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

I wish you were right but you are not

Average Attributes

Melbourne Attribute Hawthorn

187.6cm Height 185.8cm

85.8kg Weight 85.3kg

23yr 10mth Age 23yr 9mth

71.4 Games 68.0

Total Players By Games

Melbourne Games Hawthorn

10 Less than 50 10

7 50 to 99 4

2 100 to 149 5

3 150 or more 3

They had a few more in that middle tier but that's it

The difference was that their 12 players above 50 games absolutely spanked our 12 players above 50 games

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.

Surely you must concede that a player with 30 games experience has an advantage over a kid with 2 games experience.

Or a player with 120 games experience has an advantage over a player with 30 games experience.

It's also a cumulative effect.

People can dismiss the reasons we lost as overrated, but then what is your explanation?

I'm looking for a solid reasoned response here, not merely "Bailey is crap" because that is meaningless.

The difference was that their 12 players above 50 games absolutely spanked our 12 players above 50 games

But should this be a surprise? Is this anything new?

This tier of players is the very reason we have been rooted to the bottom of the ladder 3 years before half these kids even came onto our list.

We are trying to rectify this, but a lot of these players remain and they can only be replaced with TIME.

But should this be a surprise? Is this anything new?

This tier of players is the very reason we have been rooted to the bottom of the ladder 3 years before half these kids even came onto our list.

We are trying to rectify this, but a lot of these players remain and they can only be replaced with TIME.

Macca, Green, Jamar did OK

Bruce, Bate, Davey, Miller, Jones, MacDonald, Warnock, Moloney, Rivers <-- this is the group that let us down

Macca, Green, Jamar did OK

Bruce, Bate, Davey, Miller, Jones, MacDonald, Warnock, Moloney, Rivers <-- this is the group that let us down

What is the common thread with the players you have listed there..? No?

They are all role-players. There is no star power.

When you realize that, how can you possibly be surprised we lost like we did??

(also, that list of middle-tier players would be considerably shorter than most other teams - we are still feeling the effects of poor recruiting up to a decade ago.)

Macca, Green, Jamar did OK

Bruce, Bate, Davey, Miller, Jones, MacDonald, Warnock, Moloney, Rivers <-- this is the group that let us down

Yes, and that is why Bailey must get every inch of performance out of those Role Players.

That is a priority job for bails this year-Those Role Players fire and the Rookies will gain confidence.

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.

It is relevant that our experience is concentrated in Junior, Bruce and Green whereas theirs was far more evenly spread. And of course their experienced players are simply better than ours. To name 3, Hodge and Mitchell and Roughead are A Graders. We do not have one. But we knew that before the gam, in fact we knew that when Bailey took over. We've stocked up on elite youth and there is a fair chance that we will get some A Graders out of them.

Macca, Green, Jamar did OK

Bruce, Bate, Davey, Miller, Jones, MacDonald, Warnock, Moloney, Rivers <-- this is the group that let us down

Rivers played a good game. not sure what else he could have done