Had we won last year we might now be discussing the "Dynasty" word and perhaps we will in the future.

Pre 2018 our list was almost unique in that we had few players in that post 27-28 years of age that you could rely upon to play a very solid game week in week out. Think North's Harvey as an example,

Post 30 year old stars have often had multi years of high paid contracts and can be sensible about taking a few dollars less in the outer years.

In the short term we have Gawn and May entering the over 32 zone and in the medium term we have Salem and Lever followed not that long after by Oliver and Petracca (and perhaps Brayshaw).

How we manage these players individually and in a team context will to a large extent determine our success in the window beginning say three years from now.

It's a pity that none are key forwards as that seems to the most common position for longevity.

Not an immediate issue but if we want to remain a finals force these are the hypotheticals that need discussing.

Of course the game could take another turn tactics wise that renders older players obsolete.

Another way of discussing it could be to analyse if Hawthorn's management of its veterans was worse than Geelong's and if so what lessons can be learnt.

Here's hoping they all play till Fletcher did. 

I think that the next 3 to 4 years are our best bet to win 2 more flags. How nice that would be.

I also think that this success if 21 hasn't already, will see a new number of youngsters choosing to follow our club.  Kids would be looking at players like Gawn, Oliver, Trac and Kossie and say I'm a Dees supporter.

Being in the proverbial wilderness has probably cost us a larger membership but hopefully this is all turning around.

Edited March 24, 20232 yr by leave it to deever

In this day and age you can expect players who look after their bodies to play until they are 35. I guess it'll also depend on their specific position (harder to play wing if too old).

There's an article in today's Age about Pendlebury that is on point...

The point of this is not to illustrate that Pendlebury is a good player. Anyone with opposing thumbs and even a passing interest in football knows that, but it is said to appreciate that he has never not been a good player. He has never stopped being a good player and, at 35, he shows no sign of going quietly into the night.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/he-could-break-the-games-record-the-remarkable-ageless-scott-pendlebury-20230322-p5cudk.html

This is certainly an interesting topic.

I definitely think player longevity has changed and as long an an AFL player can keep healthy and still impact the game then there is no reason why they can't have long careers.

I know that Max Gawn is getting close to 200 games but I think he could still make it to 250+ games. Especially with Brodie Grundy as his fellow "tap brother" now helping him in the ruck.

Tom McDonald is a little over 200 games now and should also be able to reach 250+ games.

I think Jack Viney could also reach 250+ games (as long as he can stay fit and healthy).

As for the big 5 of Angus Brayshaw, Christian Petracca, James Harmes, Christian Salem and Clayton Oliver.

Angus Brayshaw is close to 150 games and I think is able to play between 300 and 350 games.

Christian Petracca is just over 150 games and I think is also able to play between 300 and  even beyond 350+ games.

James Harmes is close to 150 games too and I think  he can definitely reach 300+ games.

Lastly, I think Clayton Oliver due to his age, at still only 25 and very close to 150 games, will eventually become the Melbourne Football Club's Games Record Holder and most likely to play 400+ games for the Demons.

I understand some may believe this to be a bit delusional, but it would be fantastic if we can have a few more players that are able to reach the milestones of 300, 350 and even 400 games for the Melbourne Football Club. Besides winning more Premierships, it all adds to the rich history and culture of our Club.

Hopefully, I am correct in my very ambitious predictions but obviously time will tell in the long run.

 

Edited March 24, 20232 yr by Supreme_Demon

36 minutes ago, ElDiablo14 said:

In this day and age you can expect players who look after their bodies to play until they are 35. I guess it'll also depend on their specific position (harder to play wing if too old).

Makes sense but there are many variables. Despite better player management there are still many players playing with injuries including chronic injuries. There is a lot of pressure on players to stay on the field or come back from injury before full healing. Players have contracts to think about and coaches want the best available team each game and this involves risk. There are players like Pendlebury that due to game style, weight, body build etc have greater longevity than others. Michael Tuck came from a different era but had a record breaking games total. In the past many players retired from footy due jobs and/or for financial reasons. Not the case today for those who make it. There is a huge financial incentive to keep playing with or without injury. Todays footy is played on harder grounds, with greater speed and  ball movement, greater emphasis on tackling and competitiveness. Game style include greater emphasis on using the ball and tackling on angles. The other thing that is overlooked is that players start playing the game much younger. Drafting etc means that training and playing starts early. No longer do kids play school footy or local footy in a more relaxed way. As a result injuries start occurring at a younger age. Isaac Smith is 34,or 35 but played country footy before being drafted at 22. 

Great topic.

In a club with a great environment and culture, like we have now, I believe there is far more value in keeping mature aged players on the list instead of delisting them at your first opportunity like we did with McDonald and Bruce, so long as obviously their contracts will be much smaller. I believe this really helps with the draftees and the younger players coming through to instill the correct values and habits as soon as they come into the club.

3 minutes ago, AzzKikA said:

Great topic.

In a club with a great environment and culture, like we have now, I believe there is far more value in keeping mature aged players on the list instead of delisting them at your first opportunity like we did with McDonald and Bruce, so long as obviously their contracts will be much smaller. I believe this really helps with the draftees and the younger players coming through to instill the correct values and habits as soon as they come into the club.

Say for example, Max Gawn at age 35 , he could become a great substitute type player (i.e. not starting the games but on the bench). Even playing some VFL and helping the kids trying to make it to senior level 

1 minute ago, ElDiablo14 said:

Say for example, Max Gawn at age 35 , he could become a great substitute type player (i.e. not starting the games but on the bench). Even playing some VFL and helping the kids trying to make it to senior level 

Exactly. If the leaders of the club are happy to be on low salaries, their value is much bigger than just tossing them out.

55 minutes ago, Supreme_Demon said:

I understand some may believe this to be a bit delusional, but it would be fantastic if we can have a few more players that are able to reach the milestones of 300, 350 and even 400 games for the Melbourne Football Club. Besides winning more Premierships, it all adds to the rich history and culture of our Club.

Not delusional by any means but I wonder how many players you can have in this category and still maintain list balance. Tuck was in the days of lists of fifty plus players.

Geelong is interesting. Dangerfield played 15 home and away games out of 22 last year. Assuming he was fit to play in all is that enough input. Extrapolate that to 3 players treated similarly and you have 21 games to be covered from your remaining list.

Will we see veteran allowances for list sizes in future years to keep them in the game

We need to tread very carefully over the next few years, or a list that is absolutely primed to challenge for premierships now, becomes very old, very quickly.

We have Viney, Grundy, Hunter, Salem, Harmes, Petracca, Neal-Bullen, Brayshaw, Langdon and Lever - 10 of our best side - aged from 27 yrs 0 mths to 28 yrs 11 mths.

The reality is that you can't have all of those guys playing into their thirties, particularly when Gawn and May are already contracted into their mid 30s.

I reckon we'll have maximum two more years with this group, then there will need to be big changes to keep us in the window, as we only have a handful of players in the 22 - 25 yrs bracket.

 

Longevity I think is a mixture genetics, mental drive and how much they got banged up 16 - 23… as they early injuries start to surface later.

 

we keep a good club culture it’s possible 

Modern day coaching, playing style, positioning, training, recovery and rehabilitation suggest that players can maintain high standards for longer periods. Player management based on individual loading and rotation during games and the new concept of planned rests for matches will contribute to longer careers.

Depending on position, players might be able to maintain their prime performances until 30-32 and then still remain useful and effective until 35.

The major downside is that new, promising younger players might have their careers delayed. Cricket is currently working through this with some players refusing to move on for the good of the game especially as there is so much money to be made.

Profoundly talented players last longer.

If you compare, say, Alex Neal-Bullen and Christian Petracca, who are 5 days off each other for age, nobody would doubt that if each of them experienced the same amount of physical wear-and-tear as they age, Petracca's career could realistically last 50 more games than Nibbler's. For Nibbler, if he loses 10% he drops to the fringe of selection, but for Petracca he'd stay solidly best-22 long after that.

I actually think this relates to a misconception people have about 'age profiles' of premiership teams being older. It isn't that you need to have older players in your team as a factor in itself, it is simply that if you have great players and in particular smart players, they are going to make it into the 200+ range and still be going strong. If your team is stacked with average or mediocre players, they aren't going to push for a premiership and they aren't going to be burning through milestones either.

Personally, I think there's a great chance here to recruit for a bit of speed and agility in the next couple of years so that our overall mobility continues to be well balanced as the new kids zip around and the older guys just keep stomping anyone who come near a clearance. I'm very happy with our selection of some very mobile future forwards, for example.

Of course, if Freo can continue their first round efforts, we might as well just stop worrying about it until our new boy Harley Reid hits about 28-29 years. Wait... wrong thread?

I think we're kidding ourselves if we think we can beat the odds.

We have this year and next to win a flag and then it gets a lot harder.

If Freo crash this year then our chances of being a force long term lift significantly.

Add some clever recruiting and father/son selections and that will hold us up.

I'm concerned that we will be on the way down when Tassie come into the comp and that will hold us down longer.

We can't rely on ageing champions, our contested style does not lead to longevity.

We will need a lot of luck to go any longer than the current cycle.