|
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: 3525 - 22/08/2026 14:29:55
2690882
Link
0
|
|
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: 873 - 22/08/2026 19:52:12
2690899
Link
0
|
|
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: 1939 - 24/08/2026 13:12:42
2691063
Link
1
|
|
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: 22 - 24/08/2026 15:21:25
2691102
Link
0
|
|
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: 3525 - 24/08/2026 15:51:42
2691112
Link
0
|
|
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
0
|
|
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: 3525 - 24/08/2026 16:06:58
2691119
Link
0
|
|
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
0
|
|
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: 4464 - 24/08/2026 16:27:18
2691127
Link
1
|
|
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: 1269 - 24/08/2026 16:34:05
2691131
Link
0
|
|
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: 8727 - 24/08/2026 19:38:23
2691154
Link
0
|
|
Replying To omahant: " Replying To Commodore: "<b>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 </b>
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."</div>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: 8727 - 24/08/2026 19:53:45
2691155
Link
0
|