NZ goal kickers



  • Interesting article, I think this was the major reason the Canes come unstuck against the Highlanders in the final, Barrett could kick the points on offer.http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/79124056/despite-their-super-rugby-domination-kiwi-kickers-struggle-off-the-tee
    An AB problem or will Cruden be fine?



  • Well they compare it to the All Blacks winning by small margins and say it could cost matches - yet don't do the same analysis of what the kicking was rated in those close matches, so that's a bit stupid.



  • Aaron Cruden
    37 tests
    34 wins
    1 loss
    2 draws
    I'm pretty comfortable with that.



  • people were lamenting DC's poor kicking in one of the games in the RWC last year...
     
    Rennie said they have spoken to the AB selectors about Cruden not kicking and they said it wont affect his AB chances.



  • I'm happy with Cruden kicking for the AB's just shits me watching Barrett miss kick after kick week in week out he doesn't seem to improve.



  • Aaron Cruden
    37 tests
    34 wins
    1 loss
    2 draws
    I'm pretty comfortable with that.

    Yip. Cruden is good enough he should be picked as long as he can kick above 65%.



  • Yip. Cruden is good enough he should be picked as long as he can kick above 65%.

    surely it's got to more than 65% should be more like 75-80%



  • 70% bare minimum. 75% acceptable. 80% excellent. Above 80% world class.
    It's pure arrogance to think the ABs can keep on winning against the big guys with a 65% goal kicker.



  • I wonder if there are stats about for what someone has kicked in Super rugby and then for the ABs to see if there is a difference. 
     
    But yeah, the damn arrogance expecting to win when you score more points than the other team!



  • 70% bare minimum. 75% acceptable. 80% excellent. Above 80% world class.
    It's pure arrogance to think the ABs can keep on winning against the big guys with a 65% goal kicker.

    Not entirely sure about that, to be honest.
     
    66% means - on average - you get two shots out of three. 75% means you get three shots out of four.
     
    So, if you get six shots in a test the 66% guy can be expected to get four of them (on average). And the 75% guy will get four of them in half of his tests and five of them in the other half (on average).
     
    So a 75% kicker (compared to 65%) will make a difference (on average) in every second test that you would otherwise have won by two points or less.



  • I'd like to think the selectors will hsave better stats than overall %'s too.
     
    IE if I were weighing up 2 kickers I'd want to see their %'s in zones. Youi could have a guy kicking 80% within the 15m marks & 60% outside, but with a shitload of kicks out wide. So he averages 65%. Versus a guy kicking 75% inside & 60% outside but with hardly any outside, so he averages 70%.
     
    On raw stats alone (70% v 65%) you'd pick the shithouse kicker.
     
    Same with distance. One guy can't manage anything from over 40 out so he never even attempts those, another guy has a huge boot so regularly hits them from 50m out - but only gets 60%. His stats look shit. But the other guy has in effect 0% from 50.
     
    Its the same concept as Wayne Smith outlined re missed tackles. Looking at the top level number alone is pointless.





  • I wonder if there are stats about for what someone has kicked in Super rugby and then for the ABs to see if there is a difference.

    2014 Cruden
    RC: 77.8
    Super: 67.8
     
    2013 Cruden
    RC: 76.5
    Super: ?



  • Not entirely sure about that, to be honest.
     
    66% means - on average - you get two shots out of three. 75% means you get three shots out of four.
     
    So, if you get six shots in a test the 66% guy can be expected to get four of them (on average). And the 75% guy will get four of them in half of his tests and five of them in the other half (on average).
     
    So a 75% kicker (compared to 65%) will make a difference (on average) in every second test that you would otherwise have won by two points or less.

    Cool. I personally don't like the idea of the world's best rugby side having a 65% goalkicker.  And I can think of a few games even during this golden era where the victories have been by single digits.



  • 2014 Cruden
    RC: 77.8
    Super: 67.8
     
    2013 Cruden
    RC: 76.5
    Super: ?

    The Fern, helping lazy fluffybunnys since ages ago 🙂



  • The Boks are generally a little better than us here, Steyn, Goosen Pollard are all pretty damn good goalkickers.



  • Strang did a similar piece during the RWC last year about DC and Barrett.http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/72476775/Goalkicking-statistics-show-difference-between-Dan-Carter-and-Beauden-Barrett

    Thats really good -
     
    http://goalkickers.co.za/
     
    Shows at the mo' Lima adds 6 points per game, Barrett loses 12... second worst out of 50. Only Richie Mo'unga is shitter



  • You'd have to take into account the propensity of a team to take a shot. Plus as always people don't take into account sliding doors - a missed shot doesn't necessarily mean less total points, a successful shot doesn't necessarily mean more total points.



  • You'd have to take into account the propensity of a team to take a shot. Plus as always people don't take into account sliding doors - a missed shot doesn't necessarily mean less total points, a successful shot doesn't necessarily mean more total points.

    Yip, it's not so simple.  A team playing another team with a crap goal-kicker might be inclined to infringe more.
     
    I suppose the ABs could just do what they do, which is score a heap of tries, and penalties and conversions become cherries on the cake, rather than the winning or losing of the game.



  • The simple response to this article is 'look at the scoreboard'.
     
    Where are the teams those wonderful kickers play for sitting on the table? Those terrible kickers must be in teams wallowing in the depths.
     
    If it comes down to it I'd rather have a Cruden than a Wilkinson (although a Carter would be be nice)


Log in to reply