Player heights

[TyHawk]

You mean the same media that basks over Rioli, Hodge, Gunston, Mitchell etc every time they touch the ball?

You can pick a lot as a Hawthorn supporter, but not media hatred.

It would be quiet funny and ridiculous if they didn't .

Anyway, as for height, well, a big body is the width of shoulders, strength in legs, core strength, strong hips. Height doesn't mean whether if you can get the ball or not! I have seen Sam Mitchell close up at training a few times and the bloke is built like a brick, !! Anyway, hawthorn DO have big mids with a bit of height in Lewis, Burgoyne and Hodge.

 

[12Chill]

If you're good enough you're tall enough.

 

[HowYouDoin]

Height always matters mate.

 

[Mancey]

I see your point. A 188cm bloke has no trouble competing against a 191cm player but by the same extension a 191cm player has no trouble competing against a 194cm whereas the 188cm player is a fair chance to struggle against a 194cm player.

That's also without taking into account different body types. In reality height isn't nearly as important as reach which can vary drastically when comparing to players of the same height.

Tom Swift is the epitome of this. Was 190cm, but 30cm of it was neck

 

[pazza]

The height is important, but, the bulk to go with it is the key.

 

[Silvagnis]

Such an emphasis seems to be placed on height these days, everyone wants to find the next fyfe or pendelbury. But looking through the top 30 draftees this year I noticed a few anomalies.

Jade, to small to ever make it as a footballer, Gresham is only 3 cms shorter than Darcy, best mid in the draft, parish.
Charlie curnow is described as a key forward at 191, but there plenty of 188 players described as midfielders.

Does an extra 3 cms of height really make that much of a difference? I'd imagine it depends more on how tall you play rather than your listed height.

Who said that?

The clubs are drafting athletic tall footballers ahead of athletic short footballers. Every club would sell their soul for another Judd, Goodes, Koutoufides, Nigel Lappin or Dangerfield. Would nearly take all of these players ahead of shorter superstars. Richardson the 198 cm winger had less hype than Rioli.

Not a fan of going tall if you can get a gun in any position, but Harrison McKay towers over Weitering who is just 196 cms like Kernahan...



Nicholls would need to be a tough inside mid like Cripps.

Hard to stop players who can mark, follow up at ground level and bring the ball to ground for a Gresham.

I might be content if McKay develops and becomes a cog in a top side like Hale who was part of a dynasty as a forward/ruck.

 

[SBYM]

Sam Mitchell LOL's when these discussions take place and continues to rack up 30 + possies.

Notwithstanding, the game has clearly passed the average Aussie by and this will start to impact on junior players choices and gives soccer/cricket a leg up.

My son who is 12 and has height (by normally standards) on both sides of the family, made the comment after watching the draft from start to finish (true commitment shown) that he thinks he will be too short to play AFL.

In the current circumstances players like Peter Bell and Phil Matera may still get drafted, but I suspect that would need to perform by the end of year two or its sayonara!

I do tend to agree with you.

The player that really rammed the point home for me was Juddy. People forget how tall he is and I just remember thinking the first time I met him back in the mid-2000s how ******* tall he was.

Even Dane Swan is bloody 6'1, almost 6'2...and he looks like a Telly-Tubby running around out there...

 

[theghost]

I do tend to agree with you.

The player that really rammed the point home for me was Juddy. People forget how tall he is and I just remember thinking the first time I met him back in the mid-2000s how ******* tall he was.

Even Dane Swan is bloody 6'1, almost 6'2...and he looks like a Telly-Tubby running around out there...

185 cm a little less than 6'1" but know what you mean

 

[SBYM]

185 cm a little less than 6'1" but know what you mean

Hoisted on my own petard...

Went to the trouble of looking up Swan's height and typing it into a converter...no ******* point if you type in 187 instead of 185...

 

[Ron The Bear]

Average team heights, past decade. Make of it what you will.

Pos|2015|2014|2013|2012|2011|2010|2009|2008|2007|2006
\1st|Ha 187.3|Ha 187.3|Ha 187.0|Sy 187.1|Ge 187.7|Co 187.9|Ge 187.8|Ha 185.6|Ge 188.3|WC 187.8
\2nd|WC 187.8|Sy 187.3|Fr 187.6|Ha 186.8|Co 187.4|St 187.2|St 187.2|Ge 188.4|PA 187.1|Sy 187.2
\3rd|Fr 187.8|PA 187.5|Ge 188.2|Ad 185.4|Ha 186.5|Ge 187.6|WB 186.7|WB 187.1|NM 186.4|Ad 186.8
\4th|NM 188.1|NM 187.0|Sy 186.8|Co 187.6|WC 189.0|WB 187.7|Co 187.6|St 187.5|Co 187.2|Fr 186.7
\5th|Sy 186.9|Ge 189.4|PA 188.0|WC 188.2|Ca 186.7|Sy 186.9|Ad 186.8|Sy 187.4|WC 188.1|Me 186.9
\6th|Ad 186.2|Fr 188.0|Ca 187.2|Fr 189.0|Sy 187.4|Fr 188.5|Br 187.5|Co 187.5|Ha 186.0|WB 187.3
\7th|Ri 188.2|Es 187.3|Ri 187.5|Ge 187.7|St 186.8|Ha 186.3|Ca 187.7|Ad 186.6|Sy 187.2|Co 187.2
\8th|WB 187.8|Ri 187.7|Co 186.5|NM 186.9|Es 187.2|Ca 187.5|Es 187.3|NM 186.5|Ad 187.0|St 186.6
\9th|PA 187.4|WC 188.8|Es 189.0|St 187.3|NM 186.3|NM 186.3|Ha 186.0|Ri 187.4|St 187.3|Ri 187.1
\10th|Ge 189.1|Ad 186.0|NM 187.2|Ca 186.6|WB 187.4|PA 186.8|PA 186.8|Br 188.0|Br 188.4|Ge 188.7
\11th|GWS 187.6|Co 188.4|Ad 185.9|Es 188.1|Fr 188.9|Ad 187.0|WC 188.6|Ca 188.4|Fr 187.7|Ha 185.5
\12th|Co 188.3|GC 187.8|Br 187.4|Ri 187.2|Ri 187.4|Me 187.0|Sy 187.2|Es 188.1|Es 188.3|PA 187.2
\13th|Me 187.7|Ca 188.2|WC 188.4|Br 187.3|Me 187.1|Br 188.2|NM 187.3|PA 187.5|WB 187.3|Br 187.1
\14th|St 186.9|WB 188.0|GC 187.8|PA 188.4|Ad 188.4|Es 187.3|Fr 188.7|Fr 188.2|Me 187.5|NM 187.4
\15th|Es 188.6|Br 187.3|WB 187.3|WB 187.4|Br 187.7|Ri 187.1|Ri 187.1|WC 188.5|Ca 188.3|Es 188.5
\16th|GC 188.0|GWS 187.1|St 187.1|Me 188.2|PA 187.6|WC 189.5|Me 187.4|Me 187.5|Ri 186.8|Ca 188.0
\17th|Br 187.3|Me 187.6|Me 187.2|GC 187.7|GC 188.0|||||
\18th|Ca 188.3|St 187.2|GWS 187.0|GWS 186.4||||||

 

[Damon_3388]

Too much emphasis is placed on athleticism rather than football ability. You so often about guys with a huge ceiling, which basically means they are not very good but they are good athletes ao we are hoping to teach them to football.

Obviousky you cant draft fat plodders who are exceptional kicks but there needs to be a bit of shift towards an individuals ability to play rather than what clubs hope to turn them into

Probably because it's easier to teach someone particular skills and to play a role within a team, than it is to "teach" athleticism and height.

That being said, I do think midfield height is overrated. Unless it's linked to a specific skill (eg. marking), it's really comes as no greater advantage for Scott Pendlebury to be 191cm/91kg in the midfield than it is for Patrick Dangerfield to be 185cm and 90kg.

 

[emuboy]

I would like to see a game between Fitzroy and St Kilda in Round 13 1991. Playing for the Lions that day was the 200 cm, 118 kg ruckman John Ironmonger, and in the Saints midfield was the 162 cm, 68 kg Danny Craven. A photo of the two men next to each other would definitely be interesting.

 

[Smokeyr67]

185 cm a little less than 6'1" but know what you mean

Not when you convert at 25.4mm per inch (the correct conversion!)

 

[Schauermann]

I am always wondering where all those big talented guy come from. Or do smaller guys play other sports? I am often considered reasonable tall at 1,85m which is pretty average for an AFL footballer.

 

[theghost]

Not when you convert at 25.4mm per inch (the correct conversion!)

Isn't 185 divided by 2.54 equalling 72.83465 or in imperial slightly less than 6' 1"

 

[melbournemartin]

it shouldn't but it seems to make a difference to get drafted. A friend of mine's brother was trying to get drafted.. he is 6'1 and they told him clubs are looking for guys who are 6'3+.

Its stupid because you are basically narrowing down the number of people draftable, and then on top of that looking for guys who are freak athletes. The average height of an aussie male is still 5'10-5'11 so being 6'4 is in the top 5% of the population.

And both heights are still going to make you a midfielder, so it seems odd that recruiters think there is such an important difference.

 

[Smokeyr67]

Isn't 185 divided by 2.54 equalling 72.83465 or in imperial slightly less than 6' 1"

72 inches = 6 foot
.83465 of an inch = you win

 

[loki04]

AFL recruiters are going about the wrong way IMO. They're looking for the super athletic taller guys because they can carry more weight and still have good tanks. The should for more of the short guys built like brick houses with super tanks.

So more Jarryd Blairs and less Pendleburys ya reckon?

 

[mike123]

So more Jarryd Blairs and less Pendleburys ya reckon?

Nah, more Sam Mitchell and less Will Langford.

 

[Superstar swan]

Probably because it's easier to teach someone particular skills and to play a role within a team, than it is to "teach" athleticism and height.

That being said, I do think midfield height is overrated. Unless it's linked to a specific skill (eg. marking), it's really comes as no greater advantage for Scott Pendlebury to be 191cm/91kg in the midfield than it is for Patrick Dangerfield to be 185cm and 90kg.

Height doesnt necissarily equate to marking ability. Luke parker is very short but would ARGUABLY be the second best marking mid behind fyfe. He has strong hands and can read the ball better than most. He is a footballer rather than an athlete

 

[leaper]

Remember the term from the 50's and 60's "a Collingwood 6 footer". Lou Richards used to use it all the time. Seems that any body 5 foot 10-11 suddenly became 6 foot when they went to the Magpies. Supposedly was meant to strike terror into the hearts of the opposition. All these Pie monsters.

 

[Superstar swan]

Tom Swift is the epitome of this. Was 190cm, but 30cm of it was neck

Top post

 

[markr]

People go on about footballers over athletes, but I bet every fan has seen a bloke drafted at their club who is short and slow but rips it up in their VFL side, then when given a chance at AFL level they're average at best.

At the top end the best guys have great skills _and_ are elite athletes. You need some sort of athletic advantage, height, speed, a huge tank. Or else you have to be utterly elite on the football side (ie Mitchell).

 

[Sixpence]

People go on about footballers over athletes, but I bet every fan has seen a bloke drafted at their club who is short and slow but rips it up in their VFL side, then when given a chance at AFL level they're average at best.

At the top end the best guys have great skills _and_ are elite athletes. You need some sort of athletic advantage, height, speed, a huge tank. Or else you have to be utterly elite on the football side (ie Mitchell).

Don't particularly agree with that. From the Hawks, none of Hodge, Mitchell or Lewis are elite athletes. Even Burgoyne, who does have pace, is still known more for his skills than his athleticism. And that's 4 of our best players.

 

[sonnywalters]

Don't particularly agree with that. From the Hawks, none of Hodge, Mitchell or Lewis are elite athletes. Even Burgoyne, who does have pace, is still known more for his skills than his athleticism. And that's 4 of our best players.

Hodgey is 1.85m and ran a 2.95 20m sprint at draft camp and did well in the jumps. He goes pretty well.

http://www.topendsports.com/sport/afl/testing-draft-results-2001.htm