After every game this week we've heard Neeld and Craig go on about games played average amongst the group and how young our team are. All the while I was thinking yeah, yeah we're not that young, a lot of these players have been around long enough now.

But after going through our player list before I received a rude shock. We only have 16 players out of 45 that have played 50 games or more, 7 between 50-100, 7 between 100-150, 2 between 150-200 and none that are in the 200 plus category.

Our list of experienced players reads.

PLAYER AGE GAMES PLAYED

David Rodan 29 178

Aaron Davey 29 161

Colin Sylvia 27 142

Nathan Jones 25 139

Mark Jamar 29 128

Joel MacDonald 28 123

Shannon Byrnes 29 112

James Frawley 24 105

Lynden Dunn 25 100

Mitch Clark 25 97

Colin Garland 24 84

Chris Dawes 24 71

Jack Trengove 21 62

Jordie McKenzie 22 58

Jack Watts 22 58

Jack Grimes 23 57

I'm yet to compare that to a Sydney, Geelong, Hawthorn or Collingwood as yet but I'd imagine that the results would be pretty damming. Makes you realise just how far back we a re coming from. especially given there's a good chance neither Rodan or Davey will be here next year.

Lets hang tough and give these kids a chance to grow!

When you read stories about Melbourne possibly trading Sylvia, Frawley and Watts, you shake your head. These are the guys at the pointier end of

our experience table, we cant keep doing this every year. All the other ex-players at other clubs makes me shudder.

Here's Geelongs top end for games list:

Joel Corey 257 Corey Enright 248 Paul Chapman 247 Jimmy Bartel 229 James Kelly 214 Steve Johnson 198 Josh Hunt 186 Andrew Mackie 177 Jared Rivers 152 Joel Selwood 139 Mathew Stokes 135 Harry Taylor 116 Hamish McIntosh 107 Tom J. Hawkins 105 Travis Varcoe 104 Tom Lonergan 101 James Podsiadly 64 Mitch Duncan 55 Trent West 45 Taylor Hunt 45 Allen Christensen 40 Steven Motlop 31

Those 22 player total 2995 games!

The 16 youve listed above tally 1675 games..

I think we are more inexperienced than those figures suggest. I think if you really want to answer the question you have to consider whether you regard Byrnes, Rodan, Dawes etc. as experienced. Yes they have experience playing football for other clubs but what value (experience) do they give us? These players have played less games at Melbourne most of the list so they have little experience when it comes to playing at Melbourne - they do not have superior knowledge of our gameplan, culture, team strengths/knowledge).

I only consider a handful of players as valuable experienced players: Nathan Jones, Colin Sylvia, Jamar, Davey.

What is the value of a player such as Rodan when compared to a experienced Melbourne player (Nathan Jones)?

Considering Rodan, Joel Macdonald and Shannon Byrnes are really only on the list to provide competition and leadership it paints an interesting picture.

Our true on field leaders should be Garland, Frawley, Clark, Jamar, Jones and Sylvia and I'd add Grimes because with a his run with injury he should've played more. These guys really should be performing each week. Clark, Jones and Grimes are. If we forgive Sylvia the round 2 game his other 3 have shown intensity at least. I think Jamar is doing as good as he can and Frawley and Garland are just in bad form and sick of being smashed in our backline. Dawes and Dunn are injured.

So I do understand Neeld's point about experience. My big question is whether he can keep these experienced guys in form and develop the next bunch.

Watts, Trengove, McKenzie are on the border of becoming experienced and the right age where they must perform. Same goes for Bail, Howe, Tapscott and Jetta who are all in the 30 games column. Same again for Blease, Tom McDonald and Strauss who have less games. I'd even throw in Terlich and Matt Jones because they are mature recruits.

All those guys are the difference between us having a good future or not. Sure Viney, Hogan, Toumpas, Evans, Taggert and Kent and more will be important but for the next few years for us to actually get somewhere we need the guys who have been in the system for a few years to step up now and these guys to be the cream.

Get this team playin competitive footy each week and beating bad sides:

FB: Terlich Frawley Garland

HB: Strauss McDonald Dunn

C: M. Jones N. Jones Trengove

HF: Sylvia Dawes Howe

FF: Blease Clark Tapscott

Foll: Jamar Grimes McKenzie

Int: Gawn Jetta Watts Byrnes

Emer: Pedersen, Davey, Rodan

Then say to Evans, Viney, Hogan, Toumpas, Kent, Fitzpatrick etc try and break in and we will actually have a team that will go place. But if blokes can't develop and we see Watts, Blease and Strauss continue to struggle, Jetta floating around, Tapscott and Bail not making a step up, Dunn and Garland flat lining then I don't think Neeld's line about inexperience will save him.

Games Experience is one measure, but i think age and maturity come into it as well when you talk about 'ability to compete at AFL level'

Guys like Matt Jones, Pederson, Magner, Sellar etc dont have many games to their names, but there is no reason they shouldnt be able to compete with hardened AFL bodies to a level greater than a 18 year old draftee

Games experience is a factor, but not as important as Neeld makes out

TD, I have a belief that quite a few haven't come to the realisation. We've lost experience in the middle, as well as down back. There's no doubt many are sick of excuses, because they've had enough of a prolonged struggling club.

But you cannot ignore the facts.

We are inexperienced every year it seems.

But, no excuses this year, we have had the picks, the coaches brought in players he wanted.

So it's onwards and upwards and if we finish anywhere near the bottom it's catcha later.

I don't agree with people saying this is 'Neeld's' team. Yes he has turned over some of the list but really he's only had 2 off seasons and hasn't yet put together the excact team he wants. I think this is more like half his team and he is still working out who best suits his gameplan and who gives 100%. I'm all for seeing through with him as coach coz I think so far he's done a pretty good job with recruiting competitve players and the coaching part will come.

When you read stories about Melbourne possibly trading Sylvia, Frawley and Watts, you shake your head. These are the guys at the pointier end of

our experience table, we cant keep doing this every year. All the other ex-players at other clubs makes me shudder.

Here's Geelongs top end for games list:

Joel Corey 257 Corey Enright 248 Paul Chapman 247 Jimmy Bartel 229 James Kelly 214 Steve Johnson 198 Josh Hunt 186 Andrew Mackie 177 Jared Rivers 152 Joel Selwood 139 Mathew Stokes 135 Harry Taylor 116 Hamish McIntosh 107 Tom J. Hawkins 105 Travis Varcoe 104 Tom Lonergan 101 James Podsiadly 64 Mitch Duncan 55Trent West 45 Taylor Hunt 45 Allen Christensen 40 Steven Motlop 31

Those 22 player total 2995 games!

The 16 youve listed above tally 1675 games..

Not to mention the quality of the cats elders,

& many of our most experienced are lightweights by comparison.

A few on that list we might loss at years end.

Living proof about lies and statistics....

A player doesn't get to play 100 games of football if they are no good. We don't have a lot of these players because for too long the ones we have selected were NO GOOD!

Are Jack Ziebell, Daniel Rich, Nic Natanui or even Oliver Wines and Jack Viney experienced?.....not by games played. But they are all good footballers.

When you get a group of good footballers together you will suddenly discover they are experienced. Not the other way around.

Living proof about lies and statistics....

A player doesn't get to play 100 games of football if they are no good. We don't have a lot of these players because for too long the ones we have selected were NO GOOD!

Are Jack Ziebell, Daniel Rich, Nic Natanui or even Oliver Wines and Jack Viney experienced?.....not by games played. But they are all good footballers.

When you get a group of good footballers together you will suddenly discover they are experienced. Not the other way around.

True.

After every game this week we've heard Neeld and Craig go on about games played average amongst the group and how young our team are. All the while I was thinking yeah, yeah we're not that young, a lot of these players have been around long enough now.

Sorry but you should have gone with your first instinct - this is no longer something we can use to make ourselves feel better

MELBOURNE .......................OPPOSITION

RD AVE GAMES AVE AGE AVE GAMES AVE AGE

1 ......64.2 ........24.33 .............55.2 ........ 23.17

2 ......65.9 ........24.25 .............83.7 ........ 24.93

3 ......58.5 ........24.17 ............103.5 ....... 25.67

4 ......59.5 ........24.25 .............28.6 ...........22

AVE ..62.03 ........24.25 ............67.75 ..........23.94

notincgws 62.87 24.25 80.80 24.59

the important bit is that last line, excluding GWS, we have matched up against our opponents with a deficit of 18 games and 4 months and we have been smashed

Edited April 23, 201312 yr by H_T
Fixing columns

As a player, it would [censored] me off no end to be told week-in, week-out, that due to the sides lack of game experience we won't be very good for some time yet. I would want to be told that we're good enough to win right now.

I would like Neeld to change his message to the players and the general public about this belief of his. It's growing tiresome.

I think there is merit to the games experience differentials that are always mentioned. Even though Port were less than ours they had more experience where it counts (middle of the ground), and they are really on fire at the moment but we will see how long that lasts. But I don't want Neeld and Craig to continue bringing this up al the time. Everyone knows we are young but if they keep mentioning that, especially to the players they may get to comfortable thinking they are young and it's ok to lose. They still need to be driled that winning is everything even if we aren't expected to win many games. It's a fine line between the two.

I guess guys like Rodan, Byrnes and Dawes bring both experience and inexperience at the same time as some have mentioned.

While they may be inexperience in as far as playing with this team and game style. They are experienced in terms of having played in big games, been there before, composure and decision making should be more sound then others.

It's also worth noting the roles we have some of our players playing compared to others. We have Trengove, 21 years of age and 62 games as a co-captain compared to Duncan at Geelong who's 21 years and 55 games learning his craft from the likes of Batel, Selwood, Corey, Chapma etc...

I did a quick comparison amongst 6 teams of players who have played more then 50 games and the average games played amongst them and we're a long way behind.

St Kilda: 18 players avg games: 162.72, Geelong: 18 players, avg games: 157.44, Hawthorn: 20 players, avg games: 144.95, Collingwood: 24 players, avg games: 143.92, Sydney: 24 players, avg games 133.96, Melbourne: 16 players, avg games 104.69.

It seems to me that you probably want your core group of players with an average games played inbetween 130-150. Once we've got our core group there then that should be when we're ready to strike.

The problem is that with a decade of abysmal drafting, we're continually in a cycle of chopping out the middle of our list, putting us in this "forever young" cycle. It's why Neeld targeted experienced players; it's the only way to fast track improvement.

Anyone know what our average age/games played was in 2011?

Just asking...

Anyone know what our average age/games played was in 2011?

Just asking...

I dont have time to look right now but I'd say it would be fairly similar. We lost Rivers, Moloney, Green and Martin as th main four. And gained Byrnes, Rodan, Dawes and Pederson as the more experienced ins. I'd say it could actually be less than last year as Green had played over 200 games.

As a player, it would [censored] me off no end to be told week-in, week-out, that due to the sides lack of game experience we won't be very good for some time yet. I would want to be told that we're good enough to win right now.

I would like Neeld to change his message to the players and the general public about this belief of his. It's growing tiresome.

I think you overestimate the likelihood that you know what Neeld is telling the players. So far, I admit that he's not made a great impression with on-field results, but if there's something that could and should be praised, it's his ability to deliver a consistent message. He's clearly thought about what the message for each audience should be, and delivers that message consistently every time he's asked. The press get the same message about experience, and development. The supporters get the same message every time he speaks to us - stick with us, the future is bright. I'm sure the players get the same consistent messages too, but not the messages we get. It's clear he values consistently hard work, and systems to deliver it. It's clear to me from the words that come out of the mouths of the players during interviews, that they've been getting the same messages from Neeld, constantly. Work hard, play for your team mates, worry about internal measures not external chatter. Every single player interview they use the word "internal". They're setting up an emotional fortress, "us against them". I'm involved in high performance team-building professionally, I think they're on the right path to building a strong, winning, work ethic. Call it culture, if you like.

I'm rambling, but my point is this - you don't know what Neeld's telling the players. He doesn't say to you, what he says to them. There's probably only 50-60 people in the inner circle of the football department (including players), and if you're not one of them, you don't know what the internal messages are. I'm still not sure whether Neeld is a good matchday coach, but then I'm not sure Mark Thompson (or any coach, for that matter), really has much of an influence on the field. 99% of their influence happens in building the team in the years preceding success.

Given the way you could hear the players yelling - constantly - "Neeldy! Neeldy! Come on mate! Neeldy!" prior to the song on the weekend, I'm convinced he's got the backing of the playing group and they're "buying" his message. They were genuinely excited for him and wanted him to be a part of the song (I believe he was, once behind closed doors. His external message is different to the internal one, remember?). Even if we lose 18 games this year, I'd like to see Neeld remain in place for another 3-4 years. Once the fortress is built, the results make themselves. Bomber Thompson was that close to getting fired right before his team began the biggest football dynasty since the Hawks of the 80s.

Edited April 23, 201312 yr by autocol

Players listed all under 50 games of experience (note: 1st group are players I believe will become solid best 22 players, 2nd group I hope will push up in the coming months/years)

PLAYER AGE GAMES

Jimmy Toumpas 19 3

Dean Terlich 23 3

Jack Viney 19 4

Matt Jones 25 4

Max Gawn 21 5

Michael Evans 20 6

Sam Blease 22 23

Tom McDonald 20 25

Luke Tapscott 21 32

Rohan Bail 24 38

Jeremey Howe 22 39

*Jesse Hogan

2nd group

Dom Barry 19 0

Dean Kent 19 0

Rory Taggert 19 0

Josh Tynan 19 2

Jack Fitzpatrick 21 3

Jake Spencer 23 16

James Strauss 22 18

Daniel Nicholson 22 22

The following players are either rookies, players that I don't rate or that haven't seen enough of yet... will be happy to be proven wrong

Tom Couch

James Magner

Cam Pederson

Tom Gillies

James Sellar

Troy Davis

Mitch Clisby

Nathan Stark

27 of our listed players have not yet reached 50 games

Edited April 23, 201312 yr by Nascent

I think you overestimate the likelihood that you know what Neeld is telling the players. So far, I admit that he's not made a great impression with on-field results, but if there's something that could and should be praised, it's his ability to deliver a consistent message. He's clearly thought about what the message for each audience should be, and delivers that message consistently every time he's asked. The press get the same message about experience, and development. The supporters get the same message every time he speaks to us - stick with us, the future is bright. I'm sure the players get the same consistent messages too, but not the messages we get. It's clear he values consistently hard work, and systems to deliver it. It's clear to me from the words that come out of the mouths of the players during interviews, that they've been getting the same messages from Neeld, constantly. Work hard, play for your team mates, worry about internal measures not external chatter. Every single player interview they use the word "internal". They're setting up an emotional fortress, "us against them". I'm involved in high performance team-building professionally, I think they're on the right path to building a strong, winning, work ethic. Call it culture, if you like.

I'm rambling, but my point is this - you don't know what Neeld's telling the players. He doesn't say to you, what he says to them. There's probably only 50-60 people in the inner circle of the football department (including players), and if you're not one of them, you don't know what the internal messages are. I'm still not sure whether Neeld is a good matchday coach, but then I'm not sure Mark Thompson (or any coach, for that matter), really has much of an influence on the field. 99% of their influence happens in building the team in the years preceding success.

Given the way you could hear the players yelling - constantly - "Neeldy! Neeldy! Come on mate! Neeldy!" prior to the song on the weekend, I'm convinced he's got the backing of the playing group and they're "buying" his message. They were genuinely excited for him and wanted him to be a part of the song (I believe he was, once behind closed doors. His external message is different to the internal one, remember?). Even if we lose 18 games this year, I'd like to see Neeld remain in place for another 3-4 years. Once the fortress is built, the results make themselves. Bomber Thompson was that close to getting fired right before his team began the biggest football dynasty since the Hawks of the 80s.

I really like this post.

The Million Dollar questions is whether Neeld is actually building a Bomber Thompson type dynasty or, can the MFC afford to wait and see?

At this stage i think we're all in , there isnt much going for us on the flop. Was it a good decision to back this hand or are we chasing an ace on the river....

I really like this post.

The Million Dollar questions is whether Neeld is actually building a Bomber Thompson type dynasty or, can the MFC afford to wait and see?

At this stage i think we're all in , there isnt much going for us on the flop. Was it a good decision to back this hand or are we chasing an ace on the river....

We have a choice Demon WA?

We have a choice Demon WA?

I don't think we do. I think the analogy is a strong one. We're all-in on the flop. Sacking Neeld now is like folding before we've seen the turn and the river. It makes the original decision to go all-in a waste. Once you've gone all in, you wait for the cards and find out if you won or lost. Once the decision is made, you're just along for the ride.

Every season, 22 players play 22 games (for simplicity's sake, anyway).

So that's 484 games experience added 'naturally' each year.

Remarkably, way back since 2007, the Demons have continuously reduced the total games experience on the list, almost every year.

I've thrown together what I've been able to quickly find, with games played where possible. I set aside less-than-50 gamers for simplicity's sake.

From my figuring, the only time we increased our total experience on field in the last six years was going from start of 2011 to start of 2012

2007: Brown, Ward, Bizzell, Godfrey, Ferguson

2008: Neitz (306), Yze (271), White (268), Holland (191)

2009: Robertson (228), Whelan (150), Wheatley(135) and picked up Joel MacDonald (80)

2010: Bell (66) McDonald (251) Miller (133) Johnson (67) Bruce (224)

2011: Warnock (55) note: other delistings were under 50 games. Added Mitch Clark (85)

2012:

Out: Moloney (145), Rivers (150), Martin (52), Bennell (57), Petterd (54), Bate (102), Green (254), Morton (72), Bartram (102)

In: Dawes (71), Byrnes (110), Rodan (175)

Wow, it was a little bit of a shock to see that Morton had more games experience than Dawes.

And a quick bit of maths will tell anyone that our trades/free agency tangles at the end of 2012 actually reduced our total experience, far from 'stacking the list with older players'.

In fact...

In: 356 games

out: 988 games

Net: -632 games

So Melbourne's list is actually a LOT less experienced starting 2012 than it was starting 2011. By a whole 'season' worth of games and then some.

Next remarkable thought - Dunn, Macdonald and Davey are 3 of our 9 players with more than 100 games of experience, and all look shaky to play on in 2014. So unless there is another successful recruiting effort (we all crave a class midfielder, of course) then the club will barely be more experienced in 2014 as it is this year.

So there y' go. Melbourne is less experienced in 2013 than in 2012.

Let's be clear I'm not in 'excuse-making mode' here. I'm just plinking a misconception about the Demon's list.