We become what we listen to.
I realise that this is largely a silly question - but the answer is - because you have āgroundā to help you move laterally. Unless you have wings, the same doesnāt apply upwards.
1 Like
Except itās not.
Itās a vague correlation, at best, and probably not even that.
Otherwise the tallest person in the world would be the strongest person in the world. Itās just not that simple.
If you want to measure strength, measure strength.
If you want to measure muscle cross section, measure that.
Extrapolating based on height is not much more than guesswork.
But reach is not height. You donāt mark the ball with the top of your head.
Again, thereās some sort of a correlation, but clubs actually can, and do, just measure reach, rather than guess - which seems to be what youāre suggesting.
Yesā¦ add the larger stride across that ground that a taller player has to his extra reach and you have a guy that can cover more a bit more ground laterally than a shorter bloke - useful for laying a tackleā¦ not everythingā¦ Smith a case in point.
This post and the one before donāt make senseā¦ you need more pills.
Yes, of course lifting weights and other genetics would play no part in determining thisā¦ fark meā¦ what a thread. Iām done here - feel dirty for participating.
Youāre right - itās a pretty silly argument 
1 Like
Yeah, Iām a numptyā¦
āSimple biomechanicsā was your story, not mine!
Fark meā¦ Iāll just leave this here, shall I?
I think the definition or idea of a ābig bodied midā can be misunderstood a bit. In my mind itās not necessarily the height of the player, itās the strength and aggressive style of the player. A player like Jack Viney would be perfect for our needs but heās only listed as 1.78m. While a player like Bontempelli is 1.92m yet isnāt overly different to Heppell. Plus one could argue D.Shiel is the closest comparison to Dangerfield in the league. You could argue that we already have 2 big bodies in Heppell and Shiel. But in my opinion I think itās a better description that we would like a āstrong aggressive brute type midfielderā. One who is better than D.Myers and much more aggressive and physical than Langford.
In a perfect world I wish we did have a quality big bodied brute mid like Wines, Cripps, Viney & Oliver but they just donāt grow on trees. We had a crack at Hopper a couple years ago who would have been perfect but it wasnāt to be. I donāt think we necessarily need one of these players given our current midfield group is good enough to be the best in the comp already. Itās about winning contested ball and clearances and we have Shiel, Heppell and Merrett who are all elite in this area.
However Iām sure Dodoro will be looking for ways to give our entire group that perfect balance. So I hope he can potentially sniff out a opportunity to get a player like this for cheap e.g. Will Brodie from GC, a Matt Crouch type with our 2nd round picks.
1 Like
Steve Copping.
Now there was a case of arms vs height.
1 Like
1400s science is the best science
1 Like
From NHS Procedure for Measuring Height 2016
You are a very special kind of simple, Henryā¦ now go away.
I still donāt know what point you are actually making.
If you want to measure reach, you can measure reach.
If you want to measure strength, you can measure strength (or at least muscle CSA which is a much closer guide than limb length).
I know some exercise & sports scientists very well, and this is literally everyday stuff for them.
In what situation would a club ever need to extrapolate it, based on semi-linked measurements?
Iām more fascinated in what seems to be the fact that your arms get relatively shorter the taller you areā¦?
Aahā¦ the point I made was in my post, was repeated, and is quite clear.
āHeight usually means more weight, bigger quads, longer arms, longer strides etcā¦ all pretty useful for a midfielderā¦ Not the be all and end allā¦ but useful.ā
It would be pretty clear to anyone not caught up in trying to prove there is only aā¦
ā¦between height and those things Iāve pointed out.
Of course there are more accurate measures of strength, reach etcā¦ never said otherwise. Youāre reframing the discussion because thatās what certain types of people do to try and āwinā an argument.
I visit Blitz to get a different perspective on the club and on footyā¦ and to get challenged by intelligent posters. Sorry mate, but youāre not one of them. Iāve resolved to make this my last response to you - I get nothing but word salad from your posts - suggest you do likewise and that we go our separate ways.
So why on earth would you go by āusuallyā, when itās very easy to actually find out conclusively?
Itās like saying āthe weatherās usually rainy this time of yearā, and dressing accordingly, rather than looking out a window or looking at a forecast.
Itās technically correct, but whatās the point? (He says, having expended about an hour and a few hundred words arguing with a random on the internet! 
)