Roast Carlton beaten tactically (AGAIN)

[40yearBLUE]

I think you will find Peter Dean was 185cm, Michael Sexton was 189cm, Capper was 188cm and Blighty was around 185cm.

Yep quite possibly. I dont think it weakens the argument though, quite the contrary. I may have typo'd on Blight and others vary depending where you get the data. Anyway, it was a fun exercise finding them, but alas wasted on the young and infirm.

 

[Bluebear]

This is where you show how simple you are 30YBlue and why I'm embarrassed for you. You cite 10-20 KPPs that are 185-190. Boo hoo for you. The analysis you miss is that for every KPP you have cited over the last twenty years that is 185-190, i could cite you 99 for everyone one of yours who isnt a KPP player. So when you look at it, the odds of being a successful KPP at 185, 186, 187 cms etc., is probably close to 1 in 100 or probably even worse. In simple terms, to go into the next draft and pick 185-190cm and expect them to turn out a KPP of any note is absolutely ludicrous based on odds/probability. Yes they do exist but absolutely rare gems in todays game and even going back ten years.

Another point you fail on is stating that height has been changing quite drastically. 185 cms 15 years ago is similar to 190cm now. For example, ruckman used to be 195-198 not long ago. Now most of them are taller and over 199 cms. Height has changed for KPP players as well and to cite players from 10 + years ago is just a poor argument.

PS
But dont let me stop your next piece of drivel.

Up until this year the best full backs in the comp were Rutten, Glass and Scarlett.
None of them tall enough to be a successful KPP by your reckoning. Would you rather Setanta at FB? He is 199?

Talent > Height.

 

[blue healer]

......because the guys that are standing at 193+ cm are doing so well at that as well? Silly comment.

Isn't Hawkind too tall to be an "onballer"?

If you look behind you, on the wall, about 3ft above your head.......you'll see my point.

Should we go through the list of 193+ playwers that tried to play KPP and were crap?
Again, height is irrelevant.
You would be in the camp that would have told Jeff White he was too short to ruck in the modern game.

Yet Franklin didn't play in Tassie......and who did they start out of the square?

Lewis.



Who kicked the clutch goals in their GF? A short fat midfielder called Dew.

Mark Williams was one of the best forwards in the league for years, Medhurst has come and gone, Porplyzia when fit, Goodwin in the last few years, Ricuito.................I'd love to have Buddy to.......but are you saying Buddy is that good just becaue he is tall? How often does he use his height, rather than his agility and speed to influence a contest?


What......you mean like Tiller, Casboult, Donaldson, Jacobs, Jammo, Austin was 3rd round,

So how tall should our KPP's be?
Is it 193cm?
So we just put a line through 192 cm? What if the 191cm KPP has a longer reach, and a much quicker first 5m sprint.........or has a 5cm adavntage in his vertical leap?

What if we had a 200cm guy that also had almost the biggest vertical leap at the club and was the fastest over 20m.......unstoppable right?.......well.....we have him........still doesn't know how to play footy yet.

Stop picking numbers, and let WH pick footballers.

Get me a hard midfield and a tight defence, which we are capable of with our current personnell.......and I'll show you our next flag.

You reach regal heights in interpreting posters comments.

The silly comment on Sandilands was in response to an even sillier comment "height is irrelevant." There are stats published to show that the height of the average AFL player has increased by 2cms in the last 10 years. I would say hardly irrelevant.

You know that Hawkins was put in the centre to ruck and my comment was merely a reference to the fact that up til now he has under achieved as a KPF.

I've looked at the wall and have no idea what you mean. but you still didn't tell me if walker should play CHB.

Don't give one tin **** about Jeff White and never saw him as a mould breaker.

i have never advocated putting a line through any height as you rightly point out some players play taller than their height. I think Betts is one such but I wouldn't back him to outmark Lake in a one on one.

Don't care who played FF for the Hawks against Bris or in the past. Truth is they probably could have won with all their talls out. But Franklin is one of the MVP's in the league and a big part of the reason is his sheer size.

Totally agree with your comments on Hammer and have said previously I'd like to see him left at FF for the remainder of the season.

Don't think Tiller is 190cms+, Jacobs and Jammo were rookie listed in 07, Casboult and Donaldson were, as I stated earlier, rookie listed this season and I apologise that Aussie was picked 3rd round instead of 2nd (shithouse research)

I thought a tight defence was all about balance, and a hard midfield and a tight defence is often nullified by failure to catch the thing in the forward. A motherhood statement.

Just my thoughts and by no means a gospel

 

[blue healer]

Talent > Height.

More tempted to say:

Talent + height > Talent + lack of height

 

[40yearBLUE]

The silly comment on Sandilands was in response to an even sillier comment "height is irrelevant."


Don't think Tiller is 190cms+,

I am sure BB can answer for himself but the quote height is irrelevant is in the context of the discussion we are having, and this is KPP, and whether we should stretch for on with our first pic just because he is 194cm. So in that context Height is totally irrelevant. I have shown you dozens of players shorter than that playing a KP. Lucas was best available at our pic and we rightly took him. To bring up Sandilands height in regard to this argument was totally out of context and equally irrelevant to the discussion.

Tiller was 188cm when drafted as a 17year old. He may well be over 190cm now but I say again, so what. It was mentioned that he was a KPP prospect. It dont matter what his height it, it matters if he can play. He was taken with our 5 round pick iirc. Not our first round pick AND RIGHTLY SO.

 

[blue healer]

I am sure BB can answer for himself but the quote height is irrelevant is in the context of the discussion we are having, and this is KPP, and whether we should stretch for on with our first pic just because he is 194cm. So in that context Height is totally irrelevant. I have shown you dozens of players shorter than that playing a KP. Lucas was best available at our pic and we rightly took him. To bring up Sandilands height in regard to this argument was totally out of context and equally irrelevant to the discussion.

Tiller was 188cm when drafted as a 17year old. He may well be over 190cm now but I say again, so what. It was mentioned that he was a KPP prospect. It dont matter what his height it, it matters if he can play. He was taken with our 5 round pick iirc. Not our first round pick AND RIGHTLY SO.

I beg to differ. The context is the relevance of height.

Yes you have shown me dozens of examples but let's look at them.

You may have supplied a later list but I have focussed on the first 31. 15 of which are 190cms+

Eleven are players who are currently playing or very recently retired (Lloyd,Barry and Burton) who I have included for era balance.

The average height (hope my maths are right) of this 11 is 189.7cms

The other 20 (a number of whom retired in the 80's) add up to an average height of 188.5cms

You may say an era diferential of 1.2cms, this may not sound a lot but if the rope to pull you out of the shit is that far short you are still in deep doo doo.

I'd also argue that many of the shorter examples you cite are mould breakers
and you will find them in every era. Kouta eg. is probably the prime example of this, a guy built like an adonis who could dominate in the centre (interestingly not on your selective list)

My basic statistical mind would tell me that, as many of your shorter players were more the exception than the rule, this era difference is actually greater than the number above. A fact born out by the stats I quoted on average height trends on my earlier post.

I've said before that I stand on the fence on the Lucas/Talia draft getting sick of seeing it. My point has always been draft for balance based.

The player list on the CFC website lists Tiller under 190cms, and also shows that we are exactly on the mean number of 190+ players on the list.

7 clubs have less, 6 have more and 2 have the same. Before you howl me down it does not include rookies, I just couldn't be bothered

 

[Bluebear]

You know that Hawkins was put in the centre to ruck and my comment was merely a reference to the fact that up til now he has under achieved as a KPF.

So he went into the ruck and found some form........but wait......he's only 197cm........he can't ruck!!!

I've looked at the wall and have no idea what you mean. but you still didn't tell me if walker should play CHB.

My answer is no.....my point clearly still lost.

Don't give one tin **** about Jeff White and never saw him as a mould breaker.

Ignore the exceptions.
Nice arguement.

i have never advocated putting a line through any height as you rightly point out some players play taller than their height. I think Betts is one such but I wouldn't back him to outmark Lake in a one on one.

Don't care who played FF for the Hawks against Bris or in the past. Truth is they probably could have won with all their talls out. But Franklin is one of the MVP's in the league and a big part of the reason is his sheer size.

Buddy rarely uses his height to advantage. If he was 3-4 cm's shorter it wouldn't really change the way he plays. Hence my comment re height being irrelevant.

So the average height has gone up 2 cms?
Wow. What's your point?

The arguement here is against the dumb statements such as "We don't have enough Xcm players on our list" or that "player X is too short to play position Y".

Absolute BS. Rucks can be a variety of heights - that's my point with White, and you reiterate with Hawkins. Provided they can get their hand to the ball what's the difference if they are 195 or 206cm. You point to Sandilands.....who can outmark him......yet Warnock who is probably the second tallest in the league doesn't have the same dominance in the air or with ruckwork, and rucks 6-7cm shorter are doing a better job.

FF's can vary even more so. You don't need to be tall to out lead your opponent or to take a mark. On your point re Lake vs Betts........how many marks did Franklin take standing sh to sh with Lake? Height not he issue - strength and positioning the key issue. Look at what Fev used to do to Lake, yet Fev giving away 3-4cms to Lake.

I'm done.

 

[40yearBLUE]

I beg to differ. The context is the relevance of height.

Yes you have shown me dozens of examples but let's look at them.

You may have supplied a later list but I have focussed on the first 31. 15 of which are 190cms+

Eleven are players who are currently playing or very recently retired (Lloyd,Barry and Burton) who I have included for era balance.

The average height (hope my maths are right) of this 11 is 189.7cms

The other 20 (a number of whom retired in the 80's) add up to an average height of 188.5cms

You may say an era diferential of 1.2cms, this may not sound a lot but if the rope to pull you out of the shit is that far short you are still in deep doo doo.

I'd also argue that many of the shorter examples you cite are mould breakers
and you will find them in every era. Kouta eg. is probably the prime example of this, a guy built like an adonis who could dominate in the centre (interestingly not on your selective list)

My basic statistical mind would tell me that, as many of your shorter players were more the exception than the rule, this era difference is actually greater than the number above. A fact born out by the stats I quoted on average height trends on my earlier post.

I've said before that I stand on the fence on the Lucas/Talia draft getting sick of seeing it. My point has always been draft for balance based.

The player list on the CFC website lists Tiller under 190cms, and also shows that we are exactly on the mean number of 190+ players on the list.

7 clubs have less, 6 have more and 2 have the same. Before you howl me down it does not include rookies, I just couldn't be bothered

You make my arguments for me then refuse to acknowledge said arguments. I have shown you that players of a wide variety of heights many under 190cm but as you point out the average height of the ones I highlighted is under 190cm, of course there are also many over 190cm and some well over but I have never argued that a KP must be any particular height just that they can be any height if successful. The Eagles built a forward line around Phil Matera at one point. It does not matter so long as they are successful. Shorter kpp players are not the exception, they just happened to be shorter. KP can be any height so long as they are able to do the job well. History is so littered with them they cannot be exceptions. If there were only one maybe but hundreds. Please. So as you see you argue my point for me.

Then you go on to highlight that we are bang on the mean of all clubs of players at 190cm or over. If we were at the bottom I could understand you continuing this argument but we are bang in the middle before you factor in rookies and iianm we got 3 tall rookies. And this argument was made to counter this massively urgent need we seem to have to draft tall. Bullshit. You draft quality. As others have said, rather a talented shorter player than a untalented tall.

And finally the entire context of this discussion is our need for KPP and our drafting in regard to them. You have successfully made my argument for me. Thank you.

 

[40yearBLUE]

And as a final footnote to this rather ridiculous argument, (I still cant beleive people try to make an argument about the height of our list) I have re-counted from the lists on each clubs website and unless I counted wrong, Collingwood currently top have 16 players on their list 190cm or over, Geelong currently have 16, StKilda have 16 and guess how many we have. Yep thats right 16.

So we have as many "tall" on our list as the pace setters this season. Now you can argue all you like about the quality of them, a lot of that has to do with the cycle in the various teams development, but you cannot argue we dont have enough of them in development.

 

[Tanks_Alot]

.....and this sentence should end this debate.

Yes, it would be great to have some talented players at 194-196 cms playing key positions, but we (and by this I mean WH) are not going to overlook the likes of Lucas, to take a chance on Talia, for example, if we think Lucas is a much better player.

We will always take the best available. Sure, if two players can't be split then you take the one that best fits your list and that may well be a tall.........though at the moment a case could be made for just about anyone.......an outside mid with elite disposal on both sides........an inside mid who'd eat his own boots just to get the footy.......

The only positions we seem to have covered recruitment wise is rucks and small forwards. All other positions remain open for speculation, and could do with more talent. So best available is always going to be a win.

You're right, if they think a player is better they'll draft him. That's taking the safe option and ideally that's what you would want your club to do right? You don't want them taking unnecessary risks?

But IMO it is a necessary risk. Why? Well not only do we need one, but let me just say this, if we take the risk, I can't guarantee we'll end up with a star KPF, BUT I can guarantee that if we don't take the risk we will not end up with one. If we draft safe every year with our first pick all we'll ever draft are midfielders, it will be extremely hard to draft a (potentially) great KPF with later picks. Don't get me wrong, I know the midfield is the most important part of the team but it alone cannot win you a flag, you'll just be drifting between 5-8 for a couple of years until they pass their prime and are no longer as serviceable. My point is we need to take the risk at some stage or Judd, Murphy, Gibbs and our other mids will be past it before we have a team that's well balanced in all areas.

BTW they don't HAVE to be 194-196. 190-193 is quite tall. Depends on their frame as well. But in this day and age, if they are talented and they are taller that would make it harder to spoil them in the air meaning more contested marks. That is what makes them dangerous even during a flood situation.

As for positions we've covered recruitment wise how can you not say we covered the midfield? Judd, Murphy, Gibbs, McClean, Grigg, Lucas, Hadley, Carrazzo and Joseph all play in the midfield. Heck even Yarran will be a midfielder once he gets some more experience and fitness. I'm pretty sure they want him to play a Chapman like role rotating between midfield and forward. At least that's how I imagine his role, would you agree with that?

 

[40yearBLUE]

But IMO it is a necessary risk. Why? Well not only do we need one, but let me just say this, if we take the risk, I can't guarantee we'll end up with a star KPF, BUT I can guarantee that if we don't take the risk we will not end up with one. If we draft safe every year with our first pick all we'll ever draft are midfielders, it will be extremely hard to draft a (potentially) great KPF with later picks. Don't get me wrong, I know the midfield is the most important part of the team but it alone cannot win you a flag, you'll just be drifting between 5-8 for a couple of years until they pass their prime and are no longer as serviceable. My point is we need to take the risk at some stage or Judd, Murphy, Gibbs and our other mids will be past it before we have a team that's well balanced in all areas.

How can you make this guarantee? How do you know that next year, if Aussie got is body right and had a good pre-season and played a few blinders, he would not make a gun CHB? How do you know for example that in a couple of years Levi wont be in Coleman form? How can you guarantee this oh great seer? Or and this one is the most likely, how do you know that Hammer wont suddenly turn it on and make a gun Forward out of himself? And Hendo a star CHF? How can you completely rule out any of this? Oh thats right, because we all know that htey are already on the list therefore they should already be playing like guns, because we have all seen how Talia is tearing it up now because we were not willing to take a risk with our first round pick. Sorry My Bad.

 

[Tanks_Alot]

And as a final footnote to this rather ridiculous argument, (I still cant beleive people try to make an argument about the height of our list) I have re-counted from the lists on each clubs website and unless I counted wrong, Collingwood currently top have 16 players on their list 190cm or over, Geelong currently have 16, StKilda have 16 and guess how many we have. Yep thats right 16.

So we have as many "tall" on our list as the pace setters this season. Now you can argue all you like about the quality of them, a lot of that has to do with the cycle in the various teams development, but you cannot argue we dont have enough of them in development.

You just don't understand do you? I don't care if we have 26 on or above 190. If they are not capable then they are not going to get us anywhere are they? My point is they are hard to find in drafts and I believe with the way the recruiting process is these days it will be next to impossible to find a gem KPF after pick 20. You cannot seriously say the ones we have are gonna get us a flag.

 

[Bluebear]

I've said all I'm going to say on the height thing, other than, would you argue that taking Kreuzer over Cotchin was a risk? I mean, one the silky smooth midfielder and the other a ruck..........

Was Yarran the safe choice?
Surely Rich would have been?
What do you think of those decisions now? Should we have taken Vickery instead?
Should we have taken Hansen or Gubleton over Gibbs as many wanted because we "needed" another tall?

As for positions we've covered recruitment wise how can you not say we covered the midfield? Judd, Murphy, Gibbs,McClean, Grigg, Lucas, Hadley, Carrazzo and Joseph all play in the midfield. Heck even Yarran will be a midfielder once he gets some more experience and fitness. I'm pretty sure they want him to play a Chapman like role rotating between midfield and forward. At least that's how I imagine his role, would you agree with that?

Yeah, probably similar to Chappy.
Those highlighted are locks IMO, and I would add Simpson.

I think questions remain over whether any of our other mids are good enough to be in a premiership team.
Let me clarify. Not all the others will be out of the team, but some will, and which of those is not clear.

So no, I don't think we have covered the midfield sufficiently. If Trengove, Martin or Cunnigton had lasted to our pick would you have wanted WH to draft tall?
Pass on a quality insdie mid with skills for a speculative tall that might do nothing? You might be happy to take the risk, but not sure if WH and the club is.

You can reach with your second and third round picks a little, but ask the Tigers what happens when you gamble with first round picks.

 

[Tanks_Alot]

How can you make this guarantee? How do you know that next year, if Aussie got is body right and had a good pre-season and played a few blinders, he would not make a gun CHB? How do you know for example that in a couple of years Levi wont be in Coleman form? How can you guarantee this oh great seer? Or and this one is the most likely, how do you know that Hammer wont suddenly turn it on and make a gun Forward out of himself? And Hendo a star CHF? How can you completely rule out any of this? Oh thats right, because we all know that htey are already on the list therefore they should already be playing like guns, because we have all seen how Talia is tearing it up now because we were not willing to take a risk with our first round pick. Sorry My Bad.

Well if you don't draft a KPF early on in the draft history shows it is very hard to get a star. You like history don't you? You keep bringing up players height from the 80's like as if it's the 80's now when clearly times have changed and players are generally taller this generation. You also claim to know that no team has EVER in the history of our game won a flag without a dominant midfield like as if you have seen every team that has ever win a VFL/AFL flag.

As for the names you mentioned: Aussie is a backman, I'm talking KPForwards. Hammer is mainly a ruckman who rotates forward. Same with Kreuzer. I can tell you right now Levi will never win a coleman medal, I hope he does and proves me wrong. If Hendo does become a star CHF great but we need another along with some mediums as well. Cannot rely on just Hendo. And to sarcastically say Talia is tearing it up right now shows how uninformed you are with the game of AFL. Seriously everyone knows KPF's require more time to develop than midfielders at least 3 years. Also Lucas isn't exactly tearing it up now is he? Sure I think he's gonna be a gun and I like what i've sen so far but to compare him with Talia is rediculous like comparing apples with oranges. Especially at this stage of their careers.

 

[blue healer]

You make my arguments for me then refuse to acknowledge said arguments. I have shown you that players of a wide variety of heights many under 190cm but as you point out the average height of the ones I highlighted is under 190cm, of course there are also many over 190cm and some well over but I have never argued that a KP must be any particular height just that they can be any height if successful. The Eagles built a forward line around Phil Matera at one point. It does not matter so long as they are successful. Shorter kpp players are not the exception, they just happened to be shorter. KP can be any height so long as they are able to do the job well. History is so littered with them they cannot be exceptions. If there were only one maybe but hundreds. Please. So as you see you argue my point for me.

Then you go on to highlight that we are bang on the mean of all clubs of players at 190cm or over. If we were at the bottom I could understand you continuing this argument but we are bang in the middle before you factor in rookies and iianm we got 3 tall rookies. And this argument was made to counter this massively urgent need we seem to have to draft tall. Bullshit. You draft quality. As others have said, rather a talented shorter player than a untalented tall.

And finally the entire context of this discussion is our need for KPP and our drafting in regard to them. You have successfully made my argument for me. Thank you.

This is a bit like an argument with my dog, doesn't matter what I tell him he still ***** his leg on my golf bag. You concede 10% of 40% of ****all.

I have already agreed that there are many examples of shorter players who have been freakish enough to punch above their height but you still paw through the lists of 50 years of AFL to reinforce your obstinate stance. This is no longer a discussion on where the CFC stands now, it's a discussion centred around your view and my conflicting one.

In your haste to find freaks that support your view you leave out, arguably the best example in history, Kouta because he is too tall.

You name Plugger cause he suits your mould. The fact that he was built like a brick shithouse and frightened the pants of his opponents is not considered. A similar player is Hall but let's not consider him as he's too tall for your fantasy.

You name Ablett, considered by many to be the best FF of all time, because he suits your mould. But you do not name SOS, who pantsed him everytime they met, because SOS doesn't suit the mould.

You can continue your search and you may come up with another 20 or 30 names that support your point but you will not concede that there are around 600 KPP's in the last 50 years that are outside your parameters.

Like BlueBear you cite examples and I concede them but you refuse to acknowledge that the counter examples are more the norm.

You have had height trends pointed out to you by more than just me and you do not even acknowledge their existence.

I may support your argument, in your mind, on occasions but that's because I try to rationalise my points and you do not.

I have never said that we should not draft the best player and agree that speculative picks should be left til the end of the draft, we have not speculated on talls in recent drafts and I concede that there may have been none worth the speculation it's just my simple statement of fact.

I only provided the mean figures to counter your earlier claim that we have more than most clubs. My concern is on the quality of those we have. Most people think Thornton is gone, Fisher will make no improvement and Setanta has not much improvement left in him. Most of the others are developing and may or may not be guns. But we have little behind them.

We do only have 2 players over 188 on our rookie list, if you refer to White he is an elevation and was included in my main list figures

 

[blue healer]

I've said all I'm going to say on the height thing, other than, would you argue that taking Kreuzer over Cotchin was a risk? I mean, one the silky smooth midfielder and the other a ruck..........

Was Yarran the safe choice?
Surely Rich would have been?
What do you think of those decisions now? Should we have taken Vickery instead?
Should we have taken Hansen or Gubleton over Gibbs as many wanted because we "needed" another tall?

Yeah, probably similar to Chappy.
Those highlighted are locks IMO, and I would add Simpson.

I think questions remain over whether any of our other mids are good enough to be in a premiership team.
Let me clarify. Not all the others will be out of the team, but some will, and which of those is not clear.

So no, I don't think we have covered the midfield sufficiently. If Trengove, Martin or Cunnigton had lasted to our pick would you have wanted WH to draft tall?
Pass on a quality insdie mid with skills for a speculative tall that might do nothing? You might be happy to take the risk, but not sure if WH and the club is.

You can reach with your second and third round picks a little, but ask the Tigers what happens when you gamble with first round picks.

I may have disagreed with some of your posts but this hits the mark,

I've only said all along that we haven't, of late, speculated with talls. The reasoning may have been sound but that's how I roll

 

[blue healer]

How can you make this guarantee? How do you know that next year, if Aussie got is body right and had a good pre-season and played a few blinders, he would not make a gun CHB? How do you know for example that in a couple of years Levi wont be in Coleman form? How can you guarantee this oh great seer? Or and this one is the most likely, how do you know that Hammer wont suddenly turn it on and make a gun Forward out of himself? And Hendo a star CHF? How can you completely rule out any of this? Oh thats right, because we all know that htey are already on the list therefore they should already be playing like guns, because we have all seen how Talia is tearing it up now because we were not willing to take a risk with our first round pick. Sorry My Bad.

I only referenced this post to say this

Mate I've seen a lot of the world and had a happy life. The only things I need to die a happy man are: 1 more "hole in one", a last role in the hay and just a teensy concession from you.

 

[Bluebear]

I may have disagreed with some of your posts but this hits the mark,

I've only said all along that we haven't, of late, speculated with talls. The reasoning may have been sound but that's how I roll

I forgive you.

 

[40yearBLUE]

This is a bit like an argument with my dog, doesn't matter what I tell him he still ***** his leg on my golf bag. You concede 10% of 40% of ****all.

I have already agreed that there are many examples of shorter players who have been freakish enough to punch above their height but you still paw through the lists of 50 years of AFL to reinforce your obstinate stance. This is no longer a discussion on where the CFC stands now, it's a discussion centred around your view and my conflicting one.

They didnt "punch above their height", this is the myth you would like to pretend is truth. There were so many under 190 guns that they could not possibly be described as freaks. Jezza, Ablett Snr, Modra, Dunstall, Dermie, Dean, and the list just goes on and on LeCras, Matera, and so on and so on but you just dont want to acknowledge the fallacy of your argument

In your haste to find freaks that support your view you leave out, arguably the best example in history, Kouta because he is too tall.

I dont leave Kouta out, he is one of the many KPP players over 190cm but remember the argument is not that you cant play KP tall but that you cant play it short, so Kouta is not part of my argument but somehow in an argument over whether a sub 190cm player can hold down a KP you need to introduce an over 190cm that can?


You name Plugger cause he suits your mould. The fact that he was built like a brick shithouse and frightened the pants of his opponents is not considered. A similar player is Hall but let's not consider him as he's too tall for your fantasy.

Again see point above, its not about whether a tall can play but whether a short can TOO

You name Ablett, considered by many to be the best FF of all time, because he suits your mould. But you do not name SOS, who pantsed him everytime they met, because SOS doesn't suit the mould.

Again see point above, its not about whether a tall can play but whether a short can TOO but because SOS often gave GAS a bath then your point must be correct and that tall trumps small

You can continue your search and you may come up with another 20 or 30 names that support your point but you will not concede that there are around 600 KPP's in the last 50 years that are outside your parameters.

Again for the 1000th time no-one has ever argued that talls cant play KP, just that sub 190cm can too. I know its a hard concept to grasp but please do try


Like BlueBear you cite examples and I concede them but you refuse to acknowledge that the counter examples are more the norm.

The norm? Dozens and dozens of examples of sub 190cm are "abnormal".

You have had height trends pointed out to you by more than just me and you do not even acknowledge their existence.

Because they are irrelevant to the discussion. It would not matter if the average AFL height became 205cm, if a gun 190cm comes along and plays a KPP role.

I may support your argument, in your mind, on occasions but that's because I try to rationalise my points and you do not.

I have never said that we should not draft the best player and agree that speculative picks should be left til the end of the draft, we have not speculated on talls in recent drafts and I concede that there may have been none worth the speculation it's just my simple statement of fact.

Again, you want to agree to the point but keep trying to justify your stance yet return to agreeing. Make up your mind because the content of your previous paragraph pretty much sums up our position on this, all the rest is your inability to concede that what you are arguing has either nothing to do with the basis of what we do agree on or is just plain irrelevant

I only provided the mean figures to counter your earlier claim that we have more than most clubs. My concern is on the quality of those we have. Most people think Thornton is gone, Fisher will make no improvement and Setanta has not much improvement left in him. Most of the others are developing and may or may not be guns. But we have little behind them.

We have enough, we have the same as the top 3 clubs this year numerically, quality is yet to be seen but is an unknown unless you happen on a buddy or a roughy with your pick, and if they came up in the first round no-one has ever argued you would not take them

We do only have 2 players over 188 on our rookie list, if you refer to White he is an elevation and was included in my main list figures

I counted 16 not including rookies, of which White is a rookie albeit elevated at the moment. I can go count them again if you insist, but it would be pointless if you are not going to concede that the entire premise of the argument had already been proved and agreed to, ergo, you dont speculate your first round pick for some peoples misguided perception of a weakness in your list.

 

[Tanks_Alot]

I've said all I'm going to say on the height thing, other than, would you argue that taking Kreuzer over Cotchin was a risk? I mean, one the silky smooth midfielder and the other a ruck..........

Was Yarran the safe choice?
Surely Rich would have been?
What do you think of those decisions now? Should we have taken Vickery instead?
Should we have taken Hansen or Gubleton over Gibbs as many wanted because we "needed" another tall?

You said yourself that if the talent was deemed to be even then you draft for need right? We needed a ruckman, we just got some guy named Chris Judd why would we deem taking Kreuzer as a risk since we felt he was just as talented as Cotchin? I didn't think it was a risk.

I would say Rich and Yarran are about even at this stage. But at the time we deemed them even so we drafted for need yet again and since Yarran was quite capable up forward as well we drafted him. So again not really a risk drafting Yarran who has more strings to his bow than Rich. Vickery was supposed to be a ruckman wasn't he? Why would we draft him if we got Kreuzer the year before?

As for Gibbs well obviously not. At that time we were shit all over and needed midfielders with good disposal. Gibbs was the obvious choice and if the draft rule didn't change we would've had Selwood too no doubt about it. Pagan even mentioned how he would've loved to have got a Selwood into the side as well.

Yeah, probably similar to Chappy.
Those highlighted are locks IMO, and I would add Simpson.

I think questions remain over whether any of our other mids are good enough to be in a premiership team.
Let me clarify. Not all the others will be out of the team, but some will, and which of those is not clear.

Ok so we have Judd, Murphy, Gibbs, Simpson and Lucas. You're not sure on Brock? Do you think it was a mistake to trade our pick for him or do you think Brock deserves some more time? I'd say the latter.

Anyway, we have 5 mids who are a lock and possibly Yarran too. How many KPF's do we have? Hendo, Waite (Who I think should be playing down back) and who after that? Now I realize we don't need as many but we need more than putting our hope into Hendo because if it doesn't turn out as we hope we're stuffed.

So no, I don't think we have covered the midfield sufficiently. If Trengove, Martin or Cunnigton had lasted to our pick would you have wanted WH to draft tall?
Pass on a quality insdie mid with skills for a speculative tall that might do nothing? You might be happy to take the risk, but not sure if WH and the club is.

You can reach with your second and third round picks a little, but ask the Tigers what happens when you gamble with first round picks.

I do agree that we need a decent inside mid but that's what they got Mclean for isn't it? They took a risk with swapping the draft pick and I think its fair to say it hasn't payed off yet but Mclean might come good. Do you think they would've selected a Cunnington or Martin if they dropped after having just swapped pick 13 for Mclean? We'll never know but I would've wanted them to because we defintely need a decent inside mid as well but there was no way they would've fallen to us especially last year.

As for asking the Tigers, well we can ask the Saints and Hawks too.

 

[blue healer]

I counted 16 not including rookies, of which White is a rookie albeit elevated at the moment. I can go count them again if you insist, but it would be pointless if you are not going to concede that the entire premise of the argument had already been proved and agreed to, ergo, you dont speculate your first round pick for some peoples misguided perception of a weakness in your list.

Sorry 16 was the number I used above as I added the 190's to my previous list

 

[blue healer]

I counted 16 not including rookies, of which White is a rookie albeit elevated at the moment. I can go count them again if you insist, but it would be pointless if you are not going to concede that the entire premise of the argument had already been proved and agreed to, ergo, you dont speculate your first round pick for some peoples misguided perception of a weakness in your list.

Sorry didn't read your bolds earlier (thought it looked longer than I'd written it).

I raise the white flag if ever there was an unwinable opponent you are it.

Bugger the "hole in one" and the roll in the hay, where is that grim reaper when you need him?

 

[40yearBLUE]

Well if you don't draft a KPF early on in the draft history shows it is very hard to get a star. You like history don't you? You keep bringing up players height from the 80's like as if it's the 80's now when clearly times have changed and players are generally taller this generation. You also claim to know that no team has EVER in the history of our game won a flag without a dominant midfield like as if you have seen every team that has ever win a VFL/AFL flag.

As for the names you mentioned: Aussie is a backman, I'm talking KPForwards. Hammer is mainly a ruckman who rotates forward. Same with Kreuzer. I can tell you right now Levi will never win a coleman medal, I hope he does and proves me wrong. If Hendo does become a star CHF great but we need another along with some mediums as well. Cannot rely on just Hendo. And to sarcastically say Talia is tearing it up right now shows how uninformed you are with the game of AFL. Seriously everyone knows KPF's require more time to develop than midfielders at least 3 years. Also Lucas isn't exactly tearing it up now is he? Sure I think he's gonna be a gun and I like what i've sen so far but to compare him with Talia is rediculous like comparing apples with oranges. Especially at this stage of their careers.

See here it is again. Talia will take 3 years before we will know. (I concede this), but players on our list dont get the 3 years, we already know? This is the crux of the problem I have and why I argue with you so vehemently. How about extending to OUR selectors and OUR players the same patience you seem to have with other selectors and players. (By the way it is not unknown for players to take even longer than 3 years but we already know that we dont have any such players because you already dont think they can make it).

And do tell how do you know that Aussie cant play forward, he wont be the first player to switch ends and find something (Leo Barry was originally a key forward that couldnt find form for example).

And do tell how you know Levi wont be a gun (I said in coleman form but whatever).

And riddle me this einstien, there was great debate before you were born about whether a coach ruined a gun (98 goals on year) forward to make him into a ruckman, and of course the reverse could never be done. Hammer was recruited as a KPP prospect, and I dont give a flying one whether you rate him as one now, others have rated him as such and he may well end up one.

 

[blue healer]

See here it is again. Talia will take 3 years before we will know. (I concede this), but players on our list dont get the 3 years, we already know? This is the crux of the problem I have and why I argue with you so vehemently. How about extending to OUR selectors and OUR players the same patience you seem to have with other selectors and players. (By the way it is not unknown for players to take even longer than 3 years but we already know that we dont have any such players because you dont think so).

And do tell how do you know that Aussie cant play forward, he wont be the first player to switch ends and find something (Leo Barry was originally a key forward that couldnt find form for example).

And do tell how you know Levi wont be a gun (I said in coleman form but whatever).

And riddle me this einstien, there was great debate before you were born about whether a coach ruined a gun (98 goals on year) forward to make him into a ruckman, and of course the reverse could never be done. Hammer was recruited as a KPP prospect, and I dont give a flying one whether you rate him as one now, others have rated him as such and he may well end up one.

Stuff me there it is

 

[Tanks_Alot]

See here it is again. Talia will take 3 years before we will know. (I concede this), but players on our list dont get the 3 years, we already know? This is the crux of the problem I have and why I argue with you so vehemently. How about extending to OUR selectors and OUR players the same patience you seem to have with other selectors and players. (By the way it is not unknown for players to take even longer than 3 years but we already know that we dont have any such players because you already dont think they can make it).

And do tell how do you know that Aussie cant play forward, he wont be the first player to switch ends and find something (Leo Barry was originally a key forward that couldnt find form for example).

Um we've had Aussie for 4 years now and he's still not a regular and he has been tried forward before too that's how I know.

And do tell how you know Levi wont be a gun (I said in coleman form but whatever).

Because Levi has never shown that he has been capable of kicking big bags of goals that's why he slipped to the rookie draft, you know because there was a reason for it and every single recruiter could not possibly be wrong. You have to show signs of greatness before acheiving it you don't just obtain the ability to do something that you havn't been capable of your whole life. That's why he waas worth a try with a rookie selection with the hope of becoming a half decent option.

And riddle me this einstien, there was great debate before you were born about whether a coach ruined a gun (98 goals on year) forward to make him into a ruckman, and of course the reverse could never be done. Hammer was recruited as a KPP prospect, and I dont give a flying one whether you rate him as one now, others have rated him as such and he may well end up one.

Show me where I said I don't rate Hammer. I said he is mainly a ruckman that's his role that's what we drafted him for not KPP prospect that's bullshit we drafted him to be a ruckman because at the time we didn't have any quality ruckman. Everybody knows this except you. I wish we had of gotten Tippett over Grigg though but then again why risk drafting a 'speculative' tall over a midfielder who you somehow know will be a gun. Really I don't see the point why would you do that?