View Full Version : Woeful Kicking for Goal
Much hoo-hah has been raised over Adelaide's forward line this week. I thought I'd add some facts to the discussion...
Adelaide dominated the inside 50s - 58 to 36 (Pro Stats) or 53 to 39 (AFL website) depending upon who you believe.
Adelaide had far more scoring shots - 29 to 19 (3:2 ratio).
Adelaide had more marks inside 50 - 16 to 8 (AFL website)
Given all of these statistics, you'd expect that Adelaide won the game very comfortably indeed - probably by 8-10 goals. As we all know, this was not the case - the final margin was only 5 points. What the statistics DO indicate is that there is one major problem with the Crows' forward line - it is their inability to kick straight when in front of the big sticks.
Sadly, the problem is not isolated to just the Essendon game. Here are the scores from the last 4 matches:
R7 (North Melbourne): 15.17 (4 rushed behinds)
R8 (Melbourne): 22.18 (6 rushed)
R9 (West Coast): 5.17 (5 rushed)
R10 (Essendon): 9.20 (5 rushed)
That's a total of 51.72, including 20 rushed behinds. Remove the bizarrely accurate first quarter against Melbourne (8.1) and we have scored 43.71 in the remaining 15 quarters.
Rushed behinds are a slightly different case, for a couple of reasons. They're not attributed to any particular player and they may or may not be the fault of the attacking team. There are two main types of rushed behinds - balls which are "touched on the line" and balls which are forced over the line by the defender as a result of pressure from the forwards. The former generally outnumber the latter by around 4:1.
With the majority of rushed behinds being "touched on the line", I would include them in the bad kicking category - ultimately they are kicks which failed to make the distance, many of them would have been behinds even if they were not touched.
So, including the rushed behinds, our accuracy has been an abysmal 41%, dropping to just 38% if you discount the first quarter against Melbourne.
Who have been the serial offenders? (Totals are for all 4 games)
Kurt Tippett: 6.7 (4 goals vs Melbourne)
Brett Burton: 10.8
Simon Goodwin: 6.5
Tyson Edwards: 1.4
James Sellar: 0.2 (only played 1 game, so not really a "serial" offender)
Jason Porplyzia: 9.5 (one of our more accurate kicks)
Richard Douglas: 2.4
Nathan van Berlo: 3.3
Graham Johncock: 3.5
As you can see, the problem is not exactly restricted to one or two players.
The Crows got away with the win against Essendon because we were SO dominant in all other aspects of the game that our poor kicking did not ultimately cost us a win. If we continue kicking this badly though it WILL cost us wins - of that there can be no doubt.
Can we please stop the rubbish about the Crows forward line becoming as dysfunctional as it was in 2007. It is not dysfunctional. It is just inaccurate. This is clearly something the Crows have to work on.
Baron Winds
3 Jun 2008, 11:29
Amen
IddyBiddy
3 Jun 2008, 11:33
I can bare poorer kicking from our crumbing players, as the pressure and positions they find themselves in are more likely to cause misses. What really irks me is set shot misses. I don't think there is a position in the 50 (apart from the square) that i have complete confidence in our team to score from. We no longer have a Scott Welsh type player who you are pretty confident in popping it through.
I'm not sure whether the stats for set shots are available, but they are the one's i'm more interested in.
I agree that it is not panic stations, but goal kicking should be bread and butter for well paid professionals IMO.
Poor kicking is poor footy unfortunately.
The kicking has been the most obvious problem with our game recently. And it's not just the forwards - pretty much every time a Midfielder type sneaks down to take a shot on goal in the last couple of games it has missed.
They have mostly been all gettable shots as well - that's what's been frustrating.
cmndstab
3 Jun 2008, 11:34
This sort of thread has been floating around in my mind for a day or two, good to see you take it on and present a really good case Vader :)
When I went to training a few times just over a month a go, I didn't see a whole lot of goal kicking practice. This is just at the two main sessions for the week. Usually during drills the forward line players would stop and have a shot on goal and only at the end of training was time dedicated to goal kicking practice. Even then, it was mainly down the southern end. Players would also tend to take more shots near the players race before coming off.
What I find most frustrating is the manner in which some of the blokes go about their kick (and have been doing so for some time)
Burton's action for instance is clearly flawed. Surely at some time in the past 10 years, someone has set up a camera and videos his action and then worked on his set shots? How can it still be this bad. This also goes for Gill by the way.
The others I haven't looked at in enough detail, but I imagine there is something there.
I also wonder if we can find stats about where these misses are coming from? Our set shots seem to be primarily from 45 - 50 meteres out on an angle. How many 30 - 40 m out shots are we missing?
Poor kicking is poor footy unfortunately.
The kicking has been the most obvious problem with our game recently. And it's not just the forwards - pretty much every time a Midfielder type sneaks down to take a shot on goal in the last couple of games it has missed.
They have mostly been all gettable shots as well - that's what's been frustrating.
Agree with most of this, however, we do love leading to the pockets as a team. I think all 5 of Douglas' shots on goal were from the Tony Hall pocket on the weekend.
James_37
3 Jun 2008, 11:55
Agree completely there Vader, we've shot ourselves in the foot lately with our goal kicking more than anything else, of our 3 wins lately all should have been by a lot more and whilst its not the only contributing factor I think it may have been a major one with regards to our loss to West Coast as well.
Why? Well, missed shots on goal, especially easy set shots, can zap the energy and confidence out of a team, take away momentum, now whilst I didn't watch the West Coast game, I think, if we had capitalised on a few of those missed shots on goal early they may have caused a run on effect where one goal turns into 2 etc. I'm a big believer in momentum in footy, especially at elite level where it is so even and at a place like subi with no crowd to lift you, we didn't capitalise on our shots on goal and I would think this had a pretty draining effect on the mental status of the players, where all their hard work amounts to nothing. We've been able to get away with it against 3 teams, but against West Coast at Subi, it most definitely didn't help, 5 - 17 is not good enough.
Asgardian
3 Jun 2008, 12:25
I was pooed on from a great height earlier this year when I dared to say that I reckon Tippett hasn't got his routine worked out yet.
He's learning it, but it's not automatic for him yet.
cmndstab
3 Jun 2008, 12:33
I was pooed on from a great height earlier this year when I dared to say that I reckon Tippett hasn't got his routine worked out yet.
He's learning it, but it's not automatic for him yet.
Really? I'm surprised anyone would have thought that Tippett's goalkicking was sorted out. It's good he's learning but he's got a long way to go.
Perhaps people were saying it was less important considering he takes most of his marks within 30m of goal.
The other thing about our inaccurate goal kicking is the damage its doing to our percentage. We could miss a double chance or...God forbid...miss the eight because of it.
Much hoo-hah has been raised over Adelaide's forward line this week. I thought I'd add some facts to the discussion...
Adelaide dominated the inside 50s - 58 to 36 (Pro Stats) or 53 to 39 (AFL website) depending upon who you believe.
Adelaide had far more scoring shots - 29 to 19 (3:2 ratio).
Adelaide had more marks inside 50 - 16 to 8 (AFL website)
Given all of these statistics, you'd expect that Adelaide won the game very comfortably indeed - probably by 8-10 goals. As we all know, this was not the case - the final margin was only 5 points. What the statistics DO indicate is that there is one major problem with the Crows' forward line - it is their inability to kick straight when in front of the big sticks.
Sadly, the problem is not isolated to just the Essendon game. Here are the scores from the last 4 matches:
R7 (North Melbourne): 15.17 (4 rushed behinds)
R8 (Melbourne): 22.18 (6 rushed)
R9 (West Coast): 5.17 (5 rushed)
R10 (Essendon): 9.20 (5 rushed)
That's a total of 51.72, including 20 rushed behinds. Remove the bizarrely accurate first quarter against Melbourne (8.1) and we have scored 43.71 in the remaining 15 quarters.
Rushed behinds are a slightly different case, for a couple of reasons. They're not attributed to any particular player and they may or may not be the fault of the attacking team. There are two main types of rushed behinds - balls which are "touched on the line" and balls which are forced over the line by the defender as a result of pressure from the forwards. The former generally outnumber the latter by around 4:1.
With the majority of rushed behinds being "touched on the line", I would include them in the bad kicking category - ultimately they are kicks which failed to make the distance, many of them would have been behinds even if they were not touched.
So, including the rushed behinds, our accuracy has been an abysmal 41%, dropping to just 38% if you discount the first quarter against Melbourne.
Who have been the serial offenders? (Totals are for all 4 games)
Kurt Tippett: 6.7 (4 goals vs Melbourne)
Brett Burton: 10.8
Simon Goodwin: 6.5
Tyson Edwards: 1.4
James Sellar: 0.2 (only played 1 game, so not really a "serial" offender)
Jason Porplyzia: 9.5 (one of our more accurate kicks)
Richard Douglas: 2.4
Nathan van Berlo: 3.3
Graham Johncock: 3.5
As you can see, the problem is not exactly restricted to one or two players.
The Crows got away with the win against Essendon because we were SO dominant in all other aspects of the game that our poor kicking did not ultimately cost us a win. If we continue kicking this badly though it WILL cost us wins - of that there can be no doubt.
Can we please stop the rubbish about the Crows forward line becoming as dysfunctional as it was in 2007. It is not dysfunctional. It is just inaccurate. This is clearly something the Crows have to work on.
An interesting analysis. Nice work. Can you follow it up with some comment or analysis on where these points are being kicked from. My suspicion is that we are having more shots on goal from further out and/or tighter angles.
An interesting analysis. Nice work. Can you follow it up with some comment or analysis on where these points are being kicked from. My suspicion is that we are having more shots on goal from further out and/or tighter angles.
Would love to, but I don't have access to that sort of information. I'm only working off the free & publicly available information from sites like Pro Stats and the AFL website.
If you know where stats can be found which indicate where the scores are being kicked, then let me know.
Scott Van Persett
3 Jun 2008, 13:07
As I said in another thread, I think our technique for kicking from set shots is flawed.
The players are walking in and almost kicking from a static position rather than running in and having some momentum with the kick. Also Burton leans back when kicking from a set shot so that has the effect of pulling the ball higher and shorter and skewing to one side when trying to get extra distance.
Maybe their technique is the modern way of kicking accurately but it was not what we were taught when I played footy
Truck Rutten
3 Jun 2008, 13:17
As far as I'm concerned we just don't really have any players who are quality shots on goal under game day pressure. We've lost our best two kicks for goal in Welsh and Roo in one hit and we're seeing the result now. The sooner Trent can get back the better, because despite his stuttering run up he is a good kick for goal.
Asgardian
3 Jun 2008, 13:25
Really? I'm surprised anyone would have thought that Tippett's goalkicking was sorted out. It's good he's learning but he's got a long way to go.
Perhaps people were saying it was less important considering he takes most of his marks within 30m of goal.
The following conversation happened in mid March
fantastic hands, but I don't feel real confident with his set shot at goal, --- yet.
How you get away with your continued snide trolling on our board has gone beyond ridiculous:thumbsd:
he kicked 4 goals 2 yet you question him in front of goal, run away and play in the traffic old man:thumbsd:
but to question his goal kicking is utterly ridiculous and a snide troll
I watched the game, he looks like he hasn't got his methods & practices polished, yet, read what I said
"I don't feel real confident with his set shot at goal, --- yet."
Saying I lacked confidence at this stage, remember I did say YET isn't a knife in the guys heart, he just looks like he needs a lot more training in the art
Asgardian
3 Jun 2008, 13:29
Would love to, but I don't have access to that sort of information. I'm only working off the free & publicly available information from sites like Pro Stats and the AFL website.
If you know where stats can be found which indicate where the scores are being kicked, then let me know.
Footywire is pretty good, but even that doesn't have the detail of information that you're after
http://www.footywire.com/
Burton's routine has changed on set shots. He used to mark the mark with his boot, and pace off a run up. He's not doing that now. In fact, I think he had a different routine with every shot the other night.
Stephen2
3 Jun 2008, 13:30
Would love to, but I don't have access to that sort of information. I'm only working off the free & publicly available information from sites like Pro Stats and the AFL website.
If you know where stats can be found which indicate where the scores are being kicked, then let me know.
Vader, I can't be bothered doing it myself, but if you go to:
http://xml.afl.com.au/swf/live_stats.htm
You'll see the LEFT/RIGHT arrows to the left/right of the games listings. They let you go back/forward to each round.
Then click the ADEL game. From the "Live Action" menu, choose "Goal Map". It shows our goals/behinds and where they're kicked from.
It doesn't show the exact distance from goal, but it's a very accurate marker they put down, so you are able to safely tell the distance within a 5m or so area.
Asgardian
3 Jun 2008, 13:31
Fevola holds the ball real strange, can't hardly argue with the bloke's goalkicking though I suppose
Vader, I can't be bothered doing it myself, but if you go to:
http://xml.afl.com.au/swf/live_stats.htm
You'll see the LEFT/RIGHT arrows to the left/right of the games listings. They let you go back/forward to each round.
Then click the ADEL game. From the "Live Action" menu, choose "Goal Map". It shows our goals/behinds and where they're kicked from.
It doesn't show the exact distance from goal, but it's a very accurate marker they put down, so you are able to safely tell the distance within a 5m or so area.
Nice suggestion, but it's still a LOT more work than I can be bothered to do. However, if anyone else wants to do the grunt work they should feel free to do so.
However, I'll give a quick impression.
It appears that rushed behinds do not appear on Game Day's goal map.
Adelaide vs Essendon
6 behinds scored from right forward flank >30m >45 degrees. The Tony Hall pocket.
2 behinds from left forward pocket, <30m >45 degrees.
7 behinds from >25m <45degrees - 3 from <5 degrees
Adelaide vs West Coast
7 from > 45deg, 5 of which were from > 30m.
5 from < 45 deg, all >30m, 3>50m
** Not sure how accurate it is - Kurt Tippett's miss from the side of the goalsquare is shown as being on a 60 degree angle.
Game Day Live is currently hanging when I try to load. Will add more info later if/when I get time.
Adelaide vs Melbourne
Adelaide vs North Melbourne
Essendon game map:
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/3256/essendongamepp8.jpg
West Coast game map:
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/5860/wcegameaw7.jpg
Melbourne game map:
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/4126/melbgameyx4.jpg
North Melbourne game map:
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/5752/nmgamehg2.jpg
o's are goals, x's are points.
James_37
3 Jun 2008, 15:22
As far as I'm concerned we just don't really have any players who are quality shots on goal under game day pressure. We've lost our best two kicks for goal in Welsh and Roo in one hit and we're seeing the result now. The sooner Trent can get back the better, because despite his stuttering run up he is a good kick for goal.
Bernie Vince, Jason Porplyzia, Brent Reilly and Richie Douglas, who from the matches I've seen this year look to be our real sharp shooters, however everything looked like it went out the window on the weekend, Richie Douglas against Carlton kicked an extreme pressure shot from a distance, Bernie Vince has kicked a couple of 55 metre bombs on the run at pressure times, we do have them, everyone was shit on the weekend for some reason.
Others who I'd rate as decent set shots are Maric and Rutten, Maric looks like he is very comfortable set shot, Rutten also looks very confident and non-chalant when he kicks for goal, but he's our full back.
Asguardian, Kurt Tippet is a funny one, from what i had heard, being numerous different relatively credible sources, Kurt Tippet was meant to be a very accurate shot on goal, with one judge saying he just doesn't miss. Now I'm not sure if they were talking shit or whether he hasn't been able to translate this to AFL and its more of a confidence thing, but I think with time his problems will go, he's still extremely young in footballing terms so I'm sure we should be able to correct this.
We do have a mini-crisis at the moment with our goal kicking, lets hope that the coaching staff realise it and in turn rectify it, maybe if they made practise kicking with both dry balls as well as some really wet and heavy ones, see if we can't start kicking straightly again.
I can bare poorer kicking from our crumbing players, as the pressure and positions they find themselves in are more likely to cause misses. What really irks me is set shot misses. I don't think there is a position in the 50 (apart from the square) that i have complete confidence in our team to score from. We no longer have a Scott Welsh type player who you are pretty confident in popping it through.
I'm not sure whether the stats for set shots are available, but they are the one's i'm more interested in.
I agree that it is not panic stations, but goal kicking should be bread and butter for well paid professionals IMO.
Don't you mean the headless chooks playing the game these days?
Asgardian
3 Jun 2008, 17:11
Asguardian, (There's no U in my nickname ;)) Kurt Tippet is a funny one, from what i had heard, being numerous different relatively credible sources, Kurt Tippet was meant to be a very accurate shot on goal, with one judge saying he just doesn't miss. Now I'm not sure if they were talking shit or whether he hasn't been able to translate this to AFL and its more of a confidence thing, but I think with time his problems will go, he's still extremely young in footballing terms so I'm sure we should be able to correct this.
Yep, no problems with this, he'll get there, but he aint there yet.
James_37
3 Jun 2008, 17:26
Yep, no problems with this, he'll get there, but he aint there yet.
haha, sorry mate:thumbsu:
Well Im not sure on the actual stats and figures, but from what I have seen this season, marks inside 50 tend to be taken at near impossible angles, I have rarely seen marks straight infront of goals 5 to 20 metres out, unless it's Birdman!
i'm not sure fwd 50 entries means the forward line is not dysfunctional.
it might not be, but it could easily reflect poor system and efficiency of entry.
if we are being forced wide, into marginal angles (as our defense has always been quite expert in) then this for example would be overlooked by the analysis, and potentially explain how our structurally imbalance forward line is dysfunctional.
obviously something is not right here, but poor kicking on that magnitude is likely to be a one off, and not repeated as part of some wider pattern. we seem to be kicking poorly consistently, are we not getting into good spots?
I don't know, but I am not convinced that everything is hunky dory right up to the point of kicking for goal.
Geoffa32
4 Jun 2008, 08:41
This is the one area that stops us being a top 4 team.....It cost us games last year and is going to bite us in the arse this year...
i'm not sure fwd 50 entries means the forward line is not dysfunctional.
it might not be, but it could easily reflect poor system and efficiency of entry.
if we are being forced wide, into marginal angles (as our defense has always been quite expert in) then this for example would be overlooked by the analysis, and potentially explain how our structurally imbalance forward line is dysfunctional.
This is a valid point. Indeed the commentators on Friday night repeatedly stated that the Crows F50 entries were very predictable - the Crows forwards always seemed to lead to the right forward pocket (AKA the Tony Hall pocket).
Shots on goal taken from tight angles will always have a lower probability of success - that's not going to come as a surprise to anyone.
Being predictable is not necessarily a bad thing. Lance Frankline always leads to the same spot - 40m out, 45 degree angle, to the left of the goals. He's leading the Coleman at present and 80% of his goals would have been kicked as a result of marks taken within an area no bigger than 2 sqm. He takes his marks on an angle, but has a consistent technique which works for him and generally results in a high rate of success (most of his misses seem to come when he's NOT kicking from this position).
The Crows have always been a team who lead to the pockets - and their accuracy has always suffered as a result. That's one of the things which was so pleasing about our start to the year was the way our midfielders delivered the ball through the corridor to forwards leading straight up the ground. Sadly they appear to have reverted to their bad old habits.
obviously something is not right here, but poor kicking on that magnitude is likely to be a one off, and not repeated as part of some wider pattern. we seem to be kicking poorly consistently, are we not getting into good spots?
I don't know, but I am not convinced that everything is hunky dory right up to the point of kicking for goal.
Unfortunately, it is NOT a one off. It's been going on for 4 weeks now, as I showed in the OP.
johnnypanther
4 Jun 2008, 12:24
.....
Unfortunately, it is NOT a one off. It's been going on for 4 weeks now, as I showed in the OP.
and not just 4 weeks, we had this very same problem last year (i was reading an end of year 2007 review of the AFC and poor kicking for goal was identified as one of our major deficiencies)
I thought I'd go back to the start of the season to see if the inaccurate kicking was a more recent phenomenon or not. Here's the scores.
1. 18.15 (3 rushed) (Accuracy excluding rushed behinds 60%)
2. 21.7 (2) (81%)
3. 12.13 (5) (60%)
4. 10.10 (2) (56%)
5. 12.16 (1) (44%)
6. 16.15 (5) (62%)
7. 15.17 (4) (54%)
8. 22.18 (6) (65%)
9. 5.17 (5) (29%)
10. 9.20 (5) (38%)
Total 140.148 (38 rushed) (56%)
The overall accuracy (ie including the rushed behinds) is 49%. I would have thought this is a little low compared to other seasons and to other clubs this so far this year.
I am not sure about the number of rushed behinds. For the last 5 rounds there have been an average of 5. This seems high to me, but may mean nothing. Anyone want to comment on this?
Irrespective of the rushed behinds, the thing that stands out is the sudden and dramatic drop in accuracy for the last 2 games. Take these 2 games out and we have a reasonable average accuracy (excluding rushed behinds) of 60%. This drops to 53% if you include the rushed behinds.
Looking at the Goal Map (thanx Marvin) for the Essendon game, it looks to me as though we had plenty of shots in the kickable zone (ie that cluster of 8 scores at the top of the map 35-50 m out) but only 1 goal was kicked.
It's harder to tell from the West Coast game, as there weren't as many shots on goal, and in general most of the behinds were the result of shots from 50 m out or wide angles.
Overall, I'd suggest that the "woeful kicking for goal" is a recent phenomenon, restricted to the Essendon game.
James_37
4 Jun 2008, 16:06
Rushed behinds could a reflection of good defensive pressure from our forwards, or it could just mean that our forwards are taking shots from beyond their range and perhaps should be looking to pass off a little more.
Unfortunately, it is NOT a one off. It's been going on for 4 weeks now, as I showed in the OP.
that's my point. which I believe is different to yours.
that it is going on for 4 weeks strongly indicates that everything is not ok, and that we are not just failing to kick straight. or have I misinterpreted you?
Just for interest (well, I was interested) I pulled the goal map from the most accurate effort this year - first time round against the Eagles.
http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/4246/wce1goalmapkr8.jpg
Hard to compare apples with oranges - it was a day game, first time round the Eagles were pretty ordinary - but it looks to me like we had a better angle on goals for most shots. Also the number of goals clustered just right of centre helped our left footers (Goodwin 7 goals).
The question comes down to the Crow-mo - Vader discussion. How much was this due to us owning the corridor, and how much was it due to forwards leading straighter?
I'd suspect, only going by a visual analysis of all the games so far that there are 2 factors. I'm going to get shot down for suggesting the second.
1 - Midfield control is critical. We were seemingly a little wider against Hawthorn, and probably Port Adelaide, and then again the last 4 weeks.
2 - Kenny McGregor went out of the forward line 4 weeks ago. Goodwin and Burton in particular have been excellent, but apart from the occasional Burton speccy, they are lead and mark players. Leading players will often be drawn towards the ball carrier - and if the ball carrier is on a flank or a wing, they will shoot from out wide, or else they are often forced to lead away from where the loose defender is, again in the pocket. Having 2 big lump (like when we had Kenny together with Kurt) gave us targets in the corridor that were less affected by the loose man or the where the ball carrier is, and if they don't pull in the marks, the crumbs are at a better angle.
that's my point. which I believe is different to yours.
that it is going on for 4 weeks strongly indicates that everything is not ok, and that we are not just failing to kick straight. or have I misinterpreted you?
I suspect it's a little from this column, a little from the other.
Part of it is technique, part of it is confidence, part of it is location (where the kicks are coming from), part of it is HOW the ball is brought into the F50 (are the kicks set shots or snap shots).
You've shown (and I've agreed) that the problem has been increasing steadily and it is not a one off. I'm beginning to move away from my original statement that it's just a matter of accuracy, being influenced by the arguments of other posters on this (and other) thread.
Many of the fundamental KPIs remain good, so it's not like we need to be slitting our wrists or crying that the sky is falling. However, it is definitely a problem which needs to be addressed. On that, I think we can all agree.
Carl Spackler
5 Jun 2008, 00:57
1 - Midfield control is critical. We were seemingly a little wider against Hawthorn, and probably Port Adelaide, and then again the last 4 weeks.
2 - Kenny McGregor went out of the forward line 4 weeks ago. Goodwin and Burton in particular have been excellent, but apart from the occasional Burton speccy, they are lead and mark players. Leading players will often be drawn towards the ball carrier - and if the ball carrier is on a flank or a wing, they will shoot from out wide, or else they are often forced to lead away from where the loose defender is, again in the pocket. Having 2 big lump (like when we had Kenny together with Kurt) gave us targets in the corridor that were less affected by the loose man or the where the ball carrier is, and if they don't pull in the marks, the crumbs are at a better angle.
It is an interesting observation. Obviously we (including me) look at Ken and see the negatives - forward line pressure, agility at ground level, mobility, second efforts... but what effect does his presence have on our structure and more importantly on how we move the ball? No idea. Maybe someone with some spare time could go back through the records and look at our scorelines/accuracy when Ken players vs when he doesn't :)
As for the accuracy issue, could it be as simple as the fact that Burton and Tippett have been taking a lot of our shots for goal lately and both are poor kicks? Douglas is a little more accurate but struggles from any sort of distance because he weighs 35kg and could still turn out for the U/16s without anyone raising an eyebrow. Earlier in the season it was Goodwin getting a fair bit of it but this has dried up lately and he has played more in the midfield.
Unfortunately the guys who can kick accurately - Reilly, Mackay, Vince, Rutten(?) - can't get the ball regularly in goal scoring areas. And those that can get it can't kick.
It is an interesting observation. Obviously we (including me) look at Ken and see the negatives - forward line pressure, agility at ground level, mobility, second efforts... but what effect does his presence have on our structure and more importantly on how we move the ball? No idea. Maybe someone with some spare time could go back through the records and look at our scorelines/accuracy when Ken players vs when he doesn't :)
There is also the question of what it does to our opponent's defensive structures. At present we're playing only one tall forward (Tippett), with the rest all leading mid-small type players. This means that they only have one tall marking player to man up on, which would hardly stretch many defenses at all.
Adding a second tall to the structure, be it KMac, Hentschel, Gill, Sellar, or having Stevens spend more time in the forward line, must be an imperative in order to take some of the heat off Tippett.
Carl Spackler
5 Jun 2008, 10:31
There is also the question of what it does to our opponent's defensive structures. At present we're playing only one tall forward (Tippett), with the rest all leading mid-small type players. This means that they only have one tall marking player to man up on, which would hardly stretch many defenses at all.
Not to mention that they would be able to play largely smaller, running defenders and create run.
I remember the Sydney final in 1998 in the wet Malcolm Blight whacked big, bad Ben Marsh up forward for long periods of the game. He barely had a touch and conditions certainly didn't favour him but I remember Blight saying something like he wanted the Swans to have a big, immobile body down in their backline making errors in the slippery conditions.
1. 18.15 (3 rushed) (Accuracy excluding rushed behinds 60%)
2. 21.7 (2) (81%)
3. 12.13 (5) (60%)
4. 10.10 (2) (56%)
5. 12.16 (1) (44%)
6. 16.15 (5) (62%)
7. 15.17 (4) (54%)
8. 22.18 (6) (65%)
9. 5.17 (5) (29%)
10. 9.20 (5) (38%)
Wow, just wow.
Look at the last 2 weeks. That alone is an appx 6 goal dropoff in accuracy from previous weeks.
The other thing about our inaccurate goal kicking is the damage its doing to our percentage. We could miss a double chance or...God forbid...miss the eight because of it.
The other problem is each behind gives the opposition possession - any other side except Essendon would have made us pay big time - how often do you see the ball go from a miss at one end to a goal at the other - and what does that do to mementum and confidence....it is a real problem.
[quote=Truck Rutten;11241296]As far as I'm concerned we just don't really have any players who are quality shots on goal under game day pressure. We've lost our best two kicks for goal in Welsh and Roo in one hit and we're seeing the result now.
Exactly..:(
The Crows have always been a team who lead to the pockets - and their accuracy has always suffered as a result. That's one of the things which was so pleasing about our start to the year was the way our midfielders delivered the ball through the corridor to forwards leading straight up the ground. Sadly they appear to have reverted to their bad old habits.
I have posted this somewhere before. I would like to see a forward set up tried where the forwards start at the pockets and lead into the centre corridoor.
I have posted this somewhere before. I would like to see a forward set up tried where the forwards start at the pockets and lead into the centre corridoor.
Wouldn't the opposition just zone off and defend the corridor ?
cmndstab
5 Jun 2008, 12:09
If they're given time, they certainly will subaru. We need to get the ball moving quickly through the corridor again. In the past few weeks we've seen sides more than happy to allow us to run up and down the wings with little more than one-on-one opposition, but they choke up the centre so we can't go through there.
Any good football tactitians on the forums? How do you break that? Just work up the wing but then centre it when kicking to HF? Can you run and carry through the centre even with extra numbers?
Valentino Dmitri
5 Jun 2008, 12:31
Wow, just wow.
Look at the last 2 weeks. That alone is an appx 6 goal dropoff in accuracy from previous weeks.
It's amazing isn't it. 14.37 in two weeks of footy. Christ.
And that's not taking in to account out of bounds', kicks that didn't make the distance (I think Burton had six shots on goal last week for a return of 1.2 from memory...)
If they're given time, they certainly will subaru. We need to get the ball moving quickly through the corridor again. In the past few weeks we've seen sides more than happy to allow us to run up and down the wings with little more than one-on-one opposition, but they choke up the centre so we can't go through there.
Any good football tactitians on the forums? How do you break that? Just work up the wing but then centre it when kicking to HF? Can you run and carry through the centre even with extra numbers?
Malcolm Blight recognised Matthew Robran's strength was contesting the ball and bringing it t ground - hence the no go zone back then
Pagan had his paddock
Hawks have adjusted game plan to suit Franklin
Matthews has his man mountain backed up by Bradshaw
All these rely on a CHF - we do not have one at this stage.
Perhaps our coaches should be looking at the way Collingwood have played the last couple of weeks - Rocca is no world beater but their tackling and run has got them good wins against good sides.
We need an imaginative game plan that adjusts quickly - I hope Craig is the man to sort this out
I suspect it's a little from this column, a little from the other.
Part of it is technique, part of it is confidence, part of it is location (where the kicks are coming from), part of it is HOW the ball is brought into the F50 (are the kicks set shots or snap shots).
You've shown (and I've agreed) that the problem has been increasing steadily and it is not a one off. I'm beginning to move away from my original statement that it's just a matter of accuracy, being influenced by the arguments of other posters on this (and other) thread.
Many of the fundamental KPIs remain good, so it's not like we need to be slitting our wrists or crying that the sky is falling. However, it is definitely a problem which needs to be addressed. On that, I think we can all agree.
definitely. we owned their arse when it came to inside 50's. which usually means a win, what've we've been getting is ugly wins.
I personally think we're structurally imbalanced at CHF, and we blaze away wide and over the pivot. but certainly there is a lot to work with on the flipside.
Wouldn't the opposition just zone off and defend the corridor ?
yes. :thumbsu:
2 - Kenny McGregor went out of the forward line 4 weeks ago. Goodwin and Burton in particular have been excellent, but apart from the occasional Burton speccy, they are lead and mark players. Leading players will often be drawn towards the ball carrier - and if the ball carrier is on a flank or a wing, they will shoot from out wide, or else they are often forced to lead away from where the loose defender is, again in the pocket. Having 2 big lump (like when we had Kenny together with Kurt) gave us targets in the corridor that were less affected by the loose man or the where the ball carrier is, and if they don't pull in the marks, the crumbs are at a better angle.
Not to mention that they would be able to play largely smaller, running defenders and create run.
I remember the Sydney final in 1998 in the wet Malcolm Blight whacked big, bad Ben Marsh up forward for long periods of the game. He barely had a touch and conditions certainly didn't favour him but I remember Blight saying something like he wanted the Swans to have a big, immobile body down in their backline making errors in the slippery conditions.
2 really interesting pieces, and I think there is a lot of truth here.
good stuff
Maybe the younger players (ie Griffen, Tippett, Vince, MacKay, Douglas) are getting a little tired/sore and this is having a significant impact on overall play, including accuracy on goal.
Certainly Griffen has been struggling. Maric was brought in a couple of weeks ago to lighten Griffens load and release Tippett as a permanent forward. Griffen has now succumb to his injury, and gets a well earned rest. This also kept McGregor out of the team.
McGregors return this week should lighten Tippetts load, and straighten up our attacking forays. I think this was a good and necessary selection. Richmond will have to have 2 accountable tall defenders. They won't have the luxury of dropping one of those talls into the hole to clog up space in the forward line.
That should also create more space for the likes of Goody, Porps, Douglas and Jericho, all capable and damaging lead up players, to run into. Importantly, I wouldn't judge McGregor by his stats, but by where he leads to (ie I think he has to drag his defender away from the centre corridor).
goldcoast
6 Jun 2008, 20:38
With regards to Kurt Tippett, I think if you watch closely he just gets a little to close to the man on the mark, therefore he is not kicking totally through the ball, but more stabbing at it. I've watched him up here on the GC before he was drafted and he is a nice kick, I just think he needs to take two more steps further back from the mark, so the man on the mark is out of his periphial vision.
Crowman32
6 Jun 2008, 21:32
With regards to Kurt Tippett, I think if you watch closely he just gets a little to close to the man on the mark, therefore he is not kicking totally through the ball, but more stabbing at it. I've watched him up here on the GC before he was drafted and he is a nice kick, I just think he needs to take two more steps further back from the mark, so the man on the mark is out of his periphial vision.
The other problem Tippett has when kicking for goal is he has no momentum when he is kicking the ball. When he goes to kick the ball he comes to a stop instead of kicking through the ball with the momentum of his body. His kicking is not totally bad but definately needs some work as do a lot of his team mates. I suggest they get some advise from Taylor Walker. He is a brilliant kick for goal.
Wouldn't the opposition just zone off and defend the corridor ?
They can't necessarily just always zone off and stay in the corridoor otherwise you will be consistently giving away marks inside 50 to unmarked players...albeit near the boundary line.
You might get a situation where a loose man might just fill the hole in the corridoor. However a stationary man is often just a sitting duck to someone with momentum behind them on a lead. You would back the players comning at the ball rather than sitting there waiting for it 9 times out of 10.
Often I think when confronted with a zone defence in kick in situations from a point it would be more beneficial for the player taking the kick in to actually kick it directly (with a bit of air) at the opposition player. The way a zone is set up this means that two of your players would converge on the one stationary opposition player.
KingsCrow
6 Jun 2008, 22:09
Few things I've noticed about Burton.
He always kicks straight if he boots his first goal (bit obvious)
He kicks bad when he doesn't run straight towards the goal (take note next time you see him do a set shot)
When he misses his first shot he generally doesn't follow through as much in the next shot/s, kind of tries to guide it through with less power. Hence why sometimes it drops heaps short.
There a few simple rules that I was a taught which if every player followed it goal kicking would improve;
1. Stay 'over' the ball throughout the kick. This means to stay as low as possible, this prevents leaning back on the kick and allows for maximum penetration.
2. Minimise ball drop height, this is helped by following rule 1
3. Keep the ball as still as possible from the beginning of the run through to execution
4. Gather decent momentum at point of execution (helped with decent run up, but not excessive)
I think the Birdman clearly breaks rule 2 and 3
KingsCrow
6 Jun 2008, 22:38
There a few simple rules that I was a taught which if every player followed it goal kicking would improve;
1. Stay 'over' the ball throughout the kick. This means to stay as low as possible, this prevents leaning back on the kick and allows for maximum penetration.
2. Minimise ball drop height, this is helped by following rule 1
3. Keep the ball as still as possible from the beginning of the run through to execution
4. Gather decent momentum at point of execution (helped with decent run up, but not excessive)
I think the Birdman clearly breaks rule 2 and 3
5. Hold the ball directly over the kicking foot, an extenstion of rule 3
5. Hold the ball directly over the kicking foot, an extenstion of rule 3
6. Be Darren Jarman
7. Focus on a midpoint beyond the goals and kick through the ball
Im sure they know all of these.
I think they've really gotta want to kick the goal too.
I dont say that blaize'. You see some players who have missed not seem disappointed:confused: The kicking for goal "time" rule; has that been chucked out?
James_37
7 Jun 2008, 12:59
7. Focus on a midpoint beyond the goals and kick through the ball
Im sure they know all of these.
I think they've really gotta want to kick the goal too.
I dont say that blaize'. You see some players who have missed not seem disappointed:confused: The kicking for goal "time" rule; has that been chucked out?
I'd question that part, I was always told by a very highly respected South Australian footballing name that for a right footer you should aim to land the ball on top of the right hand goal post.
The other thing was to run straight at the goal post too, none of this big curving round crap, straight at it and then as you say top jars kick through it, don't stab at it. I also find having some good momentum up always helps, a little skip before you kick it's fine, but you've gotta pretty much be on the run.
Carl Spackler
8 Jun 2008, 01:09
Fevola is a bloody good set shot kick for goal. He has one hand very high on the ball, the other very low. Dunstall was excellent, his hands were much more even.
Akermanis is a great kick for goal. Doesn't take much time, builds up plenty of momentum in his run up, almost on the run. Kicks straight. Lockett was a great kick for goal. Takes his time, very slow, deliberate, walk in. Minimal momentum, kicked straight.
Matthew Lloyd is a good kick for goal. Runs in dead straight, kicks them dead straight. Darren Jarman was a good kick for goal. Runs in on an angle to the right, slight hook foot, kicks them dead straight.
Adam Gilchrist holds the bat right at the top of the handle. Gary Sobers held the bat right at the bottom of the handle. Who did it right?
Which is the right technique and which is the wrong technique? Does the right technique exist?
Fevola is a bloody good set shot kick for goal. He has one hand very high on the ball, the other very low. Dunstall was excellent, his hands were much more even.
Akermanis is a great kick for goal. Doesn't take much time, builds up plenty of momentum in his run up, almost on the run. Kicks straight. Lockett was a great kick for goal. Takes his time, very slow, deliberate, walk in. Minimal momentum, kicked straight.
Matthew Lloyd is a good kick for goal. Runs in dead straight, kicks them dead straight. Darren Jarman was a good kick for goal. Runs in on an angle to the right, slight hook foot, kicks them dead straight.
Adam Gilchrist holds the bat right at the top of the handle. Gary Sobers held the bat right at the bottom of the handle. Who did it right?
Which is the right technique and which is the wrong technique? Does the right technique exist?
And Buddy Franklin swings around to his left and hooks it every time.
The thing is to be consistent with the technique. If you're consistent then you'll know what the ball can do and can compensate accordingly. If your technique sends the ball consistently to the left, then aim a fraction further to the right and it will consistently go through the middle.
Buddy's technique, from what I'm told, should result in a lot more misses than hits. However, because he does it so consistently he knows where to aim and is remarkably accurate when kicking from his 2 sqm patch of turf.
And Buddy Franklin swings around to his left and hooks it every time.
The thing is to be consistent with the technique. If you're consistent then you'll know what the ball can do and can compensate accordingly. If your technique sends the ball consistently to the left, then aim a fraction further to the right and it will consistently go through the middle.
Buddy's technique, from what I'm told, should result in a lot more misses than hits. However, because he does it so consistently he knows where to aim and is remarkably accurate when kicking from his 2 sqm patch of turf.
Buddy's not that accurate.
he's a modern day Peter Sumich. somedays it's 10.1 and others it's 1.10
Buddy's not that accurate.
he's a modern day Peter Sumich. somedays it's 10.1 and others it's 1.10
Youre right he just has so many scoring shots and always gets some sort of bag we tend to forget his misses.
Buddy's not that accurate.
he's a modern day Peter Sumich. somedays it's 10.1 and others it's 1.10
He's accurate when he kicks it from "the spot" - the 2 sqm patch of turf 40m out on a 45 degree angle to the left of the goals.
If he's kicking from somewhere else it's a lottery.
He's accurate when he kicks it from "the spot" - the 2 sqm patch of turf 40m out on a 45 degree angle to the left of the goals.
If he's kicking from somewhere else it's a lottery.
dunno about that, the reason I make the sumich comparison is that they both ran sideways in the approach and hooked the ball across them.
Buddy's great when he's great, and when he's not...
I don't reckon there's any shot he can't miss or make.
Carl Spackler
9 Jun 2008, 20:10
Buddy's not that accurate.
he's a modern day Peter Sumich. somedays it's 10.1 and others it's 1.10
Do you try to make his technique more orthodox because he sometimes kicks 1.10 or do you leave it alone because he sometimes kicks 10.1 (and has demonstrated an ability to kick goals under pressure)?