The youngest most inexperienced side

[praha 11,240]

You have to take the good and the bad with teams like this. When we are high we play like schoolboy all stars but when we struggle (and I think we only really *struggled* twice this year, against Bombers and Saints), there is a massive dropoff. You have to expect that and be prepared for more games like that. 

The difference between this inexperienced side and the one from 2010, 2011 is that we have a really good contingency of experience: not too much, not too little, and better "ball winners" than we did then. 

I think we still might struggle agains a Hawthorn, West Coast and even Freo, but it's a learning curve and part of the process.

[MadAsHell 4,215]

15 minutes ago, ChaserJ said:

It's quite extraordinary, isn't it?

The last  time we tried to build through the draft (ultimately unsuccessfully) and go down the youth path, and the only point where it vaguely looked like we were on the road back was 2010.

The peak of that rebuild was arguably the big Rd 17 win against Sydney.  Our age profile from then was:

Average Attributes
	Melbourne	Attribute	Sydney
	186.8cm	Height	186.6cm
	84.2kg	Weight	87.2kg
	23yr 4mth	Age	25yr 10mth
	68.8	Games	104.1
Total Players By Games
	Melbourne	Games	Sydney
	3	Less than 50	1
	4	50 to 99	1
	5	100 to 149	5
	10	150 or more	15

 Our development program is so far ahead of what he had in place then it's not even funny, and the growth left in this team is scary.

All things being equal, we're only seeing the earliest signs of what this team could do on a regular basis.

Exciting stuff.

And to think, for something that was only 5 & a half years ago, the only players from our 22 that day still on the list are Jones, Watts, Dunn & Garland.

[MadAsHell 4,215]

Was just looking at the stats for this from the weekend, and once more I note that we fielded the youngest and least experienced team against the Hawks who fielded the 3rd oldest & 2nd most experienced team of the round.

The stats actually make for some interesting reading.  Paints a good picture for us, Bulldogs, Adelaide & of course GWS.  And it makes things look pretty grim for the likes of Fremantle, Richmond, St Kilda (given their performance) and it also outs Carlton's efforts into perspective (as well as Bolton has done).

AGE:

North Melbourne 27 years 11 months

Geelong 26 years 4 months

Hawthorn 26 years 2 months

West Coast 26 years flat

Fremantle 25 years 9 months

Carlton 25 years 7 months

Sydney 25 years 6 months

Richmond 25 years 6 months

Essendon 25 years 2 months

St Kilda 24 years 11 months

Collingwood 24 years 8 months

Port Adelaide 24 years 8 months

Adelaide 24 years 7 months

GWS 24 years 5 months

Gold Coast 24 years 4 monhts

Western Bulldogs 24 years 4 months

Brisbane 24 years 4 months

Melbourne 23 years 7 months

GAMES EXPERIENCE

North Melbourne 151.3

Hawthorn 125.6

Geelong 120.8

West Coast 118.4

Sydney 104.9

Richmond 104.1

Fremantle 103.1

St Kilda 93.2

Carlton 90.1

GWS 87.1

Collingwood 86.3

Port Adelaide 86.1

Essendon 84.5

Adelaide 79 flat

Gold Coast 79 flat

Western Bulldogs 71.6

Brisbane 71.3

Melbourne 64.2

North played a 22 that had more then double the games experience that we fielded.  We also fielded a team on average 9 months younger then any other in the comp.

Encouraging signs of things to come hopefully!

[DubDee 26,117]

is it correct that our ave games round 10 was 30 and last week it was 64.  big jump?

or maybe im wrong

[stuie 7,374]

It also shows the hole in our list and the worry about development, particularly in the backline, without senior players to help bring them through.

Works both ways.

 

[Tough Kent 2,137]

Thanks for sharing. With Dawes, Trenners and AvB coming into that side it raised our average age by a little bit too.

The average games played stat is the one that is important. This group of players with an average games played of 90 - 100 matches will be a very different beast.

[old dee 23,872]

4 minutes ago, stuie said:

It also shows the hole in our list and the worry about development, particularly in the backline, without senior players to help bring them through.

Works both ways.

 

They cannot get a game stuie.

[stuie 7,374]

3 minutes ago, old dee said:

They cannot get a game stuie.

I'm saying the lack of them, not the quality of the ones we already have.

 

[Eittocs12 32]

	Total Games	Ave games
Round 1	1382	62.82
Round 2	1615	73.41
Round 3	1490	67.73
Round 4	1384	62.91
Round 5	1653	75.14
Round 6	1651	75.05
Round 7	1399	63.59
Round 8	1410	64.09
Round 9	1273	57.86
Round 10	1406	63.91
Round 11	1412	64.18

[old dee 23,872]

3 minutes ago, stuie said:

I'm saying the lack of them, not the quality of the ones we already have.

 

I understand that, I think they are good enough.

[stuie 7,374]

Just now, old dee said:

I understand that, I think they are good enough.

Huh? They're good enough but they can't get a game?

 

[Tough Kent 2,137]

1 minute ago, Eittocs12 said:

	Total Games	Ave games
Round 1	1382	62.82
Round 2	1615	73.41
Round 3	1490	67.73
Round 4	1384	62.91
Round 5	1653	75.14
Round 6	1651	75.05
Round 7	1399	63.59
Round 8	1410	64.09
Round 9	1273	57.86
Round 10	1406	63.91
Round 11	1412	64.18

This is why Oscar, Harmes, etc. are given games when they are perhaps not at their best. The coaches want to show faith in these boys and get them playing games together. Playing a Grimes might help us slightly in the short term, but it's all about building a side that can compete for higher stakes long term.

[stuie 7,374]

5 minutes ago, Tough Kent said:

This is why Oscar, Harmes, etc. are given games when they are perhaps not at their best. The coaches want to show faith in these boys and get them playing games together. Playing a Grimes might help us slightly in the short term, but it's all about building a side that can compete for higher stakes long term.

They are the future, but they can't learn from each other. They need quality mature players to play alongside them. Development doesn't just automatically happen by playing games.

 

[old dee 23,872]

4 minutes ago, Tough Kent said:

This is why Oscar, Harmes, etc. are given games when they are perhaps not at their best. The coaches want to show faith in these boys and get them playing games together. Playing a Grimes might help us slightly in the short term, but it's all about building a side that can compete for higher stakes long term.

I understand your point TK however I don't understand your graph.

Is it meant to show we have a young side?

If so good but don't we all know that?

[Tough Kent 2,137]

1 minute ago, stuie said:

They are the future, but they can't learn from each other. They need quality mature players to play alongside them. Development doesn't just automatically happen by playing games.

 

It happens with good coaching and by playing with good footballers. We are providing them with both.

[stuie 7,374]

Just now, Tough Kent said:

It happens with good coaching and by playing with good footballers. We are providing them with both.

Not in the backline we're not, and that is my worry at the moment.

Jetta is a legend, but at 26 he is 3 years older than our next oldest regular defender Tom McDonald who is regarded as the backline leader.

 

[Tough Kent 2,137]

2 minutes ago, old dee said:

I understand your point TK however I don't understand your graph.

Is it meant to show we have a young side?

If so good but don't we all know that?

Not my graph. I think the poster was answering a prior question about us having a side one week that had an average of 30 games played.

[old dee 23,872]

11 minutes ago, Tough Kent said:

Not my graph. I think the poster was answering a prior question about us having a side one week that had an average of 30 games played.

Ok

perhaps I should have engaged my brain before moving my fingers.

Edited June 8, 2016 by old dee

[Dr. Gonzo 24,298]

17 minutes ago, Tough Kent said:

This is why Oscar, Harmes, etc. are given games when they are perhaps not at their best. The coaches want to show faith in these boys and get them playing games together. Playing a Grimes might help us slightly in the short term, but it's all about building a side that can compete for higher stakes long term.

I agree with this logic but am also wary that it is the same logic that brought us undone under Bailey.

[Tough Kent 2,137]

 

 

6 minutes ago, stuie said:

Not in the backline we're not, and that is my worry at the moment.

Jetta is a legend, but at 26 he is 3 years older than our next oldest regular defender Tom McDonald who is regarded as the backline leader.

 

 If we had the best of both worlds (a great blend of youth and experience) we'd be a top 8 team. We don't, that's why we aren't able to play consistently against good sides. It will come.

[stuie 7,374]

Just now, Tough Kent said:

 If we had the best of both worlds (a great blend of youth and experience) we'd be a top 8 team. We don't, that's why we aren't able to play consistently against good sides. It will come.

How will it come? Trading? Chucking all the kids in and playing them every week is not good development IMO.

It's a never ending cycle if you just play kids who don't develop properly and then become the leaders to the next round of kids who won't develop properly because their leaders didn't.... Roos has talked a lot about this kind of scenario and it's what culture is all about.

 

[Tough Kent 2,137]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I agree with this logic but am also wary that it is the same logic that brought us undone under Bailey.

Fair call. I think the development of players under the current coaching set up if far better. I also believe we have senior players around them who can help the team develop. We could do with some more experienced, quality players, but our list is a slow build and will take time.

[old dee 23,872]

1 minute ago, Tough Kent said:

Fair call. I think the development of players under the current coaching set up if far better. I also believe we have senior players around them who can help the team develop. We could do with some more experienced, quality players, but our list is a slow build and will take time.

You had me up to the last last sentence TK.

Then I got a big chill.

I have heard that a few times before, please tell me it is different this time?

[Tough Kent 2,137]

1 minute ago, stuie said:

How will it come? Trading? Chucking all the kids in and playing them every week is not good development IMO.

It's a never ending cycle if you just play kids who don't develop properly and then become the leaders to the next round of kids who won't develop properly because their leaders didn't.... Roos has talked a lot about this kind of scenario and it's what culture is all about.

 

Last thing I'll say on this because I haven't got all day to trade quotes with you Stuie. Our list will improve through trading, free agency and continued good drafting. And continuing to be patient. Your argument is flawed because our kids are developing, aren't they? Is the team not improving?

[Tough Kent 2,137]

2 minutes ago, old dee said:

You had me up to the last last sentence TK.

Then I got a big chill.

I have heard that a few times before, please tell me it is different this time?

Gosh, I bloody hope so!