A Misconception

[jo172]

Alright we all hear about how old Adelaide's list is, this is a poll for people who don't read the Adelaide Review. Who has the average oldest team list? I'll post the answers after about a day or so.

 

[ok.crows]

Alright we all hear about how old Adelaide's list is, this is a poll for people who don't read the Adelaide Review. Who has the average oldest team list? I'll post the answers after about a day or so.

I was pretty sure it was either Port or Brisbane, but I see that you don't list Brisbane as a possibility.

That leaves Port as my guess.

BTW, oldest list generally also means most experience. Youngest list most decidedly does not mean flag contender.

 

[crowsarethebest]

Alright we all hear about how old Adelaide's list is, this is a poll for people who don't read the Adelaide Review. Who has the average oldest team list? I'll post the answers after about a day or so.

TELL US NOW TELL US NOW then we'll vote

 

[jo172]

I was pretty sure it was either Port or Brisbane, but I see that you don't list Brisbane as a possibility.

That leaves Port as my guess.

BTW, oldest list generally also means most experience. Youngest list most decidedly does not mean flag contender.

When the poll closes i'll write the whole order of clubs with the oldest and most experienced players.

BTW Hudson, Kruger and Smith all rate as fairly old players but they havent played all too many games between them!

 

[portentous]

I thought the misconception was that all Port supporters are feral......

 

[jo172]

I thought the misconception was that all Port supporters are feral......

No, that's just a matter of opinion, personally i don't think all Port supporters are feral.

 

[*PAF]

The misconception is that having a young list is somehow a good thing.
When talking lists, what happens is all the players ages get added together, and then divided by the number of players. That includes the players that will never get a game.

A good team has a list spread across all age groups, so that as players retire, there are others to step into their shoes, and other players to step into the second tier players shoes and so on.
This was the problem with Adelaide's list, lack of ready made replacements. Not the age of the list.

wrt Port, our spread is quite good, and the replacements are as good as can be when one considers our finishing positions.

 

[macca23]

The misconception is that having a young list is somehow a good thing.
When talking lists, what happens is all the players ages get added together, and then divided by the number of players. That includes the players that will never get a game.

A good team has a list spread across all age groups, so that as players retire, there are others to step into their shoes, and other players to step into the second tier players shoes and so on.
This was the problem with Adelaide's list, lack of ready made replacements. Not the age of the list.

wrt Port, our spread is quite good, and the replacements are as good as can be when one considers our finishing positions.

Right.

So you're saying it's Port.

 

[*PAF]

Right.

So you're saying it's Port.

Hehe.
Probably, but hopefully we'll be at a similar age break up of age groups always.

 

[noddy]

Hehe.
Probably, but hopefully we'll be at a similar age break up of age groups always.

Always amuses me when an "aging list" can have so many different meanings to those clubs that it relates to.

 

[jo172]

Alright Congrats to 28 of you! Although it is commonly believed Adelaide has the oldest list in the competition it is the reining premiers in fact who are the grandpas.

Port 24.3 Years 71 Games
Adelaide 23.7 Years 65 Games
St. Kilda 23.6 Years 69 Games
Sydney 23.6 Years 67 Games
Melbourne 23.6 Years 65 Games
Richmond 23.3 Years 65 Games
Bulldogs 23.3 Years 64 Games
Kangaroos 23.3 Years 61 Games
Collingwood 23.2 Years 68 Games
Fremantle 23.2 Years 57 Games
Brisbane 23.1 Years 73 Games
Essendon 23.1 Years 58 games
Hawthorn 23 years 55 games
Geelong 22.9 Years 52 Games
West Coast 22.8 Years 53 Games
Carlton 22.8 Years 50 games

Courtesy of the Adelaide Review

---------------------------------------

Looks like *PAF's arguments over experience winning premierships is correct looking at Port and Brisbane leading the most games played list.

 

[crowsarethebest]

Alright Congrats to 28 of you! Although it is commonly believed Adelaide has the oldest list in the competition it is the reining premiers in fact who are the grandpas.

Port 24.3 Years 71 Games
Adelaide 23.7 Years 65 Games
St. Kilda 23.6 Years 69 Games
Sydney 23.6 Years 67 Games
Melbourne 23.6 Years 65 Games
Richmond 23.3 Years 65 Games
Bulldogs 23.3 Years 64 Games
Kangaroos 23.3 Years 61 Games
Collingwood 23.2 Years 68 Games
Fremantle 23.2 Years 57 Games
Brisbane 23.1 Years 73 Games
Essendon 23.1 Years 58 games
Hawthorn 23 years 55 games
Geelong 22.9 Years 52 Games
West Coast 22.8 Years 53 Games
Carlton 22.8 Years 50 games

Courtesy of the Adelaide Review

---------------------------------------

Looks like *PAF's arguments over experience winning premierships is correct looking at Port and Brisbane leading the most games played list.

I was close.. I voted for the saints, A misconception there hey? everyone think they're young but if you look at them they have Powell, Hamill, Gehrig, Jones, Hudgeton, Thompson, Harvey, Pecket and Voss who are Veterans. Everybody thinks the saints are young because of their young guns and the Veterans are sort of unnoticed

 

[jo172]

And how Collingwood can keep claiming to have the youngest list in the competition is beyond me!

 

[Stiffy_18]

Port 24.3 Years 71 Games
Adelaide 23.7 Years 65 Games
St. Kilda 23.6 Years 69 Games
Sydney 23.6 Years 67 Games
Melbourne 23.6 Years 65 Games
Richmond 23.3 Years 65 Games
Bulldogs 23.3 Years 64 Games
Kangaroos 23.3 Years 61 Games
Collingwood 23.2 Years 68 Games
Fremantle 23.2 Years 57 Games
Brisbane 23.1 Years 73 Games
Essendon 23.1 Years 58 games
Hawthorn 23 years 55 games
Geelong 22.9 Years 52 Games
West Coast 22.8 Years 53 Games
Carlton 22.8 Years 50 games.

Thats scary

 

[arrowman]

Port 24.3 Years 71 Games
Adelaide 23.7 Years 65 Games
St. Kilda 23.6 Years 69 Games
…
Geelong 22.9 Years 52 Games
West Coast 22.8 Years 53 Games
Carlton 22.8 Years 50 games

CROWS’ WOES CONTINUE
by FerretHead, 22 March 2005

Adelaide’s woes intensified this week with the release of AFL statistics showing the beleagured club has the second oldest playing list in the competition, and a full ten months older than rising teams West Coast and Carlton.

It is widely understood in knowledgeable AFL circles that the average age of the playing list is the only key indicator of the team’s potential - the younger, the better. Every independent analysis shows that coaching, game plan and ability are irrelevant - if the average age of your playing list is more than 24, you are doomed to failure.

Only Port Adelaide has in recent times defied that trend by winning a Premiership with such an old list. And with that proud club’s 234 year history of success since the first Dutch explorers sighted the coast of Western Australia, AFL sources believe that Port will continue to dominate the AFL for decades to come, breaking the average age barrier again and again.

Ill-informed Crows supporters are already denying that age is a key problem for the Crows, venting their spleen on internet boards across the world. But it is known that behind closed doors the club with no history is treating this problem, and the comments of journalists who are pointing it out, very seriously. Legal actions and mass delistings are planned for the coming months.

 

[Sheeds]

Im not entirely sure of the point of the thread, I think it was believed that the Crows were the oldest side. Since Carey, Smart, Burns etc have gone from the fold I would have expected them to move away from the first position which for memory they previously held. When Port lose players such as Montgomery, Wanganeen, Wakelin etc over the next few years along with a couple of drafts you would expect them to move away from the top position also.

 

[Mad Dog]

Port 24.3 Years 71 Games
Adelaide 23.7 Years 65 Games
St. Kilda 23.6 Years 69 Games
…
Geelong 22.9 Years 52 Games
West Coast 22.8 Years 53 Games
Carlton 22.8 Years 50 games

CROWS’ WOES CONTINUE
by FerretHead, 22 March 2005

Adelaide’s woes intensified this week with the release of AFL statistics showing the beleagured club has the second oldest playing list in the competition, and a full ten months older than rising teams West Coast and Carlton.

It is widely understood in knowledgeable AFL circles that the average age of the playing list is the only key indicator of the team’s potential - the younger, the better. Every independent analysis shows that coaching, game plan and ability are irrelevant - if the average age of your playing list is more than 24, you are doomed to failure.

Only Port Adelaide has in recent times defied that trend by winning a Premiership with such an old list. And with that proud club’s 234 year history of success since the first Dutch explorers sighted the coast of Western Australia, AFL sources believe that Port will continue to dominate the AFL for decades to come, breaking the average age barrier again and again.

Ill-informed Crows supporters are already denying that age is a key problem for the Crows, venting their spleen on internet boards across the world. But it is known that behind closed doors the club with no history is treating this problem, and the comments of journalists who are pointing it out, very seriously. Legal actions and mass delistings are planned for the coming months.

10/10 Arrowman !!

 

[arrowman]

Im not entirely sure of the point of the thread, I think it was believed that the Crows were the oldest side.

yes, last year we had one of the oldest lists and I think jo172 was interested to see how many people still believed that (it probably would have worked better on the main board).

Since Carey, Smart, Burns etc have gone from the fold I would have expected them to move away from the first position which for memory they previously held.

Those retirements made a massive difference in the average age - for example, take 3 x 32 year olds out of a list (of 40) with average age 26, replace them with 3 x 18 year olds and your average age drops to 24.95 (OK, everyone else is a year older too but you get my point).

 

[Crowked]

CROWS’ WOES CONTINUE
by FerretHead, 22 March 2005

hehehehe, top work AM.

Had to check the Advertiser just to make sure it wasnt a real Rucci article.

 

[macca23]

Brilliant work AM.

Add an even more liberal dose of venom towards the Crows, and a healthy lashing of suck-holing adulation for Port, and I think you could be a first class ghost writer for FerretHead!!

 

[Markthirtytwo]

Brilliant work AM.

Add an even more liberal dose of venom towards the Crows, and a healthy lashing of suck-holing adulation for Port, and I think you could be a first class ghost writer for FerretHead!!

I thought he had McDermott ghost writing for him now.
This is because the editor thought his articles were just too biased.

 

[johnnypanther]

Im not entirely sure of the point of the thread, I think it was believed that the Crows were the oldest side. Since Carey, Smart, Burns etc have gone from the fold I would have expected them to move away from the first position which for memory they previously held. When Port lose players such as Montgomery, Wanganeen, Wakelin etc over the next few years along with a couple of drafts you would expect them to move away from the top position also.

thats very true - especially since i've noticed that for example Port have 13 players under 21yo (plus 1 rookie spot unfilled)
- we (AFC) have 11 players under 21

as much as i hate to say it - but Port may actually be a year ahead of us in the rebuilding stakes (they also have already cleared most of the deadwood out of their list - our list still has the deadwood)

anyway those average ages are only a guide - they are already distorted because some clubs use all 6 rookie spots for youngsters, some clubs use only 1-4 spots, and so on

 

[arrowman]

Thanks for the feedback guys

I can honestly say that when I re-read before posting, I felt I had to make sure I used "FerretHead" as the byline just to make sure I didn't mislead people - the article looked too much like the real thing

 

[Cap]

great read arrowman !

i think i'm with you - those stats really dont mean much

you could play the the same 22 35 yr olds and have the remaining players under 20 and 6 rookie listed players at 18 and your team is going to look much younger than it is !!

 

[jo172]

I didn't realise it wasn't a real Crapvetiser article until i read further down the thread!

Is that Mushashi i hear being opened !