What is Acceptable goal kicking accuracy

[PerthBoy87]

G'day all,
It's pretty slow here on the footy board due to the off-season so I thought I'd bring this subject up:

Goal kicking accuracy.......

In your opinion Pies supporters (or any other supporters for that matter), what is an acceptable MINIMUM percentage when it comes to goal kicking accuracy?

Below are the top 10 goal kickers from season 2013 and their accuracy (for season 2013) plus their career goals and career accuracy which will be in brackets:


Jarryd Roughead: 72.34 = 67.92% (career: 366.238 = 60.59%)

Travis Cloke: 68.51 = 57.14% (career: 351.291 = 54.67%)

Jeremy Cameron: 62.27 = 69.66% (career: 91.42 = 68.43%)

Lance Franklin: 60.37 = 61.85% (career: 580.422 = 57.88%)

Josh Kennedy: 60.23 = 72.28% (career: 227.124 = 70.71%)

Jack Riewoldt: 58.33 = 63.73% (career: 320.184 = 63.49%)

Lindsay Thomas: 53.23 = 69.73% (career: 204.160 = 56.04%)

Nick Riewoldt: 50.36 = 58.13% (career: 570.383 = 59.81%)

Tom Hawkins: 49.20 = 71.01% (career: 218.120 = 64.49%

Jay Shulz: 49.26 = 65.33% (career: 213.113 = 65.33%)


In my opinion I reckon the minimum acceptable accuracy should be around 60% onwards. Give or take.

What do you think?

 

[TheFreshBanana]

Bad accuracy, lots of goals = acceptable

Good accuracy, not a lot of goals = not acceptable

 

[Bard]

Those figures don't include shots out on the full, which would make many of their 'accuracies' much worse, particularly Cloke.

I'd say to be considered one of the best forwards ever you'd need to be in the 70% vicinity, otherwise it purely comes down to the amount of goals you kick, not your accuracy.

 

[PerthBoy87]

Those figures don't include shots out on the full, which would make many of their 'accuracies' much worse, particularly Cloke.

I'd say to be considered one of the best forwards ever you'd need to be in the 70% vicinity, otherwise it purely comes down to the amount of goals you kick, not your accuracy.

I agree, but I couldn't find a state for shots on the full, if there were stats - then I would have provided them.

It's interesting looking at the medium/smaller forwards or crumbing forwards from over the years - just randomly thinking of these players from the top of my head...

Leon Davis (Collingwood): 270.189 = 58.82%

Stephen Milne (St Kilda): 574.324 = 63.91%

Robin Nahas (Richmond): 100.63 = 61.34%

Hayden Ballantyne (Fremantle): 131.92 = 58.74%

Jeff Farmer (Melbourne, Fremantle): 483.285 = 62.89%

Shane Edwards (Richmond): 79.79 = 50.00%

Mark LeCras (West Coast): 264.139 = 63.92%

Cyril Rioli (Hawthorn): 159.102 = 60.91%

Lindsay Thomas (North Melbourne): 204.160 = 56.04%

Aaron Edwards (West Coast, North Melbourne, Richmond): 138.59 = 70.05%

Adem Yze (Melbourne): 234.194 = 54.67%

Russel Robertson (Melbourne): 428.293 = 59.36%

Daniel Motlop (North Melbourne, Port Adelaide): 208.145 = 58.92%

Lewis Jetta (Sydney): 71.53 = 57.25%

Alan Didak (Collingwood): 274.164 = 62.55%

Jamie Elliot (Collingwood): 43.30 = 58.90%

Chris Naish (Richmond, Port Adelaide): 163.112 = 59.27%

Nick Daffy (Richmond, Sydney): 182.165 = 52.44%

Leroy Jetta (Essendon): 77.59 = 56.61%

Steven Motlop (Geelong): 72.42 = 63.15%

Andrew Krakouer (Richmond, Collingwood): 152.87 = 63.59%

Steve Johnson (Geelong): 405.286 = 58.61%

Ashley Sampi (West Coast): 97.74 = 56.72%

Eddie Betts (Carlton): 290.160 = 64.44%

Jeff Garlett (Carlton): 171.118 = 59.16%

Nathan G. Brown (Western Bulldogs, Richmond): 349.257 = 57.59%

Russel Robertson (Melbourne): 428.293 = 59.22%

Adem Yze (Melbourne): 234.194 = 54.67%

Aaron Davey (Melbourne): 174.129 = 57.42%

Mark Merenda (Richmond, West Coast): 88.94 = 48.35%

Phillip Matera (West Coast): 389.227 = 63.14%

Mitch Morton (West Coast, Richmond, Sydney): 116.64 = 64.44%

Paul Medhurst (Fremantle, Collingwood): 274.184 = 59.82%

Ronnie Burns (Geelong, Adelaide): 262.174 = 60.09%

Jimmy Krakouer (North Melbourne, St Kilda): 236.150 = 61.13%

Mark Williams (Hawthorn, Essendon): 248.127 = 66.13%

Chris Mayne (Fremantle): 137.63 = 68.50%

Andrew Lovett (Essendon, St Kilda): 93.65 = 58.86%

Brad Johnson (Western Bulldogs): 558.355 = 61.11%

Phil Krakouer (North Melbourne, Western Bulldogs): 231.140 = 62.26%

Nicky Winmar (St Kilda, Western Bulldogs): 317.262 = 54.74

Chris Lewis (West Coast): 259.205 = 55.81%

Michael O'Loughlin (Sydney): 303.286 = 51.44%

Shaun Burgoyne (Port Adelaide, Hawthorn): 223.130 = 63.17%

Byron Pickett (North Melbourne, Port Adelaide, Melbourne): 177.93 = 65.55%

Dean Rioli (Essendon): 91.57 = 61.48%

 

[TheFreshBanana]

Those figures don't include shots out on the full, which would make many of their 'accuracies' much worse, particularly Cloke.

I'd say to be considered one of the best forwards ever you'd need to be in the 70% vicinity, otherwise it purely comes down to the amount of goals you kick, not your accuracy.

A forwards job is to kick goals.

Being accurate is only a convenient way to achieve that job, but in this case, the end justifies the means.

 

[Bard]

A forwards job is to kick goals.

Being accurate is only a convenient way to achieve that job, but in this case, the end justifies the means.

Being 'one of the best forwards ever' doesn't just mean kicking a shit load of goals. If you kicked 1200 goals at 10% accuracy, sure you kicked 1200 goals, but you probably also screwed your team out of a few thousand more, because someone else could have been kicking them. A very flawed example I know, but I hope it paints a picture

 

[PerthBoy87]

Being 'one of the best forwards ever' doesn't just mean kicking a shit load of goals. If you kicked 1200 goals at 10% accuracy, sure you kicked 1200 goals, but you probably also screwed your team out of a few thousand more, because someone else could have been kicking them. A very flawed example I know, but I hope it paints a picture

Yep that's right, no point having 15 shots on goal and kicking 8.7, when it could of been more..

 

[TheFreshBanana]

Being 'one of the best forwards ever' doesn't just mean kicking a shit load of goals. If you kicked 1200 goals at 10% accuracy, sure you kicked 1200 goals, but you probably also screwed your team out of a few thousand more, because someone else could have been kicking them. A very flawed example I know, but I hope it paints a picture

That would depend, is it 1200 goals in 1200 games? Or 1200 goals in 400 games?

In the end, goal per game is still what matters. You may have kicked 3.10 on the day but that's still 28 points contributed to the team.

 

[Bard]

That would depend, is it 1200 goals in 1200 games? Or 1200 goals in 400 games?

In the end, goal per game is still what matters. You may have kicked 3.10 on the day but that's still 28 points contributed to the team.

And does kicking 3.10 every single week make you one of the best (let's say top 10) forwards of all time? Averaging 3 goals a game wouldn't be enough anyway, but ignoring that, the damage you've done to the team purely from a goals-per-i50 standpoint, assuming you're not averaging over 70 is huge, on top of that the mental affect on the players would damage the team constantly. Even if you kick 4.10 a game, you're still doing at least as much harm as good as even Melbourne currently could convert 15 i50s into 4 goals.

 

[TheFreshBanana]

And does kicking 3.10 every single week make you one of the best (let's say top 10) forwards of all time? Averaging 3 goals a game wouldn't be enough anyway, but ignoring that, the damage you've done to the team purely from a goals-per-i50 standpoint, assuming you're not averaging over 70 is huge, on top of that the mental affect on the players would damage the team constantly. Even if you kick 4.10 a game, you're still doing at least as much harm as good as even Melbourne currently could convert 15 i50s into 4 goals.

3 goals a game still nets you 66 goals. That would have made 3rd in the Coleman but that's irrelevant.

I still don't see your point. You've said it somehow has a mental effect on players and it does "at least as much harm as good" but haven't given a reason why.

 

[Bard]

3 goals a game still nets you 66 goals. That would have made 3rd in the Coleman but that's irrelevant.

I still don't see your point. You've said it somehow has a mental effect on players and it does "at least as much harm as good" but haven't given a reason why.

Ever done anything involving a team? It doesn't even have to be a sport, if you're working with a group of people to achieve an ultimate goal, and someone is constantly making the same mistakes over and over, it brings everyone down. The onset of depression regarding the foreseeable future of whatever you're trying to achieve quickly follows, it's then all up to either a capable leader or some sort of 'miracle act' ala Krakouer's Mark of the Year in 2011 to bring the confidence back to the team. In a team the personal achievement truly is nothing, it's all about the end goal, so no amount of confidence in yourself will suffice when you're lacking confidence in your team as a whole.

Also, sure, these days 3 goals a game would /almost/ net you a Coleman. But as I stated I'm talking about someone who is one of the best forwards of all time, say in the top 10. You need 4 goals a game to get into that sort of bracket.

 

[TheFreshBanana]

What a long bow to draw. I doubt Cloke's 57% accuracy is going to bring on the "onset of depression". Please, there's no need for dramatics to make yourself sound correct.

Also, it's irrelevant, merely an example. How about I just change it since it confuses you so.

He kicks 1200 goals in 300 games. There.

 

[Bard]

What a long bow to draw. I doubt Cloke's 57% accuracy is going to bring on the "onset of depression". Please, there's no need for dramatics to make yourself sound correct.

Also, it's irrelevant, merely an example. How about I just change it since it confuses you so.

He kicks 1200 goals in 300 games. There.

I don't know why you'd bring confusion into the mix. I answered a question you asked, and now you turn around and belittle me for it, so really if we're talking about who's confused I think the answer is as clear as day. What I'm saying is pretty simple, to be in the top 10 forwards of all time, you need to be an accurate shot at goal. And let's be honest here the top 10 of anything is purely subjective.

Also for the record Cloke's accuracy is well below 57% when you take into consideration shots out on the full or shots that fall short of goal completely, the latter of course is far less common.

 

[DWil6]

Buddy kicked 113.88 in a season. 56%. That season he also kicked a lot OOF. The hawks went in to win the premiership. 2008.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheFreshBanana]

I don't know why you'd bring confusion into the mix. I answered a question you asked, and now you turn around and belittle me for it, so really if we're talking about who's confused I think the answer is as clear as day. What I'm saying is pretty simple, to be in the top 10 forwards of all time, you need to be an accurate shot at goal. And let's be honest here the top 10 of anything is purely subjective.

Also for the record Cloke's accuracy is well below 57% when you take into consideration shots out on the full or shots that fall short of goal completely, the latter of course is far less common.

Where was the question?

I said it was irrelevant. It was merely made up for purely hypothetical purpose, so it was a bit perplexing as to why you said "Also, sure, these days 3 goals a game would /almost/ net you a Coleman. But as I stated I'm talking about someone who is one of the best forwards of all time, say in the top 10. You need 4 goals a game to get into that sort of bracket."

But moving onto the actual topic. Do you know the numbers? How far "below" 57% is it, do you think? And how much would it be to have an "effect" on players.

Even if it was at, let's say 50% for hypothetical purpose, I hardly see how that would affect the players? So, for every goal he kicks, he kicks a behind? Yeah look. I'm still not seeing the effect of a decreased morale.

Also, I'm not sure why you've suddenly changed it to "top 10 forwards". But is he a top 10 forward in the current game? Yes, certainly. Is he a top 10 forward of all time? I wouldn't have a clue, but I would fathom a guess and say no.

 

[Bard]

This is all hypothetical, the entire thread is hypothetical. You asked why I said something I said, which is an indirect question, and I answered it. For some reason you decided to proceed to being offended by my 'hypothetical' answer because it was melodramatic. Considering the posts you have continued to make it should be pretty clear as to why it was so melodramatic, you were completely missing the point then, and still are.

You're talking about someone who is a 'good' forward, a coleman medallist forward. Someone like a Cloke or Franklin. I'm talking about a player who would be dislodging a Carey or Coventry or even Coleman himself from one of the 'top 10 forwards of all time' list (no I don't have one).

And just regarding my melodramatic hypothetical post, I wasn't talking about someone with 50% accuracy. Clearly you missed out on that too.

 

[TheFreshBanana]

This is all hypothetical, the entire thread is hypothetical. You asked why I said something I said, which is an indirect question, and I answered it. For some reason you decided to proceed to being offended by my 'hypothetical' answer because it was melodramatic. Considering the posts you have continued to make it should be pretty clear as to why it was so melodramatic, you were completely missing the point then, and still are.

You're talking about someone who is a 'good' forward, a coleman medallist forward. Someone like a Cloke or Franklin. I'm talking about a player who would be dislodging a Carey or Coventry or even Coleman himself from one of the 'top 10 forwards of all time' list (no I don't have one).

And just regarding my melodramatic hypothetical post, I wasn't talking about someone with 50% accuracy. Clearly you missed out on that too.

There is no reason, because I'm not offended, just continuing to be confused regarding your posts.

Anyways, it seems like we're discussing two different things. You're talking about Cloke compared to all time greats, I'm talking about what sort of goalkicking accuracy he needs to be considered a successful forward in 2014.

What point am I missing?

The point that if Cloke keeps missing goals, the whole team begins to get depressed? Like I said, melodramatic.

2 more questions

1) What accuracy do you think Cloke is actually on?
2) What sort of accuracy would Cloke be kicking at, for the team be "depressed"?

 

[THATSGOLD]

There is certainly no percentage on the accuracy goals for what is wrong and right but kicking a behind instead of a goal can be the difference between winning and losing.

 

[Bard]

just continuing to be confused regarding your posts.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Anyways, it seems like we're discussing two different things. You're talking about Cloke compared to all time greats, I'm talking about what sort of goalkicking accuracy he needs to be considered a successful forward in 2014.

Here is my very first post:

I'd say to be considered one of the best forwards ever you'd need to be in the 70% vicinity, otherwise it purely comes down to the amount of goals you kick, not your accuracy.

The point that if Cloke keeps missing goals, the whole team begins to get depressed? Like I said, melodramatic.

Based on the context of my post at the time, I was talking about someone with 25 or 30% accuracy, not 57.whatever%.

1) What accuracy do you think Cloke is actually on?

About 50%

2) What sort of accuracy would Cloke be kicking at, for the team be "depressed"?

Anything under 30% I'd say.

 

[TheFreshBanana]

There is certainly no percentage on the accuracy goals for what is wrong and right but kicking a behind instead of a goal can be the difference between winning and losing.

Agree with this. Even though I think Cloke has had a successful 2013, doesn't mean he should be complacent regarding goalkicking.

But Cloke, who kicked nearly 70 goals last season, if we begin to blame him because he wasn't "accurate" enough, then that's when it starts to become stupid.

snip

if you think Cloke is actually on 50%, which I can say you are correct, then why would you continue to discuss it as if he was on 25-30% accuracy?

I just don't get it. But whatever.

 

[Chilli Con Incarnate]

Goals per game average would be the stat I am more interested in. I agree with TFB somewhat: more goals > more accuracy.

However all the best forwards would strive to be both, the more accurate you are, the more opportunities you are likely to take.

 

[speedytiger]

Has a key forward ever considerably improved their %? Maybe we need to start accepting Cloke will always be a bad shot.

 

[mike123]

Ever done anything involving a team? It doesn't even have to be a sport, if you're working with a group of people to achieve an ultimate goal, and someone is constantly making the same mistakes over and over, it brings everyone down. The onset of depression regarding the foreseeable future of whatever you're trying to achieve quickly follows, it's then all up to either a capable leader or some sort of 'miracle act' ala Krakouer's Mark of the Year in 2011 to bring the confidence back to the team. In a team the personal achievement truly is nothing, it's all about the end goal, so no amount of confidence in yourself will suffice when you're lacking confidence in your team as a whole.

Also, sure, these days 3 goals a game would /almost/ net you a Coleman. But as I stated I'm talking about someone who is one of the best forwards of all time, say in the top 10. You need 4 goals a game to get into that sort of bracket.

Krakouer missed the shot on goal though. A mark like that would still get the team up, i think. I'm not actually sure.

 

[Bard]

Agree with this. Even though I think Cloke has had a successful 2013, doesn't mean he should be complacent regarding goalkicking.

But Cloke, who kicked nearly 70 goals last season, if we begin to blame him because he wasn't "accurate" enough, then that's when it starts to become stupid.

if you think Cloke is actually on 50%, which I can say you are correct, then why would you continue to discuss it as if he was on 25-30% accuracy?

I just don't get it. But whatever.

When I was discussing the hypothetical's regarding the mental affect on the team I was never talking about Cloke directly, rather all players in general. I guess that's where the confusion arose. At least we got there in the end

 

[TheFreshBanana]

Krakouer missed the shot on goal though. A mark like that would still get the team up, i think. I'm not actually sure.

It surely would have.

But a moment like that is more likely to get the team up, compared to the theory that missed shots will demoralise the team.

Basically because there has already been evidence of plenty of singular acts that completely change the momentum of the game, while the other I've never seen.