- Thread starter
- #76
Play games.How do young players get games added to their games tally?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Play games.How do young players get games added to their games tally?
You’re missing the point, a few of our experienced players shat the bed, which of our kids did?
Except he wasn't a kid, he was a fully formed SANFL player.
He is only 24 now and hasn’t played for 2 seasons. So he was 21-22 when playing - still a kid in AFL terms. Plenty of draftees play their first games when either 20 or 21
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
snarl, snarl, snarlYou’re missing the point, a few of our experienced players shat the bed, which of our kids did?
There’s no point in having experience if it’s no good, I’d prefer to have talented kids who keep their composure like Max and Nank did.
Thats why this whole thread and your reliance on stats is nonsense
Lol, you’re opening lines were quite amusing.snarl, snarl, snarl
Did stats root your missus? You seem to have an excessive dislike of them.
No one shat the bed ya fool. We lost by 4 points against last years premiers who haven't lost in the last 6 games, playing away. At a minimum everyone was serviceable, a lot of our players played very good, we just didn't get the result. A couple of players were down a bit.
Last week Nank and Keane were terrible. You can't expect everyone to play well all the time, in any game a couple are going to be down.
This IS the key issue.How do young players get games added to their games tally?
Thanks for this. I think alongside all the general negativity about the performance of the team it is worth keeping in mind that it's a young group and there's plenty of scope for natural improvement in the players we have. This is a good data point on that topic. Not to say there's nothing to criticise of course, but the fact that we are in the bottom third of the league for age/experience is a factor that should be taken into account when evaluating where we are at.Everyone missed the most important point from the OP so it looks like I'll have to spell it out for you (I even gave you a clue by the way I divided up that table).
In general a more experienced team beats a less experienced team, however, if you want to assess a team to see if its punching above its average games played weight then the degree to which an inexperienced team is beating more experienced is a good indicator.
As I showed in the table in the OP, we have a good record against teams we are more experienced than AND teams that are up to 20 games more experienced than us. This is a good sign we have a good team developing.
Here is a graph of the ladder as of yesterday against average games played by each team in round 9View attachment 1993186
Any team that's to the left/below the line is punching above its weight, any team to the right/above the line is punching below its weight.
Crows are the big blue dot. Teams we've played are black dots, teams we're yet to play are blue dots.
Given the top teams are typically about 115 games experience, given we perform well against sides that we are with 20 games of experience of, given that 115-20 is 95, given we're currently at about 85 games of experience and given that we have 14 games to go and increase about 0.7 games of average experience per round, by the end of this season we should be at about 95 games of experience and far better placed from an experience perspective to keep right up with the top teams (assuming we don't blend in a heap of youth (by choice or by injury forcing it)).
I could actually make an argument that our average games figure over does our experience level (and therefore we are punching even further above our weight) and that we would actually be better off looking at the count of players less than 100 games, but that's a job for another time.
.
Here's the data table that made up the graph FYI
View attachment 1993197
Good question. I wasn't sure so checked a few games each season to see. Random games are random obviously but I think this is better than just looking at the list, since who we are selecting is more relevant.Are we moving up?
2020 > 2021 > 2022 > 2023 > 2024
Are we getting older and more experienced each season? Or are we holding ground to a degree?
Thanks for this. I think alongside all the general negativity about the performance of the team it is worth keeping in mind that it's a young group and there's plenty of scope for natural improvement in the players we have. This is a good data point on that topic. Not to say there's nothing to criticise of course, but the fact that we are in the bottom third of the league for age/experience is a factor that should be taken into account when evaluating where we are at.
Compared to last year our results are somewhat worse but I do think our better performances are less reliant on the older cohort, specifically Walker, Smith and Laird all of whom are down from last year while guys like Soligo, Rankine, Rachele and Worrell have improved. And I think it's positive that we are competitive every week.
One thing this really shows is how much we would benefit from a couple of quality mid-career free agent recruits. Such a massive gap in that 100-200 game range.
Ok, so GC and GWS were forced to play youth from the get go. If its as simple as playing those guys, where's all their premierships?This IS the key issue.
If we are serious about fast tracking to being premiership contenders, we just must get games into our best young talent asap... rather than prioritising players with little upside or cooked veterans.
We are wasting this year. Likely to miss finals & not making the most of getting games into younger players.
It's beyond dumb & club leadership should instruct Nicks to prioritise younger talent for making finals next season... or just sack him given he is not going to outcoach the best on game day.
YesOk, so GC and GWS were forced to play youth from the get go. If its as simple as playing those guys, where's all their premierships?
You've all heard the coaches all across the league say there's no value derived if you can't even get some sort of system going in your game (aka you're getting flogged), you learn nothing in those games.
You have to balance things, youth with some sort of system being achieved. We're already one of the least experienced teams in the comp, you really wanna bring in more youth rather than put the hard word (figuratively) on a bunch of potential fringe guys still on the list on 40-70 games and say produce or be delisted?
I'm not saying get rid of all our experienced players & solely play youth.Ok, so GC and GWS were forced to play youth from the get go. If its as simple as playing those guys, where's all their premierships?
You've all heard the coaches all across the league say there's no value derived if you can't even get some sort of system going in your game (aka you're getting flogged), you learn nothing in those games.
You have to balance things, youth with some sort of system being achieved. We're already one of the least experienced teams in the comp, you really wanna bring in more youth rather than put the hard word (figuratively) on a bunch of potential fringe guys still on the list on 40-70 games and say produce or be delisted?
Something I had a look at this morning which may be of interest and relevant to the thread:
Obviously we have a big gap in our list with experienced, mid-career players, and we should be looking to pick up some more players like this through free agency if possible. I had a look to see how unusual this list gap is compared to other teams. Most good players play their best football in their late 20s when they've played 100+ games. This is the most successful list profile range but also if you look at something like the All Australian team, it's pretty much all players who are 25-30 with 100+ games, and players who don't fit that profile are generally of a specific type (young midfielders and older key forwards in recent years).
For example over the last three years about 75% of players selected in the AA team are 25-30, and almost all have also played 100 games since they've been good enough to get selected their whole career. The only exceptions on the older end are key forwards (Hawkins and Walker), and each year there's a few players under 25 who make it, mostly midfielders and wingers (Gulden, Rozee, Butters, Daicos, Serong and Walsh are recent examples). The only key position players under 25 to make it in the last 3 years are McKay in 2021 and Sam Taylor in 2022, and Stengle made it as a small forward. Curnow and Larkey have made it while meeting the age range requirement but just short of 100 games (90ish).
Adelaide have 6 players in this 25-30, 100+ games bracket on the list: Laird, Crouch, O'Brien, Keays, Dawson and Murphy, plus there's Milera with 99 games. At the start of last year it was only Laird and Crouch, which was an insane outlier. We've come up to the pack a bit in the last 12 months but as of right now this is still the lowest in the league. We have 11 players on the list in the 25-30 age range in total, which is also the lowest in the league (Bulldogs are next lowest with 12, Carlton have 23).
Here's the 'players 25-30 with 100+ games experience' ladder:
16 - St. Kilda
14 - Carlton
12 - Melbourne, Brisbane
11 - Essendon, Collingwood
10 - Gold Coast, Richmond
9 - Port Adelaide, Sydney
8 - West Coast, Fremantle, GWS, Geelong, North Melbourne
7 - Hawthorn, Western Bulldogs
6 - Adelaide
Loose relationship to team success, but some interesting outliers: St. Kilda who have an insanely high number, Sydney who are low relative how good they are, and I think Richmond who are due a rebuild. Most of the contending sides have a good number in this range, or are Geelong where everyone is old.
No current season stats available
Nicks was terrible for leaving Keane there! That you missed derrr 2. Nanks was farrrrrrr better than Murphy...always is....they all are usually Keays has been atrocious for a while his kicking is high school at best along with Laird and ROB's kicking skills.Lol, you’re opening lines were quite amusing.
Really? ROB shank kick, Keays running into open goal, late snap that cost us the game, Laird and Crouch handball happy.
The thing you’re continuing to miss, unless the experienced players are good, they are of no more than value than decent kids.
Yer, pretty hard to derive much from just looking at us alone.Doesn't look like much of a correlation between experience and wins
View attachment 2032742
Top 5 most experienced teams: 1 win, 4 losses
Top 5 least experienced teams: 1 win, 4 losses