Analysis Do we even lift?

[Despair]

I know we are down on midfield bulls lately with Myers and Hocking out, but I couldn't help but notice how we got pushed off the ball so easily against the Pies.

So I did a bit of investigation. These numbers are from Footywire.com so I'm not exactly sure how accurate everything is but I wondered how we stacked up against Collingwood, and most importantly, other teams in the competition. Cue bad MS Paint skills.



We are the lightest side on paper @ 84.6kg, giving up 3.6kg to Collingwood. This was the biggest differential in weight for the whole round.

When I look at the weight/age of our players compared to other clubs, it would appear that other clubs are younger and bigger. I understand that the great man Dustin changes this, so if you were to replace Dustin with a 26yr old it would bring the average age down to 25.4 yrs for argument's sake.

What does all this mean?

Are we recruiting too many skinny kids?

Are we neglecting strength training?



(Please note: The intention of this thread is not to establish a link between size & success. It's just an observation)

 

[Seagrave_Holmes]

 

[DapperJong]

TB4 really is useless.

 

[DapperJong]

Also something important to note, size does not always equate to strength. Hello Tom Bellchambers and Will Hams.

 

[Marley10]

Something to do with those anti-obesity drugs.

 

[JDavey]

Playing dry weather football in wet weather is what lost us the game....

 

[eth-dog]

I never really noticed it but now that you mention it, I can see the argument. It's finding the right balance that is the key. Swap Hocking and Myers for Howlett and Gleeson on the weekend and you gain 28 kilos on footywire, which increases our average weight to around the same as Collingwood.

 

[Despair]

Playing dry weather football in wet weather is what lost us the game....

Do you read?

(Please note: The intention of this thread is not to establish a link between size & success. It's just an observation)

 

[Cristiano Ronaldo]

We're missing The Weapon

 

[Snake Charmer]

I noticed in the VFL all of our young guys haven't really seemed to beef up at all. I can't think of the last guy that has been drafted and in 3-4 years look like a body builder. Certainly not the way hirdy wants them. Kav doesn't look like he has eaten since he got to the club, Gleeson included. J Merrett is bigger then draft time but not by a huge amount. Browne looks like he could have a massive build if he sticks around. Dunno people could disagree. But port for example seem to have all of there young kids looking like monsters compared to us. I understand we play an aggressive fast paced style. But after watching Gleeson take on everyone man and there dog on the G Saturday it made me think about how our kids go in the gym...

 

[JDavey]

Do you read?

(Please note: The intention of this thread is not to establish a link between size & success. It's just an observation)

Wouldn't throw stones considering

We are the lightest side on paper @ 84.6kg

St Kilda also listed at 84.6kgs.

My guess at reason for weight differential is undersized KPPs (Fletch, Daniher, Carlisle) combined with skinny young players (Gleeson & Hams)

 

[Despair]

I never really noticed it but now that you mention it, I can see the argument. It's finding the right balance that is the key. Swap Hocking and Myers for Howlett and Gleeson on the weekend and you gain 28 kilos on footywire, which increases our average weight to around the same as Collingwood.

Not quite - 28/22 = 1.27 which would take us to 85.9kg still a far shot away from 88.2kg

It just feels like we are less physical than other teams. This has it's advantages at times, usually more endurance, faster etc

Is it possible that due to the whole "saga" that we have taken two steps backward in the physical development department?

 

[Despair]

Wouldn't throw stones considering



St Kilda also listed at 84.6kgs.

My guess at reason for weight differential is undersized KPPs (Fletch, Daniher, Carlisle) combined with skinny young players (Gleeson & Hams)

St Kilda was not mentioned because their average age is 2 years younger than us. 2 years in the system would make a big difference.

The part that bothers me the most is that there are younger teams that appear to be more physically developed than us.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Good point, other teams around our weight mark are 2-3 years younger on average. e.g Giants, Suns, Saints, Lions

 

[BrunoV]

Surprised that we are that light and comparatively short. Think this all flows towards a discussion of the recent recruits...


We certainly have not recruited a lot of 18 yos with football ready bodies. Laverde and Zak Merrett are probably the two that stand out most as looking ready for round 1 in their first years.

While there has not been any official word I am quite sure that the club has gone down a path of being ultra conservative with the 1st to 4th year players when it comes to putting on weight and that it's all part of a strategy to develop the list toward something that is capable of sustained success. It's about slowing putting all of the physical conditioning and experience together so that depth comes from guys 22 and older who are capable AFL selections rather than immature kids (like Hams and Ashby who don't really influence matches).*

My guess is that they're managing work loads to get as many games into players in their formative years as possible and probably look at weight and weights as being the source of a lot of soft tissue injuries (which is probably consistent with past experience and what we see at GC, GWS and St Kilda where young players get huge straight away and there have been lots of soft tissue injuries and not a lot of continuity). None of this is to say that we don't do weights and that we ignore strength and size.

Obviously injuries are inevitable and you can get some tendon and structural problems (e.g. Kommer, Hams and Dalgleish) as well as impact injuries (e.g. Browne) that can't really be avoided but on the whole the players drafted between 2011 and 2014 have played a lot of VFL football with only a few having ongoing soft tissue injuries (which has not been the case for our VFL sides until the last few years). They're also much smarter, more rounded footballers than the earlier generations and I think it comes down to a better understanding of a system learned in match conditions.

It's a strategy geared toward building the depth of the list to the point that there are always ready made 21 to 23 year old players available and the players get prepared accordingly. 2012 was probably year 1 following a lot of list changes at the end of 2011, during which Hird and co assessed the available talent and we'd turned our attention toward our own VFL team and the new training base. Jack Merret, Kav, Browne and O'Brien are more or less AFL ready at this stage (I expect Kav will bulk up in for 2016 now that he has built a decent engine). We're still in the lag period, with only two and maybe three players from the classes of 2011 to 2013 ready to go, which I think is probably why we recruited Chapman, Cooney and Gwilt.

While there will always be some players who don't make it (O'Brien and Aylett are probably in the most trouble at this stage), in the next few years with 2 to 3 drafts worth of talent that is almost developed we'll have the list balance about where we want it in terms of its age profile, with the 2011 to 2014 players taking over from the current veterans.




*22 years of age is not so much a criteria for or limitation on selection, it's more a reflection of the point in their careers at which most players (i.e. the ones who are not freaks) start to become ready to consistently influence AFL games. There has been a bit of talk about bringing back under 19s and lifting the draft age so far this year and I think it is a reflection of the reality that for a number of years too many sides were putting out sides that were noncompetitive because they were too young.

 

[Despair]

Yeah good points BrunoV

Definitely better to be slimmer but on the park than bulky but on the sidelines.

Do you think we will be targeting more bigger-bodies in the future?

Laverde looks a decent size for his age.

 

[DapperDon]

We got so burnt during the saga we don't take any supps at all anymore.

We also had to sell our weights to pay for lawyers.

Donate to the flight plan.

 

[BrunoV]

Yeah good points BrunoV

Definitely better to be slimmer but on the park than bulky but on the sidelines.

Do you think we will be targeting more bigger-bodies in the future?

Laverde looks a decent size for his age.

Part of it is definitely the sorts of players that we've taken. With Watson, Hocking, Myers, Heppell, Goddard, Howlett and Stanton all in the team it made sense to look more at running players and flankers (who are always going to be lighter).

A few have been mentioning that the time is probably right to bring in a couple of big inside mids to start developing and I agree.

I wouldn't discount Laverde as being one of those sorts of players by the way. Based on what he has shown so far I think he will ultimately be one of those powerhouse, inside-out midfielders that EFC has not had during any time I've watched footy (Tim Watson would be the last).

 

[boncer34]

All the other clubs bulk up quicker then us. Weird that.

Good thing they were comprehensively audited.

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

Take Martin Gleeson out and we are 1 kg heavier than most sides.

 

[Cristiano Ronaldo]

remember that first season after we got weaponised? melksham and colyer were huge. we need some of that good shit again

 

[BrunoV]

remember that first season after we got weaponised? melksham and colyer were huge. we need some of that good shit again

Sarcastic post of the year?

 

[markthepark]

Wasn't that also the year we had that horror run of soft tissue injuries? No thanks

 

[Cristiano Ronaldo]

Sarcastic post of the year?

yep

 

[calyam]

Wasn't that also the year we had that horror run of soft tissue injuries? No thanks

Yep, Melksham was carrying so much weigh he was slower than the average five year old.