The Age age ladder

[SemperFidelis]

Daniel Cherny has done a summary of the average age of the club lists.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/p ... 08cis.html

It's interesting with regard to Port, but his comments about us irritated me.

"There are some alarming signs for St Kilda, the fifth oldest team at the weekend. For all the Saints' flaunting of its next generation, the 22 players who were defeated by Richmond on Sunday included 13 aged 25 or over and seven of those were in their 30s. Only one, Lenny Hayes, has announced that this season will definitely be his last."

A thorough journalist would have pointed out that that we had something like 16 players unavailable for selection through injury, and then had a look at the age of the blokes on the LTI list.

[dragit]

They're out to get us…

Don't worry about it, I'd prefer the media & wider public think we are all old and decrepit.

The reality is that because of our lack of 23 - 28 year olds we have to hold onto more guys around 30. This will greatly change in the next 2 years obviously… we will barely have anyone 30+ year olds in 2017, it's a temporary problem.

[plugger66]

They're out to get us…

Don't worry about it, I'd prefer the media & wider public think we are all old and decrepit.

The reality is that because of our lack of 23 - 28 year olds we have to hold onto more guys around 30. This will greatly change in the next 2 years obviously… we will barely have anyone 30+ year olds in 2017, it's a temporary problem.

It is a temporary problem but probably shows why will be bottom 2 for at least the next 2 years IMO. We probably wont use FA in that time and will continually lose our ex stars who whilst they arent as good as they once were are still just about our best players. Its going to be a slow rebuild early. The drafting of young kids is vital or its going to be a slow rebuild for a long time.

[PJ]

FA in 2016 when Roo is likely (but not certain) to be going. By then we should have recruited nearly 50% of GWS's list - according to some.

[bergholt]

Looking at average age of a single team lineup is a ridiculously idiotic way to analyse a club's list.

[murray 66]

I think they are forgetting that injuries play a part with the weekend's Ins.
If not for injuries players like Billings,Bruce,Acres,Templeton ect......... would be playing.
Bad journalism and research one thinks.

[White Winmar]

I think they are forgetting that injuries play a part with the weekend's Ins.
If not for injuries players like Billings,Bruce,Acres,Templeton ect......... would be playing.
Bad journalism and research one thinks.

At least they're all consistent.

[MC Gusto]

It's factual our list is a mess and a real concern - we'll be bottom 4 for the next 3 years min

[philtee]

A bogus theory in desperate search of facts to back it up...and whaddya know, there's an anomaly,
and it's us.
Let's make two swaps -
You swap Clinton Jones (Age 30) for Eli Templeton (had his 19th birthday last week).
You swap Lennnnny (Age 34) for Jack Billings (also turned 19 recently).
Suddenly there's 26 years taken off the team total age, and 1.18 years taken off the average and
suddenly we slide from 25.9 years to 24.72 years, and end up at 14th on his ladder,
just a few places away from where his bogus "age = success" theory says we should be.

[Devilhead]

No doubt he was waiting, quietly waiting, patiently waiting, hatefully and immorally waiting for C Jones to be brought back into the team before he published that vindictive report

We can only thank our lucky stars that Gwilt was injured, and that we didn't draft Jolly

[magnifisaint]

Journos can write what they think. It doesn't make them any more informed than the average punter. The proof will be in the pudding and it make take 18 months or so and no one will take them to task when they change their stories to suit themselves. Of course if they get lucky and the future pans out as they thought there'll be no end to the chest beating proclaiming how insightful they were. Why bother taking any notice of it.

[Con Gorozidis]

Well I said we had an old side on the weekend and I was roundly abused as usual.

But agree the average is a bit misleading for us because as pretty much everyone knows we have:

9-10 blokes who are all old (and some of whom are simply past it)
Nothing in between in the core/middle agers where it really matters if you want to win games.
Quite a few kids starting out.

But we cant simply say we have a 'young side' and use that as an excuse every week - that would be over simplifying things and a tad self delusional. We have some serious core list mgt issues that wont be fixed just by an orderly transition and steady as she goes. We will need some harsh medicine.

The reality of that age ladder is that:

1.GWS and GC have huge upside (everyone knows this),
2. Brisbane are actually travelling quite well for a young side
3. the Pies are in a genuine re-build phase
4. All is not lost at Melbourne - they can still improve and be ok maybe (no priority pick needed)
5. The Tiges are actually going ok
6. Port are a real chance in 2015 for the flag
7. Ross Lyon is screwed if he doesn't win it this year.
8. Still some real list re-adjustment required at the Saints (time to say goodbye to the likes of Schneider and Gwilt and dont be surprised if another big name goes)

[Con Gorozidis]

A bogus theory in desperate search of facts to back it up...and whaddya know, there's an anomaly,
and it's us.
Let's make two swaps -
You swap Clinton Jones (Age 30) for Eli Templeton (had his 19th birthday last week).
You swap Lennnnny (Age 34) for Jack Billings (also turned 19 recently).
Suddenly there's 26 years taken off the team total age, and 1.18 years taken off the average and
suddenly we slide from 25.9 years to 24.72 years, and end up at 14th on his ladder,
just a few places away from where his bogus "age = success" theory says we should be.

Have to disagree. Its not saying 'age' = success.
There are a few steps in between.

To me it says:

1. In general only good players reach 100 games+
2. In general the top sides have more good players (100+ gamers)
3. So 'age' can be used a proxy for 'good players'. Just getting a bunch of hacks to 100 games wouldnt make you good. We have to assume clubs generally make good list mgt decisions (in both getting the right youngsters up to 100 and also in letting go guys at the right time after 250 games).

Clearly if you have a list of 50yo super rules players - you wont be at the top of the ladder!

The 'age' as a proxy for 'good player's implicitly assumes that good list management decisions are made . e.g Geelong would be very old if they hung on to Pods, Chappy and Hunt and didnt recruit Caddy etc etc.

[Saints43]

...probably shows why will be bottom 2 for at least the next 2 years IMO.

I worry for the membership department. How will they appeal to the Saints fans who don't buy a membership every year regardless of onfield prospects?

[Mr Magic]

How many on our list haven't played a game this year?

[bergholt]

How many on our list haven't played a game this year?

Senior list: Pierce and Markworth
Rookie list: Holmes and Baker-Thomas

[saintly]

Well I said we had an old side on the weekend and I was roundly abused as usual.

But agree the average is a bit misleading for us because as pretty much everyone knows we have:

9-10 blokes who are all old (and some of whom are simply past it)
Nothing in between in the core/middle agers where it really matters if you want to win games.
Quite a few kids starting out.

But we cant simply say we have a 'young side' and use that as an excuse every week - that would be over simplifying things and a tad self delusional. We have some serious core list mgt issues that wont be fixed just by an orderly transition and steady as she goes. We will need some harsh medicine.

The reality of that age ladder is that:

1.GWS and GC have huge upside (everyone knows this),
2. Brisbane are actually travelling quite well for a young side
3. the Pies are in a genuine re-build phase
4. All is not lost at Melbourne - they can still improve and be ok maybe (no priority pick needed)
5. The Tiges are actually going ok
6. Port are a real chance in 2015 for the flag
7. Ross Lyon is screwed if he doesn't win it this year.
8. Still some real list re-adjustment required at the Saints (time to say goodbye to the likes of Schneider and Gwilt and dont be surprised if another big name goes)

why would Lyon be screwed if they don't win this year? i would have thought, they have two years to go and then the club would be screwed.

[Mr Magic]

How many on our list haven't played a game this year?

Senior list: Pierce and Markworth
Rookie list: Holmes and Baker-Thomas

So we've played 43 players (maybe 44 if Pierce plays on Sunday)?
Is that a record for the most by any Club in a season?

[plugger66]

How many on our list haven't played a game this year?

Senior list: Pierce and Markworth
Rookie list: Holmes and Baker-Thomas

So we've played 43 players (maybe 44 if Pierce plays on Sunday)?
Is that a record for the most by any Club in a season?

I would no where near on numbers but percentage wise it would be very close.

[bergholt]

How many on our list haven't played a game this year?

Senior list: Pierce and Markworth
Rookie list: Holmes and Baker-Thomas

So we've played 43 players (maybe 44 if Pierce plays on Sunday)?
Is that a record for the most by any Club in a season?

Only 46 on the list and we've played 42 of them.

Actually nowhere near a record. GWS used 46 each of the last two years as did GC the year before. But apart from the two new sides there's not much comparable the last 20 years. The only obvious one is Richmond in 2010 when they used 42 players. At a glance at least 15 of them are gone now: http://afltables.com/afl/stats/2010.html#14

Here's the breakdown:

46: GWS 13, GWS 12, GC 11, Sydney 90, Melbourne 86
45: North 88, Collingwood 87
44: GC 12, Carlton 89
43: GWS 14, Sydney 93, Fitzroy 87, Richmond 86, Carlton 85, North 84, St Kilda 83, St Kilda 82, Collingwood 82
42: St Kilda 14, GC 13, Richmond 10, Essendon 92, Brisbane 91, Brisbane 90, Carlton 90, Geelong 90, North 89, St Kilda 88, Collingwood 86, Geelong 85, Collingwood 83

So if we play Pierce this week we get to 43 and match our 82 and 83 sides. Sounds like pretty good company to be keeping...

[saint-stu]

Average age is a rough guide but hides too much information IMO.

I would rather see the age distribution for each club.

[SemperFidelis]

Average age is a rough guide but hides too much information IMO.

I would rather see the age distribution for each club.

I agree; that is a much more useful measure.

[FQF]

Cherny is a die hard saints fan - drives around with St Kilda customised number plates, has a mini Saints museum of memorabilia at his house. He's a young up and coming journalist and probably just needs to fill his quota of articles each week, which will result in some poor articles. But there's no way he's out to get us, quite the opposite, probably trying to hide his bias.

[SemperFidelis]

Cherny is a die hard saints fan - drives around with St Kilda customised number plates, has a mini Saints museum of memorabilia at his house. He's a young up and coming journalist and probably just needs to fill his quota of articles each week, which will result in some poor articles. But there's no way he's out to get us, quite the opposite, probably trying to hide his bias.

Thanks FQF for that info. Good to know there's someone that might have a personal interest in balancing out the "rabble" stories that consistently get trotted out against us.

But whatever his reasons, he's certainly not doing our membership department any favours highlighting meaningless stats like that!

[Furphy]

It's factual our list is a mess and a real concern - we'll be bottom 4 for the next 3 years min

I agree