PDA

View Full Version : Dissection of the Talls

The Doctor
23 Oct 2003, 17:37
After the trading period I wanted to see if the improved depth in our tall timber dept actually did fix our needs. Only players 190cm+ were considered.

So I've placed the players into positional categories I think they are most suited to

Ruckmen

Darcy, Street, Minson, Skipper

-----------------------------------------------
Key Forwards

Bandy, Rawlings*, Walsh, Wiggins

------------------------------------------------
Key Defenders

Grant, Harris, Croft, Morgan, Wight, Veale

--------------------------------------------------
Utilities/3rd talls/Flankers

Bowden, K-Mac, Harrison, Bassett, Hargrave

----------------------------------------------------------

That's 19 tall players. We must be the tallest team in the comp now!

The depth in each position looks much better if not the overall quality. By this time next year with more game time put into the younger players it should hopefully look quite strong.

The main area I would seek to fix would be the key forward area. We need another big strong marking type (to replace Wiggo?). Minson and Skipper could yet bolster this area if they are not considered specialist ruckmen. If they are not it would be the ruck that needs the depth.
stefoid
23 Oct 2003, 17:54
thats 14 talls doc, your flankers are sub 190.

Subtracting Veale, Walsh and Minson who wont get meaningful gametime this year, if any at all, thats 11 KPP available, barring injuries, for 5 spots. I think thats about the right mix.

Funilly enough, our two key backmen possies have the most depth :eek:
Ching
23 Oct 2003, 18:04
Doc, did you leave out Koops as a third tall defender on purpose? Is he tall enough?
The Doctor
23 Oct 2003, 19:26
Originally posted by stefoid
your flankers are sub 190.



all are 190+ or over.
The Doctor
23 Oct 2003, 19:28
Originally posted by Ching
Doc, did you leave out Koops as a third tall defender on purpose? Is he tall enough?

more a mid sized player. think he is 187cm.
Mr. Walker
24 Oct 2003, 08:55
Great post Doc, thanks.

I see you have Skipper only in as a ruckman. He has a nice leap I know but I still feel he is too short to be a strong option in the ruck. I see him as a defender most probably. (Although having said that, IMO, his most impressive game was his first when he played forward - he just couldn't sustain it later.)

So do you see his future in the ruck?
Gilbo_Fan
24 Oct 2003, 09:15
I agree that Skipper is probably not going to be a full time ruckman. While he has good spring he isn't tall enough. When he builds up and learns more about the game I would like to think he could be a Scott Lucas type at CHB
The Doctor
24 Oct 2003, 09:22
Originally posted by Gilbo_Fan
I agree that Skipper is probably not going to be a full time ruckman. While he has good spring he isn't tall enough. When he builds up and learns more about the game I would like to think he could be a Scott Lucas type at CHB

Agree with that.

I think he has the makings of a good key defender.
stefoid
24 Oct 2003, 11:57
Originally posted by The Doctor
all are 190+ or over.

There you go, I always though basset, hargreave and kmac were 188.

Actually, I checked ;) Haregave is 188.
stefoid
24 Oct 2003, 12:00
Dunno about Skip. He is painfully light, and seem to be a bit airy-fairy about attacking the footy - maybe it is a confidence issue?

I want to see this guy in the first preseason match white as a sheet - hes not to leave the gym and venture into sunlight until he has put on 10 kilos.
The Doctor
24 Oct 2003, 12:05
Originally posted by stefoid
There you go, I always though basset, hargreave and kmac were 188.

Actually, I checked ;) Haregave is 188.

My 2003 AFL media guide has him at 190cm ;) .

In any case I'm sure you can see what I'm getting at.