Analysis Inexperience watch

[Jivlain]

• (0 to 10 games - Greater Western Sydney 1 vs. Brisbane 1)
• 0 to 24 games - Greater Western Sydney 5 vs. Brisbane 2
• 25 to 49 games - Greater Western Sydney 2 vs. Brisbane 5
• 50 to 99 games - Greater Western Sydney 5 vs. Brisbane 6
• 100 to 199 games - Greater Western Sydney 8 vs. Brisbane 8
• 200+ games - Greater Western Sydney 2 vs. Brisbane 1

Extra stats:

• Average games played - Greater Western Sydney 94.9 vs. Brisbane 103 (= -8.1 games on average)
• Average age - Greater Western Sydney 25.2 vs. Brisbane 25.3 (= -0.1 years on average)
• Average height - Greater Western Sydney 188.4cm vs. Brisbane 187.1cm (= +1.3cm on average)
• Average weight - Greater Western Sydney 87.9kg vs. Brisbane 87.8kg (= +0.1kg on average)

 

[Lions Flag 2020]

View attachment 703966

• (0 to 10 games - Greater Western Sydney 1 vs. Brisbane 1)
• 0 to 24 games - Greater Western Sydney 5 vs. Brisbane 2
• 25 to 49 games - Greater Western Sydney 2 vs. Brisbane 5
• 50 to 99 games - Greater Western Sydney 5 vs. Brisbane 6
• 100 to 199 games - Greater Western Sydney 8 vs. Brisbane 8
• 200+ games - Greater Western Sydney 2 vs. Brisbane 1

Extra stats:

• Average games played - Greater Western Sydney 94.9 vs. Brisbane 103 (= -8.1 games on average)
• Average age - Greater Western Sydney 25.2 vs. Brisbane 25.3 (= -0.1 years on average)
• Average height - Greater Western Sydney 188.4cm vs. Brisbane 187.1cm (= +1.3cm on average)
• Average weight - Greater Western Sydney 87.9kg vs. Brisbane 87.8kg (= +0.1kg on average)

Thanks Jiv - I look fwd to this post every week.
We stack up so well these days. Looking at your stats we have a real opportunity to knock them off!

 

[Dalions]

Thanks Jiv - I look fwd to this post every week.
We stack up so well these days. Looking at your stats we have a real opportunity to knock them off!

It’s amazing to think that a short time ago we look at these figures and you couldn’t help but think that we don’t really stand a chance, but it has turned so quickly, where I look at it now and say we should win!
Thanks for your work Jiv!

 

[a mayes ing]

View attachment 703966

• (0 to 10 games - Greater Western Sydney 1 vs. Brisbane 1)
• 0 to 24 games - Greater Western Sydney 5 vs. Brisbane 2
• 25 to 49 games - Greater Western Sydney 2 vs. Brisbane 5
• 50 to 99 games - Greater Western Sydney 5 vs. Brisbane 6
• 100 to 199 games - Greater Western Sydney 8 vs. Brisbane 8
• 200+ games - Greater Western Sydney 2 vs. Brisbane 1

Extra stats:

• Average games played - Greater Western Sydney 94.9 vs. Brisbane 103 (= -8.1 games on average)
• Average age - Greater Western Sydney 25.2 vs. Brisbane 25.3 (= -0.1 years on average)
• Average height - Greater Western Sydney 188.4cm vs. Brisbane 187.1cm (= +1.3cm on average)
• Average weight - Greater Western Sydney 87.9kg vs. Brisbane 87.8kg (= +0.1kg on average)

Always amazes me to think that we aren't really a young team anymore. Even taking away Hodge we would still be 90+ games. Only a few years a go where we were around 50 games and it was just a massacre.

 

[Dylan12]

Always amazes me to think that we aren't really a young team anymore. Even taking away Hodge we would still be 90+ games. Only a few years a go where we were around 50 games and it was just a massacre.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t I hear Fagan say recently that we still have the third youngest list or am I mistaking something?

 

[a mayes ing]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t I hear Fagan say recently that we still have the third youngest list or am I mistaking something?

Dunno but we are very experienced in terms of games and our age is 25.3 so doubt we are the 3rd youngest. You would think GC, Carlton and look like GWS are younger based on this as well.

 

[Section 5]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t I hear Fagan say recently that we still have the third youngest list or am I mistaking something?

Lions are the second youngest or 17th @ 23.5 years. Hawthorne oldest @ 24.9 years
Youngest is Suns @ 23.1 years

 

[Tom14]

Lions are the second youngest or 17th @ 23.5 years. Hawthorne oldest @ 24.9 years
Youngest is Suns @ 23.1 years

Key point here is that we are so healthy that a lot of young inexperienced players are running around in the NEAFL rather than having to play in the senior team.

 

[M Malice]

Average age and games can vary quite a lot depending whether you are talking a selected 22 for any given week or the overall list profile.

 

[a mayes ing]

Lions are the second youngest or 17th @ 23.5 years. Hawthorne oldest @ 24.9 years
Youngest is Suns @ 23.1 years

Then why does it say in this thread that we are 25.3 yrs?

 

[dlanod]

Then why does it say in this thread that we are 25.3 yrs?

That's the team selected, not the overall list.

 

[paulige]

Dunno but we are very experienced in terms of games and our age is 25.3 so doubt we are the 3rd youngest. You would think GC, Carlton and look like GWS are younger based on this as well.

I think if you look at the youngest 20 in our 22 this week (aka: remove Hodge and Martin) the average age is 24.4, and average games is around 88.

I think if you did this for most sides, we would come out somewhere towards the bottom - our profile is somewhat skewed by 2 players who are significantly older than the rest of the list.

With Hodge set to retire, we'll have the following players turning the following ages next year:

34: Martin
33: -
32: -
31: Robinson, Zorko
30: Rich
29: Christensen
28: Walker, Lyons, Lester
27: Neale, McCarthy, Adams

It can be a slippery slope for some, but I'd say those set to turn 29-31 next year are currently playing at (or very close to) their best footy.

I think a fair assessment is that if we challenge finals (or heaven forbid the top 4) this year, then next year we might just about be ready to become a 'genuine contender'.

The age profile of the list suggests we're well placed, IMO.

 

[briztoon]

I think if you look at the youngest 20 in our 22 this week (aka: remove Hodge and Martin) the average age is 24.4, and average games is around 88.

I think if you did this for most sides, we would come out somewhere towards the bottom - our profile is somewhat skewed by 2 players who are significantly older than the rest of the list.

With Hodge set to retire, we'll have the following players turning the following ages next year:

34: Martin
33: -
32: -
31: Robinson, Zorko
30: Rich
29: Christensen
28: Walker, Lyons, Lester
27: Neale, McCarthy, Adams

It can be a slippery slope for some, but I'd say those set to turn 29-31 next year are currently playing at (or very close to) their best footy.

I think a fair assessment is that if we challenge finals (or heaven forbid the top 4) this year, then next year we might just about be ready to become a 'genuine contender'.

The age profile of the list suggests we're well placed, IMO.

This concerns me somewhat, because I still believe we don't have enough top young talent coming through the list yet. We have enough to replace the older players as they age out, but not enough build around those top tier youngsters, or to genuinely compete at a high level year on year. I don't see a dynasty type list in the making yet.

We really need some of our younger players to outperform their draft position.

 

[paulige]

This concerns me somewhat, because I still believe we don't have enough top young talent coming through the list yet. We have enough to replace the older players as they age out, but not enough build around those top tier youngsters, or to genuinely compete at a high level year on year. I don't see a dynasty type list in the making yet.

We really need some of our younger players to outperform their draft position.

Hmm, I think we're better positioned than that.

By the end of 2021, with Hodge and Martin (?) retired, we'll only have Zorko (32), Robbo (32), Rich (31) and Christensen (30) in the 30+ bracket.

Best case scenario is we only have 2 players of the above 6 players requiring replacement by season 2022; worst case is probably 4-5.

Given there's 3 drafts and 3 trades periods between then and now, I don't think it's outlandish to say with our current recruiting staff (and club culture) we can acquire at least 2-3 quality players per off-season. This would have us gaining anywhere from 6 to 9 'quality players' by 2022.

More than enough to cover retirees and potential departures - as long as the club remains on the current trajectory.




...Plus, once we go back to back in '20 and '21, ain't nobody gonna wanna leave.

 

[Dalions]

This concerns me somewhat, because I still believe we don't have enough top young talent coming through the list yet. We have enough to replace the older players as they age out, but not enough build around those top tier youngsters, or to genuinely compete at a high level year on year. I don't see a dynasty type list in the making yet.

We really need some of our younger players to outperform their draft position.

If we were to miraculously win a premiership this year, I can definitely see a dynasty as a possibility!

 

[M Malice]

If we were to miraculously win a premiership this year, I can definitely see a dynasty as a possibility!

I want a 4peat this time.

 

[briztoon]

Hmm, I think we're better positioned than that.

By the end of 2021, with Hodge and Martin (?) retired, we'll only have Zorko (32), Robbo (32), Rich (31) and Christensen (30) in the 30+ bracket.

Best case scenario is we only have 2 players of the above 6 players requiring replacement by season 2022; worst case is probably 4-5.

Given there's 3 drafts and 3 trades periods between then and now, I don't think it's outlandish to say with our current recruiting staff (and club culture) we can acquire at least 2-3 quality players per off-season. This would have us gaining anywhere from 6 to 9 'quality players' by 2022.

More than enough to cover retirees and potential departures - as long as the club remains on the current trajectory.




...Plus, once we go back to back in '20 and '21, ain't nobody gonna wanna leave.

How are we going to acquire those quality players?

From the draft or in trade?

If we're in finals contention, we're unlikely to be drafting the top end talent, or have the necessary picks to continually trade in players of Neale's standard. That's why I said we will need our draftees to out perform their draft position. I believe you're overly optimistic that we can add 2 or 3 quality players every year.

Hawthorn is flat out doing it, and they're mortgaging their future by having to trade out multiple first rounders or quality kids to bring in those ready made players. Their list has reached a tipping point where they don't have the quality kids coming up through the ranks to surround the quality players they've traded in.


I'm not so concerned about replacing MRobbo or Christensen. I can see them easily being replaced by current or future youngsters. I'm more thinking Zorko and Rich.

The point of my post is I believe if we have a 100% healthy list, we might just have a best 22, that might just have enough quality, to challenge for a top 4 spot. We've had a charmed run with few injuries to our top players, unlike every other team in the competition.

We're really going to need Cedric Cox, Zac Bailey, Noah Answerth, Tom Berry, Tom Joyce, Ely Smith, James Madden and Tom Fullarton to step up and for at least two or three of them to reach McCluggage and JBerry's level, while the rest replace the likes of NRobbo, Christensen, etc. Not to mention Witherden and Rayner actually reaching the same level as McCluggage and JBerry.

 

[M Malice]

How are we going to acquire those quality players?

We're really going to need Cedric Cox, Zac Bailey, Noah Answerth, Tom Berry, Tom Joyce, Ely Smith, James Madden and Tom Fullarton to step up and for at least two or three of them to reach McCluggage and JBerry's level, while the rest replace the likes of NRobbo, Christensen, etc. Not to mention Witherden and Rayner actually reaching the same level as McCluggage and JBerry.

Interesting discussion briz, I love the list management chat/hypothetical's.

We could try and go down the Free Agency path to get in quality players thus not needing to use draft picks to acquire them, if we are in a flag window we could be seen as a very attractive destination, Stephen Coniglio would be ideal and he is the only FA in 2019 that I would call quality/elite.

Looking at 2020 FA (footywire so not sure how reliable) who could be targets- Dyson Heppell, Lachie Whitfield, Zac Williams, Jack Viney.

Zac Bailey and Noah Answerth showing some good signs that they will be very serviceable players for us, too early to tell how good though. Big big fan of Tom Berry although he hasn't even played a game yet.

 

[paulige]

How are we going to acquire those quality players?

From the draft or in trade?

If we're in finals contention, we're unlikely to be drafting the top end talent, or have the necessary picks to continually trade in players of Neale's standard. That's why I said we will need our draftees to out perform their draft position. I believe you're overly optimistic that we can add 2 or 3 quality players every year.

Hawthorn is flat out doing it, and they're mortgaging their future by having to trade out multiple first rounders or quality kids to bring in those ready made players. Their list has reached a tipping point where they don't have the quality kids coming up through the ranks to surround the quality players they've traded in.


I'm not so concerned about replacing MRobbo or Christensen. I can see them easily being replaced by current or future youngsters. I'm more thinking Zorko and Rich.

The point of my post is I believe if we have a 100% healthy list, we might just have a best 22, that might just have enough quality, to challenge for a top 4 spot. We've had a charmed run with few injuries to our top players, unlike every other team in the competition.

We're really going to need Cedric Cox, Zac Bailey, Noah Answerth, Tom Berry, Tom Joyce, Ely Smith, James Madden and Tom Fullarton to step up and for at least two or three of them to reach McCluggage and JBerry's level, while the rest replace the likes of NRobbo, Christensen, etc. Not to mention Witherden and Rayner actually reaching the same level as McCluggage and JBerry.

Across the draft, trade table, and FA (assuming we are contending and an attractive destination), I’d be disappointed if we couldn’t find at least 2 players worth adding to our list each off season. I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to say we can bring in 6 quality players across those sources over the next 3 years; at a bit of a stretch maybe even 7 or 8 players.

This year alone we’re currently sitting on picks 16, 19, 30, 45 and 48. Nail a few of those, target some FA’s, and combined with the hopeful progression of the Answerth, Bailey, Cox types, I think we have plenty to work with.

 

[M Malice]

Cedric Cox has huge upside for our structure if he wants it enough, he'd really add to our outside run and delivery inside 50 he he can play a wing role, great kick off either foot.

 

[briztoon]

Across the draft, trade table, and FA (assuming we are contending and an attractive destination), I’d be disappointed if we couldn’t find at least 2 players worth adding to our list each off season. I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to say we can bring in 6 quality players across those sources over the next 3 years; at a bit of a stretch maybe even 7 or 8 players.

This year alone we’re currently sitting on picks 16, 19, 32, 47 and 50. Nail a few of those, target some FA’s, and combined with the hopeful progression of the Answerth, Bailey, Cox types, I think we have plenty to work with.

You're basing a lot of our future success on assumptions and hope there.

I know we traded in Neale last season, but I honestly believe it would be a miracle if we attracted one of the top free agents in the next couple of years.

We're not the only team that will be in the window. And we're not in a market place where top end players can make significant third party income.


So that leaves trading and the draft.

It's not easy to have success at both, and I highlighted Hawthorn as the perfect example. They have been active trading in quality players, but they've had to trade out their first and second round picks, as well as future picks, and quality young kids to bring in good players.

You can't have it both ways. You can't trade for top end talent and keep your top end draft picks. And it's harder to nail those later picks.


If we were to trade for another Neale calibre talent, you can guarantee we would need two first round picks. So that's this year and next years first round picks.

Heading in to the future, unless we are trading out players for first or second round picks, it won't be easy to generate extra first or second round picks. And that just becomes a cycle of replenishing what you're losing, and not building on what you already have.


Do you know how we come to have picks 16, 19 and 47*? Because we traded out a (supposedly) good player and a future first round pick last year.

Looking ahead, if we finish 5th next season, we're holding pick 14 and pick 32 as our first two picks. Like I said in my previous post, you start mortgaging your future by continually trading out those high end picks.


We've seen this year with last years draftees, it's rare for those kids drafted outside the top end to step in straight away and make meaningful contributions. We might draft one or two quality kids each year, but it's going to take them a year or two to crack the senior rotation and longer to establish themselves in the first team.

 

[paulige]

You're basing a lot of our future success on assumptions and hope there.

I know we traded in Neale last season, but I honestly believe it would be a miracle if we attracted one of the top free agents in the next couple of years.

We're not the only team that will be in the window. And we're not in a market place where top end players can make significant third party income.


So that leaves trading and the draft.

It's not easy to have success at both, and I highlighted Hawthorn as the perfect example. They have been active trading in quality players, but they've had to trade out their first and second round picks, as well as future picks, and quality young kids to bring in good players.

You can't have it both ways. You can't trade for top end talent and keep your top end draft picks. And it's harder to nail those later picks.


If we were to trade for another Neale calibre talent, you can guarantee we would need two first round picks. So that's this year and next years first round picks.

Heading in to the future, unless we are trading out players for first or second round picks, it won't be easy to generate extra first or second round picks. And that just becomes a cycle of replenishing what you're losing, and not building on what you already have.


Do you know how we come to have picks 16, 19 and 47*? Because we traded out a (supposedly) good player and a future first round pick last year.

Looking ahead, if we finish 5th next season, we're holding pick 14 and pick 32 as our first two picks. Like I said in my previous post, you start mortgaging your future by continually trading out those high end picks.


We've seen this year with last years draftees, it's rare for those kids drafted outside the top end to step in straight away and make meaningful contributions. We might draft one or two quality kids each year, but it's going to take them a year or two to crack the senior rotation and longer to establish themselves in the first team.

I’m not for a second suggesting we trade in two Neales each year - we won’t. No one could.

This is based on the assumption we are becoming a successful side and in response to your comments “...not enough build around those top tier youngsters, or to genuinely compete at a high level year on year. I don't see a dynasty type list in the making yet.”.

What I am saying is that I think if we are becoming a successful side, and continue on our current trajectory, it’s not crazy to suggest we could attract at least 2 quality footballers each year. “Quality” doesn’t at all mean “Brownlow fancy”, but players we’d happily take on that would take a place in the 22 (if not immediately the a year or two down the track).

I think if the club continues to build the culture and on-field form it has been, then across drafting (academy included), trading, and free agency (which we have hardly been able to utilise to date), we can find two quality footballers per year (though yes, with draftees it’s likely to take 1-2 years for them to be able to add considerably to the side).

2018: Neale, Lyons, McCarthy, Adams (?)
2017: Hodge, Cameron, Rayner, Bailey (?), Starcevich (?)
2016: McCluggage, Berry, Witherden, Cox (?)
2015: Hipwood, Mathieson (?)
2014: Andrews, Beams, Robinson, Christensen (?)

Over these 5 off-seasons I’d say we’ve found 13 “best 22” players, and 6 that are questionable or the jury is still well and truly out on. (And yes - lost a few along the way!)

That’s around 2.5 a year. Yes we’ve had better access to the draft, which we’ll lose if we’re successful - but perhaps some of that can be offset by better access to free agents (as we would become an attractive destination)?

I guess my glass is half full - and I have trust in our recruiting staff. Can’t blame anyone for having a more reserved approach after the 15 years we’ve just had.

 

[Lions Flag 2020]

Cedric Cox has huge upside for our structure if he wants it enough, he'd really add to our outside run and delivery inside 50 he he can play a wing role, great kick off either foot.

It's good to have a favourite who is fringe. I have Eagles and Cutler.

 

[a mayes ing]

I’m not for a second suggesting we trade in two Neales each year - we won’t. No one could.

This is based on the assumption we are becoming a successful side and in response to your comments “...not enough build around those top tier youngsters, or to genuinely compete at a high level year on year. I don't see a dynasty type list in the making yet.”.

What I am saying is that I think if we are becoming a successful side, and continue on our current trajectory, it’s not crazy to suggest we could attract at least 2 quality footballers each year. “Quality” doesn’t at all mean “Brownlow fancy”, but players we’d happily take on that would take a place in the 22 (if not immediately the a year or two down the track).

I think if the club continues to build the culture and on-field form it has been, then across drafting (academy included), trading, and free agency (which we have hardly been able to utilise to date), we can find two quality footballers per year (though yes, with draftees it’s likely to take 1-2 years for them to be able to add considerably to the side).

2018: Neale, Lyons, McCarthy, Adams (?)
2017: Hodge, Cameron, Rayner, Bailey (?), Starcevich (?)
2016: McCluggage, Berry, Witherden, Cox (?)
2015: Hipwood, Mathieson (?)
2014: Andrews, Beams, Robinson, Christensen (?)

Over these 5 off-seasons I’d say we’ve found 13 “best 22” players, and 6 that are questionable or the jury is still well and truly out on. (And yes - lost a few along the way!)

That’s around 2.5 a year. Yes we’ve had better access to the draft, which we’ll lose if we’re successful - but perhaps some of that can be offset by better access to free agents (as we would become an attractive destination)?

I guess my glass is half full - and I have trust in our recruiting staff. Can’t blame anyone for having a more reserved approach after the 15 years we’ve just had.

I think part of Briztoon's post was talking about the fact that we might not have enough quantity of quality youngsters. Our youngsters look top end in Berry, McCluggage, Rayner (he is a pick 1 so it is more likely he will end up really good than not), Witherden, Andrews, Hippy. But sometimes l wonder if we have enough depth around these 18-21 year olds that will be A+----B graders. As we are getting higher up on the ladder, we wont have access to top end picks, so iyt is less likely that we will get these quality young guys.

The original plan was to go to the draft for 3 years, but we only did it for 2 yeears. If you look at Carlton, they have a significant amount of top end midfielders (whether they develop is another issue entirely). Same as Briz, l am hoping Bailey, Starc and Cox can all get there

 

[royboys4eva]

When sides have five or more players under 25 games I believe it becomes a factor. GWS probably can cover better than most sides due to the depth of quality in their side but they certainly can be exposed. Only takes one or two of there key players to be down or they cop an injury and suddenly they are very vulnerable.

After so many years of horror when viewing this thread its now quite impressive and pleasing. We have got so many players coming into the peak periods of their career.