a defensive outift......I totally disagree. But once they had achieved silverware they really started to play the type of football that was more indicative of their attacking capabilities.

It appears that you have taken my comments about your native county to heart and I advise that you calm yourself down. I made it very clear that these are my opinions and just because you label them 'diatribe' does not make it so.

Sorry Bluearmy, it is impossible to argue with ignorance. Your use of the term 'blanket defence' illustrates that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Tyrone defended for 35 minutes in the entire 2003 championship, and that was the 2nd half against Kerry. In the first half, the tactic they used was pressing. If you really want to know what Tyrone brought to the game then that was it. Pressing. It had been done before, but never to the effect that Tyrone did, or with the quality of players. You should be able to see this, as your own county used extremely similar tactics in 1994. Re-watch the Derry match if you need a reminder. Tyrone played high up the pitch, and turned over lots of ball. They did not defend in the 1st half - they poured forward incessantly.

Tyrone's last 7 wins in 2003 were as follows:

Laois (0-21 to 1-08) -league final
Derry (0-17 to 1-05)
Antrim (1-17 to 1-09)
Down (0-23 to 1-05)
Fermanagh (1-21 to 0-05)
Kerry (0-13 to 0-06)
Armagh (0-12 to 0-09)

You have to go back to the 70s to find a side that was that far ahead of the rest, and those totals don't support your case for the 'blanket defence', whatever that phrase means. In 2005, Tyrone were very good, but not as good as in 2003. By 2008 they were on their last legs.

My only disappointment with Tyrone in 2003 was that they got stage fright in the final, and almost lost a game that they dominated.

bocerty wrote:Bluearmy you are perfectly entitled to your opinion and i dont take anything you say personally. One point i will pick up on though is the nastiness you say Tyrone brought to the table and the 'diving' you alluded to.

I agree that some of the antics of Tyrone players was at times unsavoury but again i think its a label we have inherited whcih we dont fully deserve. Armagh were famed for the knee in the back/chest/ribs/head and the greatest exponent was Francie Bellew, and yet he is seen as some sort of a legend. Ricey has a word in your ear (i know he had other tricks up his sleeve such as nut tickling) and he is called a scumbag by many. So in some respect i think Tyrone are hated more than say Armagh because we were slightly more successful and the word hatred could almost be repalced by jealous!!!!

As for the diving, i know big Sean was fond of the going to ground at the slightest touch and no doubt Samin is still agrieved at Jordan for the incident in the 2003 final but with due respect the likes of Dooher took an awful lot of abuse during games. The incident in the Westmeath game in Omagh when he went down is always brought up but look at it closely it was a full blown punch in the stomach and while it may not have been enough to knock him down i dont blame him for going to ground, the other alternative was to hit the Westmeath guy a smack in the mouth and head to the sideline with him!!!!

Here you go Bocerty, you have your red and white tinted glasses on so watch these clips...

Thomas Clarke wrote:Sorry Bluearmy, it is impossible to argue with ignorance. Your use of the term 'blanket defence' illustrates that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Tyrone defended for 35 minutes in the entire 2003 championship, and that was the 2nd half against Kerry. In the first half, the tactic they used was pressing. If you really want to know what Tyrone brought to the game then that was it. Pressing. It had been done before, but never to the effect that Tyrone did, or with the quality of players. You should be able to see this, as your own county used extremely similar tactics in 1994. Re-watch the Derry match if you need a reminder. Tyrone played high up the pitch, and turned over lots of ball. They did not defend in the 1st half - they poured forward incessantly.

Tyrone's last 7 wins in 2003 were as follows:

Laois (0-21 to 1-08) -league final
Derry (0-17 to 1-05)
Antrim (1-17 to 1-09)
Down (0-23 to 1-05)
Fermanagh (1-21 to 0-05)
Kerry (0-13 to 0-06)
Armagh (0-12 to 0-09)

You have to go back to the 70s to find a side that was that far ahead of the rest, and those totals don't support your case for the 'blanket defence', whatever that phrase means. In 2005, Tyrone were very good, but not as good as in 2003. By 2008 they were on their last legs.

My only disappointment with Tyrone in 2003 was that they got stage fright in the final, and almost lost a game that they dominated.

stage fright my ass, they brought acting to a whole new level.

Good to see the Armagh contingent contributing to the debate, with you-tube clips and one liners.