It's an interesting exercise and one that would be worth keeping track of at the start and end of each season for the next few years.

Agreed. Before trade week perhaps. Oohh, could be a few arguments then.

What would be an interesting exercise for an MFC supporter, especially in terms of understanding why we have tough losses like Round 1, would be to do a matrix for MFC, then a few more matrices for clubs like Hawthorn, Geelong and Collingwood.

If you are unbiased and brutal, you can see why we have been so bad and how long it will take to get back to the top.

If possible you could take an average or figure from each category of each of the teams in the "window" and use that as an indicator. I like it. May have to generate a general consensus (ie. poll on players/categories) on what player belongs where - if you really want to go into detail to obtain a benchmark indicator to determine how long it will take to get to the window of where a Bulldogs, Cats, Saints are at present.

Or just guesstimate yourself. Less effort.

To all the above Matrix examples-Thanks, this is a fascinating excercise that we can all watch closely now over the coming years.

Its a very simple formula, but highly effective way to now actually understand list management.

Thankyou to CS for explaining it all-i now feel so much more a member of this Mighty MFC as to some degree i now can see the road we are on.

Saturdays game is going to be easier to watch.

I can hear it now-"Is he a cat 4-5..." conversations in the Bullring at half time!!

I hope Brad Green becomes a cat 6 by careers end-last saturday took so much guts.

My version of the matrix is attached. For those who haven't watched the video, note that players in the 30+ range are graded on their historical output; players in the 8-11 years range are graded on their actual output and all others are graded on their potential output when they reach the 8-11 range.

In our current team, I only ended up with six players in the target range for a premiership team (Bruce, McDonald, Davey, Sylvia, Green, Rivers) and none of those were category 7 players.

The only players set to move into the premiership target range of the matrix in the near future were Bate, Frawley and Jones - again, none as cat 7 players.

However, I had 16 of our 25 "development phase" players ranked from category 5 to 7, as follows:

Cat 7: Grimes, Jurrah, Morton, Scully, Trengove, Watts

Cat 6: Garland, Gysberts, Strauss

Cat 5: Bennell, Blease, Gawn, Maric, McKenzie, Tapscott, Wonaeamirri

By my sketchy reckoning, we are only set to lose three players from the premiership range of the matrix in the next five years, while as many as 16 or 17 players are set to move in (pending form and fitness, of course). At best, we would end up with 20-odd players in the target range and five or six of those could be genuine stars of the competition.

It's going to be a very interesting few years. Emotion aside, I reckon watching the Dees in the next five years will be an instructive case study in list management for years to come, regardless of the outcome.

Interesting view. You seriously overrate our more established players though. I would not have any of the plsu 25 year players higher than a 5.

Great work there guys, makes for interesting reading and is a good way to look at it.

Love to see Geelong's.

I'd have quite a few of our players moved to the right (unfortunately) on most of them.

Interesting view. You seriously overrate our more established players though. I would not have any of the plsu 25 year players higher than a 5.

The seemingly high ratings are a function of the fact that Schwab has three of the seven categories for players who are considered outside the best 22.

That only leaves four categories for players who are best 22, and I think we can all agree that the top category (Cat 7) for Melbourne is redundant for our 6yr+ players. Another category (Cat 4) is for those players who have to play to their peak to be in the best 22. That leaves two categories to classify our talented, experienced players. If you want to remove Cat 6 as well, that leaves only one place to classify our older best 22 players with more talent than the likes of Brad Miller. I don't think that's accurate.

Junior (1AA, 2 B&F) and Cam (1B&F, something like 10 top-10 finishes) are cut above the others, and under the criteria, they get judged for their historical performance rather than their actual performance.

But anyway, it doesn't really matter what definitions one uses for each category, as long as they remain consistent for each club that one applies it to.

For instance, the likes of Geelong, Hawthorn, St Kilda and the Western Bulldogs would have far more 6+ years players in Cat 6 and 7 than we would. Collingwood, Brisbane and Adelaide would be similar.

The matrix model serves only to highlight just how far we are away from contending in any way, shape or form.

Edited April 1, 201015 yr by MikeyJ