darknavy wrote:
I am 170 so all these guys seem tall to me
Short arse!
I'm 172cm.
| TalkingCarlton http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/ |
|
| Shortarse Mids http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=18868 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | JohnM [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Shortarse Mids |
You often hear that a player is “a good height” for a midfielder if he’s around 188-190cm. The inference obviously being that tall mids have some sort of advantage over their shorter counterparts. But I wonder. Given the fact that the importance of the contested mark has been so diminished, I wonder if height is any sort of advantage when it comes to playing in the midfield. Or, in fact, is there an advantage in having your arse closer to the ground? Here’s a list of players who are ‘only’ 180cm tall, or shorter. Not all are mids, but most are. Personally, I think that there is no disadvantage in being a small mid, and in fact these guys are probably better equipped to win the ball when it’s in dispute. So why the conventional wisdom that a tall mid is a better get than a small mid? Chris Johnson Luke Power Marc Murphy Tarkyn Lockyer Scott Camporeale Peter Bell Heath Black Josh Carr Jeff Farmer Paul Haselby Byron Schammer Gary Ablett Paul Chapman Campbell Brown Shane Crawford Sam Mitchell Shannon Grant Brent Harvey Daniel Wells Aaron Davey Nathan Jones James McDonald Byron Pickett Brett Ebert Danyle Pearce Nathan Foley Steven Baker Amon Buchanan Jared Crouch Michael Braun Ben Cousins Chad Fletcher Daniel Kerr David Wirrpanda Jason Akermanis Lindsay Gilbee Brett Montgomery Scott West Andrew McLeod (181) Scott Burns (181) Robert Harvey (181) |
|
| Author: | bluehammer [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
If you've got the ball, you look faster, taller, and stronger than your opponent. Everyone's looking for that next generation of midfielder though, similar to the Kouta phenomenon pre knee. |
|
| Author: | darknavy [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I am 170 so all these guys seem tall to me |
|
| Author: | Humpers [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Playing in the guts I don't think height is such an issue. Height gives players more versatility however as they can be played off half back in a semi defensive role or up forward as a marking option. I think one of the strong attributes of both Gibbs and Walker is their height and strength overhead. |
|
| Author: | Elwood Blues1 [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Based on the old adage a good big man will always beat a good little man.......there was an article in the papers a while back saying that smaller men have it harder in life overall and I think this is another case in point. The tall mid vs the short mid is based on this theory that you have to multi task these days and be able to play in a variety of positions.....so you get this fascination with these tall mids who can play anywhere but in most cases never specialise in a position. Greg Williams would never have played AFL footy if he had been part of todays game...would have been a draft camp failure, perceived too slow, too short etc etc....as Johns list shows there is plenty of room in the game for shorter mids and its about having a balanced lineup thats important. There will always be a place for shorter players if they have the ability........ |
|
| Author: | JohnM [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Interesting to note that Judd aside, West Coast's dominant midfield is almost exclusively shortarse. I guess the question that still interests me is: if you're exclusively a midfielder, is it actually an advantage to have your arse closer to the ground? Granted, height gives you more flexibility, but if you're a mid - can you do your job better in close if you're shorter? Most genuine mids of real quality seem to be much closer to 180 than 190. 'Doesn't matter' might well be the answer, but given that height usually is seen as a definite advantage no matter what type of player you are, I thought I'd challenge that wisdom just to see what fell out of it. |
|
| Author: | sideshow bob [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
taller guys would have more reach, coz their arms are longer? |
|
| Author: | Elwood Blues1 [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
JohnM wrote: Interesting to note that Judd aside, West Coast's dominant midfield is almost exclusively shortarse.
I guess the question that still interests me is: if you're exclusively a midfielder, is it actually an advantage to have your arse closer to the ground? Granted, height gives you more flexibility, but if you're a mid - can you do your job better in close if you're shorter? Most genuine mids of real quality seem to be much closer to 180 than 190. 'Doesn't matter' might well be the answer, but given that height usually is seen as a definite advantage no matter what type of player you are, I thought I'd challenge that wisdom just to see what fell out of it. Most of those on your list are genuine ballwinners who can get their own footy and being close to the ground must give you a definite advantage as you dont need to bend as far as the taller mids..... Being shorter I think you also depend on your skills and nous more than the bigger blokes and have them honed at an early age. I'd also like to add that young adults are much taller than they were overall from previous generations and that being 6 foot tall used to be considered the starting point for tall, its now more or less being the average height especially in sport........ |
|
| Author: | Sydney Blue [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Its only my opinion but I think because they are drafting kids at such a young age and have to spend money and time on development it is a safer bet for the recruiters to go for a taller running mid as if they don't quite make it as a mid you can always convert them into backman or flankers . Where if you go small there are only so many small forwards you can have . Short blokes need to show a lot more potential to get picked up than the taller guys |
|
| Author: | CK95 [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
darknavy wrote: I am 170 so all these guys seem tall to me
Wow, they must seem bloody young too. |
|
| Author: | camel [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
darknavy wrote: I am 170 so all these guys seem tall to me
Short arse! I'm 172cm.
|
|
| Author: | stretford blue [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
camelboy wrote: darknavy wrote: I am 170 so all these guys seem tall to me Short arse! I'm 172cm. We're talking height here, right? Aren't we? 
|
|
| Author: | moshe25 [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 1:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Shortarse Mids |
JohnM wrote: You often hear that a player is “a good height” for a midfielder if he’s around 188-190cm. The inference obviously being that tall mids have some sort of advantage over their shorter counterparts.
But I wonder. Given the fact that the importance of the contested mark has been so diminished, I wonder if height is any sort of advantage when it comes to playing in the midfield. Or, in fact, is there an advantage in having your arse closer to the ground? Here’s a list of players who are ‘only’ 180cm tall, or shorter. Not all are mids, but most are. Personally, I think that there is no disadvantage in being a small mid, and in fact these guys are probably better equipped to win the ball when it’s in dispute. So why the conventional wisdom that a tall mid is a better get than a small mid? Chris Johnson Luke Power Marc Murphy Tarkyn Lockyer Scott Camporeale ..... You lost me here....... |
|
| Author: | Crusader [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 1:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
sideshow bob wrote: taller guys would have more reach, coz their arms are longer?
Yep. Height = armspam = distance between you and the other bloke when you cave his chest in with a stiff arm. Size is relevant, but the emphasis is on getting your hands on the ball. Big blokes are able to go through their opponents (with a bump and maybe some fancy footwork) small blokes can be thumped on the head easier. |
|
| Author: | buzzaaaah [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 1:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I was actually thinking the same thing John. All elite midfielders are short. By all, I mean 90%. This fascination that Wayne Hughes with tall midfielders is interesting. We have quite a few short guys who are very good anyway ie Murphy, carazzo, Gibbs, Scotland Stevens. |
|
| Author: | Taff [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
CK95 wrote: darknavy wrote: I am 170 so all these guys seem tall to me Wow, they must seem bloody young too. They are all too bloody young! |
|
| Author: | hustla [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
buzzaaaah wrote: I was actually thinking the same thing John. All elite midfielders are short. By all, I mean 90%. This fascination that Wayne Hughes with tall midfielders is interesting. We have quite a few short guys who are very good anyway ie Murphy, carazzo, Gibbs, Scotland Stevens.
Carazzo and Gibbs are about 187, they aren't exactly short. Murphy and Stevens are around the 180 area, which is short. It's good to have a balance of short and tall mids. |
|
| Author: | bondiblue [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Good thread JohnM And a good case you put forward. I'd say: the best mid is the best mid the better mid is the better mid In all seriousness, imo, there's no doubt the shorter mids access the ground ball quicker than the taller. In addition they release the ball and execute by foot or hand quicker than taller mids. That has something to do with distance one has to travel to execute. I'm 178, and there's no doubt it was an advantage for me over taller opponents when playing in the guts or resting/ crumbing as a FP. Another advantage, and a big one at that was the number of free kicks I used to receive for over the shoulders, but moreso for hits to the head; I used to watch Rod Ashman wear a helmut, and promised myself I would do the same one day...never did though, as a hit in the head early in the game always fired me up; and played my best games. What about in wet weather; smaller man always has an advantage. Horses for courses. We need a mix of brilliant small mids, brilliant medium mids, brilliant tall mids, brilliant tall KP's and brilliant ultra tall ruckmen...as long as they are all brilliant. By George I think we've got them...bloody brilliant!....except for the ulta tall ruckman....Kruezer, Aisake Hampson will do me..they make for it with speed and athleticism. White men can jump! |
|
| Author: | AGRO [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Our famed "Mosquito Fleet" circa 79/82 were all around the 5' 10" mark or around 178cm. - Rod Ashman - Jim Buckley - Ken Sheldon - Alex Marcou - Wayne Harmes - Wayne Johnston (about 180cm) - Vin Cattogio We won 3 flags in 4 years with a nucleous of these boys - (arguably one of the best sides ever - but never got the recognition it deserved because Tom Prior (Chief Writer at The Sun) was a mad, jealous and vindictive Essendon* supporter. It wasn't till Kevin Sheedy found a way around this mosquito fleet - which was getting Steven Carey to knock out Alex Marcou (regularly  ) that sides moved from the Mosquito Fleet model and went back to tougher bigger bodied types. 
|
|
| Author: | sideshow bob [ Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
AGRO wrote: Our famed "Mosquito Fleet" circa 79/82 were all around the 5' 10" mark or around 178cm.
- Rod Ashman - Jim Buckley - Ken Sheldon - Alex Marcou - Wayne Harmes - Wayne Johnston (about 180cm) - Vin Cattogio We won 3 flags in 4 years with a nucleous of these boys - (arguably one of the best sides ever - but never got the recognition it deserved because Tom Prior (Chief Writer at The Sun) was a mad, jealous and vindictive Essendon* supporter. It wasn't till Kevin Sheedy found a way around this mosquito fleet - which was getting Steven Carey to knock out Alex Marcou (regularly ) that sides moved from the Mosquito Fleet model and went back to tougher bigger bodied types. none of them would've got a touch without Fitzy feeding them 
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC + 10 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|