Unpopular AFL Opinions

Remove this Banner Ad

You realise that since 2007 despite missing finals just once that we only went out in straight sets one time and that was in 2014, right? Get your facts right if you’re going to talk trash.


My bad. Straight sets or not, still haven’t won a flag in that time


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
Geelong do have a unique and distinct home ground advantage, but it's not the reason for their recent finals record.

The 2007-11 Geelong team was (a) better than the 2012- version and (b) played just as many games at KP. The 2020 team barely played at KP and made the GF. The 2021 team played plenty of games at KP (some behind closed doors) then lost finals in Adelaide and Perth. The one time they played a final at KP they lost.

Take 2017 for example. Good enough to beat Richmond at the MCG in Rd 17, then easily beaten by them in the QF. You can't blame KP for that.

Not blaming KP, I’m saying Geelong aren’t that good


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 

Log in to remove this ad.

That would be true if they played 11 homes game in Geelong, it seems negated by playing so many 'home' games like today against Richmond at the MCG.

Any of the WA, SA and QLD teams playing a home game against Richmond have a distinct advantage, meanwhile Geelong's home game is at Richmond's favourite ground where they play their best

You’re not factoring in Insterstate clubs get a big home ground advantage and a huge disadvantage with their travel and away games.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
If Max King was 10cms shorter he wouldn’t even be on a list.

If he’s not kicking goals he’s not doing anything and if he’s not kicking goals the saints aren’t winning. It’s a bit of an issue.
 
If Max King was 10cms shorter he wouldn’t even be on a list.

If he’s not kicking goals he’s not doing anything and if he’s not kicking goals the saints aren’t winning. It’s a bit of an issue.
He’s 21, give him time, he’s well ahead of where you’d expect a key forward to be at his stage in development.
 
He’s 21, give him time, he’s well ahead of where you’d expect a key forward to be at his stage in development.
For sure. He has more than enough potential but so does any player ever drafted. Just doesn’t do anything else at the moment.
 
If Max King was 10cms shorter he wouldn’t even be on a list.

If he’s not kicking goals he’s not doing anything and if he’s not kicking goals the saints aren’t winning. It’s a bit of an issue.

His job is to play deep and either mark the ball or bring it to ground.

He does that very, very well. It's an appalling strategy by St Kilda though both for maximising King's output and development - but also for them as a team.

In summary, I don't think the issue you described is King's issue as such, but Ratten's.

I would be seeking a trade if I was King. What a waste of talent.
 
Last edited:
The problem is St Kilda aren't using other tall targets. Higgins is the next most targeted player. Membrey has been playing really high and not presenting often deep.



Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk
 
If Max King was 10cms shorter he wouldn’t even be on a list.

If he’s not kicking goals he’s not doing anything and if he’s not kicking goals the saints aren’t winning. It’s a bit of an issue.
He is his height though…
If he didn’t have legs he’s struggle as well.
I don’t get it.
 
If Max King was 10cm shorter and played like a 202cm gangly freak he wouldn't be on a list.

Depending on source Jack Darling is 191cm and Oscar Allen is 192 or 194. They seem to do OK. There aren't too many Tim Membreys running around who play like a key forward but are 190cm or shorter. We had Ben McKinley years ago who was a natural forward and goalkicker but at 185cm 85kg with limited athleticism he was never going to have a long AFL career. If you are that size you need to have a real point of difference like Tory Dickson who converted 75% of his shots or Luke Breust who kicks bags of goals and gets involved in the play up the ground.

It's a strange criticism to level at King. Most players his size have a fraction of the talent and survive in the league for years because they are tall.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

He is his height though…
If he didn’t have legs he’s struggle as well.
I don’t get it.
Yeah it’s a weird criticism, I guess the idea is that if he was his pace, agility and skill but shorter he wouldn’t make it but that’s a pretty pointless argument. If he was 10cm shorter he would probably be faster and more agile
 
Thought the past round was underwhelming considering the build up.
Cats and Tigers game the only match of the four big ones that delivered.

Demons and Carlton put other sides away comfortably and scoring levels nothing special in matches that meant to involve all the teams from top 8 on ladder at time. Swans and Saints was a shocker too.
1 out of 4 were decent for those headline matches. Still way to much congestion for top level football. AFL have really let the sport decline as spectacle over a number of decades with their focus too much on business model and not enough on the sport itself. The complacency built from strong footing the sport had is not good for the sport.
If they do not address the spectacle issues of the actual sport they created it will cost in a decade or two.
Crowds already down and some may never come back.
 
Geelong receive a unique and distinct advantage that no other team gets by having their own stadium (which WA, SA and QLD teams have) without the travel burden and being able to play many ‘away’ games without getting on a plane like those interstate clubs do.

It’s a huge reason why they get the extra few wins a season to finish so high up on the ladder, a few wins less would have them either scratching for the 8 or just outside it.

Also explains the amount of times they are eliminated in straight sets.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Imagine if we played 3 more games there like you do
 
If Max King was 10cm shorter and played like a 202cm gangly freak he wouldn't be on a list.

Depending on source Jack Darling is 191cm and Oscar Allen is 192 or 194. They seem to do OK. There aren't too many Tim Membreys running around who play like a key forward but are 190cm or shorter. We had Ben McKinley years ago who was a natural forward and goalkicker but at 185cm 85kg with limited athleticism he was never going to have a long AFL career. If you are that size you need to have a real point of difference like Tory Dickson who converted 75% of his shots or Luke Breust who kicks bags of goals and gets involved in the play up the ground.

It's a strange criticism to level at King. Most players his size have a fraction of the talent and survive in the league for years because they are tall.
Further to your point, few examples of 'shorter' key forwards (193 and below) who did/are doing pretty well:
  • Brendan Fevola - 191cm
  • Charlie Curnow - 192cm
  • Matthew Pavlich - 192cm
  • Matthew Lloyd - 192cm
  • Wayne Carey - 192cm
  • Jack Riewoldt -193cm
  • Jarryd Roughead - 193cm
  • Tex Walker - 193cm
  • Jack Gunston - 193cm
  • Jake Stringer - 192cm
Beyond these recent era players, here are a few of the greatest all time goalkickers and their respective heights:
  • Tony Lockett - 191cm
  • Gordon Coventry - 183cm *
  • Jason Dunstall - 188cm
  • Doug Wade - 188cm *
  • Gary Ablett Senior - 185cm
*Willing to discount these two players due to the era they played

Max King's strength is his run and jump at the ball, fully extended there isn't a defender in the competition with the height, reach and vert combination capable of taking the footy at the same height as the King brothers can. If they were 10cm shorter, I'm sure they'd be coached to play differently. They have vice like hands and are quick off the mark, they absolutely would have a spot on a list, just wouldn't be playing in the exact same fashion as they do now.

The whole '10cm shorter/taller' argument is ridiculous too. How different of a player would Charlie Curnow be if he were 202cm? Do you think Charlie would be the elite runner he is if he were 10cm taller? Ed is 10cm shorter than Charlie and pumps Charlie by about 40 seconds in the 2km, how much worse would Charlie be at running if he were 202cm? Conversely, would a 168cm Daniel Kerr have had a spot on a list? A 169cm Ben Cousins? It's not a small margin, it's not worth discussing.
 
  • Tex Walker - 193cm
  • Jack Gunston - 193cm
Wow, I didn't realise that.

When they played together I viewed Tex as a key forward and Gunston as a medium forward.
Didn't realise the difference.

But I guess that's got a lot to do with body shape. Gunston less muscle = more mobile and faster, creating that perception? idk
 
Wow, I didn't realise that.

When they played together I viewed Tex as a key forward and Gunston as a medium forward.
Didn't realise the difference.

But I guess that's got a lot to do with body shape. Gunston less muscle = more mobile and faster, creating that perception? idk
Yeah, probably that! I hadn't realised that Silvagni was only 1cm shorter than Curnow for example, due to much the same reason - Silvagni looks quite skinny because he's always in that long sleeve, he also works up the ground a lot.
 
Further to your point, few examples of 'shorter' key forwards (193 and below) who did/are doing pretty well:
  • Brendan Fevola - 191cm
  • Charlie Curnow - 192cm
  • Matthew Pavlich - 192cm
  • Matthew Lloyd - 192cm
  • Wayne Carey - 192cm
  • Jack Riewoldt -193cm
  • Jarryd Roughead - 193cm
  • Tex Walker - 193cm
  • Jack Gunston - 193cm
  • Jake Stringer - 192cm
Beyond these recent era players, here are a few of the greatest all time goalkickers and their respective heights:
  • Tony Lockett - 191cm
  • Gordon Coventry - 183cm *
  • Jason Dunstall - 188cm
  • Doug Wade - 188cm *
  • Gary Ablett Senior - 185cm
*Willing to discount these two players due to the era they played

Max King's strength is his run and jump at the ball, fully extended there isn't a defender in the competition with the height, reach and vert combination capable of taking the footy at the same height as the King brothers can. If they were 10cm shorter, I'm sure they'd be coached to play differently. They have vice like hands and are quick off the mark, they absolutely would have a spot on a list, just wouldn't be playing in the exact same fashion as they do now.

The whole '10cm shorter/taller' argument is ridiculous too. How different of a player would Charlie Curnow be if he were 202cm? Do you think Charlie would be the elite runner he is if he were 10cm taller? Ed is 10cm shorter than Charlie and pumps Charlie by about 40 seconds in the 2km, how much worse would Charlie be at running if he were 202cm? Conversely, would a 168cm Daniel Kerr have had a spot on a list? A 169cm Ben Cousins? It's not a small margin, it's not worth discussing.
This whole post is accurate and yet is my point at the same time.

His strength is his running AND his marking, yet he only uses his running FOR his marking. He’s not putting pressure on. You can’t tell me a 7-8cm in height is the reason he and Naughton (as an example but there are plenty of others) are able to put the pressure on that they do.
 
This whole post is accurate and yet is my point at the same time.

His strength is his running AND his marking, yet he only uses his running FOR his marking. He’s not putting pressure on. You can’t tell me a 7-8cm in height is the reason he and Naughton (as an example but there are plenty of others) are able to put the pressure on that they do.
Yes, that’s true - when the ball hits the deck Max doesn’t compete hard enough. I do agree with much of what you’re saying I just disagree with your assertion that he wouldn’t be on a list as he has so many elite attributes beyond his height.
 
Imagine if we played 3 more games there like you do

You’re missing the point. Interstate teams might get a few more at home, but we also don’t have a 2nd home ground and majority of our away games are a 4hr flight not a 1hr drive.

You understand you’re in an unpopular opinions thread right?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top