22-27 year olds - the key to being a contender.

It's not exactly breaking news to state that players in the prime of their careers are the key to winning a premiership, but I thought I'd do a bit of an exercise in crunching the numbers to see if there really is a correlation between this age group and being a good team.

I certainly believe that having strong veterans, even champion veteran players is important, but the real nuts and bolts are those players that have played 80-100 games who are in the absolute prime of their careers.

I've used "Age as of 1st July" as the standard measure for age.

2007

*Geelong had the second highest number of 22-27 year olds last year (23), with a combined 1,659 games experienced (4th highest.) Geelong won the flag.

* West Coast had the third highest number of 22-27 year olds last year (21) with a combined 1,883 games experience (highest) and they finished an unlucky 3rd.

* Sydney had nineteen 22-27 year olds with a combined 1,686 games experience (3rd highest) and finished 7th BUT with the second best percentage behind Geelong.

* Richmond had the equal least number of 22-27 year old's (13), which ended up being 12 after Coughlan's injury with a combined 869 games experience (2nd lowest) and they came last.

* Essendon had the equal lowest number of 22-27 year old's (13) with 814 games experience (last) and came 12th. Strong veterans (Hird, Fletcher, Lucas came 1,2,3 in B&F) probably saved Essendon a bit in retrospect last year.

So, there is a definate correlation there with some of those teams. Intrestingly, Freo had the most 22-27 year old's last year (24) with the second highest combined experience (1,780.) If anything that tells us that they underachieved, and should have performed better. So maybe watch out for them in '08. St.Kilda also was a team with a lot of players in that age group (quality players too) who didn't perform to expectations. So watch out for them too.


So what about 2008?

22-27 year old's in 2008
Fremantle - 23.....(1550 games of experience)
Geelong - 22........(1698 games of experience)
St.Kilda - 21........(1562 games of experience)
Kangaroos - 21.....(1500 games of experience)
West Coast - 19..... (1636 games of experience)
Hawthorn - 19.......(1265 games of experience)
Carlton - 19.........(1419 games of experience)
Brisbane - 18.......(1152 games of experience)
Adelaide - 17....... (921 games of experience)
Essendon - 17...... (1116 games of experience)
Port - 16 ........... (1129 games of experience)
Sydney - 16 ........(1140 games of experience)
Bulldogs - 16 ........(1248 games of experience)
Collingwood - 12..... (1119 games of experience)


There seemed to be a bit of a correlation last year. I wondering if there will be this year. The number of "core" players Collingwood have is surprisingly, amazingly low.

So, if you look at the results, do they help with predicting the 2008 season? Here is my prediction for 2008.

1. St.Kilda
Ripe for the premiership. 21 players in that perfect age group combined with 8 veterans (28 or older). They are in a position to improve much like Geelong did last year. Only 4 players 21 or younger with senior experience. One can only conclude they underachieved under Lyon last year, and with a year refining their game plan, this might be their year. Most players should be at the peak of their careers. Don't expect for them to totally dominate the season as Geelong did in '07 after the Cats underachieving '06 but expect the Saints to be back as a contender for the premiership.

2. Geelong
22 such players all in their peak, plus 5 veterans (28 or older.) Easily a contender good enough to make another run at it. Lots of players playing at the peak of their career. Only 5 players with experience 21 or younger one of whom is Selwood, who is probably the best player of that age in the league.

3. Hawthorn
19 such players, but, apart form Crawford, no players 29 or older. Do they have enough balance? Maybe not.They have a lot of quality, but I don't think enough veterans to suitably complement their excellent core. Still should contend but I think may be a step behind the above two.

4. Fremantle
The most 22-27 year old's (23 of them) and 9 players older than that. They have a good balance. They might be ready to make the jump. My query is that whilst they have a good balance of ages for their starting 22, I don't necessarily think their 22-27 year old's are as good as some others. They also have only 4 players 21 or younger with senior experience, two of who, have played just one game. Their time is now.

5. West Coast
19 such players, but only 3 who are 28 or older and only one who is 29 or older. Their core players, though are very talented, and they have a culture of producing quality young players. They had a better mix and balance in the year they won the flag. No premiership this year, but they'll make the finals.

6. Essendon
17 such players who are 22-27 and six who are 28 or older. Like Port, 11 players who have senior experience who are 21 or younger which is the 4th most in the League. Older players are among the best in the league and complement a slightly depleted core of 22-27 year olds, but the 17 in that age group is more than the 13 the year before. A good spine too, and a reasonable "age" mix. 6th - 8th, I reckon.

7. Port Adelaide
16 such players, 5 who are 28 or older plus 11 players 21 or younger who have played senior football (equal 4th in this category with Essendon). They probably don't have the "core" that Geelong and St.Kilda do, but they have a good spread, ensuring they probably won't need to "rebuild."

8. Sydney
An interesting case. 16 such players, but a massive 12 who are 28 or older. Malceski (23 years old) is a massive loss. Only three players with experience who are 21 or younger. Their older players will perform for another year, and will win them plenty of games. I think they'll make the finals but watch for a fall in '09.

9. Kangaroos
5 veterans complimenting a huge 21 players in the core 22-27 age group. eight players with senior experience aged 21 or younger. They seem to have a good balance and don't get much respect. The question is not their balance, but simply the level of quality. It's all very well to have a good balance, but do they have enough matchwinners?

10. Adelaide
17 such players and 9 veterans to compliment them. Neil Craig is a very astute coach and I cant see them falling far. I think they'll be on the cusp of the top-8. Are their top players really of the quality of the elite teams? Maybe not, but they enough balance in their starting 22 to be around the middle. Only 3 players with experience aged 21 or younger

11. Melbourne
Always up and down so who knows? 8 veterans complimenting 15 players who are 22-27. They have 10 players 21 or younger with senior experience. Veterans can be good on their day. White, Neitz, Robbo, Bruce Yze (when in form) can all win games on their day. A real wild card as they always seem to be.

12. Brisbane
18 such players, 5 who are 28 and older. 7 with experience who are 21 or younger. Perhaps a year away from finals, but they have a good mix. All the veterans except Bradshaw are midfielders. I think they'll be around the middle. Predictions that Brisbane will be the annual "team from outside the 8 who makes the top-4" are a bit premature.

13. Bulldogs
16 players who are 22-27 years old and eight players 28 or older. A reasobable mix, because the veterans always perform well (Johnson, West, Aker looked good on Friday. Will, Scott Welsh at 29, add anything?) I still suspect they have too many of the same "type" of player. Just to miss the 8 for mine. If you put enough pressure on their running players, they havn't shown they have a plan B.

14. Collingwood
They have the least number of players who are 22-27 (only 12.) They have seven players 28 or older consisting of Wakelin, Presti, B.Holland, Lockyer, who are handly but not matchwinners. Can Burns stil produce at 33? Their strength is an amazing 15 players 21 or younger who have senior experience (the most in the AFL.) But can you rely on those players when only one of them (T.Cloke) has played more than 50 games? Watch out in '09 and '10 but I think they might struggle in '08. Only had a percentage of 101% in '07 remember. They arguably weren't as good as their Preliminary Final appearance suggested. Tip to miss finals.

15. Carlton
19 players who are 22-27, but NO players who are older than 28. Not one. They have 12 players 21 or younger who have senior experience, but they don't have the balance to be a top team yet. They will win a few games, but will appear rudderless in some others. Look for a huge gap between their best and worst, simply due to a complete lack of players over the age of 28.

16. Richmond
15 players who are 22-27 (the second least, just ahead of the Pies.) 6 players 28 or older and 13 players 21 or younger with senior experience, which is the 2nd most in the AFL behind Collingwood. They have a reasonable mix actually. The question is simply a matter of quality. The 6 veterans are Tivendale, Simmonds, Bowden, Johnson, N.Brown and Richo. Are the first four going to win them any games? Too young overall and not enough quality.

Men are fully developed around the 22-23 mark so it makes sense....

However with todays style of Footy ie quick and lack of true one on ones, more younger underdeveloped (physically) players are brreaking into the game earlier and making an impact.

I think Collingwood's surprising lack of players in that age group is the most interesting stat.

Good Post. If you look at the teams with 19 players in that group;
West Coast - 19..... (1636 games of experience)
Hawthorn - 19.......(1265 games of experience)
Carlton - 19.........(1419 games of experience)

it would also make sense that it is the quality of players in this age group that would determine end of season ranking. Both West Coast & Carlton have a lot more games of experience, but no real difference in ladder position (and/or success).

In fact, Carlton delivers a lot less with their players in this group. An interesting point is that they have no players over 28, while Hawks have 1 (2 this year with Dew) and West Coast 3. Which seems to suggest that these veterans have extremely weighted influence in the outcome of a season.

Or it could be just an issue of cattle. A team could have 44 players in the 22-27 bracket and still be abysmal.

Consumed said:

Good Post. If you look at the teams with 19 players in that group;
West Coast - 19..... (1636 games of experience)
Hawthorn - 19.......(1265 games of experience)
Carlton - 19.........(1419 games of experience)

it would also make sense that it is the quality of players in this age group that would determine end of season ranking. Both West Coast & Carlton have a lot more games of experience, but no real difference in ladder position (and/or success).

In fact, Carlton delivers a lot less with their players in this group. An interesting point is that they have no players over 28, while Hawks have 1 (2 this year with Dew) and West Coast 3. Which seems to suggest that these veterans have extremely weighted influence in the outcome of a season.

Or it could be just an issue of cattle. A team could have 44 players in the 22-27 bracket and still be abysmal.

Click to expand...

thats the thing that should be highlighted the most. a team could have the youngest team in the nation yet by poor recruiting and management the side could be horrible.

Most players peak between 23-28 - if you've got a number of players in that age bracket who are quality, it goes without saying that you'll do well.

I reckon the number of players among the comp top 10 (and to a lesser extent across the top 20, 50, 100) is the best indicator for contenders.

Geelong had the most last year (you could argue they had 4 in the top 10 - Bartel/ Ablett, certainly, Chapman/Corey not far off), and plenty in the next tiers. West Coast had Cousins, Kerr, Judd. Brisbane had Black, Lappin, Aker, Voss, Power, Brown.

Port and Sydney went against the trend somewhat, but still had their stars and a lot of "second tier" quality making for such balanced sides.

Assuming their comparitive standing/standard doesn't fall, and given their age it shouldn't, can't think of one team that can outboast Geelong in terms of players among the top 10/20/50 players in the comp in 2008.

The games experience of that group is quite away ahead for Geelong and West Coast too.

I think that it is important to have played a lot of footy together as a group. It builds a chemistry between the players, they know what each cog in the wheel is going to do during a game and dont have to think about where to go and what to do as they have done it as a group for so long.

There are a couple of teams in the top few who have a lot of finals experience too, important when it comes to performing on the big stage at the end of the year.

Dan26 said:

14. Collingwood
Only had a percentage of 101% in '07 remember. They arguably weren't as good as their Preliminary Final appearance suggested. Tip to miss finals.

Click to expand...

our % was up around the 106-107 mark all season but took a pounding with that 90+ points loss to brisbane

Cox, Glass, hunter, Embley, Stenglein ect are all in the upper range of that right now

by the time our next tier of midfielders come through (Masten/Ebert/Selwood/McNamara) they will be over 30 so we could definitely be in trouble unless the likes of Brown, Spangher, Hurn & LeCras can seriously step up

could definitely be in an in-between era in the next few years

I can't help wondering what'd happen to this theory if Collingwood had snagged a late goal to beat the Cats
Then it would've been Collingwood - Port, with the supposedy "ripe" St Kilda & Freo out of the 8

Jonesy86,

I know your % took a pounding with the big loss to the Lions. You imply that that loss shouldn't count. All matches count, and if you lose a match by a big margin, then that is just as reflective of your ability as any other singular match. All the H&A matches are singular and count equally.

My point was that the Pies, by virtue of a strong September campaign, made people forget that they were only a 50-50 team (by scoring ratio) over the course of 22 rounds.

I think Collingwood's 2008 season will rely on the impact of the 15 players 21 year of age or under. Because they sure as hell can't rely on their average veterans or the small number of players 22-27 (12 of them.)

Now those youngsters may perform, but it is always dangerous putting your season hopes on the youngest demographic. They are the least experienced and the most inconsistent.

Consumed said:

Good Post. If you look at the teams with 19 players in that group;
West Coast - 19..... (1636 games of experience)
Hawthorn - 19.......(1265 games of experience)
Carlton - 19.........(1419 games of experience)

it would also make sense that it is the quality of players in this age group that would determine end of season ranking. Both West Coast & Carlton have a lot more games of experience, but no real difference in ladder position (and/or success).

In fact, Carlton delivers a lot less with their players in this group. An interesting point is that they have no players over 28, while Hawks have 1 (2 this year with Dew) and West Coast 3. Which seems to suggest that these veterans have extremely weighted influence in the outcome of a season.

Or it could be just an issue of cattle. A team could have 44 players in the 22-27 bracket and still be abysmal.

Click to expand...

Carlton's players are held back by the fact they have bo veterans on their list. At all. They have no balance, and this could potentally harm them in coming years.

Teams need to avoid the "massive rebuild" by having a good balance from year to year, so that the retiring veterans are naturally replaced by the core group as they get older. If you have no veterans then everyone moves into the same age bracket at the same time and you end up with a potentially unbalanced list. This could happen to Carlton if they're not careful.

Richmond actually seem to have a well balanced list. They just don't have the cattle.

& It doesn't help them that their good players - who should be in their prime - continually get injured
Brown & Coughlan have played about 10 fit games over the last 2 years, they'd be handy additions in any side, missed Simmonds last year as well. Not that I rate them as a side, but we'll never know with the run they've had

Its more about how good the players are than how old they are

Up to a point
18 year olds (and conversely 33 year olds) are - with very very rare exceptions - simply not capable of playing 22 games at a high standard
Whereas the same kid with 5 pre-seasons is a much bigger fitter tougher unit, able to win more contests & regain fitness quicker for the next game
Take Selwood for example. Came in, would play 4 games, then would get rested for a week. Thompson did this with a heap of his other guys as well as they were coming through

geelong_crazy26 said:

Its more about how good the players are than how old they are

Click to expand...

The point of the opening post, was that that is not necessarily true. Well, of course every team needs good players, but Geelong had the second most in that key age group and won the flag. Richmond had the least and came last.

If you have 40 top players who are all 31, then they'll probably fall away as the season progresses. You need quality AND a balanced list.

That's why I'm tipping the Saints to win the flag. They have an amazing 875 games of experience from their 22, 23 and 24 year olds (13 such players) which is significantly more than any other team. Plus they have quality.

interesting thread... i think it really is about having depth and quality in that age/experience bracket you are talking about. the other thing someone said was about the positive effect of those players in that bracket having played alot of footy together and developed as a team. these are the keys to building a good list in my eyes.

Dan26 said:

15. Carlton
19 players who are 22-27, but NO players who are older than 28

Click to expand...

Saddington is 29 in October.

Plus Fevola, Stevens and Scotland turn 28 in the next 24 months.

Dan26 said:

Carlton's players are held back by the fact they have bo veterans on their list. At all. They have no balance, and this could potentally harm them in coming years.

Teams need to avoid the "massive rebuild" by having a good balance from year to year, so that the retiring veterans are naturally replaced by the core group as they get older. If you have no veterans then everyone moves into the same age bracket at the same time and you end up with a potentially unbalanced list. This could happen to Carlton if they're not careful.

Click to expand...

How are Carlton held back by not having any veterans over 28 years of age?

I don't see any good reason why Carlton's side is unbalanced because Saddington is the only player on our list who is 28. We've actually improved our list by delisting Koutoufides and Whitnall and replacing them with Judd and Hadley who are approaching what is generally the prime of a player's career. Age has nothing to do with a team's success, it's the quality of a team's cattle that is the most telling factor.

I'd be more worried about Carlton's balance going forward if we were dependent on veterans such as Lloyd, Lucas, Michael and Fletcher who are still in their best players each week.

But on the wrong side of thirty.

Essendon finished equal with Carlton on points in 2006 when they had injuries to their best players, yet they didn't make the eight when they returned from injury and added Michael to their list.

Essendon aren't a contender.

TheGeneral said:

Saddington is 29 in October.

Plus Fevola, Stevens and Scotland turn 28 in the next 24 months.

Click to expand...

Ages are at 1st July 2008.

TheGeneral said:

How are Carlton held back by not having any veterans over 28 years of age?

Click to expand...

Why do you think? Because you have no veteran players to complement the core. Do you know of any premiership contender that hasn't had a few good veteran players to complement the younger players and provide some balance? And leadership? And experience?

TheGeneral said:

Age has nothing to do with a team's success, it's the quality of a team's cattle that is the most telling factor.

Click to expand...

Bot are a factor. Premiership teams all have talent. They also always have a good balance.

TheGeneral said:

I'd be more worried about Carlton's balance going forward if we were dependent on veterans such as Lloyd, Lucas, Michael and Fletcher who are still in their best players each week.

But on the wrong side of thirty.

Essendon finished equal with Carlton on points in 2006 when they had injuries to their best players, yet they didn't make the eight when they returned from injury and added Michael to their list.

Essendon aren't a contender.

Click to expand...

Why are you talking about Essendon? Why that one club in particular? Why not mention Melbourne, or Richmond or any other club? What, in particular made you randomly have a go at Essendon when we weren't even talking about them????????????????????

We were talking about Carlton. Essendon have NOTHING to do with Carlton.

Dan, I like your analysis. I think you're probably spot on.

But as you're an Essendon supporter and I'm a Collingwood supporter I was wondering if you'd like to have a wager on which team finishes higher.

Obviously the odds are heavily stacked in your favour with you prediction of Essendon coming 6th and Collingwood 14th, but I'd be happy to have an even money bet with you.

lol someones secretly pissed that dan didn't rate collingwood haha

Consumed said:

Good Post. If you look at the teams with 19 players in that group;
West Coast - 19..... (1636 games of experience)
Hawthorn - 19.......(1265 games of experience)
Carlton - 19.........(1419 games of experience)

it would also make sense that it is the quality of players in this age group that would determine end of season ranking. Both West Coast & Carlton have a lot more games of experience, but no real difference in ladder position (and/or success).

In fact, Carlton delivers a lot less with their players in this group. An interesting point is that they have no players over 28, while Hawks have 1 (2 this year with Dew) and West Coast 3. Which seems to suggest that these veterans have extremely weighted influence in the outcome of a season.

Or it could be just an issue of cattle. A team could have 44 players in the 22-27 bracket and still be abysmal.

Click to expand...

Carlton's 08 figure is somewhat misleading though when you refer to the difference between WC+carlton in 07. The 08 figure includes Judd (119 games) and Hadley (41 games) neither of which have played a game for the club yet. Nick stevens (169 games) only played 3 games last year. Those 3 players would account for 329 games experience that just wasnt there in 07.

Keeping things simple, that would equate to approx 16 players and 1090 games (for the 07 season). Approx b/c to be accurate I'd have to substract games played and take into account departed players etc. Whilst its only 3 players in effect, the blues have picked up an extra 30% experience to the 22-27yo group (329/1090). Also its difficult to quantitate the impact of having an extra 22 games under setanta's belt in 07 given how new he is to the game (started the season on 12 games).

Despite the lack of veterans on the list once you take the above factors into account I think its reasonable to predict a vastly improved showing for the blues in 08. How much improvement is anyone's guess at this stage but I would suggest that when the blues rise the path upwards will be a lot quicker than many expect.

Slattery_20 said:

I can't help wondering what'd happen to this theory if Collingwood had snagged a late goal to beat the Cats
Then it would've been Collingwood - Port, with the supposedy "ripe" St Kilda & Freo out of the 8

Click to expand...

Exactly, football is a chaotic system and trying to find trends that predict the future is like playing the stock market

Dan26 said:

Carlton's players are held back by the fact they have bo veterans on their list. At all. They have no balance, and this could potentally harm them in coming years.

Teams need to avoid the "massive rebuild" by having a good balance from year to year, so that the retiring veterans are naturally replaced by the core group as they get older. If you have no veterans then everyone moves into the same age bracket at the same time and you end up with a potentially unbalanced list. This could happen to Carlton if they're not careful.

Click to expand...

Whilst most of your analysis is sound, I cant agree with you here - Carltons list isnt as unbalanced as you imply. If anything the current balance is what will benefit the club into the future. Within 2 years carlton is likely to have 3 28+ veterans (Fev, scotland, stevens). Joining the 22-27 list would be Walker, murphy, jamison, jackson (guys who I think are certain to be there in 2 yrs time) - I'd suggest there might be a couple more probables that I havent included into the certainties - betts (not consistent enough for me to say he will be there yet), aisake ohailpin (shown signs but will know more at the end of 08 once he has some senior games), pfeiffer (if he can keep his head right) - If russell and hartlett can remain injury free this season then they will probably make it onto the probables list as well.

The above players should more than offset the effects of culling players currently on the 22-27 list (saddington, ackland, etc)

edit: forgot to add bower to the certainties list. Hopefully I havent forgotten anyone else