TalkingCarlton :: View topic - Are we big enough?

After 2006 nearly all the Geelong players were told to lose 3 or 4 kilos each as the muscle they were carrying slowed them down too much. They've hardly lost since.

I had the same opinion but after the weekend I had to question it. If you saw guys like Grigg standing next to Dayne Beams who is in his first year and was easily more muscular than him.

Even at AFL level our guys were getting pushed off the ball when the game was played in close.

It's core strength that makes the likes of Ablett and Judd hard to stick tackles on, and neither of them are particularly bulky.

I think we appear lighter too, but that stats suggest otherwise;

Carl ave ht: 189.07cm ave wt: 87.73kg
Coll ave ht: 188.07cm ave wt: 88.10kg
Gee ave ht: 188.52cm ave wt: 89.18kg *they have about 6 more players then anyone else so this may include rookies meaning they are even heavier then this
St Kilda ave ht: 188.31cm ave wt: 86.44kg
WB ave ht: 188.55kg ave wt: 86.76kg
Haw ave ht: 188.26kg ave wt: 89.15kg

Thats is for the entire senior lists, I think you will find that Gee, Haw, St Kilda's best 22 would be significantly heavier then us

Wojee wrote:

It's core strength that makes the likes of Ablett and Judd hard to stick tackles on, and neither of them are particularly bulky.

Exactly - what is under the shorts that matters... a big core...

Juddanaught09 wrote:

If you did a BMI analysis comparing Carlton's top 25 with Geelong's you'd probably find a significant difference

The glaring thing that stands out for me when I get close to the players is how skinny our side is especially our legs and core. Every player we have has effectively developed chicken legs! Even Hampson who is one tall unit looks like a twig up close. Grigg looked anemic on the weekend.

Judd will never be massive and is a running player, Gibbs and Murphy are still developing. I was surprised how light Russell was. Even Joey who I have seen since juniors is so much lighter than when he arrived. The more seasoned guys such as Hadley & Bannister have definitely trimmed down and in Hadley's case is has effected him. He is getting pushed around too much.

To me its a concern when we get to finals as these games are just a physical crash and bash.

I know we employed Justin Cordy who has an excellent reputation in the AFL and has definitely improved our conditioning but are we too light on? Are we trying to support our possession style game? What is trying to be achieved?

aramari wrote:

Juddanaught09 wrote:

If you did a BMI analysis comparing Carlton's top 25 with Geelong's you'd probably find a significant difference

yeah... thats what i said... sorta... :lol:

I must admit it is a bit frustrating that someone like Nathan Brown (Coll) who has been in the system for only a couple of years already looks to be more physically developed then Bower, Jamo, Austin, etc. However it does take time to put on weight, Fev at 21 was a stick compared to what he is now.

I know weight is only a small part of the total package, but i still wouldnt mind having one of our boys fill out to become a really big defender to take the power forwards of the competition.

Author:	ThePsychologist [ Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:45 am ]
Post subject:	Are we big enough?
I will premept any comments by saying I am not an expert in fitness or weights etc. Over this season I have seen a lot of football live and have had the oportunity to be in the rooms of several games. The glaring thing that stands out for me when I get close to the players is how skinny our side is especially our legs and core. Every player we have has effectively developed chicken legs! Even Hampson who is one tall unit looks like a twig up close. Grigg looked anemic on the weekend. After being at the Bullants game at the weekend it confirmed it for me. Looking closely at a lot of the C'wood listed players they were so much more muscular in the legs and upper body. Several weeks ago I was in the rooms for a Geelong game and these guys are just muscle on muscle. The difference in body size is amazing. The have tree trunks for legs and massive biceps and are so strong around the trunk. Is there a reason? Are we trying something different? Do we believe the game should be played a different way? IMO the games against Sydney, Hawthorn & Adelaide we were physically beaten around the ball. One on one we were thrashed. Judd will never be massive and is a running player, Gibbs and Murphy are still developing. I was surprised how light Russell was. Even Joey who I have seen since juniors is so much lighter than when he arrived. The more seasoned guys such as Hadley & Bannister have definitely trimmed down and in Hadley's case is has effected him. He is getting pushed around too much. To me its a concern when we get to finals as these games are just a physical crash and bash. I know we employed Justin Cordy who has an excellent reputation in the AFL and has definitely improved our conditioning but are we too light on? Are we trying to support our possession style game? What is trying to be achieved?

Author:	brazilbeliever [ Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:57 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Are we big enough?
We are definately light ... but I attribute that to our age ... men do not fill out properly in thier teens and early twenties, give them 2-3 years and there will be a massive difference! It has been very noticable how light framed we are but I am sure the problem is being addressed but will take quite a while from here. Look at it thuis way ... once this young team develops (and it will pretty much be all at once ) we are gonna be awesome ... given the right coaching and gameplan of course

Author:	ThePsychologist [ Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:10 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Are we big enough?
I had the same opinion but after the weekend I had to question it. If you saw guys like Grigg standing next to Dayne Beams who is in his first year and was easily more muscular than him. Even at AFL level our guys were getting pushed off the ball when the game was played in close.

Author:	TheGame [ Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:14 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Are we big enough?
After 2006 nearly all the Geelong players were told to lose 3 or 4 kilos each as the muscle they were carrying slowed them down too much. They've hardly lost since.

Author:	Megaman [ Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:26 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Are we big enough?
TheGame wrote: After 2006 nearly all the Geelong players were told to lose 3 or 4 kilos each as the muscle they were carrying slowed them down too much. They've hardly lost since. But even their midgets still dwarf most of our guys

TalkingCarlton http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/

Are we big enough? http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=24972	Page 1 of 2

Author:	TheGame [ Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:45 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Are we big enough?
I don't see any problem, Judd might not have Ben Cousins' biceps but he's a hell of a lot stronger than him or anyone else for that matter at winning the contested footy.

Author:	aramari [ Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:29 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Are we big enough?
ThePsychologist wrote: I had the same opinion but after the weekend I had to question it. If you saw guys like Grigg standing next to Dayne Beams who is in his first year and was easily more muscular than him. Even at AFL level our guys were getting pushed off the ball when the game was played in close. I must say that surprises me - Beams is quite solid for a kid, but Grigg last year was assuming tank-like proportions, thought he has fined down somewhat this year. You'd think that if we have focussed on speed and running, that the coaches and players would focus on using that during games.

Author:	Wojee [ Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:07 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Are we big enough?
It's core strength that makes the likes of Ablett and Judd hard to stick tackles on, and neither of them are particularly bulky.

Author:	bosman [ Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:09 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Are we big enough?
Wojee wrote: It's core strength that makes the likes of Ablett and Judd hard to stick tackles on, and neither of them are particularly bulky. Exactly - what is under the shorts that matters... a big core...

Author:	TheBluesMuse [ Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:33 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Are we big enough?
We do have some chicken legs like Bower, Grigg, Hampson, Thornton, Waite but then if you look at Austin he's got huge thighs in comparison....I just think we have more guys on the list where chicken legs are a part of their shape and less guys like Murph and Austin with tanky legs.

Author:	Gilly34 [ Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:38 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Are we big enough?
I'm going to start the recruit more tanklegs bandwagon

Author:	Virgin Blue [ Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:55 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Are we big enough?
I dunno about the rest of you but ...

Author:	Juddanaught09 [ Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:17 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Are we big enough?
I think we appear lighter too, but that stats suggest otherwise; Carl ave ht: 189.07cm ave wt: 87.73kg Coll ave ht: 188.07cm ave wt: 88.10kg Gee ave ht: 188.52cm ave wt: 89.18kg *they have about 6 more players then anyone else so this may include rookies meaning they are even heavier then this St Kilda ave ht: 188.31cm ave wt: 86.44kg WB ave ht: 188.55kg ave wt: 86.76kg Haw ave ht: 188.26kg ave wt: 89.15kg Thats is for the entire senior lists, I think you will find that Gee, Haw, St Kilda's best 22 would be significantly heavier then us

Author:	MIL [ Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:52 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Are we big enough?
Juddanaught09 wrote: I think we appear lighter too, but that stats suggest otherwise; Carl ave ht: 189.07cm ave wt: 87.73kg Coll ave ht: 188.07cm ave wt: 88.10kg Gee ave ht: 188.52cm ave wt: 89.18kg *they have about 6 more players then anyone else so this may include rookies meaning they are even heavier then this St Kilda ave ht: 188.31cm ave wt: 86.44kg WB ave ht: 188.55kg ave wt: 86.76kg Haw ave ht: 188.26kg ave wt: 89.15kg Thats is for the entire senior lists, I think you will find that Gee, Haw, St Kilda's best 22 would be significantly heavier then us So, we're taller and heavier than the Aints at last !! So looking forward to brushing them aside for a change !!

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC + 10 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Kaptain Kouta [ Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Are we big enough?
bosman wrote: Wojee wrote: It's core strength that makes the likes of Ablett and Judd hard to stick tackles on, and neither of them are particularly bulky. Exactly - what is under the shorts that matters... a big core... As in "Corrr Blimey!"

Author:	aramari [ Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:58 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Are we big enough?
Juddanaught09 wrote: I think we appear lighter too, but that stats suggest otherwise; Carl ave ht: 189.07cm ave wt: 87.73kg Coll ave ht: 188.07cm ave wt: 88.10kg Gee ave ht: 188.52cm ave wt: 89.18kg *they have about 6 more players then anyone else so this may include rookies meaning they are even heavier then this St Kilda ave ht: 188.31cm ave wt: 86.44kg WB ave ht: 188.55kg ave wt: 86.76kg Haw ave ht: 188.26kg ave wt: 89.15kg Thats is for the entire senior lists, I think you will find that Gee, Haw, St Kilda's best 22 would be significantly heavier then us If you did a BMI analysis comparing Carlton's top 25 with Geelong's you'd probably find a significant difference

Author:	Juddanaught09 [ Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:18 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Are we big enough?
aramari wrote: Juddanaught09 wrote: I think we appear lighter too, but that stats suggest otherwise; Carl ave ht: 189.07cm ave wt: 87.73kg Coll ave ht: 188.07cm ave wt: 88.10kg Gee ave ht: 188.52cm ave wt: 89.18kg *they have about 6 more players then anyone else so this may include rookies meaning they are even heavier then this St Kilda ave ht: 188.31cm ave wt: 86.44kg WB ave ht: 188.55kg ave wt: 86.76kg Haw ave ht: 188.26kg ave wt: 89.15kg Thats is for the entire senior lists, I think you will find that Gee, Haw, St Kilda's best 22 would be significantly heavier then us If you did a BMI analysis comparing Carlton's top 25 with Geelong's you'd probably find a significant difference yeah... thats what i said... sorta... I must admit it is a bit frustrating that someone like Nathan Brown (Coll) who has been in the system for only a couple of years already looks to be more physically developed then Bower, Jamo, Austin, etc. However it does take time to put on weight, Fev at 21 was a stick compared to what he is now. I know weight is only a small part of the total package, but i still wouldnt mind having one of our boys fill out to become a really big defender to take the power forwards of the competition.

Author:	Melvey [ Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:56 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Are we big enough?
We went up against the crows last week who had as many kids as us but there's seem to be bigger than ours.

Author:	jimmae [ Mon Jun 01, 2009 5:11 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Are we big enough?
ThePsychologist wrote: The glaring thing that stands out for me when I get close to the players is how skinny our side is especially our legs and core. Every player we have has effectively developed chicken legs! Even Hampson who is one tall unit looks like a twig up close. Grigg looked anemic on the weekend. Hampson is still developing, and has had skinny calves (note: not thighs) since his junior days. Some people are just built like this, and it takes time to develop that lower leg such that it can support the larger frame being built upon it. Some never get it right. As for assessing the core, are you walking around near the boys while they're shirtless? I hope you're not using the Melvey approach of looking at their jumpers. Or boys shrug plenty of tackles, which is a fair indication of core strength. On the other hand, they also go to ground a fair bit, but this is definitely up on previous years outside of the youth movement. Quote: Judd will never be massive and is a running player, Gibbs and Murphy are still developing. I was surprised how light Russell was. Even Joey who I have seen since juniors is so much lighter than when he arrived. The more seasoned guys such as Hadley & Bannister have definitely trimmed down and in Hadley's case is has effected him. He is getting pushed around too much. Judd would weigh around 90 kilos. He ran around at about 85 at West Coast. That's light for a medium/tall midfielder. Gibbs wouldn't be too far behind him at this point, and Murphy is every bit of Cousins, to borrow an example you used. Hadley has definitely slimmed down, but not particularly on last year. Perhaps the goal is to strip down the weight, get his groin and knee right, work his fitness levels back up, then focus on getting the weight back on? This would make logical sense. He was a bio-mechanical mess this time last year. Bannister could stand to lose a few kilos considering that he is not a CHB like he tried to play as in the VFL the last couple of years. Grigg is an example worth looking over. Here's some photos. August '08 Jan '09 Feb '09 NAB Cup 2009 Rd 1 Looks bigger to me. Has no doubt slimmed down a bit since pre-season, given the focus has probably shifted from weights to running a bit. Will be a huge unit soon. Quote: To me its a concern when we get to finals as these games are just a physical crash and bash. That is a fair and reasonable view to hold, but I'm not seeing the evidence. I suggest trawling through unclejohn's training photo albums and gathering some clear evidence of body mass being shed by developing players. I've had a glance through a history of Joey's frame and he has not done anything except put on body mass through his history at the club. Of late, he's put on a fair bit through the shoulders and traps. Quote: I know we employed Justin Cordy who has an excellent reputation in the AFL and has definitely improved our conditioning but are we too light on? Are we trying to support our possession style game? What is trying to be achieved? I think we're trying to be a running team at this stage. We certainly put a lot of effort into our play which is demanding in both the running and physical pressure aspect. Perhaps your issues lie more with a lack of big, physical players coming through at present. I think this is a fair concern, but there are certainly some types like Austin, Hampson, Kreuzer, Jacobs, Warnock and Stanton, all 21 and under who can develop into this types to take the mantle from guys like Fev & Waite. On the midfield side of things, there are guys like Browne, Robinson, Joseph, Walker, Hill, Grigg, O'Keefe & Russell who will supplant guys like Scotland, Stevens, Carrazzo & Wiggins. Give it a little more time before you question what's going on. I think we're focussing on getting the engines revving while we whack only a few extras on the chassis.

Author:	aramari [ Mon Jun 01, 2009 5:24 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Are we big enough?
Juddanaught09 wrote: aramari wrote: Juddanaught09 wrote: I think we appear lighter too, but that stats suggest otherwise; Carl ave ht: 189.07cm ave wt: 87.73kg Coll ave ht: 188.07cm ave wt: 88.10kg Gee ave ht: 188.52cm ave wt: 89.18kg *they have about 6 more players then anyone else so this may include rookies meaning they are even heavier then this St Kilda ave ht: 188.31cm ave wt: 86.44kg WB ave ht: 188.55kg ave wt: 86.76kg Haw ave ht: 188.26kg ave wt: 89.15kg Thats is for the entire senior lists, I think you will find that Gee, Haw, St Kilda's best 22 would be significantly heavier then us If you did a BMI analysis comparing Carlton's top 25 with Geelong's you'd probably find a significant difference yeah... thats what i said... sorta... I must admit it is a bit frustrating that someone like Nathan Brown (Coll) who has been in the system for only a couple of years already looks to be more physically developed then Bower, Jamo, Austin, etc. However it does take time to put on weight, Fev at 21 was a stick compared to what he is now. I know weight is only a small part of the total package, but i still wouldnt mind having one of our boys fill out to become a really big defender to take the power forwards of the competition. Brown was big to start with. He was also a top 10 pick from memory, our young KPs are all later picks, Bower at 20ish the highest pick of the lot.