An Moltóir's new Patent GAA Match Evaluation System
In recent years this column has employed a system of rating the performance of different players in matches by counting the number of “plays” produced by each during the course of a game. A play was defined as any case of a player playing the ball in such a way as to work to his team’s advantage or to the other team’s disadvantage. Some readers of the column disapproved of this system as attempting to reduce the magic of hurling to an assemblage of component parts. However, this approach has been used in professional sport for years (and by many county teams in GAA as well) so one presumes there must be something to it. For example, it allowed this column to identify the crucial role played by Jerry O’Connor in Cork’s game plan under O’Grady and Allen long before it was eventually recognised by the professional scribes who appear to be more influenced by flashy strokes and “big” plays (as reflected in the choice of All-Stars down through the years).
An obvious flaw in the system used in this column is that it gives all plays equal status, whether they be a routine hook or a magnificent solo goal. Another flaw is that it excluded frees, puckouts and sideline strokes from the count, when these obviously can have a huge bearing on a game’s outcome. So, in an attempt to cater for these flaws, An Moltóir has been working on a new rating system which not only acknowledges players’ work rates (which the previous system mainly did) but also the quality of their individual contributions.
The new system divides plays into four categories of ascending importance. The lowest of these is the “basic” play. This includes hooks, blocks and flicks which act simply to deny the opposition possession; handpasses by players who are not under pressure (a regular feature of Cork play in recent years); situations where players gain possession but fail to use it to their team’s advantage (e.g. where they get blocked down or play straight to an opponent); a point from a free in front of goal less than 50 yards out; a bad wide from open play; a good puckout (usually involving a directed delivery which gives possession to a team mate); a good sideline cut and a good free (not producing a score).
All such plays are given a score of one. Note that poor or routine puckouts, sideline pucks and frees (including shots on goal which go wide) are given no points. Not all puckouts can be rated because of the annoying tendency for TV to show replays of earlier plays during puckouts.
The next level of play is the “routine” play, worth two points. This embraces narrow wides from open play; routine points from open play (i.e. unmarked or straight in front of goal); points from frees taken from a position either not in front of goal or over 50 yards out; routine plays which work to the team’s advantage; or situations where a player is fouled in possession (except where the player fouled would almost certainly have scored). The routine play, as the name implies, is the most common kind of play during a hurling match.
The third level is the “good” play, worth three points. This includes a point scored from a difficult position or under pressure in open play; a straighforward goal; where a player is fouled in possession on the point of scoring; an excellent piece of play under pressure or which creates a direct scoring opportunity for another player; a good save; and a superb point from a sideline or long-distance free.
Finally, there is the “major” play, worth four points, confined to a good goal or a top-class save which prevents a goal.
Obviously, not all plays fall clearly into one or other of these categories, so an amount of judgement is required to operate the system. This is essentially based on the quality of the play in question: basically, if a player performed a play at the level one would expect from a competent hurler, it got a score of two; if it involved excellence it got a three. However, excellent free pucks (including puckouts and sidelines) were not so rewarded as they are not performed under pressure from other players – they are give mainly basic acknowledgement.
This system was applied to Sunday’s league semi-final between Cork and Waterford with interesting results. As expected, routine plays dominated – 58% of all plays compared with 34% for basic plays and 8% for good plays. Only one “major” play was identified – Donal Óg Cusack’s save from John Mullane’s close-in shot in the first half. Ben O’Connor’s goal was well executed but not special while Dan Shanahan didn’t even get a three-pointer for his deflected goal (whereas the ball in from Brick Walsh which gave him possession did get three points).
Applying the above scoring system to the various plays indicated an extraordinarily evenly-balanced game, with Waterford getting 347 points from 198 plays compared with Cork’s 346 points from 200 plays. In other words, Waterford made slightly more high-quality plays and that shaded it for them in the end. The highest individual score – 36 – was given to Ronan Curran (whom this column identified as Man of the Match before applying the scoring system). However, two Waterford players were hot on his heels with 34 points each – Ken McGrath and Brick Walsh. Both of these players got the bulk of their points in the second half – in fact, McGrath didn’t manage a decent play until the 32nd minute.
The only other players to break 30 were Dónal Óg Cusack (31) and Kevin Hartnett (30). Cusack’s high score was largely due to the number of puckouts which he directed successfully to team mates – An Moltóir counted no less than 13 of these, compared with just two for Clinton Hennessy. This highlights just how focused the whole Cork system is on getting and keeping possession. Hennessy, by contrast, knows that he has big men up front capable of winning ball in the air and basically just hits it in their direction.
In terms of average points scored per play (indicating average quality of play), Curran also led the way with 2.0 (from 18 plays) – Gardiner also averaged 2.0 from eight plays – just ahead of Jerry O’Connor, Pat Cronin and, perhaps surprisingly, Kieran Murphy with 1.9 each (the latter from just 10 plays). On the Waterford side, Seamus Prendergast also averaged 2.0 (from 10 plays) followed by Jack Kennedy, Dan Shanahan and John Mullane (1.9 each). In terms of overall averages, Waterford just shaded it with 1.75 to 1.73 – reflecting both the overall evenness of play and the fact that the ultimate victory went to the Déise men.
Some other interesting points of note. John Gardiner got 16 points even though he was on the field for less than half the match. James Murray – much maligned in some Déise circles – emerged with the third highest Waterford total, at 29. Declan Prendergast – named man of the match on TG4 – got 24 points, less than Shane Walsh (26) and Dan Shanahan (25) and the same as Eoin Kelly.
Of the players who played the entire match, the lowest scores on the Waterford side were achieved by Aidan Kearney and John Mullane with 15 each. On the Cork side, this “honour” went to corner backs Brian Murphy and Shane O’Neill with just four (unbelievably) and ten, respectively. In the first half, this pair got just six points between them, whereas their opposite numbers on the Waterford team, Aidan Kearney and Eoin Murphy, got 28! This partly reflects the ability of the players in question to stop their direct opponents from gaining possession. The two Waterford corner forwards, Stephen Molumphy and Shane Walsh, got 12 points each in the first half whereas Cork’s Eoghan Murphy only got six. Ben O’Connor got 15, but six of these came from his goal and pointed sideline cut.
As a unit, the Cork fullback line got 35 points compared with 59 for Waterford. This partly reflects the fact that the Waterford men were more dominant over their direct opponents but also reflects, to an extent, the overall balance of play, in that the Cork halfback line had a clear lead over the corresponding Waterford trio (93 to 81). It is not possible to do a similar comparison between forward lines, as Waterford kept rotating theirs around while Cork replaced four forwards during the course of the game.
Our new system, therefore, seems to possess some robustness. It reflected how closely balanced the game was, correctly identified the man of the match, provided due recognition both for hard graft and instances of excellent play, and highlighted the importance of Donal Óg Cusack to the Cork setup. We look forward to applying it again to the league final on Sunday week.
Go to Top
