Talking Carlton Index Lochie O'Brien Kerryn Harrington Lochie O'Brien Kerryn Harrington CFC Home CFC Membership CFC Shop CFC Fixture Blueseum
It is currently Sun Jun 29, 2025 2:08 am

All times are UTC + 10 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Shortarse Mids
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:11 am 
Offline
Geoff Southby

Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 1:29 pm
Posts: 5913
Location: Melbourne
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)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:43 am 
Offline
Alex Jesaulenko
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:35 am
Posts: 20258
Location: 父 父 父 父 父 父
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.

_________________
Congratulations CK95


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:58 am 
Offline
Rod Ashman
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:54 am
Posts: 2361
Location: September Baby!!!!
I am 170 so all these guys seem tall to me

_________________
Ecclesiastes 1:4, "One generation passes away, and another generation comes: but The Blues abide forever."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:08 am 
Offline
Mike Fitzpatrick

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 5:28 pm
Posts: 4953
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.

_________________
There is no footy god


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:11 am 
Offline
Mike Fitzpatrick

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:10 am
Posts: 4827
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........

_________________
"When you have the attitude of a champion, you see adversity as your
training partner."
- Conor Gillen


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:23 am 
Offline
Geoff Southby

Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 1:29 pm
Posts: 5913
Location: Melbourne
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:37 am 
Offline
Harry Vallence
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:44 pm
Posts: 1600
taller guys would have more reach, coz their arms are longer?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:41 am 
Offline
Mike Fitzpatrick

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:10 am
Posts: 4827
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........

_________________
"When you have the attitude of a champion, you see adversity as your
training partner."
- Conor Gillen


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:43 pm 
Offline
Alex Jesaulenko

Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 2:15 pm
Posts: 21594
Location: North of the border
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

_________________
If you allow the Government to change the Laws in an emergency
They will create an Emergency to change the Laws


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:44 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:06 pm
Posts: 35944
Location: Half back flank
darknavy wrote:
I am 170 so all these guys seem tall to me



Wow, they must seem bloody young too.

_________________
#DonTheStash


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:54 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:23 am
Posts: 48684
Location: Canberra
darknavy wrote:
I am 170 so all these guys seem tall to me


Short arse!

































I'm 172cm. :lol:

_________________
Click here to follow TalkingCarlton on twitter
TalkingCarlton Posting Rules


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:58 pm 
Offline
Rod Ashman
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:59 pm
Posts: 2134
Location: Feeding the ducks at the Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park
camelboy wrote:
darknavy wrote:
I am 170 so all these guys seem tall to me


Short arse!



































I'm 172cm. :lol:


We're talking height here, right? Aren't we? :shock:

_________________
In Bolts we trust.......Until we don't anymore


Last edited by stretford blue on Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Shortarse Mids
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 1:09 pm 
Offline
Vale 1953-2020
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 1:23 am
Posts: 11671
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.......


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 1:39 pm 
Offline
Craig Bradley

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 4:04 pm
Posts: 7707
Location: Bendigo
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.

_________________
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter" - Winston Churchill.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 1:57 pm 
Offline
Stephen Kernahan
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:31 am
Posts: 17893
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.

_________________
T E A M


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:02 pm 
Offline
John Nicholls
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:22 pm
Posts: 9603
Location: Beijing
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!

_________________
"our electorate seeks less to be informed and more to be validated." Sad times.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:23 pm 
Offline
Harry Vallence
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 12:20 pm
Posts: 1086
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.

_________________
"You're not gonna believe this. The guy killed 16 czechoslovakians. He was an interior decorator."

"His house looked like shit!"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:24 pm 
Offline
Stephen Silvagni

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 11:03 am
Posts: 25447
Location: Bondi Beach
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!

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:35 pm 
Offline
Alex Jesaulenko
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:00 pm
Posts: 24650
Location: Kaloyasena
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 :roll: ) that sides moved from the Mosquito Fleet model and went back to tougher bigger bodied types. :evil:

_________________
"Hence you will not say that Greeks fight like heroes but that heroes fight like Greeks"?

Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:41 pm 
Offline
Harry Vallence
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:44 pm
Posts: 1600
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 :roll: ) that sides moved from the Mosquito Fleet model and went back to tougher bigger bodied types. :evil:


none of them would've got a touch without Fitzy feeding them :)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC + 10 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group