Analysis 2015 List Analysis and Comparison

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Over the past few years, much of the talk around the board has been the quality, balance and age demographic of our list. For many of these years the consensus has been that the list lacks quality, is unbalanced in a number of factors, and is far too mature-heavy - not exactly a groundbreaking opinion. But with both Simon Dalrymple and Jason McCartney celebrating our efforts over the 2014 off-season, and our recruiting over the past few years solid at worst, our list should be beginning to take shape and draw ever closer to becoming competent, balanced and successful. With that said, though, one question remains - how far away is it from becoming this way?

I've analysed the list from a number of perspectives in order to get a better idea of the answer to this question. Some of the perspectives are obvious - including height and age breakdown - while some are a bit more abstract. Some utilise statistical analysis; others are entirely subjective and will not be unanimously agreed upon. In order to make these opinions as transparent as possible, however, I have utilised three comparison teams - one 'elite' team (Hawthorn), one 'middle-ground' team (Brisbane), and one 'similar ground to us' team (St Kilda*).

I'll be aiming to release at least one module per week over the off-season, in order to ensure that the OP isn't a Herculean word-wall that nobody will read, and also to give you time to digest and discuss the posted module. I've also included a 'layman's conclusion' section to each portion of the posts that require one. This will boil all the stats presented in that section down to a one-sentence conclusion. So if you're going to skim-read, check these sections out. The heading will be italicised.

While I have been largely AFK since the national draft the recurring theme on the board in that time seems to be the large number of smalls taken this year. As such, I've decided that the first module to be released will be a two-part analysis of the height of our list. It will be broken up into a number of sections. The first part (overall distribution of height) will be posted shortly, with the second part (distribution of height by position) to follow in the next day or two.

I'm open to suggestions of perspectives/modules that should be analysed - just post your ideas and I'll get to them (if I have a good way of doing so) when I get time. I do have a number of modules already written, as well as many more planned, however, so they will get priority.

I hope you enjoy the analyses. Feel free to rebut some of the points, request clarification or ask any questions you may have - I'll do my best to get to them.

*Before people get caught up in this comparison, I mean we're on similar ground in terms of circumstances - two sides that loaded up for a premiership tilt and ultimately failed, leaving a disappointing minority of young talent and necessitating a rebuild.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Module 1, Part 1: Height (by Overall Distribution)

Western Bulldogs Overall
Yay for histograms that do my work for me.

As you can see, our peak frequency occurs in the 181-185cm range, with 14 of 44 players (31.82%) fitting within this range. Given that the AFL average height is 188.30cm, this is perhaps indicative of a list with relatively more players under 189cm than expected. This is supported by the club's mean height of 186.82cm - just under two centimetres below the AFL average.

The histogram appears to indicate that this skew is caused by an above-expected proportion of players within the 181-185cm range and a below-expected proportion of players within the 196-200cm range. Not exactly surprising.

Some other tidbits:

• Our most frequent height is 182cm, with six players (Clay Smith, Daniel Pearce, Josh Prudden, Bailey Dale, Declan Hamilton and Roarke Smith) coming in at this height.
• Our median height is 186cm - approximately equal to our mean height.
• Despite our list being 2cm lower than the league average, Caleb Daniel still shows up as a statistical outlier in our list.
• Our list's height profile is approximately normally distributed (Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic = .123, p = .095, for those who care [probably not many - myself included]).
• Our standard deviation is 7.67cm.

Layman's conclusion: We are shorter than the AFL average by about 2cm, likely due mostly to an abundance of players within the 181-185cm range.


Hawthorn Overall

As shown in the above histogram, the Hawthorn list's height profile is congregated quite heavily within the 176-195 range, with only seven of 47 players (14.89%) falling outside this range. Their most frequent height range is 191-195cm, with 27.66% of their list falling within this range. It paints a picture of a list that would appear to be above the AFL average - but this is not the case. The Hawks' average height is 188.28cm, falling 0.02 centimetres below the AFL player average.

Some other tidbits:

• Hawthorn's most frequent height is 193cm, with six players - Jarryd Roughead, Grant Birchall, Jack Gunston, Tim O'Brien, Kurt Heatherley and James Frawley - coming in at this height.
• Their median height is 188.5cm - approximately equal to their mean height.
• Their list profile is approximately normally distributed (KS = .105, p > .200).
• Their standard deviation is 7.40.

Layman's conclusion: Hawthorn's list is very slightly smaller than the AFL average, but features an abundance of players in the 186-195cm range.

Brisbane Overall

The distribution of player height in Brisbane's list is interesting - 24 (51.06%) players are either between 181-185cm or 191-195cm, with only 17.02% fitting in between the 186-190cm range. They also have a total of 17.02% of players in the upper key position player range of 196-200cm. This all combines to give a mean height of 189.23cm - just under 1cm above the AFL player average height.

Some other tidbits:

• Brisbane's most frequent height is 192cm, with five players - Luke McGuane, Nick Robertson, Tom Cutler, Matt Maguire and Jackson Paine - fitting within this range.
• Their median height is 190cm - significantly larger than their mean height (most likely due to having so many more players above 196cm than below 181cm).
• Their list profile is approximately normally distributed (KS = .099, p > .200).
• Their standard deviation is 7.05cm.

Layman's conclusion: Brisbane's list is, on average, taller than the AFL average player height, due primarily to possessing a large number of 196-200cm players.

St Kilda Overall

St Kilda's list is, on average, approximately 0.41cm below the AFL average player height, with a mean height of 187.89cm. This is illustrated by a relatively even frequency plot. 11 players (24.44%) are between 191cm and 195cm, with 10 (22.22%) between 181-185cm, 8 (17.78%) between 186-190cm, and 6 (13.33%) between 176-180cm. It's also worth noting that 8.89% of their list is above 200cm, which is larger than expected.

Some other tidbits:

• St Kilda's most frequent height is 194cm, with five players - Tom Lee, Dylan Roberton, Sam Gilbert, Luke Delaney and Patrick McCartin - coming in at this height.
• Their median height is 188cm - approximately equal to their mean height.
• Their list profile is approximately normally distributed (KS = .074, p > .200).
• Their standard deviation is 7.42cm.

Layman's conclusion: The Saints are slightly below the AFL average height despite possessing 11 players between 191-195cm, and four above 200cm - likely due to an abundance of players below 186cm, and few between 196-200cm.

Western Bulldogs vs. Hawthorn vs. Brisbane vs. St Kilda - General
I've used a box plot to best illustrate the comparisons here:

For the record, that open circle drifting somewhere in the middle of nowhere on our column is Caleb Daniel being his statistical-outlying self.

Simply, this diagram shows that our median height (the thick, black, horizontal line) is lower than all three other sides. Brisbane's median in particular is significantly larger than ours, meaning that if you order all players from shortest to tallest, Brisbane's middle player is taller than ours (for the record, it's looking at Lukas Webb/Easton Wood vs. Hugh Beasley - a difference of four centimetres).

It also shows that our 75th percentile (the line on top of the yellow box) player is quite a bit shorter than those of the other clubs. More explicitly, similar to the median, if we line up all of the players from shortest to tallest, the player in the 75th percentile for height on our list (mid-way between Jake Stringer and Jarrad Grant - so 191.5cm) is shorter than those of the other clubs (Jack Gunston/Grant Birchall, Justin Clarke and Patrick McCartin).

With a median and 75th percentile lower than all three comparison teams', it is reasonable to expect that our 25th percentile (the line on the bottom of the yellow box) would be lower than the other teams'; that is, the player in the 25th percentile for height on our list (Bailey Dale) would be shorter than those in the 25th percentile for height on the other three teams' lists (Alex Woodward, James Aish/Jed Adcock and David Armitage). In the case of Brisbane and St Kilda, this is true - however, Dale is the same height as Woodward. The difference between Dale and the others is also quite a bit less than the difference was for our median/75th percentile players. This makes the difference between our 25th and 75th percentiles much smaller than those of the other sides.

So what does this actually mean? Basically, that if you order our players from shortest to tallest, and locate our middle 50% of players in terms of height, they are clustered within a relatively small height range compared to other sides. Visually, our list's height distribution is fat and short rather than narrow and long; we have more players that are very similar height-wise to the median than the other three sides do. This is supported by simply eyeballing our list's height. 29 players on our list - 65.91% - slot in between 180cm and 192cm. Compare this to 52.17% for Hawthorn, 55.31% for Brisbane and 54.35% for St Kilda and you'll see that our list is overly concentrated within these ranges. This is also illustrated by the histograms presented in the opening sections. Not only do we have the most players within the 181-185cm height range (14), we also have the most players within a single height range of any of the teams (second-most is Hawthorn with 13 players coming in at heights between 191cm and 195cm). In simple terms, we've got a lot of eggs in one basket of heights.

Looking at the histograms again, there is more to learn. Despite being significantly shorter than the other sides, we have fewer players under 176cm than St Kilda, the same amount as Brisbane, and only one more than Hawthorn (although, granted, one of our two is the only statistical outlier in the dataset). In the 176-180cm range we are again middle-of-the-road, possessing less than both Hawthorn (8) and St Kilda (6), but more than Brisbane (3) with five players in this range. It is the 181-185cm range, however, that illustrates the points made above. Fourteen players come in at heights within this range, compared to twelve for Brisbane, ten for St Kilda, and only seven for the successful Hawks. Due to this concentration of players with below-average height (and the resulting constraint of list spots), we have significantly less players above the AFL's average height. We possess only 14 players above 190cm, compared to 19 for Hawthorn, 22 for Brisbane, and 18 for St Kilda. To put it in perspective, we have 14 players above 190cm - Hawthorn have 13 in the narrow range of 191-195cm.

Layman's conclusion: A lot of our players are bunched between 180cm and 192cm, leading to a lack of players within the crucial key position height ranges due to restricted list spots, and an overall mix that lines up at a height disadvantage against other clubs.

AFL Overall

As can be seen in the above histogram, the AFL's peak frequency occurs in the 186-190cm range, with 206 of 817 players (25.21%) fitting within this range. This comes at no great surprise given that the average height in the AFL is 188.30cm - right in the middle of these parameters. Perhaps more interestingly, the next most prevalent height range is 181-185cm - a range that was shown to be less popular amongst back-to-back premiers Hawthorn. 196 players - 23.99% - are between these heights. This is considerably higher than the third-most prevalent height range of 191-195cm, with only 150 players (18.36%) being within these heights. Only 25 of 817 individuals in the AFL player population are under 176cm - a percentage of only 3.06%.

Some other tidbits:

• The AFL's most frequently occurring height is 188cm. 48 players - or 5.88% of the AFL player population - are 188cm.
• The AFL's median height is also 188cm.
• The AFL's standard deviation is 7.39cm.

Western Bulldogs vs. the AFL
Again, a box plot is probably the most fitting here:

Before we get into it, I'll define the outliers present in both plots. Caleb Daniel is the outlier on our column (#44). He's also presented in the AFL column as #226. Brent Harvey (North Melbourne; 167cm), Mason Cox (Collingwood; 211cm) and Aaron Sandilands (Fremantle; 211cm) are the three other outliers.


The box plots indicate that our median is significantly lower than the AFL median - 186cm compared to 188cm. It also indicates a 75th percentile (191.5cm) lower than the AFL's 75th percentile of 193cm, and a 25th percentile (182cm) lower than the AFL's 25th percentile (183cm). This indicates a distribution of heights that centre around a lower midpoint than the AFL's overall distribution. This is also backed up by a difference of approximately 1.5cm between our mean height - 186.83cm - and the AFL's - 188.30cm.

It is interesting to note that our inter-quartile range (that is, the height of the yellow box, or the difference between the 75th and 25th percentiles) is only 0.5cm shorter than the AFL's. In simpler terms, the yellow boxes presented above are approximately equal in size. This means that the middle 50% of our distribution is spread across an approximately expected total number of heights; we don't have too many players bunched within too few heights when you look at the middle 50% in isolation. This does appear, however, to contradict what is shown in the histogram comparisons: that we have a larger-than-expected concentration of players within the narrow limits of 181-185cm.

So what does this mean? My conclusion is essentially that, while we have an acceptable number of players spread in these broader ranges, when you begin to narrow the parameters that you're looking at, it becomes clearer that we're disproportionate to what is expected - both compared to other sides, and to the AFL overall. While our middle 50% of heights cover an appropriate range, the distribution within this range is heavily skewed towards shorter heights. Essentially, our distribution is somewhat similar to the AFL's - just shifted towards shorter heights.

Layman's conclusion: Our overall distribution isn't too dissimilar from the AFL's overall distribution, however, it is more biased towards shorter heights than is expected.

In Summary
There is no groundbreaking or shocking facts put forth in this post - simply statistics that back up what many have suspected: compared to other sides we have more players clustered at the short end of the spectrum, resulting in a significantly smaller proportion of taller players. Overall we are quite a bit shorter than the average height for an AFL player due mostly to a massive collection of players between 181 and 185 centimetres. In addition, our most frequent height of 182cm is an enormous ten centimetres lower than that of the next-lowest (Brisbane with 192cm being their most frequent), meaning that we are heavily concentrated at different sizes than the three other sides presented here.

Putting quality, age, experience, position (for now) and all other factors aside, the height profile of our list appears unbalanced and a fair way behind that of the other three clubs - Hawthorn, Brisbane and St Kilda - presented here. In essence, while we have a greater chance than these clubs at finding a competent small, we are spreading our chances way too thin at the opposite end of the spectrum.

*Disclaimer: player heights courtesy of https://www.draftguru.com.au - some may be slightly inaccurate.

 

[yebiga]

Awesome work
Confirming many of our fears

 

[Yojimbo]

After reading that post i now speak another language and my IQ
went up 10 points, i cannot wait for the more in depth
analytical comparisons.Good work.

 

[Optimistic Dog]

Good fact finding. Simply put you are saying that in the short term the dogs will not reach any great heights.

 

[timtamWB]

Good fact finding. Simply put you are saying that in the short term the dogs will not reach any great heights.

You either just made a horrible pun that you deserve to be scolded for, or you're not living up to your username.

 

[fronkalicious]

Really enjoyed that dannnnn. Thanks

 

[gangsta deluxe]

Thanks Dannnnn. Out of interest, could you post a histogram of the whole AFL with the height distribution of players (scaled so that the y axis is 1/18th of the size) and also add the AFL in the box plot?

I think that it would give us (when combined with the selected teams here) an even better understanding of the issue.

 

[Oor Wally]

My brain hurts

 

[Libba39]

Great post. As I've said many times before we really lack mobile talls in the 196-198 range. Players such as Carlisle,Franklin, Cloke and Hawkins. Big guys who can beat you in the air and are more capable than 200cm rucks at hurting you on the ground.

 

[paulveed]

Fascinating stuff Dannnn [ And no I am not being facetious], but when does any side take the field with their entire list ?
These stats suggest to me that we may have tighter selection options for some roles, but I guess we all already knew that.

To me it also suggests, that it would be unwise for us to try playing sides like Hawthorn, at their own game style/plan. But I
would have thought that too was pretty obvious, particularly given comparative experience levels between us and them. If the
ball is predominately transitioned high in the air, we may be seriously disadvantaged, assuming we field a team at our list's average
height. I would have thought that improbable. Even in the unlikely event that we did, our ball transition clearly would need to be closer
to the ground, where, talent aside, we would be at less disadvantage presumably.
For arguments sake, lets see how we would compare overall if we took to the field with a side that had a spine of say :
Roughy, Talia, Macrea, Bonti and Boyd. 2 Rucks : Wil and Campbell/Ayce. Then add in Moz, Fletch/Zane/Hamling. Stringer, Cramers and Jong.
Note the '/' represents an or , not an and.
I don't have stats to hand to back this up, but unless we added a plethora of our smallest players, which I seriously doubt we would, I think we would statistically be fielding a team at least as tall on average as most opponents.

Bev has already stated he will design his game plan around the cattle at his disposal. If that means we concentrate on getting the ball to ground
a lot more, thus to the advantage of our smaller and more agile players, then so be it. But to be honest, I can't see us, injury and poor form aside,
going in with team line-ups that are especially small overall on a regular basis.

In all honesty I expect that during the next season or two, drafting and trading will balance our list out quite quickly. In the meantime, the level of
competition for spots in the 22 among our small to medium players, hopefully will lead to rapid development of a lot of them, to perform at an
elite standard, giving us an advantage at ground level that at least balances if not negates any disadvantage in the air.

 

[dogwatch]

Great work Dannnnnnnnnn . This tells us a lot about the "what" (but not the "why"!) and is particularly useful in comparison with other clubs and the AFL average.

Kudos for doing the groundwork on this - too often we make claims based on superficial stats or sheer supposition, but this sets it out in extensive detail that can't be ignored. For instance, someone could argue that we have the same number of players over 195cm as Hawthorn and we have fewer players under 181cm, so we must be doing OK for height compared to the reigning premiers. However laying out the stats as you have done prevents this sort of cherry-picking because we can readily see that in the main group (181cm-195cm, where we have over 70% of our players) we are skewed heavily to the short end, while Hawthorn are skewed heavily to the tall end.

Also the overall AFL averages are telling. Being almost 2cm shorter than the AFL average across a cohort of 44 players is massive.

Before moving on to the "why" (which is the more intriguing bit) can you explain why the different playing lists you've used for comparison with us have different numbers, as follows? (This is based on adding up your histogram columns)

WB = 44
Hawks = 46
Brisbane = 47
StKilda = 45​

I thought all playing lists had to come to 44 in some combination of seniors and rookies (eg 40+4 or 38+6). How do you account for the other clubs having extra players? If there are some that shouldn't be included do you know who they are, and does this significantly alter any of your observations/averages?

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Thanks Dannnnn. Out of interest, could you post a histogram of the whole AFL with the height distribution of players (scaled so that the y axis is 1/18th of the size) and also add the AFL in the box plot?

I think that it would give us (when combined with the selected teams here) an even better understanding of the issue.

I used the three comparison teams to avoid having to input every player's height.

I'll see what I can do though, after I get part 2 up. It might be possible with easily-accessible stats like height, it's just going to be time consuming.

Fascinating stuff Dannnn [ And no I am not being facetious], but when does any side take the field with their entire list ?
These stats suggest to me that we may have tighter selection options for some roles, but I guess we all already knew that.

To me it also suggests, that it would be unwise for us to try playing sides like Hawthorn, at their own game style/plan. But I
would have thought that too was pretty obvious, particularly given comparative experience levels between us and them. If the
ball is predominately transitioned high in the air, we may be seriously disadvantaged, assuming we field a team at our list's average
height. I would have thought that improbable. Even in the unlikely event that we did, our ball transition clearly would need to be closer
to the ground, where, talent aside, we would be at less disadvantage presumably.
For arguments sake, lets see how we would compare overall if we took to the field with a side that had a spine of say :
Roughy, Talia, Macrea, Bonti and Boyd. 2 Rucks : Wil and Campbell/Ayce. Then add in Moz, Fletch/Zane/Hamling. Stringer, Cramers and Jong.
Note the '/' represents an or , not an and.
I don't have stats to hand to back this up, but unless we added a plethora of our smallest players, which I seriously doubt we would, I think we would statistically be fielding a team at least as tall on average as most opponents.

Bev has already stated he will design his game plan around the cattle at his disposal. If that means we concentrate on getting the ball to ground
a lot more, thus to the advantage of our smaller and more agile players, then so be it. But to be honest, I can't see us, injury and poor form aside,
going in with team line-ups that are especially small overall on a regular basis.

In all honesty I expect that during the next season or two, drafting and trading will balance our list out quite quickly. In the meantime, the level of
competition for spots in the 22 among our small to medium players, hopefully will lead to rapid development of a lot of them, to perform at an
elite standard, giving us an advantage at ground level that at least balances if not negates any disadvantage in the air.

I agree with a lot of this and a few of these points will likely be made in part 2 of the height analysis (height breakdown by position). The stats don't suggest that we'll be forced to field a shorter team than most sides, just that, on average, we have shorter players to choose from.

Great work Dannnnnnnnnn . This tells us a lot about the "what" (but not the "why"!) and is particularly useful in comparison with other clubs and the AFL average.

Kudos for doing the groundwork on this - too often we make claims based on superficial stats or sheer supposition, but this sets it out in extensive detail that can't be ignored. For instance, someone could argue that we have the same number of players over 195cm as Hawthorn and we have fewer players under 181cm, so we must be doing OK for height compared to the reigning premiers. However laying out the stats as you have done prevents this sort of cherry-picking because we can readily see that in the main group (181cm-195cm, where we have over 70% of our players) we are skewed heavily to the short end, while Hawthorn are skewed heavily to the tall end.

Also the overall AFL averages are telling. Being almost 2cm shorter than the AFL average across a cohort of 44 players is massive.

Before moving on to the "why" (which is the more intriguing bit) can you explain why the different playing lists you've used for comparison with us have different numbers, as follows? (This is based on adding up your histogram columns)

WB = 44
Hawks = 46
Brisbane = 47
StKilda = 45​

I thought all playing lists had to come to 44 in some combination of seniors and rookies (eg 40+4 or 38+6). How do you account for the other clubs having extra players? If there are some that shouldn't be included do you know who they are, and does this significantly alter any of your observations/averages?

Thanks for the kind words - glad you enjoyed it.

Category B rookies are the reason the lists are out of whack. St Kilda have one - the American Jason Holmes; Hawthorn have two - Kiwis Shem Tatupu and Kurt Heatherley; and Brisbane have two - Irishman Cian Hanley, and basketballer Archie Smith - as well as an additional rookie. I don't quite know why Brisbane get a fifth rookie allowance - I just know that they have five.

 

[dogwatch]

... In the meantime, the level of competition for spots in the 22 among our small to medium players, hopefully will lead to rapid development of a lot of them, to perform at an elite standard, giving us an advantage at ground level that at least balances if not negates any disadvantage in the air.

For brevity, I haven't quoted your whole post PV, but that is where the discussion needs to go and you raise some good points.

However, let me put this question to you: if we accept your final proposition (bolded above) isn't the corollary that there will be a correspondingly poor level of competition for "tall" spots and therefore we will be much less likely to develop our talls to an elite standard? Is this desirable and is it really offset by the suggested benefit to the small-medium players?

 

[ossie_21]

tl;dr

 

[True Dog]

Great work Dannnnnnnnnn, I look forward to further instalments....

 

[paulveed]

For brevity, I haven't quoted your whole post PV, but that is where the discussion needs to go and you raise some good points.

However, let me put this question to you: if we accept your final proposition (bolded above) isn't the corollary that there will be a correspondingly poor level of competition for "tall" spots and therefore we will be much less likely to develop our talls to an elite standard? Is this desirable and is it really offset by the suggested benefit to the small-medium players?

DW, in no way was I suggesting our current list makeup is an ideal, just commenting on the realities of the situation. And, I did make the point that I expect this current 'imbalance' is likely to be addressed in the coming draft/trade periods. Yes to your point on the lesser competition for 'talls' spots, but as I suggested unless we have injury or form issues, hopefully it won't be a major drama for us. While we are light on for genuine talls [ say 195 +], we do have some pretty athletic med talls who hopefully can fill the void for a season or two till we p/u one, two, or even three genuine KP size guys.

 

[dogwatch]

...
Category B rookies are the reason the lists are out of whack. St Kilda have one - the American Jason Holmes; Hawthorn have two - Kiwis Shem Tatupu and Kurt Heatherley; and Brisbane have two - Irishman Cian Hanley, and basketballer Archie Smith - as well as an additional rookie. I don't quite know why Brisbane get a fifth rookie allowance - I just know that they have five.

Hmmm - interesting heights there - nearly all are on the tall side:

Holmes 203cm
Tatupu 197cm
Heatherley 193cm
Hanley 182cm
Smith 201cm​

Brisbane's seven rookies average >191cm (incl 2 in the >195cm category) while the WB four rookies average 184cm (the tallest being Kelly at 191cm).

Excluding rookies would bring Brisbane's average height down from 189.23 to 188.90 - that's still tall but is now only about 0.3 above AFL average. Meanwhile if you discounted the rookies on the WB list our average height would increase from 186.82 to 187.10, so the difference in rookie profile/strategy accounts for about 25% of the overall height difference between Brisbane and the WB. (And FYI Hawthorn's average rookie height is 190.67, while St Kilda's is 185.2)

I know we shouldn't discount rookies altogether because some do get to play AFL each year, but they are certainly the least likely and the least accessible. I'm not expecting you to do this, Dannnn but it would have been interesting to see the histograms as stacked columns (rookies shown in a different colour to seniors).

 

[#1 Dogs Fan]

Great work Dannnnn really great analysis.

Although for me, hight has nothing todo with having football ability. Yes id love to have 15 players that are 194cm tall on the ground but what good are they if they dont have great football ability. We shouldnt rate tall players just because they have height. you have to rate a player on football ability.

Id rather play a player in the 182cm category with football ability ahead of any 194cm kpp that has limited football ability

 

[bontshow]

Few points

- Who are the 3 players on our list 201cm+? Cordy yes at 204cm, but after that the club website lists Roughead at 200cm, Boyd at 200cm, Campbell at 200cm & Minson at 199cm

- Caleb Daniel skews the stats a bit. His height as a mid is not as important as the height of KP's

- We have a very young list. Young players can be expected to grow a few cm's in their first few seasons. We could potentially keep the same list and be an average of 1-2cm taller in 3 years time

 

[timtamWB]

Few points

- Who are the 3 players on our list 201cm+? Cordy yes at 204cm, but after that the club website lists Roughead at 200cm, Boyd at 200cm, Campbell at 200cm & Minson at 199cm

- Caleb Daniel skews the stats a bit. His height as a mid is not as important as the height of KP's

- We have a very young list. Young players can be expected to grow a few cm's in their first few seasons. We could potentially keep the same list and be an average of 1-2cm taller in 3 years time

According to footywire, Campbell and Boyd are both 201cm.

 

[bontshow]

According to footywire, Campbell and Boyd are both 201cm.

Kinda proves point 3 then doesn't it

 

[dogwatch]

OK, so WHY have we got a demonstrably shorter side?
And then what are the IMPLICATIONS? Does it automatically make us uncompetitive to be 1.5-2cm shorter than the AFL average?

Firstly, the WHY:
Some possible reasons (alone or in combination) in no special order:

• incompetent list management/drafting
• deliberate tactic - going for smaller, skilful players as a point of difference
• pure coincidence as a result of choosing "best available"
• circumstances - disproportionate and partly unplanned loss talls in recent years (Lake, Jones, Williams, Austin, Hudson, T.Hill, Hall, etc - we even had Barlow, Mulligan and Prato on our list in 2011!)

I'm inclined to think it's a combination of (a) deliberate list management approach, perhaps under strong pressures from the B McCartney blueprint, (b) a short-term drive in 2014 to address the serious deficiency in speed and skills, (c) unfortunate circumstances in losing Lake, Williams and Jones while having to shed players who retired (Hall, Hudson) or simply weren't up to it (e.g. Austin, Barlow, T.Hill, Mulligan, Prato). All 10 of these have left since the end of 2011 and we have not replaced them with equal numbers of players with similar physiques.

So, what are the IMPLICATIONS? One line of argument is:

• small stock of 192+cm players to choose from, meaning ...
• very little depth in talls (e.g. if injured or out of form), meaning ...
• more chance of being exposed for height, meaning...
• being forced to play a particular game style which is probably low percentage, meaning ...
• more chance of being exploited and less flexibility in tactical options if a game is going pear-shaped, meaning ...
• unlikely to win >50% of our games, even assuming we have equal skills and experience (which is generally NOT the case), meaning ...
• no finals in 2015 and probably not 2016 either.

It's not only about classical "talls" though. In fact I think it's more about midfields - the difference between having equally skilled midfields but one side being consistently 2-4 cm taller (and probably heavier) in the midfield. This was where BMac and JMac were obviously heading in getting players like Macrae, Stringer, Bontempelli, Stevens, Crameri and even Jong. It just needed a few more years for the changes to work through the list.

IMO being a short side isn't an automatic condemnation to the bottom four but it puts a LOT of faith in the following:

• Having very few injuries and suspensions for our first-line taller players (those over 188cm)
• An effective and well-executed game-plan that overcomes the midfield height disadvantage
• compensating skills, vision, stamina and speed in those who are at a height disadvantage.

There's obviously a lot more to it than that, but it would require a thesis of Dannnnnn-like proportions to go through it all, so let's just kick it off with the above.

 

[bontshow]

Out
Griffen (188)
Gia (182)
Cooney (185)
Higgins (184)
Jones (197)
Tutt (177)
Young (191)
Howard (187)
Williams (198)
Goodes (183)
Pearce (182)

In
Boyd (201)
Biggs (187)
Cordy (192)
Hamling (194)
Webb (186)
McLean (179)
Hamilton (183)
Dale (182)
Daniel (167)
Redpath (194)
Jong (190)

Total Out: 2054cm
Total In: 2055cm

Yet everyone is suddenly saying we're short people now.

 

[bontshow]

OK, so WHY have we got a demonstrably shorter side?

We have a very young list and there is still growth in many of our players. Here are three examples of players growing after being drafted

Michael Talia November 2011 192cm
Michael Talia December 2014 195cm

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...th-michael-talia/story-fn53klc6-1226206209445
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pp-western-bulldogs--michael-talia

Tom Boyd November 2013 199cm
Tom Boyd December 2014 201cm

http://www.unambitiousus.com/sports/2013-afl-phantom-draft/
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pp-western-bulldogs--thomas-boyd

Tom Williams November 2004 196cm
Tom Williams December 2014 198cm

http://www.topendsports.com/sport/afl/testing-draft-results-2004.htm
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pr-western-bulldogs--tom-williams