Review Size Matters

["The Roar Is Back"]

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

The combine invitation had him at 182cm all other sources surprisingly have him at 185 .

 

[santa claws]

a lot of it is that simple
have said for yrs and most have turned up their toes and scoffed that while size and structure may not win you a game it certainly enables you to at least compete.
we have been having this debate since before wallace who proclaimed the game would go the other way.
what rehn is saying is nothing new.

our trouble we play king nahas white edwards nason and last yr at times webberley and hicks as well. size in most of these players is not the only problem its the standard their skills are at.we can add foley as a small and both batchelor and helbig both mediums atm are undersized.
have said this a bit now but for me of all those smalls i can only find a place in the 22 for two and thats king atm and foley.

the above is also made worse when you look at the size weight of our talls thursfield mcguane moore and now grimes. also vickery. hence the call for big bodied defenders for yrs now. and no im not having a go at grimes or vickery they will take time to put on the bulk and do need to be given games.

yep we not only play undersizrd but short and with far too many players who are hit and miss with their skills.

my opening post

 

[santa claws]

rubbish id take the bigger guy who can read the play the ball in flight anyday . just look at what most sides go with. the two most successful sides of recent yrs collingwood geelong they are big they are tall and they have good skills in the main.

and we are low on on rehns ladder because we actually play undersized runts.
as far as talls go they are undersized not to mention underskilled.

i think people regularly lose sight of the fact we are currently trying to build a list capable of playing top 4 footy. our list is no where near it and in a short space of time to get there we could easily turn over another 20 odd players.

post no 2 hmm i still dont see where i have compared our kids to anyone.

 

[santa claws]

or is an admittance that they got it wrong the yr before.
hicks roberts nason webberley farmer to go with foley cousins white nahas edwards and king yep we really needed to load up on ordinary smalls last yr. some of us were critical with the way they went.

post no 3 still no comparison.

 

[santa claws]

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.

hmm is there a comparison to collingwood are there even any young kpps mentioned. geez those blokes are all 22 plus. well nason might be turning 22.

 

[santa claws]

Collingwood are no taller than Richmond and other than players like Dawes, Cloke & Brown they aren't that huge either. We need to give our players time to add on size, they can't all be expected to walk in the door ready to go.

and then there was this which i thought quite wrong hence the collingwood theme.

 

[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.

now this is my reply showing how tall and big collingwood actually play by useing their premiership team as an example.
now lets see have i compared our young kpps to collingwood or have i just made a point showing how big collingwood actually are.

 

[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.

then there was this. a fool who had not read the thread and jumped to conclusions. i should demand an apology but i know some on here are not big enough to admit when they are wrong.
i still dont see where ive compared our players to collingwoods.
that is not what we were debating . but some how thats what its become.

 

[santa claws]

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.

then heres my next post wait for it nope no mention of collingwood. do i need to go on why not lets dig out the next post.

 

[santa claws]

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.

then there was this in reply to the try hard bazzar.

im happy to say people apolgies will be accepted.
now perhaps i can get back to the topic and reply to recent posts on this thread.

 

[TOOs_Finest]

now this is my reply showing how tall and big collingwood actually play by useing their premiership team as an example.
now lets see have i compared our young kpps to collingwood or have i just made a point showing how big collingwood actually are.

santa, serious question... why not compare collingwood and our teams based on last weekend's line-ups like Bazzar did?

For starters, both lists have changed since last year's GF. Secondly, it just seems more logical to me. Collingwood may well make the GF this year, but I doubt either N. Brown or Presty will be playing. Yet I don't think that will hurt their chances of winning, to be honest. And the facts say that their current line up is 1mm taller than ours. The only uncertainty for me here is, are you talking about the list as a whole, and are Bazz's stats just for the respective 22s from this week?

With their current line up, they have beat all comers thus far. So don't you agree that the major issue here is bulk more so than height? Our "short people" you listed, I can't remember them all playing in the same week. And I think we all agree that some of those will be gone within 24 months.

 

[_RT_]

then there was this in reply to the try hard bazzar.

im happy to say people apolgies will be accepted.
now perhaps i can get back to the topic and reply to recent posts on this thread.

To be fair Claws when your first few posts talk about our lack of size and you then post the Pies side its only natural to assume you're comparing them to us.

 

[santa claws]

santa, serious question... why not compare collingwood and our teams based on last weekend's line-ups like Bazzar did?

For starters, both lists have changed since last year's GF. Secondly, it just seems more logical to me. Collingwood may well make the GF this year, but I doubt either N. Brown or Presty will be playing. Yet I don't think that will hurt their chances of winning, to be honest. And the facts say that their current line up is 1mm taller than ours. The only uncertainty for me here is, are you talking about the list as a whole, and are Bazz's stats just for the respective 22s from this week?

With their current line up, they have beat all comers thus far. So don't you agree that the major issue here is bulk more so than height? Our "short people" you listed, I can't remember them all playing in the same week. And I think we all agree that some of those will be gone within 24 months.

look in all the time ive been on this site ive bemoaned the size and height of our players and the way we actually structure up. since hardwick has been there how many went crook at the 09 draft because of the amount of smalls we took.there werent many of us.

since well i cant remember how long ive advocated a minimum of 16 talls on your list 6 forwards 6 defenders 4 ruckmen. so yes we have adequate numbers as far as talls go.
the question then has to be asked how many do you need who are up to standard or at least physically capable of competeing at the level to get you thru a season. imo its 12 you then have talls in development to make up the 16.
now this is true for an established club, but what about a club like us basically starting from scratch.
the reality is, to find 12 plus just decent talls you will need to go close to doubling the number.
the other thing i have constantly argued is the quality and size of the talls we have. and yes i will say again the tall numbers are adequate as far as lists in general go. for a developing list starting near scratch i have constantly advocated we load up a bit.
in answer to me it numbers and size in general.
size is the issue and i would have thought that was patently clear to anyone who reads my posts not just on this thread but many others. just about every thing i post comes back to size structure and skill.along with the need to take more talls.

why do i compare when they won a premiership. simple its what worked. i could just as easily have used geelong. even hawthorn had genuine height size and quality when they won in 08.

on this site this yr ive read posts where we dont need structure we dont need height we dont need size but the reality is this is the starting point.its square one and you build from it. why do you think ive advocated we go out and get a few mature proven big bodies. its why i thought miller was an okay pick especially if you pay nothing for them.would i rather see a kid instead of miller hell yeah. the flip side is miller just being there may enable some other kids to shine.

on this how often have i said we cant afford to play both tuck and jackson yet if you troll the teams i select each week invariably both get selected and it comes down to the size issue.

on king yes i agree hes a solid strong little bugger i only mentioned him in the sense that he was one of many smalls we play.i diod say he and foley are the two smalls i would play atm.

its no fun on here when every single sentence you utter is pulled apart basically because people dont like what they hear. but when they wrongly have a go well this old tiger will bite back.

 

[santa claws]

To be fair Claws when your first few posts talk about our lack of size and you then post the Pies side its only natural to assume you're comparing them to us.

not if you read properly. in saying that i have been guilty fairly regularly of misinterpreting replys all im doing is setting the ledgar straight.
and rt you do disappoint me you know my posting history bloody hell we have had enough debates.

 

[_RT_]

since well i cant remember how long ive advocated a minimum of 16 talls on your list 6 forwards 6 defenders 4 ruckmen. so yes we have adequate numbers as far as talls go.
the question then has to be asked how many do you need who are up to standard or at least physically capable of competeing at the level to get you thru a season. imo its 12 you then have talls in development to make up the 16.
now this is true for an established club, but what about a club like us basically starting from scratch.
the reality is, to find 12 plus just decent talls you will need to go close to doubling the number.

Sorry Claws don't agree with the highlighted bit. With lists of 42-44 depending on rookies I'm not sure you can have 20-24 spots devoted to talls. I think the way we've gone about it is pretty much spot on. We've got somewhat experienced blokes in Jack McGuane Thursfield Moore, a development group of Graham Browne Derickx Vickery Post Rance Griffiths Astbury Grimes & Gourdis as well as the experienced Miller. From that group I'm fairly confident that we've got at least 8, possibly 10, that will be around in 5 years time.

not if you read properly. in saying that i have been guilty fairly regularly of misinterpreting replys all im doing is setting the ledgar straight.
and rt you do disappoint me you know my posting history bloody hell we have had enough debates.

Well aware of your posting style Claws, just suggesting the way others may have seen it.

 

[santa claws]

Sorry Claws don't agree with the highlighted bit. With lists of 42-44 depending on rookies I'm not sure you can have 20-24 spots devoted to talls. I think the way we've gone about it is pretty much spot on. We've got somewhat experienced blokes in Jack McGuane Thursfield Moore, a development group of Graham Browne Derickx Vickery Post Rance Griffiths Astbury Grimes & Gourdis as well as the experienced Miller. From that group I'm fairly confident that we've got at least 8, possibly 10, that will be around in 5 years time.


Well aware of your posting style Claws, just suggesting the way others may have seen it.

no probs rt i should be the last to go crook as i misintepret as much as anyone. but i will acknowledge when i do it.

just on the quality and number of talls.
to put it as crudely as i can in a ranking way. and this is just my pespective wont go into my reasons as they usually cause the topic to get hijacked. will only do 3 for now.

riewoldt - a/b. for me still b grade which is very good just a matter of time before he actually earns the right to an a grade ranking.

astbury - i can categorically say hes in development with a long way to go.thats not to say most signs are not good.

grimes - yep development for me though he is potentially our next 10 yr solid to very good fb. that is if he can add the size required. now i rarely ever give out credit like this. but he is still in development and it may take 4 yrs before we see the best of him because of the size issue.

after these 3 is where it gets intersting for me they are the only 3 talls i can cateorically say are or should be long term players for us.
will get to the rest later have to go.

 

[partycorolla]

Holy crap.... Nice run of posts there Santa!!! Clearly defending your point.... but I came to see what was going on and it looked like a one way conversation. I thought you'd flipped!!!

 

[Bazzar]

riewoldt - a/b. for me still b grade

Love it

 

[bigstyletiger]

Claws I think you can add Rance to your list of young talls who will be on the list in 5 years time. Rance has looked very good this season and he is a big and hard at it unit. For me I am more worried about Astbury - just hasn't looked that hard at it this year. Unquestionable skill but not sure about his athleticism and courage (yet).

Anyway I think when you point out that we have started from scratch you touch on an important point. Our list is very much developing and we will add talent.

If we had a full list to pick from I think we could actually put out a good quality side out with plenty of height and potential to bulk up. Heights in brackets from memory.

FB: Rance (193), McGuane (192), Moore (190)
HB: Batchelor (188), Astbury (195), Newman (184)
C: Deledio (188), Martin (187), Jackson (188)
HF: Houli (180), Griffiths (198.5), Morton (186)
FF: King (178), Riewoldt (193), Vickery (200)
Foll: Graham (201), Cotchin (185), Foley (177)
Inter: Grigg (190), Conca (185), White (180)

While we are playing a bit of a mosquito fleat at the moment we drafted some powerful players in Helbig and McDonald as well as the big x last draft period and we also have Dea, O'Reilly, Contin who are a good size and coming through.

While we need to add talent I think the signs are good...

 

[discofan]

great stuff Santa - I agree with just about all of your statements (the 'keep just the three' I can't really comment on though as I haven't seen enough of Browne, Gourdis or X )
guess it is good to compare to Collingwood (whether people did it intentionally or not) as they are the best and as you know, no use just comparing and trying to knock off No 2 - go straight for No 1.
At the moment we are light years away from going anywhere near the No 1 side in Cwd - because, as you rightly say, we haven't recruited 'big enough'. and dare I say it I think this Collingwood side will prove to be one of the greats of all time (defintely in the top 3) - and a big reason why ? - their BIG GORILLAS ! - They will just keep knocking the stuffing out of 'normal' teams like us and keep powering away.