Analysis Adelaide's inexperience and performance alongside historical contexts

[Carmo]

So, prompted by people like Ciao Giacomo's comments regarding our experience, plus some of my own casual glances, which seem to indicate we are dammmmmmmmnnnnnn inexperienced at the moment, I thought I would investigate a bit further. I looked up our average age, games played and players under 100 games since 2019. I know at times we've had our average age in the 23 point somethings which is very low, our average games in the 50 somethings, also very low and last I checked our players less than 100 games was around 16. Now its even more! Results will be put below.

So first, since everyone reckon's we've got a historicially crap list, I compared it against historically crap lists, by looking at what teams that won 4 games or less in a season looked like via the same 3 parameters above. In short, we are younger and less experienced on average and have more guys less than 100 games than teams that couldn't win 4 games or more in a season.

Given that, I knew there was 2 teams that definitely would've held the records for youth in recent times, the two expansion teams, so I went and plotted their ages, games and players under 100 games counts. Here's where things get interesting regarding our list. You see, I think you would all agree they were chock full of talent, yet, even with it, when they had about the same age, experience and players <100 games as us, they were doing less well, for the most part, though GC's 10 wins in 2014 was pretty good. It was also interesting to note how GWS's age and experience rose steadily, whereas GC never really got older or much more experienced.

Crows experience data







Crows data as trend graph



Teams that won less than 4 games data (excludes GC and GWS)


GC and GWS data

 

[John Who]

Just some quick observations from the stats shown in the above:

• our rebuild unofficially/officially started in 2020, with the starting average age and the average number of games from round 1 being a notable drop compared to 2019. This coincided with the departure of a fair few of our regulars from 2019 (Betts, Douglas, Kenkins, Jacobs, Ottens, Keath, Greenwood, Cam Ellis Yolmen).
• we kicked it into second gear of the rebuild in 2021 with all the 3 relevant stats showing an obvious younger brigade and the average number of players < 100 games is around 16-17.
• another gear again in 2022, with possibly the youngest brigade in the history of the Crows with average age of 23.11 and the number of players <100 games reaching 20. Surely our youngest team ever?

 

[VictorianCrow85]

I always appreciate when someone takes the time to do a comprehensive analysis. I've only had a skim read so far so not yet able to dissect to see if there's anything missed, I'm sure some others will look at that and give you feedback anyway.

Regardless nice effort put in & some good analysis on where our rebuild is at.

Playing the youngest side is absolutely a factor in our win/loss, from that aspect I'm not worried about it really. The part that is frustrating is that we continue to give most CBA to the usual trio - Keays, Laird, Crouch. The losses and rebuild would be a bit more palatable if we were mixing that up much more and giving proper exposure to the next generation, it shouldn't take for crisis point to reach before we start, it should have been planned for strategically before the year started how we are going to approach to maximise our rebuilds effectiveness.

Realistically I think this year we should have intended at the start of the year to get 8-10 games into a guy like Cook. Probably 4-5 into Newchurch (still time but it doesn't look like it was in the plans to expose him rather he's being made to hit the scoreboard every week & still can't get a run at it) and well plenty of other players. The side of the rebuild where we get a certain number of games into the guys we know are likely to be part of the future seems to have been let go in favour of picking the 'best 22' which I believe many here would suggest the coaches get quite wrong half the time anyway.

I guess what I'm getting at is there seems to be a bit of lack of strategic planning, it seems like our goal is just to win matches which I do understand to an extent but I'd probably prefer see us rebuild with a genuine eye to long term success & I think exposing the right players and building from there would be a stronger footing to build from in the long run.

 

[Carmo]

Just some quick observations from the stats shown in the above:

• our rebuild unofficially/officially started in 2020, with the starting average age and the average number of games from round 1 being a notable drop compared to 2019. This coincided with the departure of a fair few of our regulars from 2019 (Betts, Douglas, Kenkins, Jacobs, Ottens, Keath, Greenwood, Cam Ellis Yolmen).
• we kicked it into second gear of the rebuild in 2021 with all the 3 relevant stats showing an obvious younger brigade and the average number of players < 100 games is around 16-17.
• another gear again in 2022, with possibly the youngest brigade in the history of the Crows with average age of 23.11 and the number of players <100 games reaching 20. Surely our youngest team ever?

I'm wondering if we're at the bottom now of the experience curve. Must be close. Also suggests we won't bring many draftees this year, nor delist too many. Might be late next year before the curve starts running up much.

 

[Carmo]

I always appreciate when someone takes the time to do a comprehensive analysis. I've only had a skim read so far so not yet able to dissect to see if there's anything missed, I'm sure some others will look at that and give you feedback anyway.

Regardless nice effort put in & some good analysis on where our rebuild is at.

Playing the youngest side is absolutely a factor in our win/loss, from that aspect I'm not worried about it really. The part that is frustrating is that we continue to give most CBA to the usual trio - Keays, Laird, Crouch. The losses and rebuild would be a bit more palatable if we were mixing that up much more and giving proper exposure to the next generation, it shouldn't take for crisis point to reach before we start, it should have been planned for strategically before the year started how we are going to approach to maximise our rebuilds effectiveness.

Realistically I think this year we should have intended at the start of the year to get 8-10 games into a guy like Cook. Probably 4-5 into Newchurch (still time but it doesn't look like it was in the plans to expose him rather he's being made to hit the scoreboard every week & still can't get a run at it) and well plenty of other players. The side of the rebuild where we get a certain number of games into the guys we know are likely to be part of the future seems to have been let go in favour of picking the 'best 22' which I believe many here would suggest the coaches get quite wrong half the time anyway.

I guess what I'm getting at is there seems to be a bit of lack of strategic planning, it seems like our goal is just to win matches which I do understand to an extent but I'd probably prefer see us rebuild with a genuine eye to long term success & I think exposing the right players and building from there would be a stronger footing to build from in the long run.

I knew we were inexperienced, I didn't know we were as inexperienced as we are! We are somewhere between 2nd year and 4th year expansion team inexperienced. Surprised the media hasn't done something on it. Now considering we are at that level, I'm not so bothered by our performance, in fact its somewhat promising really.

 

[VictorianCrow85]

I knew we were inexperienced, I didn't know we were as inexperienced as we are! We are somewhere between 2nd year and 4th year expansion team inexperienced. Surprised the media hasn't done something on it. Now considering we are at that level, I'm not so bothered by our performance, in fact its somewhat promising really.

Its been highlighted before matches on a couple occasions, Jason Dunstall in particular has flagged just how young.

 

[John Who]

I always appreciate when someone takes the time to do a comprehensive analysis. I've only had a skim read so far so not yet able to dissect to see if there's anything missed, I'm sure some others will look at that and give you feedback anyway.

Regardless nice effort put in & some good analysis on where our rebuild is at.

Playing the youngest side is absolutely a factor in our win/loss, from that aspect I'm not worried about it really. The part that is frustrating is that we continue to give most CBA to the usual trio - Keays, Laird, Crouch. The losses and rebuild would be a bit more palatable if we were mixing that up much more and giving proper exposure to the next generation, it shouldn't take for crisis point to reach before we start, it should have been planned for strategically before the year started how we are going to approach to maximise our rebuilds effectiveness.

Realistically I think this year we should have intended at the start of the year to get 8-10 games into a guy like Cook. Probably 4-5 into Newchurch (still time but it doesn't look like it was in the plans to expose him rather he's being made to hit the scoreboard every week & still can't get a run at it) and well plenty of other players. The side of the rebuild where we get a certain number of games into the guys we know are likely to be part of the future seems to have been let go in favour of picking the 'best 22' which I believe many here would suggest the coaches get quite wrong half the time anyway.

I guess what I'm getting at is there seems to be a bit of lack of strategic planning, it seems like our goal is just to win matches which I do understand to an extent but I'd probably prefer see us rebuild with a genuine eye to long term success & I think exposing the right players and building from there would be a stronger footing to build from in the long run.

I agree with most of what you’ve said. Though I think there has been a strategy/pattern overall to play more youth from 2020 up till now. With each progressive year the average age per playing team being less and less, and the number of players picked with <100 games is more and more.

The stats actually confirm we are picking more youth and the inexperienced. Obviously we don’t want to go full blast with prioritising inexperience over experience as that would potentially be detrimental to the team’s confidence (likely to be thrashed regularly if it were the case). The bigger question is how many pawns do we use instead of the castles, and what pieces go where. Not a simple equation..

 

[John Who]

Also, in the stats with crap teams that have won less than 4 games in the last decade:

• Brisbane
• Port
• Melbourne
• Carlton
• Freo
• Saints
• Dons
• Kangas

Reassuring stat because these previously crap teams have been featuring in the top 4 for the last few years and/or contending this year.
The only exception being Essendon and North. Essendon, understandable, with the drugs saga and penalties, are still suffering up till now. Kangas are the only team that has been crap and being consistently at it.

 

[Truck25]

Also, in the stats with crap teams that have won less than 4 games in the last decade:

• Brisbane
• Port
• Melbourne
• Carlton
• Freo
• Saints
• Dons
• Kangas

Reassuring stat because these previously crap teams have been featuring in the top 4 for the last few years and/or contending this year.
The only exception being Essendon and North. Essendon, understandable, with the drugs saga and penalties, are still suffering up till now. Kangas are the only team that has been crap and being consistently at it.

Melbourne and Carlton were consistently crap for a hell of a long time, only cam good in the last couple

 

[Maddogmetro]

Great little analysis. My only suggestion would be that, in the line graph, to make the data point players with >100 games (rather than <100 games). That way, and trend downwards suggests less experience, and is consistent with a trend downwards in other data points showing the same thing.

 

[CharlieCrow]

Staggered at het level of research. Well done.

In the endless conversation about who should be playing in a developing side: I don't think we can give a definitive view. Some kids come in and never leave, growing as they play and never looking back. Jordan Butts is a good example of this and I think Jake Soligo and Sam Berry might be the same. The opposite is Josh Rachele who started with a bang but is definitely off the boil and, I think, needs a break or an impressive mentor or something else.

I would predict that if someone went through any list, they would find that each player had a different and unique pathway, from the ones who just never flourished to the ones who jumped out of their skins. The magic is getting the best out of each player.

Just playing them sounds easy but it will only work with a few. And, if they don't do well, it all is pushed into sharp focus when the team is losing. If your team is playing well and winning, its easy to pop a youngster in to learn alongside successful players, where the pressure is off. Imagine being the learner midfielder alongside the stars at Melbourne, with Oliver taking the best defender, Petracca clearing the path and Viney in physical support and Max putting it down your throat!

Having said all of that, I do wish there was at least one young player in the midfield rotation at all times. And that we could give a chance to Worrell, Mcasey and Newchurch. And some decent game time to Cook and Gollant.

 

[Dangerousfield]

Ah, I feel much better now, all going swimmingly, all those dodgy draft picks will come good over time. Nothing to see here, move along and enjoy the ride.

Note that Brisbane, Carlton and Melbourne loaded up with a lot of quality high draft picks over a number of years prior to moving up the ladder. Not sure that's the case with us?

Well done with the extensive research

 

[Golumless]

I'm wondering if we're at the bottom now of the experience curve. Must be close. Also suggests we won't bring many draftees this year, nor delist too many. Might be late next year before the curve starts running up much.

We have to be, as it's only expansion sides who are younger/less experienced (plus our list situation isn't conducive of a lot of changes). It's the time to get older.

That said, it'll probably take a while seeing Sloane, Tex and Smith are near the end.

 

[VictorianCrow85]

We have to be, as it's only expansion sides who are younger/less experienced (plus our list situation isn't conducive of a lot of changes). It's the time to get older.

That said, it'll probably take a while seeing Sloane, Tex and Smith are near the end.

Club did mention they will be aggressive trade period, or try to be anyway. I'd take that as our top pick is potentially usable in a trade if a suitable player wants to come.

 

[Golumless]

Club did mention they will be aggressive trade period, or try to be anyway. I'd take that as our top pick is potentially usable in a trade if a suitable player wants to come.

I suspect we'll be aggressive however, i'd eat my hat if that top pick is used in a trade. After all, that's standard rebuilding PR to say "yeah of course we want to be competitive as soon as possible, please keep buying memberships/don't call about tanking Gill".

Where I think we'll focus on is that 23-26 year old range of players who haven't hit their stride (or on the way to being delisted) and need a new home. After all, pressure is going to be on for Nicks/Ried to move upwards next year.

 

[1970crow]

So the worst of our 3 rebuilding years was also the oldest and most experienced. Always knew the experience imperative was bulkshit. Talent and actual performance is what helps win footy games, not average games played or age stats.

 

[Carmo]

So the worst of our 3 rebuilding years was also the oldest and most experienced. Always knew the experience imperative was bulkshit. Talent and actual performance is what helps win footy games, not average games played or age stats.

Ahh dunno if U wanna be concluding that. The expansion teams went a lot better the more experience they got and the teams that are at the bottom of the ladder are frequently the least experienced. Seems more like you need at least 70 games (avg) of experience to challenge for top 8 and 100 or more for top 4.

 

[John Who]

Ahh dunno if U wanna be concluding that. The expansion teams went a lot better the more experience they got and the teams that are at the bottom of the ladder are frequently the least experienced. Seems more like you need at least 70 games (avg) of experience to challenge for top 8 and 100 or more for top 4.

I think the number of AFL games experience is only one factor among many (2020-2022), particularly with us. In 2020, we had:

• a new coach
• a significant change of playing and coaching personnel
• a significant change of onfield structure and gameplan
• the pandemic effect coinciding with the start of the AFL season
• training among mates were restrictive due to Covid protocols
• other reasons?

So whilst not only are we fielding a very young AFL team, we are playing under extreme, trying conditions which aren’t in favour of a young rebuilding side.

 

[John Who]

Melbourne and Carlton were consistently crap for a hell of a long time, only cam good in the last couple

Yes, in the case of Carlton (until this year).

Disagree in the case of Melbourne. If we take 2012 as their crappiest year with their youngest list in the last decade, and the start of their rebuild, their AFL ladder positions at the end:
2012 - 16
2013 - 17
2014 - 17
2015 - 13
2016 - 11
2017 - 9
2018 - 5
2019 - 17
2020 - 9
2021 - 1
2022 - 1 (currently as of round 15)

3 years of being bottom 4, then there is a clear upward trajectory in their 4th year. They appeared to be contenders around their 5th-6th year. Their 2019 and 2020 seasons appear now to be the anomalies, which probably highlights more the fact a premiership trajectory is non-linear.

 

[Jirkago75]

The biggest factor in young teams is defence and forwards. All team can put numbers behind the ball and slow down the opposition scoring. The. Biggest thing for us is Tex , he scores goals and helps create them. Without his talents and experience, we’d be at a north Melbourne level. That’s why GWS and GC were so bad in the first few years.

That’s why we keep players like Tex and Laird who show the young players what is needed and expected on the field, also are both unselfish and are happy to give off to them. We need Tex to resign and why I’d be happy to even offer him 2 years.

 

[Golumless]

The biggest factor in young teams is defence and forwards. All team can put numbers behind the ball and slow down the opposition scoring. The. Biggest thing for us is Tex , he scores goals and helps create them. Without his talents and experience, we’d be at a north Melbourne level. That’s why GWS and GC were so bad in the first few years.

That’s why we keep players like Tex and Laird who show the young players what is needed and expected on the field, also are both unselfish and are happy to give off to them. We need Tex to resign and why I’d be happy to even offer him 2 years.

It's good to see Laird also getting credit here. Without those two, we'd be at a North level of performance in the last two years, again.

I don't know if I'm particularly keen on two years for Tex at this point due to his age and where we're at list wise (seeing hopefully by the end of next year, Thilthorpe/Fogarty have cemented themselves as a talented 1-2 punch with Gollant locking down a third tall spot), but it does seem a no-brainer to resign for 2023.

 

[Dirty Bird]

The biggest factor in young teams is defence and forwards. All team can put numbers behind the ball and slow down the opposition scoring. The. Biggest thing for us is Tex , he scores goals and helps create them. Without his talents and experience, we’d be at a north Melbourne level. That’s why GWS and GC were so bad in the first few years.

That’s why we keep players like Tex and Laird who show the young players what is needed and expected on the field, also are both unselfish and are happy to give off to them. We need Tex to resign and why I’d be happy to even offer him 2 years.

That's the last thing we want.

 

[Truck25]

It's good to see Laird also getting credit here. Without those two, we'd be at a North level of performance in the last two years, again.

I don't know if I'm particularly keen on two years for Tex at this point due to his age and where we're at list wise (seeing hopefully by the end of next year, Thilthorpe/Fogarty have cemented themselves as a talented 1-2 punch with Gollant locking down a third tall spot), but it does seem a no-brainer to resign for 2023.

I recon sign Tex 1 with triggers/option for a second. I feel like Fog is just hitting his straps but Filthy and Gollant will be another 2 at least.

 

[Wazzy36]

The biggest factor in young teams is defence and forwards. All team can put numbers behind the ball and slow down the opposition scoring. The. Biggest thing for us is Tex , he scores goals and helps create them. Without his talents and experience, we’d be at a north Melbourne level. That’s why GWS and GC were so bad in the first few years.

That’s why we keep players like Tex and Laird who show the young players what is needed and expected on the field, also are both unselfish and are happy to give off to them. We need Tex to resign and why I’d be happy to even offer him 2 years.

Tex can’t get any more than 1 when he can’t even play multiple games in a row without severe form drop offs.

 

[Golumless]

I recon sign Tex 1 with triggers/option for a second. I feel like Fog is just hitting his straps but Filthy and Gollant will be another 2 at least.

I suspect both Filthy/Gollant are closer then that. Filthy is likely at a very similar point to Fog at the start of the year where the game looks in a good place, he's made a mockery of the twos but needs a jolt of confidence at AFL level to really kickstart his rise. It's a damn shame he injured his ankle when he did against GC as that was probably the moment (especially considering the cakewalk matchup the week after).

Even Gollant doesn't look that far away. Might just be another preseason and getting more accustomed to being the third tall that does it. Got to get past McAdam though which is likely one of the major battles throughout 2023.