The youngest most inexperienced side

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

29 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Carey's famous five: the next generation of AFL stars

Has Jack Viney in there.

I have a feeling a few on here are going to start loving Carey's work because as far as the media goes I think he is one of the most optimistic about Melbourne's future. Partly I think because he is has a little bias toward a particular KPF

[Moonshadow 17,676]

On 8 June 2016 at 10:35 PM, Biffen said:

I'm predicting that most of our players will age in time.

It's a bold statement but I stand by it.

Let it never be said that you're not a risk taker Biff.

[MadAsHell 4,212]

We've done it again, youngest and least experienced team of the round.  To be fair we played the 2nd youngest & 2nd least experienced team of the round.  But still....

Other interesting notes are the fact that GWS fielded the 8th most experienced team of the round which I think would surprise most.

Richmond & Freo seem to have made an effort to field younger teams and St Kilda also, however that was more by circumstance then by design.  Also worth noting that 6 of the top 8 teams were in the top 8 of oldest & most experienced teams that played.  Bulldogs are the only team that bucked that trend on both fronts, GWS on age only (10th oldest).

AVERAGE AGE

North Melbourne - 28 years flat

Geelong - 26 years, 2 months

West Coast - 25, 9

Essendon - 25, 9

Carlton  - 25, 8

Sydney - 25, 6

Hawthorn - 25, 5

Adelaide - 25, 3

Fremantle - 25, 2

GWS - 25, 1

Richmond - 25 flat

Port Adelaide - 24, 8

Gold Coast - 24, 6

St Kilda - 24, 6

Western Bulldogs - 24, 5

Brisbane - 24, 2

Collingwood - 24 flat

Melbourne - 23, 5

AVERAGE GAMES EXPERIENCE

North Melbourne - 155.9

Geelong - 117.1

West Coast - 114.1

Hawthorn - 111.0

Sydney - 105.9

Essendon - 101.1

Adelaide - 96.0

GWS - 95.2 

Richmond - 94.9

Carlton - 91.0

Fremantle - 89.5

Gold Coast - 89.5

Port Adelaide - 87.1

Brisbane - 73.1

Western Bulldogs - 72.7

St Kilda - 72.5

Collingwood - 72.5

Melbourne - 62.3

[PaulRB 6,363]

The average age/experience of the top teams really highlights that if we can keep this team together and developing over the next two years, we should evolve into something special as our boys age and gain experience.

 

[deeflog 679]

It's the 6th week in a row we have fielded the youngest team in the league

[What 18,810]

1 minute ago, deeflog said:

It's the 6th week in a row we have fielded the youngest team in the league

 

Yup, we sit 6-6 and 109% with the youngest and most inexperienced side in the comp.  It is very impressive.  Non MFC fans are gushing about us.

[MadAsHell 4,212]

After a loss like yesterday, this thread always helps me look at things in perspective.

Melbourne ranked 16th in each filed on the weekend with an average age of 23 years 10 months and games experience of 65.8.  Saints were 8th & 9th at 24 years, 11 months and 92.5 games experience.

These results will happen.  It's annoying, but the inexperience of the teams we're putting out there leaves this open.  Dunn & Garland's fall from grace, Lumumba's injury and Dawes inability to get back to some of his 2013/early 2014 form has meant we're playing a lot younger then most of us expected.

[stuie 7,374]

And we're back to using "alternative ladders'" again.. Yay.

[faultydet 7,594]

4 hours ago, stuie said:

And we're back to using "alternative ladders'" again.. Yay.

Some people refuse to take of the rose colored glasses stu.

but, but, but, we are GOING to be so good!

We were a young team when we were playing all of our early draftees during the Baily/Neeld years, and what happened then?

 

[Adzman 2,154]

To make matters worse, some of our older and more experienced players are some of our must vulnerable. Remove grimes, dawes from the list and there goes another few hundred games.

 

[John Crow Batty 8,863]

4 hours ago, AngryAtCasey said:

After a loss like yesterday, this thread always helps me look at things in perspective.

Melbourne ranked 16th in each filed on the weekend with an average age of 23 years 10 months and games experience of 65.8.  Saints were 8th & 9th at 24 years, 11 months and 92.5 games experience.

These results will happen.  It's annoying, but the inexperience of the teams we're putting out there leaves this open.  Dunn & Garland's fall from grace, Lumumba's injury and Dawes inability to get back to some of his 2013/early 2014 form has meant we're playing a lot younger then most of us expected.

Put those four back in may not make any difference other than raises the average age.

[MadAsHell 4,212]

Point is they should have been our Dempster, Fisher, Gilbert, Riewoldt etc like the Saints have to guide our young players through the season and make finals a possibility. 

They haven't done that, for various reasons. As such we find ourselves where we are.

[Ricky P 757]

5 hours ago, AngryAtCasey said:

After a loss like yesterday, this thread always helps me look at things in perspective.

Melbourne ranked 16th in each filed on the weekend with an average age of 23 years 10 months and games experience of 65.8.  Saints were 8th & 9th at 24 years, 11 months and 92.5 games experience.

These results will happen.  It's annoying, but the inexperience of the teams we're putting out there leaves this open.  Dunn & Garland's fall from grace, Lumumba's injury and Dawes inability to get back to some of his 2013/early 2014 form has meant we're playing a lot younger then most of us expected.

This is true. The fact is, we have a younger team now than when Roos started. More than a quarter of the team that played yesterday has played less than 20 games. Yesterday was disappointing for me because I thought we had taken the next step and could go on and have a crack at the finals, but clearly we are still a young and inconsistent team. That doesn't diminish my belief that we'll be a formidable team in the next couple of years.

In 2 or 3 years we'll have 4 Jack Vineys running around - Track, Oliver, Brayshaw and the original. I reckon we'll be a fair side when that happens.

Edited July 18, 2016 by Ricky P

[Sir Why You Little 37,039]

5 minutes ago, Ricky P said:

This is true. The fact is, we have a younger team now than when Roos started. More than a quarter of the team that played yesterday has played less than 20 games. Yesterday was disappointing for me because I thought we had taken the next step and could go on and have a crack at the finals, but clearly we are still a young and inconsistent team. That doesn't diminish my belief that we'll be a formidable team in the next couple of years.

In 2 or 3 years we'll have 4 Jack Vineys running around - Track, Oliver, Brayshaw and the original. I reckon we'll be a fair side when that happens.

Trouble is Free Agency will continue to erode our "Good" experienced players each year....

[Chris 2,892]

1 minute ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Trouble is Free Agency will continue to erode our "Good" experienced players each year....

That is where we must do what we can to keep them around. I am hoping that because we have such a big bunch of kids coming through together that even if lose some experience in the mean time we will have a big bunch of experience at the same time that should be having some success. That will deminished the effect of loosing some players and may make us a destination. 

Optimistic I know but the alternative is to get depressed about it. 

[Sir Why You Little 37,039]

6 minutes ago, Chris said:

That is where we must do what we can to keep them around. I am hoping that because we have such a big bunch of kids coming through together that even if lose some experience in the mean time we will have a big bunch of experience at the same time that should be having some success. That will deminished the effect of loosing some players and may make us a destination. 

Optimistic I know but the alternative is to get depressed about it. 

I agree. But let's see what happens to TMac. We have lost 1 every year so far...

[Coq au vin 755]

The press have been calling us "the young Demons" since 1965.

[Ricky P 757]

8 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Trouble is Free Agency will continue to erode our "Good" experienced players each year....

Haha I can't see us losing anyone we'd want to keep in the next few years.

I'd also argue we've done pretty well out of free agency. We got Vince for Sylvia, Brayshaw for Frawley. Who'd we get for Rivers?

[Adam The God 30,259]

58 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Trouble is Free Agency will continue to erode our "Good" experienced players each year....

Disagree. I reckon FA will be our friend in the coming 3-5 years. It's how we'll smooth the edges of our list.

[Macca 16,972]

43 minutes ago, Ricky P said:

Haha I can't see us losing anyone we'd want to keep in the next few years.

I'd also argue we've done pretty well out of free agency. We got Vince for Sylvia, Brayshaw for Frawley. Who'd we get for Rivers?

In a round about way - Kent.

Kent = the compensation pick we ended up receiving for the loss of Moloney & Rivers (and the acquisition of Byrnes) ... the compensation was pick 48 in the 2012 Draft.

Where we've lost out is not acquiring quality free agents in the last 4 off-seasons - but that's easier said than done and acquiring free agents would have affected our compensation in at least 2 of those years (which you highlighted, RP)

Going forward we need to be a player with regards to free agency.  Picking up one good player per year (via free agency) is not a big ask.  Here's the list of free agents (Not sure how up to date the list is)

Edited July 18, 2016 by Macca

[Sir Why You Little 37,039]

31 minutes ago, AdamFphlebeb said:

Disagree. I reckon FA will be our friend in the coming 3-5 years. It's how we'll smooth the edges of our list.

Not if we keep losing games like yesterday. 

That was a season killer

Managers will be on the phones today...

[Adam The God 30,259]

2 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Not if we keep losing games like yesterday. 

That was a season killer

Managers will be on the phones today...

Losing yesterday will not be a deal breaker.

[bing181 9,238]

2 hours ago, AngryAtCasey said:

Point is they should have been our Dempster, Fisher, Gilbert, Riewoldt etc like the Saints have to guide our young players through the season and make finals a possibility. 

I think to some extent they are ... but off-field unfortunately. We were 5 points down in the last quarter, the game was there to be won, and we needed calmer, more experienced heads, to make sure it was, Jack Viney can only do so much off his own bat. (though thought Vince was trying). No accident to see Riewoldt step up when the game was on the line.

Just don't think you can underestimate the kind of experience that the players listed above bring to a team. Let's not forget that St Kilda were in the finals consistently from 2004 - 2011, including successive grand finals in 2009 - 2010. That's a LOT of big game experience to draw on, even if it's only a handful of players. 

I know people here talk about inside grunt and outside run and zone defence and coaches and game plans etc. etc., but it's this lack of real A-grade leaders (which isn't necessarily the same as A-grade players) that is our biggest Archilles heel at the moment. Hopefully it'll come over the next couple of years.

[Ricky P 757]

17 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Not if we keep losing games like yesterday. 

That was a season killer

Managers will be on the phones today...

The only free agent we have who hasn't signed is Grimes. I reckon his manager might've already been on the phone!

[John Crow Batty 8,863]

8 minutes ago, Ricky P said:

The only free agent we have who hasn't signed is Grimes. I reckon his manager might've already been on the phone!

Perhaps the response was something like "don't call us, we'll call you"

Edited July 18, 2016 by america de cali