Statistics

[Rolling Stone 158]

The Herald Sun has published the team averages for all of the AFL clubs. But do these statistics mean anything?

Age

24.17 Fremantle

24.12 Adelaide

23.88 St. Kilda

23.66 Melbourne

23.52 W Bulldogs

23.33 Essendon

23.23 Sydney

23.06 Collingwood

22.96 Geelong

22.96 Kangaroos

22.88 Richmond

22.84 West Coast

22.54 Brisbane

22.42 Port Adelaide

22.37 Carlton

22.29 Hawthorn

Height

189.6 Carlton

188.5 Essendon

188.5 Port Adelaide

188.5 West Coast

188.3 Brisbane

188.2 Adelaide

188.2 Geelong

188.0 W Bulldogs

187.9 St. Kilda

187.7 Melbourne

187.3 Richmond

187.3 Sydney

187.2 Hawthorn

187.1 Collingwood

187.0 Kangaroos

186.5 Fremantle

Weight

89.4 Geelong

88.7 Carlton

88.5 Fremantle

87.9 Kangaroos

87.7 St. Kilda

87.4 Port Adelaide

87.3 Essendon

87.3 West Coast

87.1 Hawthorn

86.7 Adelaide

86.7 Brisbane

86.7 Sydney

86.6 Melbourne

86.0 Collingwood

85.9 W Bulldogs

85.2 Richmond

[Toad33 57]

Hmmmm.

Whats DOES it mean!

Well.....

....Geelong are the fattest. Probably due to Cameron Ling's backside and Cameron Mooney's thick head.

.....Richmond are the skinniest. They need to recruit a fatty like 'Big Lance'.

.....Fremantle are the shortest and oldest........Your time's up Mr Bell.

.....Hawthorn are the youngest and will save a packet on wax and waxing strips with all the bum fluff covered kids they have down on their list.

I can't read anything else useful into them except they filled a collumn in the paper.

Go Dees

[Roger Mellie 4,096]

After hours of analysis, I came to a similar conclusion as above. On a height to weight ratio - Geelong = fat lazy bastards

[Whispering_Jack 30,575]

The Herald Sun has published the team averages for all of the AFL clubs. But do these statistics mean anything?

Height

189.6 Carlton

Weight

89.4 Geelong

88.7 Carlton

I'm not sure what you can and can't take from these statistics but I wonder if Carlton haven't miscalcuted by concentrating on recruiting for greater height and weight at a time when perhaps they should be aiming at getting better medium size on ballers with more leg speed onto their list.

Only a thought.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

I noticed in both games last season that they seemed to be quite a bit taller than us, particularly in the midfield. What was annoying was that they didn't seem to suffer from a lack of pace. Perhaps it was just the demons on those 2 days that we can attribute the losses to.

In any case, if they're not exposed for pace when all those young tallish midfielders come through, then the recruitment of so much height may be considered a masterstroke. Having said that, with the game going the way it is, you'd suggest they will be found out on grounds like Subi.

[discworld demon 0]

I've mentioned this before: just how accurate are some of these statistics?

If a player comes to a club at (say) 17 years of age weighing 75 kg and 186 cm tall, who's to say he will be that weight and height in 6months to a year (let alone 2 years).

Yet often player statistics are not changed year in and year out.

Strangely though in the case of some players (D. Neitz being a good example) their heigh seems to drift up and down in official records from year to year.

Have a look at the team photo in the 2006 Melbourne FC Magazine (Jr McD on cover); In the back row Brent Moloney looks taller than Adem Yze yet he is officially 6 cm shorter. And standing next to Brent is Colin Sylvia also listed as being shorter than Yze but in the photo looks taller. Maybe Brent and Colin were cheating and standing on tippytoes!

Down the road away you will notice the bloke with the silly grin on his face. Clint Bizzell, listed at 188 cm also looks shorter than Sylvia or Moloney.

In the second back row the 193 cm tall Michael Newton certainly looks taller than the 192 cm tall Jared Rivers - but I reckon its the hairdoo, give him a Clint Bizzell special and he'd be 3cm shorter.

It seems to me that players height and weight statistics are at best just rough guides.

[Demon15 0]

The Herald Sun has published the team averages for all of the AFL clubs. But do these statistics mean anything?

I love a good statistic but they need to put in the Standard Deviation for it to mean anything.

For example, West Coast have a reasonably high average height, which may mean only that they have a few REALLY tall players where it counts but the rest are average or short.

If a club has a high STnd. Dev. then the spread of sizes is large, whereas if its small, and they still have a high averge, then their team is generally composed of players mostly the same size (a bit like Hawthorn in the 80's where everyone was well over 183cm.

Does anyone expect anything remotely analytical from the Herald Sun?