The same bloke who believes Newton has no flaws and that Grimes has a fundamentally flawed kicking action also reckons that players of 192cm are rubbish because it's an in-between height.

sounds like hes been sprayed with agent orange.

Yep, the magic 192cm is a cliché and a running joke.

I still maintain 6cm is a decent height advantage, even if it is the length of a car key.

Let's just hope he stops there and doesn't reach the dreaded 192, or else it's curtains for Gysberts!

fantastic!

and yes 6cm is a massive height advantage. would you want a 192cm defender to be playing on a 198cm ruckman/forward when it came to one on one marking or would you want someone taller?

if you've ever tried marking over head against some 6cm taller than yourself you would realise it is a significant advantage, unless you have exceptionally long arm reach yourself...

Or you've got trampoline legs.

That added height is what makes the 'taller' forwards more effective against the likes of Dale Morris etc.

If you put together that 6cm of height plus maybe another 6 in arm length plus a possible advantage in vertical leap, then factor in the forward being in front of the defender which adds probably 5-6cm for the size of the torso and it makes it REALLY difficult to spoil someone if they're taking the ball as far away from their body as they can

why don't you try actually contributing to the discussion if you are such a smarta55 knowitall or do you just sit back and take potshots?

nobody wants to read your clever little jibes old man this site is for football discussion.

Both of your positions in this thread are nonsense:

1. "6cm doesn't matter" - all other things being equal it matters a lot, it gives a lot more options for creating mismatches or match-ups forward, mid-field and defence. If 6cm doesn't matter how come there's so few players 178cm (the average height for an Australian male) and less? Try telling Shane Valenti when you see him at TEAC Oval that being 182cm instead of 176cm wouldn't have helped him.

2. "Gysbert would have been available at 18" - The fact that we took him a 11 means that our recruiting team thought it was most likely that he wouldn't have been available at 18. Otherwise they would've taken Lucas at 11 and Gysbert at 18. I trust their judgement more than your reading of BigFooty phantoms.

If you look at MFC Yearbook 2009 list you'll find there's 3 players less than 178, one at 178 and 12 players between 178 and 184 i.e. 6cm taller than the Australian National average.

Look at it another way, if you take a point 3 cm shorter than the national average at 175 and look at players in a range 6cm around that from 172 to 178 you'll find 4 players, if you look at the point 3cm taller than the national average at 181 you'll find 13 players in the 6cm range around it. That's 13 players to 4 or 3x as many because of the 6cm that apparently doesn't matter.

If you set the point at the old 6' mark, i.e. between 182 and 183 cm you'll find 11 players on the list within 6cm below 6' and 16 within 6cm above or 1.5x as many. All things being equal - ball handling, pace, agility, endurance - it's a significant advantage to be 6cm taller.

National average of 175cm? Id expect it to be taller...interesting.... is that for Males or the overall population? Because obviously women would bring the average down?

National average of 175cm? Id expect it to be taller...interesting.... is that for Males or the overall population? Because obviously women would bring the average down?

National average 178cm for males - "3 cm shorter than the national average at 175"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/featu...6-1111115975557

Hurray for being average :D

Both of your positions in this thread are nonsense:

1. "6cm doesn't matter" - all other things being equal it matters a lot, it gives a lot more options for creating mismatches or match-ups forward, mid-field and defence. If 6cm doesn't matter how come there's so few players 178cm (the average height for an Australian male) and less? Try telling Shane Valenti when you see him at TEAC Oval that being 182cm instead of 176cm wouldn't have helped him.

2. "Gysbert would have been available at 18" - The fact that we took him a 11 means that our recruiting team thought it was most likely that he wouldn't have been available at 18. Otherwise they would've taken Lucas at 11 and Gysbert at 18. I trust their judgement more than your reading of BigFooty phantoms.

1."all other things being equal" is precisely my point if you have actually read; they aren't equal, any two players have different values in vertical leap, use of the body in contests, body strength, positioning, brains etc.. when all these factors are combined along with height the picture is much more complex than just going 188>182 and leaving it at that, hence my protest at the importance so many people place on that 3-digit number as an isolated factor

2. Youre trusting your own guesswork at why the club did what they did and know nothing more than I on the issue

You're scraping the barrel that never really contained much matter in the first place.

You're scraping the barrel that never really contained much matter in the first place.

[Abuse deleted], why dont you actually respond to the post above? if player a is inferior to player b in all those criteria/attributes but he is 6 cm taller who is the more valuable player?

1."all other things being equal" is precisely my point if you have actually read; they aren't equal, any two players have different values in vertical leap, use of the body in contests, body strength, positioning, brains etc.. when all these factors are combined along with height the picture is much more complex than just going 188>182 and leaving it at that, hence my protest at the importance so many people place on that 3-digit number as an isolated factor

But height is a determining factor, otherwise explain why there are so few players at or below the average height.

I'll give you two explanations

- the "other things" are equal across the population of players and it's their height that's the determining factor

- the "other things" are height related and therefore we're back to it's their height that's the determining factor

2. Youre trusting your own guesswork at why the club did what they did and know nothing more than I on the issue

No, Chris Connolly said on draft night that we favoured Melksham, Gysbert and Lucas at 11. If we thought Gysbert would be available at 18 we would've taken Lucas at 11 and Gysbert at 18.

But height is a determining factor, otherwise explain why there are so few players at or below the average height.

I'll give you two explanations

- the "other things" are equal across the population of players and it's their height that's the determining factor

- the "other things" are height related and therefore we're back to it's their height that's the determining factor

No, Chris Connolly said on draft night that we favoured Melksham, Gysbert and Lucas at 11. If we thought Gysbert would be available at 18 we would've taken Lucas at 11 and Gysbert at 18.

obviously getting heavily into semantics now...

we aren't really disagreeing I don't think... my point is 'you can't just look at a player's height as an isolated factor and determine him to be more valuable than a shorter player because there are a myriad of other factors in addition to height that define their overall quality' i've never said it (height) doesn't matter at all, just that it is given far too much credence because the uneducated can glance at a stat sheet and make a determination based on a 3-digit number... do you disagree with that statement?

the question on Gys is 'what would have happened if we never had pick 11 in the first place?' (read: never traded mclean)

had we had only pick 18 then Lucas, Melksham would have been gone, and according to you and others here so would Gysberts have been gone

so we would have used 18 on Tapscott... of course the Blues would have had 11 and maybe they would have taken Tapscott... who knows

the question on Gys is 'what would have happened if we never had pick 11 in the first place?' (read: never traded mclean)

had we had only pick 18 then Lucas, Melksham would have been gone, and according to you and others here so would Gysberts have been gone

so we would have used 18 on Tapscott... of course the Blues would have had 11 and maybe they would have taken Tapscott... who knows

No they wouldn't (If we didn't have pick 11). Because they clearly rated Lucas ahead of Tapscott, hence picking Lucas. The only possibility of Carlton picking someone ahead of Lucas -if that was the case- would in fact be Gysberts. No other player.

If we never had pick 11 (never traded McLean); it would remain a possibility that we could still have got Tapscott at pick 18. The likelihood is that Gysberts would have been picked up in between and may have pushed out someone else further back..ie. McMillan-Pittard; Howard; etc.

From reports Melbourne rated Tapscott as a late first round pick and expected him to go before pick 18, whether BP had him ahead of those taken by Port, WB'Dogs, Sydney, Geelong, etc...we don't know. Well, someone does.

Geezez this is what is written when there is no football

11 was an early pick and I hope we have made the right choice, we will see.

Geezez this is what is written when there is no football

11 was an early pick and I hope we have made the right choice, we will see.

Thanks for enlightening us. Perhaps you would be more interested in the Quaddie for this Saturday ?

Thanks for enlightening us. Perhaps you would be more interested in the Quaddie for this Saturday ?

Only the theatre races interest me.

Too early to say but I'm confident it will be well worth it. We got the best 2 picks with Trengove and Scully and a massive bargain with Tapscott at pick 18. These 3 players, for mine, are all but guaranteed to be future superstars. With our midfield depth now, players like McLean would be redundant in 2-3 years time, especially if playing mid was all he can do. The more I look into Gysberts the more I like, he has size, pace, models himself on Jack Grimes and can play multiple positions aside from the midfield.

And McLean wanted out, he wanted to become a Blue. Getting pick 11 for accommodating that request is a huge bonus, especially when you consider St Kilda getting nothing for Ball, Brisbane getting nothing for Bradshaw and Essendon getting nothing for McPhee.

Brock Mclean is like losing scott thompson. It will hurt and Mclean will end up one of the superstars of the comp. A future captain and sublime footskills. Something that is often rare from an inside midfielder.

Brock Mclean is like losing scott thompson. It will hurt and Mclean will end up one of the superstars of the comp. A future captain and sublime footskills. Something that is often rare from an inside midfielder.

McLean sublime footskills lol? He is a shocking kick of the football Freak even you should know that.

Brock Mclean is like losing scott thompson. It will hurt and Mclean will end up one of the superstars of the comp. A future captain and sublime footskills. Something that is often rare from an inside midfielder.

Surely you jest?

McLean sublime footskills lol? He is a shocking kick of the football Freak even you should know that.

I can't quite believe I'm agreeing with Freak but you're letting recent history cloud your view of McLean's ability.

When fit (circa '05, '06) I rated McLean as the best kick to position in the side. He was never the longest or most penetrating kick, but if he had the footy and the forwards led out to him, he would invariably put it in the right spot.

Issues with his ankle and his groin severely hampered his penetration and direction in recent seasons, much the same as Green's kicking went awry in '07 when he had a bung ankle.

I can't quite believe I'm agreeing with Freak but you're letting recent history cloud your view of McLean's ability.

When fit (circa '05, '06) I rated McLean as the best kick to position in the side. He was never the longest or most penetrating kick, but if he had the footy and the forwards led out to him, he would invariably put it in the right spot.

Issues with his ankle and his groin severely hampered his penetration and direction in recent seasons, much the same as Green's kicking went awry in '07 when he had a bung ankle.

He was often a good decision maker, but an erratic kick.

He often hurt the team with a ridiculously poor execution of a kick.

To be honest, he was never anything special. Most good teams have 3 or 4 players as good as Brock and that's not including their stars.

I'm more than content with Gysberts.

Brock Mclean is like losing scott thompson. It will hurt and Mclean will end up one of the superstars of the comp. A future captain and sublime footskills. Something that is often rare from an inside midfielder.

Good grief.

Mclean is not in Thompson's sphere and they are different players. Thompson was person critical to our performance in 2004 and when he went down injuried we floundered. Thompson was a first dibs inside footballer who used the ball well. McLean does not win enough inside football is a steak and veg. accumulator of possessions and his disposal skills are hampered by his lack of pace. The promise of future captaincy in a couple years at the end of 2006 dissolved with the middling performance over the next 3 years coupled with a body that struggled with the rigours of AFL and the demands of being a No 1 midfielder. He isnt a No 1 midfielder and he should be a more productive player amongst classier players like Judd, Murphy and Gibbs