He's a Pies supporter, granted, but told me Collingwood had a younger team today than Melbourne on the field.

Even if it's not true, I thought to myself: Players like Robbo, Whelan, McDonald, even Bruce. Are they totally, 100% necessary to be in the team? I'd suggest that McDonald is there for leadership reasons and I don't expect them to dump the captain, although I anticipate an "injury" soon for him to miss a couple of weeks.

Robbo is at the end of his career. He isn't part of our plans for the future and as great as he has been for our club, his selfish play isn't good for a learning and developing team.

Whelan is a solider. No doubt. But I think he might just be done. A fantastic player over the past 9 years and I guess he could be spared a position, but if a young gun is knocking down the door, I'd rather see Whelan go to Casey than someone like Martin, who is said to be part of our future.

Now Bruce. Our highest paid player and best and fairest winner. I'm not a fan of Bruce. I watch him more than other players because I like picking on him (guilty as charged). He backs out of contests, which is my biggest gripe. And unlike McDonald or Davey or Whelan, he just isn't reliable and genuine enough in his game play. Maybe it's just me though?

So I guess the question I put forth to all of you is whether you think it is totally, 100% necessary to have these older players in our team. If they're not leading and not helping us win games (like Richo at Richmond, for example), then I can't see any reason for them being in the team.

He's a Pies supporter, granted, but told me Collingwood had a younger team today than Melbourne on the field.

Even if it's not true, I thought to myself: Players like Robbo, Whelan, McDonald, even Bruce. Are they totally, 100% necessary to be in the team? I'd suggest that McDonald is there for leadership reasons and I don't expect them to dump the captain, although I anticipate an "injury" soon for him to miss a couple of weeks.

STATS - --------- http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_matc...istics?mid=4254

here's my reply to a similar question on another thread

-the collective age (everyones age added up) was 5 less for collingwood.

-i also heard that they had less players than us with under 50 games of experiance...

however, in terms of collective age, 5 isnt much at all...if we took out whelan and/or bell for bennel or martin, and took out robbo for miller, newton or jurrah, our collective age would be less than theirs...

in reply to the fact that they had more players with less than 50 games or less, they are playing a lot of their new draft picks, whereas, we still havent played 2 of our top 3 from last year, as well as blokes such as mcnamara, jurrah, bail, as well as some of our rookies.

in conclusion, what mick said might make us sound like we are older and worse than the pies, but what he said could be taken out of context in the general scheme of things

---in fact, im of the opinion that james struass should be pushing for selection in coming weeks to replace a bruce of mcdonald type if need be...

It's a sobering thought isn't it? It's a true indication of how poor and how many holes our list has, but most importantly the lack of genuine leaders we have.

He's a Pies supporter, granted, but told me Collingwood had a younger team today than Melbourne on the field.

Even if it's not true, I thought to myself: Players like Robbo, Whelan, McDonald, even Bruce. Are they totally, 100% necessary to be in the team? I'd suggest that McDonald is there for leadership reasons and I don't expect them to dump the captain, although I anticipate an "injury" soon for him to miss a couple of weeks.

.

they are younger, but the difference is that we will be a younger side in 2 years because robbo, whelan, mcdonald and bruce will be gone. we will be a younger and a much better side in 2 years. you can draw a similar comparison to hawthorn i believe.

It's a sobering thought isn't it? It's a true indication of how poor and how many holes our list has, but most importantly the lack of genuine leaders we have.

Or you can look at it and say that in the next 1-3 years we will lose all of these senior players, and yet none will be a loss to us.

Most teams struggle when they lose their most senior players, but not us.

We can start planning for a future without our 5 oldest players and not have to worry about how we'll manage without them, because in reality none occupy key positions, none play key roles, and none are influential enough to win us games (with apologies to Greeny, who still has a while left in him anyway).

Or you can look at it and say that in the next 1-3 years we will lose all of these senior players, and yet none will be a loss to us.

Most teams struggle when they lose their most senior players, but not us.

We can start planning for a future without our 5 oldest players and not have to worry about how we'll manage without them, because in reality none occupy key positions, none play key roles, and none are influential enough to win us games (with apologies to Greeny, who still has a while left in him anyway).

Try the next 6 years, and I'm struggling to find the silver lining in this situation

Try the next 6 years, and I'm struggling to find the silver lining in this situation

Hopefullt today is just a great big ugly aberation because on todays performance, we are a LONG long LOOOONG way away

Hopefullt today is just a great big ugly aberation because on todays performance, we are a LONG long LOOOONG way away

err, we're 1 & 10 for the season...

STATS - --------- http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_matc...istics?mid=4254

And your point is?? stats is not what its about its how you use them

here's my reply to a similar question on another thread

-the collective age (everyones age added up) was 5 less for collingwood.

-i also heard that they had less players than us with under 50 games of experiance...

however, in terms of collective age, 5 isnt much at all...if we took out whelan and/or bell for bennel or martin, and took out robbo for miller, newton or jurrah, our collective age would be less than theirs...

in reply to the fact that they had more players with less than 50 games or less, they are playing a lot of their new draft picks, whereas, we still havent played 2 of our top 3 from last year, as well as blokes such as mcnamara, jurrah, bail, as well as some of our rookies.

in conclusion, what mick said might make us sound like we are older and worse than the pies, but what he said could be taken out of context in the general scheme of things

---in fact, im of the opinion that james struass should be pushing for selection in coming weeks to replace a bruce of mcdonald type if need be...

Mick master of crap & disguise.

And your point is?? stats is not what its about its how you use them

sorry U didn't understand my post to calabreseboy, I posted it for his perusal, to show the Deception of statistics if taken at superficial level.

One of the more important stats is the size/weight difference where we are quite a bit smaller than our opponents, did you bother to look @ that?

To compete & win contested ball & break tackles takes mature body & mind.

err, we're 1 & 10 for the season...

But we have not been as bad as we were today.

We are the worst team in the comp but we are half way through the season and we have had 1 of "these" games.

Last year we had about 6 or 7.

We are not what we showed out there today.

Part of why we did so poorly was because the veterans generally had poor games.

It's not like we're about to lose our top assets to age. Our oldest player who had what I would call a decent game today was Green, and that wasn't spectacular. Moloney might be next, I'm guessing.

(Yes, I know Bruce got amongst our highest disposals, but they tended to be low-impact and there were too many pieces of lazy non-defence non-pressure from him)

As has been pointed out before, we also have a very wide split of ages - our older players are properly old, meaning that the large number of younger players are balanced out in the average age stat. Remember that one 33 year old plus three 21 year olds is the same average (24) as a 27 year old and three 23 year olds.

err, we're 1 & 10 for the season...

That was to be expected when we were 1 and 4.

Today was a disgrace.

Older, younger, fitter, slower, stronger or weaker, we must be a team that chase and watch our men closely. Today's was a lazy, undisciplined performance that meant we were destroyed at the clearences (from what I saw), gave up soft goals from snap kicks that ended up in the lap of players sitting in front and gave up goals because we were willing to sell teammates under pressure.

Our list is top-heavy, as Nugget Jones has pointed out, and that inflates our list/team age.

We're also not going to lose much off the top - McDonald, Robertson, Whelan and Bruce will be the guys over 30 in 2010.

Green (March) and Wheatley (Dec) will be 30 in 2011. No one else will hit 30 until 2013.

How many under 15 games for each club, they prob have 5+ around the 50 mark where we would have prob more around the 10-20 mark.

He's a Pies supporter, granted, but told me Collingwood had a younger team today than Melbourne on the field.

Even if it's not true, I thought to myself: Players like Robbo, Whelan, McDonald, even Bruce. Are they totally, 100% necessary to be in the team? I'd suggest that McDonald is there for leadership reasons and I don't expect them to dump the captain, although I anticipate an "injury" soon for him to miss a couple of weeks.

Robbo is at the end of his career. He isn't part of our plans for the future and as great as he has been for our club, his selfish play isn't good for a learning and developing team.

Whelan is a solider. No doubt. But I think he might just be done. A fantastic player over the past 9 years and I guess he could be spared a position, but if a young gun is knocking down the door, I'd rather see Whelan go to Casey than someone like Martin, who is said to be part of our future.

Now Bruce. Our highest paid player and best and fairest winner. I'm not a fan of Bruce. I watch him more than other players because I like picking on him (guilty as charged). He backs out of contests, which is my biggest gripe. And unlike McDonald or Davey or Whelan, he just isn't reliable and genuine enough in his game play. Maybe it's just me though?

So I guess the question I put forth to all of you is whether you think it is totally, 100% necessary to have these older players in our team. If they're not leading and not helping us win games (like Richo at Richmond, for example), then I can't see any reason for them being in the team.

could have done without Whelan, Robbo and Junior today. If Bruce could kick straight he would be big asset, anyway the Pies have got a lot more older players than us

It's not all about being young - look at Neitz what a leader - I don't think Mcdonald is a good captain -no encouragement like Neitz used to do - pat the players on the back and offer words of encouragement - not once have I seen this happen!!

Yes they are getting old, and what did Green, Bruce, Rivers, McLean (useless) and Davey do yesterday - NOTHING - I suggest to you as long as they are getting paid they don't care - I'm OVER it - we pay good money for our tickets and to go along and watch that pathetic rubbish - is emabarrissing - especially in front of Collingwood - what about next year - is it to be more of the same - bring back Kevin Sheedy, Todd Viney or Garry Lyon who always has too much to say but doesn't do anything - we have no-one to stand up for us , and to kick goals, they didn't even lose as much when we played the Cats and Saints. one word -PATHETIC!!!

If Garland and Wonaeamirri were fit then they would be in the team...

That certainly would bring down the games played and age of the team a little.

I think we miss these guys out there enormously...Aussie's forward pressure and goal sense and Garlands run and dash from the backline.

It's not all about being young - look at Neitz what a leader - I don't think Mcdonald is a good captain -no encouragement like Neitz used to do - pat the players on the back and offer words of encouragement - not once have I seen this happen!!

Yes they are getting old, and what did Green, Bruce, Rivers, McLean (useless) and Davey do yesterday - NOTHING - I suggest to you as long as they are getting paid they don't care - I'm OVER it - we pay good money for our tickets and to go along and watch that pathetic rubbish - is emabarrissing - especially in front of Collingwood - what about next year - is it to be more of the same - bring back Kevin Sheedy, Todd Viney or Garry Lyon who always has too much to say but doesn't do anything - we have no-one to stand up for us , and to kick goals, they didn't even lose as much when we played the Cats and Saints. one word -PATHETIC!!!

Calm down Gill. It's one bad game after a string of good games. Forget Neitz, he's gone and his last 2 years were very ordinary. McDonald was given the captaincy for 1 year because we have NO ONE else on the list who is captain material. As for Sheedy coaching us. I'll tell you what would have happened if that blunder had been made. He would of retained all our ageing tired players for one last crack at a finals series. We would of watched on in horror as Yze, White, Godfrey, Ward, Bizzell and co all ran around whilst no youngsters were blooded. We would of missed the finals and we'd be 2 years further behind in our rebuild. We'd also be stuck with trying to rebuild with a comprimised draft. As for Gary Lyon, he doesn't want to coach so why would we want him to coach? Todd Viney went back to Adelaide for family reasons. The future is bright. Our team is young and improving and with some more astute drafting we'll be well on the way. Have a look at the team below and give them 2 to 4 years to find their feet.

B: Rivers Warnock Garland

HB: Strauss Martin Frawley

C: Morton Grimes Davey

HF: Jurrah Butcher Sylvia

F: Miller Watts Blease

R: Spencer Jones Scully

INT: Maric, Bennell, Petterd, Bate

EMG: Wonaeamirri, Jamar, Mckenzie, Moloney

Now Gill have a look. See it's going to be OK, Patience!!

Our list is top-heavy, as Nugget Jones has pointed out, and that inflates our list/team age.

We're also not going to lose much off the top - McDonald, Robertson, Whelan and Bruce will be the guys over 30 in 2010.

Green (March) and Wheatley (Dec) will be 30 in 2011. No one else will hit 30 until 2013.

That pretty much sums it up. We were pretty much the same age across the board. Less experience though. And when our 28+ players walk away, we won't lose a thing. Whereas the pies will. Add to that the fact that they are only playing all those kids because they retain guys like Rocca, who can't get on the park, and they have a big injury list.

They'll make up numbers in the finals, just like every other side who's isn't called "Geelong" or "St. Kilda." Even if they DID make a GF it'd be 2000 all over again. Only they'd take our role.

They don't like admitting it, but we're closer to a flag than they are.

Average Attributes

Melbourne Attribute Collingwood

187.0cm Height 187.5cm

85.8kg Weight 88.3kg

24yr 3mth Age 24yr 2mth

76.4 Games 87.1

We averaged 1 month older per player yesterday. and perhaps more significantly averaged 10 games less per player. I'll trade malthouses 5 years collectively, for his 220 games extra experience. which one is more impressive?

Total Players By Games

Melbourne Games Collingwood

9 Less than 50 8

8 50 to 99 6

1 100 to 149 2

4 150 or more 6

We had more players with 50 or less games, and less players with more than 100 games.

Add to that the fact that they are only playing all those kids because they retain guys like Rocca, who can't get on the park, and they have a big injury list.

Rocca is no longer a fixture in Collingwood's best 22.

In our last finals win against ADL in 08, we had 11 of our 22 that were 21 or younger.