Club Profiles and Rankings

Not sure the average age per se means a lot but the profile by age group is interesting.

We have the 2nd highest number of players  in the age group 'sweet-spot' of 22-26yo.  Second only to Bulldogs who have 22. 

Surprisingly, we have the equal fewest (13) of 18-20 yo so being ranked as the 14th youngest is a bit of a quirk of averages.  If the number of players under 20 is a guide we can no longer say we are a 'young' team. 

While we have the equal highest number of players (17) in the experience 'sweet-spot' of 51-150 games we are still relatively inexperienced as we have very few (3) with >150 games.  Interesting that the recent consistent finalists have 9-12 players there.

It is interesting to see the bulldogs also have 17 in the 51-150 group with 10 of those having 101-150 games.  When combined with their players in the age group 'sweet-spot, it wouldn't surprise to see them feature well into the finals. 

Edited December 4, 20195 yr by Lucifer's Hero

12 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Club Profiles and Rankings

Not sure the average age per se means a lot but the profile by age group is interesting.

We have the 2nd highest number of players  in the age group 'sweet-spot' of 22-26yo.  Second only to Bulldogs who have 22. 

Surprisingly, we have the equal fewest (13) of 18-20 yo so being ranked as the 14th youngest is a bit of a quirk of averages.  If the number of players under 20 is a guide we can no longer say we are a 'young' team. 

While we have the equal highest number of players (17) in the experience 'sweet-spot' of 51-150 games we are still relatively inexperienced as we have very few (3) with >150 games.  Interesting that the recent consistent finalists have 9-12 players there.

It is interesting to see the bulldogs also have 17 in the 51-150 group with 10 of those having 101-150 games.  When combined with their players in the age group 'sweet-spot, it wouldn't surprise to see them feature well into the finals. 

Love your work, Luci, but you've said "We have the 2nd highest number of players  in the age group 'sweet-spot' of 22-26yo.  Second only to Bulldogs who have 22." By my reading of the table, St Kilda is top with 24 and we're second with 22. Or am I reading it wrong? 

34 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Love your work, Luci, but you've said "We have the 2nd highest number of players  in the age group 'sweet-spot' of 22-26yo.  Second only to Bulldogs who have 22." By my reading of the table, St Kilda is top with 24 and we're second with 22. Or am I reading it wrong? 

Correct!  We are second highest to the saints.  My eyes/brain didn't connect too well with the fingers doing the typing ?

 

Interesting to see Norf trade away this year's 1st rounder when they have that mature age profile.  I don't expect them to challenge for the flag any time soon.  Wonder what they are thinking?

Geelong are staring at the mother of all rebuilds.  They have 3 2020 Ist rounders.

Hawthorn betting the farm on Clarkson and their foreign legion of traded in players.

Collingwood running out of flag runway too.

Brisbane and the Dogs look well placed for an assault on the summit.

Edited December 4, 20195 yr by Fifty-5

Wasn't that long ago that Richmond looked cooked, with the same eight or so players filling out their top ten year after year and getting older and older.

The thing about older players is - they've been testes and found, if not excellent, at least credible AFL standard.

When a team with a good block of players of that standard then manages to add an extra later in a rush - that is when a truly dominant team appears.

It's not a coincidence that Rioli and Selwood won premierships in their respective debut years.  And it also isn't a coincidence that many premiership teams have some form of 'fairytale of the kid going big'.

The way I see it, an older profile just means the clock is ticking on getting that extra surge before your existing group starts whittling away. 

All that a young age profile tells you is that there's a lot of potential improvement, but also potential flatlining!

 

2 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

The thing about older players is - they've been testes

I don't know where to begin ...

13 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

Wasn't that long ago that Richmond looked cooked, with the same eight or so players filling out their top ten year after year and getting older and older.

The thing about older players is - they've been testes and found, if not excellent, at least credible AFL standard.

 

There's one main reason Richmond have won those 2 flags - Dusty.

No Dusty = no flags.

We're equal with St Kilda for the least number of players 27+ (8).

1 hour ago, Fifty-5 said:

There's one main reason Richmond have won those 2 flags - Dusty.

No Dusty = no flags.

Generally speaking, when you have the best player in the league..................it helps.

2 hours ago, Fifty-5 said:

There's one main reason Richmond have won those 2 flags - Dusty.

No Dusty = no flags.

I could've replaced Dusty this year and they still would've won it.

They lost Rance, moved Grimes in to his spot and didn't miss a beat.

Mid season they decide there's no longer room for him in the forward line and move Caddy on to a wing. They move a young small forward flanker in Baker to a sweeping defender spot. Shane Edwards and the undrafted Stack held down the back flanks for a while without Short and Houli. They  play Cotchin at half fitness because they can. They play 2 rucks off the bench, 50/50 game time each because they can. They debut a guy in a grand final, because they can!

The way they pressure without losing their shape behind the ball is incredible.

The way they run with the ball and forward handball is amazing.

They way they have 22 fit and fast athletes ready to perform to their best is off the charts. It's way more than just Dusty.

 

Note that each club has a different number of players on their lists which makes looking at raw numbers a little misleading i.e. Esse has 42 vs GC with 49. I have transformed the numbers into proportions which while still not perfect helps with comparisons.

Age, games played and capability are important factors in determining the potential of a playing list now and into the future. 

Age profile (driving strength & maturity): If you have a list with a higher proportion of players 27+ years of age you want to be challenging for a flag before you tip over the edge and need to bottom out to get youth in. Geel, WC, North, Coll, Rich, Port, Hawt, and GC lead in that order. For North and GC, this is a concerning given they aren't playing finals and certainly not challenging for a flag. Perhaps this is part of the reason North were happy to get multiple 2020 draft picks in from Melb in exchange for their round 1 2019 pick

The Saints, Melb, Bris, and Carlton lead in the combined 18-25 year range in that order. Being in this range should suggest you are an up and coming team assuming recruiting, coaching and development are aligned. It seems that teams in this space can have a breakout year that defies their profile but doesn't happen consistently until the list ages e.g. Melb prelim, Bris prelim, perhaps Bulldogs flag

Games profile (driving experience & know how): The age of your list will often drive the number of games your list plays. Players like Mitch Brown who are older but have played fewer games are pretty rare and seem to be rookies/depth players. Although despite having the 2nd lowest group 26 years or under we have the 7th highest games played in the combined 51 games or more group. Having not had much success and many quality senior players to hold our youth back in the past may be a positive in the future

Draft profile (driving talent & capability): While age and games have an important role in list profiles, having high end draft selection to get A and B graders coming through the door is also critical. Picks 1 to 7 tend to play a significantly greater number of games than those from 8-20 which plateau, with further drops after that. Which is why teams looking to reshape their lists tend to push some of their quality older players out the door to get quality picks for a rebuild. It would have been good chart the proportions of players to be selected in different draft rounds across clubs but I don't have the data (i.e. round 1, 2, 3 rookie etc) but suffice to say we have had a healthy number of high end draft picks

Overall: Experience which belies your age is the ideal mix when complemented with high end drafting. So while we have a relatively youthful list which often means you are only capable of a breakout year, hopefully our relatively high experience and talent will lead to sustained success before our time is due. Fluctuations (particularly for emerging teams) can also be driven by fixtures (based on the ladder position of the prior year) and injury levels (less depth)

Edited December 4, 20195 yr by Demons1858

14 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

Wasn't that long ago that Richmond looked cooked, with the same eight or so players filling out their top ten year after year and getting older and older.

The thing about older players is - they've been testes and found, if not excellent, at least credible AFL standard.

 

 

Touch unkind

19 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

I could've replaced Dusty this year and they still would've won it.

They lost Rance, moved Grimes in to his spot and didn't miss a beat.

Mid season they decide there's no longer room for him in the forward line and move Caddy on to a wing. They move a young small forward flanker in Baker to a sweeping defender spot. Shane Edwards and the undrafted Stack held down the back flanks for a while without Short and Houli. They  play Cotchin at half fitness because they can. They play 2 rucks off the bench, 50/50 game time each because they can. They debut a guy in a grand final, because they can!

The way they pressure without losing their shape behind the ball is incredible.

The way they run with the ball and forward handball is amazing.

They way they have 22 fit and fast athletes ready to perform to their best is off the charts. It's way more than just Dusty.

No Dusty = no flag is a gross over simplification but he is their match winner and I think they struggle to make top 4 without him and from there it gets much harder.

Richmond can run ahead of the ball with confidence because of their incredibly cohesive back 6, proven even without Rance and because they use the ball so effectively going forward.  No-one who plays an inside game can touch Dusty in this, the only recent example is G.Ablett jnr, and that has been the cornerstone of Richmond's attacking style.  He is ably assisted by Edwards, Lambert and Cotchin.

I do think that replace Dusty with Dangerfield or Fyfe and they still win. It's not completely clear if the reverse is true for Geelong and it's obviously not true for Freo.

I agree that Dusty is the key to it all for Richmond and that, without him, they probably don’t win 2 flags. But my rationale is different. 

Richmond have a very defensive game style that revolves around always having numbers behind the ball. They then pick players that can run and tackle, plus bob up for the occasional goal .... but they only need a very modest offensive contribution from them because they are usually outnumbered in attack.

This game plan means that it’s difficult to score. But they were top 4 in scores against, even without their best defender in Rance. They’ve been top 4 defensively since 2016 (when they only won 8 games). 

What Dusty does is allow them to score with a defensive game plan. He can beat multiple opponents and turn half chances into goals. He can burst out of congestion and create a goal. And when you are so miserly in defence, with players always set up behind the ball, each goal is more valuable.

To illustrate the point, I’ve listed Dusty’s goals each season for the past 5 seasons, along with Richmond’s wins below.

2019- 32 goal, 17 wins

2018- 31 goals, 19 wins

2017- 37 goals, 18 wins

2016- 9 goals, 8 wins

2015- 24 goals, 15 wins

Riewoldt also allows them to score, because he can beat multiple opponents and, sometimes, Lynch can. But, whilst the defenders are admirable and do an excellent job, without Dusty and Riewoldt Richmond wouldn’t be in the premiership class.