http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/tackle

Do you agree with Robbo? Email him here and he'll answer your questions tomorrow.

  On 29/03/2010 at 01:41, Spirit of Barassi said:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/tackle

Do you agree with Robbo? Email him here and he'll answer your questions tomorrow.

Dumping scarves in bins on the way out?

Weak pea-hearted effort by those supporters, but at least we know they'll be the first to turn up when we start winning again.

The trouble with Melbourne is no one tears through them in the media. That article is spot on.

  On 29/03/2010 at 01:47, The Old Xaverian said:

The trouble with Melbourne is no one tears through them in the media. That article is spot on.

laziest Journo in the game. if you listen to him on SEN he is a like a punch drunk opinionated yobbo.

  On 29/03/2010 at 01:54, Bay Riffin said:

laziest Journo in the game. if you listen to him on SEN he is a like a punch drunk opinionated yobbo.

"Like"?

The age/ave games stat doesn't mean much to me because if Bruce or Junior were out injured,we would have been younger and less experienced than them.If Buddy,Bateman played they would have older/more experienced than us.

  On 29/03/2010 at 01:47, Keyser Söze said:

Dumping scarves in bins on the way out?

Weak pea-hearted effort by those supporters, but at least we know they'll be the first to turn up when we start winning again.

At least they rocked up to the gamw.

Cant say the samne for around 20 of our players.

  On 29/03/2010 at 02:01, Jack7 said:

The age/ave games stat doesn't mean much to me because if Bruce or Junior were out injured,we would have been younger and less experienced than them.If Buddy,Bateman played they would have older/more experienced than us.

Yes but those are two "ifs" you've just stated there.

The reality was that our side was roughly at the same age/experience level as the team fielded by Hawthorn.

We need to get beyond the mindset of using youth as an excuse.

MR is such a genius that he berates MFC for being both rubbish and injury-riddled, but then in the same token down below proclaims we will be tanking this season.

  Quote

The Demons, meanwhile, will continue to plough games into youngsters not ready to consistently compete. Injuries have also killed them. So, get ready for a first: A season-long tank.

You should not need any more proof that his opinion isn't worth %$.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/tackle

Actually, that shambles of an article was worth it for this tidbit:

  Quote

The laugh of March came at the MFC pre-season luncheon in the MCC dining room last Wednesday, when president Jim Stynes welcomed 800 diners, including counterparts David Smorgon, Frank Coast and Eddie McGuire.

The Herald Sun's Mike Sheahan couldn't make it because he was ill in hospital - he's now recovered - and Stynes couldn't help himself.

''Mike couldn't make it because he is sick,'' he started, ''and that's weak as [censored]. I have cancer and I am here.''

  On 29/03/2010 at 02:10, Keyser Söze said:

Actually, that shambles of an article was worth it for this tidbit:

That's awesome. Made my day. Leave it to the Irish. The only country who's citizens don't need comedy writers to be funny in front of a group. They're born that way.

As for Robbo, he is a yobbo, a low IQ bottom feeder, a poor writer, a twit when it comes to real football opinion-making... and he is right. About all of it.

A greater man than I once said that there are lies, damned lies and statistics; by any credible measure we were by far the younger and more inexperienced on Saturday last.

Our avereage games played was 70.3 and Hawthorn's was 67. The three most experienced players on the ground and accounted for 636 of our total of 1547 games. By contrast Hawthorn's three most experienced players accounted for only 481 of their 1473 total. Hawthorn's most experienced player would have stumped quite a few people; Guerra at 175. He was followed by Mitchell on 155 and then Hodge on 151. We had Junior on 235, Bruce on 203 and Green on 198.

If you drop the three highest and the three lowest totals, you get a much better representation of the situation; Hawthorn's mean becomes 62 and ours 57, much younger. I could wax lyrical with a great many more statistical measures that all show much the same thing.

The average age will follow the same path; the three oldest players on the ground were, of course, Junior, Bruce and Green. By some way as well, Junior and Brice were the only players over 30, with Green on 29. Hawthorn's oldest player, another who would have tricked a few people, Osborne at 27.7.

  On 29/03/2010 at 22:16, undeeniable said:

A greater man than I once said that there are lies, damned lies and statistics; by any credible measure we were by far the younger and more inexperienced on Saturday last.

Our avereage games played was 70.3 and Hawthorn's was 67. The three most experienced players on the ground and accounted for 636 of our total of 1547 games. By contrast Hawthorn's three most experienced players accounted for only 481 of their 1473 total. Hawthorn's most experienced player would have stumped quite a few people; Guerra at 175. He was followed by Mitchell on 155 and then Hodge on 151. We had Junior on 235, Bruce on 203 and Green on 198.

If you drop the three highest and the three lowest totals, you get a much better representation of the situation; Hawthorn's mean becomes 62 and ours 57, much younger. I could wax lyrical with a great many more statistical measures that all show much the same thing.

The average age will follow the same path; the three oldest players on the ground were, of course, Junior, Bruce and Green. By some way as well, Junior and Brice were the only players over 30, with Green on 29. Hawthorn's oldest player, another who would have tricked a few people, Osborne at 27.7.

You make arguments either way full of ifs and buts. The point is that, whatever way you slice it, there wasn't huge gap in terms of age and experience between the two sides.

  On 29/03/2010 at 22:27, Spirit of Barassi said:

You make arguments either way full of ifs and buts. The point is that, whatever way you slice it, there wasn't huge gap in terms of age and experience between the two sides.

Maybe debating who had the younger group out of the two teams is largely irrelevant.Which team had the better quality players out on the park is probably a better point for argument ?

  On 29/03/2010 at 22:27, Spirit of Barassi said:

You make arguments either way full of ifs and buts. The point is that, whatever way you slice it, there wasn't huge gap in terms of age and experience between the two sides.

And bizarrely you still don't get it...

  On 29/03/2010 at 22:40, Enforcer25 said:

And bizarrely you still don't get it...

Clearly you don't pal

  On 29/03/2010 at 22:45, Spirit of Barassi said:

Clearly you don't pal

Clearly your screen name is an insult to the man himself.

The point, which you completely missed, is that to say Hawthorn was younger on the day is relatively meaningless.

There was no trying to find excuses, just refuting of a poor argument for why Melbourne should have done better.

I know footy is an emotional game, but there's a lot of room for intelligent though as well.

Give it a try sometime.

  On 29/03/2010 at 23:14, Enforcer25 said:

Clearly your screen name is an insult to the man himself.

The point, which you completely missed, is that to say Hawthorn was younger on the day is relatively meaningless.

There was no trying to find excuses, just refuting of a poor argument for why Melbourne should have done better.

I know footy is an emotional game, but there's a lot of room for intelligent though as well.

Give it a try sometime.

I love the condescending tone you take in all of your posts E25. Wow, you must be really smart.

My point was that age was less of a factor on Saturday than the level of passion and commitment between the two sides. Get it? Duh?

I'd say it's you who insults the great man with your pea-hearted deference to mediocrity.

  On 29/03/2010 at 23:29, Spirit of Barassi said:

I love the condescending tone you take in all of your posts E25. Wow, you must be really smart.

My point was that age was less of a factor on Saturday than the level of passion and commitment between the two sides. Get it? Duh?

I'd say it's you who insults the great man with your pea-hearted deference to mediocrity.

Yeah, exactly - what you were saying was exactly the same - age was not a factor on Saturday.

But like I said, you just didn't get it.

It's actually your pea-hearted inability to accept the hard losses that are needed to develop a side of kids.

Accepting mediocrity would involve Bailey caving to the pressure and bring in a few mature players, hanging onto players like Robbo and being good enough just to 'compete' albeit with no chance of really doing some damage.

We were told it would be hard, but too many people don't have the strength and the foresight to get through these tough times.

i dont no if i am right but alot of the younger melbourne players have missed games due to injury so in this case dont you go by games and not age?

you can b 19 and played ten games or you can b 20 and played three. and the hawks have very good players that are experienced to learn off we dont have many

  On 29/03/2010 at 23:46, Enforcer25 said:

Yeah, exactly - what you were saying was exactly the same - age was not a factor on Saturday.

But like I said, you just didn't get it.

It's actually your pea-hearted inability to accept the hard losses that are needed to develop a side of kids.

Accepting mediocrity would involve Bailey caving to the pressure and bring in a few mature players, hanging onto players like Robbo and being good enough just to 'compete' albeit with no chance of really doing some damage.

We were told it would be hard, but too many people don't have the strength and the foresight to get through these tough times.

Strength, foresight and intelligence! Do you have x-ray vision too Superman? Or do your rose-tinted sunnies affect your eyesight too much?

  On 29/03/2010 at 22:27, Spirit of Barassi said:

You make arguments either way full of ifs and buts. The point is that, whatever way you slice it, there wasn't huge gap in terms of age and experience between the two sides.

There are no ifs and buts; just an analysis of the actual statistics. I could bore you with talk of variances, standard deviations and the like but, if you are not well-versed in statistics, they are meaningless. The basic structure of the Hawthorn team was just what you would expect of a competent football team - a large group of players in and around the mean and just a few with under 20 games. We were more spread out and had a great many more at the bottom end; this was obscured by the spurious use of the mean in Robbo's article.

If I can summarise: The teams were fairly evenly matched in terms of age and experience, yet they thrashed us and it should have been by more than 10 goals.

Hence Bailey's constant excuse of "we need to get more games into the kids" isn't valid. What we really need is "players who can play footy well and a coach who coaches well". Both of which Hawthorn have and we don't.

  On 30/03/2010 at 00:59, CarnTheDees said:

The teams were fairly evenly matched in terms of age and experience.

No, they were not. Hawthorn had a much more experienced group on the park.

The ‘experience’ thing in my opinion is over rated. Just because a bloke has played more games it doesn’t mean he is meant to be better. For instance, Miller is a lot more experienced than Roughead, but Miller never was or never will be as good.

You have to measure it on talent, and the facts are Hawthorns core players are more talented and better coached than ours regardless of age. By core players Im talking about the ones who are guaranteed selections each week.