Should Football Teams Now Focus On Two-Pointers?

(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post

You need to Login to Post

I've read multiple comments in the media recently, to the effect that, football teams should primarily focus on them, given their premium value. Really? As a maths geek, I find this topic fascinating, as I think there are multiple layers to unravel. While the 'success rate per attempt' (%) for two-pointers was rather low in the recent AI SFC Final, I would expect reasonable rates in the near future of say, 50% for open play two-pointers and 90% for close range scores. If so, the argument being made is that two-pointers result in a higher overall score - 1 pt per attempt (50% x 2 pts) - while close range delivers only 0.9 pts per attempt (90% x 1 pt) - in my scenario. I'm not convinced that this line of thinking is necessarily without its flaws, as 'time and energy' consumption are also factors in scoring attempts. Generally speaking, a two-point open play attempt is preceded by an elaborate play sequence as the attacking team tries to stretch the defence and find the optimal moment to shoot for a score. On the other hand, close range points often follow a more direct approach towards the goal posts. So, with my percentage scenarios above, in the time needed to attempt 12 two-pointers (yielding 12 pts), could the team have attempted '15 or more' close range attempts (yielding at least 13.5 pts)? Regardless of the expected 'yield' for each scoring option: 1) there will be 'averages' for a given sample of games, 2) 'averages' that are expected to change over time as the game evolves, and 3) 'averages' around which there is some deviation at any point in time, so the average might not necessarily infer how a given team should play. In addition, past results are not indicative of future performance [e.g. should Mayo continue with its game plan to raise its two-pointer success rate from that in the AIC Final, or decide instead, to have the scoreboard ticking over with 'ones'?] Is there a right or wrong answer? To my mind, it may be best to target a similar 'yield' across the 'three' scoring varieties (including goals) - i.e. like having a narrow 'pts per attempt' range (e.g. 0.9 - 1.0 above) - but with the added dimension of incorporating 'per time interval'. Overall, as the game evolves, the time factor may very well tip the scales towards one-pointers, as two- and three-pointers (goals) produce less efficient yield. Ideally, 'similar yields' across goal, 'arc' and short point (per time interval) would allow a team to play with greater finesse and unpredictability, without impacting their total score. What do you think? omahant (USA) - Posts: 3553 - 22/08/2026 14:29:55 2690882 Link
Replying To omahant: "I've read multiple comments in the media recently, to the effect that, football teams should primarily focus on them, given their premium value. Really? As a maths geek, I find this topic fascinating, as I think there are multiple layers to unravel. While the 'success rate per attempt' (%) for two-pointers was rather low in the recent AI SFC Final, I would expect reasonable rates in the near future of say, 50% for open play two-pointers and 90% for close range scores. If so, the argument being made is that two-pointers result in a higher overall score - 1 pt per attempt (50% x 2 pts) - while close range delivers only 0.9 pts per attempt (90% x 1 pt) - in my scenario. I'm not convinced that this line of thinking is necessarily without its flaws, as 'time and energy' consumption are also factors in scoring attempts. Generally speaking, a two-point open play attempt is preceded by an elaborate play sequence as the attacking team tries to stretch the defence and find the optimal moment to shoot for a score. On the other hand, close range points often follow a more direct approach towards the goal posts. So, with my percentage scenarios above, in the time needed to attempt 12 two-pointers (yielding 12 pts), could the team have attempted '15 or more' close range attempts (yielding at least 13.5 pts)? Regardless of the expected 'yield' for each scoring option: 1) there will be 'averages' for a given sample of games, 2) 'averages' that are expected to change over time as the game evolves, and 3) 'averages' around which there is some deviation at any point in time, so the average might not necessarily infer how a given team should play. In addition, past results are not indicative of future performance [e.g. should Mayo continue with its game plan to raise its two-pointer success rate from that in the AIC Final, or decide instead, to have the scoreboard ticking over with 'ones'? Is there a right or wrong answer? To my mind, it may be best to target a similar 'yield' across the 'three' scoring varieties (including goals) - i.e. like having a narrow 'pts per attempt' range (e.g. 0.9 - 1.0 above) - but with the added dimension of incorporating 'per time interval'. Overall, as the game evolves, the time factor may very well tip the scales towards one-pointers, as two- and three-pointers (goals) produce less efficient yield. Ideally, 'similar yields' across goal, 'arc' and short point (per time interval) would allow a team to play with greater finesse and unpredictability, without impacting their total score. What do you think?"]I stopped at geek! Seanfan (Roscommon) - Posts: 915 - 22/08/2026 19:52:12 2690899 Link
To my mind, it may be best to target a similar 'yield' across the 'three' scoring varieties (including goals) - i.e. like having a narrow 'pts per attempt' range (e.g. 0.9 - 1.0 above) - but with the added dimension of incorporating 'per time interval'. Overall, as the game evolves, the time factor may very well tip the scales towards one-pointers, as two- and three-pointers (goals) produce less efficient yield. Ideally, 'similar yields' across goal, 'arc' and short point (per time interval) would allow a team to play with greater finesse and unpredictability, without impacting their total score. What do you think? omahant (USA) - Posts: 3523 - 22/08/2026 14:29:55 I agree that the best guarantee of success is to target a similar yield across the three scoring varieties, focus on Goals, 2-Pointers and 1 pointers in equal. Any team who isn't posing a 2-pointer threat, will likely face a deeper sitting defence who will clog up running lanes. I'm sure almost every Inter-county coaching team have been crunching these numbers. However its clear that their calculations were based on the previous 2025 years stats and not on emerging changing variables that we seen this past 2026 season, such as improved defending across the board, which severely impacted scoring averages. Top teams who could dominate midfield, and who prefer low risk 1 pointers, were then getting turned over in the final 3rd by teams with a better man to man defenders, and thus why we seen such early elimination. 2 pointers are also environment dependent, get a bad weather day and nobody will hit them. Commodore (Donegal) - Posts: 1950 - 24/08/2026 13:12:42 2691063 Link
I reckon more posts should be brought in just like the afl....another point system made up and the gaa revamped into a more exciting game.... more scores = more excitment and close games monaghanmad4567 (Monaghan) - Posts: 57 - 24/08/2026 15:21:25 2691102 Link
Replying To monaghanmad4567: "I reckon more posts should be brought in just like the afl....another point system made up and the gaa revamped into a more exciting game.... more scores = more excitment and close games" While I'm a fan and enjoy the AFL - I don't particularly like the "behind" score - like rewarding a "wide" - has so little value, it serves more like a tie breaker when goals are equal - goals only worth "one" like soccer would be better, IMO - no need to needlessly multiply by six. omahant (USA) - Posts: 3553 - 24/08/2026 15:51:42 2691112 Link
2 pointers are overvalued. They were fine when a goal was worth 4. They should be worth 1.5 points now the goal is only worth 3 again but that is obviously unworkable. So the answer is yes. crankyincorofin (Galway) - Posts: 134 - 24/08/2026 16:06:14 2691117 Link
Replying To Commodore: "To my mind, it may be best to target a similar 'yield' across the 'three' scoring varieties (including goals) - i.e. like having a narrow 'pts per attempt' range (e.g. 0.9 - 1.0 above) - but with the added dimension of incorporating 'per time interval'. Overall, as the game evolves, the time factor may very well tip the scales towards one-pointers, as two- and three-pointers (goals) produce less efficient yield. Ideally, 'similar yields' across goal, 'arc' and short point (per time interval) would allow a team to play with greater finesse and unpredictability, without impacting their total score. What do you think? omahant (USA) - Posts: 3523 - 22/08/2026 14:29:55 I agree that the best guarantee of success is to target a similar yield across the three scoring varieties, focus on Goals, 2-Pointers and 1 pointers in equal. Any team who isn't posing a 2-pointer threat, will likely face a deeper sitting defence who will clog up running lanes. I'm sure almost every Inter-county coaching team have been crunching these numbers. However its clear that their calculations were based on the previous 2025 years stats and not on emerging changing variables that we seen this past 2026 season, such as improved defending across the board, which severely impacted scoring averages. Top teams who could dominate midfield, and who prefer low risk 1 pointers, were then getting turned over in the final 3rd by teams with a better man to man defenders, and thus why we seen such early elimination. 2 pointers are also environment dependent, get a bad weather day and nobody will hit them." In the NBA, yield from 3-pt attempts has fluctuated - up and down - across different decades, as reflected in the link below: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9915101/ Food for thought - re: gaelic football 2-pointer! - what should you do? omahant (USA) - Posts: 3553 - 24/08/2026 16:06:58 2691119 Link
2 points for over the bar 4 for a kick from outside the arc 6 for a goal would bring balance to the force crankyincorofin (Galway) - Posts: 134 - 24/08/2026 16:09:02 2691120 Link
Focus on defending them better. The amount of times you see two pointers at club and county level kicked under zero pressure and given loads of time to take a shot is ridiculous. The_analyser (Roscommon) - Posts: 4470 - 24/08/2026 16:27:18 2691127 Link
Replying To monaghanmad4567: "I reckon more posts should be brought in just like the afl....another point system made up and the gaa revamped into a more exciting game.... more scores = more excitment and close games" More scores does not mean better games.It could get to the stage where a point barely raises a cheer.The 2 point arc should be 50 M. gunman (Donegal) - Posts: 1271 - 24/08/2026 16:34:05 2691131 Link
Replying To The_analyser: "Focus on defending them better. The amount of times you see two pointers at club and county level kicked under zero pressure and given loads of time to take a shot is ridiculous." Would it be worth trying to stand behind the kicker, to stop the kick, as they're lining up the kick and drop the ball to foot? Easy to know who the 2 pointers are and which foot they kick with. With a man defending him arc-side, couid be worth someone blindsiding the kicker and intercepting the ball before it's kicked. GreenandRed (Mayo) - Posts: 8760 - 24/08/2026 19:38:23 2691154 Link
Replying To omahant: " Replying To Commodore: "To my mind, it may be best to target a similar 'yield' across the 'three' scoring varieties (including goals) - i.e. like having a narrow 'pts per attempt' range (e.g. 0.9 - 1.0 above) - but with the added dimension of incorporating 'per time interval'. Overall, as the game evolves, the time factor may very well tip the scales towards one-pointers, as two- and three-pointers (goals) produce less efficient yield. Ideally, 'similar yields' across goal, 'arc' and short point (per time interval) would allow a team to play with greater finesse and unpredictability, without impacting their total score. What do you think? omahant (USA) - Posts: 3523 - 22/08/2026 14:29:55 I agree that the best guarantee of success is to target a similar yield across the three scoring varieties, focus on Goals, 2-Pointers and 1 pointers in equal. Any team who isn't posing a 2-pointer threat, will likely face a deeper sitting defence who will clog up running lanes. I'm sure almost every Inter-county coaching team have been crunching these numbers. However its clear that their calculations were based on the previous 2025 years stats and not on emerging changing variables that we seen this past 2026 season, such as improved defending across the board, which severely impacted scoring averages. Top teams who could dominate midfield, and who prefer low risk 1 pointers, were then getting turned over in the final 3rd by teams with a better man to man defenders, and thus why we seen such early elimination. 2 pointers are also environment dependent, get a bad weather day and nobody will hit them." In the NBA, yield from 3-pt attempts has fluctuated - up and down - across different decades, as reflected in the link below: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9915101/ Food for thought - re: gaelic football 2-pointer! - what should you do?" Basketball is a minimum contact indoor sport with limited scoring methods compared to the more skilful, more physical outdoor game of Gaelic Football. Why are you comparing them? GreenandRed (Mayo) - Posts: 8760 - 24/08/2026 19:53:45 2691155 Link
I have been to a lot of games over the past few months. Not once did it rain because we have had a fantastic spell of weather. I saw 2 pointers kicked with a dry ball and on a dry sod. There will not be the same amount of 2 pointers scored if it was raining. I think take 2 pointers when they are on offer but the single point option will still be the best bet. eoinog (Sligo) - Posts: 2580 - 24/08/2026 20:55:20 2691159 Link
Replying To GreenandRed: " Replying To omahant: "[quote=Commodore: "To my mind, it may be best to target a similar 'yield' across the 'three' scoring varieties (including goals) - i.e. like having a narrow 'pts per attempt' range (e.g. 0.9 - 1.0 above) - but with the added dimension of incorporating 'per time interval'. Overall, as the game evolves, the time factor may very well tip the scales towards one-pointers, as two- and three-pointers (goals) produce less efficient yield. Ideally, 'similar yields' across goal, 'arc' and short point (per time interval) would allow a team to play with greater finesse and unpredictability, without impacting their total score. What do you think? omahant (USA) - Posts: 3523 - 22/08/2026 14:29:55 I agree that the best guarantee of success is to target a similar yield across the three scoring varieties, focus on Goals, 2-Pointers and 1 pointers in equal. Any team who isn't posing a 2-pointer threat, will likely face a deeper sitting defence who will clog up running lanes. I'm sure almost every Inter-county coaching team have been crunching these numbers. However its clear that their calculations were based on the previous 2025 years stats and not on emerging changing variables that we seen this past 2026 season, such as improved defending across the board, which severely impacted scoring averages. Top teams who could dominate midfield, and who prefer low risk 1 pointers, were then getting turned over in the final 3rd by teams with a better man to man defenders, and thus why we seen such early elimination. 2 pointers are also environment dependent, get a bad weather day and nobody will hit them." In the NBA, yield from 3-pt attempts has fluctuated - up and down - across different decades, as reflected in the link below: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9915101/ Food for thought - re: gaelic football 2-pointer! - what should you do?" Basketball is a minimum contact indoor sport with limited scoring methods compared to the more skilful, more physical outdoor game of Gaelic Football. Why are you comparing them?"]He is comparing efficiency of shooting, not physicality. NBA shooting efficiency stats have fluctuated as new players came, rules changed, and conditioning became a larger part of the game. This is being mirrored in modern day football - players are expected to be peak athletes as a baseline, and the 1%s are what change the outcome of a game. I watched Truagh play in Monaghan last week, and you could tell everyone on that pitch was in great shape, but it came down to the talent of the players in the end. If your teams best skill is not hitting 2 pointers, e.g Truagh they were godawful, you need to use your athleticism to compensate for that by running the other team down Hughie_Murph (Donegal) - Posts: 18 - 25/08/2026 08:38:48 2691185 Link
Replying To Hughie_Murph: " Replying To GreenandRed: "[quote=omahant: "[quote=Commodore: "To my mind, it may be best to target a similar 'yield' across the 'three' scoring varieties (including goals) - i.e. like having a narrow 'pts per attempt' range (e.g. 0.9 - 1.0 above) - but with the added dimension of incorporating 'per time interval'. Overall, as the game evolves, the time factor may very well tip the scales towards one-pointers, as two- and three-pointers (goals) produce less efficient yield. Ideally, 'similar yields' across goal, 'arc' and short point (per time interval) would allow a team to play with greater finesse and unpredictability, without impacting their total score. What do you think? omahant (USA) - Posts: 3523 - 22/08/2026 14:29:55 I agree that the best guarantee of success is to target a similar yield across the three scoring varieties, focus on Goals, 2-Pointers and 1 pointers in equal. Any team who isn't posing a 2-pointer threat, will likely face a deeper sitting defence who will clog up running lanes. I'm sure almost every Inter-county coaching team have been crunching these numbers. However its clear that their calculations were based on the previous 2025 years stats and not on emerging changing variables that we seen this past 2026 season, such as improved defending across the board, which severely impacted scoring averages. Top teams who could dominate midfield, and who prefer low risk 1 pointers, were then getting turned over in the final 3rd by teams with a better man to man defenders, and thus why we seen such early elimination. 2 pointers are also environment dependent, get a bad weather day and nobody will hit them." In the NBA, yield from 3-pt attempts has fluctuated - up and down - across different decades, as reflected in the link below: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9915101/ Food for thought - re: gaelic football 2-pointer! - what should you do?" Basketball is a minimum contact indoor sport with limited scoring methods compared to the more skilful, more physical outdoor game of Gaelic Football. Why are you comparing them?"]He is comparing efficiency of shooting, not physicality. NBA shooting efficiency stats have fluctuated as new players came, rules changed, and conditioning became a larger part of the game. This is being mirrored in modern day football - players are expected to be peak athletes as a baseline, and the 1%s are what change the outcome of a game. I watched Truagh play in Monaghan last week, and you could tell everyone on that pitch was in great shape, but it came down to the talent of the players in the end. If your teams best skill is not hitting 2 pointers, e.g Truagh they were godawful, you need to use your athleticism to compensate for that by running the other team down"]Focusing on two pointers can work against the team. In a games few weeks ago I watched Truagh Gaels Shoot silly shots from outside two point arc. They had the wind and only scored a lucky goal by Luke McKenna. They don't have many shooters so it is easy for teams to focus on there big shooters like Darren Oneill. Apart from him the rest of team struggled to get the distance and the accuracy. GAAFAN1234512345 (Monaghan) - Posts: 50 - 25/08/2026 10:34:00 2691206 Link
Replying To Hughie_Murph: " Replying To GreenandRed: "[quote=omahant: "[quote=Commodore: "To my mind, it may be best to target a similar 'yield' across the 'three' scoring varieties (including goals) - i.e. like having a narrow 'pts per attempt' range (e.g. 0.9 - 1.0 above) - but with the added dimension of incorporating 'per time interval'. Overall, as the game evolves, the time factor may very well tip the scales towards one-pointers, as two- and three-pointers (goals) produce less efficient yield. Ideally, 'similar yields' across goal, 'arc' and short point (per time interval) would allow a team to play with greater finesse and unpredictability, without impacting their total score. What do you think? omahant (USA) - Posts: 3523 - 22/08/2026 14:29:55 I agree that the best guarantee of success is to target a similar yield across the three scoring varieties, focus on Goals, 2-Pointers and 1 pointers in equal. Any team who isn't posing a 2-pointer threat, will likely face a deeper sitting defence who will clog up running lanes. I'm sure almost every Inter-county coaching team have been crunching these numbers. However its clear that their calculations were based on the previous 2025 years stats and not on emerging changing variables that we seen this past 2026 season, such as improved defending across the board, which severely impacted scoring averages. Top teams who could dominate midfield, and who prefer low risk 1 pointers, were then getting turned over in the final 3rd by teams with a better man to man defenders, and thus why we seen such early elimination. 2 pointers are also environment dependent, get a bad weather day and nobody will hit them." In the NBA, yield from 3-pt attempts has fluctuated - up and down - across different decades, as reflected in the link below: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9915101/ Food for thought - re: gaelic football 2-pointer! - what should you do?" Basketball is a minimum contact indoor sport with limited scoring methods compared to the more skilful, more physical outdoor game of Gaelic Football. Why are you comparing them?"]He is comparing efficiency of shooting, not physicality. NBA shooting efficiency stats have fluctuated as new players came, rules changed, and conditioning became a larger part of the game. This is being mirrored in modern day football - players are expected to be peak athletes as a baseline, and the 1%s are what change the outcome of a game. I watched Truagh play in Monaghan last week, and you could tell everyone on that pitch was in great shape, but it came down to the talent of the players in the end. If your teams best skill is not hitting 2 pointers, e.g Truagh they were godawful, you need to use your athleticism to compensate for that by running the other team down"]Welcome to Hoganstand Hughie. The question was: Why are you comparing them? NBA level is a professional, almost completely different sport to Gaelic Football, that has been around for a lot longer than new rules Gaelic Football. The NBA 3 pointer is around for more than 40 years. The data comparison is null and void. Data comparison needs accurate documentation, some similarities, player motivation levels, amateur v professional for example, a similar timeframe plus other variables, like the weather conditions inluence on the surface, number of players, size of the pitch, the shooters clear view of the target, those variables percentage scoring chances. We've had 2 intercounty seasons for the 2 pointers. Players are still adapting. 1 in LGFA where, slowly, some players are learning the new skill. GreenandRed (Mayo) - Posts: 8760 - 25/08/2026 17:21:03 2691282 Link
Replying To GreenandRed: " Replying To omahant: "[quote=Commodore: "To my mind, it may be best to target a similar 'yield' across the 'three' scoring varieties (including goals) - i.e. like having a narrow 'pts per attempt' range (e.g. 0.9 - 1.0 above) - but with the added dimension of incorporating 'per time interval'. Overall, as the game evolves, the time factor may very well tip the scales towards one-pointers, as two- and three-pointers (goals) produce less efficient yield. Ideally, 'similar yields' across goal, 'arc' and short point (per time interval) would allow a team to play with greater finesse and unpredictability, without impacting their total score. What do you think? omahant (USA) - Posts: 3523 - 22/08/2026 14:29:55 I agree that the best guarantee of success is to target a similar yield across the three scoring varieties, focus on Goals, 2-Pointers and 1 pointers in equal. Any team who isn't posing a 2-pointer threat, will likely face a deeper sitting defence who will clog up running lanes. I'm sure almost every Inter-county coaching team have been crunching these numbers. However its clear that their calculations were based on the previous 2025 years stats and not on emerging changing variables that we seen this past 2026 season, such as improved defending across the board, which severely impacted scoring averages. Top teams who could dominate midfield, and who prefer low risk 1 pointers, were then getting turned over in the final 3rd by teams with a better man to man defenders, and thus why we seen such early elimination. 2 pointers are also environment dependent, get a bad weather day and nobody will hit them." In the NBA, yield from 3-pt attempts has fluctuated - up and down - across different decades, as reflected in the link below: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9915101/ Food for thought - re: gaelic football 2-pointer! - what should you do?" Basketball is a minimum contact indoor sport with limited scoring methods compared to the more skilful, more physical outdoor game of Gaelic Football. Why are you comparing them?"]I was just making the point if premium score attempts are worth it. As the NBA reflects fluctuating results - premium score yields more, or less, at different points in time - this could be indicative that emphasis on the GAA two-pointer might also fluctuate in the future - as a manager, what should you do? - bottom line for me - play to your own team's strengths. omahant (USA) - Posts: 3553 - 26/08/2026 11:32:14 2691369 Link
Replying To GreenandRed: " Replying To Hughie_Murph: "[quote=GreenandRed: "[quote=omahant: "[quote=Commodore: "To my mind, it may be best to target a similar 'yield' across the 'three' scoring varieties (including goals) - i.e. like having a narrow 'pts per attempt' range (e.g. 0.9 - 1.0 above) - but with the added dimension of incorporating 'per time interval'. Overall, as the game evolves, the time factor may very well tip the scales towards one-pointers, as two- and three-pointers (goals) produce less efficient yield. Ideally, 'similar yields' across goal, 'arc' and short point (per time interval) would allow a team to play with greater finesse and unpredictability, without impacting their total score. What do you think? omahant (USA) - Posts: 3523 - 22/08/2026 14:29:55 I agree that the best guarantee of success is to target a similar yield across the three scoring varieties, focus on Goals, 2-Pointers and 1 pointers in equal. Any team who isn't posing a 2-pointer threat, will likely face a deeper sitting defence who will clog up running lanes. I'm sure almost every Inter-county coaching team have been crunching these numbers. However its clear that their calculations were based on the previous 2025 years stats and not on emerging changing variables that we seen this past 2026 season, such as improved defending across the board, which severely impacted scoring averages. Top teams who could dominate midfield, and who prefer low risk 1 pointers, were then getting turned over in the final 3rd by teams with a better man to man defenders, and thus why we seen such early elimination. 2 pointers are also environment dependent, get a bad weather day and nobody will hit them." In the NBA, yield from 3-pt attempts has fluctuated - up and down - across different decades, as reflected in the link below: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9915101/ Food for thought - re: gaelic football 2-pointer! - what should you do?" Basketball is a minimum contact indoor sport with limited scoring methods compared to the more skilful, more physical outdoor game of Gaelic Football. Why are you comparing them?"]He is comparing efficiency of shooting, not physicality. NBA shooting efficiency stats have fluctuated as new players came, rules changed, and conditioning became a larger part of the game. This is being mirrored in modern day football - players are expected to be peak athletes as a baseline, and the 1%s are what change the outcome of a game. I watched Truagh play in Monaghan last week, and you could tell everyone on that pitch was in great shape, but it came down to the talent of the players in the end. If your teams best skill is not hitting 2 pointers, e.g Truagh they were godawful, you need to use your athleticism to compensate for that by running the other team down"]Welcome to Hoganstand Hughie. The question was: Why are you comparing them? NBA level is a professional, almost completely different sport to Gaelic Football, that has been around for a lot longer than new rules Gaelic Football. The NBA 3 pointer is around for more than 40 years. The data comparison is null and void. Data comparison needs accurate documentation, some similarities, player motivation levels, amateur v professional for example, a similar timeframe plus other variables, like the weather conditions inluence on the surface, number of players, size of the pitch, the shooters clear view of the target, those variables percentage scoring chances. We've had 2 intercounty seasons for the 2 pointers. Players are still adapting. 1 in LGFA where, slowly, some players are learning the new skill."]There will be 40 yrs and more in the future - I was just offering food for thought - I've read some comments recently where 2-pointers seem to be becoming the only game in town - I'm just saying - not too fast, given NBA experience over the long term. omahant (USA) - Posts: 3553 - 26/08/2026 11:43:35 2691372 Link
Any player shooting a one point shot from play should be immediately substituted. WunderBar (Galway) - Posts: 293 - 26/08/2026 12:16:48 2691382 Link
Replying To omahant: " Replying To GreenandRed: "[quote=omahant: "[quote=Commodore: "To my mind, it may be best to target a similar 'yield' across the 'three' scoring varieties (including goals) - i.e. like having a narrow 'pts per attempt' range (e.g. 0.9 - 1.0 above) - but with the added dimension of incorporating 'per time interval'. Overall, as the game evolves, the time factor may very well tip the scales towards one-pointers, as two- and three-pointers (goals) produce less efficient yield. Ideally, 'similar yields' across goal, 'arc' and short point (per time interval) would allow a team to play with greater finesse and unpredictability, without impacting their total score. What do you think? omahant (USA) - Posts: 3523 - 22/08/2026 14:29:55 I agree that the best guarantee of success is to target a similar yield across the three scoring varieties, focus on Goals, 2-Pointers and 1 pointers in equal. Any team who isn't posing a 2-pointer threat, will likely face a deeper sitting defence who will clog up running lanes. I'm sure almost every Inter-county coaching team have been crunching these numbers. However its clear that their calculations were based on the previous 2025 years stats and not on emerging changing variables that we seen this past 2026 season, such as improved defending across the board, which severely impacted scoring averages. Top teams who could dominate midfield, and who prefer low risk 1 pointers, were then getting turned over in the final 3rd by teams with a better man to man defenders, and thus why we seen such early elimination. 2 pointers are also environment dependent, get a bad weather day and nobody will hit them." In the NBA, yield from 3-pt attempts has fluctuated - up and down - across different decades, as reflected in the link below: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9915101/ Food for thought - re: gaelic football 2-pointer! - what should you do?" Basketball is a minimum contact indoor sport with limited scoring methods compared to the more skilful, more physical outdoor game of Gaelic Football. Why are you comparing them?"]I was just making the point if premium score attempts are worth it. As the NBA reflects fluctuating results - premium score yields more, or less, at different points in time - this could be indicative that emphasis on the GAA two-pointer might also fluctuate in the future - as a manager, what should you do? - bottom line for me - play to your own team's strengths."]Exactly. But also try and improve your team's strength by exploiting the 2 pointer so if it means getting a corner back, with a great boot on him, closer to the arc at times or having some players improving their 2 point kicking, outside the main training time,similar to a freetaker practicing frees before or after training. GreenandRed (Mayo) - Posts: 8760 - 26/08/2026 16:03:59 2691419 Link

National Forum

Should Football Teams Now Focus On Two-Pointers?