Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: St Kilda v Western Bulldogs - 7:30PM Thu
Squiggle tips Saints at 51% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Hahaha.Biggest problem with goal kicking is not the footballers, but all the supporters wearing rose coloured glasses.
Another hater of modern contested football hey? Your team not doing so well then?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?
Defenders are allowed to train and get better too...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 ..
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.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.
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.
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 personally love the way the game is played - I'm sure many of the silent majority do too.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.
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.
It doesn't give any indication of set shots though.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
So it’s improved over the last 100 years, and with more accurate stats, it’s improved over the last 15 years.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.
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.
The only thing we have is goals vs behinds. That is likely adequate enough to detect large trends.
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?
So it’s improved over the last 100 years.