With all the pundits and punters bemoaning the quality of forward play in the last few years and even more so it seems in the last few weeks, it's got me thinking that in general the accuracy of forwards (and defenders) has never been better.
When you look at the televised games of yesteryear some of the shooting was horrible despite much more room inside the 45'. I remember Eamonn Coleman being quoted that you needed 12 scores to win a game in the 90s. It wouldn't come close now in most games.
Isn't one of the reasons for the development of blanket defences, that the quality of shooting is better and that referees are allowing less fouling than in the old days.
Lots of talk about lads being afraid to shoot from 35 yards out in the modern game. Back in the day, outside of the Kerry's and Dubs, how many teams had six forwards that could score consistently from that distance (never mind backs).
Discuss!
When you look at the televised games of yesteryear some of the shooting was horrible despite much more room inside the 45'. I remember Eamonn Coleman being quoted that you needed 12 scores to win a game in the 90s. It wouldn't come close now in most games.
Isn't one of the reasons for the development of blanket defences, that the quality of shooting is better and that referees are allowing less fouling than in the old days.
Lots of talk about lads being afraid to shoot from 35 yards out in the modern game. Back in the day, outside of the Kerry's and Dubs, how many teams had six forwards that could score consistently from that distance (never mind backs).
Discuss!