Most overated Player playing Now

[ok.crows]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Earth to Tio_Ray

Originally posted by Lockyer24
The Crows wont finish Top 4 this year.

Probably not. Top 2 seems more likely.

Phat Side:

If there is improvement in the list its marginal at best unless CAREY dominates which is very unlikely.

In order to see improvement up forward the Crows need more out of Carey in 2003 than they got from Fitzgerald & Schell in 2002. I would have said quite likely.

 

[Port01]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Earth to Tio_Ray

Originally posted by ok.crows
I had read that the average of average ages (if you get the drift) amongst the AFL sides was 24 years.

If that is so, it doesn't make the Crows list one of the oldest. About average.

There were about 5-6 done on aflhq, Ports was the oldest of them.

Fact is that the crows do not have the 3rd youngest list, as was previously stated as fact. Anyone is quite welcome to find an older list, or test to see if collingwoods really is older was was claimed.

 

[ok.crows]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Earth to Tio_Ray

Originally posted by Port01
There were about 5-6 done on aflhq, Ports was the oldest of them.

Fact is that the crows do not have the 3rd youngest list, as was previously stated as fact. Anyone is quite welcome to find an older list, or test to see if collingwoods really is older was was claimed.

I don't agree with either claim - either afc9798 or yours. I'd have to see the complete figures for all sides to attempt any definitive ranking - perceptions can be so deceiving if you have name players in the older brackets, and no-one knows squat about your younger players.

In an event - the difference between Ports average of 23.6 compared with Crows 23.89 is 0.29 years over 39 players = 11 years. That can be accounted for simply by one player - Crows have two veterans to Ports one, say.

Big deal.

 

[Port01]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Earth to Tio_Ray

Originally posted by ok.crows
I don't agree with either claim - either afc9798 or yours. I'd have to see the complete figures for all sides to attempt any definitive ranking - perceptions can be so deceiving if you have name players in the older brackets, and no-one knows squat about your younger players.

In an event - the difference between Ports average of 23.6 compared with Crows 23.89 is 0.29 years over 39 players = 11 years. That can be accounted for simply by one player - Crows have two veterans to Ports one, say.

Big deal.

Who said it was a big deal? Oh, thats right, the camry who was claiming the crows had the 3rd youngest list

Personally I think the biggest factor concerning the seeming rating of the crows as an aging list is they have no stars under 25.

 

[hurricane]

A far more interesting statistic would be to count the average age of each team's best 22.

Due to the draft, all the clubs have a big glut of young players - the important thing is, how many of these are any good (ie getting a game)

 

[ok.crows]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Earth to Tio_Ray

Originally posted by Port01
Personally I think the biggest factor concerning the seeming rating of the crows as an aging list is they have no stars under 25.

Stars under 25:
Stenglein 22, Burton 24, Welsh 24

Showing a lot of promise, had pretty good seasons in 2002:
John**** 20, Bode 23, Ladhams 22, Doughty 23.

Under-rated by some, but also had a good 2002, & is rapidly improving:
McGregor 21

Promising to break into AFL in 2003, some of these will become very good players:
Mattner 19, Reilly 19, Rutten 19, Schuback 19, Hentschel 20.

Others with fair potential:
Jericho 18, Bock 19, Gallagher 23, Smith 19

I think the Crows are better off in 2003 for talented youth coming up through the ranks than they have been for a long, long while.

 

[Port01]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Earth to Tio_Ray

Originally posted by ok.crows
Stars under 25:
Stenglein 22, Burton 24, Welsh 24

Obviously your opinion of a star is far less than mine.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by hurricane
A far more interesting statistic would be to count the average age of each team's best 22.

Due to the draft, all the clubs have a big glut of young players - the important thing is, how many of these are any good (ie getting a game)

I think you have to look at the oldest players & who they are keeping out of the side.

For example last year at Carlton - who was Bradley keeping out of the Blues side? Or this year - who will Mick Martyn keep from being selected? IMO in the Blues list the answer is - those players aren't keeping anyone out.

For the Crows in 2003 - the oldest players will be Bickley, Smart, Carey & Burns.

Carey would perhaps be keeping Rutten from selection. Bickley, Smart & Burns would be keeping out - Mattner, Gallagher, Reilly, Schuback, Jericho & Bock IMO.

In the event that any of Crows older players (with the possible exception of Carey) is not in form - there would be a viable young player to replace the veteran. Just pick the young one(s) playing the best in SANFL, whip them in the side & give the old bloke a run in the twos, and the Crows haven't lost much at all in the exchange.

So - either the older ones perform (in which case age isn't a problem, as they are performing) - or the young ones are in (which again isn't a problem because they were doing better than the old bloke, and age isn't a problem).

 

[hotpie]

Thanks for that random list of names. Any supporter of any team can do the same.

The facts remain that Adelaide are at 1 O'Clock on the Malthouse clock. They only have a season or two to achieve big things, otherwise its back to the drawing board.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by hotpie
Thanks for that random list of names. Any supporter of any team can do the same.

The facts remain that Adelaide are at 1 O'Clock on the Malthouse clock. They only have a season or two to achieve big things, otherwise its back to the drawing board.

It is only "random" to you because the names don't appear in Melbourne press.

Malthouse's clock is screwy. In a season or two, Adelaide will have lost two or three of their oldest players & recruited up to 10 new youngsters - and retired & traded a few - and matured at least two or three of the young brigade - and they will be in exactly the same position as they are now.

Despite perceptions in Melbourne - there is nothing wrong with Adelaide's age balance. They have good talent spread across the whole age profile of the list. A year or two down the track presents no problems at all for the Adelaide list.

 

[ClintEastwood]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Earth to Tio_Ray

Originally posted by ok.crows
Stars under 25:
Stenglein 22, Burton 24, Welsh 24

Exceptionally slack usage of the word 'star', I would have thought!

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by ok.crows
It is only "random" to you because the names don't appear in Melbourne press.

They are only houselhold names to you because the Crows get four pages in the Advertiser every day of the year.

Lets wait and see.... nothing else to do...... but its fair to say the Crows have an old list compared to most of their competitors.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by hotpie
They are only houselhold names to you because the Crows get four pages in the Advertiser every day of the year.

Lets wait and see.... nothing else to do...... but its fair to say the Crows have an old list compared to most of their competitors.

Fair enough in a way, but I do believe still this is pure perception.

For example - the Crows have fewer players in the "over 26" age bracket than Power does. However, the (fewer) Crows older players are a year or two older, and the Power has a larger group of very young players (17 & 18) whereas Crows larger group of young players is aged 19 to 21.

That puts more of Crows youth closer to actually playing AFL, and more of Powers players are heading toward the "retirement" category, but a few of Crows oldest players are actually closer to retiring.

So, the average age for the Power side comes out a bit less, but the Crows possibly are actually slightly better off in terms of age distribution.

 

[Port01]

Originally posted by ok.crows
Fair enough in a way, but I do believe still this is pure perception.

For example - the Crows have fewer players in the "over 26" age bracket than Power does. However, the (fewer) Crows older players are a year or two older, and the Power has a larger group of very young players (17 & 18) whereas Crows larger group of young players is aged 19 to 21.

That puts more of Crows youth closer to actually playing AFL, and more of Powers players are heading toward the "retirement" category, but a few of Crows oldest players are actually closer to retiring.

So, the average age for the Power side comes out a bit less, but the Crows possibly are actually slightly better off in terms of age distribution.

Do you do any research for your posts? Or just trot out what sounds good? Port only has 3 players aged 17 or 18, which is hardly a large group not close to playing AFL, and only 4 players over 28, hardly heading into retirement.

As for over 26, I'd say at a guess there is probably only 1 or 2 difference, 26 or over there is only 1 different.

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by Port01
Do you do any research for your posts? Or just trot out what sounds good? Port only has 3 players aged 17 or 18, which is hardly a large group not close to playing AFL, and only 4 players over 28, hardly heading into retirement.

As for over 26, I'd say at a guess there is probably only 1 or 2 difference, 26 or over there is only 1 different.

More importantly very few of Port's gun players are nearing retirement age, while for the Crows, a number of their prime movers are on the wrong side of 28.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by hotpie
More importantly very few of Port's gun players are nearing retirement age, while for the Crows, a number of their prime movers are on the wrong side of 28.

Originally posted by Port01
Do you do any research for your posts? Or just trot out what sounds good?

"Flow of youth keeps Adelaide's future needs on track
By DAVID BURTENSHAW
17dec02

ADELAIDE'S search for experienced answers to problem spots has not upset its age balance.

Two thirds of the Crows' 2003 list will be 25 or under at the start of next season, disproving fears that the club was ignoring its future needs.

Recruits Wayne Carey (31), Ronnie Burns (30) and Jason Torney (25) are expected to help the team build on last season's top-four placing.

Although Adelaide sacrificed some early draft picks to secure this trio, its decision to upgrade three of the 2002 rookies has maintained the flow of younger players into the club.

Nine of the list are aged 20 or under. Luke Jericho, the club's first pick at the national draft, is the youngest (18).

Mark Bickley and Nigel Smart, both 33, are Adelaide's oldest squad members.

But the only other Crows aged 26 or over are Carey, Burns, ruckman Matthew Clarke (29), Ben Hart (28), captain Mark Ricciuto and Mark Stevens (27) and Nathan Bassett, Tyson Edwards, Simon Goodwin, Ben Marsh and Andrew McLeod (26).

Surprisingly, Port Adelaide has more players in the 26 and over category.

But the Power drags down its average age by listing 13 players who are aged 21 or under.

Draft bonus Steve Salopek is Port's youngest player – he turned 17 in June – while its three other draftees Steve Gilham (18), Wade Champion (18) and Brett Ebert (19) join 2001 draftee Damon White as the club's teenagers. "

I guess it sounded good according to this reasearch.

Players the "wrong side of 28" at Crows = Smart, Bickley, Carey, Burns & Clarke.

Prime movers at Crows = Ricciuto, Hart, Goodwin, McLeod, Stevens & Biglands.

 

[hotpie]

So you agree with me then.

 

[afc9798]

Apology for a factual inaccuracy

I do apologise for a statistical error in regard to the Crows having the third youngest list. I went back to the article archive and they have the third youngest list in terms of AFL games played. I do not step away from other statements made, but I am happy to admit to my mistake which was not intended to mislead.

That said, you're a bunch of f****s

I still believe that we are not in the oldest bracket and that the talent at our disposal is as good as most for the years to come. We will continue to add to that list with new talent. Carey, was, I believe an exception to the recruiting rules and one I am happy to see the rules broken on-time will tell. Burns was only picked up because our friends at Geelong are nice enough to subsidise him for us and Torney at 25 is a very balanced and experienced player. Overall, not a bad return, but again who knows until the real stuff starts.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by hotpie
So you agree with me then.

Most decidedly not, Hotpie.

None of the Crows players on the "prime movers" list appears on the "wrong side of 28" list. Sorry, but no brownie points for you whatsoever.

 

[Damp Squarie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Earth to Tio_Ray

Originally posted by Lockyer24
The Crows wont finish Top 4 this year.

Your right....finish top 3 instead.

 

[Port01]

Originally posted by ok.crows
[iSurprisingly, Port Adelaide has more players in the 26 and over category.

1 more, as I said.

You also said we drag down our average with 17-18 year olds that won't play AFL, which wasn't even in the article. Whered you get that from?

Of our 19-21 yr olds, many have played AFL and a couple are in our first 22.

Using the Advertiser to support an argument isn't always the best move. doing your own research may be a little easier and far more accurate.

 

[Tony_Clifton]

You agree with him that they won't finish first second third or fourth then go on to say they will finish either 1 2 or 3. Am I misunderstanding something?

 

[Tio_Ray]

Dearest Fish

Originally posted by afc9798

1. Carey was selected to boost a forward line that was functional, but not a strength. He was also recruited to bring up some of the young forwards and to add leadership. I would think that for these purposes, you can't get much better than the best CHF to ever play the game.

Wrong...nobody but a desperate pea brain would say you have a functional forward line...you don't spend what you did on Carey and expect only a bit of leadership...is there a limit to your stupidity?

2. The Crows has the 3rd youngest list in the competition-that is a fact. Collingwood has an older list, so is in all likelihood going to have to rebuild before we do. I know you're probably not aware, but we do have more than 22 players on the list and many of them will come into the game this year.

Wrong again...I think its now obvious that its you that is not aware...not aware of anything that is...I already warned you about thinking...hahahahahahahaha

3. You conveniently forget that your club chased Carey mercilessly until it became aware that he didn't want to be a part of Eddie's circus. He wanted to play football not model shoes or have Emirates tattooed on his arse for the good of the "club".

Wrong....you sucking on your thumb and wishing the Pies "mercilessly chased Carey"...is just another lie you like to tell your self to make you feel better...pull your finger out son and stop blaming Collingwood for all your problems...its pathetic.

Enjoy the sunshine, although it would be hard to see it while your head is in your hands waiting for another beating.

Yeah brother...you sound like one of the 2 gutless wonders that tried to assault Fraser, from behind, in the dark when he was walking to his hotel in Adelaide....BTW Fish...I think the Crows have the worst or second worst Win Loss ratio against the pies ...and you still want to brag about how good your team is compared to mine...hehehehehehe...you are insane and must have been truly punished by Collingwood supporters to be scared like this.

In your next poor excuse for a post....at least try not to make your sooky statements about ALL Collingwood Supporters...it may seem like your out numbered but its only me...no need to panic...I suggest you take my advice kid...your not even equipped to handle me.

Having a great time, Wish you were here Fish,
Love,

Tio_Ray

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Port01
1 more, as I said.

You also said we drag down our average with 17-18 year olds that won't play AFL, which wasn't even in the article. Whered you get that from?

Of our 19-21 yr olds, many have played AFL and a couple are in our first 22.

Using the Advertiser to support an argument isn't always the best move. doing your own research may be a little easier and far more accurate.

I didn't recall all the details of the article correctly, I'll grant you.

Its the "13 players under 21" that drags you average down, compared I think with only about nine in this bracket for the Crows.

Still, Port don't have anything like 13 of their under 21 players ready or nearly ready to play AFL - so the point still holds I think.

There was no problem with what the Advertiser actually reported - the problem lay in my recollection of some of the details of what it said.

Still, I think my research beat your hands down, Port01 - you had none at all.

 

[ok.crows]

Re: Dearest Fish

Originally posted by Tio_Ray
Wrong...nobody but a desperate pea brain would say you have a functional forward line...you don't spend what you did on Carey and expect only a bit of leadership...is there a limit to your stupidity?

The Crows forward line outscored Collingwoods in 2002 ... so if Crows was non-functional that must mean Pies was absolutely shizenhousen!

Carey wasn't "expensive" - not nearly the highest paid player @ the Crows, and basically cost Johnson & a draft pick. Johnson was going anyway!