Does a good big man really beat a good small? Or is it just another footy myth?

NEVER kick the ball across the face of goal and never kick short to a man who can’t play on.
Both of these “golden rules” of football have served the game well for most of its 150 years. They made the game predictable for players and made experts of the most novice of supporters.
But are they still relevant in this modern game?
Certainly if you watched any footy over the weekend you would witness nearly every player break at least one of these rules, probably many times.
It’s fair to say that they have been consigned to the football graveyard, along with lace-up jumpers and, for that matter, tucked in jumpers.
While thinking about changing football folklore, I thought it was about time I tackled possibly the biggest myth in our game: the theory that “a good big man will always beat a good little man”.
At this point it is appropriate but not entirely relevant that I admit my prejudice. Standing a whopping 179cm (180 with screw-ins) I placed squarely in the little man category.
This may lead some to think that my opinions are biased, but I assure you I intend to present a balanced argument.
For decades the argument has raged as to which player, the tall or the short, would win in the ultimate battle of football supremacy.
My earliest recollection of this ancient feud goes back to when I was a tiny tacker and heard the great Jack Dyer and Lou Richards slug it out on TV and radio, both arguing with as much bias as they could muster.
The argument basically went like this… big men are strong and brave… big men are dumb and slow… little men rely on the big men … little guys are skilful and courageous.
An ad break usually punctuated the sterling debate leaving us none the wiser as to the winner.
Here’s my simple take on the one-on-one scenario. Kick the ball in the air so that it does not favour either player and the good big fella will be too good.
However, kick the ball along the ground and the good little fella should run rings around his prehistoric counterpart.

Read More....

It wasn’t surprising that there was an outcry about Joel Bowden shuffling the ball back and forward over the goal line to wind down the clock against Essendon last Saturday.
“It’s not in the spirit of the game” shouted the voices of discontent, most of whom were, not surprisingly, Essendon fans.
The spirit of the game is a nice, airy concept that people trot out in these situations, but you have to wonder what the true spirit of the game is.
You can’t help pondering how Essendon fans viewed their own club’s introduction of the kick-backwards, retain-possession game that was instigated by their then coach as a time-draining tactic a few years back.
Yes it was effective in soaking up the seconds, but how did it fit with this mystical notion of the spirit of the game.
Perhaps when Matthew Knights came out and said he had no problem with Bowden’s tactics, he was mindful of his predecessor’s approach.
If the rules provide for actions such as Bowden’s, players and clubs will always take advantage of them.
Imagine if Bowden had misdirected a kick-in from that situation. He would be the whipping boy for grumpy Richmond ferals across the board.
You can roll out examples ad infinitum of supposedly questionable acts both on and off the field, but the truth is that things will happen as long as they are permitted to happen by the rules or circumstances that prevail.
Was it in the spirit of the game to let Fitzroy Football Club wither and die on the vine 11 years ago?
Is it in the spirit of the game to promise Auskick kids tickets to a game and then tell them they can’t be fitted into the ground?

Read More....