View Full Version : Youngest Team in the Comp
George Washington
4 Jul 2010, 19:32
Now, I am in no way defending the insipid football dished up by our team last night. But I had a quick flick through the teams that played this weekend, and ours has, on average, the least amount of games played (60) and average age.
Less than Richmond, less than North, less than WCE, Port, Melbourne etc.
Kids are immature and inconsistent, and will play that way.
Our kids will come good, we just need some patience imo.
theboxmike
4 Jul 2010, 19:35
Hmm interesting stat, this won't be brought up by the papers or footy shows though.
you do realise it came down because of Fletcher not playing?
George Washington
4 Jul 2010, 21:58
you do realise it came down because of Fletcher not playing?
Ah yes... What's your point?
Skeeta Olly
4 Jul 2010, 22:01
Essendon: Ave. Age: 23 yrs 62 days
Ave. Games: 60
Richmond: Ave. Age: 23 yrs 65 days
Ave. Games: 63
Melbourne: Ave. Age: 23 yrs 25 days
Ave. Games: 66
West Coast: Ave. Age: 23 yrs 80 days
Ave. Games: 62
SirJimi05
4 Jul 2010, 22:19
you do realise it came down because of Fletcher not playing?
What is your point. That we are a young team?
Ludwig van Bertstare
4 Jul 2010, 22:30
I don't care how old you are, there is no excuse to play like that.
"The game doesn't know how old you are." - Matthew Knights :footy:
BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!
4 Jul 2010, 23:02
"Yeah im cool with that" - Matthew Knights
lmaohelp
5 Jul 2010, 03:00
This stat shocked me a little. Being in the US this last 6 months I haven't been able to be as involved with the bombers as much as id like to, but i have been on the same roller coaster ride this year like all of you.
So, with this stat, are we expecting too much from our team ? But i guess you could argue that our board has told us that we will compete for top for next year or the year after, which i cannot see happening.
Or is it that we didn't have our best 22 out against the crows, with the likes of Fletcher missing, bringing the age down. Meaning that stat is pointless.
This stat shocked me a little. Being in the US this last 6 months I haven't been able to be as involved with the bombers as much as id like to, but i have been on the same roller coaster ride this year like all of you.
So, with this stat, are we expecting too much from our team ? But i guess you could argue that our board has told us that we will compete for top for next year or the year after, which i cannot see happening.
Or is it that we didn't have our best 22 out against the crows, with the likes of Fletcher missing, bringing the age down. Meaning that stat is pointless.
Would have made little difference to the age factor if Hille, Monfries, fletcher and pears played. Fletcher artificially inflates the age average anyway.
Would have made a difference to the games played average - would have added aboyt 620 games - take out the 4 replacements and you lose 50 games.
Probably would have added about 20 to 25 games.
Duckworth
5 Jul 2010, 04:04
Fletcher Total Games: 324
Gumby: 19
Hocking:37
Hooker:28
Hurley: 21
Jetta: 35
Lonergan: 47
Prismal: 48
Melksham 10
Reimers: 32
Zaka: 24
T Slattery: 1
Bellchambers: 12
These players Total games: 314
Long Live Fletch!
table tennis
5 Jul 2010, 09:21
Fletcher Total Games: 324
Gumby: 19
Hocking:37
Hooker:28
Hurley: 21
Jetta: 35
Lonergan: 47
Prismal: 48
Melksham 10
Reimers: 32
Zaka: 24
T Slattery: 1
Bellchambers: 12
These players Total games: 314
Long Live Fletch!
That is an incredible stat.
Do not be suprised if Robert Walls goes with that tonight on One Week at a time and claim it as his own.