Playing the oldies: squeezing out all the juice?

[dragit]

Next year I expect us to go like Port really banking on youth. This year we should be able to ween ourselves off the security blankets

We are already playing a much younger side than Port has in years,

Last week they were 15 months older on average and had 5 more players with over 100 games experience than us…

This week we had 14 players with under 50 games to Port's 4.

I'll ask again, how many more than 14 with under 50 games experience do we want in the one side?

[bigcarl]

We are already playing a much younger side than Port has in years,

Last week they were 15 months older on average and had 5 more players with over 100 games experience than us…

This week we had 14 players with under 50 games to Port's 4.

I'll ask again, how many more than 14 with under 50 games experience do we want in the one side?

Correct, you can have too much of a good thing. Pick your best side to win. Selection has to work like that because it certainly will once we are pressing for finals

[gringo]

The Minch has had 13 tackles and two goals which much be close to a record and Acres was BOG two weeks in a row.

http://www.saints.com.au/news/2015-05-1 ... ew-round-5

The problem is that the match committee will be accused of tanking if we are competitive then drop all our seniors to play kids. The high output of the kids is reliant on some heavy lifting by older players around them at the moment. I think like when Curren and Minchington come in the 30 possessions and 3 goals won't quite be the same at AFL level. Especially with only other kids along side them. I imagine it is possible that guys like Acres could hit the ground running in all likelihood someone like Ray will have a much higher output and be consistent over multiple weeks. I think Mc Kenzie is probably holding up the spot that he will vacate to give Acres a run. ATM he's been very solid so isn't giving it up.

We are playing forward lines with hardly any players with even a full senior season under their belt when Roo or Schnieder are out. The midfield has Jack and Armo and the backs have Dempster and Fisher. Savage, Delaney, Roberton and Newnes are just over the 50 games mark and hardly what you would call seniors and they are our next tier of experience. Joey and Ray the only other seniors that can get on the park with Gilbo out. We are an extremely inexperienced side we have plenty of open spots for guys who are wanting to play. The catch is that we have lots of similar types. Lee probably doesn't get a go unless Fisher goes down. Acres needs Mc Kenzie or Webster out etc. I think people over estimate how good our kids are when one out. Billings is probably the only kid who I don't think we have a senior who could take his spot on their skill and output in a similar position. That's not to say they won't be stars just right now we are staying competitive in games and we all of a sudden want to tinker with what is making watching the footy enjoyable for a change.

[Bluthy]

Next year I expect us to go like Port really banking on youth. This year we should be able to ween ourselves off the security blankets

We are already playing a much younger side than Port has in years,

Last week they were 15 months older on average and had 5 more players with over 100 games experience than us…

This week we had 14 players with under 50 games to Port's 4.

I'll ask again, how many more than 14 with under 50 games experience do we want in the one side?

Well I would hope we are a significantly younger team than Port seeing as we finished dead last and are in a full rebuild and Port missed last years grand final by a kick. Collingwood, GWS, GC, Melbourne, Brisbane all have very young teams as well building up their next dynasty for flag tilt when our window may open. We don't operate in a vacuum. The question of are we being brave enough getting experience into young players is a valid one. I don't know why you Dragit and a couple of others get so worked up about legitimate questions. They will be having these same debates within the "four walls of the footy club". Its healthy. Viva la difference!

How many more younger players?...mmmm....maybe just one more...who's place could he take?...mmmm...maybe if we had a slow old guy with poor defensive efforts who misses crucial goals from 15 meters out or less. Do we have anyone like that?

[Teflon]

I look at Ray and ask similar questions - good player, too good for VFL but not going to take us further at AFL level and IMHO IF a younger player is performing even marginally less than Ray he ought to take precedence

Agreed, I think Ray is the main one to look at from that point of view. He's a good clubman and probably provides OK leadership for the kids. But as a player he's just passable, doesn't have any real strengths apart from his overhead marking, and plays a wing/flank role that a huge list of kids could play almost as well with very little effect on our chances of winning.

I'd say he's competing with: Acres, Curren, Lonie, Markworth, McKenzie, Murdoch, Newnes, Roberton, Saunders, Savage, Shenton, Templeton, Webster, Wright. Most/all of those guys should play before him any given week. The only reason I'd play him is if a few of the older guys are out, then it makes sense to have a bit more experience in the side.

All else being equal he should play about 10 games a year.

Spot on Berg

Those lamenting 'we are pensioning off all our older players' are hysterical simpletons who cant read.

Its about balance - not just in age but in positions as well. We have many Schneider/Ray types competing. We dont have that many Fishers. .....see the difference?

Can we afford to play an Acres and not play a Ray? and do you think that would mean we would suddenly lack experience and lose games if Acres plays?? me thinks not

Ofcourse if we lose Roo, Joey, Fisher to glandular fever the same week we need experience and Ray plays. That simple

We have to be strategic and in that we must achieve 2 things:

1. Identify, by giving genuine opportunity, who can play at AFL level and who cant
2. Fast track games/development into the 'certain to make its' ASAP as that will be a key determining factor in how fast we rise.

[Con Gorozidis]

Everyone talks about the magical 50 game mark - but its hard for Acres or Minch to get there if they are playing at Sandy every week.

[dragit]

How many more younger players?...mmmm....maybe just one more...who's place could he take?...mmmm...maybe if we had a slow old guy with poor defensive efforts who misses crucial goals from 15 meters out or less. Do we have anyone like that?

It's good to get to the crux of it, just another thinly veiled thread designed to bag Schneider really…

Let's be honest, It wouldn't matter if we had 10 or 15 young guys with under 50 games experience… you just don't like Schneider and that's what the thread is about.

Saying that you hope next year we go as young as Port, when the fact is they have never gone as young as we are right now. Moaning about how conservative we are in selection each week, it just shows that you have an agenda and seem to be completely unable to digest the facts - 14 players with under 50 games is a huge a number of youth in one side surely?

When did Port go all out youth and play more than 14? The only sides that have come close in recent years are the 2 sides starting from scratch.

[Con Gorozidis]

The Minch has had 13 tackles and two goals which much be close to a record and Acres was BOG two weeks in a row.

http://www.saints.com.au/news/2015-05-1 ... ew-round-5

The problem is that the match committee will be accused of tanking if we are competitive then drop all our seniors to play kids. The high output of the kids is reliant on some heavy lifting by older players around them at the moment. I think like when Curren and Minchington come in the 30 possessions and 3 goals won't quite be the same at AFL level. Especially with only other kids along side them. I imagine it is possible that guys like Acres could hit the ground running in all likelihood someone like Ray will have a much higher output and be consistent over multiple weeks. I think Mc Kenzie is probably holding up the spot that he will vacate to give Acres a run. ATM he's been very solid so isn't giving it up.

We are playing forward lines with hardly any players with even a full senior season under their belt when Roo or Schnieder are out. The midfield has Jack and Armo and the backs have Dempster and Fisher. Savage, Delaney, Roberton and Newnes are just over the 50 games mark and hardly what you would call seniors and they are our next tier of experience. Joey and Ray the only other seniors that can get on the park with Gilbo out. We are an extremely inexperienced side we have plenty of open spots for guys who are wanting to play. The catch is that we have lots of similar types. Lee probably doesn't get a go unless Fisher goes down. Acres needs Mc Kenzie or Webster out etc. I think people over estimate how good our kids are when one out. Billings is probably the only kid who I don't think we have a senior who could take his spot on their skill and output in a similar position. That's not to say they won't be stars just right now we are staying competitive in games and we all of a sudden want to tinker with what is making watching the footy enjoyable for a change.

I think we are still one of the highest in the AFL for the number of over 30s on our list (5) after Geelong (9). The Swans also have (5) but are still winning games and not rebuilding. The Doggies have (5). The Pies only have (1). So I think it is a real stretch to suggest we have an experience problem.

[Bluthy]

How many more younger players?...mmmm....maybe just one more...who's place could he take?...mmmm...maybe if we had a slow old guy with poor defensive efforts who misses crucial goals from 15 meters out or less. Do we have anyone like that?

It's good to get to the crux of it, just another thinly veiled thread designed to bag Schneider really…

Let's be honest, It wouldn't matter if we had 10 or 15 young guys with under 50 games experience… you just don't like Schneider and that's what the thread is about.

Saying that you hope next year we go as young as Port, when the fact is they have never gone as young as we are right now. Moaning about how conservative we are in selection each week, it just shows that you have an agenda and seem to be completely unable to digest the facts - 14 players with under 50 games is a huge a number of youth in one side surely?

When did Port go all out youth and play more than 14? The only sides that have come close in recent years are the 2 sides starting from scratch.

Yeah every week I moan about selection

Eh..you know you provoked me and out of laziness I just gave you what you wanted, a chance to get up on your faux moral high horse and you gave me what I wanted, a chance to tongue-in-cheek bag Schneider so its win-win. You and gringo can now do your humorous "Oh yes lets burn Schneider at the stake, won't you think of the kids" straw man tango routine that obviously amuses yourselves so much. I did not start this thread to bag Schneider. You've gone out of your way to make this thread about SChneider just so you can whinge I made this about Schneider. Its Schneiderception. I even make the case for him. Its a line ball thing I admit. The fact you are ridiculously defensive about raising any of his flaws shows its you that has the agenda . I admit he has advantages and skills. But also downsides as all players do. Get some perspective.

Oh and I like the way you've picked up Pluggers trick of giving people tedious homework assignments to do to wear people down in arguments. Very original.

[dragit]

I think we are still one of the highest in the AFL for the number of over 30s on our list (5) after Geelong (9). The Swans also have (5) but are still winning games and not rebuilding. The Doggies have (5). The Pies only have (1). So I think it is a real stretch to suggest we have an experience problem.

I think the main reason for this is the fact that we are completely missing a core of 23-28 year olds with 100+ games experience...

After a series of drafting disasters we just don't have enough quality players with experience to play alongside our young guys.

I reckon if we had a decent handful of good players in that age bracket then most of our over 30's would have retired.

You can't have 22 guys running around with under 50 games experience, it would be completely shambolic.

We are rebuilding and do need to play the kids, I think we're doing a pretty good job of it so far. 10 - 12 kids each week is a fair amount at one time IMO.

If Schneider is still playing when Ray, Gilbert, Riewoldt, Montagna, Fisher & Dempster I will be concerned too.

[Con Gorozidis]

How many more younger players?...mmmm....maybe just one more...who's place could he take?...mmmm...maybe if we had a slow old guy with poor defensive efforts who misses crucial goals from 15 meters out or less. Do we have anyone like that?

It's good to get to the crux of it, just another thinly veiled thread designed to bag Schneider really…

Let's be honest, It wouldn't matter if we had 10 or 15 young guys with under 50 games experience… you just don't like Schneider and that's what the thread is about.

Saying that you hope next year we go as young as Port, when the fact is they have never gone as young as we are right now. Moaning about how conservative we are in selection each week, it just shows that you have an agenda and seem to be completely unable to digest the facts - 14 players with under 50 games is a huge a number of youth in one side surely?

When did Port go all out youth and play more than 14? The only sides that have come close in recent years are the 2 sides starting from scratch.

In 2013 the Port B & F top 10 was

Wingard (19)
Boak (24)
Cornes (30)
Ebert (23)
Westhoff (26)
Monfries (26)
Schulz (28)
O'Shea (21)
Hartlett (22)
Lobbe (24)

So 6 of the top 10 were under 25. Only 2 were over 26. I think we can all agree they had a young side.

[dragit]

You've gone out of your way to make this thread about SChneider just so you can whinge I made this about Schneider.

That's actually completely untrue, I just asked you how many more than 14 young players you thought we should have in the side at one time and all you could come up with was - get rid of Schneider, such a well thought out thread bluthy… congrats.

Oh and I like the way you've picked up Pluggers trick of giving people tedious homework assignments to do to wear people down in arguments. Very original.

Are you talking about actually asking people to back-up their absurd claims with pesky facts?

Sorry if you don't do reality.

[dragit]

In 2013 the Port B & F top 10 was

Wingard (19)
Boak (24)
Cornes (30)
Ebert (23)
Westhoff (26)
Monfries (26)
Schulz (28)
O'Shea (21)
Hartlett (22)
Lobbe (24)

So 6 of the top 10 were under 25. Only 2 were over 26. I think we can all agree they had a young side.

Each week of 2013, Port played 4 or 5 guys with under 50 games experience.

Last week we played 14.

I think we can all agree that we are flooded with kids. Hopefully in a couple of years they will fill our B&F top 10 too.

[evertonfc]

I like the balance we've currently got, actually. It's creating a genuinely competitive balance. Games aren't being handed out - you have to earn them. That's healthy.

That said, towards the second half of the year, all those aforementioned players in need of games should get their turn - and I'm talking 6-7 games, not just 1-2.

We simply need to discover more players. That means exposing more players to the elite level and making a call on them at the end of the season.

[Con Gorozidis]

In 2013 the Port B & F top 10 was

Wingard (19)
Boak (24)
Cornes (30)
Ebert (23)
Westhoff (26)
Monfries (26)
Schulz (28)
O'Shea (21)
Hartlett (22)
Lobbe (24)

So 6 of the top 10 were under 25. Only 2 were over 26. I think we can all agree they had a young side.

Each week of 2013, Port played 4 or 5 guys with under 50 games experience.

Last week we played 14.

I think we can all agree that we are flooded with kids. Hopefully in a couple of years they will fill our B&F top 10 too.

'4 or 5'?

Now I am certainly not going to be bothered looking at Ports side every week in 2013.
But here is one I found - Rd 2 - 2013.
http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/news/2 ... n-round-2-

They had 15 players with under 50 games in that side.

I mean did you really think you were going to get away with that? If you are going to make up numbers at least make them semi-believable. If you had said '10 or 11' then I would have taken your word for it and not bothered looking it up. But when you said '4 or 5' well I smelt BS.

[saintspremiers]

What is more relevant than this debate is who to upgrade after round 11 rookie-wise.

It's out of Sinclair and Schneider - I think we can rule out Saad, Holmes and the other rookie.

If Schneider's form still stays really good, it will be a very hard decision.

Perhaps you'd consider Sinclair on the basis he's now out and will have played 4 less games than Schnieder (assuming no injuries). Isn't it amazing Schneids hasn't been injured this season???

[bergholt]

In 2013 the Port B & F top 10 was

Wingard (19)
Boak (24)
Cornes (30)
Ebert (23)
Westhoff (26)
Monfries (26)
Schulz (28)
O'Shea (21)
Hartlett (22)
Lobbe (24)

So 6 of the top 10 were under 25. Only 2 were over 26. I think we can all agree they had a young side.

Interesting discussion. I think most of those guys are footy middle aged - 23, 24, 26, 28. But games experience is probably a more valid metric. Here's where they were at the start of that season:

Wingard 19
Boak 108
Cornes 245
Ebert 98
Westhoff 111
Monfries 150
Schulz 118
O'Shea 22
Hartlett 46
Lobbe 22

Three sub 46 games is probably more than usual, but most of them are still around or above the 100 game mark. Few of our guys are close to that - two week are will probably finish top five in the B&F (Armo and Steven).

[bergholt]

For comparison, ours last year was:

Riewoldt: 31, 259 games
Hayes: 34, 277 games
Dempster: 30, 160 games
Montagna: 30, 212 games
Delaney: 24, 26 games
Newnes: 21, 25 games
Armitage: 25, 92 games
Steven: 24, 73 games
Weller: 22, 32 games
Gwilt: 27, 109 games

Also three below 50 games, in fact three below 32. But also three above 200 and all of the top four above 160. Let's hope this year is a prettier picture, currently it would be something like:

Armitage: 26, 107 games
Bruce: 22, 24 games
Steven: 25, 90 games
Fisher: 32, 198 games
Dempster: 31, 182 games
Schneider: 30, 213 games
Billings: 19, 16 games
Weller: 23, 48 games
Riewoldt: 32, 281 games
Geary: 26, 100 games

Still not a huge number of the next generation.

[plugger66]

Its obvious why we kept so many older guys. Firstly they are close to our best players still and we needed a better year than last year or the club could really have exploded and secondly its our age group. Im unsure we can compare ourselves to Port as they had much better picks for a couple of years. lets compare in 2 years time. We may have no one over 30 by then and be in a similar position games wise.

[dragit]

In 2013 the Port B & F top 10 was

Wingard (19)
Boak (24)
Cornes (30)
Ebert (23)
Westhoff (26)
Monfries (26)
Schulz (28)
O'Shea (21)
Hartlett (22)
Lobbe (24)

So 6 of the top 10 were under 25. Only 2 were over 26. I think we can all agree they had a young side.

Each week of 2013, Port played 4 or 5 guys with under 50 games experience.

Last week we played 14.

I think we can all agree that we are flooded with kids. Hopefully in a couple of years they will fill our B&F top 10 too.

'4 or 5'?

Now I am certainly not going to be bothered looking at Ports side every week in 2013.
But here is one I found - Rd 2 - 2013.
http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/news/2 ... n-round-2-

They had 15 players with under 50 games in that side.

I mean did you really think you were going to get away with that? If you are going to make up numbers at least make them semi-believable. If you had said '10 or 11' then I would have taken your word for it and not bothered looking it up. But when you said '4 or 5' well I smelt BS.

Haha, I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you meddling kids...

My apologies, I wasn't trying to dupe you, I was looking at this

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_m ... s?mid=5563

Which is maybe counting the players games now? Not sure, but clearly wrong.

Even at 15, the point remains the same - we are already basically playing the same number of kids, which is a hell of a lot.

Are you actually arguing we play more kids or that we have enough?

You just posted that you would like us to lose one veteran this week, but add three:

What I would like to see:

Out: Rooey (head), Lonie (head/rest), Dunstan (rest), D-Mac (rest), Sinclair (Rookie listed).
In: Joey, Geary, Acres, Minch, Ray.

Shenton as the sub.

[gringo]

I think our list has an unusual profile in the fact that we don't have many mid career guys. We are young and old only. While Geelong were adding decent players in that period we have only produced a couple. If we had some Christensens, Mitch Duncans, Motlops etc we would look a lot better now. Cahill, Lynch, Cripps etc all ended up going or not making it and even Stanley was traded out. We are not like Port or any others because of that. We need the grandpas in because we don't have a mid career core to help the youth out.

[dragit]

I think our list has an unusual profile in the fact that we don't have many mid career guys. We are young and old only. While Geelong were adding decent players in that period we have only produced a couple. If we had some Christensens, Mitch Duncans, Motlops etc we would look a lot better now. Cahill, Lynch, Cripps etc all ended up going or not making it and even Stanley was traded out. We are not like Port or any others because of that. We need the grandpas in because we don't have a mid career core to help the youth out.

You really have no idea, it's about Richo's security blanket & squeezing out the last fermented juice before tossing away the worn out peel.

[saintspremiers]

I think our list has an unusual profile in the fact that we don't have many mid career guys. We are young and old only. While Geelong were adding decent players in that period we have only produced a couple. If we had some Christensens, Mitch Duncans, Motlops etc we would look a lot better now. Cahill, Lynch, Cripps etc all ended up going or not making it and even Stanley was traded out. We are not like Port or any others because of that. We need the grandpas in because we don't have a mid career core to help the youth out.

You really have no idea, it's about Richo's security blanket & squeezing out the last fermented juice before tossing away the worn out peel.

Exactly

[desertsaint]

You play the best team - it may cause head scratching amongst some because some individuals may seem better in a direct comparison, or in better form - but it's about how the team works as a team. You don't play a player based on age or potential ability. Those that miss out will have the motivation and ability to improve in whatever regard is required - those that don't have that motivation and ability won't make the grade. Build a sustained winning culture first, a development culture is part and parcel of that, not above that. Our more experienced players continue to be among our best players, and certainly part of our best team. As long as that remains the case they play.

[Con Gorozidis]

In 2013 the Port B & F top 10 was

Wingard (19)
Boak (24)
Cornes (30)
Ebert (23)
Westhoff (26)
Monfries (26)
Schulz (28)
O'Shea (21)
Hartlett (22)
Lobbe (24)

So 6 of the top 10 were under 25. Only 2 were over 26. I think we can all agree they had a young side.

Each week of 2013, Port played 4 or 5 guys with under 50 games experience.

Last week we played 14.

I think we can all agree that we are flooded with kids. Hopefully in a couple of years they will fill our B&F top 10 too.

'4 or 5'?

Now I am certainly not going to be bothered looking at Ports side every week in 2013.
But here is one I found - Rd 2 - 2013.
http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/news/2 ... n-round-2-

They had 15 players with under 50 games in that side.

I mean did you really think you were going to get away with that? If you are going to make up numbers at least make them semi-believable. If you had said '10 or 11' then I would have taken your word for it and not bothered looking it up. But when you said '4 or 5' well I smelt BS.

Haha, I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you meddling kids...

My apologies, I wasn't trying to dupe you, I was looking at this

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_m ... s?mid=5563

Which is maybe counting the players games now? Not sure, but clearly wrong.

Even at 15, the point remains the same - we are already basically playing the same number of kids, which is a hell of a lot.

Are you actually arguing we play more kids or that we have enough?

You just posted that you would like us to lose one veteran this week, but add three:

What I would like to see:

Out: Rooey (head), Lonie (head/rest), Dunstan (rest), D-Mac (rest), Sinclair (Rookie listed).
In: Joey, Geary, Acres, Minch, Ray.

Shenton as the sub.

That chart must show how many games they have now.
Anyway all I am saying is play each individual on their individual merits on week to week basis.
Dont pick sides based on 'theories' or 'ideas' and high falutin notions of 'leadership' or this and that.
As you said this week Id bring in 3 more veterans (Ray, Joey, Geary) and only one out (Rooey) so I am not about 'playing the kids' for the sake of a theory either.
Just individual merit on a week to week basis.
For me as an individual Minch and Acres have earnt games by doing everything right in the twos.
If Minch is on his last year it will be very harsh if he doesnt get some opportunities before being de-listed.
All I am asking is the same opportunities Sinclair got (6 or 7 straight games) IF he goes well when hes in. I'm not sure anyone can argue that. Giving him one single game against the Hawks for instance would load the dice against him.