There seems to be a common link between all premiership sides in the last decade.

That link is a playing group with an average of 120+ games and 2/3 of the list at 100 games or more.

With those stats Melbourne is at least 6 years away as our core group has hardly played 50 games. 

This isn't to say that we won't win a final or two but the list will only be really primed after 2020.

Having that information is useful and may help identify ways of changing the trend or bettering the average. I think we have the package to do that. Go Dee's. 

The exciting thing for me is that a lot of our elite young talent is maturing quickly. Hogan in his second year is capable of taking on any key defender in the league. Brayshaw, Oliver and Salem have adjusted very quickly to the pace of senior football over the past three years. You suspect Petracca will do the same. vandenBerg is a mature aged recruit. There's quality football left in Jones and Vince and Garlett, Jetta and Garland should be in their prime now. McDonald, Viney, Tyson, Kent, Gawn and Bugg are nearing their prime. Watts is giving every indication he might have just become a player. It would be great to think our current core can have a crack while Vince and in particular Jones are still playing meaningful football. And there's nothing like being a top 4 team to keep a veteran hungry in their twilight years. I genuinely believe we're a second key tall forward (Weideman?) and a couple of quality outside runners (Stretch hopefully) away from being a very well balanced, combative combination. The addition of Prestia at the end of the year would certainly fast-track the process.

Edited March 31, 20169 yr by Goodvibes

I'm trying to find the bio stats for the 2008 Hawthorn premiership team.  Could be an interesting comparison to us now.  Remember, Hawthorn were not expected to win that one and most of the experts believed at the time, they were still at least a couple of years away.  BELIEF is the key

53 minutes ago, bandicoot said:

There seems to be a common link between all premiership sides in the last decade.

That link is a playing group with an average of 120+ games and 2/3 of the list at 100 games or more.

With those stats Melbourne is at least 6 years away as our core group has hardly played 50 games. 

This isn't to say that we won't win a final or two but the list will only be really primed after 2020.

that assumes we don't recruit any experienced players from other clubs

just look a whorethorn

53 minutes ago, bandicoot said:

There seems to be a common link between all premiership sides in the last decade.

That link is a playing group with an average of 120+ games and 2/3 of the list at 100 games or more.

With those stats Melbourne is at least 6 years away as our core group has hardly played 50 games. 

This isn't to say that we won't win a final or two but the list will only be really primed after 2020.

That's cargo cult science.

"If we simply get games into our group, up to the average of 120+ & 2/3 etc, then we will win a flag."

That's what underpinned Bailey's strategy. Just get a group of youngsters together, and get games into them as a group.

But what were they learning while accumulating all these games as a group? How to get the splat kicked out of them.

How many teams have lists that "meet the required stats" but don't win flags? Probably just as many.

Is Mark Neeld coaching us again?

12 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

I'm trying to find the bio stats for the 2008 Hawthorn premiership team.  Could be an interesting comparison to us now.  Remember, Hawthorn were not expected to win that one and most of the experts believed at the time, they were still at least a couple of years away.  BELIEF is the key

Same as Geelong.  They matured quicker than the Hawks but two years earlier were in big trouble. Dynasties develop quickly and need all the stars to align properly. Teams that build a premiership window slowly are usually only good for one. 

Thanks for bringing me down on April fools day.

1 minute ago, Ted Fidge said:

That's cargo cult science.

"If we simply get games into our group, up to the average of 120+ & 2/3 etc, then we will win a flag."

That's what underpinned Bailey's strategy. Just get a group of youngsters together, and get games into them as a group

I think that's a gross simplification of Bailey's strategy. He also had thoughts on ball movement, leadership and the importance of kicking. I'm not sure he sat down in his job interview and said I'll "just get a group of youngsters together and get games into them as a group".

I'm probably sounding like a broken record for anyone who has read my posts over the years but I'm amazed at the black and white thinking that so many on here apply to football. Even more so it appears, when reflecting on the past.

 

2 minutes ago, Goodvibes said:

I think that's a gross simplification of Bailey's strategy. He also had thoughts on ball movement, leadership and the importance of kicking. I'm not sure he sat down in his job interview and said I'll "just get a group of youngsters together and get games into them as a group".

I'm sure he did. He did have us on what looked like an upward trajectory for a while.

But the foundation of his strategy was getting games into a group of youngsters.

Just now, Ted Fidge said:

I'm sure he did. He did have us on what looked like an upward trajectory for a while.

But the foundation of his strategy was getting games into a group of youngsters.

And that's a pretty sound approach. Just because Bailey failed doesn't mean the basic premise of getting games into a team is wrong.

17 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Is Mark Neeld coaching us again?

He left on the reality bus....

9 minutes ago, Goodvibes said:

And that's a pretty sound approach. Just because Bailey failed doesn't mean the basic premise of getting games into a team is wrong.

Did he fail or did he have one hand tied behind his back.  I still think of those thumping victories against the Lions and the Swans under this watch.  At the time, Roos was of the view that we would soon have the best list in the AFL.  So what happened?  I'll leave you all to ponder that.

Edited March 31, 20169 yr by iv'a worn smith

54 minutes ago, Goodvibes said:

The exciting thing for me is that a lot of our elite young talent is maturing quickly. Hogan in his second year is capable of taking on any key defender in the league. Brayshaw, Oliver and Salem have adjusted very quickly to the pace of senior football over the past three years. You suspect Petracca will do the same. vandenBerg is a mature aged recruit. There's quality football left in Jones and Vince and Garlett, Jetta and Garland should be in their prime now. McDonald, Viney, Tyson, Kent, Gawn and Bugg are nearing their prime. Watts is giving every indication he might have just become a player. It would be great to think our current core can have a crack while Vince and in particular Jones are still playing meaningful football. And there's nothing like being a top 4 team to keep a veteran hungry in their twilight years. I genuinely believe we're a second key tall forward (Weideman?) and a couple of quality outside runners (Stretch hopefully) away from being a very well balanced, combative combination. The addition of Prestia at the end of the year would certainly fast-track the process.

Final eight this year, Top four next year and grand final in 2018 (with an outside chance next year as well). We are on our way to becoming a power Club again and will win successive Premierships with the list that we are putting together!

1 hour ago, bandicoot said:

There seems to be a common link between all premiership sides in the last decade.

That link is a playing group with an average of 120+ games and 2/3 of the list at 100 games or more.

With those stats Melbourne is at least 6 years away as our core group has hardly played 50 games. 

This isn't to say that we won't win a final or two but the list will only be really primed after 2020.

Things in the game seem to turn much more quickly, and far more dramatically, these days.

The recent rise of the Bulldogs illustrates this.

 

6 minutes ago, Goodvibes said:

And that's a pretty sound approach. Just because Bailey failed doesn't mean the basic premise of getting games into a team is wrong.

They're going to get games as a group simply because there is a list of 44, of whom probably 25-30 are up for a game, but only 22 can get on the park each week.

They should be learning how to play good footy while getting games as a group. That group didn't seem to be learning that.

I reckon we can win one in 2020 - 4 years/5 seasons.

1 hour ago, bandicoot said:

There seems to be a common link between all premiership sides in the last decade.

That link is a playing group with an average of 120+ games and 2/3 of the list at 100 games or more.

With those stats Melbourne is at least 6 years away as our core group has hardly played 50 games. 

This isn't to say that we won't win a final or two but the list will only be really primed after 2020.

No team has an average of 120 games for the playing group or 2/3 of the list at 100 games or more. Hawthorn, Freo, Swans, and WC all average between 68 and 86 games for their lists and have no where 2/3 of there players with over 100 games. Hawthorn has 16 players over 100 on their primary list, Freo 14, Swans 11, and WC 17. By contrast our average games is 56 with 8 players over 100 games. We are probably no more than 3 years from having the same sort of numbers the four clubs I listed do. 

Oh no...not another 5 year plan please!

Recruit players with the right attitude along with Coaches who know how to implicate the right strategy to win under extreme pressure. 

 

while the stats on amount of games is not without merit, the amount of trading that goes on each year doesnt mean it will take x amount of years to get there. if we trade in 3 150+ games in 2018 using draft pick they would take the place of first year players and our ave games played sky-rockets

Also, I wonder what the average games lpayed for the Dogs young core is?  they dont seem to give a rats about that!

20 minutes ago, DubDee said:

while the stats on amount of games is not without merit, the amount of trading that goes on each year doesnt mean it will take x amount of years to get there. if we trade in 3 150+ games in 2018 using draft pick they would take the place of first year players and our ave games played sky-rockets

Also, I wonder what the average games lpayed for the Dogs young core is?  they dont seem to give a rats about that!

Stats for the dogs as they are lining up this week. They are younger by 1.5 years and less experienced by 2.7 games than we are this week end. 

Average Age 22.5       Average Games 69.7                   Back Line           Ave Age   22.0       Ave Games 69.5                   Fol (includes wing)         Ave Age   22.7       Ave Games 64.2                   Fwd           Ave Age   24.3       Ave Games 108.7                   Int           Ave Age   20.5       Ave Games 20.0                   Games     Backline                  Fol            Fwd             Int          total 0-50 3 2 2 3 10 51-100 1 4 2 1 8 101-150 1 0 0 0 1 151-200 0 0 1 0 1 200+ 1 0 1 0 2           22

Edited March 31, 20169 yr by Chris
Fixed mistake in numbers

2 hours ago, jnrmac said:

He left on the reality bus....

Thought he left under it !

18 minutes ago, Chris said:

Stats for the dogs as they are lining up this week. They are younger by 1.5 years and less experienced by 2.7 games than we are this week end. 

Makes you wonder how we have gone so wrong over the years... 

Assuming sufficient quality in the list, I think 6 years is pessimistic.

Here's a calculation of the total number of games played by each club's list at the start of this season. I just added up the number of games played by every player in each club's list (source Age 2016 Footy guide). Here's the data:

North Melbourne 3993
Fremantle 3393
Hawthorn 3377
West Coast 3092
Geelong 2944
Port Adelaide 2942
Collingwood 2791
Richmond 2769
Sydney 2601
Essendon 2573
Western Bulldogs 2556
Adelaide 2500
Carlton 2450
St Kilda 2432
GWS 2415
Gold Coast 2405
Melbourne 2268
Brisbane 2009

So Melbourne is the second-least experienced team at the start of 2016. The teams that would appear to be close to premiership contention (Sydney upwards) have at least 2600 (maybe Bulldogs at 2556). The favourites this year have around 3000+.

How long does it take to get to that level? Each year you can add 22 x 22 = 484 games experience to the list, minus delistings and retirements (we're not liklely to have too many players retire that soon). Players delisted generally don't have many games under their belt. You can also bring in experience through FA and trades. Melbourne's figure also includes Melksham.

So say you can add 300-400 games experience every year to the list. In two years Melbourne could have a total list experience of 2800-3000 games. That's enough to be in contention.

As I said before, this assumes a certain amount of list quality. But experience is a necessity, just look at the top 5-6 teams on the table.

BTW, amazing how old North Melbourne are, although Harvey skews the list)
 

Edited April 1, 20169 yr by mauriesy