Not really sure what you're trying to get at here, in any case the basic anatomy of "kicking a ball" which you claim is incorrect. There isn't a "hardest part of your foot", in fact the bone (more accurately, bones) that make up the inside of your foot are one in the same as the bones in the "laces" portion of your foot along with 1-2 other smaller internal bones. If anything I do not recommend kicking form for shots that involves something like Rusnak's style for 2 reasons: 1) The 3/4 bones that make up the inside of your foot (the medial metatarsal, medial cuneiform, navicular, and talus) are the least smooth areas in your foot, that is... when you look at an anatomy of the foot the medial area from just inside your big toe all the way to your ankle it has a number of intrusions and protrusions/undulations caused by the surfaces of those bones in that area. Making smooth contact with the ball in that area is supremely difficult, there's a reason good free kick takers are considered "artists", they generate kicks that use that area of the foot in order to develop spin....combining that with precision/accuracy and power is a rare trait at the professional level. It's also difficult to design a shoe that "molds" to the form of that part of your foot, that portion of any given soccer boot is the least likely to conform to any given player's foot. Combine that with the complexity of the arch of the foot and the width of the footbed at that location it makes taking a shot with the inside of the foot less effective for any given player. 2) You generate much less power taking shots with that form, Rusnak is an outlier in this regard. Taking an inside the foot shot requires a player to open up their hips much more than taking a shot with the laces, when you open your hips your body naturally takes a wider gate/swing motion which reduces overall power at the point of contact. Taking a shot with the laces allows one to maintain a compact form and drive the full force of any power they can generate through the center of the ball. Of course that means the player also has to maintain other areas of posture in order to keep the ball out of row Z, but that's another point altogether.
The way Rusnak struck the ball is how you make it knuckle. It isn't how you "properly" hit a shot. Far from. If you are just a fraction off with that approach, you look like an idiot and shank the shot.
As i know that both UP and 15 are players, I'm going to go with the assumption that we are not actually disagreeing. If I was to meet either of you, I would point out the exact spot on your foot that you are attempting to put through the center of the ball to hit a "driven" shot and you would both say, oh, exactly. Dunny's confusion is based on the fact that the spot is under where the eyelets of the laces of soccer shoes have been located...which is why many more modern shoes have rotated the laces toward the outside of the foot to allow the player to hit the exact spot without catching the eyelets. What is particularly unusual about Rusnak is that he can hit that shot while approaching the ball from directly behind it...(the hip rotation issue mentioned by UP). most players have to approach at a 45 degree angle to catch the ball and the spot just right. (See Brooks' shot against Colorado earlier this season.) Oh, and to make it more complex, it is nearly impossible to catch that spot if you have large feet. (Greater than size 10 or so.) That is one of the reasons that you see little guys with small feet who can absolutely destroy a ball. They don't have to worry about catching a toe as they are striking it.
While I enjoy the explanation above (I really do), it is too much thinking/analyzing for me. If you asked an artist how they "do it", they'd just say "I just do it". Those who can, do; those who can't, teach. Rusnak just does it. We can't, so we over think, me thinks.
That probably explains why I never had the most powerful shot. I wear size 12 or 13 depending on the shoe, so I would tend to gravitate towards hitting it with the side of my foot. I did at least have a pretty solid short/mid passing game.
Interesting. I didn't know this about the size of the foot being related to the power of the shot. However, Khari Stephenson had a very hard shot and because he seemed to be over 6 foot tall, I would assume that he wore bigger than size 10 shoes which would make him an outlier for this statistic.
I interpreted @stucknutah 's post differently. He didn't say you have to have small feet to hit the ball hard. He was explaining one way people with smaller feet can do it that people with larger feet can't. There are both big and small soccer players who can drive the ball.
Agreed. I think it is easier for people with small feet to hit the ever living crap out of a ball due to the physics involved. I have seen players with larger feet adjust by striking the center of the ball with their big toe knuckle to get similar power and swerve. The challenge is that their is a little less room for error as that spot on the foot is a bit smaller than where Rusnak hits it.
It sounds like the physics involved depend on the size of the ball and how much distance from the center of the ball to the ground. With a bigger foot, in order to hit the ball where Rusnak hits the ball with his foot, your toes hit the ground first which kind of messes up your kick whereas a smaller foot doesn't have this problem. Giusto?
Eh, kind of. The way Rusnak hits this knuckle ball is similar to how Ronaldo hits it. They don't have their foot straight vertical, it turns slightly to where almost the inside of the foot hits the ball. I wear a size 11 and I can hit that shot, too. Never as consistently as those two, but I don't run into the issue of my foot hitting the floor. God he crushes that thing. It doesn't even do a half rotation. It rotates slightly one way before changing to another. There is a back angle somewhere that shoes, because of that movement, how the ball moves slightly in more than one way.
A side note. In training this week with my teams (2009's and 2007's) we went through shooting technique. The way Albert strikes a ball is never how I was taught to be "proper" technique. From your run of the mill club coach up to those in charge of our youth national programs. Rusnak's style isn't discouraged, but it brings with it a high chance of failure. If you strike a ball with the space just at the end of your laces, as is taught, you can be much more accurate and have more control of the shot. You won't ever knuckle a ball with this technique, though. At least not anywhere near like you can with Rusnak's style. At the end of the day, what I've learned over years of coaching and playing in this department is that no two players shoot the ball exactly a like. Dunny's comments about it hurting to watch are actually accurate. Dunny's body wouldn't allow him to hit the ball like that with comfort. That doesn't mean Dunny can't shoot a ball. He can... Jesus why did I slip into this debate.
If only Uncle Rico had played soccer. "I bet I could kick this soccer ball right over that mountain and watch it knuckle ball all the way over."
Another question/statement on shooting the ball. When you say that you won't ever knuckle a ball with the technique that you described, you make it sound that hitting the ball so that it will knuckle isn''t something that you want to have happen. I would think that if the ball did knuckle, it would make it harder for the goalie to stop the shot, or do I not understand the term "knuckle"?
I wouldn't say you don't want to knuckle a ball. It's a great technique to confuse a goalie. The problem is when you knuckle a ball you tend to sacrifice accuracy the most. If I strike a ball with the other technique I stated, I can put the ball in a 2 foot window on my best day.
Goalies detest knucklers...they are nearly un-catchable which equals rebounds which equals goalies looking bad.
Interesting. It was exactly opposite for me. But I'm guessing I had much less training than most people here.
I would think you have a pretty narrow window for scoring depending on how much of a knuckle you get. It takes a pretty great player to be able to consistently knuckle a ball into the right area. It's probably why in general it seems like it's better to go for placement over power, since more power generally means less accuracy.
Something like 65% of professional goals are scored via placement (Savarino) instead of power (Rusnak)
Wouldn't that be because shots scored by placement are taken much closer to the goal than shots scored by power which are usually taken farther from the goal?
that's certainly part of it. Though just because you're closer to goal doesn't mean you can't try to smash the ball. See Wondo at the World Cup in 2014.