just thought id do a little analysis for discussion, i havnt seen this done for a while, and its as good a time as any to see it again.

(all ages as of roughly this time of year)

our current average list age: 23.4 years

median age: 22.1 years

(indicates our age average is being pushed up by a few older players who unbalance it slightly)

assuming the changes to the list at the end of the year are

off: neitz, yze, holland, jamar and carrol

(yes this is presumptuous but is an even spread of players, perhaps white and mcdonald and wheelan will go to, which would further the spread we have)

and that the 5 replacements are all 18 year old draftees (aged 18.5 at this time of year)

then the average list age this time next year would be: 23 years

and the median list age would be: 22.1 years

so the median wouldnt change, but the average would drop slightly. we would have an age spread of:

age - number of players - average games by players that age (up til right now, i havnt predicted how many games will be played by each player over the next 10 rounds...)

18-5 - 0

19-5 - 2.2

20-5 - 7.6

21-4 - 23

22-6 - 16

23-5 - 25

24-3 - 54

25-3 - 61

26-1 - 92

27-0 - na

28-2 - 150

29-2 - 152

30-1 - 215

31-0 - na

32-2 - 237

which is still very heavily weighted to the under 23's.

now obviously given trades, rookie-ing and actually retirements these numbers could vary slightly, but they are interesting nonetheless.

thought id also add in for comparison average afl games per player this year : 68.5

median afl games: 34.5

if you take out the five 'retirees' i nominated and include the 5 draftees with 0 games experience, (and add an extra 220 games to cover the 10 rounds left this season)

the average afl games at the start of next season drops to: 53.2

the median games played drops to: around 13...

this season we have 11 players with 100 games experience and a further 8 with between 50-100 games.

next season we would have 8 players with 100 games experience and 6 with 50 games experience. (nathan jones could crack his 50 this season, he has 41 so far) and aaron davey has 92, so it could be 9 and 6 next season...

now just out of interest i have done similar calculations for the current geelong list, there are a couple of stand out differences:

average age of list: 23.5 years

median age of list: 23.2 years

average afl games: 66.1

median afl games: 43

they have 15 100 game players, and 6 50-100 game players. with a couple more ready to tick over into both categories.

spread of players

18-4 - 0

19-5 - 4

20-4 - 17

21-3 - 6

22-6 - 23

23-2 - 56

24-7 - 85 (2 players are 24 and 11 months)

25-0 - na

26-6 - 121

27-2 - 150

28-2 - 173

29-2 - 183

30-0 - na

31-1 - 225

i gotta run now, and dont really have time to have a look at what this means, but thought it might be worth a look. let me know if you find any patterns, or anything worth highlighting...perhaps i wasted a pile of my life, or perhaps it will give us food for thought...

Do we take away the 1st number we thought of?

What about a piechart? (I wish pie wasn't at the start of that word.)

back so i thought i'd have a chat about what i saw...

the big thing for me appears to be the median games...i cant believe that only half our list have above 35 games experience. and given that we will be losing a few of those higher players (there will definetly be a bunch of retirements out of junior, white, yze and holland, with neitz already gone. and it is likely/possible that players like jamar, carrol and robbo only have a year left in them), we could realistically lose another 2 or three players with 200+ games of experience, which would force the averages and the median even lower.

interesting for me that the geelong sides have very similar median age and average age. this indicates a much more even spread of players of all age groups, where we have a list that is very youth lopsided. and the median games and average games for mfc indicate this also; our top players are very experienced but after that it drops away quickly.

to me this really indicates that we are almost at the bottom of the cycle, we clearly need to bring the average and median games up because we have a relatively young and inexperienced list.

but i do think something that looks in favour for us, is the number of players in the under 23 and under 25 categories. over the next 3 years, all players who are in the top age brackets will turn over (retire) and with those retirements will be a few delistings of the younger groups who are not up to it. with some reasonable drafting over the next 4 years, we could see the list progress such that there are 3-4 players in every age bracket with good experience, and hopefully up to afl standard. an issue we have atm is that we have serious holes around the 25-28 age group, but if we continue development we will have players of all ages. obviously it is important to have quality players, not just any players, but i think one of the prerequisites of being successful is having a good even mix across the board, especially to ensure that there is more than a one year window.

Quality not quantity.

Do we take away the 1st number we thought of?

What about a piechart? (I wish pie wasn't at the start of that word.)

i assume your being a bit sarcastic there. not sure what your point is.

although i do agree that some kind of graphical representation could be easier to view and understand than the text but i dont know if i can paste graphs here...

Good work, Deanox.

But are you sure that despite losing 5 guys aged about 30, and replacing them with guys aged 18, the average age only drops by 0.4???

Surely that would result in an approx. 1.5 year drop. Quite significant, and probably making ours the youngest list in the AFL.

Good work, Deanox.

But are you sure that despite losing 5 guys aged about 30, and replacing them with guys aged 18, the average age only drops by 0.4???

Surely that would result in an approx. 1.5 year drop. Quite significant, and probably making ours the youngest list in the AFL.

ah but 39 or so other blokes on the list age by 1 year in that time.

so you lose 33, 30, 30, 25, 27 (total 145), gain 5 x 18.5 (total 92) plus an extra year per player on the list (39) so you really lose only 14 years, divided by the 44 on the list. (all the details includes rookies, considering we are playing both valenti and wonameri this year i thought it was appropriate).

i realise there are a lot of numbers and a lot of information here that may be pointless but i thought it was worth looking at the current set up and distribution of our list with respect to age and experience, given we have done a lot of analysis on what positions we need, and lots of discussions about what players we can trade for draft picks.

as much as id love to offload bruce for a 1s rounder, im not sure we can afford that given that any kid we draft would be coming to a club with virtually no players over 26 except for robbo, green, wheatly and wheelan, and given that there are no guarantees on robbo or wheelans future on the park.

on the upside bailey and co are in a genuine position to scourge the football club of poor attitudes and habits as they have a young list, with very few of the old guard hanging around. and those that are here will be gone within two years. if you ever wanted to instil a culture change now looks like a perfect time to do it.

i know this thread is becoming a discussion with myself, but i noticed the 'median age' and thought that was worth expanding on also.

for those who dont know the differences, the average (whether it be age or games) in the total sum divided by the number of samples. for example, 5 players have played 10, 10, 20, 30 and 40 games respectively. the average is 110 divided by 5, or 22. The median is the 'middle value' of a list. so in the same list of players above the median games played is 20, as there are two values above and two below. This doesnt look important at first, but consider the playing list.

There are 44 players in the analysised list. some are draftees who have never played, others have been around varying amounts. the average games played can be skewed by having a large number of values at either end of the list. if we drafted 5 players two years in a row, and none of those 5 had made their debut, the average games played would be very skewed as 10 players havnt played.

what the stats above show us, it that there is a big difference in our average games and median games. given the list of 44 players, you could assume that if the club was fielding its most senior 22 (possibly the best 22), then the median games played would be the number of games played by the least experienced member of the best team. obviously melbourne is not in that mode - we are developing players and leaving players out who could possibly be in our 'best 22' because theirs is not the future of the mfc. in fact i would argue that 6 of our top 22 experienced players were not in our best 22 and a further 3 or 4 are currently injured/retired and probably wont play much this season). thats half of your most experienced players not competing in your best side on the park.

in geelong for example, it is assumed that their best 22 would almost be their most experienced, or close to it. having a look at there player list, there are a couple of fringe players who have been playing, that have less experience than the median, and these players come in for injured players, or other players who have proved not quite up to it, who will be moved on in the next year or two...

our average games next year will be 53. our median games next year will be 13.

geelongs average is 66 and its median is 43.

the key here, is that over half our list will have less than 13 games experience. this indicates we wont have much depth. it indicates our senior team doesnt have the experience that a geelong team would have. it shows that there is a bigger gap between the sides, than demonstrated by 'average games' experience, which could drop even lower if white and jmac retire (about 500 games between them), in fact the average games per player on our list at that point could drop lower than geelong median games.

we very much are a young club, and there is obviously a lot of growth available....

does this analysis indicated that to be in premiership mode, you need to have your best 22 players closely corresponding to your 22 most experienced players, and obviously have these players available throughout the year (generally injury free)?

if i get time, i might compare a couple of other sides (hawthorn and wbs). i am not sure how to compare previous seasons premiers and view their lists as a snapshot in time (ie the players, ages, and games experience at the time they won the flag). if anyone knows where i could get those type of stats, please let me know, id be interested in doing the analysis.

does this analysis indicated that to be in premiership mode, you need to have your best 22 players closely corresponding to your 22 most experienced players, and obviously have these players available throughout the year (generally injury free)?

if i get time, i might compare a couple of other sides (hawthorn and wbs). i am not sure how to compare previous seasons premiers and view their lists as a snapshot in time (ie the players, ages, and games experience at the time they won the flag). if anyone knows where i could get those type of stats, please let me know, id be interested in doing the analysis.

great work!!

Was just thinking this the other day..

I remember Neale talking about it at the pre-season meeting a few years ago..

Our list has great potential in regards to age and games played, especially as you mentioned come next year..

The only other thing is alot of those players are too similiar in my view, where Geelong had a better spread of types..

Its a real interesting topic though, thanx 4 posting the info!!

Geelong have a fair few similar players, particularly through the middle.

Luckily for them though the similar players can all play forward and back too (something which the likes of Jones, McLean, Moloney, McDonald etc don't seem capable of)

Geelong have a fair few similar players, particularly through the middle.

Luckily for them though the similar players can all play forward and back too (something which the likes of Jones, McLean, Moloney, McDonald etc don't seem capable of)

yes, exactly!!

They are far more versatile!