How many goals at minimum does a 'bag' constitute?

[Power King]

As the thread title asks

 

[Byron_Clanger]

And the poll is where?

 

[Power King]

And the poll is where?

When creating a thread with a poll, the thread gets posted before creating the poll itself, accounting for the one minute delay between your post and the poll appearing.

 

[Quinz]

Don't really see 5 as a bag. It's a good performance though.

7 and above really is a day out.

 

[Banked.]

5 and above.

 

[Simmonds2Hislop]

5 is a bag for me.

4 is a good game.

3 is a solid enough game.

2 is passable.

1 or less is poor.

7+ is a monstrous effort that only happens a handful of times a year.

 

[Simmonds2Hislop]

Double post

 

[krayfesh]

Depends on who kicks them.

Jake King could kick a bag of 2.

Barry Hall could kick a bag of 6.

It's all relative.

 

[The Mighty Boosh]

Used to be 6 minimum. These days I reckon 5+ constitutes a bag.

 

[Tippaz]

5 is the magic number

 

[Ted]

Correct, it is 5

 

[pacemaker]

I once kicked 4 goals in the first quarter back in U/10s as a ruckman. I considered that a bag due to the fact of the position and the amount of time I got it in (15mins quarters). Just thought I would share yet another awesomeness story from myself.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Depends, I never would have considered 5 a bag as a youngster but since the mid to early 2000's big bags of goals have become less frequent.

At the moment I would consider 5 the absolute minimum for a "bag of goals".

 

[Claude Balls]

6 is a true bag for me. 5 is too common - will be kicked dozens of times a year by all types.

 

[chelseacarlton]

It's 6,people who say 5 live in mediocrity

 

[matty_hawk]

5. 1 a quarter plus 1 extra. enough to say you beat your opponent, plus in most games these days 5 is almost enough to kick half your teams score.

"Bags" 7 plus are so rare these days maybe the OP can come up with a clever name for them.

 

[Simmonds2Hislop]

Also, 4 a game will get you 88 for the year. Whereas 5 a game will see you crack the ton.

 

[BONG RIPS MKII]

"Bags" 7 plus are so rare these days maybe the OP can come up with a clever name for them.

a haul

 

[Hoops]

"Bags" 7 plus are so rare these days maybe the OP can come up with a clever name for them.

how about a 90's bag or septag

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

definitely 7+, shame there's not too many capable of kicking that many in a game these days.

 

[goDees22]

I reckon its changed, back in the 90s or early 00s a bag would have to be 7 or more, maybe a 6 if it was a low scoring game, but these days I reckon you almost count 5 as a bag unfortunately

 

[DivideandMultiply]

definitely 7+, shame there's not too many capable of kicking that many in a game these days.

No I disagree.

This is not an individual thing, it is almost completely down to the way the game is played.

Higher rotations, greater spreads of goal kickers to minimise predictability, less latitude with what forwards are allowed to do to out body opponents, more onus on defensive structures and specialised defenders, lower scoring opportunities due to zones and flooding.

 

[MF]

6 is a bag these days. 15 years ago it was 8.

 

[Quinz]

5 is not a bag. I don't care what the poll says.

 

[Peck]

4 is a bag of goals for mine.