The Reason for Poor Goal Kicking

[rmcq]

Biggest problem with goal kicking is not the footballers, but all the supporters wearing rose coloured glasses.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Biggest problem with goal kicking is not the footballers, but all the supporters wearing rose coloured glasses.

Hahaha.

You mean us? The ones that actually pay money for the product?

Marketing spin only works for so long. You can't use PR spin to sell a stinky product forever - eventually people just stop buying it. And that's what's happening now.

 

[rmcq]

Hahaha.

You mean us? The ones that actually pay money for the product?

Marketing spin only works for so long. You can't use PR spin to sell a stinky product forever - eventually people just stop buying it. And that's what's happening now.

Another hater of modern contested football hey? Your team not doing so well then?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Another hater of modern contested football hey?

Yes, I don't enjoy it all. Love contest, but far prefer 1 on 1 to 18 on 18. I love the execution of fundamentals in sport. And unfortunately the AFL has lost this badly over the past decade or so.

The sports I'm drawn to such as basketball, MMA, baseball and even the NFL - all are heavily strategised and tactics play an enormous part, however the fundamental skills are still the drawcard and still are the most relevant parts of the sport.

Your team not doing so well then?

Sorry to be rude, but I just can't understand that argument. I find it utterly idiotic and just so irrelevant to the debate regarding how the game is played.

I'm probably a Richmond supporter (I'm actually a member), a Saints supporter, a GWS supporter, a Geelong supporter and even have a soft spot for Melbourne.

I don't align with any one club and haven't for about 15 or so years. I gave up that nonsense when I became an adult.


Having said that, this topic is nothing about hating the game anyway. If anything, the OP defends the players of the modern game.



So please, if you're going to join debates about topics that extend beyond 'my team is better than yours', at least leave the duffel coat at the door.

 

[HTT]

if that is the case then why aren't there more players kicking a hundred goals a year. they should be absolutely topping the scales with goals rather than
just spreading them around ..

Defenders are allowed to train and get better too...

 

[HTT]

Yes, I don't enjoy it all. Love contest, but far prefer 1 on 1 to 18 on 18. I love the execution of fundamentals in sport. And unfortunately the AFL has lost this badly over the past decade or so.

The sports I'm drawn to such as basketball, MMA, baseball and even the NFL - all are heavily strategised and tactics play an enormous part, however the fundamental skills are still the drawcard and still are the most relevant parts of the sport.



Sorry to be rude, but I just can't understand that argument. I find it utterly idiotic and just so irrelevant to the debate regarding how the game is played.

I'm probably a Richmond supporter (I'm actually a member), a Saints supporter, a GWS supporter, a Geelong supporter and even have a soft spot for Melbourne.

I don't align with any one club and haven't for about 15 or so years. I gave up that nonsense when I became an adult.


Having said that, this topic is nothing about hating the game anyway. If anything, the OP defends the players of the modern game.



So please, if you're going to join debates about topics that extend beyond 'my team is better than yours', at least leave the duffel coat at the door.

I think the fundamental skills of football are still very important. Shane Edwards doesn't possess much in the way of athletic capabilities, nor can he win much of the ball, but he's played 200 games and was one of the best on ground in the GF. Why? He is incredibly clean with his hands and feet, in tight.
I personally reckon playing in the AFL is the true test of your skills - because you often don't have time to think it through, you just have to rely on years and years of practice to execute a pinpoint kick or a handball in a fraction of a second. Sure - it doesn't come off a lot of the time, but if it was able to come off all of the time, it wouldn't be a very good test.

To go off on a bit of a tangent, year 12 exams with a high average score, indicating they were easy, are often quite cruel to the better students. They aren't truely able to show their academic prowess on difficult question. They may score lower on a harder exam, but they are able to show a far better understanding of the topic. Similarly, the harder it is to execute skills, the more likely it is that those who are best will shine through.

 

[Furn2]

The OP describes set shot conversion.

The 'evidence' presented is simply a mean % of goals versus behinds (rushed included).

You could have 5 rushed behinds, and a mean % of 40%, but your set shot accuracy might have been 100%.

Similarly, you could have a mean % of 90% but your set shot conversion could be 0%.

So it's barely relevant to the OP at all.

That applies to all seasons though and other than the rushed behind rule there's no reason to think those variables have more or less influence in any particular era and with that much data it cant be ignored. There is a clear pattern that goal kicking accuracy has improved over time. It's certainly much stronger evidence than the anecdotal observations being used to suggest goal kicking now is poor when compared to other eras.

In fact it wasn't until the mid 70s that more goals than behinds were scored in a season.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

I think it's improved in some ways. The level of Aerobic fitness means players like Scully and Whitfield can kick goals ar the end of a long run that players simply couldn't in the past. WHE was a specialist at running down the wing to kick long spectacular goals as a youngster.

I get the practice thing, Cam Macarthy was a great shot as a teenager with with us, and was always the first player out and the last in in the pre-warm up. He would spend all the time taking set shots, getting a feel for the conditions no doubt. Not sure if he still does this. I dont as a rule attend Freo games.

There's undoubtedly a mental aspect. Patton was dobbing goals from the sidelines and outside the 50 last year, and I dont think I've seen one this year. I've always been a fan of Devon Smith, and miss him, but it's hard to understand why a guy with lethal disposal by foot, is such a poor shot.

 

[iluvparis]

To go off on a bit of a tangent, year 12 exams with a high average score, indicating they were easy, are often quite cruel to the better students. They aren't truely able to show their academic prowess on difficult question. They may score lower on a harder exam, but they are able to show a far better understanding of the topic. Similarly, the harder it is to execute skills, the more likely it is that those who are best will shine through.

That might be a valid metaphor if half the country sat around and watched Yr 12s do their exams. Chess is a game of insanely high skill - but it doesn't have a $2b rights deal in Australia - think about why.

 

[HTT]

That might be a valid metaphor if half the country sat around and watched Yr 12s do their exams. Chess is a game of insanely high skill - but it doesn't have a $2b rights deal in Australia - think about why.

I personally love the way the game is played - I'm sure many of the silent majority do too.

 

[Jack Gun Cyril Stun]

No routines and not enough practice with someone actually standing on the mark.

The players who miss most (esp the gimmes) have a different:
run up,
trajectory,
impact force
Follow through

If you just allow for 2 variations in each of above (that’s being generous) that’s 16 different methods 1 player can have in kicking for goal depending what his thought patterns are.

Get an effin routine for effin sake...then at least when it missrs we can prob live with it a bit more.

It doesn’t cause physical fatigue to build a simple routine...its unprofessional.

 

[rmcq]

Yes, I don't enjoy it all. Love contest, but far prefer 1 on 1 to 18 on 18. I love the execution of fundamentals in sport. And unfortunately the AFL has lost this badly over the past decade or so.

Having said that, this topic is nothing about hating the game anyway. If anything, the OP defends the players of the modern game.

So please, if you're going to join debates about topics that extend beyond 'my team is better than yours', at least leave the duffel coat at the door.

Ok I’ll ignore your condescending tone and address the issues.

My point about your team not doing so well is twofold. One, you list Gold Coast as your preferred team. Two, some teams are currently playing poor, ugly football and others aren’t. So one's opinion is coloured by the games you watch.

Also, goal kicking is no worse than it used to be, in fact it’s significantly better. I’m not sure why you brought the “spectacle of the game” into the discussion anyway.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

That applies to all seasons though and other than the rushed behind rule there's no reason to think those variables have more or less influence in any particular era and with that much data it cant be ignored. There is a clear pattern that goal kicking accuracy has improved over time. It's certainly much stronger evidence than the anecdotal observations being used to suggest goal kicking now is poor when compared to other eras.

In fact it wasn't until the mid 70s that more goals than behinds were scored in a season.

It doesn't give any indication of set shots though.

Those figures includes rushed behinds, set shots, and shots on the run.

And it doesn't include out on the full or shots that didn't make the distance.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I think the fundamental skills of football are still very important. Shane Edwards doesn't possess much in the way of athletic capabilities, nor can he win much of the ball, but he's played 200 games and was one of the best on ground in the GF. Why? He is incredibly clean with his hands and feet, in tight.
I personally reckon playing in the AFL is the true test of your skills - because you often don't have time to think it through, you just have to rely on years and years of practice to execute a pinpoint kick or a handball in a fraction of a second. Sure - it doesn't come off a lot of the time, but if it was able to come off all of the time, it wouldn't be a very good test.

To go off on a bit of a tangent, year 12 exams with a high average score, indicating they were easy, are often quite cruel to the better students. They aren't truely able to show their academic prowess on difficult question. They may score lower on a harder exam, but they are able to show a far better understanding of the topic. Similarly, the harder it is to execute skills, the more likely it is that those who are best will shine through.

I'm not arguing that the game isn't hard, nor that the players are incredibly skillful.

 

[Sentinel]

It doesn't give any indication of set shots though.

Those figures includes rushed behinds, set shots, and shots on the run.

And it doesn't include out on the full or shots that didn't make the distance.

What are you basing your argument on though? You keep suggesting that goal kicking is going backwards, but there isn't actually any evidence to suggest it is - in fact the only related evidence suggests the opposite.

I've seen a number of horrible misses, particularly by my own team this season, but you can't look at individual incidents in isolation and form a general conclusion. The stats don't lie.

 

[Scotland]

The stats don't paint an accurate picture because of the way the game is played now. A Josh Jenkins Joe the Goose special is much more common today than it was in the 90s.

Way too many players miss set shots inside 50 that should be a 7 or 8 out of 10 probability.

 

[rmcq]

It is impossible to accurately make a comparison of set-shot accuracy historically, because the data just doesn’t exist. The only thing we have is goals vs behinds. That is likely adequate enough to detect large trends.

And the trend says that accuracy is steadily improving.

Here’s a good blog post on it:
http://www.matterofstats.com/mafl-s...ot-conversion-history-in-the-vflafl-1897-2015

For more recent stats, Figuring Footy was recording accuracy based on shot difficulty, but he is now working for a club and no longer keeps up the stats.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

What are you basing your argument on though? You keep suggesting that goal kicking is going backwards, but there isn't actually any evidence to suggest it is - in fact the only related evidence suggests the opposite.

I've seen a number of horrible misses, particularly by my own team this season, but you can't look at individual incidents in isolation and form a general conclusion. The stats don't lie.

What stats don't lie? There are no stats earlier than 2000 on set shots.


I must admit though, I did simply assume it is worse.


Interestingly though...

The figure in 2000 for set shot conversion was 58.9%. By 2015 it had increased to 62.3%. So it improved from 2000 to 2015. However in 2000, 49 per cent of kicks for goal were from set shots whilst in 2015 it had come down to only 45.7%.

So let's put that into perspective...

Hypothetically, if a team had 20 shots at goal on a day in 2000 they would have had 9.8 set shots for the day, and converted 5.7 of them. So they missed 4.1 set shots.

In 2015, they'd have only had 9.1 set shots for the day and converted 5.6 of them. They'd have missed 3.5 of their set shots.

So although the 3.4% increase in set shot conversion seems quite high, in practical terms, it's less than 1 miss better. Better, but not much better at all.

 

[Damon_3388]

I put it down the political correctness and not being able to beat children with sticks any more. Kids are no longer being forced to practice and be whacked with a stick for every time they miss.

Bradman did it with a stump and a golf ball, etc.

 

[rmcq]

What stats don't lie? There are no stats earlier than 2000 on set shots.


I must admit though, I did simply assume it is worse.


Interestingly though...

The figure in 2000 for set shot conversion was 58.9%. By 2015 it had increased to 62.3%. So it improved from 2000 to 2015. However in 2000, 49 per cent of kicks for goal were from set shots whilst in 2015 it had come down to only 45.7%.

So let's put that into perspective...

Hypothetically, if a team had 20 shots at goal on a day in 2000 they would have had 9.8 set shots for the day, and converted 5.7 of them. So they missed 4.1 set shots.

In 2015, they'd have only had 9.1 set shots for the day and converted 5.6 of them. They'd have missed 3.5 of their set shots.

So although the 3.4% increase in set shot conversion seems quite high, in practical terms, it's less than 1 miss better. Better, but not much better at all.

So it’s improved over the last 100 years, and with more accurate stats, it’s improved over the last 15 years.

End thread.

 

[Damon_3388]

What stats don't lie? There are no stats earlier than 2000 on set shots.


I must admit though, I did simply assume it is worse.


Interestingly though...

The figure in 2000 for set shot conversion was 58.9%. By 2015 it had increased to 62.3%. So it improved from 2000 to 2015. However in 2000, 49 per cent of kicks for goal were from set shots whilst in 2015 it had come down to only 45.7%.

So let's put that into perspective...

Hypothetically, if a team had 20 shots at goal on a day in 2000 they would have had 9.8 set shots for the day, and converted 5.7 of them. So they missed 4.1 set shots.

In 2015, they'd have only had 9.1 set shots for the day and converted 5.6 of them. They'd have missed 3.5 of their set shots.

So although the 3.4% increase in set shot conversion seems quite high, in practical terms, it's less than 1 miss better. Better, but not much better at all.

So it's not getting worse though, as many claim.

Do the goalposts then shift (pardon the pun) for the whinge to be about the rate of improvement not being high enough?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

The only thing we have is goals vs behinds. That is likely adequate enough to detect large trends.

I don't agree with that.

In 2015, only 45% of scoring shots were from set shots.

So basically, well over 50% of the data in the 'goals versus behinds' stats is completely irrelevant.


One thing we do know, FWIW, is that there are less and less set shots being taken in games since 2000. And I'd go out on a limb and guess that if stats were recorded prior to that, in the days of the 'big full forward', this would show a huge trend that way.

 

[ioppolo]

Goal kicking isn't any worse, I'd argue it's better. Eagles won a final 20.23 to 8.15 in the early 90s. Peter Sumich kicked 111.89 one year.

The 1976 drawn GF was 10.16 to 9.22.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

So it's not getting worse though, as many claim.

Do the goalposts then shift (pardon the pun) for the whinge to be about the rate of improvement not being high enough?

Ummm, did you read the post? It said there are no stats prior to 2000.

I don't think many people argue nor care whether set shot goal kicking has gotten better or worse since 2000 do they? I assumed they were arguing over this topic it was referring to the days of the full forward, compared to now.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

So it’s improved over the last 100 years.

Has it?

I can't find any stats to prove either way unfortunately.

Locket went at just under 70%, and Hudson went at about 68%. And that was on boggy grounds, with wet balls and in howling winds. Roach and Taylor went at about 64%.

That's overall conversion, but given these guys were very much 'mark and kick' sorts of guys, you could assume that the vast majority of their shots at goal were from set shots. If you excluded shots from general play, those figures may actually increase.

So there could be a case to say it has gotten far worse if you choose to take a cross section of certain full forwards over time compared to the 62% that they were converting set shots at in 2015.