A Misconception

[captain ebert]

does the 1.5 years seperation between the oldest & youngest lists really mean anything? - with the clubs all so close in this regard, i think this method of list analysis is just pointless.

 

[dA Crow]

does the 1.5 years seperation between the oldest & youngest lists really mean anything? - with the clubs all so close in this regard, i think this method of list analysis is just pointless.

Sorry to say it , but Captain Ebert.. I wish you were a Misconception.

 

[dA Crow]

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

Good stuff , I wonder when he will steal that idea and print it

 

[portentous]

I'd be interested to know if Brisbanes' list was the oldest in the years they won their 3 flags. I'd reckon they would have been close to it.

The whole "youth" thing is a myth. You need the right mixture of talented kids but without the right leadership it's like a speedboat with no rudder....goes round and round in circles but gets nowhere.

 

[*PAF]

I think this average age is a bit of a soft spot around here because a couple of years ago people were using that guide to predict the Crows downfall from the top 4. All in all, it was a reasonable guide, but ONLY because the average age of the top 22 was high, AND there were no/not enough apparent replacements coming through.
This reluctance of keeping ageing players without introducing fresh blood and/or trading for players in that 35-70 games bracket to keep a "balanced" list wrt age and experience, IS what ultimately led to your current predicaments. Was it Fantasia, was it Blight or Ayres is all speculation. The fact is that it happened.

Anyone here that thinks Port is in the same boat as the Crows a couple of years ago hasn't been following us too closely.
Having said that, yes, all of our youngsters could turn out to be flops when put to the acid test, but you cannot blame the Club for not having used the right approach.
That is why we have traded for players such as Mahoney, Wakelin (pick 4 was overpriced at the time, but we really needed him), JFK, Montgomery, Walsh, Bishop and Shattock to name a few.
Other times, we have also traded promising/ highly rated (at the time) players for low picks to keep the fresh blood coming through. Bode, Cummings, Heuskes, Eagleton and Barry Brooks come to mind.
This long term list management IMO is where Williams has excelled at, and is the difference between Port, and the Crows recruiting for now strategy of the past.

Is the average age an indicator of where a team is at?
Yes, but it is only one indicator, and if used as the only indicator it really doesn't mean anything.

 

[johnnypanther]

I think this average age is a bit of a soft spot around here because a couple of years ago people were using that guide to predict the Crows downfall from the top 4. All in all, it was a reasonable guide, but ONLY because the average age of the top 22 was high, AND there were no/not enough apparent replacements coming through.
This reluctance of keeping ageing players without introducing fresh blood and/or trading for players in that 35-70 games bracket to keep a "balanced" list wrt age and experience, IS what ultimately led to your current predicaments. Was it Fantasia, was it Blight or Ayres is all speculation. The fact is that it happened.

Anyone here that thinks Port is in the same boat as the Crows a couple of years ago hasn't been following us too closely.
Having said that, yes, all of our youngsters could turn out to be flops when put to the acid test, but you cannot blame the Club for not having used the right approach.
That is why we have traded for players such as Mahoney, Wakelin (pick 4 was overpriced at the time, but we really needed him), JFK, Montgomery, Walsh, Bishop and Shattock to name a few.
Other times, we have also traded promising/ highly rated (at the time) players for low picks to keep the fresh blood coming through. Bode, Cummings, Heuskes, Eagleton and Barry Brooks come to mind.
This long term list management IMO is where Williams has excelled at, and is the difference between Port, and the Crows recruiting for now strategy of the past.

Is the average age an indicator of where a team is at?
Yes, but it is only one indicator, and if used as the only indicator it really doesn't mean anything.

unfortunately i agree with your comments and i alluded to that in a previous post:
"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)"

i have a spreadsheet to help illustrate this but i'm unable to get it to fit on here

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I think this average age is a bit of a soft spot around here because a couple of years ago people were using that guide to predict the Crows downfall from the top 4. All in all, it was a reasonable guide, but ONLY because the average age of the top 22 was high, AND there were no/not enough apparent replacements coming through.
This reluctance of keeping ageing players without introducing fresh blood and/or trading for players in that 35-70 games bracket to keep a "balanced" list wrt age and experience, IS what ultimately led to your current predicaments. Was it Fantasia, was it Blight or Ayres is all speculation. The fact is that it happened.

Anyone here that thinks Port is in the same boat as the Crows a couple of years ago hasn't been following us too closely.
Having said that, yes, all of our youngsters could turn out to be flops when put to the acid test, but you cannot blame the Club for not having used the right approach.
That is why we have traded for players such as Mahoney, Wakelin (pick 4 was overpriced at the time, but we really needed him), JFK, Montgomery, Walsh, Bishop and Shattock to name a few.
Other times, we have also traded promising/ highly rated (at the time) players for low picks to keep the fresh blood coming through. Bode, Cummings, Heuskes, Eagleton and Barry Brooks come to mind.
This long term list management IMO is where Williams has excelled at, and is the difference between Port, and the Crows recruiting for now strategy of the past.

Is the average age an indicator of where a team is at?
Yes, but it is only one indicator, and if used as the only indicator it really doesn't mean anything.

Top post PAF. No doubt Port has been better with list management / replenishment. Hopefully the Crows have learnt from this & the need to consider the medium-long term, so that we don't fall into the problem again where we have a too largish group of average footballers on our list for too longer period (when we could have taken a punt on more youngsters).

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

i have a spreadsheet to help illustrate this but i'm unable to get it to fit on here

I think if you post it as code, then we will be able to view it my scrolling across & down.