Have we gone with too many small guys?

This unofficial St Kilda Saints fan forum is for people of all ages to chat Saints Footy and all posts must be respectful.

Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators

User avatar
saintsRrising
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 30069
Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 707 times
Been thanked: 1222 times

Re: Have we gone with too many small guys?

Post: # 1599632Post saintsRrising »

Bluthy wrote:Gresham 177cm
Lonie 174cm
Sinclair 180cm
Curren 178cm
Minchington 179cm

.
180cm is not that small.

If you look at your best 22 in several years I suspect it will be down to Gresham, Lonie and sins. All three have a touch of class about them and are good ball users.

Mich I supect is in a face-off with Lonie fora spot in the team, and Lonie looks to have more upside in him.


We have plenty of players with different heights in the team.

What we need I think is not more height, but more "pure" mids and inparticular guys that can be elite mids and elite mids that can play on the ball. We currently are shallow in the midfield and lack elite mids who can play on the ball who can swing games.

In recent years the way our drafting has fallen it has been a lot of KPP players and flankers. Though lets hope that Billings can become a player that can play mainly mid. We desperately need that rather than him becoming an elite HFF.

Gresham is a mid and so should be good for us.


Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
lefty
Club Player
Posts: 1297
Joined: Tue 28 Sep 2004 8:11pm
Been thanked: 36 times

Re: Have we gone with too many small guys?

Post: # 1599797Post lefty »

If anyone read the HS today, guezzz, Geelong have like 9 tall decent players all 195+ IIRC

Their height will definitely stretch us. I guess they assume the game will slow down, and key position players will become important.


Bluthy
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 4068
Joined: Wed 29 May 2013 8:05pm

Re: Have we gone with too many small guys?

Post: # 1599811Post Bluthy »

The other factor with small players is that they will spend a lot of their career bouncing off most players in the comp. Its takes a lot of physical and psychological resilience to keep doing that game after game, year after year and not lose some edge. Lonie seems to have the cockiness and gives back plenty of verbal which a lot of the little guys do almost as defensive mechanism. That huge tackle he did last year where he knocked himself out was impressive. They've got to show they can keep throwing themselves in there year after year knowing they will probably be knocked around. Thats the mental toughness they need to make it.


User avatar
Wrote for Luck
Club Player
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu 07 Jan 2010 8:33am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Have we gone with too many small guys?

Post: # 1599816Post Wrote for Luck »

Both Gresham and Sinclair have frames to put on enough muscle and weight without fear of being pushed off the ball easily think McGlynn, or Blair (174). Sinclair is already pretty strong. Yapper number two is perfect size for a small forward, look at Betts/Ballantyne but I think Lonie can add more than these guys similar to Matera.


Pills 'n' Thrills and Heartaches
Bluthy
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 4068
Joined: Wed 29 May 2013 8:05pm

Re: Have we gone with too many small guys?

Post: # 1599817Post Bluthy »

lefty wrote:If anyone read the HS today, guezzz, Geelong have like 9 tall decent players all 195+ IIRC

Their height will definitely stretch us. I guess they assume the game will slow down, and key position players will become important.
We've got:

Longer
Hickey
Holmes (outside chance to make it)
Carlisle
Goddard
Bruce
McCartin
Coughlan (rookie - outside chance)
Lee (possible)

I think we will be tempted to draft/trade for another big forward to support McCartin and use Bruce as the really flexible third tall.


User avatar
Wrote for Luck
Club Player
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu 07 Jan 2010 8:33am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Have we gone with too many small guys?

Post: # 1599828Post Wrote for Luck »

I think Hickey should include (outside chance to make it) following his name.


Pills 'n' Thrills and Heartaches
Bluthy
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 4068
Joined: Wed 29 May 2013 8:05pm

Re: Have we gone with too many small guys?

Post: # 1599844Post Bluthy »

millarsaint wrote:I think Hickey should include (outside chance to make it) following his name.
Another Hickey doubtee. This is the first year in a while he's had a proper preseason and seems injury free. Lets see how he goes this year with a good crack at it. We're not sure how Longer is going after his shoulder reconstruction.


lefty
Club Player
Posts: 1297
Joined: Tue 28 Sep 2004 8:11pm
Been thanked: 36 times

Re: Have we gone with too many small guys?

Post: # 1599848Post lefty »

Bluthy wrote:
lefty wrote:If anyone read the HS today, guezzz, Geelong have like 9 tall decent players all 195+ IIRC

Their height will definitely stretch us. I guess they assume the game will slow down, and key position players will become important.
We've got:

Longer - 201cm
Hickey - 201cm
Holmes (outside chance to make it) - 202cm
Carlisle - 198cm
Goddard - 196cm
Bruce - 197cm
McCartin - 195cm
Coughlan (rookie - outside chance) - 193cm
Lee (possible) - 194cm
Nick Riewoldt - 193cm
Luke Delaney - 194cm

I think we will be tempted to draft/trade for another big forward to support McCartin and use Bruce as the really flexible third tall.
Still think Geelongs list is impressive.

Blicavs - 198cm - Ruck/Midfielder
Stanley - 200cm - Ruck/Fwd
Vardy - 199cm - Ruck/Fwd
Smith - 206cm - Ruck/Fwd
Taylor - 195cm - Def
Lonergan - 197cm - Def
Clarke - 200cm - Fwd
Henderson - 196cm - Fwd
Hawkins - 198cm - Fwd

Gardner - 197cm - NFI
Read - 200cm - NFI
Lucey - 203cm - NFI
Delaney - 195cm - NFI
Buzza - 198cm - NFI

There are 9 good talls, and 5 who I have NFI who are they. However I do think Henderson is a spud and no idea on Clarke :)

I wrote our heights for comparison... I'd say Geelong are banking on the game become more about playing in positions rather than the flood, due to limited rotations. Over the next 2-3 years I'd say height will become important. Wish we had the G-Train... someone clone him, and rewind to 2004.


User avatar
Griggsy
SS Life Member
Posts: 2524
Joined: Mon 21 Jul 2008 1:41am
Location: WA

Re: Have we gone with too many small guys?

Post: # 1599865Post Griggsy »

I feel it's the right play for the future with interchange caps, especially if they go down further. Such an advantage having mids that can fit perfectly into the forward line. Opens up more options of how to use th cap.

Then again it could be the wrong play, but time will tell.


Bluthy
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 4068
Joined: Wed 29 May 2013 8:05pm

Re: Have we gone with too many small guys?

Post: # 1599880Post Bluthy »

Griggsy wrote:I feel it's the right play for the future with interchange caps, especially if they go down further. Such an advantage having mids that can fit perfectly into the forward line. Opens up more options of how to use th cap.

Then again it could be the wrong play, but time will tell.
What about being able to rotate on the half-back line though? I would worry about playing Gresham as a back flanker as he may struggle to spoil. Sinclair started down back against North and was doing ok. I think Mitchell plays half-back for Hawks a bit but he plays almost like a sweeper setting up play from the back with his great ball reading and ball use.


User avatar
Griggsy
SS Life Member
Posts: 2524
Joined: Mon 21 Jul 2008 1:41am
Location: WA

Re: Have we gone with too many small guys?

Post: # 1599912Post Griggsy »

Bluthy wrote:
Griggsy wrote:I feel it's the right play for the future with interchange caps, especially if they go down further. Such an advantage having mids that can fit perfectly into the forward line. Opens up more options of how to use th cap.

Then again it could be the wrong play, but time will tell.
What about being able to rotate on the half-back line though? I would worry about playing Gresham as a back flanker as he may struggle to spoil. Sinclair started down back against North and was doing ok. I think Mitchell plays half-back for Hawks a bit but he plays almost like a sweeper setting up play from the back with his great ball reading and ball use.
I haven't seen Gresham play but that could be an issue. Will have to be a topic at selection, picking just the right amount of the smalls. Won't be such a big issue if Acres and Mckenzie perform. And as a topic to another thread, I haven't ruled out membrey mid experiment in a year or 2.


User avatar
saintsRrising
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 30069
Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 707 times
Been thanked: 1222 times

Re: Have we gone with too many small guys?

Post: # 1599916Post saintsRrising »

lefty wrote:
Still think Geelongs list is impressive.

Blicavs - 198cm - Ruck/Midfielder
Stanley - 200cm - Ruck/Fwd
Vardy - 199cm - Ruck/Fwd
Smith - 206cm - Ruck/Fwd
Taylor - 195cm - Def
Lonergan - 197cm - Def
Clarke - 200cm - Fwd
Henderson - 196cm - Fwd
Hawkins - 198cm - Fwd

.
Geelong have rolled the dice on trying to snag another flag this year or next. That gives thema solid group of talls. But the better ones apart from Hawkins probably only have 2 seasons left.

IMO Clarke and Hawkins cannot play in the one team against good opposition as the forward line would be too slow and cumbersome.

All of Smith, Vardy and Stanley would not be in the one team....and morseo not in the one team with both of Clarke and Hawkins.


Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
Post Reply