North don’t have any dangerous smalls
Butters and rozee and brayshaw and serong are two of their 3 centre square mids. It’s one of the reasons port get done over in finals every year. They don’t have the big and strong, tall contested mids of any quality like the other contenders.
bobby hill said in interview after game that mcgrath is the hardest matchup in afl
2 Likes
Wines and Drew. JHF is a bull even if he’s not super tall.
1 Like
Wines is near cooked and drew is a battler. The lions had the same issue before they brought in dunkley.
None of Drew, Wines, Rozee of JHF are ‘overly small’. In fact their midfield is not the reason they haven’t won finals - they don’t have enough quality in the peripheral and KPP roles.
Again, none of Brayshaw (185), Johnson (193), O’Driscoll (188), O’Meara (184), Sharp (189) or Young (189) are overly small.
And if you add Fyfe and Erasmus as potential mids, it’s fair to say Freo actually have a big midfield.
3 Likes
Been some good midget mids in grand finals too - like Shuey and Ashcroft winning Normies.
1 Like
Good example: Caddy’s centring kick Friday led to a goal to Pies.
If we don’t play with aggression always be mid table team.
I’m surprised brayshaw is that tall he looks tiny and rozee is very slight. Your 185cm would be getting closer to your standard mid size these days though wouldn’t it?
None of them listed are your quality 188-195cm mids that break tackles, stand up in tackles, take overhead marks in finals footy though. If either of them added a quality player like that, i reckon they’d actually contend. Similar to the dees having petracca and oliver dominating in their flag year, the pies adding de goey into their midfield, the swans getting heeney into the centre and the lions adding dunkley in, it elevated those clubs to a gf or flag. Just a belief of mine that you need at least one star taller mid in your mix to win a flag.
1 Like
That’s fair enough if you think they’re not good enough, but they are big enough.
Your point about big mids needing to be stars is about quality rather than size (albeit, you are discussing the combination of size and quality).
I would say Adelaide are an example of what you mean - they’ve got quality but apart from Dawson are all quite small. Gold Coast a bit similar which might prove a limiting factor for them. North too are largely small through the middle.
And of course we are the poster club for small midfielders.
Yeah i acknowledge my point may have been confusing. Dawson is a quality bigger mid but if he got injured they’d be in trouble.
The suns midfield i haven’t rated previously despite the names in there, but it’s better now with Humphrey finally going in. I thought it was too predictable in the past with the same 3 always fronting up. Anderson is an example of a guy that’s actually tall, but doesn’t play tall.
It’s more those guys that can stand up in and/or break tackles in the finals heat and even take overhead marks which helps through the midfield. I can’t think of a premier in the last 10 years that hasn’t had one or more of these types, i think the hawks would be the last team in about 2015.
1 Like
Heeneys 185cm
1 Like
He looks good when he’s not under any pressure. Does he win any contested possessions? Or is that something he needs to work on?
He’s a great mark though, plays tall.
Most overrated consideration on Blitz. It really doesn’t make much of a difference if someone is 18 or 17 1/2 in their draft year.
Like this kid, give him a couple of preseason a to bulk up and get fitter
It actually does. There are several examples of where the age cut off has a huge bearing on who makes it to the next level. At younger ages players born earlier in the yearly cycle are likely to get more opportunities due to physical advantages which means they get better access to coaching etc.
The relative age effect has been found to exist in many youth sport settings.
Malcolm Gladwell, in his book “Outliers – The Story of Success” examines the issue, citing Canadian youth ice hockey, where we learn the eligibility cut-off date is 1 January.
He says:
“A boy who turns 10 on January 2, then, could be playing alongside someone who doesn’t turn 10 until the end of the year – and at that age, in preadolescence, a twelve-month gap in age represents an enormous gap in physical maturity.”
It makes sense. The earlier-born athletes, benefiting from the critical extra months of growth and development. will have an obvious advantage in sports that require speed, strength and coordination.
5 Likes
Not sure why you are quoting something about 10 year olds?
I’d certainly agree physical maturation in youth sports is a huge consideration. As kids can hit puberty 3 or 4 years apart. This is going to have a much larger bearing than a few months age difference.
If it does make a significant difference it would be really easy to determine. Just have a look at the birth month of all draftees across all drafts. If it makes a difference it will be evident in where they are drafted there. My guess is there’s a difference and it is minor.
Ten years of age is really when most sports start to grade team and pick on merit rather than participation. Therefore those physically more mature are likely to get better coaching etc. A few months at from younger ages through puberty and beyond can a huge difference in terms physical size and development which means they get more opportunities.
The number of draftees for AFL born earlier in the year is greater than those born in November and December.
Interestingly those drafted with later birthdays average more games in their careers
5 Likes
So basically as I said. There’s a difference, but it’s minor.
But also, this really doesn’t address my point.
This is talking about the likelihood of someone being drafted based on their birth month. Whereas, I’m talking about taking someone who has already been drafted, who supposedly has upside from there going forwards over their counterparts, because they were born in December.