View Full Version : Can someone explain why Hawks are constantly referred to as a YOUNG team ?
Pessimistic
4 Sep 2007, 11:52
especially compared to collingwood - they have had far more debutants in the last 2 seasons.
I feel Mythbusters should come in on this one.
If someone had time could they post the ages of each of the starting 22 ?
I'd say there is at least TEN players who should be in the 'prime years' 24-29
Perhaps our shortcomings are because our older players are not of the standard suggested by the amount of time they have survived on an AFL list
We have the youngest list in the competition.
Officially...
kirbatron
4 Sep 2007, 12:01
he means the starting 22 that take the field...
im pretty sure we aren't the youngest if you take age of players in our best 22... still fairly low tho im sure
Pessimistic
4 Sep 2007, 12:19
Its just excuses.
Magpies starting 22 which beat Sydney (twice) would be as young if not younger than ours.
On a different slant how 'young' was the 2001 hawks which made PF under that 'crap' coach peter schwabb ?
Time for excuses is over
Pessimistic
4 Sep 2007, 12:24
especially compared to collingwood - they have had far more debutants in the last 2 seasons.
I feel Mythbusters should come in on this one.
If someone had time could they post the ages of each of the starting 22 ?
I'd say there is at least TEN players who should be in the 'prime years' 24-29
Perhaps our shortcomings are because our older players are not of the standard suggested by the amount of time they have survived on an AFL list
Finals experience:
Crawford Smith Croad Guerra Dixon Vandenburg
In the prime age:
Brown Mitchell Taylor Ladson Bateman Campbell
50 gamers
Roughead Franklin Lewis Hodge
that leaves FIVE, FIVE ! who can be described as 'raw'
Excuses Excuses !
**** I have downgraded Hodge and Sewell - still have 12 players who cannot be described as 'young' in any way !
Jonathan
4 Sep 2007, 12:40
Yeah but nobody called us a 'raw' team, they called us a young team.
In my opinion 23 year olds are young footballers, those 50 gamers are definitely young footballers.
Pessimistic
4 Sep 2007, 12:56
Yeah but nobody called us a 'raw' team, they called us a young team.
In my opinion 23 year olds are young footballers, those 50 gamers are definitely young footballers.
OK that makes 8 from 22 if you include ruffy, buddy and lewy
but such as port, collingwood, brisbane are even 'younger'
How old is brownlow favourite Gary Ablett ?
especially compared to collingwood - they have had far more debutants in the last 2 seasons.
I feel Mythbusters should come in on this one.
If someone had time could they post the ages of each of the starting 22 ?
I'd say there is at least TEN players who should be in the 'prime years' 24-29
Perhaps our shortcomings are because our older players are not of the standard suggested by the amount of time they have survived on an AFL list
average age of 22yrs 9mths
Coathanger
4 Sep 2007, 13:11
Taylor in his prime.LOL
Take this thread with a grain of salt..
Pessimistic
4 Sep 2007, 13:17
Taylor in his prime.LOL
Take this thread with a grain of salt..
hes 25 I think (as is Bob Campbell)by all means say we are 'crap' but don't say we are 'young' when we arent
Pessimistic
4 Sep 2007, 13:18
average age of 22yrs 9mths
starting 22 or list ?
No the real Urban Myth is the Doggies being described as a young team.
They actually have one of the oldest lists going about with 6-7 players on the wrong side of 30.
starting 22 or list ?
List.
Your starting 22 on the weekend had an average age of approx. 24 years 8 months.
Collingwood's was approx 25 years 2 months.
Pessimistic
4 Sep 2007, 13:42
List.
Your starting 22 on the weekend had an average age of approx. 24 years 8 months.
Thanks - which suggests about half the squad over 25..
Took a stab at the youngest finals team being Port.
They're 24 years, 5 months.
Cant see any being lower than that so not far off being the youngest finals team.
flukeyluke
4 Sep 2007, 14:22
List.
Your starting 22 on the weekend had an average age of approx. 24 years 8 months.
Collingwood's was approx 25 years 2 months.
So SFA difference really.
shawthing09
4 Sep 2007, 16:49
So SFA difference really.
With the constant turn over and addition of players to teams list the average list age does not differ too dramatically from team to team, the more important stats would be who are the players playing the most important roles for you guys?? of those players most are still fairly young, the other factor is that you have players developing in VFL that are very young and expected to play a major role going foward hence being reffered to as a young team. Stats like list age are fairly decieving and should not be looked into as a basis of making excuses for or criticising a team
Based on Round 22 average age in years/months and afl games per club in ()s are:
Blues - 22/2 (40.9)
Tigers - 24/0 (70.3)
Lions - 24/7 (80.1)
Power - 24/8 (76.5)
Dockers - 24/9 (76.9)
Hawks - 24/9 (80.1)
Cats - 24/10 (83.7)
Eagles - 24/11 (91.2)
Pies - 25/2 (89.8)
Demons - 25/6 (88.8)
Saints - 25/6 (89.9)
Roos - 25/7 (100.5)
Bombers - 25/7 (104)
Bulldogs - 26/1 (111.3)
Crows - 26/4 (102.9)
Swans - 26/5 (121)
NOTE: Some of the above are obviously misrepresentations. The Blues and Tiger are clearly playing the kids and the Dockers replaced quite a few senior players for disciplinary reasons.
Pessimistic
4 Sep 2007, 17:05
Thanks apiro - interestingly enough the hawks are close to geelong and the eagles - which I wouldn't have thought. Obviously a quality issue there.
You should post on the main board it would surprise a few people
philhawk
4 Sep 2007, 17:09
Thanks apiro - interestingly enough the hawks are close to geelong and the eagles - which I wouldn't have thought. Obviously a quality issue there.
You should post on the main board it would surprise a few people
Remember, Pess - Jacobs, Vanders, Smith and Dixon will all hang the boots up in the next few seasons.
That'll see our averages games/age drop even further.
especially compared to collingwood - they have had far more debutants in the last 2 seasons.
I feel Mythbusters should come in on this one.
If someone had time could they post the ages of each of the starting 22 ?
I'd say there is at least TEN players who should be in the 'prime years' 24-29
Perhaps our shortcomings are because our older players are not of the standard suggested by the amount of time they have survived on an AFL list
is your question about how old players are or
how many debutants they have introduced
Round 11 Hawthorn vs Sydney
Hawthorn - 24yr 1mth
Sydney - 26yr 5mth
Round 22 Hawthorn vs Sydney
Hawthorn - 24yr 9mth
Sydney - 26yr 5mth
Round 12 Collingwood vs Sydney
Collingwood - 24yr 8mth
Sydney - 26yr 1mth
Round 21 Collingwood vs Sydney
Collingwood - 25yr 3mth
Sydney - 26yr 5mth
hyperswivel
4 Sep 2007, 17:38
we're young not only in age, but as a playing group.
They haven't had a lot of time together, nor have they had big match experience ie. finals experience.
Young in physical and mental age. This week may mature us somewhat.
croady_fan24
4 Sep 2007, 17:53
Young list of players.
Hawkie_McHawkHawk
4 Sep 2007, 20:19
we're young not only in age, but as a playing group.
They haven't had a lot of time together, nor have they had big match experience ie. finals experience.
Young in physical and mental age. This week may mature us somewhat.
Exactly. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that alot of our key players such as Buddy, Ruffy, Boyle, Lewis, Birch, Mcglynn, Gilham, Sewell haven't had an awful lot of match experience, and alot of those players are very much relied on.
Most of all I think we tend to rely on the young players much more than other clubs do, such as Port, with the Cornes and Burgoynes', thats 4 senior players already that are better than ours. Mitchell and Hodge are really only just starting to hit their peak, so I think the 'young' tag is very justified.
Its just excuses.
Magpies starting 22 which beat Sydney (twice) would be as young if not younger than ours.
On a different slant how 'young' was the 2001 hawks which made PF under that 'crap' coach peter schwabb ?
Time for excuses is over
collingwood have 7 players or more with over 150 games , we are the youngest team by means of games played 15 of our players have only played 50 or less games apart from calton while they were tanking we are officialy the youngest team and we are the youngest team playing finals since the baby bombers of 93 !!!!!!!!!
GO BABY HAWKS !!http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif
Pessimistic
4 Sep 2007, 20:55
Exactly. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that alot of our key players such as Buddy, Ruffy, Boyle, Lewis, Birch, Mcglynn, Gilham, Sewell haven't had an awful lot of match experience, and alot of those players are very much relied on.
Most of all I think we tend to rely on the young players much more than other clubs do, such as Port, with the Cornes and Burgoynes', thats 4 senior players already that are better than ours. Mitchell and Hodge are really only just starting to hit their peak, so I think the 'young' tag is very justified.
So the reason we are losing is our older players arent up to it, rather than us being a younger team.
We will continue to be on the younger side, so we should quit using it as an excuse
play2win
4 Sep 2007, 20:57
it is more of a premonition......clinton for captain:p
HawkXNtric
4 Sep 2007, 21:36
Yep - youngest average age of playing list at start of 2007 season, based on all players on list (including rookies). Doesn't necessarily mean that the 22 taking the field are younger than the opposition on all occasions, but often they would be. Also least average number of games played.
Youngest Av Age = Hawks, followed by Carlton, Port, Brisbane.
Oldest Av Age = Adelaide, followed by Freo, St Kilda, Melb, Bulldogs.
Whichever way you cut it we had the youngest and least experienced LIST at the start of the year, hence that's why we are constantly referred to as a young TEAM.
No excuses next year though!