Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
So excluding Harves we are about 4 months older than average.
Big Deal !
The issue for us is the quality of our cattle not their age.
We only just missed the finals last (ie this) year.
We can improve in so many areas next year.
- coaching - Ross has settled in and developed a purpose built gameplan
- support staff - seem to be getting industry best
- Rucks - we might actually have two top ruckman instead of fill-ins
- Players coming back from injury - BJ, Lenny still not back to top form, similarly for Kosi, hopefully Goose
- some mature recruiting - King, Schneider, Dempster, Gardiner
- new recruits to come through
- young players maturing eg #19
Plenty of upside.
Our average age is simply not an issue.
The rest of Australia can wander mask-free, socialise, eat out, no curfews, no zoning, no police rings of steel, no illogical inconsistent rules.
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
it would be bad for us, at this stage of the "clock", to be below the average.. with or without Harvs, we would hope to have a group with the years (and games) to contest a flag. Those "youngest list" stats are only good if your side was in the bottom 4 and you are looking for youth to fix the future.
battye wrote:Means we are closer to the peak age of 27 than 14 other teams.
Exactly, youth usually means you're further away, we are still at a very good age IMO...
ROBERT HARVEY A.K.A The Great Man, Banger, Harves, Ol' Man River...
384 games, 4 B&F's, 3 EJ Whitten Medals, St.Kilda Captain, 2 Time Brownlow Medalist, 8 Time All Australian, 2nd Highest Brownlow votes poller.... The greatest of ALL TIME!!
Why did they include rookie list players in their calculations? None of those guys can actually play until they're elevated, and one of the senior players has to be placed on the LTI list for that to happen. Considering there's an age limit for rookies it would make more sense not to include them because they're just dragging the ages down and almost none of them will ever play a game anyway.
We have three players over thirty in our best 22 and none under 20. Most of our best players are in their peak years of football. We've got a few younger kids who might push for a spot at some point this year, but unlike Carlton, Richmond and a bunch of other clubs we don't need our teenagers to do anything this year except progress. As good as our over thirtys are, we'd hardly be doomed if any of them went down for an extended period of time. I don't think age is an issue for us at all.
vacuous space wrote:As good as our over thirtys are, we'd hardly be doomed if any of them went down for an extended period of time. I don't think age is an issue for us at all.
Terrific post vacuous space. Spot on ...
They should only play AFL games now when it's raining. Slow games of footy are so much better to watch.
vacuous space wrote:Why did they include rookie list players in their calculations? None of those guys can actually play until they're elevated, and one of the senior players has to be placed on the LTI list for that to happen. Considering there's an age limit for rookies it would make more sense not to include them because they're just dragging the ages down and almost none of them will ever play a game anyway.
We have three players over thirty in our best 22 and none under 20. Most of our best players are in their peak years of football. We've got a few younger kids who might push for a spot at some point this year, but unlike Carlton, Richmond and a bunch of other clubs we don't need our teenagers to do anything this year except progress. As good as our over thirtys are, we'd hardly be doomed if any of them went down for an extended period of time. I don't think age is an issue for us at all.
Great post. A more meaningfu statistic would be the average age of a team's best 22, since these players have already established themselves into their respective sides, and is a more definitive measure of a team's prospects in the immediate future. With kids, its generally hit and miss, with some inevitably not going to have any sort of impact in the afl. It might seem good on the surface to have a young side, but it all amounts to nothing if many of these young players fail to develop or fall below expectations.
Trust the Midas Touch
"My heart is at St.Kilda, I've been here seven years, I only wanted to play for them." (Fraser Gehrig, 27/11/2007)
Take Gehrig and Harvey out of the equation and replace them with 18 year olds and the average age would drop down to where Collingwood sits on the list.
The age issue is not a problem in my book. We compare well with Geelong in terms of age. However the BIG problem is that we do not compare with them in performance. Despite the gloss we may put on it we came 9th ie we are in the bottom half of the ladder. We not only have to ipmprove a great deal BUT we have to improve more than the eight teams above us.
I HOPE for a good year but I am not expecting it.
Geelong is ahead of us by miles with their list at the same age. (Chapman's comments are haunting me)!!!!
cwrcyn wrote:Take Gehrig and Harvey out of the equation and replace them with 18 year olds and the average age would drop down to where Collingwood sits on the list.
Take Harvey GTrain and Hudgton out of the side and huge problems.
so much for freo's youth pollicy !!! seriously age is just a number theres not real relavance to anything having 0 passengers and 100% contributors is all we have to concern ourself with
"The team that wins in the most positions and makes the least amount of mistakes, usually wins the game." -- Allan Jeans