Jack Byrne
- Thread starter leighton
- Start date
- Status
5 feet 7 and half inches to be exact. Or 1.75m
I'd definitely say he's small. Not a midget, but not the size of a bustling midfielder. Scholes size really. And it's probably Scholes that he has to emulate stylistically in many ways to give himself a chance at the highest of levels.
1.75m is about 5 foot 9, not 5 foot 7. (It's 5.7 feet, but that's not the same)
If the internet is correct and he is 1.75m then that's nearly 3 inches taller than Scholes by my reckoning. He's the same height as plenty of bustling midfielders, like Fernandinho, Matuidi, Naingolan or Milner. I think it's more his lack of bustling pace and strength that will stop him being that sort of player than any height issue (although he could easily get stronger as he gets older). I've always thought he'd end up being a deep lying possession type player anyway to be honest, who keeps things ticking over and spraying passes about. Like a not shit Carrick
Yes your right,nearly 5 foot 9. He's a lot bigger than i thought he was.
Height really isn't as important as the way you put yourself about. Navas is short, but he's very good in the air, Sterling is tiny, but he's strong enough and has the attitude to shove players much bigger off the ball.
In the modern game, with today's refereeing, physicality is less important. You want to have some tall lads at the back because set pieces will be an issue, but for a central midfielder there's no problem with being small.
In the modern game, with today's refereeing, physicality is less important. You want to have some tall lads at the back because set pieces will be an issue, but for a central midfielder there's no problem with being small.
To be fair, look at the size of him next to Navas, not sure he's even 5 foot ;)
Reminds me of this one.
- Status