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: 3523 - 22/08/2026 14:29:55    2690882