Cripps and Fyfe could swap colours, says Kane Cornes

Dalgety - It isn't about individuals - I am not the one who believes the colour of a players jumper means he doesn't have to abide by the laws of physics. As I have said all along Neale could have a long career, he could have a pain free retirement but the odds are against him. As for letting it go - I wasn't the one who started things up again after there hadn't been a post of any description for 26 hours.

If both of you would let this go that'll be great :)

Let it go Macca. He's already played more games than the average AFL career without a serious injury, including very close to 70 consecutive games and still counting. You can let me know when Cripps has played 70 consecutive games.

Also Dalgety - on the bailey of the lighter body to sustain more as I said earlier the lighter body has to be above average (and not above average for a human but above average for anAFL footballer) which maybe true for Neale but the odds are against him- which has been the point all along.

Dalgety - the differences in muscle density etc between to AFL players (or even 2 humans for that matter) is not even remotely equivalent to the difference between limestone and granite. The more accurate example would be to contrast an 80kg pi ce of Granite with a 95kg piece of granite. The idea that a lighter body not fbeing under more stress in tackling a heavier one, or not feeling the effects of a heavier one fall on it or make contact with force is laughable - but I guess you knew that which is why you deflected rather than answer. Aransan - would you rather bit hit with a stiff firearm or elbow by a 180cm 80kg guy or a 195cm 95kg guy? Remember the longer the lever the greater the h ad speed.

That too Aransan, that too. XP

What about elbows and stiff forearms?

You're getting slightly closer to the nub of it with your last question. My argument is not around the potential of a heavier body to inflict greater damage, it's whether a lighter body will sustain more damage. Any potential damage is influenced by factors not directly revealed in weight, including muscle density & water/fat content, cell integrity, maybe along with the strength of ligaments and of course how the mass is distributed at time of impact. So one example, 5kgs of limestone will sustain more damage than 5kgs of granite.

One final question - is a player who is always going to be hit be objects equal or greater to his mass more or less likely to be on the wrong side of the contests of his career than someone who is always going to be hit by an object equal or less than his mass?

Dalgety - Last year Neale averaged 4.6 tackles per game - is it easier for an 80kg player to tackle (ie stop the momentum lift, rotate, drag down) a 90kg player or a 90kg player to do the same to an 80kg player? When Neale is tackled would having his momentum stopped, him being squeezed rotated and thrown into the ground be worse if it was a 80kg player or a 90kg player? If Neale is being blocked or blocking at the stoppage would the force of being hit by a 80kg player or a 90kg player be worse? Also can a 90kg mass absorb more energy than a 80kg mass? Given the answer to all these questions does an 80kg player need to have extraordinary "durability" to over come the obstacles genetics and physics have placed in his way?

All things aren't equal yes so while Neale "may" be the exception to the rule, the rule remains the same a smaller body going up against bigger ones will come out worse off. Neale has to beat the odd which is been the point all along. "I couldn't agree that physics or logic dictates there would be a significantly different outcome within these parameters, mostly due to the all things being not equal point." but given the parameters of "Dangerfield had collided with a 90kg or an 80kg player in the exact same way." the extra weight means a significantly different outcome.

So we agree on the first point. Excellent. All things aren't equal though (which is very much my point), so we can have tacit agreement on that. I couldn't agree that physics or logic dictates there would be a significantly different outcome within these parameters, mostly due to the all things being not equal point.

"I've held essentially that it's not a fait accompli that it will shorten his career" No one has ever said it was - just that all things being equal a small body being hit by a bigger suffers more damage. "The logic questions whether it would be that significantly different if Dangerfield had collided with a 90kg or an 80kg player in the exact same way." Physics dictates that the result would be significantly different., logic does as well.

I've outlined plenty of logic to support the position I've held essentially that it's not a fait accompli that it will shorten his career anymore than anybody else playing his role. The logic questions whether it would be that significantly different if Dangerfield had collided with a 90kg or an 80kg player in the exact same way. AFL is a very physically demanding sport and takes a toll on everybody playing it. Nevertheless he's closing in on a 100 games and since he's become an established member of the team he's played 23 games in 2014, 24 in 2015 and 22 games in 2016, for a maturing body playing that role that's showing some reasonable durability.

Dalgety - So once again something that is contrary to your "belief" (which is based on nothing more than you love Neale) isn't applicable - don't worry about the basic physics that categorically state the extra force Murphy's body would have had to absorb because of Dangerfield's extra mass - just assume it was all down to the colour of the jumper he was wearing. Great logic.

Murphy's probably come off second best in collisions with 75kg players too, it's not really applicable. Oh and I think you need to acquaint yourself more with logic and physics.

Dalgety - I am the contrarian - I am not the one arguing against the laws of physics and basic logic. Yes individual traits will impact and there will be some players who manage to amaze with their durability but when 91kg Dangerfield and 80 kg Murphy both threw their body at the ball it was Murphy's body that came off second best.

lol...sorry was that a no?...you are a contrarian par excellence. What about velocity of the people involved and or the malleability/resistance of the impacted one...what about a 90kg person getting hit by a 90kg person and their individual traits, is that any more or less than the 80kg person?

"Let’s put this in perspective again, the hypothesis is that all smaller players are significantly less durable across the length of an average AFL career than bigger players when playing a predominantly inside mid position. Yes?" No, the Hypothesis is that a smaller player playing a high contested possession and clearance style game in an era of increasingly large opponents will pay a heavy price. Essentially an 80kg person being hit with a 95kg object will receive more punishment than a 95kg person being hit with a 80kg object.

Albeit a physio mind enjoying the discussion so much that it seems to have difficulty grasping the difference between power and durability. Looks like since I've been away the discussion (and the self-refereeing, projection and misframing) has gone on unabated. Let's put this in perspective again, the hypothesis is that all smaller players are significantly less durable across the length of an average AFL career than bigger players when playing a predominantly inside mid position. Yes? And really at the heart of that is whether the impact of say 95kg players will take a significantly different toll over the course of an average AFL career for say an 80kg player over a 90+kg player. We agree (from what you said above) that there aren’t any available precise measurements of this. Whether clubs keep a record of impact relationship to durability or not becomes irrelevant to this discussion because if they do (and I’m not really sure how they would do that with any sort of useful precision) we don’t have access to that data. In terms of testing this statistically and generating a reasonable enough sample size we’d probably need to test less directly by testing some of the assumptions relevant to the hypothesis. Two questions that underpin that hypothesis: a) Are smaller players significantly less durable than larger players in a physical game like AFL (broad, but still illustrative)? b) Do inside mids have significantly shorter careers than other players? Or perhaps even is there a correlation between contested possessions and career length? Looking at those stats may give us some indication about the validity of the hypothesis beyond how you feel about it, but the reasoning is inductive and so it is more fallible when we are addressing an individual’s circumstances. This is analogous the “bigger guy will always win/bigger bodied midfielder” hypothesis, which should translate to winning contested possessions too, and Lachie Neale bucks this time after time.