The Age age ladder
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3856
- Joined: Fri 16 Sep 2011 2:41pm
- Has thanked: 419 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
The Age age ladder
Daniel Cherny has done a summary of the average age of the club lists.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/p ... 08cis.html
It's interesting with regard to Port, but his comments about us irritated me.
"There are some alarming signs for St Kilda, the fifth oldest team at the weekend. For all the Saints' flaunting of its next generation, the 22 players who were defeated by Richmond on Sunday included 13 aged 25 or over and seven of those were in their 30s. Only one, Lenny Hayes, has announced that this season will definitely be his last."
A thorough journalist would have pointed out that that we had something like 16 players unavailable for selection through injury, and then had a look at the age of the blokes on the LTI list.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/p ... 08cis.html
It's interesting with regard to Port, but his comments about us irritated me.
"There are some alarming signs for St Kilda, the fifth oldest team at the weekend. For all the Saints' flaunting of its next generation, the 22 players who were defeated by Richmond on Sunday included 13 aged 25 or over and seven of those were in their 30s. Only one, Lenny Hayes, has announced that this season will definitely be his last."
A thorough journalist would have pointed out that that we had something like 16 players unavailable for selection through injury, and then had a look at the age of the blokes on the LTI list.
Always loyal
- dragit
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 13047
- Joined: Tue 29 Jun 2010 11:56am
- Has thanked: 605 times
- Been thanked: 315 times
Re: The Age age ladder
They're out to get us…
Don't worry about it, I'd prefer the media & wider public think we are all old and decrepit.
The reality is that because of our lack of 23 - 28 year olds we have to hold onto more guys around 30. This will greatly change in the next 2 years obviously… we will barely have anyone 30+ year olds in 2017, it's a temporary problem.
Don't worry about it, I'd prefer the media & wider public think we are all old and decrepit.
The reality is that because of our lack of 23 - 28 year olds we have to hold onto more guys around 30. This will greatly change in the next 2 years obviously… we will barely have anyone 30+ year olds in 2017, it's a temporary problem.
Re: The Age age ladder
dragit wrote:They're out to get us…
Don't worry about it, I'd prefer the media & wider public think we are all old and decrepit.
The reality is that because of our lack of 23 - 28 year olds we have to hold onto more guys around 30. This will greatly change in the next 2 years obviously… we will barely have anyone 30+ year olds in 2017, it's a temporary problem.
It is a temporary problem but probably shows why will be bottom 2 for at least the next 2 years IMO. We probably wont use FA in that time and will continually lose our ex stars who whilst they arent as good as they once were are still just about our best players. Its going to be a slow rebuild early. The drafting of young kids is vital or its going to be a slow rebuild for a long time.
Re: The Age age ladder
FA in 2016 when Roo is likely (but not certain) to be going. By then we should have recruited nearly 50% of GWS's list - according to some.
I've never seen a bad St.Kilda player - that's just how they are.
Re: The Age age ladder
Looking at average age of a single team lineup is a ridiculously idiotic way to analyse a club's list.
Re: The Age age ladder
I think they are forgetting that injuries play a part with the weekend's Ins.
If not for injuries players like Billings,Bruce,Acres,Templeton ect......... would be playing.
Bad journalism and research one thinks.
If not for injuries players like Billings,Bruce,Acres,Templeton ect......... would be playing.
Bad journalism and research one thinks.
- White Winmar
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5014
- Joined: Tue 02 Jun 2009 10:02pm
Re: The Age age ladder
At least they're all consistent.murray 66 wrote:I think they are forgetting that injuries play a part with the weekend's Ins.
If not for injuries players like Billings,Bruce,Acres,Templeton ect......... would be playing.
Bad journalism and research one thinks.
I started with nothing and I've got most of it left!
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 9:10am
- Location: Still aisle 35
- Been thanked: 6 times
Re: The Age age ladder
A bogus theory in desperate search of facts to back it up...and whaddya know, there's an anomaly,
and it's us.
Let's make two swaps -
You swap Clinton Jones (Age 30) for Eli Templeton (had his 19th birthday last week).
You swap Lennnnny (Age 34) for Jack Billings (also turned 19 recently).
Suddenly there's 26 years taken off the team total age, and 1.18 years taken off the average and
suddenly we slide from 25.9 years to 24.72 years, and end up at 14th on his ladder,
just a few places away from where his bogus "age = success" theory says we should be.
and it's us.
Let's make two swaps -
You swap Clinton Jones (Age 30) for Eli Templeton (had his 19th birthday last week).
You swap Lennnnny (Age 34) for Jack Billings (also turned 19 recently).
Suddenly there's 26 years taken off the team total age, and 1.18 years taken off the average and
suddenly we slide from 25.9 years to 24.72 years, and end up at 14th on his ladder,
just a few places away from where his bogus "age = success" theory says we should be.
- Devilhead
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8393
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:56pm
- Has thanked: 138 times
- Been thanked: 1174 times
Re: The Age age ladder
No doubt he was waiting, quietly waiting, patiently waiting, hatefully and immorally waiting for C Jones to be brought back into the team before he published that vindictive report
We can only thank our lucky stars that Gwilt was injured, and that we didn't draft Jolly
We can only thank our lucky stars that Gwilt was injured, and that we didn't draft Jolly
The Devil makes work for idle hands!!!
- magnifisaint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8133
- Joined: Sun 02 May 2004 2:52am
- Has thanked: 227 times
- Been thanked: 608 times
Re: The Age age ladder
Journos can write what they think. It doesn't make them any more informed than the average punter. The proof will be in the pudding and it make take 18 months or so and no one will take them to task when they change their stories to suit themselves. Of course if they get lucky and the future pans out as they thought there'll be no end to the chest beating proclaiming how insightful they were. Why bother taking any notice of it.
Posting 20 years of holey crap!
- Con Gorozidis
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23532
- Joined: Thu 19 Jun 2008 4:04pm
- Has thanked: 100 times
- Been thanked: 78 times
Re: The Age age ladder
Well I said we had an old side on the weekend and I was roundly abused as usual.
But agree the average is a bit misleading for us because as pretty much everyone knows we have:
9-10 blokes who are all old (and some of whom are simply past it)
Nothing in between in the core/middle agers where it really matters if you want to win games.
Quite a few kids starting out.
But we cant simply say we have a 'young side' and use that as an excuse every week - that would be over simplifying things and a tad self delusional. We have some serious core list mgt issues that wont be fixed just by an orderly transition and steady as she goes. We will need some harsh medicine.
The reality of that age ladder is that:
1.GWS and GC have huge upside (everyone knows this),
2. Brisbane are actually travelling quite well for a young side
3. the Pies are in a genuine re-build phase
4. All is not lost at Melbourne - they can still improve and be ok maybe (no priority pick needed)
5. The Tiges are actually going ok
6. Port are a real chance in 2015 for the flag
7. Ross Lyon is screwed if he doesn't win it this year.
8. Still some real list re-adjustment required at the Saints (time to say goodbye to the likes of Schneider and Gwilt and dont be surprised if another big name goes)
But agree the average is a bit misleading for us because as pretty much everyone knows we have:
9-10 blokes who are all old (and some of whom are simply past it)
Nothing in between in the core/middle agers where it really matters if you want to win games.
Quite a few kids starting out.
But we cant simply say we have a 'young side' and use that as an excuse every week - that would be over simplifying things and a tad self delusional. We have some serious core list mgt issues that wont be fixed just by an orderly transition and steady as she goes. We will need some harsh medicine.
The reality of that age ladder is that:
1.GWS and GC have huge upside (everyone knows this),
2. Brisbane are actually travelling quite well for a young side
3. the Pies are in a genuine re-build phase
4. All is not lost at Melbourne - they can still improve and be ok maybe (no priority pick needed)
5. The Tiges are actually going ok
6. Port are a real chance in 2015 for the flag
7. Ross Lyon is screwed if he doesn't win it this year.
8. Still some real list re-adjustment required at the Saints (time to say goodbye to the likes of Schneider and Gwilt and dont be surprised if another big name goes)
Last edited by Con Gorozidis on Thu 28 Aug 2014 4:21pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Con Gorozidis
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23532
- Joined: Thu 19 Jun 2008 4:04pm
- Has thanked: 100 times
- Been thanked: 78 times
Re: The Age age ladder
Have to disagree. Its not saying 'age' = success.philtee wrote:A bogus theory in desperate search of facts to back it up...and whaddya know, there's an anomaly,
and it's us.
Let's make two swaps -
You swap Clinton Jones (Age 30) for Eli Templeton (had his 19th birthday last week).
You swap Lennnnny (Age 34) for Jack Billings (also turned 19 recently).
Suddenly there's 26 years taken off the team total age, and 1.18 years taken off the average and
suddenly we slide from 25.9 years to 24.72 years, and end up at 14th on his ladder,
just a few places away from where his bogus "age = success" theory says we should be.
There are a few steps in between.
To me it says:
1. In general only good players reach 100 games+
2. In general the top sides have more good players (100+ gamers)
3. So 'age' can be used a proxy for 'good players'. Just getting a bunch of hacks to 100 games wouldnt make you good. We have to assume clubs generally make good list mgt decisions (in both getting the right youngsters up to 100 and also in letting go guys at the right time after 250 games).
Clearly if you have a list of 50yo super rules players - you wont be at the top of the ladder!
The 'age' as a proxy for 'good player's implicitly assumes that good list management decisions are made . e.g Geelong would be very old if they hung on to Pods, Chappy and Hunt and didnt recruit Caddy etc etc.
- Saints43
- Club Player
- Posts: 1826
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 1:01pm
- Location: L2 A38
- Has thanked: 100 times
- Been thanked: 11 times
Re: The Age age ladder
I worry for the membership department. How will they appeal to the Saints fans who don't buy a membership every year regardless of onfield prospects?plugger66 wrote:...probably shows why will be bottom 2 for at least the next 2 years IMO.
Re: The Age age ladder
Senior list: Pierce and MarkworthMr Magic wrote:How many on our list haven't played a game this year?
Rookie list: Holmes and Baker-Thomas
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5412
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 10:29am
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 47 times
Re: The Age age ladder
Con Gorozidis wrote:Well I said we had an old side on the weekend and I was roundly abused as usual.
But agree the average is a bit misleading for us because as pretty much everyone knows we have:
9-10 blokes who are all old (and some of whom are simply past it)
Nothing in between in the core/middle agers where it really matters if you want to win games.
Quite a few kids starting out.
But we cant simply say we have a 'young side' and use that as an excuse every week - that would be over simplifying things and a tad self delusional. We have some serious core list mgt issues that wont be fixed just by an orderly transition and steady as she goes. We will need some harsh medicine.
The reality of that age ladder is that:
1.GWS and GC have huge upside (everyone knows this),
2. Brisbane are actually travelling quite well for a young side
3. the Pies are in a genuine re-build phase
4. All is not lost at Melbourne - they can still improve and be ok maybe (no priority pick needed)
5. The Tiges are actually going ok
6. Port are a real chance in 2015 for the flag
7. Ross Lyon is screwed if he doesn't win it this year.
8. Still some real list re-adjustment required at the Saints (time to say goodbye to the likes of Schneider and Gwilt and dont be surprised if another big name goes)
why would Lyon be screwed if they don't win this year? i would have thought, they have two years to go and then the club would be screwed.
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12792
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 802 times
- Been thanked: 428 times
Re: The Age age ladder
So we've played 43 players (maybe 44 if Pierce plays on Sunday)?bergholt wrote:Senior list: Pierce and MarkworthMr Magic wrote:How many on our list haven't played a game this year?
Rookie list: Holmes and Baker-Thomas
Is that a record for the most by any Club in a season?
Re: The Age age ladder
Mr Magic wrote:So we've played 43 players (maybe 44 if Pierce plays on Sunday)?bergholt wrote:Senior list: Pierce and MarkworthMr Magic wrote:How many on our list haven't played a game this year?
Rookie list: Holmes and Baker-Thomas
Is that a record for the most by any Club in a season?
I would no where near on numbers but percentage wise it would be very close.
Re: The Age age ladder
Only 46 on the list and we've played 42 of them.Mr Magic wrote:So we've played 43 players (maybe 44 if Pierce plays on Sunday)?bergholt wrote:Senior list: Pierce and MarkworthMr Magic wrote:How many on our list haven't played a game this year?
Rookie list: Holmes and Baker-Thomas
Is that a record for the most by any Club in a season?
Actually nowhere near a record. GWS used 46 each of the last two years as did GC the year before. But apart from the two new sides there's not much comparable the last 20 years. The only obvious one is Richmond in 2010 when they used 42 players. At a glance at least 15 of them are gone now: http://afltables.com/afl/stats/2010.html#14
Here's the breakdown:
46: GWS 13, GWS 12, GC 11, Sydney 90, Melbourne 86
45: North 88, Collingwood 87
44: GC 12, Carlton 89
43: GWS 14, Sydney 93, Fitzroy 87, Richmond 86, Carlton 85, North 84, St Kilda 83, St Kilda 82, Collingwood 82
42: St Kilda 14, GC 13, Richmond 10, Essendon 92, Brisbane 91, Brisbane 90, Carlton 90, Geelong 90, North 89, St Kilda 88, Collingwood 86, Geelong 85, Collingwood 83
So if we play Pierce this week we get to 43 and match our 82 and 83 sides. Sounds like pretty good company to be keeping...
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3856
- Joined: Fri 16 Sep 2011 2:41pm
- Has thanked: 419 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
Re: The Age age ladder
I agree; that is a much more useful measure.saint-stu wrote:Average age is a rough guide but hides too much information IMO.
I would rather see the age distribution for each club.
Always loyal
Re: The Age age ladder
Cherny is a die hard saints fan - drives around with St Kilda customised number plates, has a mini Saints museum of memorabilia at his house. He's a young up and coming journalist and probably just needs to fill his quota of articles each week, which will result in some poor articles. But there's no way he's out to get us, quite the opposite, probably trying to hide his bias.
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3856
- Joined: Fri 16 Sep 2011 2:41pm
- Has thanked: 419 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
Re: The Age age ladder
Thanks FQF for that info. Good to know there's someone that might have a personal interest in balancing out the "rabble" stories that consistently get trotted out against us.FQF wrote:Cherny is a die hard saints fan - drives around with St Kilda customised number plates, has a mini Saints museum of memorabilia at his house. He's a young up and coming journalist and probably just needs to fill his quota of articles each week, which will result in some poor articles. But there's no way he's out to get us, quite the opposite, probably trying to hide his bias.
But whatever his reasons, he's certainly not doing our membership department any favours highlighting meaningless stats like that!
Always loyal