deanox

any diea why cale wasnt taken as a F/S as well? or even jarryd? because all three boys seem pretty well rated. was it a change in the F/S draft rules re the wafl teams?

could defs fill out a little, whether he becomes a 100kg monster or not is a different story.

cale is currently listed as 192cm and 79kgs. 11 games this year, 16 disposals per game (9 kicks 7 hbs). 18 yrs 5 months old. jarryd (hawthorn) is 191cm and 84 kgs. 5 games this years, 22 disposals per game (9 kicks and 13 hbs). 19 years 8 months. mitch is 185cm and 79kgs. 8 games this year (20 careers), 12 disposals, (8 kicks 4 hbs), averaging 2 goals per game. 21 yrs 4 months. some numbers to compare...

ideally you will have lots of F/S selections in the same draft. that way, even if 2 or 3 are worth a 1st rounder, you only have to give up the 1st rounder for one of them, then 2nd rounder for the next etc. because even if another team offers their first rounder, we only have to use our first available...

i assume your being a bit sarcastic there. not sure what your point is. although i do agree that some kind of graphical representation could be easier to view and understand than the text but i dont know if i can paste graphs here...

back so i thought i'd have a chat about what i saw... the big thing for me appears to be the median games...i cant believe that only half our list have above 35 games experience. and given that we will be losing a few of those higher players (there will definetly be a bunch of retirements out of junior, white, yze and holland, with neitz already gone. and it is likely/possible that players like jamar, carrol and robbo only have a year left in them), we could realistically lose another 2 or three players with 200+ games of experience, which would force the averages and the median even lower. interesting for me that the geelong sides have very similar median age and average age. this indicates a much more even spread of players of all age groups, where we have a list that is very youth lopsided. and the median games and average games for mfc indicate this also; our top players are very experienced but after that it drops away quickly. to me this really indicates that we are almost at the bottom of the cycle, we clearly need to bring the average and median games up because we have a relatively young and inexperienced list. but i do think something that looks in favour for us, is the number of players in the under 23 and under 25 categories. over the next 3 years, all players who are in the top age brackets will turn over (retire) and with those retirements will be a few delistings of the younger groups who are not up to it. with some reasonable drafting over the next 4 years, we could see the list progress such that there are 3-4 players in every age bracket with good experience, and hopefully up to afl standard. an issue we have atm is that we have serious holes around the 25-28 age group, but if we continue development we will have players of all ages. obviously it is important to have quality players, not just any players, but i think one of the prerequisites of being successful is having a good even mix across the board, especially to ensure that there is more than a one year window.

is manuka small? if so extra runners might not be as important, but marking forward targets might be... i dont like jamar, and dont think he has much to offer, but he can mark a ball. whats the swans defence like? does the addition of one of jamar of PJ up forward offer us an advantage? does jolly have what it takes to go all day? does asking PJ and white to ruck together all day mean that jolly wont be able to stop either and that the swans 'loose man' in defence is actually responsible for the extra ruckman floating a kick in front of play to offer a link forward?

just thought id do a little analysis for discussion, i havnt seen this done for a while, and its as good a time as any to see it again. (all ages as of roughly this time of year) our current average list age: 23.4 years median age: 22.1 years (indicates our age average is being pushed up by a few older players who unbalance it slightly) assuming the changes to the list at the end of the year are off: neitz, yze, holland, jamar and carrol (yes this is presumptuous but is an even spread of players, perhaps white and mcdonald and wheelan will go to, which would further the spread we have) and that the 5 replacements are all 18 year old draftees (aged 18.5 at this time of year) then the average list age this time next year would be: 23 years and the median list age would be: 22.1 years so the median wouldnt change, but the average would drop slightly. we would have an age spread of: age - number of players - average games by players that age (up til right now, i havnt predicted how many games will be played by each player over the next 10 rounds...) 18-5 - 0 19-5 - 2.2 20-5 - 7.6 21-4 - 23 22-6 - 16 23-5 - 25 24-3 - 54 25-3 - 61 26-1 - 92 27-0 - na 28-2 - 150 29-2 - 152 30-1 - 215 31-0 - na 32-2 - 237 which is still very heavily weighted to the under 23's. now obviously given trades, rookie-ing and actually retirements these numbers could vary slightly, but they are interesting nonetheless. thought id also add in for comparison average afl games per player this year : 68.5 median afl games: 34.5 if you take out the five 'retirees' i nominated and include the 5 draftees with 0 games experience, (and add an extra 220 games to cover the 10 rounds left this season) the average afl games at the start of next season drops to: 53.2 the median games played drops to: around 13... this season we have 11 players with 100 games experience and a further 8 with between 50-100 games. next season we would have 8 players with 100 games experience and 6 with 50 games experience. (nathan jones could crack his 50 this season, he has 41 so far) and aaron davey has 92, so it could be 9 and 6 next season... now just out of interest i have done similar calculations for the current geelong list, there are a couple of stand out differences: average age of list: 23.5 years median age of list: 23.2 years average afl games: 66.1 median afl games: 43 they have 15 100 game players, and 6 50-100 game players. with a couple more ready to tick over into both categories. spread of players 18-4 - 0 19-5 - 4 20-4 - 17 21-3 - 6 22-6 - 23 23-2 - 56 24-7 - 85 (2 players are 24 and 11 months) 25-0 - na 26-6 - 121 27-2 - 150 28-2 - 173 29-2 - 183 30-0 - na 31-1 - 225 i gotta run now, and dont really have time to have a look at what this means, but thought it might be worth a look. let me know if you find any patterns, or anything worth highlighting...perhaps i wasted a pile of my life, or perhaps it will give us food for thought...

i thought i read somewhere that valenti was definetly going to canberra, which means there is defs a spot for another mfc listed player with or without zomer...

[censored] post. we are not the only club that rated frawley. he is 18 or 19, and playing as a KPD. how many KPD show any promise before they are 21, 22? and i reckon frawleys shown heaps. he has definitly learnt to be smarter in using his body this season. he has shown he can use his pace. but he is limited, especially with the lack of bulk. and a few times i have seen him get done in a one on one situation, while no other player dropped back to help him (ie bradshaw). he has done a few things that i quite like. give him time, he is not getting smashed and will only get better.

well spotted, mcnamara named on field in both sides... zomer in both sides (bench for the 1sts)... plymin in both sides (on the bench for the 1sts)... dean on the bench in both sides... and spencer named in both sides. 12 named on the bench in the 1sts. 4 need to go up to the mfc, means 8 on the bench. four more need to be cut and 5 players are named in both sides. that means, either all five could play in the 2nds and newton come into the 1sts. or all five could play in the 1sts and newton plays in the seconds. their is still a spot there floating around...

i think they are well past talking to you tarzan...they are off in their own little world atm.

quite possibly, im not sure the exact numbers. but there is no way we are the worst of the lot. north had an increase in over 50% in a single season. it wont last. and i think we have been fairly stable over the past few years, growing slightly.

i wonder if anyone saw the ad for north melbournes membership in the same paper. i think their membership jumped from 22,000 to 34,000 in a single year. i am very sceptical about their ability to maintain such a high level of membership, and i think we will see that within two years we will once again have a higher membership than north, and probably footscray aswell...

probably lots, and probably no. but i think it is an expense that would directly improve our on field results over the short to medium term, and i think good on field results are one of the keys to getting out of the mess...

make sure you do tarzan, i'm sure we'll really see the difference in your posting...

while there have been some obvious benefits in the alliance with sandy, i wouldnt be disappointed if we were forced to field a reserves side on our own next year. we would need to try and recruit a few ex players to the cause to fill holes and help provide a bit of leadership, but i think it would be good for player development...

:lol:

yep, congrats in joining the elite (very very elite) club of posters who make any sense with their first post. goodluck around here, hope you have a good time, and keep up the high standard

as much as i think yze is past his best, and has a lot of faults. if newton can turn into another yze i wouldnt be un happy. i might [censored] and moan that he is selfish for the next 12 years, but if he plays 250 games and kicks a similar number of goals i think he would have had a pretty successful career...

you are probably right but i am hopeful! if we could sell 3 interstate and in return only travel 3 or 4 other times that would have to be win win, especially considering we travel 6 times most years anyway, even if we arent playing home games interstate. as i said, hawthorn sell 4 interstate and only travel another 4 times....pipedream yes. but it would be a lovely option.

nasher i am 100% with you on this one mate. he can kick some goals as a small forward, and it would be easy to say go into the midfield and run around and get as many touches as you can. but i think the coaches are trying to make him learn to be accountable. learn to stop another player. and while learning this he is probably learning where some of the best players in the comp run to when looking for the ball in the middle. to be a tagger that hurts opposition teams the other way, you first have to be a tagger. you cant learn to roam free getting possessions and then try and tighten it up a bit. i watch his development eagerly, hopefully he will come on as i think he will.

i think bringing valenti into the side could help out brock alot. i think brock is his best when he is allowed to use the ball, and one of valentis strengths appears to be getting it and then getting it out with a handball. hopefully this combination can work to the benefit of both players. RE dunn i agree with those who think it is positive. he isnt a key forward. his overhead marking isnt strong enough, his body on body isnt quite strong enough. but he has a massive motor. i think they are trying to develop him into a damaging run with player. so far he is keeping players quiet, he has time on his side to learn how to hurt teams the other way.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/Portals/0/de...;200SCflyer.pdf $200 donation just follow the link. go for it everyone! chance to win a volvo or cash prizes.

yep without a doubt. and as a CHF he has kick multiple goals 3(?) times this year, and not kicked a goal 6 times. i would love him to step up, kick goals every week and be consistant enough to be a the captain, but i dont think he is ready yet. and i think a lot of his problems over the past couple of years have been due to the weight of expectations on him.