2021 Galway Senior Club final

Corofin’s attacking output, over the ~65 minutes, was very, very poor. Unless you have complete control of the ball – which is a very rare occurrence – 0.24 points per possession (ppp) will not win any game. (I have completed four county finals from 2021 – the winning team’s ppp were 0.41, 0.34, 0.44 and 0.38 here)

But even that lens is flattering. When Mountbellew scored their goal in the 35^th minute, to go 1 – 09 to 0 – 03 up, Corofin had just 18 possessions (I say “just” as Mountbellew had 25) but produced a meagre four (four!) shots. Had they maintained that trajectory for the whole game it would end up as 0.16 ppp and a Shot Rate of 22%! It was the 8^th minute before Corofin completed a kick pass (and even then it didn’t go to hand – Mountbellew fouled the receiver) and by the first water break they had only controlled the ball inside Mountbellew’s 45 twice.

The flip side of this is that Mountbellew not only hit the ground running but hit *everything* in that opening period. It reads as Val Daly’s dream game plan; stymie Corofin’s early attacking moves, get your hands on the ball, read Power’s kickouts pinning Corofin in and finally take your chances. Taking each in turn

Corofin’s first three team possessions;

• own kickout won as a Mark but subsequent pass, from Canney into Farragher intercepted in the D
• own kickout won by Wall who carried it into Mountbellew’s 45 where he was dispossessed
• sideline ball intercepted inside own 45. Corofin fouled the ball on the way out

Hands on the ball. Mountbellew are not an immature team, nor are they full of young bucks, however they have struggled in finals. They beat Corofin in the 2020 semi-finals but there must still have been some apprehension. Whether deliberate or not they eased themselves into the game. Corofin’s two first possessions ended after one player touched the ball. Mountbellew’s first two possessions had two of their longest strings of passing. In these two opening possessions there were 33 individual player possessions. Now there will be some players with multiple touches therein however that is a lot of the team getting their hands on the ball early.

Reading Power’s kickouts

Following on from the above Corofin won three of their first four kickouts (circled red). Power was angling the kicks to pockets on the wings for runners to run on to. One of these produced Corofin’s only shot in the first quarter. But Mountbellew quickly got to grips with this and won the next four (circled yellow) and, just as important as winning the kickout, they managed to get 0 – 02 from those four kickouts.

Which brings us to Mountbellew’s shooting early doors. At that goal on the 35^th minute they had taken 16 shots and scored 1 – 09. A conversion rate of 63%. But prior to that they had a phenomenal start, scoring 0 – 07 from nine shots (78% Conversion Rate). These nine shots were not easy either with only one of the seven from play coming from “inside”.

They were 0 – 04 from six “outside” with McHugh converting a tight enough angled free kick. This was unsustainable however the early lead, and then the goal, cracked open the game and took the sting, and urgency, out of everything thereafter.

Corofin v Padraig Pearses 2019 Connacht Club Final

Nothing spectacular from Corofin. 1 – 00 from their two attempts at goal; 0 – 03 from four frees and 0 – 07 from 13 on point attempts. Expected to score 13 points. Scored 1 – 10. All in all, an average enough outing.

I imagine Pearses will be annoyed with their days work. They missed two relatively straight forward central frees which were somewhat cancelled out by a converted 45. But that 45 aside they skied a very good one on one goal chance and converted just 0 – 03 from 8 point attempts.

Those numbers don’t take into account their very slow start. It was the 12th minute before they controlled the ball inside Corofin’s 45 with a Niall Daly point attempt. It was the 19th minute before a Pearses player completed a pass from within the 45 by which time they had only controlled the ball twice inside the 45 (alongside Daly’s shot Carey attempted a free out on the sideline after getting fouled).
And yet for all that after 40 minutes it was 0 – 06 apiece and Pearses were 13-12 ahead on the shot count.

Reading way too much into it Corofin let Pearses hang around despite their terrible (metric wise) start but once Pearses drew level they upped it a gear, scored 1 – 02 in five minutes, allowing Pearses just one possession in that time, and then saw out the game.

Corofin shooting

Corofin were their clinical selves “inside” scoring 1 – 07 from just nine shots with the missed attempt being a contested fisted goal attempt from a dropping diagonal ball.

Disc = score, X = miss; red = goal attempt, yellow = deadball, black = point attempt from play 1st half, white = point attempt from play 2nd half

The flip side is that their “outside” shooting was quite poor; 0 – 02 from 8 from play.

This may just be a blip – not only in terms of Conversion Rate but also volume. They were 0 – 03 from just five attempts “outside” against BallintubberBallintubberBallintubber and in their devastating 1st halves against Dr Crokes and Gaoth Dobhair (below), at the end of last year’s campaign, attempted just 5 of 26 shots from “outside”

When it matters, they don’t do “outside” shooting.

Corofin’s range of attacking players was again on display here. From their 15 shots from play they had 11 different shooters. Padraig Pearses had five (and only one was not named Daly!).
Ian Burke’s quick hands were on full display again – giving the pass inside for Liam Silke’s goal and also providing the primary assist on four other point attempts.

Kickouts

Nothing much there to be honest. But we now have two Corofin games where we can overlay their kickouts.

30 kickouts in the two games with Corofin winning possession on 77% (23 of 30). One third (10) have gone short (which is below intercounty rates) with Corofin getting their hands on all of them.
Of those that have gone past the 45 Corofin have won possession 60% of the time (12 – 8). This is good – for intercounty Championship games the kickout team wins x% of kickouts past the 45. Looking at the kickout map they prefer hitting the wings in and around the 65 – and avoid the dangerous middle between the 45 & 65. They don’t rely on Marks – only the one across the two games

Corofin v Ballintubber 2019 Connacht Club SF

In many ways the game was similar to the 2018 Connacht final (review here) in that the overall numbers (possessions, shots, Conversion Rates) were quite close but Corofin never really felt in any trouble. The below is an extract from that 2018 game

But the main reason for their easy third was due to a devastating 15 minute spell from the 33^rd minute onwards. In that period Corofin had 16 possessions taking eleven shots … and scoring 1 – 08 (Conversion Rate of 82% with an Expt Pts +3.06).

Corofin had less of a surge in this game but they again showed their clinical nature in the third quarter scoring 1 – 04 from just 5 shots (Expt pts of +3.53) enabling them to ease out to a six point lead after 45 minutes. Ballintubber showed great battling qualities to get within one heading into injury time but the damage had been done.

In another way this game was very different from 2018. The 2018 version was a veritable turnover fest with 90 total possessions of which 58 (64%) were turnovers. Both teams were very careful with the ball here producing just the 63 total possessions in total of which 28 (44%) were turnovers. Both teams played “keep ball” for long periods with 20 of the possessions having a string of at least 10 passes.

That volume of possessions is not just low compared to the 2018 game but very low full stop. On a straight line conversion to a 70 minute intercounty game (they are not the same thing with injury time etc. but this is just for illustrative purposes!) those 63 possessions grade out at 74. The average intercounty Championship total in 2018 & 2019 was 90. In 150 games since 2015 only one game – Fermanagh v Monaghan in 2018 – came in at lower than 74. This was a possession game brought to the extremes.

 

Corofin’s defense

Much has been made (both by myself and others) of the Corofin attack. It wasn’t at full throttle here (50% Conversion Rate from play; 1 – 05 from 12) though the depth of their attack can be gauged by the fact that (a) their three goal shots didn’t come from the vaunted forwards but instead Kieron Molloy & Liam Silke and (b) Gary Sice was 0 – 03 from 3 on frees in 2018 but didn’t take one here when they went 0 – 05 from 5.

Instead of focussing on the attack it is work taking a quick look at their defence through the lens of Ballintubber shooting.

Ballintubber’s slow build up would appear not to have worked. Corofin were able to maintain as clean a “D” as you are likely to see allowing no shot at goal and just two attempts from the very outer edge of the shooting arc.

But the slow build up is not the sole reason for this paucity of close shooting. In the 2018 game (shot chart below) only three Ballintubber shots were taken close to goal despite it being a very different type of game.

In ~130 minutes of high level club football Corofin were able to keep Ballintubber to one goal attempt, did not allow a shot from a free from closer than 35 metres, and only allowed six of 28 point attempts (21%) from “inside”.

Corofin’s attack

Corofin produced an absolutely scintillating performance in the first half of the recent club final against Dr. Crokes. I threw up a few pieces on twitter (@dontfoul) around that performance and what follows is an amalgamation of those pieces with a bit more context.

It is important to note what this is not. It is not is a critique of how Corofin play. It is a review of how they played in one half of one game.

Corofin’s shooting

The first thing that jumped out when watching the game “live” was their shooting. In that first half against Dr. Crokes they attempted 15 shots with none coming from further out than ~23m.

That is an incredibly neat and tight shot chart. I tend to use an ad hoc arc around the D to give a visualisation of “inside”/”outside” shooting which I have overlaid on Corofin’s shots. In the Super 8s last year 45% of shots were taken inside that arc. 45%! Corofin were at 87% (13 of 15) with the two “outside” being on the edge of the arc.

Passing sequences

Taking a step back the next question is how Corofin managed to create such a neat shot chart. Below is the passing sequence for all 18 of their first half possessions and the result for same (excluding the very last move when the referee blew for half time just after the kickout was gathered).

Green is a successful pass, orange is where the pass did not go where anticipated but Corofin gathered/controlled the ball and red is a turnover from a pass.

There is probably a thesis there for someone in comparing that table to other teams, be they club or county. Passes per possession, hand pass to kick pass ratio, avg. length of kick pass, quantum of attacking passes to possession retention passes etc. But from a cursory review there are a few things that jump out

• Just how much green there is and the implication of assuredness whilst in control of the ball;
• Only one turnover in the tackle
• Only four, out of 128 passes, led to a turnover

That is not to say that the other 124 passes were perfect – far from it. There is quite a bit of oIrange in there but that in and of itself was a feature. Twice shots were blocked and regathered, at least five times unorthodox passes (fist through, toe pokes, kick through – you don’t always need to “go down on it”) successfully found a Corofin player. Corofin were alert to all possibilities at all times.

Visually Corofin were in utter control and the above table is just another way to show it. And that control was achieved with a variation in both tempo and style. The first three possessions took six passes apiece, contained two outfield solos and averaged ~20 seconds on the ball. The last point was a 20 pass string with five outfield solos and consumed 72seconds on the clock.

That control was evident even with a heightened volume of kick passes. More work is (definitely) needed here but it is important to stress that it is the type of kick that is emphasised here rather than the volume.

(As an aside ….. Patricia Lynch, the current senior performance analyst for Kerry, did a notational study of passing (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24748668.2017.1416526) showing that from 2014 – 2016 the ratio of kick passes to hand passes was 2.5:1 (~ 72% to 28%). Eamon Donoghue (https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/gaelic-football/gaa-statistics-how-much-has-gaelic-football-changed-in-the-last-decade-1.3619732) in his piece in the Irish Times post last year’s all Ireland final showed a kick pass/hand pass ratio of 75%/25%)

Corofin, at a 30% kick pass ratio, were just above these norms but their attacking kick passes were immense and it is phenomenal that they only had a 3% turnover rate on all passes when we overlay the (subjective) nature of their kick passing.

Front 6 touches

So stepping away from the passing sequences (as I said you could create a thesis on this alone) the question becomes how they create this control. They are generally on point with their passing allowing them to attack the goal and almost point-blank refuse to take unnecessary shots. Joe Brolly eulogised on their understanding of movement and space in the Sunday Game and that got me thinking re how Corofin use their front six.

The above chart outlines the passing and movement on the ball of Corofin’s front six. In doing so you can see a few things that work into their game plan

• expanding it out to the full pitch it is rare for any of them to be on the ball in their own half – 5 touches between them (with Michael Lundy having four of them)
• Gary Sice (#10) is the main architect of the attacking kick; the front six had four kick passes combined from outside the 45 with all of them coming from him
• Michael Lundy (#11) preferred the right-hand side
• Michael Farragher’s (#14) natural habitat is a small rectangular box between the 13m & 20m lines in front of goal however if he collects the ball out the field he is carrying the ball directly towards the danger zone

But all that pales into insignificance when we see what the front six didn’t do. They stayed away from the No. 6 channel (yellow coloured rectangle in the above chart) altogether. Compare that to how other teams view the concept of space and where they try to get their playmakers on the ball.

Could we have seen it coming?

That first half display against Dr. Crokes was outstanding. Unfortunately (despite my endless invocations to people on Twitter to back up their data) I have lost my copy of the 2018 final v Nemo Rangers but commentary points to how they blitzed both Nemo in that final and Slaughtneil in 2016.

What I do have however is the semi-final v Gaoth Dobhair. And the comparison of the two first halves is as scary as it is striking.

Part of the narrative around Corofin’s displays in the finals is that Croke Park suits them. The wide open space allows their forwards to run all sorts of angles whilst the outfield players can find space to pick a pass. Scarily Corofin were even more clinical in the first half of the Gaoth Dobhair game, down in Seán Mac Diarmada Park, than they were up in Croke Park. I mean … 2 – 07 from 11 shots in an AI semi-final.

Once again the shooting was very considered with only three shots coming from outside the aforementioned artificial zone (I wonder did Jason Leonard have to do punishment laps the next night at training for that shot out to the right ….).

Across the two halves analysed that’s 81% (21 of 26) of shots coming from “inside” with only one shot that could be considered in any way away from the arc with 35% of all attempts from play being goal attempts.

Again, a reminder that the 2018 Super8s saw 45% of shots from “inside” with 10.4% of attempts from play being goal attempts.

Passing sequences v Gaoth Dobhair

The passing was not as slick as against Dr. Crokes in that seven passes led to a turnover but the avoidance of turnovers in the tackle is evident with just the one ball dislodged early on.

All the main ingredients for that first half performance v Dr Crokes were evident in their first half display v Gaoth Dobhair.

Ballintubber v Corofin Connacht Club Final 2018

Over the 60 minutes of this game the headline numbers – possessions, attacks, shots, number of kickouts won, number of turnovers – are all very close. Yet the game never felt that close as the clock ran down.

When Corofin had the ball

Part of Corofin’s ease in the last third was due to their excellent shooting. 71% overall including 2 – 00 from their only two goal attempts and 0 – 03 from their three frees. Their point taking stood up as well with a Conversion Rate of 58% (0 – 07 from 12; Expt Pts of +1.09).

One unique aspect of their point taking was the spread of shooters. Ten different players in total contributed to their 12 point attempts with only Kieron Molloy and Mike Farragher having more than one attempt.

Similarly their assists were well spread with nine different players providing primary assists and only two players (Gary Sice & Dylan Wall) having more than two. That is one of Corofin’s greatest strengths – you never know where the attacking threat is going to come from.

But the main reason for their easy third was due to a devastating 15 minute spell from the 33rd minute onwards. In that period Corofin had 16 possessions taking eleven shots … and scoring 1 – 08 (Conversion Rate of 82% with an Expt Pts +3.06). They rounded that period off by winning three Ballintubber kickouts in a row, including a short one that went awry, scoring 0 – 02 from them.

During that same period Ballintubber had 11 possessions with just four shots scoring 0 – 02. The effect on the game was quite dramatic.

When Ballintubber had the ball

We have touched on how Corofin dominated Ballintubber at the start of the second half but Ballintubber’s paucity in attack continued on with their only two remaining shots in that half coming at the death in the 58th & 60th minutes.

Ballintubber’s point attempts over the 60 minutes were on a par with Corofin (54% Conversion Rate with 0 – 07 from 13; Expt Pts +0.99) although, unlike Corofin, they leaned heavily on their big two up front with Cillian O’Connor and Alan Dillon combining for 0 – 04 from 7 (57% Conversion Rate; Expt Pts of +1.09)

Ballintubber didn’t just rely on O’Connor & Dillon in terms of shooting. They, along with Jason Gibbons and Diarmuid O’Connor, were heavily involved in Ballintubber’s attack with the four providing the primary assist on 14 of their 17 shots.

With a quick nod to the last few intercounty seasons O’Connor’s frees were below average. He had four longer range efforts scoring 0 – 02 for an Expt Pts of -0.96. In 2017 and 2018 he was 0 – 53 from 70 for Mayo (on the games reviewed). A Conversion Rate of 76% is bang on average but those frees returned an Expt Pts of -2.87. His free taking is just a notch below where it was and also below the other big free takers (Rock was 88% with an Expt Pts of +4.41 and McManus 77% with an Expt Pts of +1.63 in the same period)

Kickouts

The kickout flow followed the game flow. Overall the two teams come out more or less even; 22 kickouts past the 45 with both teams winning 11 each. Indeed it didn’t matter who kicked out the ball … Corofin won half (4 apiece) of Ballintubber’s non-short kickouts with Corofin also winning half (7 apiece) of Ballintubber’s.

But Ballintubber only had three kickouts in the first half with Corofin having six in the second. Ballintubber were able to get a grip on the game in that first half winning six of Corofin’s nine kickouts that went past the 45 including back to back Marks on Corofin’s first two kickouts. Corofin were much better in the second half winning five of their six.

Appendix

Corofin shot chart

Ballintubber shot chart

Corofin V Mountbellew-Moylough 2015 Galway County 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

Overall

Team	Possessions	Attacks	Attack Rate	Shots	Shot Rate	Scores	Success Rate	Weighting
Corofin	50	35	70%	26	74%	16	62%	+3.898
Mountbellew	45	31	69%	25	81%	12	48%	-0.887
Avg (70 mins)		37.0		28.7	77.7%	14.7	51.2%

95 possessions, in a 60 minute game, is quite high. Pro-rated over 70 minutes that’s somewhere in the 105 – 110 range which compares favourably with the 96, 95 & 102 recorded in the three All Ireland semi-finals earlier in the year. Now undoubtedly this elevated volume is aided by the kick passing approach of both teams but that is still a high octane game for club football in October.

Mountbellew-Moylough will have their regrets, as we will observe later, but ultimately it was Corofin’s accuracy that carried the day. Especially on goal chances. Corofin had six attempts at goal scoring 3-00, Mountbellew-Moylough had five returning with just the one point to show for it.

Tell me if you’ve heard this before – goals win games.

 

Shots from Play

Team	Shots	Scores	Success Rate	Weighting
Corofin	21	13	62%	+4.242
Mounbellew	16	4	25%	-2.530
Avgs (70 mins)	21.4	9.7	45.3%

Mountbellew-Moylough will be disappointed with all three goals they conceded. The first came from a tapped kickout that saw Steede carry the ball unchallenged for a good 30 metres before rifling home. Someone had to come out and meet him. The second came after good defensive plays from Mountbellew-Moylough saw them twice dispossess Corofin in an attacking position only to kick a resulting free straight to a Corofin man. The final goal came when the game had ebbed away but still Farragher was out towards the sideline when the full back dived in. Stand Farragher up and he most likely will recycle the ball allowing the defence to reset.

With just one shot less Mountbellew-Moylough did have their chance none more so than at the start of the second half. There they completely stifled Corofin managing to attempt eight shots in a row before Ian Burke’s fisted point in the 41st. Again, much to Mountbellew-Moylough’s regret I’m sure, they only scored 0-02 in this period of dominance.

From there on in their attack completely floundered to the extent that they did not score from play in the entire second half.

What of Corofin? Yes they were much more clinical on their goal chances (not forgetting Sice’s disallowed effort in the first half) but their point taking on top of this was sublime converting 67% (10 from 15); compared to inter county returns the expected haul from those 15 shots is 11.5 points.
Ian Burke had an immediate impact when he came on scoring 1 – 03 from his five chances whilst Martin Farragher also bagged 1-03 from his five as well as laying Burke’s goal on a plate.

 

Shots from deadballs

Player	Shots	Scores	Success Rate	Weighting
J Leonard (Corofin)	2	1	50%	-0.41
Martin Farragher (Corofin)	1	1	100%	+0.40
L Silke (Corofin)	1	0	0%	-0.50
C Kenny (Mountbellew)	7	7	100%	+1.74
B Donnellan (Mountbellew)	1	1	100%	+0.53
M Daly (Mountbellew)	1	0	0%	-0.62
team avgs (70 mins)	7.2	4.9	68.7%

An excellent day from Mounbellow with a combined Success Rate of 89% (8 from 9) and a weighting of +1.64. Kenny was the chief architect converting all seven of his attempts. That weighting shows that when compared to inter county matches Kenny would have been expected to get ~0-05 from his seven attempts.

A below par effort from Corfin converting 60% (3 from 5) though they converted those they would have expected to; the two they missed were both from further out around the 45.

 

Kickouts

Corofin’s kickouts	Won	%	Turned into an attack	%	Shot	%
Corofin	10	59%	7	70%	6	60%
Mounbellew	7	41%	6	86%	4	57%
Mounbellew’s kickouts	Won	%	Turned into an attack	%	Shot	%
Corofin	12	55%	7	58%	5	42%
Mountbellew	10	45%	5	50%	5	50%

Not much by way of variance in Mountbellew-Moylough’s kickouts. All bar the very last kickout travelled past the 45 whilst 68% (15 of 22) went past the 65. Of the 15 that went long Corofin came out on top 8 – 7 which is essentially as expected (50:50 kickouts end up being 50:50 shocker!)

Based purely on the numbers Corofin look like they were in control of their own kickouts however they were far from secure. Mountbellew-Moylough won two of four short kickouts attempted as well as four of nine mid-range kickouts. Again much to Mountbellew-Moylough’s regret they did not manage to score a point from those six kickout wins.

 

Shot Charts

Corofin’s shooting

Mountbellew-Moylough’sshooting

x = missed, disc = score, yellow = deadball, red = goal attempt, black = 1st half from play, white = 2nd half from play

 

Players with >= 3 shots from play

	Shots	Scores	Success Rate	Weighting
Martin Farragher (Corofin)	5	4	80%	+2.08
I Burke (Corofin)	5	4	80%	+1.88
E Finnerty (Mountbellew)	5	1	20%	-1.10
R Steede (Corofin)	3	2	67%	+0.66
C Kenny (Mountbellew)	3	1	33%	-0.04

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

Overall

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.

 

Kickouts

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

Slaughtneil’s shooting

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

Corofin V St. Vincents 2015 Club Championship

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

Overall

Team	Possessions	Attacks	Attack %	Shots	Shot Rate	Scores	Success Rate	Weighting
Corofin	49	32	65%	25	78%	15	60%	+1.004
St. Vincents	48	33	69%	20	61%	10	50%	-0.346
Avg (70 mins)			37.0	28.7	77.7%	14.7	51.2%

Overall a pretty even game except for when it came to the sharp end of the attack.

Both teams had, relatively speaking, the same volume of possessions and attacks but Corofin were more adept at getting shots off and were also more accurate with the shots they attempted.

A quick note on the possession and shot volumes. The possession volume is a new metric but Kerry & Mayo combined for 96 possessions in their opening league encounter – over 70 minutes. 97 possessions over 60 minutes indicates just how free flowing the game was. Similarly pro rating an average of 37 attacks at inter county level to 60 minutes means that the average shots per team should have come in at 31.7 – these returns are bang on inter county standard.

1st Half

Team	Possessions	Attacks	Attack %	Shots	Shot Rate	Scores	Success Rate	Weighting
Corofin	26	19	73%	16	84%	9	56%	+0.606
St. Vincents	24	18	75%	10	56%	7	70%	+1.896

2nd Half

Team	Possessions	Attacks	Attack %	Shots	Shot Rate	Scores	Success Rate	Weighting
Corofin	23	13	57%	9	69%	6	67%	+0.398
St. Vincents	24	15	63%	10	67%	3	30%	-2.242

Interesting half on half comparisons. Corofin were brilliant in that first half getting 16 shots from 19 attacks whilst also returning well above inter county standard on their shooting. Returning a 56% Success Rate and a positive weighting whilst missing a penalty is very impressive!

St. Vincent’s execution in that first half matched Corofin’s overall excellence converting 70% of their shots. Quality on quality. Unfortunately for both the returns dipped in the second half however this was more troublesome for St. Vincents. They could not maintain the shooting accuracy only scoring three points from ten attempts. Without a significant uptick in shot production this drop off enabled Corofin to get over the line quite comfortably in the end.

Shots from Play

Team	Shots	Scores	Success Rate	Weighting
Corofin	20	11	55%	+1.368
St. Vincents	16	7	44%	-0.366
Avgs (70 mins)	21.4	9.7	45.3%

Going for points both teams recorded 50% Success Rates; Corofin – 8 from 16 with a weighting of +0.47; St. Vincents 7 from 14 with a weighting of +0.31.

Corofin however scored 1-02 from their 4 goal attempts whilst St. Vincents returned nothing from their two attempts. This (and the penalties of course) was the real difference between the teams.

We can’t really leave here without mentioning Michael Lundy. He was on fire converting 4 of his 6 point attempts but it is the hidden stats, that won’t show up anywhere else, that are more impressive.

It was he who was fouled for Sice’s three free kick conversions. It was he who set up Farragher for the goal right after providing the pass into Sice for the penalty. Oh he also provided at least one assist that I saw. All immense. But what I liked best was Corofin’s third point and his first. It came immediately after Vincent’s totemic player, Darren Connolly, had gotten on the score sheet with a lovely point from the right. Next attack Lundy takes it upon himself to shoot. Consciously or otherwise it was a statement of intent and defiance.

Shots from deadballs

Player	Shots	Scores	Success Rate	Weighting
G Sice (Corofin)	3	3	100%	+0.390
I Burke (Corofin)	1	1	100%	+0.064
G Delaney (Corofin)	1	0	0%	-0.818
T Quinn (St. Vincents)	3	2	67%	-0.004
D Connolly (St. Vincents)	1	1	100%	+0.064
team avgs (70 mins)	7.2	4.9	68.7%

All the regulation frees were converted.

The deadballs really revolved around the penalties. In three years 88% of penalties have been converted hence why Delany’s weighting is so negative – a penalty miss is rare enough. On the flip side Quinn’s weighting doesn’t really get a bump for converting his.

It was also interesting how both teams approached their respective 45s. St. Vincents took their time relying on Quinn (whose attempt dropped short) whereas Corofin took a quick one looking to engineer a shot closer in.

Kickouts

Corofin’s kickouts	Won	%	Turned into a possession	%	Shot	%
Corofin	9	56%	5	56%	5	56%
St. Vincents	7	44%	6	86%	3	43%
St. Vincent’s kickouts	Won	%	Turned into a possession	%	Shot	%
Corofin	8	47%	6	75%	4	50%
St. Vincents	9	53%	5	56%	3	33%

St. Vincents struggled here. Whilst they won the same volume of kickouts as Corofin they converted three fewer of these wins into attacks. Dig deeper again though and you’ll find that Corofin converted six of the nine shots that emanated from winning kickouts into points. St. Vincents? Only the one.

Shot Charts

Corofin’s shooting

St. Vincents’s shooting

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)	6	4	67%	+1.187
Michael Farragher (Corofin)	5	3	60%	+0.979
I Burke (Corofin)	4	4	100%	+1.365
D Connolly (St. Vincents)	3	2	67%	+0.782
R Treanor (St. Vinvents)	3	2	67%	+0.451