If someone hasn’t yet written a book about the psychology of the extra man in sport, they should do it now – it would be a best seller.

Why is it that, again and again, the team with the extra man implodes while it is the team a man short which appears to have the extra man on the field? The common theory is that the team with the extra man relaxes in the expectation that that fact alone will bring them victory, while the team a man short redoubles its efforts and starts winning the one-to-one battles all over the field. Another theory is that the team with the extra man is inclined to lose its shape due to the extra man turning up in places where he’s not supposed to be, or players not knowing exactly who is supposed to be marking whom. A third theory is that the team with the extra man may be inclined to lose sight of its game plan in attempts to make maximum use of their numerical advantage.

It is ironic that Cork won last Saturday’s game in Thurles in almost identical circumstances to those which saw them losing the 2004 Munster Final to Waterford. On that occasion, when John Mullane was sent off early in the second half, Cork were ahead and had the benefit of the wind to add to their extra man advantage. Last Saturday Galway had a four-point lead, the benefit of the wind and an extra man going into the last 25 minutes and managed to lose, just as Cork did in 2004.

The similarities do not end there. In 2004 Cork had some bad misses in the second half where they couldn’t miss against the wind before the interval – a sign of a team which has relaxed a little. Last Saturday, Galway hit seven shots wide and had three drop short after half-time, during which period Cork had just one wide. And, like Waterford in 2004, Cork hit some fantastic scores in the second half last Saturday (although Waterford also missed a lot of chances as well).

In 2004, Cork gave up their running game in their attempts to make good use of the extra man. Basically, Donal Óg Cusack hit the ball out to the spare man (usually the Rock) who then belted it as far as he could in the general direction of the Waterford goal. Given Cork’s legendary inability at the time to win high balls into their forwards (one the reasons for the running game in the first place), this was a gift to Waterford who generally returned these balls with interest. However, you couldn’t say that Galway lost either their shape or their game plan, is they didn’t appear to have much of either to begin with.

It seems to be the conventional wisdom for teams to play their extra man in situations like this as a “libero” between the half back and full back lines. However, there is an inherent negativity in this which may contribute to the psychological fragility of the team with the extra man. Would it not be better to put the extra man out into midfield or the forwards, not only as a positive statement of intent, but also the stifle the supply of ball into your own defence at source?

Certainly, Galway could have used the extra man to try to stem the dominant influence which Ronan Curran exerted on the game in the second half. Kevin Hayes, the player who was supposed to be marking Curran, managed only two decent plays during the time he was on to Curran’s eleven, several of which were excellent plays. By contrast, Galway had no corresponding platform in their own half back line, where John Lee had a real stinker of a game, managing just two decent plays in all. Of course, Niall McCarthy played a significant role here in neutralising the influence of the Galway pivot.

Overall, Galway made more plays than Cork in both halves for a total balance of 154-143. However, under this column’s play quality rating system (1 for a basic/routine play, 2 for a good play, 3 for an excellent play and 4 for a superb play), Cork had a higher points total (253-243), reflecting the better general quality of their plays. While such ratings are inherently subjective, An Moltóir gave 21 excellent/superb plays to Cork (of which Joe Deane accounted for six) as against just eight for Galway (six for Joe Canning alone). Apart from his scores from frees and sidelines, Joe Canning was by far Galway’s best player in general play. While his 14 plays were matched by Richie Murray and Iarla Tannian, his quality points rating (32) was way ahead of the latter (20 and 18 respectively). In fact, the second highest points rating for Galway was earned by Joe’s brother Ollie, with 23. It is a stark indication of how far back Galway fell this year that last year they gave Kilkenny their toughest championship game without either of the Cannings on board.

Like Galway, Cork’s three busiest players all had 14 plays, Ronan Curran, John Gardiner and Jerry O’Connor, with Curran (28) way ahead of the other two (22 and 21) in quality points. However, in quality terms Joe Deane was Cork’s top man, with 29 points from 12 plays. Of course, these ratings do not take frees into account. Believe it or not, but Ben O’Connor actually only played the ball four times in general play, yet his frees (and converted sideline) were crucial to the Rebels’ victory.

Waterford v Offaly

The general perception of last Saturday’s curtain raiser between Waterford and Offaly is that a rather listless Déise outfit did just about enough to win against a hard-working but ultimately unlucky Offaly. However, the play statistics indicate that Waterford were by far the more hard-working team. In the first half they were significantly ahead (89-81) but after half-time they were streets ahead (84-55), for an overall total of 173-136.

This game was all about the Waterford full forwards against the Offaly full backs. Over the course of the game, the Déise full forwards played the ball twice as often (38-20) as their markers. To a significant extent this can be put down to the good quality of ball played in from outfield – low over the half backs and giving outcoming forwards a clear advantage. This is the most obvious impact of the new Davy Fitzgerald regime on Waterford’s style of hurling, and marks a big change from the Hail Mary high balls which were the basis of their “game plan” in their last big championship game against Limerick.

A lot of the credit for this must go to Waterford’s new man in midfield, Jamie Nagle who, apart from playing some excellent balls into the forwards, was also easily the busiest player on the field with 23 plays. While most of these were of the basic variety, Nagle still displayed a work rate and desire to get on the ball which contrasts sharply with the norm for this predecessor, Dave Bennett.

However, with a reportedly exhausted Brick Walsh having a below-par game, Waterford still came out second best in the midfield struggle with Rory Hanniffy and Brendan Murphy who – as in the game against Limerick – were the main engine room for Offaly on Saturday. Between them, the Offaly pairing garnered 59 quality points from 33 plays compared with 50 points from 36 plays for the Waterford pair.

The Waterford management will undoubtedly be concerned with the pressure placed on their half back line by their Offaly opponents, especially the excellent Brian Carroll and big Joe Brady, who caused Tony Browne no end of trouble in the first half, but faded out after the change of ends. At the same time, they will draw some satisfaction from the fact that the full backs generally outplayed their opposite numbers. Declan Prendergast had a very solid game, while one can begin to see the point of placing Ken McGrath at full back. Apart from his ability in the air, he brings a level of physicality to the position that was not there before, while he is also very quick to cover breaks and seal off gaps.

By far the best individual performance in general play came from John Mullane, who earned 34 quality points from 17 plays compared with Eoin Kelly’s 25 from 10 plays. Apart from Rory Hanniffy and B