I was watching Geelong v Hawthorn on Sunday and thinking about how physically strong Geelong have been over the last three years. How they have been able to brush other teams aside with their strength. This was also true of Brisbane in their hayday and the Weagles. I averaged Geelong's heights and weights from Sunday's game.

Average height - 188.5 cm

Average weight - 87.3 kg

Average age - 26.2 yrs

Average games - 124

Melbourne on Saturday, by contrast had the following stats:

Average height - 186 cm

Average weight - 84 kg

Average age - 23.5 yrs

Average games - 62

Stats and averages can be very misleading, and we've heard all of these before but it is interesting to note that we look smaller because we are. Not rocket surgery I know, but we are a full inch shorter in the old money, and 3.3 kg lighter. If you take young Stephen Motlopp, who played very little part in what was his first game, out of Geelong's averages, then their weight goes up to 88.2 kg! By the same token, if you take JMac out of the Dees figures then our average games goes down to 53.

It all points to the fact that we probably can't really be a genuine contender for two years.

Oh....and before anybody says it, my name is not Captain Obvious.

One thing that those stats don't take into account is the extra endurance and speed that being lighter can give you. We saw what Essendon were able to do against Geelong with a fast, running game-plan, so I think that there is room for smaller, lighter players in the AFL just as long as they are used correctly, and their strengths enhanced rather than exposed.

With respect to height - we swapped Bartram in for Spencer at the last minute, Bail came in for Rivers and we had 1 KPF (Newton) in the team (eg. swap Newton (1 KPF) for Jurrah and Watts (2KPFs)). Then consider the extra weight these taller players would carry. We're not actually that much lighter or shorter than Geelong with our preferred team on the park... But weight doesn't equate necessarily to physical strength/power and presence/intimidation out on the field.

But regardless, I see your point.

There may be another stat that has more bearing on our performance in the short term.

Against Hawthorn we had 87 interchanges, the lowest in round one according to Gary Lyon on Footy Clasifieds.

Come round 2 we lead the league with 138 interchanges. I'm not sure why the number of interchanges increased or whether it's a significant reason for the improvement, but the club seemed to make a special effort to work the bench.

It's a funny stat. At some point clubs must reach a limit unless they get clever and increase the number of interchange players. We could end up like Gridiron with a Defensive team, an offensive team, and a safety team. No thanks!

I have heard that it improves the players recovery time - they get a better rest on the bounday than in the forward pocket. Any other reasons?

  On 07/04/2010 at 09:44, DirtyDees DDC said:

There may be another stat that has more bearing on our performance in the short term.

Against Hawthorn we had 87 interchanges, the lowest in round one according to Gary Lyon on Footy Clasifieds.

Come round 2 we lead the league with 138 interchanges. I'm not sure why the number of interchanges increased or whether it's a significant reason for the improvement, but the club seemed to make a special effort to work the bench.

It's a funny stat. At some point clubs must reach a limit unless they get clever and increase the number of interchange players. We could end up like Gridiron with a Defensive team, an offensive team, and a safety team. No thanks!

I have heard that it improves the players recovery time - they get a better rest on the bounday than in the forward pocket. Any other reasons?

I think what contributed but not the cause was when Bate went off (when Miller collided with him) & when Green left the field. That would have slowed the interchange numbers. Just a theory, none the less, looks like close to 50 interchanges helped against the pies.

  On 07/04/2010 at 09:44, DirtyDees DDC said:

Any other reasons?

The reasons I can see are messing up other teams' match-ups, reducing injuries, using different players' strengths at different times, and so on. Another thing they mentioned on one of those footy programs on Monday night was the fact that often the head coach doesn't micro-manage the bench to that extent. Sometimes it is the doctors or the other guys on the boundary. Sometimes - rare as it is - a player even wants to come off the ground, for whatever reason.

While on the bench they get to have a leg rub, a power drink, a chat to a specialist coach, a zone-out and a parade in front of adoring fans... beats going to a forward pocket and having to take a speccie or kick a banana!

  On 07/04/2010 at 09:55, Chook said:

The reasons I can see are messing up other teams' match-ups, reducing injuries, using different players' strengths at different times, and so on. Another thing they mentioned on one of those footy programs on Monday night was the fact that often the head coach doesn't micro-manage the bench to that extent. Sometimes it is the doctors or the other guys on the boundary. Sometimes - rare as it is - a player even wants to come off the ground, for whatever reason.

So when does this get organised? Is there an interchange roster drawn up before the game commences or do the players respond to commands from the runner?

I had the feeling that players left the ground at certain stages of the game, such as after a goal is scored or if the ball crosses the boundary line near the interchange bench. It also seems to be used to free up a player and create a target on the wing.

  On 07/04/2010 at 10:12, DirtyDees DDC said:

So when does this get organised? Is there an interchange roster drawn up before the game commences or do the players respond to commands from the runner?

I had the feeling that players left the ground at certain stages of the game, such as after a goal is scored or if the ball crosses the boundary line near the interchange bench. It also seems to be used to free up a player and create a target on the wing.

I reckon all of these things happen. There's certainly some sort of coach-directed schedule that's written up before the game, but it would be used more as general guideline than actual rule. All of the above circumstances would probably mess this roster up if there is one, though, as I would think they take precedence over anything drawn-up pre-game.

Stats are boring. Ask Cricket.

  On 08/04/2010 at 02:31, nostradeemus said:

Stats are boring. Ask Cricket.

Stats are boring. Ask Baseball.

  On 07/04/2010 at 09:55, Chook said:

Sometimes - rare as it is - a player even wants to come off the ground, for whatever reason.

Nathan Thompson playing for Kangaroos vs Melbourne a few years ago a perfect case in point. The game was there to be won, he'd been

killing us earlier in the game, and he put his hand up saying he wanted to go off in the heat of battle. Copped a rightful caning for

his decision too.

  On 08/04/2010 at 03:30, DemonDave said:

Nathan Thompson playing for Kangaroos vs Melbourne a few years ago a perfect case in point. The game was there to be won, he'd been

killing us earlier in the game, and he put his hand up saying he wanted to go off in the heat of battle. Copped a rightful caning for

his decision too.

That's actually the example I was thinking of when I wrote that. We won by three points after a poor start to the year, and you can pretty much guarantee we would have lost if he had've stayed on.