On the weekend we fielded the youngest and most inexperienced side in the comp.

Average age of 23 years and 10 months with 62 games. 

Shows that there is massive upside and also that this year will be a bit of a roller coaster regarding performance. 

On 4/18/2016 at 2:12 PM, bandicoot said:

On the weekend we fielded the youngest and most inexperienced side in the comp.

Average age of 23 years and 10 months with 62 games. 

Shows that there is massive upside and also that this year will be a bit of a roller coaster regarding performance. 

It also shows that age is no barrier, with the right plans and a couple of decent leaders being young doesn't mean you can't play good footy.

1 hour ago, bandicoot said:

On the weekend we fielded the youngest and most inexperienced side in the comp.

Average age of 23 years and 10 months with 62 games. 

Shows that there is massive upside and also that this year will be a bit of a roller coaster regarding performance. 

And the oldest team in the comp, who have no right to be playing like 22 year olds, are undefeated and on top of the table.

I'm starting to think that age profile is meaning less and less as the seasons go on.

59 minutes ago, Choke said:

And the oldest team in the comp, who have no right to be playing like 22 year olds, are undefeated and on top of the table.

I'm starting to think that age profile is meaning less and less as the seasons go on.

There is a common theme with all GF sides. 

Starting 22 have an average of 100 games and age of 27.

 

3 minutes ago, bandicoot said:

There is a common theme with all GF sides. 

Starting 22 have an average of 100 games and age of 27.

 

I'm no mathematical genius, but I'd reckon based on this that if we put Ron Barassi into the guts, then we could play a grand final this year?

10 minutes ago, small but forward said:

I'm no mathematical genius, but I'd reckon based on this that if we put Ron Barassi into the guts, then we could play a grand final this year?

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

Wagner O Mac Hunt

Salem Tmac Trengove

VDB Brayshaw Tyson

Watts Hogan Petracca

Kent Weiderman JKH

Gawn Viney Oliver

M.King Frost Stretch ANB

 

Would go alright i reckon.

1 hour ago, Choke said:

And the oldest team in the comp, who have no right to be playing like 22 year olds, are undefeated and on top of the table.

I'm starting to think that age profile is meaning less and less as the seasons go on.

and the question choke is given their age profile how long will the success continue.  

Number of games is a false indicator. Are players like Pedersen and M.Jones inexperienced, or just not good enough to have played more games?

I can see that age is a bit more relevant, as a 25 year old will generally make better decisions than an 18 year old.

Collingwood were second youngest last week, was this the case again this week?

2 hours ago, poita said:

Number of games is a false indicator. Are players like Pedersen and M.Jones inexperienced, or just not good enough to have played more games?

I can see that age is a bit more relevant, as a 25 year old will generally make better decisions than an 18 year old.

Players recruited as mature age players are always going to be the exception to the rule.  Generally age correlates with experience; if you sort our side from the weekend in order of matches played, Jones and Pedersen the only two in the under 70 games bracket (which comprised of 18 players) that aren't in the 18-22 year old age bracket.  Even if you exclude them, it is still without a doubt an inexperienced side.  Our median player had 55 games.

Tom McDonald also seems to be experienced beyond his years with 86 games up his sleeve at 23; he is easily on 250 game pace and is a chance for 300 if his body continues to hold up.

Everyone gets the correlation between success and age wrong.

Good players will still be playing at 27.  Poor players won't be. 

So sides with lots of old players have lots of good players.ala Hawthorn, Geelong, North ( at the moment)

That is not to say you can't have a good team of young players ( like ourselves, we hope), because it just means those good players will be around for a long time to come.

What it does say is that if you have a team of young players year after year then you will not find success.  In that case all you are doing is replacing poor players.

10 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Everyone gets the correlation between success and age wrong.

Good players will still be playing at 27.  Poor players won't be. 

So sides with lots of old players have lots of good players.ala Hawthorn, Geelong, North ( at the moment)

That is not to say you can't have a good team of young players ( like ourselves, we hope), because it just means those good players will be around for a long time to come.

What it does say is that if you have a team of young players year after year then you will not find success.  In that case all you are doing is replacing poor players.

I don't think anyone thinks if you just wait for all your players to turn 27, they'll magically be good.  Age is still a good indicator though; if your side is full of 27+ year olds, as you allude to, you've probably got a list that is in its peak.  Those players who are 27+ are all going to be better than they were when they were 22-24, which most of our players are.  You haven't really disproven the link between success and age at all.

I would have thought most people understand that the key ingredient to contending for a flag is having lots of good players on your list.  

21 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Everyone gets the correlation between success and age wrong.

Good players will still be playing at 27.  Poor players won't be. 

So sides with lots of old players have lots of good players.ala Hawthorn, Geelong, North ( at the moment)

That is not to say you can't have a good team of young players ( like ourselves, we hope), because it just means those good players will be around for a long time to come.

What it does say is that if you have a team of young players year after year then you will not find success.  In that case all you are doing is replacing poor players.

Spot on. 

It's exciting to think that we're such a young side but on Sunday watching the young ones they looked so relaxed. They didn't always rush and panic, yes sometimes they did but to think that they can take the time to think is a good sign at such young ages. I'm ashamed to say I was once exciting for things to come when we drafted players like Scully....

Wagner  Tmac  Salem
Hunt    Omac  Bugg?
VDB    Brayshaw  Tyson
Kent    Hogan   Patracca
Watts    Weids   Harmes
Gawn   Viney    Oliver

Frost ANB Trengove Melksham?/ Stretch

20 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Collingwood were second youngest last week, was this the case again this week?

Would be pretty close, and they were a year and 30 games per player more experienced than we were.

The key is picking the age grouping of your elite talent and supporting/supplementing it, in the knowledge that their peak production will likely be between the ages of 23-29.  Depending on which grouping of players you focus on, we’re probably 3 years away from the bulk of our talent hitting peak production, however players like Watts, Gawn and McDonald will still be within their window of peak production.

 

Edited April 19, 20169 yr by ChaserJ

Interesting to note these profiles from last Saturday Night's game:

Carlton	Attribute	Western Bulldogs
188.0cm	Height	186.8cm
87.6kg	Weight	85.3kg
24yr 7mth	Age	24yr 6mth
72.9	Games	77.9

Edited April 19, 20169 yr by ChaserJ

From an article in the Age last year on Hawthorn’s list management:

Hawthorn's list management team have taken advantage of an interesting quirk in the market for AFL players – the fact that a player's value is relative to their team, rather than static.

As mentioned, an AFL player will peak in performance from 23 and 25. However, they will only peak in value if their team overall is peaking in performance during that time. A player playing well in a bad team is of far less value - if the aim is to win a premiership - than a player playing well in a good team.

Hence, if a player is reaching peak performance but a team is not, the player is of far more value on the market than he is to the team. Therefore he can be sold for over-market value.

The caveat on that last point would be that if the player(s) is one who can protect the younger group on the field or drives standards on field and off, he may of greater value to the group.

Also recall reading that St Kilda’s list build strategy was to accrue extra draft picks inside the first 3 rounds so they would have assembled a core of 18 players (taken in the first 3 rounds) within a span of 4 years.  Their plan was to focus on picks and ignore free agency until 2016, when they felt they would have most structural areas covered.

I think (and the club probably thinks) that we’re roughly a year ahead of St Kilda, which would explain why we rolled the dice and traded out of the 2016 draft. 

We must be confident the group is together and it’s now down to development and supplementing through trade and potentially free agency.

Hope that’s correct.

 

Edited April 19, 20169 yr by ChaserJ

2 hours ago, ChaserJ said:

From an article in the Age last year on Hawthorn’s list management:

Hawthorn's list management team have taken advantage of an interesting quirk in the market for AFL players – the fact that a player's value is relative to their team, rather than static.

As mentioned, an AFL player will peak in performance from 23 and 25. However, they will only peak in value if their team overall is peaking in performance during that time. A player playing well in a bad team is of far less value - if the aim is to win a premiership - than a player playing well in a good team.

Hence, if a player is reaching peak performance but a team is not, the player is of far more value on the market than he is to the team. Therefore he can be sold for over-market value.

The caveat on that last point would be that if the player(s) is one who can protect the younger group on the field or drives standards on field and off, he may of greater value to the group.

Also recall reading that St Kilda’s list build strategy was to accrue extra draft picks inside the first 3 rounds so they would have assembled a core of 18 players (taken in the first 3 rounds) within a span of 4 years.  Their plan was to focus on picks and ignore free agency until 2016, when they felt they would have most structural areas covered.

I think (and the club probably thinks) that we’re roughly a year ahead of St Kilda, which would explain why we rolled the dice and traded out of the 2016 draft. 

We must be confident the group is together and it’s now down to development and supplementing through trade and potentially free agency.

Hope that’s correct.

 

Very good analysis... 

Take out Lumumba,Peterson & Matt Home,all three of whom who won't be around for a lot longer and the gap becomes even wider. Impressive and exciting!

Still the youngest and most inexperienced side in the competition. These loses are expected 

3 minutes ago, bandicoot said:

Still the youngest and most inexperienced side in the competition. These loses are expected 

The losses would be easier to take if they were against the bettet teams.

Perish the thought that we become like Nth and Rich who get themselves up for big games but forget to turn up for the 'easy' ones.  

5 minutes ago, bandicoot said:

Still the youngest and most inexperienced side in the competition. These loses are expected 

 

Yup, ,sucks to lose but we will have days like today while we are this inexperienced.  On the flip side we will also roll some good teams this season.

6 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

The losses would be easier to take if they were against the bettet teams.

Perish the thought that we become like Nth and Rich who get themselves up for big games but forget to turn up for the 'easy' ones.  

Saints averaged 100 games today. 

Dont under estimate the effect that reiwoldt, monty, fisher,  dempster have on the side. All 200 game plus players. 

We just don't have that. 

28 minutes ago, bandicoot said:

Still the youngest and most inexperienced side in the competition. These loses are expected 

Pedo, T-Mac, Dunn, Vince, Gawn, Tyson.

They were all extremely poor. 

It's not just about inexperience. It's when most of your side are playing their worst football.

And for some reason we see it too often.