NZ goal kickers

Wreck Diver

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="573667" data-time="1461138904">
<div>
Yip. Cruden is good enough he should be picked as long as he can kick above 65%.
</div>
</blockquote>
surely it's got to more than 65% should be more like 75-80%

Billy Tell

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.

taniwharugby

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!

Chris B.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Billy Tell" data-cid="573679" data-time="1461142002">
<div>
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.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
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.

gollum

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.

ACT Crusader

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

Frye

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="573682" data-time="1461142363">
<div>
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. 
 
 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
2014 Cruden
RC: 77.8
Super: 67.8
 
2013 Cruden
RC: 76.5
Super: ?

Billy Tell

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="573683" data-time="1461142456">
<div>
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.
</div>
</blockquote>
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.

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Don Frye" data-cid="573690" data-time="1461143324">
<div>
2014 Cruden
RC: 77.8
Super: 67.8
 
2013 Cruden
RC: 76.5
Super: ?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
The Fern, helping lazy fluffybunnys since ages ago

Frank

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

gollum

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="ACT Crusader" data-cid="573689" data-time="1461143152">
<div>
Strang did a similar piece during the RWC last year about DC and Barrett. <a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/72476775/Goalkicking-statistics-show-difference-between-Dan-Carter-and-Beauden-Barrett">http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/72476775/Goalkicking-statistics-show-difference-between-Dan-Carter-and-Beauden-Barrett</a>
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Thats really good -
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://goalkickers.co.za/'>http://goalkickers.co.za/</a>
 
Shows at the mo' Lima adds 6 points per game, Barrett loses 12... second worst out of 50. Only Richie Mo'unga is shitter

Bones

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.

Billy Tell

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Bones" data-cid="573713" data-time="1461155088">
<div>
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.
</div>
</blockquote>
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.

Crucial

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)

taniwharugby

Rennie was saying Cruden will start kicking again in the next couple of weeks (has been kicking at training obviously)

hydro11

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="573705" data-time="1461147761">
<div>
Thats really good -
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://goalkickers.co.za/'>http://goalkickers.co.za/</a>
 
Shows at the mo' Lima adds 6 points per game, Barrett loses 12... second worst out of 50. Only Richie Mo'unga is shitter
</div>
</blockquote>
 
You're miss reading it. Barrett has lost 12 points this season over the 7 games the Hurricanes have played. So Barrett loses you less than 2 points per game. Sopoaga gains you about 1 point per game. The question you have to ask is, do the other parts of Barrett's game make him 3 points per game better than Sopoaga? I think that stats show it would be foolhardy to put Sopoaga on the bench ahead of Barrett because there is not much difference in their goal kicking over 15-20 minutes. Barrett scores tries that no one else could. If you watch <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://i.imgur.com/580ELOS.gifv'>this</a> only Barrett scores that try out of him, Cruden and Sopoaga. Therefore Barrett has just gained back 7 points over the 2 he loses by goal kicking.
 
As it is, I think overall Sopoaga is a better player than Barrett regardless of goal kicking. However, Barrett's kicking isn't so bad and his attacking play is so good that he has to be picked on the bench.

taniwharugby

I think BB sits on the bench, regardless who the ABs pick, but BBSS always makes the team every time....my preference is Cruden, but if he is out, then Sopoaga starts.

hydro11

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Billy Tell" data-cid="573679" data-time="1461142002">
<div>
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.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
It's not arrogance, it's just about picking the best players. Not picking Cruden or Barrett because they can't kick goals at above 70% would be the same as not picking Wilkinson because his running game was average. Sopoaga kicked below 70% in last year's Super Rugby, this year he's world class. That should show you how variable these percentages are. Cruden was above 80% some Super Rugby seasons as well.
 
Barrett is kicking at 66% this season and that costs the Hurricanes less than 2 points per game. Most international teams would pick Barrett because he could easily get those 2 points back by individual brilliance.

Crucial

Like BB, Cruden certainly create more points than he leaves on the board. The ABs decided a while back that getting past defences and scoring tries will benefit you far more than field position and kicking goals. If that means having kickers who have lower %s because maybe they have just got up off the ground after being smashed taking the ball to the line and offloading into space, then so be it.

Rembrandt

I haven't watched as many games as I'd like this year but Barrett has nailed a lot of very difficult kicks and fluffed some easy ones, I wouldn't be surprised if things suddenly improve with a minor technique change. I'd also like to see his kicking % vs opposition % at the caketin to see if conditions have been playing a part at all. (Happy to look it up if someone could piont me to a good stats page that might show that!) The try posted earlier was just phenomenal.

The Silver Fern

NZ goal kickers