The Lack of Talls on Our List (Merged) | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

The Lack of Talls on Our List (Merged)

Juffaricho said:
Interesting Stat......

Current Lists

Geelong:
Average Height = 188cm Average Weight = 89kg

St. Kilda:
Average Height = 189cm Average Weight = 87kg

Richmond:
Average Height = 187cm Average Weight = 81kg

We're Sticks.

Would have thought age would be an important factor in being able to use the above statistics. For example in the above current lists, Saints have 12 players over 26 (the age where you've probably matured body-wise and reached the maximum playing weight you will play at). Geelong have 13, Richmond have 5 and only 2 Simmonds and Tuck have any height.

No doubt Tigers have been underweight but the above statistics are a bit skewed because of the difference in age dynamics.
 
DirtyDogTiger said:
at the next trade period i'd be hoping the club chops Simmonds and gets a player aged between 22 to 26 about 200cms who can ruck

I think Simmonds was only ever a one year proposal. I'd be surprised to see him at the Tigers in 2011.
 
DirtyDogTiger said:
at the next trade period i'd be hoping the club chops Simmonds and gets a player aged between 22 to 26 about 200cms who can ruck
by this i take it you think graham is a dud 23 in april.
but your right we do need another experienced ruckman as both graham and simmonds will be gone or should be.
ya know cameron has had opportunity to do just that as well.
 
Claw I'm not suggesting Graham's prospects are bleak.

but look at our team between birthdays of 1/1/85 to 31/12/89.

The season after next they will be our 22-26 year old bracket

25 players: 1 ruckman
 
DirtyDogTiger said:
Claw I'm not suggesting Graham's prospects are bleak.

but look at our team between birthdays of 1/1/85 to 31/12/89.

The season after next they will be our 22-26 year old bracket

25 players: 1 ruckman
we had 31 players last yr who were turning 22 or more it didnt help us. i dont think you need huge numbers in this category you need adequate numbers who are up to standard..

we had 31 players turning 22 or over even if you take out the 7 players turning 22 we had 24.
going into 09 we had 17 players with 50 games or more. yep you need experience but i dont know if age is the be all end all to determine experience.

essendon had just 24 in comparison to us turning 22 or older with 14 players having 50 games or more experience yet performed much better than us

in 08 hawthorn went into their premiership yr with 24 players whe were turning 22 or more. going in 18 had 50 games or more.
less aged players and similar games experience to us in 09 yet won a flag.

geelong last yr had 30 players turning 22 or more one fewer than us 20 players went in with 50 games or more. three more than us but at the back end of a dynasty where its been a battle to hang onto their aged players.

what does it all mean. well for sure it shows our more mature players were not up to it and imo it shows we use age as a bit of an excuse.
 
Disco08 said:
Geelong and St Kilda are both "far superior" to the Dogs? I'd have to disagree. The Dogs outplayed both those teams in the finals with no tall forward structure to speak of.
but lost. they failed to take advantage of midfield dominance any one can see why they went and got b hall.in fact they have lacked forward line structure for yrs and have failed to make a gf.

wce lost a gf in 2005 after dominating midfield for much of the game. they failed to convert possesion. in 06 they won a gf after lynch played forward this yr.

nearly every premiership side has had great defences they have all had at the least adequate kpfs to give structure.
 
Leysy Days said:
West Coast had Glass & the smaller Hunter, but from that team only Judd & Cousins were gone two years later. The arse completely fell out of that team without those two. Other players just weren't able to step up into there shoes in the middle & it was bye bye.
hmm a very selective take on it imo.they havent just lost two players theres just 9 left from 2006 and 3 of them have been injury riddled.
chick, judd, banfield, cousins braun stenglein hunter fletcher jones seaby armstrong. throw in the fact glass cox lynch waters jones butler have continuously battled injury for yrs,

if the loss of judd and cousins just two players meant their demise what does that tell us. by that logic we only need two elite mids. it doesnt work that way as you well know. imo wce back half was just as important as judd cousins kerr and cox.and without doubt with a forward set up of say jon brown and alistair lynch would have been nigh on impossible to defeat.

imo a weakness of wce sides has been footskills even when they won the gf but one constant has always been big bodies and good structure
 
TOT70 said:
Yeah, that’s right. The only influential Premiership Defender who was super-tall in the last decade or so is Dustin Fletcher, who measure in at around 198cm.

The great Brisbane team had Leppitsch and Michael, both of whom were closer to 190cm. The rest of their taller defensive roles were filled by players like the Scott brothers, Martin Pike and Daryl White, all of whom were closer to tall midfielders. If I remember correctly, White was the tallest and he was around 192.

Port Adelaide had a Wakelin (192cm) at full back and I seem to recall that in their Premiership year, Chad Cornes was the CHB. Bishop at around 196 cm or so was the third tall. The WC and Sydney premiership teams both had smaller key defenders such as Barry (184cm) Bolton (190), Glass (192) Hunter (190). Roberts-Thompson was the only uber-tall defender in those teams.

Now Geelong. Scarlett (192), Harley (191), Milburn (189), Mackie (192), Egan (196) and Taylor (193). The story is similar.

What we can say about these Premiership tall defenders is that that are likely to be around 189 cm to 193 cm but they are heavy and strong. Most of them would weigh somewhere around 90-95 kgs. They are all quick enough to keep up with all-comers on the lead and strong enough to hold their own in the body-on-body stuff. There is no evidence that teams need extra-tall defenders, but plenty to suggest that they need quick talls who are very strong. In fact, the only recent example of an excessively tall defender who has played in a Premiership team in the last 10 years or so is Fletcher. He is tall, wiry, agile, quick but not particularly strong. It does not follow that taller will mean stronger.

Even when you look at the current contenders for Geelong’s crown, the story is the same. They are more likely to be tall running players than out-and-out monsters.

St Kilda: Dawson, Fisher, Gilbert, Goddard, Blake.
Bulldogs: Lake, Morris, Hargrave, Williams when fit.
Collingwood: Presti, O’Brien, Maxwell, Goldsack
Adelaide: Rutten, Bock, Stevens, Otten
Our guys are too light and some of them are not as skilful as their counterparts at other teams. I doubt that replacing them with much taller players will achieve much, unless we can find a couple of Dustin Fletcher “Inspector Gadget” types.
well said pretty much what ive been harping on about.
 
TOT70 said:
So when you argue for "big" you are not arguing for "tall," is that right?

It will be interesting to see what playing weights Moore, McGuane and Thursfield are at this year. From memory, they were all listed at around 86 or so kg in last year's AFL Handbook, for what that is worth. I agree that they need to be at least 90 if they are to hold down these spots regularly. That is achievable.
how many times has it been stated that 190cm + is loosley regarded as genuine tall but there are some exceptions to that rule.

just want to add one thing as well imo the average height of kpps is getting taller as the years progress.
 
Jason King said:
Never thought i would say this, but i kinda miss the old claw :help Was right on the money in a lot of cases.

Hell yeah. He knew his football and had a decent idea of how to build a list.
 
yeah lkiked reading claws rants - words of wisdom -

but I worry we would have only had WA players in our team - he loved to talk them up over others states players.
 
well if we had taken bradshaw we would be looking a far better side than we are at the moment

of all the so called quality skilled smalls we took at the expense of talls or big bofdied players, only nason appears to be a winner
i still say we could have done with at least 2 more tall options at the expense of some of the smalls we took.
and lets not forget those that included Polak and simmons as talls on our list and look how they are turning out?

so out of all our talls its fair to say the following:
Polak - dud
Simmons - dud
Graeme - emerging dud
Browne - jury out
Thursty - jury out
Mcguane - jury out (thats being kind)

the rest of the talls are kids so they are ok but thats potentially 6 talls that need replacing??
 
Tango said:
well if we had taken bradshaw we would be looking a far better side than we are at the moment

In the long term?

Plus you ignore the fact that we would have had to persuade Bradshaw to come.
 
my point is claw was an advocate of taking bradshaw and most people on here shot him down, bradshaw is proving he still has a lot to offer for this and another season - which by then our talls should be ok
 
Tango said:
my point is claw was an advocate of taking bradshaw and most people on here shot him down, bradshaw is proving he still has a lot to offer for this and another season - which by then our talls should be ok

If his body holds up which I doubt it will. Besides, we get Bradshaw for a year or two, he comes in and kicks 50 goals, we finish 14th instead of 16th and get worse picks and it also halts the development of JR and co. I know which option I'd rather and it isn't the quick fix one.

For someone like Claw who although struggled to put together a cohesive sentence, still made a lot of good points which I often agreed on, didn't understand his points on Bradshaw.