For your interest

[Toots Hibbert]

We were having a discussion on the Port board regarding the perception of Geelong players looking bigger than ours. I went to the respective club sites and pulled the following stats after round 5. I've been kind of busy lately and have only just found the time to post this on the Port board which is why the 2008 players don't include Round 6 selections. I thought you might possibly be interested here too.

We obviously would be looking at the current best team to benchmark against. You guys might be more interested in checking the Hawthorn squad but anyway here it is for what it's worth:-

Here is a comparison of the vital statistics of the Port and Geelong squads in 2008

Port

• Average Height (Entire squad) - 188.8 cm
  [*]Average Height (2008 AFL players) - 187.28 cm
• Average Weight (Entire squad) - 86.68 kg
• Average Weight (2008 AFL players) - 86.48
• Average Games played (Entire squad) - 60.50 games
  [*]Average Games played (2008 AFL players) - 82.96 games

Geelong

• Average Height (Entire squad) - 188.54 cm
  [*]Average Height (2008 AFL players) - 187.38 cm
• Average Weight (Entire squad) - 89.49 kg
• Average Weight (2008 AFL players) - 89.62 kg
• Average Games played (Entire squad) - 70.72 games
  [*]Average Games played (2008 AFL players) - 91.69 games

A couple of points regarding these stats:-

• There's something I don't understand about the Geelong squad, they are listed as having 5 rookies and 39 senior players (including Nathan Ablett). If anyone can shed light on this I'd be interested.
• The averages include Nathan Ablett and Hugh Minson in the respective squads
• Rookies are excluded from the calculations.
• The 2008 players are up to and including Round 5 of the regular season

In summary the two squads are very close in height, the Geelong squad is around 3 kg on average heavier and roughly ten games per player more experienced.

Is the weight difference significant? You decide. The average weight of both squads fits into the top half of the Light Heavyweight* division in boxing with Geelong being just over kilo below the Cruiserweight Division.

Below the Light Heavyweight Division there's about a 3 kg drop in weight from one division to the next.

*79.4 kg - 90.72 kg

 

[Toots Hibbert]

This is also copied and pasted from the Port board:-

Here is a comparison of the Geelong and Port Round 5 teams. I've grouped the players into Rucks, Forwards, Midfielders and Defenders as best I could. Some might disagree with where I've assigned certain players.

BTW just in case anyone is interested here's the relevant thread on the Port board http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=436101&page=2

 

[Tay29]

My first thought is that I would have to disagree with the weight of either our rucks and/or yours. Brogan and Lade look so much bigger in body than Blake and West. I can't believe that we would be heavier.

Mackie and Wojcinksi belong in the backline. Whereas Kelly, Chapman, and now Stokes all have runs in the midfield. How much time they spend there I don't know. That should make our backline lighter and possibly our midfield heavier.

 

[Exhale You]

There's something I don't understand about the Geelong squad, they are listed as having 5 rookies and 39 senior players (including Nathan Ablett). If anyone can shed light on this I'd be interested.

Each club (Brisbane and Sydney excluded) is allowed 38 senior players plus a total of six rookies/veterans (with a maximum of two veterans on the veterans list).

Darren Milburn is on our veterans list, thus isn't included on the senior list.
So that means our 6 rookies/veterans is made up of 5 rookies and one veteran, Milburn.

Next year Matthew Scarlett will join him on the veterans list, meaning our 6 spots for veterans/rookies will include 2 veterans and only 4 rookies.

 

[jim boy]

The weights are significant, we are physcially a very strong side. But stats can be a little midleading, you should probably exlude players on the extremes of the scales. For example their is no point in including rucks.

 

[DanA]

I think your stats are a little off. Firstly as suggested Mackie & Wojak should be listed as backmen while Kelly & Chapman are midfeilders. I am also confident that Selwood is heavier than 82kg's now and probably between 84 and 86. That would put our average weight at about 87 kg's.

We are the heaviest team in the AFL according to the current AFL prospectus and I think that is by design.

 

[OldStyle2007]

This is also copied and pasted from the Port board:-

Here is a comparison of the Geelong and Port Round 5 teams. I've grouped the players into Rucks, Forwards, Midfielders and Defenders as best I could. Some might disagree with where I've assigned certain players.

BTW just in case anyone is interested here's the relevant thread on the Port board http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=436101&page=2

Great work

that XLS is it. Almost across every single position on the ground the Cats have a 2+ kilo advantage

That would 'weigh' up over an entire match

In fast games in hot weather with less physical contact Port have a slight advantage like the round 20 2007 match.

In games where it's raining or the ground is a bit heavier Port are at a big disadvantage

and in Grand Finals where your coach has carried on like a moron during the week and forgotten to train his players (Kick-to-kick and autograph sessions?), Port is going to get the mother of all Grand Final thumpins

 

[Toots Hibbert]

It's a screen shot of a spreadsheet. The data I copied and pasted from the respective club website player pages.

I did this over a week ago. From memory I looked at the Geelong team sheet for round five and placed the players in categories as named by Geelong. The Port guys I was more familiar with and placed them where they tend to play.

 

[afl genius]

top effort mate, very interesting

and like someone said above no way is blake and west 100 odd kilos each, both would be pushing 95-97 imo

 

[rocker_oz33]

great work there matey interesting stats,it would be even more interesting if the geelong players were in there right area;s but still great work

 

[LifeSpan-Void]

get your stats from footywire, because the ones you used are outdated.

 

[candiehappy]

My first thought is that I would have to disagree with the weight of either our rucks and/or yours. Brogan and Lade look so much bigger in body than Blake and West. I can't believe that we would be heavier.

Mackie and Wojcinksi belong in the backline. Whereas Kelly, Chapman, and now Stokes all have runs in the midfield. How much time they spend there I don't know. That should make our backline lighter and possibly our midfield heavier.

our blokes are better hung??