Review Size Matters

[santa claws]

arent they how about their premiership team.
down back n brown. 195 101 sheesh do we have a defender who is both 195 plus and 100kg. hmm i dont think so. reid 195 92 sheesh thats two defenders at 195. maxwell 193/93 geez hes a third tall and bigger and just as tall as any kpd we play. toovey 189/89 geez hes not quite 190cm hes too bloody short but hey hes just a runner. lets see who else played back oh yeah harry o just a midget at 188/92 and struth at that weight hes undersized as well.
now lets see who else played back oh yeah the runt of the back 6 litter shaw at 184/ 86 bloody hell they need to get rid of him.
forward well you have mentioned cloke dawes and l brown the ruckman jolly whos not short and lacks size. and to top it off goldsack on the interchange bench at 193.
and ya know what malthouse wasnt going to take a chance on his talls first emg was that midget and skinny bugger prestigiacomo.just three genuine smalls in the side.
mate can you hear yourself.

 

[MightyTiger]

arent they how about their premiership team.
down back n brown. 195 101 sheesh do we have a defender who is both 195 plus and 100kg. hmm i dont think so. reid 195 92 sheesh thats two defenders at 195. maxwell 193/93 geez hes a third tall and bigger and just as tall as any kpd we play. toovey 189/89 geez hes not quite 190cm hes too bloody short but hey hes just a runner. lets see who else played back oh yeah harry o just a midget at 188/92 and struth at that weight hes undersized as well.
now lets see who else played back oh yeah the runt of the back 6 litter shaw at 184/ 86 bloody hell they need to get rid of him.
forward well you have mentioned cloke dawes and l brown the ruckman jolly whos not short and lacks size. and to top it off goldsack on the interchange bench at 193.
and ya know what malthouse wasnt going to take a chance on his talls first emg was that midget and skinny bugger prestigiacomo.just three genuine smalls in the side.
mate can you hear yourself.

Now your clutching at straws, you're comparing our 1st 2nd 3rd and 4th year players to Collingwoods seasoned players, bit unfair don't you think.

 

[santa claws]

And this weekend the Saints 187, North 186.9 and Carlton 186.5 all shorter on average than us, and i dont hear their supporters jumping up and down about it.

Add to that the Crows went with 188.6, clearly taller than us, and curently their are two threads on their board "Over supply of talls" and "We are in urgent need of a mosquito fleet"

Also it will be interesting when we play Freo in a couple of weeks as they had by far the tallest on the weekend at 189.3. Thats nearly a whopping inch taller than us this weekend. Will we go taller or stay with our current structure. Will be interesting to see that line up, and no doubt give us a better insight on Dimmas thinking.

so what are you actually saying here we are tall enough and big enough. or perhaps we dont need talls because our smalls mosquito fleet are classy and skilled enough to make up for it.
sheesh if hanson and petrie can rip us a new one just imagine what the good forwards will do to us.

i really thought the delusions would subside this yr and people would finally come to grips with where we are actually at. seems i was mistaken on this point.
if we cant recognise where we are at now in three yrs time we will be a basket case. some may argue we still are a basket case.

its appalling people cant even admit we are undersized structurally poor and lack in all sorts of areas. i dont get it this is what we have done for thirty yrs thirty yrs of crap and still ferals cant be honest with themselves.

 

[Bazzar]

so what are you actually saying here we are tall enough and big enough.

Maybe you should pay more attention. Yes, i said i think we are tall enough, sheeesh as you like to say, didnt you see where i said the reigning premiers yesterday were an average of 1mm taller? Do you know how that works? add all the heights then divide it to get the average. Well as it happens when you do that with both Richmond and Collingwood, just like magic, we are only 1mm shorter.

And in case you also missed it i also said we are under weight, but that will naturally come in the next 2 pre-seasons with weight training and natural development.

 

[santa claws]

Now your clutching at straws, you're comparing our 1st 2nd 3rd and 4th year players to Collingwoods seasoned players, bit unfair don't you think.

am i na i think like others you should learn to read more carefully.

 

[TOOs_Finest]

your joking the skinnys who played this week are well skinny. and in the main have not put on size in yrs.
edwards king nahas white mcguane nason what you see now mate is what you will get in the future.add the poorly skilled and no wonder we hang our hats on wins like this weeks.

King aint skinny, not sure why you include him here. Neither is White for that matter

Doubt you will find a single poster on here disagreeing that our KPDs need to bulk up, people been making threads about if for three years.

Also, haven't seen too many people getting excited about our win on the weekend. Plenty have praised some individual efforts, but the general attitude seems to be that we're still only playing 1-2 qtrs of half decent footy, but we are at least showing signs of a bright future. Sure, one person started a thread about being top 8 at the mid way point, but how many replies in that thread agreed with the OP? About none I reckon. Lighten up santa

 

[santa claws]

Maybe you should pay more attention. Yes, i said i think we are tall enough, sheeesh as you like to say, didnt you see where i said the reigning premiers yesterday were an average of 1mm taller? Do you know how that works? add all the heights then divide it to get the average. Well as it happens when you do that with both Richmond and Collingwood, just like magic, we are only 1mm shorter.

And in case you also missed it i also said we are under weight, but that will naturally come in the next 2 pre-seasons with weight training and natural development.

oh dear we are trying hard. so you think we are big enough and tall enough just as big and tall as collingwood good for you i dont see the need to show you the error of your ways when one is that stupid its really a waste of time.

anyway keep followinhg me around its fun watching you.

 

[Rustof]

We are tall enough, just need more meat on the bones.

 

[MightyTiger]

oh dear we are trying hard. so you think we are big enough and tall enough just as big and tall as collingwood good for you i dont see the need to show you the error of your ways when one is that stupid its really a waste of time.

anyway keep followinhg me around its fun watching you.

SC you really are failing, maybe you should read what he actually said.

 

[Bazzar]

A comparison of height with Collingwood. Rookies in ( )

Richmond - Collingwood

4 200cm+ 5 (1)
(1) 5 195-199 2
(1) 9 190-194 13 (5)
(3) 14 185-189 12 (1)
(1) 8 180-184 10 (1)
(1) 5 179 under 5
203 Tallest 204
176 Shortest 172

Exclude rookies-

Richmond 16 to Collingwoods 15 190cm and above.
Richmond 1 less 179 and under.
Collingwoods smallest is 4cm shorter than Nason.
Kind of blows santas theories on height out the water.

 

[Infamy]

am i na i think like others you should learn to read more carefully.

I think you are the one who needs to read things a little better
You are expecting our 1st-3rd year KPPs to already have the bulk of 5+ year veterans at Collingwood. It is ridiculous and you are just making yourself look like more of an idiot.

All that has been posted is that we have the height on our list already, we just need to add bulk over the next 2 years. Pretty straight forward, we have the same experience as Gold Coast for christ sake.

 

[Bazzar]

Just for fun I thought I would take the HUNs best from both the Tiges and Pies this weekend and grab an average.

Tiges - Martin Riewoldt Houli Cotchin Nahas Delideo Grigg
Pies - Pendalbury Cloke Davis Shaw Ball Dawes Wellingham

Tiges - Pies
185.85 Height 187
83.71 Weight 91.14

Pies are almost bang on their average height and we are slightly under (tall’s need to lift? )
But look at the weight. A massive 7.3kg difference. That’s where they smash teams.

 

[Dustin Credible]

Pies are almost bang on their average height and we are slightly under (tall’s need to lift? )
But look at the weight. A massive 7.3kg difference. That’s where they smash teams.

This got me thinking. Which Tall other than JR has been in our best/votes this season? I couldn't think of one, they definately need to improve.

That weight difference is massive. The problem some of our players have, e.g Nahas, Nason, Edwards, is that no amount of weights and unlimted pre-seasons will ever enable him/them to bulk up. They will always be undersized for AFL. This can be overcome with silky skills, but we have to ask whether these players skills are really that good.

 

[gaelictiogar]

Of course talent and ability matter but to use a boxing adage : a good big 'un is better than a good small 'un.

Size, bulk and strength won't win games but it will help make a side competitive. All the major contact codes...rugbys Union and League, Gaelic Football, Gridiron et...are seeing bigger stronger cattle onfield bring heft and power.

it isn't pretty but it plugs skill gaps.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

A comparison of height with Collingwood. Rookies in ( )

Richmond - Collingwood

4 200cm+ 5 (1)
(1) 5 195-199 2
(1) 9 190-194 13 (5)
(3) 14 185-189 12 (1)
(1) 8 180-184 10 (1)
(1) 5 179 under 5
203 Tallest 204
176 Shortest 172

Exclude rookies-

Richmond 16 to Collingwoods 15 190cm and above.
Richmond 1 less 179 and under.
Collingwoods smallest is 4cm shorter than Nason.
Kind of blows santas theories on height out the water.

194 to 189 differences is significant and it'll be interest how our backs go against Mitch Clark and Leuenberger this week after Petrie's performance ?
Our issues with size is as much an issue with core strength as anything , Nahas, Edwards and even Houli get moved off the Footy or out of the contest just way to easily !

 

[TigerTime88]

There is no way Conca is anywhere near 185cm..

I saw him not long ago and I am 184cm and towered over him. I think this goes for a few of our players measurements to be honest but Conca would be all of 179cm I reckon.

 

[discofan]

Of course talent and ability matter but to use a boxing adage : a good big 'un is better than a good small 'un.

Size, bulk and strength won't win games but it will help make a side competitive. All the major contact codes...rugbys Union and League, Gaelic Football, Gridiron et...are seeing bigger stronger cattle onfield bring heft and power.

it isn't pretty but it plugs skill gaps.

Yep - that's about it - Coll combined 22 are around 150kg heavier than ours - that averages at approx 7kg a player - pretty hard to counter that with skills (all 22 would have to have the skills of a Michael Mitchell !!!)
Supporters can look and try to analyse as much as they want but at the end of the day we need more size - I agree with sc - we go in with 'runts'

 

[_RT_]

arent they how about their premiership team.
down back n brown. 195 101 sheesh do we have a defender who is both 195 plus and 100kg. hmm i dont think so. reid 195 92 sheesh thats two defenders at 195. maxwell 193/93 geez hes a third tall and bigger and just as tall as any kpd we play. toovey 189/89 geez hes not quite 190cm hes too bloody short but hey hes just a runner. lets see who else played back oh yeah harry o just a midget at 188/92 and struth at that weight hes undersized as well.
now lets see who else played back oh yeah the runt of the back 6 litter shaw at 184/ 86 bloody hell they need to get rid of him.
forward well you have mentioned cloke dawes and l brown the ruckman jolly whos not short and lacks size. and to top it off goldsack on the interchange bench at 193.
and ya know what malthouse wasnt going to take a chance on his talls first emg was that midget and skinny bugger prestigiacomo.just three genuine smalls in the side.
mate can you hear yourself.

Brown & Reid were drafted in 2006, Maxwell 2002, O'Brien 2004, Toovey 2005, Goldsack 2006, Shaw 2003, Cloke 2004, Dawes 2006 while both Brown & Jolly have both had at least a decade in the system. They have also been for the most part able to train at a state of the art gym.

Compare that to the side I put up earlier, Dea Astbury Grimes Batchelor Conca MacDonald Griffiths Martin Helbig & Derickx are all first and second year players that still need to develop their bodies. That should happen a hell of a lot quicker now that our guys are also able to get into a state of the art gym as well.

Surely you don't expect these guys to have developed their bodies in 1-2 preseasons to the same size as the Pies players who have had at least 5 preseasons to build up their size?

Like I said yesterday there is a good base to build on its just going to take us a year or 2 before we get to see it in action.

 

[_RT_]

There is no way Conca is anywhere near 185cm..

I saw him not long ago and I am 184cm and towered over him. I think this goes for a few of our players measurements to be honest but Conca would be all of 179cm I reckon.

What reason would Richmond, as well as the AFL, have to lie about his height?

 

[Dr Tigris]

So we are about the average hight but very light. Two reasons, light build and young. Youngsters grow, so no real problem. Lighly built, problems if we have too many. We'll know in 2-3 years if we have too nmany lightly built youngsters.

But I like our current drafting philosophy of good sized kids who can kick and have a good footy brain. To some extent this is an admission that the previous policy of going for speed was a dead end. We are heading in the right direction for size and skills - I await them to grow up.

 

[telsor]

It is generally acknowledged that in the first 3-4 years in the system, players put on weight/muscle and that this, as much as the experience gained in that time, makes them better players.

So yes, the basic theory that we're undersized, it's absolutely true, although it's also true that the same playing group will be several Kgs heavier when they're the same age as the Collingwood team. It's part of the price of having a young team.

More broadly, some players need more size/strength, some don't...Sure, to take on gorilla forwards a KPD would need a lot of bulk, but that same bulk would mean they can't accelerate as quickly which would cost them against the quick, leading types.

Similarly, more weight might make a mid better when in a contest, but the extra weight they have to carry around takes it's toll on endurance and agility, meaning they wouldn't get to as many contests and the 'evasive' types ( Edwards, Nahas ) wouldn't dodge incoming tackles quite as well, nor would the likes of Foley accelerate out of packs as quickly.

I agree that, generally, we do need more weight/muscle, but it's not a simple matter of all players packing on 5Kgs next pre-season. There is a trade off that needs to be considered.

 

[telsor]

There is no way Conca is anywhere near 185cm..

I saw him not long ago and I am 184cm and towered over him. I think this goes for a few of our players measurements to be honest but Conca would be all of 179cm I reckon.

Considering the vast amount of measuring and testing that goes on for any draftee I find it hard to believe there could be such a discrepancy. I suppose as he's still young, the club could misrepresent any further growth he has, but I doubt that would cover more than a cm or two so I don't see a lot of point.

 

[Infamy]

Pretty sure Conca's height is the same as it was at draft camp so its not like its the club inflating numbers

 

[TheProwler]

Maybe we should have kept Patto, Polak and Schulz. They couldn't play for sheet but atleast they would get our very important size stats up

 

[discofan]

It is generally acknowledged that in the first 3-4 years in the system, players put on weight/muscle and that this, as much as the experience gained in that time, makes them better players.

So yes, the basic theory that we're undersized, it's absolutely true, although it's also true that the same playing group will be several Kgs heavier when they're the same age as the Collingwood team. It's part of the price of having a young team.

More broadly, some players need more size/strength, some don't...Sure, to take on gorilla forwards a KPD would need a lot of bulk, but that same bulk would mean they can't accelerate as quickly which would cost them against the quick, leading types.

Similarly, more weight might make a mid better when in a contest, but the extra weight they have to carry around takes it's toll on endurance and agility, meaning they wouldn't get to as many contests and the 'evasive' types ( Edwards, Nahas ) wouldn't dodge incoming tackles quite as well, nor would the likes of Foley accelerate out of packs as quickly.

I agree that, generally, we do need more weight/muscle, but it's not a simple matter of all players packing on 5Kgs next pre-season. There is a trade off that needs to be considered.

understand all that - would just love to see our recruitment/game day staff start to think ‘bigger’ here and there - though maybe that's the way to slay the Collingwood beast - send in a mosquito fleet and 'sting them' - can't see it though !
If I found the ‘genie bottle’ and it only related to AFL, the first wish would be a C Dawes type up fwd to complement Jack ! (but I guess C Dawes type forwards don’t come along every day of the week!)
I think the Mike Tyson quote summed up the ‘big un - little un’ debate pretty well before he fought the light heavyweight Michael Spinks “I’m ‘gonna’ hurt this guy”
Anyway – I’m sure the club will find a way back to the top of the heap sooner rather than later (I hope !)
Go TIGES