Corofin V Slaughtneil 2015 Club Championship Final

For those new to the blog, or who haven’t been here for a while, please find a refresher on the definitions and how the numbers are compiled here


Team Possessions Attacks Attack Rate Shots Shot Rate Scores Success Rate Weighting
Corofin 50 34 68% 25 74% 15 60% +1.205
Slaughtneil 44 31 70% 22 71% 7 32% -5.128
Avg (70 mins) 37.0 28.7 77.7% 14.7 51.2%

Attack Rates, and Shot Rates, were quite even showing that both teams moved the ball inside the opposition’s 45, and also got shots off once in there, at very similar rates. For all that Corofin had 6 extra possessions having three shots less, whilst not ideal, is not insurmountable. It was what the teams did with their shots that was the difference.

Slaughtneil’s weighting is somewhat skewed by (a) the fisted attempt in close to goal that went wide and (b) the missed penalty late in the game but there is no hiding from the fact that their shooting was just not up to scratch. Symptomatic of this was that they had six players try one shot apiece – all six missed. A further three players had two attempts at goal missing both.

Like in their semi-final (Success Rate of 60% off 15 shots) Corofin were very accurate producing returns above the inter county average. Indeed their whole performance was very similar to their last outing against St. Vincent’s where they produced a stat line of 49 possessions, 32 attacks, 25 shots and 15 scores.

1st Half

Team Possessions Attacks Attack Rate Shots Shot Rate Scores Success Rate Weighting
Corofin 32 23 72% 17 74% 9 53% +0.212
Slaughtneil 25 15 60% 9 60% 3 33% -1.752

2nd Half

Team Possessions Attacks Attack Rate Shots Shot Rate Scores Success Rate Weighting
Corofin 18 11 61% 8 73% 6 75% +0.993
Slaughtneil 19 16 84% 13 81% 4 31% -3.376

The game completely slowed down in the second half with a total of 37 possessions as against the 57 produced in the first half. Slaughtneil showed great fight, producing five more shots in that second half, but again their aforementioned lack of accuracy undid their efforts.

Whilst Corofin were deadly accurate in that second half the damage was done in the first where they just blitzkrieged Slaughtneil. There was a 15 minute period where Slaughtneil did not have a shot (from ~8th min to the ~23rd). In this period Corofin got off ten shots scoring 1-05 and effectively built a lead they would not relinquish.


Shots from Play

Team Shots Scores Success Rate Weighting
Corofin 19 10 53% +0.750
Slaughtneil 16 4 25% -3.621
Avgs (70 mins) 21.4 9.7 45.3%

Four from fifteen when going for points just won’t do it. It was not as if they were trying absolute spectaculars either as only two of their shots were outside the 20m line on the wings. Also I only charted five of the point attempts having pressure applied – the shooting boots were just not on.

Despite being behind for a large portion of the game Slaughtneil did not have an attempt on goal until the 59th minute – something the stout Corofin defence can take a lot of credit for as it was late in the second half before St. Vincents had a shot at goal (from play) as well.

Whilst Corofin’s goal was what put real scoreboard pressure on Slaughtneil it was Lundy’s burst of three point in under 90 seconds mid-way through the first half that really underlined the difference in the teams. He was deadly accurate for Corofin over the two games with a combined stat line of 7 points from 10 attempts (weighting of +2.069); simply outstanding accuracy when the average return is c45%.


Shots from deadballs

Player Shots Scores Success Rate Weighting
G Sice (Corofin) 4 4 100% +0.786
L Silke (Corofin) 2 1 50% -0.331
C Bradley (Slaughtneil) 3 1 33% -0.916
P Kelly (Slaughtneil) 1 1 100% 0.163
Paul Bradley (Slaughtneil) 1 1 100% +0.064
C Doherty (Slaughtneil) 1 0 0% -0.818
team avgs (70 mins) 7.2 4.9 68.7%

Over the semi-final and final Gary Sice was seven from seven from frees with a weighting of +1.176. That sort of reliability is priceless.

Bradley gets somewhat badly treated given his three attempts were all in and around the 45m line but having converted the first you would have high hopes of getting one from the subsequent two attempts.



Corofin’s kickouts Won % Turned into a possession % Shot %
Corofin 11 69% 7 64% 6 55%
Slaughtneil 5 31% 3 60% 2 40%
Slaughtneil’s kickouts Won % Turned into a possession % Shot %
Corofin 10 56% 8 80% 7 70%
Slaughtneil 8 44% 7 88% 6 75%

In the aforementioned 15 minute spell, where Corofin scored 1-05, they hemmed Slaughtneil in winning four of the kickouts that resulted from the six scores. It was somewhat surprising that Slaughtneil did not try to relieve the siege by getting their hands on a short kickout or two. It was obvious that their strategy was not working when they lost 8 out of their first 11 kickouts but they never deviated. Indeed in what must be a record in such back to back high profile games Slaughtneil didn’t hit one short kickout in either the semi-final or the final.

Although one of their short kickouts went astray Corofin were always in control of their own ball.


Shot Charts

Corofin’s shooting
Corofin shooting v Slaughtneil

Slaughtneil’s shooting
Slaughtneil shooting v Corofin
x = missed, disc = score, yellow = deadball, black = 1st half from play, white = 2nd half from play


Players with >= 3 shots from play

Shots Scores Success Rate Weighting
M Lundy (Corofin) 4 3 75% +0.882
G Bradley (Slaughtneil) 4 3 75% +0.791
I Burke (Corofin) 4 1 25% -0.692

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: