Saw this article a while ago and thought it was interesting to note the difference between the clubs with regard to height. 

For example, MFC have 13 players on our list above 190cm (~6"3') whereas Collingwood and Essendon have 22. Obviously this means we have more players in the 180-190 category.  What do people think are the reasons for this difference and is it to do with our gamestyle?  One things is that teams would usually have more developing rucks and key back/fwds then we do. I guess this is a bit of risk or perhaps this is strategic and we are planning on trading in key talls like Preuss and May as drafting talls is risky

on the other hand, our big group of 180-190cms players gives us an advantage particularly in the midfield

interested in people's thoughts....

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-11-30/the-long-and-short-of-it-how-the-bombers-measure-up-in-2019

How teams stack up in 2019

Players 179cm or shorter
8 – Essendon, Fremantle
7 – Richmond
5 – Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane, Collingwood
4 – Carlton, Port Adelaide, St Kilda
3 – Geelong, Gold Coast, GWS, Hawthorn, Western Bulldogs
2 – Sydney, West Coast, North Melbourne

180-189cm
28 - North Melbourne
26 – Western Bulldogs
25 – Sydney, Hawthorn, Gold Coast
24 – Geelong, Melbourne, Port Adelaide, West Coast
23 – GWS, St Kilda
22 – Adelaide
20 – Brisbane
19 – Carlton, Collingwood, Richmond
18 – Fremantle
16 – Essendon

190-199cm
17 – Collingwood, Essendon
16 – West Coast
15 – Carlton, GWS, Richmond, Sydney
14 – Brisbane, Geelong, Hawthorn
13 – Fremantle
12 – Adelaide, Gold Coast, Western Bulldogs, Port Adelaide, St Kilda
11 – Melbourne
9 – North Melbourne

200cm+
6 – Brisbane, Carlton, Port Adelaide, St Kilda
5 – Adelaide, Collingwood, Fremantle, Gold Coast, North Melbourne*, Essendon* 
4 – Geelong, Sydney
3 – GWS, Hawthorn, West Coast, Western Bulldogs
2 – Melbourne, Richmond

Height matters little if you can't mark or convert into goals or aren't strong enough to out-muscle an opponent whether you are forward or back. A slightly shorter player might be stronger and have a better leap or be more mobile or have more endurance. Pure height is not necessarily an advantage.

depends what position you use in my experience.

The six foot running midfielder was a few years back picked to be the player of the future.

It doesn't seem to have panned out that way.

Others may have better theories but I suspect the pace of the game is all about running to space which can be done by players of any height. Similarly the ability to run and spoil can be achieved by shorter players.

Interesting discussion.

50 minutes ago, DubDee said:

Saw this article a while ago and thought it was interesting to note the difference between the clubs with regard to height. 

For example, MFC have 13 players on our list above 190cm (~6"3') whereas Collingwood and Essendon have 22. Obviously this means we have more players in the 180-190 category.  What do people think are the reasons for this difference and is it to do with our gamestyle?  One things is that teams would usually have more developing rucks and key back/fwds then we do. I guess this is a bit of risk or perhaps this is strategic and we are planning on trading in key talls like Preuss and May as drafting talls is risky

on the other hand, our big group of 180-190cms players gives us an advantage particularly in the midfield

interested in people's thoughts....

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-11-30/the-long-and-short-of-it-how-the-bombers-measure-up-in-2019

How teams stack up in 2019

Players 179cm or shorter
8 – Essendon, Fremantle
7 – Richmond
5 – Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane, Collingwood
4 – Carlton, Port Adelaide, St Kilda
3 – Geelong, Gold Coast, GWS, Hawthorn, Western Bulldogs
2 – Sydney, West Coast, North Melbourne

180-189cm
28 - North Melbourne
26 – Western Bulldogs
25 – Sydney, Hawthorn, Gold Coast
24 – Geelong, Melbourne, Port Adelaide, West Coast
23 – GWS, St Kilda
22 – Adelaide
20 – Brisbane
19 – Carlton, Collingwood, Richmond
18 – Fremantle
16 – Essendon

190-199cm
17 – Collingwood, Essendon
16 – West Coast
15 – Carlton, GWS, Richmond, Sydney
14 – Brisbane, Geelong, Hawthorn
13 – Fremantle
12 – Adelaide, Gold Coast, Western Bulldogs, Port Adelaide, St Kilda
11 – Melbourne
9 – North Melbourne

200cm+
6 – Brisbane, Carlton, Port Adelaide, St Kilda
5 – Adelaide, Collingwood, Fremantle, Gold Coast, North Melbourne*, Essendon* 
4 – Geelong, Sydney
3 – GWS, Hawthorn, West Coast, Western Bulldogs
2 – Melbourne, Richmond

For whatever it means, we are last in the over 190 cm player category, when combined with the over 200 cm category.

I would have thought the link between numbers of players' of a certain height and a measure of success is likely to be tenuous. However, I note that there are six teams with 3 or fewer players over 200 cm. Four of those teams have won the last four Premierships. The other two teams have recently played in Preliminary finals.

If there is a link (which I still doubt) I'll guess that it's because the teams with four or more 200+ cm players have more of that height on their list than they need because they're not happy with what they've got and are still trying to find the right 200+ cm players.  

Not sure about how the top end affects results but at the low end it has an effect. If you are too short imo it impacts your ability. If you are too short( whatever that is ) you have to be way better than players just a few cm taller. In today's AFL world at senior level you have to be very good if you are short. If you are not very good you will not be a regular best 22 player.

Height matters to people who are too short or too tall.

Not everyone can be Neville Jetta. For us mere mortals it gets much harder to spoil or outmark an opponent if you're giving away 20cms.

Thing about the base numbers of tall players on our list, sure we have fewer in total but we have the 'set' required to get the match-ups on a given day.

Especially in defence, Lever, May, OMc, and Frost give us 4 defensive tall options of varying but acceptable quality. Smith and Hibberd both play a little taller than their height but are not at the Jetta level for that and aren't really set for directly managing true tall forwards.

Forward line is an interesting one in that while we only have a couple of 'true' talls up there in TMc and Weidemann, we've actually got a tody collection of mobile tall forwards just uner that 190cm mark, including Hanna, Fritsch, Brayshaw, Vandenberg, and oliver when he slides forward.

But, just two genuine rucks on a list is a little bit scary, even if one is the best ruck of all time and the other is a proper workhorse.

So overall, except for ruck exposure to injury (TOUUUCHHH WOOOOD), I'd say we have enough height to match up relevant positions, especially in defence where you can't give away too much height without being punished. Up forward we set the agenda because (at least in theory) we are the ones sending the ball in and we can deliver it to suit what we've got up there. I'd hate to be an opposition coach going into a game with a bunch of big defenders if they are going to spend all day chasing around our mobile formation.

 

Key defenders: May, Oscar, (Frost, Petty)
3rd tall: Lever, Hibberd, (Hore)

Key forward: T Mc, Weid, (Kielty, T Smith)
3rd tall: Melk, Petracca, Hannan, (J Smith)

Ruck: Gawn, (Preuss, Bradtke)

Wings: Vanders, KK, Fritsch
On ball: Oliver, Brayshaw, Harmes

Plenty of height there. Our key position players are more around the 195cm mark than the 200cm size but I don't think that's an issue. 200cm talls with the endurance and mobility required are hard to find and it's not like our guys are small. Oscar, Petty, Tom and Weid are all big guys. May is a little shorter but has the strength and athleticism. 

Our 3rd tall and midfield options aren't stacked with 190cm+ size that some teams have but Lever, Hibberd and Jetta down back gives us plenty of overhead ability and Melksham, Petracca and possibly Hannan do the same up forward. Fritsch on the wing could be a weapon with his marking. KK has scope and Vanders is a physical beast for a midfielder.

We could have 16 of the best 22 being 186cm or above plus Jetta. Our other half back options aren't short either - Lewis, Salem, Hunt, Hore. Which means our short guys are Viney, Spargo and ANB - all playing in positions where winning the ball on the deck, tackling and evasive skills matter more than overhead ability.

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

Height matters to people who are too short or too tall.

That may be your most profound comment of December Mr. Leg.

100% correct. 

Glenn Archer used to stand and beat far taller opponents. He was (I think) 182cm tall but powerful, coordinated and beautifully balanced. On the other hand I can remember 200cm lumbering ruckman who were hopeless. Hard work and ability, hard work and ability.

Depends on whether the game is played in the air or on the ground.

Until weagles won, I cannot recall the last time a strong marking team full of talls won the GF. Given that we do not have a phalanx of marking talls, then we should play play a ground game that matches our strengths and has been shown to be successful.

Maxie and Brayden are big enough to scare most teams even those with lots of 200+ strugglers.

2020

Go dees.

5 hours ago, Demonland said:

Height matters little if you can't mark or convert into goals or aren't strong enough to out-muscle an opponent whether you are forward or back. A slightly shorter player might be stronger and have a better leap or be more mobile or have more endurance. Pure height is not necessarily an advantage.

Height is merely one component of a range of attributes that make a great footballer, but it helps those without some of those attributes to make a specific contribution to the team, if they are given a handful of the many attributes that a stand-out footballer may possess. Gee whiz, I was happy that Leigh Matthews was not over 190cms!

4 hours ago, Redleg said:

For whatever it means, we are last in the over 190 cm player category, when combined with the over 200 cm category.

Probably more relevant to look at height of best 22 for each side rather than height of overall list - some of the guys at the ends of the spectrum are possibly not even going to play AFL in 2019

3 hours ago, old dee said:

That may be your most profound comment of December Mr. Leg.

100% correct. 

Only one of my many profound comments.

Do you know that one legged ducks swim in circles.

15 minutes ago, Sydee said:

Probably more relevant to look at height of best 22 for each side rather than height of overall list - some of the guys at the ends of the spectrum are possibly not even going to play AFL in 2019

True. It appears to be just a look at whole club lists. 

Unless the players are literally using their head to do something, their listed height isn’t that relevant..

Different sport, but I’m 185cm with short arms for my height and I got toweled up on rebounding last night by a guy who was probably 175cm tall but with good strength, judgement, aggression and better athleticism than me. I also suspect he had long arms for his height.

In summary, where the top of your head finishes is pretty irrelevant and an unsophisticated measure.

I’d prefer they listed height of where the fingers are with an arm straight up is far more relevant as it takes into account shoulder position and arm length and better represents something useful on the field.

Look at the filths use of Cox at CHF. They just kicked under 12 marking practice drop punts to him.

The 'new' marking rules, no blocking, arm chopping, mean he was unbeatable. Even 196 cm backs can't get a fist to the ball.

Next year Danahier will kick 50 goals plus and is the reason Essendon are rated for 2019.

I reckon our cunning plan for 2019 is to play Max in the Cox role. Who will kick Hogans 40 plus goals next year? Max. Preuss to do a lot of rucking, Max gets to be a key forward and extend his life.

Height and weight is critical. Let's see the Weid with the build of the OX or Neita. He has been eating up and doing weights so bring on next year.

1 hour ago, special robert said:

Look at the filths use of Cox at CHF. They just kicked under 12 marking practice drop punts to him.

The 'new' marking rules, no blocking, arm chopping, mean he was unbeatable. Even 196 cm backs can't get a fist to the ball.

Next year Danahier will kick 50 goals plus and is the reason Essendon are rated for 2019.

I reckon our cunning plan for 2019 is to play Max in the Cox role. Who will kick Hogans 40 plus goals next year? Max. Preuss to do a lot of rucking, Max gets to be a key forward and extend his life.

Height and weight is critical. Let's see the Weid with the build of the OX or Neita. He has been eating up and doing weights so bring on next year.

A lot of water needs to go under the bridge first but I assume Bradtke is being eventually groomed for a Daniher type role

On 12/6/2018 at 2:58 PM, Redleg said:

For whatever it means, we are last in the over 190 cm player category, when combined with the over 200 cm category.

If you look at 200+cm players, the ladder position is roughly inversely proportionate to the number on your team! ?

according to the figures essendrug have 1/2 their total list (22) over 190cm (6'3")

have they switched to a new growth hormone?

On 12/6/2018 at 6:56 AM, Diamond_Jim said:

The six foot running midfielder was a few years back picked to be the player of the future.

It doesn't seem to have panned out that way.

Others may have better theories but I suspect the pace of the game is all about running to space which can be done by players of any height. Similarly the ability to run and spoil can be achieved by shorter players.

Interesting discussion.

The game will now be dominated by ruckmen who can kick a set shot goal from a 50metre penalty from a starting zone infringement! ?

On 12/6/2018 at 12:12 PM, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I would have thought the link between numbers of players' of a certain height and a measure of success is likely to be tenuous. However, I note that there are six teams with 3 or fewer players over 200 cm. Four of those teams have won the last four Premierships. The other two teams have recently played in Preliminary finals.

If there is a link (which I still doubt) I'll guess that it's because the teams with four or more 200+ cm players have more of that height on their list than they need because they're not happy with what they've got and are still trying to find the right 200+ cm players.  

Stated incredibly well. Logical and backed up by fact.

On 7 December 2018 at 9:19 AM, special robert said:

Look at the filths use of Cox at CHF. They just kicked under 12 marking practice drop punts to him.

The 'new' marking rules, no blocking, arm chopping, mean he was unbeatable. Even 196 cm backs can't get a fist to the ball.

Next year Danahier will kick 50 goals plus and is the reason Essendon are rated for 2019.

I reckon our cunning plan for 2019 is to play Max in the Cox role. Who will kick Hogans 40 plus goals next year? Max. Preuss to do a lot of rucking, Max gets to be a key forward and extend his life.

Height and weight is critical. Let's see the Weid with the build of the OX or Neita. He has been eating up and doing weights so bring on next year.

I think something like this could be the plan too robert, but it depends on Preuss' form for it to work.

Max averaged about 85% game time last year, all of it in the most physically demanding position on the ground. If Preuss is up to it I could see him and Max splitting the ruck duties 50/50 and Max spending 30% of the game playing forward. It would considerably lessen the load on the big fella and prolong his career. Preuss could spend 25% of game time forward and that gives us rotations for Tmac and the Weed. It also gives us the flexibility to throw Tmac onto a wing for a spell and maintain our forward structure.

I got the impression from Braydon's interview on the club site that something like this is the vision the club sold him to get him across. He seemed to recognise that it all depended on him being in good enough form to play that role. He'll need to be able to compete as a forward as well as a ruck for it to work.