Tall Or Small

[Kyusss]

A few years back i was watching the gospel and they did a vote who would you prefer a good tall or a good small and everyone voted a good tall,
at the time browny had a broken leg and riewoldt was dominating (still is).

Hawthorn recruited tall the same year we recruited small and although they did start rebuiling a few years before that you would have to say Franklin and Roughhead have worked out well for them.

Its commonly looked upon that talls are more valuable than smalls yet our major medal (brownlow) is dominated by smalls which suggests that smalls are of greater value (if u trust the brownlow)

When it comes to recruiting there is without doubt a bigger risk in drafting tall they may not develop physically enough which can make them useless they are generally looked at as more of a risk to take early on, than an onballer who can step straight into the squad and have an impact.

In my lifetime i still say that the greatest player ive ever seen is Wayne Carey but than the next few are players like Hird Voss Bucks and than another tall in Richo.

West Coast won a flag with a shocking list of talls
Hawthorn won a flag with its talls getting them there

Do talls still dominate our game?

would you take a gun tall or a gun small?


One will dominate the midfield One will dominate a KP

 

[cormick]

I think Ablett is the best player in the league, but I'd take Franklin if I had first choice of any current AFL player.
Therefore I think a good tall >>> an equally good small.


Edit: And you left out Lockett from that list in the poll.
I'd say the majority would take "Plugga" over Dunstall.

 

[sante]

Midfields win premierships. Name me one team to win a flag with an average or shit midfield.

 

[Kyusss]

I think Ablett is the best player in the league, but I'd take Franklin if I had first choice of any current AFL player.
Therefore I think a good tall >>> an equally good small.


Edit: And you left out Lockett from that list in the poll.
I'd say the majority would take "Plugga" over Dunstall.

personally id take dunstall over locket

 

[cormick]

Ah yep, fair enough.

And sante, I agree that you need a good midfield to win a flag, but take Buddy out of Hawthorn and they wouldn't have been in the Granny.

 

[ize_]

Ah yep, fair enough.

And sante, I agree that you need a good midfield to win a flag, but take Buddy out of Hawthorn and they wouldn't have been in the Granny.

Quite possibly, but I believe take Franklin out of Hawthorn and Roughead would have kicked 80+.

 

[JSFish]

Good point Ize. If you have a good midfield, somebody will kick the goals.

 

[one eyedtiger]

Good point Ize. If you have a good midfield, somebody will kick the goals.

Exactly right JS. If you put a forward in the geelong side they would look pretty damn good. Take a look at Tom Lonergen, he had a fairly good year. Throw him melbourne's team or a side struggling. He would not be that good. My point is midfielders win premierships.

 

[bigstyletiger]

Ah yep, fair enough.

And sante, I agree that you need a good midfield to win a flag, but take Buddy out of Hawthorn and they wouldn't have been in the Granny.

That's because the Hawks midfield is not in the same leauge as geelong circa 2007/2008 or West Coast circa 2006 or Brisbane circa 2001 - 2004.

In my opinon the Hawks are vulnerable as their midfield can be beaten which in turn can effect the quality of delivery to buddy and roughead. note our victory against them in round 16 ( i think it was).

I don't think the Cats key forwards have been that great for the last couple of years but they have done well because of a gun midfield. On the other hand Brisbanes key forward duo of Brown and Bradshaw was awesome in 2008 with both players kicking 70+ goals yet Brisbane still missed the finals.

Obviously this would suggest that its not as simple as small vs tall its more a question of balance, management, fitness, etc. Sydney of 2005 was one of the least talented premiership sides that i have ever seen and yet they won the flag.

Personally i'm pretty happy with the side that we are building. Buddy is great but he would be dangerous under the wrong coach just like Richo was with Danny Frawley. I don't think that a star key forward is necessary and sometimes they can be detrimental. Midfielders often neglect the correct target when going forward when a players such as Richo or Buddy is in the forward 50. A side with a strong back line, strong midfield and and multiple dangerous (but not necessarily star) forwards with some capable key forwards is a pretty good set up in my opinion and this is what i think we are developing.

So best available for me.

 

[one eyedtiger]

That's because the Hawks midfield is not in the same leauge as geelong circa 2007/2008 or West Coast circa 2006 or Brisbane circa 2001 - 2004.

In my opinon the Hawks are vulnerable as their midfield can be beaten which in turn can effect the quality of delivery to buddy and roughead. note our victory against them in round 16 ( i think it was).

I don't think the Cats key forwards have been that great for the last couple of years but they have done well because of a gun midfield. On the other hand Brisbanes key forward duo of Brown and Bradshaw was awesome in 2008 with both players kicking 70+ goals yet Brisbane still missed the finals.

Obviously this would suggest that its not as simple as small vs tall its more a question of balance, management, fitness, etc. Sydney of 2005 was one of the least talented premiership sides that i have ever seen and yet they won the flag.

Personally i'm pretty happy with the side that we are building. Buddy is great but he would be dangerous under the wrong coach just like Richo was with Danny Frawley. I don't think that a star key forward is necessary and sometimes they can be detrimental. Midfielders often neglect the correct target when going forward when a players such as Richo or Buddy is in the forward 50. A side with a strong back line, strong midfield and and multiple dangerous (but not necessarily star) forwards with some capable key forwards is a pretty good set up in my opinion and this is what i think we are developing.

So best available for me.

That is what I'm saying. Like I said Lonergen is an average player, but in this Geelong side with that midfield he looks like a gun. Hell i think i would kick 50+ goals in this cats team

 

[coke_zero]

if we were to pick one to go into our team id pick a small that could play in the middle with spels in the forward and back in defence.

 

[telsor]

Just an observation...

Most people seem to be looking at 'good midfield' Vs a single good KF rather than one player Vs one player.

I think midfields ( collectively ) are more important, but for individual impact, the KF would 'win'.

 

[Kyusss]

Just an observation...

Most people seem to be looking at 'good midfield' Vs a single good KF rather than one player Vs one player.

I think midfields ( collectively ) are more important, but for individual impact, the KF would 'win'.

its also interesting to see everyone if comparing key forwards to key mids,
does this mean noone would take a dominant key defender over a dominant key forward?

The year west coast won the flag Darren Glass was pretty important

Key defenders are very important if you ask me but do they outweigh a dominant forward or midfielder .. tough one

 

[sante]

Defenders and Forwards are only as good as their midfield allows them to be.

 

[Big Nasty]

Defenders and Forwards are only as good as their midfield allows them to be.

What about Scarlett being AA Full Back in both '03,'04, when Geelong had a crap midfield?

 

[sante]

What about Scarlett being AA Full Back in both '03,'04, when Geelong had a crap midfield?

I had initially wrote that a defender/forward can still be good without the midfield, but generally a defender/forward will struggle if their midfield is getting destroyed.

 

[nut]

I'm a midfield fan.... as others have said and elite midfield makes average KPP perform better. Where as if elite forwards aren't getting the supply than there impact wont be as much.
We have had Richo for 16 seasons he is an elite KPF yet we haven't had the supply.

Having said that a Tall is better than a small on his own, but the thing is you need to have More elite Mids than you need KPP. So I'd rather have an elite midfield i.e 5 elite mids than 5 elite talls.

 

[Goldust]

NOT sitting on the fence, but it would depend on where the club was placed at the time.
Richo aside, we have lacked a standout key-tall forward for a long, long time.
Benny Gale was serviceable, but I've seen the likes of Stuart Edwards, Stephen Jurica etc. come and go, making a slight impact before fading into the distance.
More often than not we've had better than average, good and sometimes brilliant on-ballers - the likes of Weightman, Knights, Broderick, Bond, Campbell, Coughlan and now Cousins, Deledio, Foley and Tuck.
There wouldn't be any player right now I would be taking above Buddy Franklin - that goes for Ablett, Judd, Bartel, Griffen (who is better than Cooney), Hodge, whoever.
Maybe I'm old school (and maybe it happened to me at times when I played .... back in the day), but I always found you could convert a struggling player into a pretty reasonable midfielder if given the chance and freedom to roam the ground. You can't turn any tall into a better than reasonable key position player!
So tall for me at this point in time!

 

[cormick]

If you look at the poll, I wouldn't have a hesitation in taking the key forwards. Ablett could play anywhere, Lockett could play in the ruck, and Dunstall was a superstar at FF.

Admittedly Matthews could play anywhere and still be a gun. Voss was the best of his era, but I'd take all the forwards ahead of him. For pure effectiveness and match winning, the KPF's would have the edge over Voss. And then there's Williams, who may as well be a key forward, for all the defensive pressure he put on . I honestly couldn't resist taking the three key forwards. Even if you swapped Carey with Hart, and Dunstall with Lockett and Ablett with, for instance, Buddy, or Baldock etc, then it would prove to be too tempting for any recruiter, I would think.



Edit: It was Carey, not Lockett. Even so, that's ****ing awesome.

 

[cormick]

A tall is still tall when the smalls start to fall.
Hehe I can't remember the real quote, so that will have to do...

 

[Goldust]

A tall is still tall when the smalls start to fall.
Hehe I can't remember the real quote, so that will have to do...

Mmmmm ... is it big me don't get any smaller as the game wears on??

 

[dyl_tigerman]

definatly the small...
look at the tigers we have had big richo and otto staff etc but
haven't been able to do much due to the poor delivery out of the midfield... if we had of had voss or williams or hird etc getting it to richo we would have done alot better

 

[cormick]

Mmmmm ... is it big me don't get any smaller as the game wears on??

Something like that.
Mine's way better.

 

[richoatthedisco]

Jack Dyer said it: "A good big man will always beat a good little man."
So, seeing as Jack Dyer is the officially sanctioned God of all things yellow and black, RFC should have a ("Jack Dyer") recruiting policy of tall over small, all things being equal.
I agree with Jack on this one. And Goldy. There's no player in the league I'd rather have than Buddy. And Roughy would just about be my second pick.
Small point on the poll options: Ablett and Voss are the same height.

 

[sante]

Jack Dyer played years ago. The KPP's are fading.


Still, there is nobody naming me a team who has won a flag with an average midfield.

I can name many teams with average forwards/defenders who have won flags. Buddy is a gun, but if he played for the Dees, I doubt he'd be as good as he is right now...Watch Riewoldt/Hughes/Schulz etc kick 30-40-50 odd in 2009, because our midfield will be dominant more often.

That speaks for itself.