-
AuthorPosts
-
Liz Ellis – Long bombs and super shots: time to get back to the future
How many of those 2 point goals were true long bombs? Many seemed to be mid range.
The worst part about it is that now there’s a 2 point line at the 3m mark, why would anyone take a shot from just inside the circle (4.9m). If they can, they’ll all be taking shots from 3.1m out. Which is not a “long bomb” in any way.
Anonymous
August 7, 2020 at 2:41 pmPost count: 7How cute, Liz Ellis’ article ends with Liz Ellis is a netball commentator … how about Nine Netball commentator. She has really drunk the Kool Aid on the super shot. I guess when your employer tells you to jump, you get back the three feet and make sure you’re not called for obstruction.
So, when you read that article, you can basically blame Irene Van Dyk for the super shot. Really? Yes, Irene was a pretty tall player (6 ft, 5 in, I think) but she was also athletic and not a gumbie at shooting. So what if she wanted to get close to the basket to take advantage of her height and ball shooting? That’s part of the game and shouldn’t have been belittled.
I don’t think any of the famous dramatic victories by either the Silver Ferns (Delhi) or the Diamonds (Sydney) (Kuala Lumpur) suffered because of tall shooters. The game plan was not just to get the ball to a tall shooter under the basket – it was for any shooter, tall or not so tall, to get the ball through the hoop from any point in the shooting circle. If a shooter wanted to reset to get closer to neutralise the defence, then that was a skill/talent they had to have especially against the great defenders of past and present (including Liz Ellis).
Liz’s argument is also massively disrespectful of the great Australian shooters and defenders, tall and not so tall, who played against Irene Van Dyk and after her retirement. The implication of her argument is that their shots from closer to the post weren’t really that exciting or as valuable as the long bomb, and the defence really wasn’t as valuable because, you know, she was tall and that’s clearly unfair. Is that what Cath Cox, her bestie, would really think? Oh, that’s right, she’s drunk the Kool Aid as well.
So very glad that Jo Harten said her piece – I’m sure the Diamond shooters won’t be given the same latitude or have the courage to speak up. After all, the Nine team have already basically selected Simone McKinnis as the successor to Lisa Alexander so the players are perceptive about who’s really running the show. If only Nat Medhurst was on court – pretty sure she wouldn’t hold back either.
I also think that the wide supershot zone actually is not for long bombs but mid-range shots- it certainly ain’t the smaller version used in the bushfire charity match. You will see shooters positioning to be on the edge of the zone, not at the back. So it’s already basically corrupted the whole concept of this super shot.
So, Liz, and I know you’ll say that you don’t read Netball Scoop, but I’ll bet you and Cath do – dare you to fairly mention during a broadcast the negative feedback to the super shot, especially on this forum.
Your argument for the super shot is that this will create better long range Australian shooters for international netball but if you think the Silver Ferns and the Roses are going weakly give in and change international netball to justify the degradation of the world’s finest team sport simply to meet Nine Netball’s needs, you’re going to be very surprised. Why should they?
Well said Madnetballdad. Jo Harten looked like she didn’t want to be out there at the weekend.
Dear everyone
It’s very clear to me why the super shot zone is larger and closer in than in Fast 5. In Fast 5 you can shoot a 3 pointer from outside the circle. In SSNL you can’t let your foot touch outside the circle if you want to shoot. That’s an infringement resulting in a free pass.
So it’s too tricky to land both feet in the two point zone and not outside the circle. They made the super shot zone a bit wider. Simple.
With regards Harten “not wanting to be out there”, although this is not on topic of this thread, their team had a heinous number of turnovers and the connection from Harten to Basset was at times embarrassing. Harten doesn’t like the super shot but the whole game was a bit super shot from the Giants that could’ve won it.
Don’t get me wrong – Swifts also committed way too many errors. Perhaps Swifts were lucky or perhaps they just had that tiny bit more composure and don’t have the need to be quite so fancy.
- This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by Andrew Kennedy.
Actually Andrew, I’m pretty sure the reason the zone is bigger is that they want players to shoot from further out than right under the post, but they don’t want the shooters missing a lot (as they did in the bushfire game).
So far this season, during the 80 minutes of netball with no super shot, Firebirds have been competitive, losing that period of play 75-66. But during the 40 minutes where the super shot HAS been in action, they’ve lost that period of play 69-32!
Here’s an interesting comparison of yesterday’s Firebirds v Vixens match to the same clash in round 1 last year. Some interesting stats…
Number of successful shots from 2 point range:
2020 – 20
2019 – 21Number of unsuccessful shots from 2 point range:
2020 – 17
2019 – ZERO!Well there you go. Turns out having the 2 point shot isnt actually increasing the amount of shots that go in from long range, but it is increasing the amount of messy and ugly play. Who wouldve thought :unsure:
It must be said the 2019 game was highlighted by a tremendous shooting display from Thwaites & Philip in nailing 19/19 from 2 point range. But the fact is, shooters in that match were taking those shots because they felt comfortable doing so, not because they felt compelled to.
God, that’s one of the worst article’s I’ve ready from Liz Ellis; she’s normally a smart cookie, but my Year 9 debating team could have even shut down her arguments with basic logic. She sounds so bitter towards Van Dyk and Aiken; We’ve seen many tall shooters come and fail, you need height plus skill to manage to get the ball under the post and get it in.
The sponsorship and commercialisation of netball is amazing for the sport, but the impact it may have on the integrity of the game and sportswoman worries me. I would hate for these intelligent netballers to be turned into puppets of channel 9. It would be a detriment to the message netball sends out to the wider community and development of the game :negative:
First 6 games of 2020 and 2019
From 2 point range
2020 – 96/173 @ 56%
2019 – 90/129 @ 70%So yes we’re seeing more attempts from this distance but we’re also seeing more misses because it’s often not natural for these shooters and they’re doing it because they feel they have to
How SSN teams have fared in the first 10 min versus the last 5 min of each Q so far…
First 10:
+15 Vixens
+12 Fever
+1 Swifts
-2 Magpies
-4 Lightning, Tbirds
-9 Firebirds, GiantsLast 5:
+26 Lightning
+24 Vixens
+2 Swifts
+0 Tbirds
-1 Fever, Giants
-13 Magpies
-37 Firebirds -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.