Greatly exaggerated GAA Myths

[deiseach]

Peter Withnell is a Protestant
Tony Browne has a picture in his attic

[EagleLord]

I get that 'aiming' for the far post is the desired action when kicking a free, or shot, given the way modern footballers all shoot, sort of side-on, I get that AZ, I agree in that sense of course, BUT its the way i hear men say it, 'at least miss on the far post'... it just ridiculous!

[AZOffaly]

It depends what they mean when they say it. If they mean 'Make a good strike and aim for the far post, bringing it back' then they are right.

If they mean balloon it at the far post and make sure it goes wide over that side, then they are wrong

[Michael Schmeichal]

That the GAA fix draws in favour of Dublin Footballers. If they are doing it I wish they'd stop.

2005 Tyrone
2007 Kerry
2008 Tyrone
2009 Kerry
2010 Tyrone

[Hardy]

AZ - that's one that grinds my synchromesh as well. McStay does my nut with it - on and on and on, every time someone misses a free.

I still can't understand why it's worse to come short on it and pull it, than to overcook it and push it. To me it's like saying a boxer should never be knocked out with the right, but the left is understandable or a jockey should never lose by going too early, but if he leaves his run a little too late, well that happens. They are equivalent errors, as far as I can see and, as Eagle Lord says, the results are identical.

[AZOffaly]

Try not to think of it in terms of the end result which, as you say, is the same.

If I'm a free taker standing over a free in a big game, I trust my hours of practice, my routine, and my own ability to make a solid, smooth strike of the ball, and to curve it over in a nice, smooth motion. If I then snatch at the kick, and pull it wide short side (a lá Paddy Kelly on Saturday night) then that is far worse to me than a kick that just doesn't come around in time, or is started out slightly too far.

A snatch means that either I didn't follow my routine, or got nervous and failed to make a good strike. That's why it's worse.

As for the ones that are hopelessly pushed mile the far side, well they are usually out of the hand, and I never took frees out of the hand. I would say they would be as bad as the snatched short side, because they usually are of the 'throw a leg at it' variety. Again stemming from either being short of confidence, or not trusting your natural stirke.

But what I mean is that a snatch short side is worse, from the kicker's perspective, than a good strike that doesn't come around in time.

[haze]

I dont know what is worse- Kevin McStay ruing a game as co-commentator or having to listen to him analyse a game afterwards.

Anyway- my personal favourite myth- Tommy Freeman (i think) misses a free in first 10 mins from the hand: cue the usual "oh why don't they kick it from the ground, less variables mumbo jumbo......

John Doyle uncharacteristically misses at least 3 frees from the ground yet only excuse being he was having a bad day.

The myth being that it is always better to take a free from the ground when really it depends on whose kicking the bloody ball and how good they are at it

[AZOffaly]

I dont know what is worse- Kevin McStay ruing a game as co-commentator or having to listen to him analyse a game afterwards.

Anyway- my personal favourite myth- Tommy Freeman (i think) misses a free in first 10 mins from the hand: cue the usual "oh why don't they kick it from the ground, less variables mumbo jumbo......

John Doyle uncharacteristically misses at least 3 frees from the ground yet only excuse being he was having a bad day.

The myth being that it is always better to take a free from the ground when really it depends on whose kicking the bloody ball and how good they are at it

That's true haze, but it is a fact that there are less moving parts when you are kicking off the ground. It is a matter of what makes you comfortable though, as the free taker, but I do believe that people off the ground are more accurate, more often, on average. Ground kicking can be harder on the body, and harder when you are tired mind you.

[Hound]

I reckon McStay gets it from soccer commentators, who always say strikers should aim for the far post when shooting. Its true in soccer because the keeper usually has the near post well covered and the best you might get is a corner. But if you go far post, you've always the chance of a goal from a rebound.

Extrapolating it to points in GAA is a bit of a nonsense alright. But shots that miss on the near side do generally look worse, a bit like a leaving a putt short looks worse (as AZ said), but a miss is a miss.

[thewobbler]

Surely if your kicking technique is concentrated on accuracy - whereby you try to drop them over the bar rather than pummel them - then you are more likely to miss on the near side. And if it's mostly about power - getting it up in the air then dragging it inwards - then you are more likely to miss on the far side.

Neither miss is any worse than the other, it's a just a miscalculation or poor execution.

[Hardy]

Try not to think of it in terms of the end result which, as you say, is the same.

If I'm a free taker standing over a free in a big game, I trust my hours of practice, my routine, and my own ability to make a solid, smooth strike of the ball, and to curve it over in a nice, smooth motion. If I then snatch at the kick, and pull it wide short side (a lá Paddy Kelly on Saturday night) then that is far worse to me than a kick that just doesn't come around in time, or is started out slightly too far.

A snatch means that either I didn't follow my routine, or got nervous and failed to make a good strike. That's why it's worse.

As for the ones that are hopelessly pushed mile the far side, well they are usually out of the hand, and I never took frees out of the hand. I would say they would be as bad as the snatched short side, because they usually are of the 'throw a leg at it' variety. Again stemming from either being short of confidence, or not trusting your natural stirke.

But what I mean is that a snatch short side is worse, from the kicker's perspective, than a good strike that doesn't come around in time.

Shouldn't you be kicking the ball straight, with no coming around necessary? 

Haze, I'm afraid I'm against you on the frees from the hand controversy. Off the ground for me every time. I think there's a lot in the "variables" argument. It'd be interesting to do some stats. AZ  - how about a good ould graphic - I liked your Hotzone one.

[AZOffaly]

Surely if your kicking technique is concentrated on accuracy - whereby you try to drop them over the bar rather than pummel them - then you are more likely to miss on the near side. And if it's mostly about power - getting it up in the air then dragging it inwards - then you are more likely to miss on the far side.

Neither miss is any worse than the other, it's a just a miscalculation or poor execution.

Try to think of it from the kickers perspective. I've taken a lot of frees in my day, and if you make a good strike, and you don't score because the wind takes it, you slightly misjudged etc etc, then you can live with that and adjust. If you are not striking the ball well, and you are pulling them violently near side, then as a kicker, that's worse.

I accept the fact that as far as net result, both are just as bad, but I think McStay is coming at it from the kickers perspective, and I agree with him.

[Jinxy]

There's no excuse for missing frees on your own side in the hot zone.

[Farrandeelin]

This team isn't a patch on the 19** team.

** Insert your own two figures here.

[AZOffaly]

You sneer Jinxy, but you are 100% correct