Average age and games played

[jjsmitty8]

I know it's not thread worthy, but just trying to find out what the club's average ages in 2015 are, AND the average amount of games their list have played.

Any help would be appreciated, then feel free to delete

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

No don't delete it actually, it is thread worthy

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

Especially when we have a ******* Bruce McAvaney homoerotic ******* thread

 

[robertg22]

Because I am bored:

Adelaide - 23 years, 318 days / 55 games
Brisbane - 22 316 / 49 games
Carlton - 24 5 / 60
Collingwood - 23 159 / 53
Essendon - 24 215 / 74
Freo - 24 304 - 78
Geelong - 24 40 / 68
Gold Coast - 23 26 / 47
GWS - 22 157 / 43
Hawthorn - 24 82 / 74
Melbourne - 23 223 / 54
North - 25 30 / 82
Port - 23 249 / 62
Richmond - 23 309 / 63
St Kilda - 23 181 / 53
Sydney - 24 20 / 68
WCE - 23 218 / 58
Bulldogs - 23 83 / 43

 

[JeffDunne]

Can't you just be happy that you won without the dick measuring contests?

 

[Tas]

Can't you just be happy that you won without the dick measuring contests?

Only on BF is being young and inexperienced a good thing.

 

[Furn2]

Youngest list > Premiership side

 

[WCErevival]

Age of the playing 22 is more accurate instead of the whole list

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Only on BF is being young and inexperienced a good thing.

If you made up an oldest-to-youngest ladder, it would line up pretty closely with the actual ladder. Being inexperienced is a positive though when your club is performing well above what you would expect from their age. This suggests talent/ability and usually results in your club climbing the ladder the following year as they mature together (Port 2013-14, Richmond 2012-13).

 

[Kram]

Lyons dont play da yoof.

 

[Alesana]

Should probably also have Essendon without Fletcher and maybe North without Harvey.

 

[ManOfClay]

Only on BF is being young and inexperienced a good thing.

Oh * me, really a North supporter is saying this?

The reason north supporters on here cop so much is their attitude a few years ago when they had a young team

 

[Suma Magic]

Funny that some people can't discuss list ages without inferring that others are advocating that being young is better than being good.

Two separate issues.

 

[jjsmitty8]

Can't you just be happy that you won without the dick measuring contests?

Wow. Someone is a bit sensitive. My question had nothing to do with last nights game, pull your head in.

 

[Kwality]

Should probably also have Essendon without Fletcher and maybe North without Harvey.

Are you suggesting pure averages arent worth anything ? If so, me too.

 

[justbetter]

Wow North is old. Their premiership window is going to shut before it opens!!!

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

Wow North is old. Their premiership window is going to shut before it opens!!!

It's one of those doors that don't open

 

[Tas]

If you made up an oldest-to-youngest ladder, it would line up pretty closely with the actual ladder. Being inexperienced is a positive though when your club is performing well above what you would expect from their age. This suggests talent/ability and usually results in your club climbing the ladder the following year as they mature together (Port 2013-14, Richmond 2012-13).

Clubs that go hard perform well, those that don't do not. You can be a young club and go in hard, the problem is can you sustain it? It is very hard to do so as a young club, because young players invariably can't perform under duress with the accumulated niggles over a season, it is typically why young sides bomb out after the mid way point of a season. Port has had an unbelievable streak of luck/good management and has avoided injuries to their core midfield, that is a big part in doing well while young.

Mature players can, in general, play to a higher standard more consistently and cope a lot better with the niggles, looking good in April-June isn't as good as looking good late in the season and finals. Take 2 or 3 mids out of Port's core group, a Boak, Wines, Gray, etc can the team still perform? Richmond has capitulated when there has been a handful of injuries, that maturity in the list gives you the depth to be able to still perform and compete.

Last year we didn't have Swallow, Wells or Ziebell through huge slabs of the season, a young side is just unlikely going to be able to cop such losses and still make a PF. We were still shithouse and inconsistent but had enough maturity in the list that we didn't capitulate losing so many midfielders throughout the season. Young and inexperienced teams never do it tough.

We've all played the youth game, you are just hoping that the talent you have is going to reach expectation or potential, if you don't play the youth game then it is a pretty bleak 5 year odd period for the supporters who do not bail during rebuilds. Every one of us has been there and played the same games so it isn't anything we haven't also done. I am not bagging people for looking to their youth, it just helps to have a healthy dose of realism as well.

If you win anything of note as a young side, it is more luck than anything else, ie Hawthorn of 2008. If you hold out hope that these perfect storm seasons can happen then it is pretty unrealistic.

 

[Tas]

Wow North is old. Their premiership window is going to shut before it opens!!!

I don't think it is likely we will win a flag in the next 2 odd years, it is likely going to be when the current 22-24 year old group is the mature group. In 2-3 years our age profile will drop significantly unless we can continue to find good free agents.

In the past most old sides have had troubles recruiting talent higher up on the ladder, that isn't as big a problem now given you can find real quality in the draft within the first 2-3 rounds.

 

[Furn2]

whats the median age and games played ?

 

[Back One Out]

List averages are irrelevant. Almost half the listed AFL players are mediocre.

People love to exaggerate the talents of their club's young fringe players, most of whom will never reach 150 games.
Many of the so-called "young guns" turn out to be nothing more than serviceable, "dime a dozen" footballers.

 

[jjsmitty8]

Look guys, I only started this thread because I was having a general footy discussion with a mate last night. That's all I wanted to know.

I said the thread could be deleted, I don't care if it's relevant or accurate or whatever, I just wanted to see some numbers.

 

[Tas]

Age of the playing 22 is more accurate instead of the whole list

I think the top 30 is the key. It will indicate which teams have mature depth and which don't. Most clubs will rely on their top 30 throughout a season. The last 10 are usually just kids. Some teams don't really have much depth outside of their best team and rely a lot on kids to fill the gaps.