St Kilda The 2nd Oldest In AFL - The AGE

SaintBot · Post: # 505362Post **SaintBot** » Sun 23 Dec 2007 12:13pm

Obviously the average is raised by Sir Robert but still an interesting piece of statistics.

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/w ... 14021.html

Solar · Post: # 505365Post **Solar** » Sun 23 Dec 2007 12:32pm

what I found interesting as that in games played our list stacked up nicely against geelongs and west coasts.

Batnoe · Post: # 505370Post **Batnoe** » Sun 23 Dec 2007 12:49pm

So if u took out Harvey and added a 22 year old instead what would our average be?

plugger66 · Post: # 505376Post **plugger66** » Sun 23 Dec 2007 12:59pm

Batnoe wrote:So if u took out Harvey and added a 22 year old instead what would our average be?

Not much difference. Maybe another 120 days younger.

BallBanger · Post: # 505381Post **BallBanger** » Sun 23 Dec 2007 1:31pm

Batnoe wrote:So if u took out Harvey and added a 22 year old instead what would our average be?

If you replaced Harvey with a 17yr old the average would go done to approx 23yr 200 days

Enrico_Misso · Sun 23 Dec 2007 1:44pm

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.

battye · Post: # 505392Post **battye** » Sun 23 Dec 2007 3:34pm

Means we are closer to the peak age of 27 than 14 other teams.

4theluvoftheclub · Sun 23 Dec 2007 4:43pm

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.

Armoooo · Post: # 505411Post **Armoooo** » Sun 23 Dec 2007 5:42pm

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...

Eastern · Post: # 505412Post **Eastern** » Sun 23 Dec 2007 5:43pm

Our supporter base is THE OLDEST in the AFL thanks to Rogerwa

!!

|Andy| · Post: # 505428Post **|Andy|** » Sun 23 Dec 2007 8:12pm

Enrico_Misso wrote: We only just missed the finals last (ie this) year.

That's not a good thing.. i expected us to make the finals...not JUST miss out on it...coming 9th is like one of the worst positions to be.

Eastern wrote:Our supporter base is THE OLDEST in the AFL thanks to Rogerwa !!

lol...how old is he??

saintbrat · Post: # 505429Post **saintbrat** » Sun 23 Dec 2007 8:15pm

just younger than methusalah

merry christmas Rog and WA sainters

Eastern · Post: # 505436Post **Eastern** » Sun 23 Dec 2007 8:42pm

saintbrat wrote:just younger than methusalah

merry christmas Rog and WA sainters

Brat, Brat, Brat !!

You've got it wrong again

methusalah is Roger's younger brother

!!

Eastern · Post: # 505437Post **Eastern** » Sun 23 Dec 2007 8:43pm

|Andy| wrote:
Enrico_Misso wrote: We only just missed the finals last (ie this) year.
That's not a good thing.. i expected us to make the finals...not JUST miss out on it...coming 9th is like one of the worst positions to be.

Eastern wrote:Our supporter base is THE OLDEST in the AFL thanks to Rogerwa !!
lol...how old is he??

Roger was a member of the cheersquad for our 1st game ....EVER

!!

vacuous space · Sun 23 Dec 2007 8:56pm

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.

jill · Post: # 505454Post **jill** » Sun 23 Dec 2007 10:22pm

Rogerwa how old are you?

Oh When the Saints · Sun 23 Dec 2007 10:47pm

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 ...

midas_touch · Mon 24 Dec 2007 12:00am

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.

noreason41 · Post: # 505487Post **noreason41** » Mon 24 Dec 2007 3:15am

I think the biggest and most important thing their, is that from the age groups 28 players are between 20 and 25.

cwrcyn · Post: # 505492Post **cwrcyn** » Mon 24 Dec 2007 7:51am

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.

StSteven · Post: # 505514Post **StSteven** » Mon 24 Dec 2007 10:00am

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)!!!!

Dan Warna · Post: # 505516Post **Dan Warna** » Mon 24 Dec 2007 10:20am

i thought we were the fifth oldest, but as one of the original VFL/AFL teams, we have a long and fun history

st_Trav_ofWA · Mon 24 Dec 2007 10:28am

Eastern wrote:
|Andy| wrote:
Enrico_Misso wrote: We only just missed the finals last (ie this) year.
That's not a good thing.. i expected us to make the finals...not JUST miss out on it...coming 9th is like one of the worst positions to be.

Eastern wrote:Our supporter base is THE OLDEST in the AFL thanks to Rogerwa !!
lol...how old is he??
Roger was a member of the cheersquad for our 1st game ....EVER !!

he was still tryin so scronge a free beer back then too

St Igmata · Post: # 505528Post **St Igmata** » Mon 24 Dec 2007 11:00am

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.

st_Trav_ofWA · Mon 24 Dec 2007 11:46am

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