Harris Andrews is 202cm. So when he wants to spoil he doesn't have to throw that much at it to get adequate air. He is less unbalanced when he has to recover because he hasn't had to overcommit to the altitude. A little spring and he's there. And this economy of effort gives him the poise when spoiling to control the ball's path. And to recover in time for a GBG or corrall.
Because he's 202cm he is effective in front position because even if he gets a nudge he has enough reach and altitude to get touch to the ball and even control it sometimes. Height compensates for lack of mass/strength. (And vice versa.)
Sam de Viking is 202cm. That didn't stop Wells from taking the 198cm Connor O'Sullivan at pick 11, trading out of Nate Caddy in doing so. O'Sullivan is a terrific prospect but he'll be helped by a growth spurt. O'Sullivan, whose groundskills (GBGs and use) are very good will be the #2 back at Geelong. Did Wells futureproof the Geelong backline?
Fullbacks like Liam Jones rely on a run up, timing and spring to get there for the spoil. But they expend a little more effort in doing so. Tom Barrass does it the same way. And in comparing vision of the two at work you'll notice that Barrass is even more off balance after the spoil than Jones. He expends even more energy than Jones to get the air. BTW IMO both these guys are good fullbacks. I like em both.
There are other measurable individual physical factors at play like running/standing leap/reach, wingspan!, and mass. Not to mention the impact of formation work and planning/structure. But nota bene, if you get a short fullback to consistently throw everything at getting air he takes a fraction or more longer to recover for the next contest.
To recruit players we have to know what they look like. My biggest pot on Clarke was that he seemed to have no idea what a footballer looks like. (The Great Eye of the Potato.)
Fullbacks are 200cm plus these days. The exceptions are 198cm and that makes it harder.
The same notion applies to rucks, BTW, who are now near 210cm. But that is for another thread.
Because he's 202cm he is effective in front position because even if he gets a nudge he has enough reach and altitude to get touch to the ball and even control it sometimes. Height compensates for lack of mass/strength. (And vice versa.)
Sam de Viking is 202cm. That didn't stop Wells from taking the 198cm Connor O'Sullivan at pick 11, trading out of Nate Caddy in doing so. O'Sullivan is a terrific prospect but he'll be helped by a growth spurt. O'Sullivan, whose groundskills (GBGs and use) are very good will be the #2 back at Geelong. Did Wells futureproof the Geelong backline?
Fullbacks like Liam Jones rely on a run up, timing and spring to get there for the spoil. But they expend a little more effort in doing so. Tom Barrass does it the same way. And in comparing vision of the two at work you'll notice that Barrass is even more off balance after the spoil than Jones. He expends even more energy than Jones to get the air. BTW IMO both these guys are good fullbacks. I like em both.
There are other measurable individual physical factors at play like running/standing leap/reach, wingspan!, and mass. Not to mention the impact of formation work and planning/structure. But nota bene, if you get a short fullback to consistently throw everything at getting air he takes a fraction or more longer to recover for the next contest.
To recruit players we have to know what they look like. My biggest pot on Clarke was that he seemed to have no idea what a footballer looks like. (The Great Eye of the Potato.)
Fullbacks are 200cm plus these days. The exceptions are 198cm and that makes it harder.
The same notion applies to rucks, BTW, who are now near 210cm. But that is for another thread.
Last edited:
