I’m definitely not trying to be argumentative I’m trying to get my heard around your point. Is it we need height for contested marking or are we comparing mids and contested possession, the posts have changed a bit
These are the numbers for total clearances
If there’s any tendency there, it’s for traditional mid sized guys - nuggety dudes around the 5’10 - 6’1” mark (177cm-185cm).
That accounts for Cunnington Neale Kelly Boak Shuey Rockliff Parker Sheed Libba JO’M Sloane Prestia: 12 of the top 21 clearance winners (and grundy is kind of a one off)
No agree, it’s a good discussion. I just think that bigger bodied mids bring something different to the mix, particularly towards the end of games… and it’s not about being able to mark.
There’s never any substitute for being fit and skilled. But, like the old adage, everyone gets fatigued towards the end of the game but big guys don’t get any shorter. So, in the last quarter when everyone’s moving a little slower, the bigger mids still have a wider stance, a few more more kilos, to help them stand up in a tackle and get the ball away. They’ve also got longer arms and more leverage to free those arms.
Now, it’s just an opinion, but one that a lot of people and coaches clearly have because ‘big bodied midfielders’ is a term that gets brought up a lot in modern footy, where fatigue is an issue. We don’t talk about big bodied wingers or half backs because there’s relatively little contested footy played there… but big bodied mids are talked about a lot.
callan ward and Ben cunnington are both bang on 185, which isnt considered tall.
That means that 4 of the top 10 players are not considered tall Mids.
You can argue this as a theoretical point, and you’re probably right - if you have two guys of completely even ability in every other facet, the bigger one would win.
There’s just never going to be a choice between two otherwise identical players.
It doesn’t happen like that.
One of them will always be better at something, worse at something else.
I just can’t see a situation where you’d ever actually go to height and weight as the deciding factor, for a midfielder.
(Unless one of them was like 170cm. Then, well, yeah.)
So you come up with some arbitrary cut-off that 6 foot 1 is “not tall” and that’s your argument to end all arguments?
In AFL circles 185 is not considered tall these days. I think they tend to see it as tall starting around the 194 mark.
I didn’t come up with that at all,
185 cm’s is not considered tall In today’s world of “Big bodied mids”
that’s just a fact not something that I decided.
I’d say 188 and above would be considered “Big Bodied” but really most that are considered bigger are 190 and beyond.
anyway who cares its all mumbo jumbo
The discussion is about mids.
Yes I know, and that is what I am saying as well.
Average height of AFL players is about 188cm
You’ve got two or three guys above average in your top 10, and one guy who is actually tall.
Nah, fair enough…
I think we can all agree on one thing.
Darcy needs to get some heel lifts, and get onto the patended Jason Laycock sports pub parma diet pronto.
why is the discussion around clearances.
our undersized midfield has only dropped the stat once this year against freo who we beat.
clearances clearly not a problem for smaller midfield
Either is contested possession we are more than holding our own in that area too
Very good questions you raise.
Have you been doing something crazy like watching our games?
i mean unless small height correlates with our kicking efficiency im not seeing any problems
Perfect example of a great marking mid on that list with Parker. Does solitify a point that you don’t need to be a tall mid to be a good mark.
Number two turnover team in the league.
Fix that and we’re 8-3.