Welcome to Hawthorn Pick 44: Blake Hardwick

[JustKickIt]

I like that he seems to have a bit of mongrel about him...

Unsociable?

 

[Brishawk]

It wouldn't surprise me if the 200cm pure key forwards that are trending don't fare as well either. Take Daniher for example.

If Daniher doesnt mark the ball, a shorter, athletic defender is going to run rings around him.

Will be interesting to see how it fares



Sent from my SM-N920I using Tapatalk

Every time I look at a bloke like Patton I think he is just too big to play as a forward. His knees just won't bare the weight. Mostly I think really tall forwards need to be light for their size to preserve their agility and to help prevent injury. Otherwise, as you say, they are like statues once the ball hits the deck.

 

[flinchfree]

Every time I look at a bloke like Patton I think he is just too big to play as a forward. His knees just won't bare the weight. Mostly I think really tall forwards need to be light for their size to preserve their agility and to help prevent injury. Otherwise, as you say, they are like statues once the ball hits the deck.

Interesting that we had two, Rough and Buddy, who completely smash the stereotype - rough certainly not light for his size, nor did buddy play as lean as he might have...
Neither what you would call great marks, both happy for the ball to hit the deck.
Not an argument against your thinking, which I am ok with, but extraordinary that we picked up two like these in the same draft who are such unique players.

 

[Brishawk]

Interesting that we had two, Rough and Buddy, who completely smash the stereotype - rough certainly not light for his size, nor did buddy play as lean as he might have...
Neither what you would call great marks, both happy for the ball to hit the deck.
Not an argument against your thinking, which I am ok with, but extraordinary that we picked up two like these in the same draft who are such unique players.

Well roughy is only 193 so fits more into a traditional kpp height and weight. Buddy is fairly lean. When we built him up in 2009 it slowed him down dramatically. Also buddy is a freak! If you look at other very tall forwards (195+ or even 200+) the better ones play lean and mobile with Hawkins been an exception. Cloke is at the bottom end of that height and he has had injury issues and form tail away from what it was when he was younger and more mobile. I think that is why people were so convinced Tippett would be a star. As a younger player he was more
Mobile. Added some weight to maximise his strength advantage and he became more one dimensional. Think Vickery would also do well from stripping off weight. Items certainly did well from stripping off weight moving from Richmond to Geelong.

 

[flinchfree]

Well roughy is only 193 so fits more into a traditional kpp height and weight. Buddy is fairly lean. When we built him up in 2009 it slowed him down dramatically. Also buddy is a freak! If you look at other very tall forwards (195+ or even 200+) the better ones play lean and mobile with Hawkins been an exception. Cloke is at the bottom end of that height and he has had injury issues and form tail away from what it was when he was younger and more mobile. I think that is why people were so convinced Tippett would be a star. As a younger player he was more
Mobile. Added some weight to maximise his strength advantage and he became more one dimensional. Think Vickery would also do well from stripping off weight. Items certainly did well from stripping off weight moving from Richmond to Geelong.

I generally agree, but think it's a player by player evaluation that should be the determinant.
Not sure sure of these players heights, but Michael Roach, Tony Lockett, Bill Brownless, Paul Salmon (should never have moved from the goal square though turned into a fantastic Ruck follower), Kernahan, Templeton, and I'm sure others..killed it playing out of the square as big men with solid frames and decent speed, not electric.
And if you find their heights fall more in the 188cm - 193 cm, I would suggest that much as we as a species having been rapidly adding height with every generation, those players would have been considered the 195 - 200 cm type player that now grace the playing field.

Not absolute in this thinking, but that's what moved through my head as I read your post.
How do you think Nic Nat would do as a full time full forward, had he been coached as one?

 

[Brishawk]

I generally agree, but think it's a player by player evaluation that should be the determinant.
Not sure sure of these players heights, but Michael Roach, Tony Lockett, Bill Brownless, Paul Salmon (should never have moved from the goal square though turned into a fantastic Ruck follower), Kernahan, Templeton, and I'm sure others..killed it playing out of the square as big men with solid frames and decent speed, not electric.
And if you find their heights fall more in the 188cm - 193 cm, I would suggest that much as we as a species having been rapidly adding height with every generation, those players would have been considered the 195 - 200 cm type player that now grace the playing field.

Not absolute in this thinking, but that's what moved through my head as I read your post.
How do you think Nic Nat would do as a full time full forward, had he been coached as one?

Ah but you see weight and height have a non-linear interplay with gravity and the height from which you can safely fall. An Ant can fall many, many, many times its height without injury. A cat can fall from great heights many times its height and land safely. Conversely an elephant can fall much less than its height and sustain sever injury. I couldn't find it with a quick google but I am sure the relationship between height and falling distance is something like this in shape. So a small change in height/weight results in a big difference.

You would expect this relationship to hold where human beings are operating at the limits of their physical capabilities.

Of course individuals are all different and will tolerate different levels of stress on their body but on average you would expect as players get taller (and heavier) they would be more prone to injury. Couple this with the increase in the athletic demands of the sport from the eighties (the game is a lot faster and KP players run a lot further) I would expect that a virtual cap is placed on the normal height of KPPs by physics and bio-mechanics. There will always be exceptions but when I see super talented players like Gumbleton and Patton come along at 197cm and suffer endless injuries I have to wonder if 195 is about that normal limit with only a few being able to .both effective and injury free at taller heights.

 

[Gralin]

Ah but you see weight and height have a non-linear interplay with gravity and the height from which you can safely fall. An Ant can fall many, many, many times its height without injury. A cat can fall from great heights many times its height and land safely. Conversely an elephant can fall much less than its height and sustain sever injury. I couldn't find it with a quick google but I am sure the relationship between height and falling distance is something like this in shape. So a small change in height/weight results in a big difference.

You would expect this relationship to hold where human beings are operating at the limits of their physical capabilities.

Of course individuals are all different and will tolerate different levels of stress on their body but on average you would expect as players get taller (and heavier) they would be more prone to injury. Couple this with the increase in the athletic demands of the sport from the eighties (the game is a lot faster and KP players run a lot further) I would expect that a virtual cap is placed on the normal height of KPPs by physics and bio-mechanics. There will always be exceptions but when I see super talented players like Gumbleton and Patton come along at 197cm and suffer endless injuries I have to wonder if 195 is about that normal limit with only a few being able to .both effective and injury free at taller heights.

Sometimes I wonder whether those talented but injury prone players don't have the right attitude to training and recovery to build their bodies up to be able to handle the strain.

Cyril isn't the biggest fan of the training and running but Jack and he finally got a program that works and that he committed to fully look how that turned out. Or Hodge improving his diet and shedding some KGS

Some guys bodies are not going to cope with footy at AFL level and some injuries are bad luck more than anything but not everyone puts the effort required in to get the best out of themselves either.

 

[Brishawk]

Sometimes I wonder whether those talented but injury prone players don't have the right attitude to training and recovery to build their bodies up to be able to handle the strain.

Cyril isn't the biggest fan of the training and running but Jack and he finally got a program that works and that he committed to fully look how that turned out. Or Hodge improving his diet and shedding some KGS

Some guys bodies are not going to cope with footy at AFL level and some injuries are bad luck more than anything but not everyone puts the effort required in to get the best out of themselves either.

Thats true. Always though gumbleton looked a million bucks but its really hard to know.

 

[flinchfree]

Ah but you see weight and height have a non-linear interplay with gravity and the height from which you can safely fall. An Ant can fall many, many, many times its height without injury. A cat can fall from great heights many times its height and land safely. Conversely an elephant can fall much less than its height and sustain sever injury. I couldn't find it with a quick google but I am sure the relationship between height and falling distance is something like this in shape. So a small change in height/weight results in a big difference.

You would expect this relationship to hold where human beings are operating at the limits of their physical capabilities.

Of course individuals are all different and will tolerate different levels of stress on their body but on average you would expect as players get taller (and heavier) they would be more prone to injury. Couple this with the increase in the athletic demands of the sport from the eighties (the game is a lot faster and KP players run a lot further) I would expect that a virtual cap is placed on the normal height of KPPs by physics and bio-mechanics. There will always be exceptions but when I see super talented players like Gumbleton and Patton come along at 197cm and suffer endless injuries I have to wonder if 195 is about that normal limit with only a few being able to .both effective and injury free at taller heights.

Love the science.
I was at the G though to see disco alight some poor hawkers head and stand around 15ft in the air taking one of the most magnificent marks you'd ever see, and tumble safely back to earth, and he was not a light man...
Another tiger in Richo really could get up and take a fair grab in the first half dozen years of his career, though knees did haunt him a bit.
Wanted to add the fat pig Bosustow to my argument, who for much of his career could really climb for a grab and not crack the ground when he landed, but looked him up and saw he was only 183 cm. WOW???
I'm not sure I'm a full believer in your theory, with many of the names I dropped in the earlier post having long careers rising and falling for marks and smashing into packs, but remaining durable....
Some of these young players I just think have been over hyped, over trained early in their careers, not played enough seconds to develop their games and bodies, and are trying to play a tempo against hardened bodies that they just aren't ready to do.
Just because they look like they have a bit of meat on their bones, doesn't mean they're not soft and more easily hurt.
Everyone seems to want to make a call on the new 'Lebron' instead of a more realistic wait and watch approach with these kids.

 

[Gralin]

Love the science.
I was at the G though to see disco alight some poor hawkers head and stand around 15ft in the air taking one of the most magnificent marks you'd ever see, and tumble safely back to earth, and he was not a light man...
Another tiger in Richo really could get up and take a fair grab in the first half dozen years of his career, though knees did haunt him a bit.
Wanted to add the fat pig Bosustow to my argument, who for much of his career could really climb for a grab and not crack the ground when he landed, but looked him up and saw he was only 183 cm. WOW???
I'm not sure I'm a full believer in your theory, with many of the names I dropped in the earlier post having long careers rising and falling for marks and smashing into packs, but remaining durable....
Some of these young players I just think have been over hyped, over trained early in their careers, not played enough seconds to develop their games and bodies, and are trying to play a tempo against hardened bodies that they just aren't ready to do.
Just because they look like they have a bit of meat on their bones, doesn't mean their not soft and more easily hurt.
Everyone seems to want to make a call on the new 'Lebron' instead of a more realistic wait and watch approach with these kids.

Not everyone is built the same, you could have two players at the same height with different ideal playing weights based on their bodies.

Then you add in prior injuries, especially the chronic kind that need to be managed and some players will benefit from a lighter weight to take the load off.

Running is high impact, the less unnecessary weight you carry the better, some of the players from previous eras being mentioned as proof that heavy can be successful didn't tend to leave their forward 50 other than at the end of the quarter so it's not comparing apples to apples based on workload either.

The lightest you can be effective in your role isn't a bad place to start these days, developing good core and hip strength without carrying too much weight up top is good for a lot of players. Big guns don't help with most things anywhere near as much as good hip and core strength do.

On another note did anyone notice the club has dropped Roughy's weight down to 98?

 

[Stard Picket]

I wonder what Blake thinks about this

 

[Brishawk]

I wonder what Blake thinks about this

He is over 180cm with a big leap so he is in the prime height for a footballer

 

[kazzooka]

How do you think Nic Nat would do as a full time full forward, had he been coached as one?

Nic Nat doesn't have a clue so it doesn't matter what position he's coached in. However if you were to give his height, speed, strength, leap and agility to almost any other decent AFL player and they would be extremely dominant.

That being said, along with struggling to read the play, Nic Nat also struggles to Kick, mark, handball and bounce the ball convincingly. He holds the ball the same way you see the American guys hold it that have never seen the game before. Compared to someone like Hodge who looks like he's been sleeping with a sherrin in his bed his whole life. That goes a long way to being able to gather or mark the ball and quickly be able to dispose accurately of it or bounce it without losing control of the ball.

 

[grumbleguts]

Ah but you see weight and height have a non-linear interplay with gravity and the height from which you can safely fall. An Ant can fall many, many, many times its height without injury. A cat can fall from great heights many times its height and land safely. Conversely an elephant can fall much less than its height and sustain sever injury. I couldn't find it with a quick google but I am sure the relationship between height and falling distance is something like this in shape. So a small change in height/weight results in a big difference.

You would expect this relationship to hold where human beings are operating at the limits of their physical capabilities.

Of course individuals are all different and will tolerate different levels of stress on their body but on average you would expect as players get taller (and heavier) they would be more prone to injury. Couple this with the increase in the athletic demands of the sport from the eighties (the game is a lot faster and KP players run a lot further) I would expect that a virtual cap is placed on the normal height of KPPs by physics and bio-mechanics. There will always be exceptions but when I see super talented players like Gumbleton and Patton come along at 197cm and suffer endless injuries I have to wonder if 195 is about that normal limit with only a few being able to .both effective and injury free at taller heights.

It's a square cube law.
Muscle and bone strength increase by the square of an organism's size, but mass and volume increase by the cube of its size. Actually applies doubly so for falling, because a smaller animal's limbs are proportionally stronger and their increased surface area/weight ratio means they have a lower terminal velocity. The reason so many insects fly but so few larger animals do is because once you're small enough, it takes a particular anatomy to refraintaking to the air in a stiff breeze.

Which means that if dropped from very high, a human will be seriously injured and probably die, a cat would probably break a few bones, a mouse would be stunned but otherwise unharmed, and an ant wouldn't even be aware something traumatic had happened. Conversely, an elephant or a whale would splash on impact.

Once you get a handle on it, it's amazing how many things in the world are dictated by the square-cube law.

Also F = ma
a = (v2-v1)/t
so F = m(v2-v1)/t
F = (mv2-mv1)/t
The force you hit the ground with is equivalent to the change in momentum over the time it takes you to stop. Thus the heavier you are the harder you fall the faster you are moving the harder you fall. You fall faster from a great height, so the bigger you are the harder you fall.

There is a research paper written on the phenomenon here:
http://www.phys.ufl.edu/courses/phy3221/spring10/HaldaneRightSize.pdf

 

[Deleted member 170709]

Reckon my boy Blake may do a Cyril a la 2008 and play every game all the way to the granny.
Has that something dare i say special about him and tools a bit different to others on our list.
Here's hoping anyway

 

[flinchfree]

It's a square cube law.
Muscle and bone strength increase by the square of an organism's size, but mass and volume increase by the cube of its size. Actually applies doubly so for falling, because a smaller animal's limbs are proportionally stronger and their increased surface area/weight ratio means they have a lower terminal velocity. The reason so many insects fly but so few larger animals do is because once you're small enough, it takes a particular anatomy to refraintaking to the air in a stiff breeze.

Which means that if dropped from very high, a human will be seriously injured and probably die, a cat would probably break a few bones, a mouse would be stunned but otherwise unharmed, and an ant wouldn't even be aware something traumatic had happened. Conversely, an elephant or a whale would splash on impact.

Once you get a handle on it, it's amazing how many things in the world are dictated by the square-cube law.

Also F = ma
a = (v2-v1)/t
so F = m(v2-v1)/t
F = (mv2-mv1)/t
The force you hit the ground with is equivalent to the change in momentum over the time it takes you to stop. Thus the heavier you are the harder you fall the faster you are moving the harder you fall. You fall faster from a great height, so the bigger you are the harder you fall.

There is a research paper written on the phenomenon here:
http://www.phys.ufl.edu/courses/phy3221/spring10/HaldaneRightSize.pdf

Now to this you must add the immovable object meeting the irresistable force conundrum.
While the bigger you are the harder you fall may be true, as Tony Lockett proved - causing a man mountain to fall was easier said than done!
Also, might a strongly muscled player be able to ease themselves to the floor through application of resistance to gravity through the flexing of opposing force from their musculature? Holding themselves up so to speak with their strength such that the movement groundwards was slowed? Obviously not a high marking situation, but any other that resulted in them hitting the deck?
Equally, a lightly framed similarly tall person, if knocked off equilibrium by an equivalent force as the heavier player, probably falls more 'awkwardly' and without the same ability to counteract those forces, and perhaps suffers more damage when contacting the ground?

Just questions.....

 

[play2win]

He's got a pretty good vertical leap on him too. Haven't quite seen that in action yet, looking forward to it.

 

[RobHawk]

It would be interesting to dissect how Blake got his 50 plus goals at TAC level. Contested marks,from leads or from general play. Also did he give off many goals?

 

[MrPremiership]

It would be interesting to dissect how Blake got his 50 plus goals at TAC level. Contested marks,from leads or from general play. Also did he give off many goals?

alot from leading marks

 

[Gralin]

It would be interesting to dissect how Blake got his 50 plus goals at TAC level. Contested marks,from leads or from general play. Also did he give off many goals?

I heard they all came from kicking the ball through the big sticks

 

[Brant]

I heard they all came from kicking the ball through the big sticks

Reliable source?

 

[Gralin]

Reliable source?

Detailed analysis from Kingy

 

[Brant]

Detailed analysis from Kingy

Better run it past Roosy's son for verification - he's an astute watcher of the game, you know?!

 

[Gralin]

Better run it past Roosy's son for verification - he's an astute watcher of the game, you know?!

Richo backed up Kingys saying that's how he kicked most of his

 

[Brant]

Richo backed up Kingys saying that's how he kicked most of his

No doubt Brian Taylor disagreed with Richo just to wind him up...