Remove this Banner Ad

AFL Team Lists by Height

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

May 23, 2001
10,548
923
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
The Hawthorn supporters have been arguing a bit about how tall our list actually is and whether we should have recruited another key position player in the draft. So I had a look at the playing lists last night, giving 2 points to a player over 190cm, 1 point to a player between 180-190cm and 0 points for a player under 180cm. The results can be seen in the table below, along with the breakdowns in each category.

Team..............Points......190+.....181-190. .<180
Geelong.................49............15............19............4
Port Adelaide.........49............16............17............7
Melbourne..............48............12...........24.............1
Western Bulldogs...46............13...........20............5
Kangaroos..............46............13...........20............6
Collingwood............45............13...........19............5
Sydney....................45...........14............17...........7
Carlton....................45...........10............25...........3
Essendon................44...........12............20...........5
Adelaide..................44...........14............16...........9
Fremantle................42...........13............16...........10
St.Kilda....................41...........11............19............7
West Coast.............41...........11............19............9
Brisbane..................39...........9..............21...........6
Hawthorn................38...........10............18...........10
Richmond.................38...........9..............20...........8

I guess the interesting ones there are Richmond and Hawthorn having such short teams, and the height of the Western Bulldogs. But so much for Hawthorn having the 'tallest AFL team in history' as Mike Sheahan said last year.
 
Good stats. I don't suppose you want to do the lists by weight as well? :D

Interesting that Port have the most players over 190cm, and Hawthorn have the equal largest number of short people....when people would normally say that talls are Hawthorn's strength, and smalls are Port's.

Probably mostly to do with the developing players, I'd reckon....more players on the list because the quality isn't as high, maybe?
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Analysing complete lists is irrelevent because the entire list doesn't play senior football.

Hawthorn may have fewer "talls" overall, but they have more among their top group of players - ditto for the Tigers.
 
Originally posted by TigerTank
Analysing complete lists is irrelevent because the entire list doesn't play senior football.

Hawthorn may have fewer "talls" overall, but they have more among their top group of players - ditto for the Tigers.

I agree there - but I guess the stats show more that if a few of the Richmond or Hawthorn talls were to get injured there is very little cover to replace them.

For example, if Rawlings or Hay was to get injured we don't have a back-up tall defender (unless you include Simon Cox). But those stats make me even more annoyed that Port took Barry Brooks - one more pick and he would have been ours!
 
Originally posted by GOALden Hawk
But those stats make me even more annoyed that Port took Barry Brooks - one more pick and he would have been ours!
Hey, nobody -made- you win that final :D:( :D
 
Originally posted by TheMase
Thats interesting there GH.

I was always under the impression that Richmond and Hawthon had shorter lineups.

Not me...the view from the members makes the Tigers all look 9 ft tall! Followed by the Hawks.


But alright ..a guy may be tall....but can he play is the question
 
Originally posted by NYMets


Not me...the view from the members makes the Tigers all look 9 ft tall! Followed by the Hawks.


But alright ..a guy may be tall....but can he play is the question

I made a mistake there lol ...
I meant to say that ...

I had the impression they have taller lineups

Dont mind me :confused: :confused:
 
Probably the best way (admittedly time consuming) to do this would be to find the top 22 players in each clubs B&F (usualy votes correspond to games played and likelihood of staying in the side) and total -their- heights for each team.
 
I'm quite suprised to see us at the top, we've only got two genuine ruckman on the list.

Cheers
 

Remove this Banner Ad

OK, now for some reworked statistic, taking squad size into account :)

If we assume that the height bracket of 190+ is an average of 195cm, the average of 181-190cm is 185cm and the average of <180cm is 175cm....


Club------Total Height(cm) Squad Size Average Height(cm)

Melbourne-----6955------------37---------187.972973
Geelong--------7140------------38---------187.8947368
Port-------------7490------------40---------187.25
Collingwood---6925------------37---------187.1621622
Bulldogs--------7110------------38---------187.1052632
Essendon ------6915------------37---------186.8918919
Sydney----------7100-----------38---------186.8421053
Carlton----------7100-----------38---------186.8421053
Kangaroos------7285-----------39---------186.7948718
Adelaide---------7265-----------39---------186.2820513
St Kilda----------6885-----------37---------186.0810811
Brisbane---------6690----------36---------185.8333333
Fremantle --------7245----------39---------185.7692308
West Coast------7235----------39---------185.5128205
Richmond---------6855-----------37---------185.2702703
Hawthorn --------7030-----------38---------185

It actually helps proves GOALden Hawk's case, without using an arbitrary 2-1-0 point system. I'd use the actual heights of players instead of averages, but trying to compile teamlists with accurate stats right now is too much hassle :)
 
Add a few cm's to the pies. Apparently a few grew over summer. Tarrant has gained a cm and there is talk that Fraser is taller amoung a couple others.

Collingwood have good height in some promising young players and generally good pace.

All good signs for the future.
 
It isn't the quantity but the quality of the players that matters. The Dogs may have tall players, but many such as Bruton and Skipper are very young and not ready for senior football. At Hawthorn their taller players are of a higher standard and are in the senior side
 
Originally posted by Bulldog1954
It isn't the quantity but the quality of the players that matters. The Dogs may have tall players, but many such as Bruton and Skipper are very young and not ready for senior football. At Hawthorn their taller players are of a higher standard and are in the senior side

Please do not mention Skipper and quality in the same paragraph.

If the Doggies had any quality tall defenders he would have been out on his arse months ago
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Originally posted by phatandphreaky


Please do not mention Skipper and quality in the same paragraph.

If the Doggies had any quality tall defenders he would have been out on his arse months ago

I was saying that they weren't quality. And Skipper isn't a tall defender he's a ruckmen, who is what 18?
 
Originally posted by Porthos
It actually helps proves GOALden Hawk's case, without using an arbitrary 2-1-0 point system. I'd use the actual heights of players instead of averages, but trying to compile teamlists with accurate stats right now is too much hassle :)

Here are the actual average heights for each team. I decided to use the 2-1-0 system because as you can see below - the averages are very close - although the teams are in a similar order. The number of points from the original post are in brackets

Geelong 187.82 (49)
Essendon 187.70 (44)
Adelaide 186.74 (44)
Port Adelaide 186.55 (49)
Collingwood 186.51 (45)
Sydney 186.50 (45)
Melbourne 186.43 (48)
Carlton 186.37 (45)
Western Bulldogs 186.26 (46)
Kangaroos 186.13 (46)
Brisbane Lions 185.61 (39)
St. Kilda 185.49 (41)
West Coast 185.44 (41)
Fremantle 185.36 (42)
Hawthorn 185.34 (38)
Richmond 185.32 (38)
 
Cheers, GOALden...puts Port back in its place :)
 

Remove this Banner Ad

AFL Team Lists by Height


Write your reply...

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top