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

[Doctor Jolly]

Whilst I agree with the 22-27 bracket = flag. Brisbane proved that conclusively. The benefits of the bears + roys merger meant they had a great core of good draft picks all around the same age which translated into flags when they were all around 25.

Collingwood defied that trend last year because they got great service from the sub 22 players. History suggests they wont back it up again this year, but should be a force in about 3 years time.

Sydney's loss of Malceski is big, but the recriut of Marty Matner should balance it out, so they wont slip far. I guess Malceski's loss will make it harder to snatch one more flag out of the Hall/Goodes era.

 

[Walesy]

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

Sound kinda like you are agreeing with him...

Though that's not a bad thing.

You *do* have an unbalanced list right *now*

Which is why you aren't a premiership condender right *now*

However, give it a couple years, when as you say, you'll have a couple of older blokes, and a swag of good 22-27 year old, who have had a couple more years worth of games under their belts, then damn, you'll be ripe then.

And a damn good contender for it.

 

[AtomicCounty]

bombers 6th pies 14th - biased much.

knights will burn em out by june.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

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

Its not that interesting to Collingwood supporters. We've known for years of a lack of quality drafting from about 1999-2003. Lack of depth because of this caused our terrible seasons in 2004-5.

Theres no doubt that our list relies heavily on some younger players. After missing Buckley Clement Presti and other senior players last year, we didnt miss a beat. The good news is that many of these these younger players are nearing 50 games experience (Cloke, Pendelbury, H Shaw, Thomas, O'Brien, Rusling, Goldsack) and are starting to play like "mid aged" players that we seem to lack on paper. They are covering the hole quite well. If our next batch of youngsters continue their promising form (Brown Anthony Reid Clarke Wood Stanley etc) then the hole will be full patched, and the quality batch of a dozen or more 20 year olds will be the basis of a strong list for many years to come.

 

[cong8]

Sound kinda like you are agreeing with him...

Though that's not a bad thing.

You *do* have an unbalanced list right *now*

Which is why you aren't a premiership condender right *now*

I agree with what *you* are saying - I was responding to the part that carlton might face pain in coming years due to not having vets bit. We've had that pain.

My main criticism of the old coach was that when he came in he ripped out the core 22-27 players after a yr b/c he didnt get along with them - that left us with just kids and set our development back yrs but thats another topic.

 

[Walesy]

I agree with what *you* are saying - I was responding to the part that carlton might face pain in coming years due to not having vets bit. We've had that pain.

My main criticism of the old coach was that when he came in he ripped out the core 22-27 players after a yr b/c he didnt get along with them - that left us with just kids and set our development back yrs but thats another topic.

That's the ticket.

Good luck in the 2011 GF... I hope we thump ya...

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

Collingwood's lack of players in the age group is an irrelevancy. The reason that having so many players in the age group is a good thing is that generally players peak between 22 and 27.

However, with players like Travis Cloke, Scott Pendlebury, Dale Thomas and Harry O'Brien all finishing in the Top 10 of the Copeland Trophy, clearly they've skipped the part where they're not supposed to be good enough yet. Our Best and Fairest and runner up were both 20 years old... Chris Judd won the Brownlow at 21... Would he not have been counted towards West Coast's good fortunes in that season?

 

[cong8]

That's the ticket.

Good luck in the 2011 GF... I hope we thump ya...

2011?
finals this yr, flag in 09 - not prepared to wait for your club to catch up

 

[cs61]

Collingwood's lack of players in the age group is an irrelevancy. The reason that having so many players in the age group is a good thing is that generally players peak between 22 and 27.

However, with players like Travis Cloke, Scott Pendlebury, Dale Thomas and Harry O'Brien all finishing in the Top 10 of the Copeland Trophy, clearly they've skipped the part where they're not supposed to be good enough yet. Our Copeland Trophy winner and runner up were both 20 years old... Chris Judd won the Brownlow at 21... Would he not have been counted towards West Coast's good fortunes in that season?

Agree.

Its a good guide, but it is only a guide.

Also just because people have numbers in the age group doesn't mean they are in good. Essendon have some numbers in there, but their actual ability wouldn't stack up well I wouldn't have thought compared to Collingwood's, even though the Pies' are young.

 

[hellfire]

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

I agree. Starting next year, guys like Cloke, Pendlebury, Thomas, Rusling, Shaw, Clarke, Goldsack, Obrien, Cox, Wood and many others will move into that age group, joining the likes of Swan, Fraser, Maxwell and Didak.

That will be our serious push for flags, though we are still a chance this year.

It's no suprise to see Geelong, Freo and the Saints at the top. Aren't they actually the 3 favourites for the flag? Will be interesting to see how it goes. Obviously there will always be an anomaly, but I agree with the rule in general.

 

[Walesy]

Have not the time, nor the patience to do it myself... But the curiosity to ask... any idea how this theory has hend up in years gone by (ie, from 2000 onwards)

Cause it does seem to hold some water, but without any historical research it can onnly ever be a theory...

 

[Dan26]

Have not the time, nor the patience to do it myself... But the curiosity to ask... any idea how this theory has hend up in years gone by (ie, from 2000 onwards)

Cause it does seem to hold some water, but without any historical research it can onnly ever be a theory...

Well, I can look at a few teams from the past.

Essendon of 2000.

Seven players with experience 21 or under. One of those was Ramanauskas who played nearly every game and came secnd in the rising star. This number (7) seems about right. Most of the teams in 2008 with lots of players 21 or under (11 or more) are the weaker teams or teams perceived to be rebuilding.

Essendon of 2000 had 20 players in the 22-27 age group with a total of 1394 games experience, similar to the expected top teams in '08. Geelong have 22 in '08 and the Saints 21.

And 8 players over the age of 28, seven of whom had played more than 100 games before the 2000 season started. A perfect balance, really.

If you put talent aside, and only look at the age composition, I think a flag side needs to have:

- Not too many players 21 or younger. I'd suggest between 5-7.

- Around 20-23 players in the 22-27 age bracket.

- somewhere between 6-8 veterans.

and that's a gernal rule, but of course there are exceptions when you look at the talent level of really young players and so forth.


I had a look at Carlton of 2002 - the year they won their first wooden spoon. They had only 15 players in the 22-27 age group, which I think was the lowest number that year. And they had a huge 10 players 28 or older (six over the age of 30), but if you look at who those players were, most of them were not contributing, and they had past their use-by date.

In retrospect, their list was looking horribly unbalanced and if we had some foresight we should have seen it coming.

Sydney's 2008 list is remarkably similar to Carlton of '02 (sixteen 22-27 year old and twelve over 28's). I've made the assumption that the Swans older players will still contribute. But what if they fall away with age like Carlton's did in 2002?

The Swans could nose dive.

 

[Dan26]

Agree.
Essendon have some numbers in there, but their actual ability wouldn't stack up well I wouldn't have thought compared to Collingwood's, even though the Pies' are young.

You might be surprised with the talent of the Essendon players. I'm happy with our "balance" in terms of ages, anyway. The Pies look unbalanced.

 

[Chaz Pendlebury]

You might be surprised with the talent of the Essendon players. I'm happy with our "balance" in terms of ages, anyway. The Pies look unbalanced.

First, it is true that a balance of age and experience are generally important factors of a successful team, but they are meaningless without looking at quality.

Misuse of statistics is one of the most common failings of a charlatan. If you went back through the last decade I'm sure you'll find:
1. Top teams generally had a good balance across age and experience with a strong core at their peak.
2. Many teams with seemingly very good age / experience balance that performed poorly - perhaps due to injury, perhaps becuase they've allowed a group of ordinary footballers to hang around cos they've manged their list to a short term vision
3. Some young teams with a cluster of exceptionally talented young players challenging

You'd have to do a proper regression of results to team ages over a ten year period to find the actually degree of correlation. I'd only do it if someone paid me

I don't know enough about essendon to be honest, though an untuitive feel is that they've got

1. A handful of high quality, premiership winning 30 + year olds
2. A relatively larger group (to collingwoods) of 22-29 year olds of ordinary talent on average (a few i.e Mcveigh, mcPhee etc of proven quality). Few of these have any notable finals experience if at all
3. A group of apparently good quality, though to date largely, unproven younger players

Collingwood

1. A handful of decent quality, historically dependable 30 +
2. A relatively smaller group of 22-29 yos of varying talent, but overall considerably greater than essendon's, all of whom have winning finals experience, some that have played in up to 10 finals of which 2 were poor performances
3. An exceptional group of young players, many proven with 30 + games under their belt, 2 of which topped a preliminary finalists b&f

There is, of course, no certainty that Collingwood finishes above essendon this year.

Collingwood is very vulnerable down back, particularly if we get hit by injuries. Last year when the core that took us to grand finals in 02/03 (clement, presti, wakelin) all went down we were extremely lucky that goldsack and o'brien emerged as they did. These two may not back up this year, wakelin's renaissance might finish, presti may have played his last game etc...

That being said, a young team coming off a season where they were the clear second best performer in the finals, with many of their best players coming from their younger group, or a team that had a flattering finish outside the eight, who's best players were from the oldest age bracket?

A team who many of its core group of experienced players have played in 4 finals series, two grand finals, 1 prelim, and (short a premiership) have performed better than par in finals, or a team who's core players (excepting the oldies), have barely any finals experience at all?

There's nothing wrong with hoping your team does better than expected or the team that you hate does worst, but you'll look a dill if you cobble together some shallow, c grade analysis and assert it as an objective fact

 

[Chaz Pendlebury]

You might be surprised with the talent of the Essendon players. I'm happy with our "balance" in terms of ages, anyway. The Pies look unbalanced.

Professor Dan26, thesis not appearing to hold up that well...

 

[Dan26]

Professor Dan26, thesis not appearing to hold up that well...

Ah yes, the most cowardly post a Big Footy member can make - Bringing up an old thread conveniently AFTER (not before) his chosen team has just had a big win, and another a big loss. Wow, how convenient.

Where was this thread this morning? Or after the last two Magpie losses in rounds 4 and 5?

Save it for the end of the season Chaz and assess it then. You know as well as I do, you can't assess a season after round 6.

 

[Bay Pie]

I actually think the OP is correct. He did say contender for a flag. I still don't think we are there yet but in a couple of years we will be and our gun youngsters will be in that bracket.

I think the Lions would afll into that category with Black, Voss, Akermanis, Lappin & Leppa all in that age bracket when they started to win comps.

 

[Notorious_29]

hjgfdsfgh

 

[Notorious_29]

fghrfndbfv

 

[greennick]

fghrfndbfv

Well said!