From https://www.statsinsider.com.au/afl/charting-the-afl-premiership-clock-how-far-is-your-club-from-its-next-flag

Bottom right quadrant is bad, too old and not scoring enough.

Top right is good, mature age high scoring. Bottom left is rebuilding younger teams

Melbourne it would seem just need to kick more goals, shock horror. GC are interesting. Very young with a % above 100.

Last 10 premiership teams in the lighter colors.

 

I could get to like Ben Brown.

the filth's 2010 and footscray's 2016 sides were completely - and mistakenly? - dismantled

Gladys Berijiklian

Oh goody I love join the dots. 

So the premier can be almost any age (24.5 to 27 is a pretty big window, and probably typically of almoat of teams, given players are only agred 18 to ~32) as long as they have a positive percentage?

Given by definition the premier wins lots of games, most often more then anyone else, then that seems like a strange way of presenting relatively useless data?

 

Out of interest is that the ave of the 22 picked or the list?

I think the most informative part of this is that Geelong and Hawthorn need to drastically rejuvinate their list, WC, PA and Coll are in their prime window age wise and risk getting old, and Carlton and NM are quite old for "young sides".

36 minutes ago, deanox said:

Out of interest is that the ave of the 22 picked or the list?

I think the most informative part of this is that Geelong and Hawthorn need to drastically rejuvinate their list, WC, PA and Coll are in their prime window age wise and risk getting old, and Carlton and NM are quite old for "young sides".

Good point you raise there @deanox

1 hour ago, deanox said:

Out of interest is that the ave of the 22 picked or the list?

I think the most informative part of this is that Geelong and Hawthorn need to drastically rejuvinate their list, WC, PA and Coll are in their prime window age wise and risk getting old, and Carlton and NM are quite old for "young sides".

I think the former. Average of the 22 picked each week

Over the last 20 years the average premiership player has already played in a premiership. 

A stat about as useful as a predictor as is 'scored more than their opponents' (Yup) and 'has multiple players who established themselves at AFL level and weren't delisted at 22', which is mostly what that chart tells us.

4 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

That is disgusting.

The major flaw in this article is the use of percentage.

It doesn't tell us enough.

Is the correlation with sides who score heavily? Or with sides with strong defences?

It's not particularly useful to tell us that the sides who score more than their opponents overall do better than those who don't.

8 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

The major flaw in this article is the use of percentage.

It doesn't tell us enough.

Is the correlation with sides who score heavily? Or with sides with strong defences?

It's not particularly useful to tell us that the sides who score more than their opponents overall do better than those who don't.

Pretty much, I wonder what would happen if you added in the top 4 sides for past decade. I think you would get a lot of muddling of data and there wouldn't be a clear correlation shown. 

This is pretty much showing kicking higher scores will lead to success...