The youngest most inexperienced side

[At the break of Gawn 4,460]

16 minutes ago, bandicoot said:

I posted this in April 2016.

Last weekend we fielded the second youngest and inexperienced side in the comp. 

Average age 24.3 and 68 games.

17 of our starting 22 had played less than 100 games and more than 1/4 under 10.

collingwood fielded a team with an average age of 27 and 120 games.

These are the facts and a major reason why we are where we are. 

 

This is excellent to know and gives a lot of perspective.

Goodwin has alluded to this over the past 2 weeks.

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

18 minutes ago, bandicoot said:

I posted this in April 2016.

Last weekend we fielded the second youngest and inexperienced side in the comp. 

Average age 24.3 and 68 games.

17 of our starting 22 had played less than 100 games and more than 1/4 under 10.

collingwood fielded a team with an average age of 27 and 120 games.

These are the facts and a major reason why we are where we are. 

 

Yes Correct. But it does not explain the skill level and general attitude of the older players. 

What has happened there?

[Sorry kids 635]

9 minutes ago, At the break of Gawn said:

This is excellent to know and gives a lot of perspective.

Goodwin has alluded to this over the past 2 weeks.

It explains the performance but does not point to a bright future for the young side. Many of the youngsters will not make it.

[Diamond_Jim 12,591]

8 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Yes Correct. But it does not explain the skill level and general attitude of the older players. 

What has happened there?

 

Just now, Sorry kids said:

It explains the performance but does not point to a bright future for the young side. Many of the youngsters will not make it.

putting those two together does not make for a bright future.

My positive spin is that in the good form of 2018 mirrored reasonable form in 2017 so it's not that 2018 was an aberration. Where that form has gone for so many of them who knows.

[Sorry kids 635]

2 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

 

putting those two together does not make for a bright future.

My positive spin is that in the good form of 2018 mirrored reasonable form in 2017 so it's not that 2018 was an aberration. Where that form has gone for so many of them who knows.

I am somewhat optimistic If we finish the year having found Baker, Hore and one other as well as a fit May that will add four players to add to those coming back in. If we can do well in the 2019 draft we could be in shape for a good year in 2020. . 

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

4 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

 

putting those two together does not make for a bright future.

My positive spin is that in the good form of 2018 mirrored reasonable form in 2017 so it's not that 2018 was an aberration. Where that form has gone for so many of them who knows.

This is why I believe there are problems beneath the surface that we cannot see, apart from the ridiculously long injury list. 

For Goodwin to say that he can see improvement during his press conference is just absurd. 

Sorry but i need some answers. As soon as PJ walked, this Club has dropped its bundle. 

I don’t believe it is Pert, it is Footy related. But i want to know what it is. 

Memberships are on the line here. $Millions of revenue is in Jeopardy going forward

[TGR 1,367]

15 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

This is why I believe there are problems beneath the surface that we cannot see, apart from the ridiculously long injury list. 

For Goodwin to say that he can see improvement during his press conference is just absurd. 

Sorry but i need some answers. As soon as PJ walked, this Club has dropped its bundle. 

I don’t believe it is Pert, it is Footy related. But i want to know what it is. 

Memberships are on the line here. $Millions of revenue is in Jeopardy going forward

The orange tsunami predictably made a slow melbourne outfit look 2nd rate.  Also, for those that want to look for the thinnest silver lining on the darkest big grey cloud, Davis and Coniglio were benched for the 4th quarter.

 

I'm sorry, but young or old list stats are an nth order issue.  This club has squandered early picks in a super-draft.  Max King wasn't first pick but apparently ripped Essendon seconds to shreds in the VFL the other day.

Our injury management and head-scratching recruiting and selection-persistence puts us where we deserve to be.  Full stop.  The round 1 Port game, many saw as an aberration.  The smart ones here saw it as confirmation of a 3-4 year long strategy of nicking off potential leaders (Dunn, Howe) that can contribute on field, and replacing them with relatively costly ones, that either aren't worth a cracker on field (Lewis), or cost us a bucket-load in the super-draft.

 

 

 

[Red and Blue realist 2,051]

4 minutes ago, TGR said:

The orange tsunami predictably made a slow melbourne outfit look 2nd rate.  Also, for those that want to look for the thinnest silver lining on the darkest big grey cloud, Davis and Coniglio were benched for the 4th quarter.

 

I'm sorry, but young or old list stats are an nth order issue.  This club has squandered early picks in a super-draft.  Max King wasn't first pick but apparently ripped Essendon seconds to shreds in the VFL the other day.

Our injury management and head-scratching recruiting and selection-persistence puts us where we deserve to be.  Full stop.  The round 1 Port game, many saw as an aberration.  The smart ones here saw it as confirmation of a 3-4 year long strategy of nicking off potential leaders (Dunn, Howe) that can contribute on field, and replacing them with relatively costly ones, that either aren't worth a cracker on field (Lewis), or cost us a bucket-load in the super-draft.

See absolutely no point in this unless you want us to tank each yeah and the highlight being the draft? Max King was pick 4, way earlier than any pick we had. Everyone on here was celebrating that we got May for Hogan when he left, because we were trying to win the comp. Howe wanted to leave to play forward, turns out we had it right that his best position was down back. We let Dunn leave as we needed to evolve and the game plan wasn't really suited to him anymore, if Lever and May were fit then there wouldn't be a position for him anyway. 

We've copped a horrible run with injuries, that's a fact, not just to our best players but also to our fringe depth. Makes it hard to stay competitive when we've only had 30 to choose from and I suspect some have been playing when they would have been given breaks.  

[old55 23,601]

Yes, I'm not worried.  This season is a blip on the radar - there's plenty of reasons, not excuses.  I have full confidence in Simon Goodwin and we have a tremendous young list.  There'll be some necessary shuffling in the assistant coach ranks over the summer and we'll be back with a vengeance in 2020.

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

15 minutes ago, TGR said:

The orange tsunami predictably made a slow melbourne outfit look 2nd rate.  Also, for those that want to look for the thinnest silver lining on the darkest big grey cloud, Davis and Coniglio were benched for the 4th quarter.

 

I'm sorry, but young or old list stats are an nth order issue.  This club has squandered early picks in a super-draft.  Max King wasn't first pick but apparently ripped Essendon seconds to shreds in the VFL the other day.

Our injury management and head-scratching recruiting and selection-persistence puts us where we deserve to be.  Full stop.  The round 1 Port game, many saw as an aberration.  The smart ones here saw it as confirmation of a 3-4 year long strategy of nicking off potential leaders (Dunn, Howe) that can contribute on field, and replacing them with relatively costly ones, that either aren't worth a cracker on field (Lewis), or cost us a bucket-load in the super-draft.

 

 

 

I know there are problems, but not the ones that you see. But who knows the real answers at this stage. 

I have problems with our co captains, but i will say honestly, i don’t know the solution as i am not close enough 

[poita 3,902]

1 hour ago, bandicoot said:

I posted this in April 2016.

Last weekend we fielded the second youngest and inexperienced side in the comp. 

Average age 24.3 and 68 games.

17 of our starting 22 had played less than 100 games and more than 1/4 under 10.

collingwood fielded a team with an average age of 27 and 120 games.

These are the facts and a major reason why we are where we are. 

Those statistics are so misleading. Smith (28, 9 games), J.Wagner (25 next month, 35 games), Lockhart (23, 7 games), Hore (23, 8 games), C.Wagner (22, 13 games) are clearly inexperienced, but they certainly aren't young. Even Baker is already 21.

Hence they are inexperienced because they have not been good enough to play more games at AFL level, not because they have young, immature bodies that are naturally going to develop over the next few years.

Clayton Oliver was the fourth youngest Melbourne player out there yesterday, and he has played 70 games. Do we still consider him a young, inexperienced player?

As an aside, our recent rookie selections include Smith (28), Maynard (27), Keilty (24), Walker (23), Lockhart (23) Wagner (22). Not one of those guys is young, none is close to our best 22, yet we continue to waste development resources on them. It is no wonder our list is so shallow when we don't turn it over regularly.

[What 18,810]

1 hour ago, bandicoot said:

I posted this in April 2016.

Last weekend we fielded the second youngest and inexperienced side in the comp. 

Average age 24.3 and 68 games.

17 of our starting 22 had played less than 100 games and more than 1/4 under 10.

collingwood fielded a team with an average age of 27 and 120 games.

These are the facts and a major reason why we are where we are. 

 

Don't expect the media to mention that.

They barely even mention our injury crisis but cant shut up about Richmond and Essendon injuries.

Edited May 27, 2019 by Petraccattack

[deebug 1,754]

Add umpires hate us as well.

[Little Goffy 14,574]

I thought it was hilarious when the calls came in for a 'comprehensive review into Essendon injury crisis'. Daniher, Smith, Fantasia and a couple of minor players with minor injuries. Boo freak'n hoo.

At last count we are missing 11 players who would reasonably hope to be in our best 22 when fit. Plus a few more who might normally be those player's replacements.

As for age, start with bonus points for Garlett (29) and Smith (28) only being out there because younger, preffered options aren't available. But that is perhaps splitting hairs.

The fact of the matter is, we recruited a number of mature players (Hibberd, Melksham, May, and Lewis) to provide some experience and consistency to support a super-powered young group both to achieve now and to develop positively for the future. Right now none of them are available to play their role.

Put that together with a wider injury malais that means we can't switch young players in and out on form, or even simplify or tinker with their roles, and it does explain a lot of the mess we are in.

A lot, not all.

Anyway, I am trying to take solace in the opportunity to see what we can make of the likes of Lockhart, Hore, the Wagners and so forth.

 

 

[DubDee 25,886]

as well as being young and inexperienced, we are also one of the worst teams at playing football at the moment

important to factor that in

[bandicoot 1,395]

4 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Yes Correct. But it does not explain the skill level and general attitude of the older players. 

What has happened there?

When experience goes from the side then too much is asked of only a few. 

No team can cope with this.

It becomes easier for opposition players to focus on our experienced good players and it becomes a trickle down effect. 

[Robbie57 2,020]

In any normal round having 3 or 4 of your starting 22 hurts any team. We have 11 out and clearly others who didn't get the required pre-season. TMc looks injured ( to my completely non medical eye) and something is amiss with Brayshaw. We are currently a scratch team the match committee can't do much than work out who is fit enough to get on the park.   

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,833]

5 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

This is why I believe there are problems beneath the surface that we cannot see, apart from the ridiculously long injury list. 

For Goodwin to say that he can see improvement during his press conference is just absurd. 

Sorry but i need some answers. As soon as PJ walked, this Club has dropped its bundle. 

I don’t believe it is Pert, it is Footy related. But i want to know what it is. 

Memberships are on the line here. $Millions of revenue is in Jeopardy going forward

SWYL, if you listen to PJs last Demonland podcast, he actually made the point that our virtually uninterrupted/steady rise up the ladder over the past 4 years unDer Roos/Goodwin doesn’t happen very often in AFL footy and that the club needed to be resilient enough to deal with speed bumps thar would likely happen along the way.

Why did he have to be so prophetic?

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

24 minutes ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

SWYL, if you listen to PJs last Demonland podcast, he actually made the point that our virtually uninterrupted/steady rise up the ladder over the past 4 years unDer Roos/Goodwin doesn’t happen very often in AFL footy and that the club needed to be resilient enough to deal with speed bumps thar would likely happen along the way.

Why did he have to be so prophetic?

I do remember that speech. 

This is a very big speed hump. Not insurmountable, but a big one. 

Other clubs negotiate such problems. 

We don’t seem too. 

Why is it so....

[binman 43,011]

6 hours ago, At the break of Gawn said:

This is excellent to know and gives a lot of perspective.

Goodwin has alluded to this over the past 2 weeks.

And it was instructive that goody in his presser i think for the first time, listed all the players out and those whose return is imminent.

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,833]

2 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I do remember that speech. 

This is a very big speed hump. Not insurmountable, but a big one. 

Other clubs negotiate such problems. 

We don’t seem too. 

Why is it so....

The other clubs mentioned as having speed bump years were Geelong 2006 and Hawthorn 2009.  I could well handle us following that part of the model.

I can excuse us having this one bad year, so long as we achieve a premiership(s) in the years ahead.  What would set me off is to have another few decades of mediocrity like 1987 - 2006 where we were almost good enough on several occasions, but lacked the ruthlessness, intensity and professionalism to take it all the way to a flag.

[titan_uranus 25,020]

7 hours ago, poita said:

Those statistics are so misleading. Smith (28, 9 games), J.Wagner (25 next month, 35 games), Lockhart (23, 7 games), Hore (23, 8 games), C.Wagner (22, 13 games) are clearly inexperienced, but they certainly aren't young. Even Baker is already 21.

Hence they are inexperienced because they have not been good enough to play more games at AFL level, not because they have young, immature bodies that are naturally going to develop over the next few years.

Clayton Oliver was the fourth youngest Melbourne player out there yesterday, and he has played 70 games. Do we still consider him a young, inexperienced player?

As an aside, our recent rookie selections include Smith (28), Maynard (27), Keilty (24), Walker (23), Lockhart (23) Wagner (22). Not one of those guys is young, none is close to our best 22, yet we continue to waste development resources on them. It is no wonder our list is so shallow when we don't turn it over regularly.

I'm not sure what your point is.

Our side was the second youngest of the 18 sides to play Round 10. It was also the second most inexperienced.

What part of that is misleading?

The stats aren't posted in absolute terms - the average age was 24 so we're clearly not a side full of teenagers. They're posted in relative terms - whatever age we had, 16 sides were, on average, older.

If you want to have concern over list profile, it's where you're old but inexperienced. That wasn't us this weekend (not on average, anyway).

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

8 hours ago, Fifty-5 said:

Yes, I'm not worried.  This season is a blip on the radar - there's plenty of reasons, not excuses.  I have full confidence in Simon Goodwin and we have a tremendous young list.  There'll be some necessary shuffling in the assistant coach ranks over the summer and we'll be back with a vengeance in 2020.

I’m not worried either. Just annoyed that what otherwise should’ve been a great season is already over.

I still think the future’s very promising, on and off the field.

I do want to see a bit from May and Lever before the end of the year though (as a big supporter of the recruitment of each of them), and for TMac to regain his contested marking form of 2018.

 

[Guest]

This season's failures can be attributed predominantly (but not solely) to

1.  Apalling preparation due to us throwing everything at winning the 2018 flag.

2.  Injuries to key players, particularly recruits in whom a great deal was invested.

I feel that the disappointment brought about by the failure to meet expectation has impacted the collective confidence and form of the side and probably the whole footy dept.

[DV8 2,271]

10 minutes ago, Stretch Johnson said:

This season's failures can be attributed predominantly (but not solely) to

1.  Apalling preparation due to us throwing everything at winning the 2018 flag.

2.  Injuries to key players, particularly recruits in whom a great deal was invested.

I feel that the disappointment brought about by the failure to meet expectation has impacted the collective confidence and form of the side and probably the whole footy dept.

I think nearly everyone overrated Us at end of last year... we were good,  but Not great...  and the Hype (fugazi) snowballed...   like an out-of-control Ranger-Rover  down a Ski-Slope.

 

I agree we kept playing players the past 2 years...  when they should have been rested.  to get them 100% right.  Not chronic has beens.