age has gone up but games played has gone backwards.

[santa claws]

just a bit of information

i have worked out that our average age as of the start of the new season 24/3/11 will be 22yrs and 208 days.

now before the hair brained nit pickers get on here telling me ive got it wrong i concede i may have made a mistake. the 22 yrs 208 days will be close to the mark though.it assumes t casserley gets a rookie spot.

at the start of the 2010 season we had an average age of 22yrs and 152 days.
if my lousy maths are right the list has aged 56 days a player on average.this despite cuz 32, mcmahon 27, polak 26, roberts 24, and simmonds 32 going.

to break it down further we will have as of the 24/3/11 the following players who are actually the age shown and so many days.

18 yo -2, 19yo - 11, 20yo - 4, 21yo - 3, 22yo - 10, 23yo - 6. 24yo - 4,
25yo - 1. 26yo - 2, 27yo - 1, 28yo - 1, 29 yo - 1.
the oldest player on our list will be shane tuck at 29yrs and 90 days.the youngest will be reece conca at 18yrs and 200 days.

the average games played for the list will be 36.5 games per player.with a total of 1682 games.this is down from the start of last yr where we averaged 42games per player with a total of 1945 games.

 

[TJTIGER]

just a bit of information

i have worked out that our average age as of the start of the new season 24/3/11 will be 22yrs and 208 days.

now before the hair brained nit pickers get on here telling me ive got it wrong i concede i may have made a mistake. the 22 yrs 208 days will be close to the mark though.it assumes t casserley gets a rookie spot.

at the start of the 2010 season we had an average age of 22yrs and 152 days.
if my lousy maths are right the list has aged 56 days a player on average.this despite cuz 32, mcmahon 27, polak 26, roberts 24, and simmonds 32 going.

to break it down further we will have as of the 24/3/11 the following players who are actually the age shown and so many days.

18 yo -2, 19yo - 11, 20yo - 4, 21yo - 3, 22yo - 10, 23yo - 6. 24yo - 4,
25yo - 1. 26yo - 2, 27yo - 1, 28yo - 1, 29 yo - 1.
the oldest player on our list will be shane tuck at 29yrs and 90 days.the youngest will be reece conca at 18yrs and 200 days.

the average games played for the list will be 36.5 games per player.with a total of 1682 games.this is down from the start of last yr where we averaged 42games per player with a total of 1945 games.

Interesting Santa, from the point of view that even though average no of games will go backwards wether the boys can overall lift in their level of play. I guess they and as supporters we will be hoping they can continue to improve. But if they don't go backwards that will be great, given the players lost. If that makes sense? thanks for taking the time

 

[_RT_]

just a bit of information

i have worked out that our average age as of the start of the new season 24/3/11 will be 22yrs and 208 days.

now before the hair brained nit pickers get on here telling me ive got it wrong i concede i may have made a mistake. the 22 yrs 208 days will be close to the mark though.it assumes t casserley gets a rookie spot.

at the start of the 2010 season we had an average age of 22yrs and 152 days.
if my lousy maths are right the list has aged 56 days a player on average.this despite cuz 32, mcmahon 27, polak 26, roberts 24, and simmonds 32 going.

to break it down further we will have as of the 24/3/11 the following players who are actually the age shown and so many days.

18 yo -2, 19yo - 11, 20yo - 4, 21yo - 3, 22yo - 10, 23yo - 6. 24yo - 4,
25yo - 1. 26yo - 2, 27yo - 1, 28yo - 1, 29 yo - 1.
the oldest player on our list will be shane tuck at 29yrs and 90 days.the youngest will be reece conca at 18yrs and 200 days.

the average games played for the list will be 36.5 games per player.with a total of 1682 games.this is down from the start of last yr where we averaged 42games per player with a total of 1945 games.

Pretty sure I've seen these figures somewhere before in fact I know I have:

For those interested here is a rough breakdown of averages after the National draft:

Age: 22.2 years
Games: 36.6

When you look at that it would be fair to say that outside GC we're probably going to be the youngest and least experienced side next year.

What was it you said when I posted them, something about how it means bugger all or words to that effect.

 

[The Rusty Trombone]

Pretty sure I've seen these figures somewhere before in fact I know I have:

What was it you said when I posted them, something about how it means bugger all or words to that effect.

Ha ha love your work RT . Can someone explain to me how our average age of players can go down with all those older players leaving. Imagine how much it would of jumped if they had stayed.

Can someone also explain to me how they get those little ships inside bottles ?

 

[Rustof]

There's this too.

http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/6301/newsid/104281/default.aspx

 

[the ranger]

So in 12 months our young list got 56 days older? Big deal.

 

[jackson_rules]

So in 12 months our young list got 56 days older? Big deal.

some people dont realise that each year everyone gets a year older

 

[santa claws]

Pretty sure I've seen these figures somewhere before in fact I know I have:

What was it you said when I posted them, something about how it means bugger all or words to that effect.

did i you dont want to rephrase do you.
all i have done on this thread is offer up a bit of information having spent about 2 hrs working things out.
i havent correlated that info to anything.
i stand by what i said on the other highlighted thread. when talking about the team as a whole and comparing the list and where it is at it does nothing but back up what i have been saying in numerous threads. we are in early development and are likely headed for a bottom 4 finish with 4 to 8 wins likely to be our lot.

the simple fact is there are plenty of other clubs with an average age similar to ours which is all i basically said.
you sure you dont want to rephrase i dont recall saying anything remotely like it means bugger all.

seems to me most on this board are are espousing if not dramatic improvement at the very least reasonable improvement, yet the average games played has gone backwards despite the average age rising.

oh if you spent as much time as i did trying to work those stats let me say thank you for the time and effort.but remember people will use them as they see fit. whats that saying about stats again.
ya know next time i wont bother you can all get stuffed.

 

[CoggaRules]

some people dont realise that each year everyone gets a year older

yeah, but what they really miss is that players do get a year older with each year, unfortunately at tigerland the coaches quite visibly age 10 years with each passing year.

 

[the ranger]

did i you dont want to rephrase do you.
all i have done on this thread is offer up a bit of information having spent about 2 hrs working things out.
i havent correlated that info to anything.
i stand by what i said on the other highlighted thread. when talking about the team as a whole and comparing the list and where it is at it does nothing but back up what i have been saying in numerous threads. we are in early development and are likely headed for a bottom 4 finish with 4 to 8 wins likely to be our lot.

the simple fact is there are plenty of other clubs with an average age similar to ours which is all i basically said.
you sure you dont want to rephrase i dont recall saying anything remotely like it means bugger all.

seems to me most on this board are are espousing if not dramatic improvement at the very least reasonable improvement, yet the average games played has gone backwards despite the average age rising.

oh if you spent as much time as i did trying to work those stats let me say thank you for the time and effort.but remember people will use them as they see fit. whats that saying about stats again.
ya know next time i wont bother you can all get stuffed.

I appreciate people doing some research and posting interesting facts/stats, I just don't see where you're going with the information. Everyone we had on the list got a year older but the average age only went up by 56 days.

We were already young, so to get younger, we'd have to cut ridiculously deep into the list at delisting time. The reason we got a little older but less experienced is because the guys we lost had a lot of experience and of the guys we kept, many haven't played a whole lot.

It was pretty much a foregone conclusion that our average age would rise and our average experience would decline, unless we culled a lot of the players who hadn't yet played 36+ games as well as the players who were over 22.

Would you be happier if we'd delisted Griffiths, Taylor, O'Reilly, Dea and Hicks so that our average experience went up a bit?

 

[_Wang_]

Dear Santa,

Now dont get angry mate but this is a picture of a shift button which is located on any keyboard.. IF you hold the shift button and type a letter it actually becomes a capital.

 

[JustTheTonic]

SanTA, RATher than sPend hours GOnig thought sTATs, juSt takE 2 minuteS aNd think up soMething positive and optimistic (reGardless of whether it's suppOrted By stats oR nOT).
It iS nearly cHrisTmaS afTer aLl. Bring us some cheer Mr Claws!

aND Merry x-mAS to ya TigEr.

(HOw DoES thAT ShiFT KeY wORK ?)

 

[TheCuzEffect]

Pretty sure I've seen these figures somewhere before in fact I know I have:


What was it you said when I posted them, something about how it means bugger all or words to that effect.

do you have personilized richmond number plates/

 

[captain blood 17]

just a bit of information

i have worked out that our average age as of the start of the new season 24/3/11 will be 22yrs and 208 days.

now before the hair brained nit pickers get on here telling me ive got it wrong i concede i may have made a mistake. the 22 yrs 208 days will be close to the mark though.it assumes t casserley gets a rookie spot.

at the start of the 2010 season we had an average age of 22yrs and 152 days.
if my lousy maths are right the list has aged 56 days a player on average.this despite cuz 32, mcmahon 27, polak 26, roberts 24, and simmonds 32 going.

to break it down further we will have as of the 24/3/11 the following players who are actually the age shown and so many days.

18 yo -2, 19yo - 11, 20yo - 4, 21yo - 3, 22yo - 10, 23yo - 6. 24yo - 4,
25yo - 1. 26yo - 2, 27yo - 1, 28yo - 1, 29 yo - 1.
the oldest player on our list will be shane tuck at 29yrs and 90 days.the youngest will be reece conca at 18yrs and 200 days.

the average games played for the list will be 36.5 games per player.with a total of 1682 games.this is down from the start of last yr where we averaged 42games per player with a total of 1945 games.

Makes sense.

 

[MightyTiger]

SanTA, RATher than sPend hours GOnig thought sTATs, juSt takE 2 minuteS aNd think up soMething positive and optimistic (reGardless of whether it's suppOrted By stats oR nOT).
It iS nearly cHrisTmaS afTer aLl. Bring us some cheer Mr Claws!

aND Merry x-mAS to ya TigEr.

(HOw DoES thAT ShiFT KeY wORK ?)

Quoted for awesomeness.

 

[_RT_]

did i you dont want to rephrase do you.
all i have done on this thread is offer up a bit of information having spent about 2 hrs working things out.

Here is what you said:

hmm as of 25th march 2010 lists average age was
ad 23 yrs 118 days
br - 23 31
ca 22 209
co 23 145
es - 22 263
fr 23 53
ge - 23 294
ha 22 364
me 22 187
nm 22 195
pa 23 100
ri 22 22 152
st 23 338
sy 23 268
wc 22 213
wb 24 16.

9 clubs including us all very close to each other. if i recall it properly nearly all clubs had about 5 nd picks they will all have about 4 rookie picks.
ave age of list imo is neither here nor there its the age of the 30 that will play most games that determines experience on game day. also games played is a better indicator.

Like I said, pretty much said that the average age/games played stats mean bugger all because most clubs will have pretty much similar figures and its the players that will play the most games that is of greater importance. Yet a few weeks later you post almost exactly what I did like its supposed to mean something. Christ its not like its some shock stat or anything, I mean we've only lost 6-12 players who had played 100 games or more over the last 2 years so naturally average age/games played was going to go down.

 

[The Rusty Trombone]

Dear Santa,

Now dont get angry mate but this is a picture of a shift button which is located on any keyboard.. IF you hold the shift button and type a letter it actually becomes a capital.

Hey Wang ! What are you an English teacher? Don't tell the Principal your Jewish.

 

[santa claws]

Here is what you said:

Like I said, pretty much said that the average age/games played stats mean bugger all because most clubs will have pretty much similar figures and its the players that will play the most games that is of greater importance. Yet a few weeks later you post almost exactly what I did like its supposed to mean something. Christ its not like its some shock stat or anything, I mean we've only lost 6-12 players who had played 100 games or more over the last 2 years so naturally average age/games played was going to go down.

and like i have said twice to you already now no i didnt say your stats meant bugger all.
i said the age thing is not that significant as many other clubs have a similar age average. i did say games played would be a better indicator.
ie take two 21 yr olds one has played 30 games the other 5. games played is a better indicator of a players experience.

i believe i also said that as far as age goes a better indicator would be useing the 30 regular players to determine our age each week.common sense says we wont be playing all of our kids in one go so the average age each week has to be much higher than the overall ave age.

and ya know it was surprising to me that games ave went backwards despite the ave age going up.would have thought the older they get the more games they get.
call me naieve or stupid.

like i said i posted up some info forgeting that it had already been done. i posted it up with no context just as something i thought would be interesting. it now has some context.
i mainly did it because i did a bit on collingwood on one of the other threads where there premiership team was made up of numerous 200 150 100 and 50 plus gamers while maintaining a reasonabl;y young team. i deduced from that they probably have a decent window of opportunity.
i thought i would do something similar with us.

as far as im concerned you can put what ever meaning you like on my comments most usually do.

 

[_Wang_]

Hey Wang ! What are you an English teacher? Don't tell the Principal your Jewish.

What is this, the dance of the living dead??

 

[richoatthedisco]

it was surprising to me that games ave went backwards despite the ave age going up.would have thought the older they get the more games they get.
call me naieve or stupid.

I won't call you anything but with the departure of Cousins (270 games - i.e. about seven for every player on the list), Simmonds (197), McMahon (150-odd), Polak (100+), Tambling (100+) and Polo (60-odd), of course the average games per player was going to fall. But looking at that list of names, we haven't lost much more than a number. Cuz's experience, leadership and ability to pass on his knowledge is the biggest loss, and he'll still be on call for the likes of Cotch.

Dimma's stated aim was to get 500 games combined into our young blokes, so we can expect they will play plenty of footy in 2011 and 2012. By then everyone on the list will be two years older but then again some blokes in their mid-late 20s will have been replaced by teenagers. And so the cycle continues.