adelaide youngsters vs essendon youngsters

[1990crow]

I have tried to do an analysis between the two lists of players that were listed.

Bernie Vince - Jobe Watson
Chris Knights - Angus Monfries
Nathan van Berlo - Brent Stanton
David Mackay - Brent Prismall
Brad Symes - Nathan Lovett-Murray
Kurt Tippett - Jay Neagle
Andy Otten - Courtenay Dempsey
Richard Douglas - Ricky Dyson
Patrick Dangerfield - Kyle Reimers
Taylor Walker - Darcy Daniher
Ivan Maric - Tom Bellchambers
Jared Petrenko - Jay Nash
James Sellar - Scott Gumbleton
Brad Moran - Darcy Daniher
Myke Cook - Bachar Houli
Brodie Martin - Heath Hocking
Jonathon Griffin - Paddy Ryder
Shaun McKernan - Cale Hooker
Greg Gallman - David Myers
Jarrhan Jacky - Leroy Jetta
Tony Armstrong - Sam Lonergan
Aaron Kite - Jarrod Atkinson
James Moss - Henry Slattery
Phil Davis - Tayte Pears
Rory Sloane - Tyson Slattery

Now that would look about right.

I forgot to say we also have David Myers, David Zaharakis and highly rated forward Michael Still.

The difference between the two sides is the depth that the Bombers have. The crows top 10 are probably equal to the bombers.

Watson cancels out Vince, Stanton cancels out Van Berlo, Dempsey is equal to Otten IMO, Pears and Hooker eat all over Mckernan and Davis.

The Bombers however have depth. that is what would get the bombers over the line!

If the bolded players are supposed to be better than the other player, I think I just wet myself laughing.

 

[Magma]

A Melbourne supporter laughing at a teams list of youngsters is always funny. Exactly how many of your young 'guns' have actually shown anything?

Also the list players in bold to laugh actually quite funny, seen any of them play? Seen T.Slatts or Still play? Thought not.

Has Slats played a senior games yet?

Another Westies boy I was very upset at losing. Him, Stanley + others in the years before him (Fisher, Cooney etc) have usually ended up to be class players. Tys is very tough, and will put his head over the ball on every single occasion.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

If the bolded players are supposed to be better than the other player, I think I just wet myself laughing.

Its not too far off, although I'd have Watson and Vince as the same, Maric over Bellchambers, and Dangerfield over Reimers just. The bottom quarter haven't really shown enough on either side to make a judgment.

 

[twentydollarnote]

Gee when you look at that list essendon really have done well to get where they are, very average right side of the list. oh and Reimers is not equal to Dangerfield either.

 

[relapse]

It's a fallacy that the Crowbots have a young list. B&F Count.

Goodwin (3rd), Doughty (4th), Edwards (8th) & McLeod (9th) all 30 & above.

Add Shirley (their best shutdown player) & Burton (their 3rd best forward) & their realiance on older players is extreme.

Do you mean the R Shirley who is about to be delisted after trade week ???

Yeah he is someone we rely on too much

 

[rusman]

You forgot to put in hurley. Its Obvious when you look at the two lists crows is more developed and bombers have a lot of question marks. I think they will both be good. I dont think you can say there is a winner or a loser at this point as Crows obviously better at the moment i guess the premiership race will tell whos was better.

 

[Yoda_]

Geez...a lot of assumptions based on poor and/or limited information there hff_07.

These topics are pretty pointless across the board anyway, I mean look at your list there. You've rated Houli ahead of Cook (who we rate enormously), Hocking ahead of Martin (who has been very impressive with good skills and pace), Hooker ahead of McKernan (who we rate as an out and out star in the making), and so on. Of course, put the shoe on the other foot and we'd probably try to put the same list together.

Most of us are in no position really to talk about the unknown kids on either's list. Best to let it go and see how it pans out.

Though fwiw I promise you Rory Sloane will be a far better footballer than Slattery.

well lets put a wager on it then shall we. lets come back in 10 years and say hey, Tyson Slattery was good after 200 odd games, howd sloane go just to put this to bed, I actually rate Sloane very highly and wanted him at Essendon late in the draft last year.

 

[WN123]

Gee when you look at that list essendon really have done well to get where they are, very average right side of the list. oh and Reimers is not equal to Dangerfield either.

Why?
You obviously rate Dangerfield but most Essendon supporters really rate Reimers. He's quick, hard at it, a good mark and can kick big goals. Over their careers so far they look pretty similar with Riemers ahead.

http://www.finalsiren.com/PlayerCom...ame3=&PlayerName4=&SelectedPlayers=1877,1790,

 

[Pilchard_Adams]

What a completely pointless stat. So if a player is 'unlucky' enough to debut in a season, play one or two games before having a proper run at it the following season he doesn't count in your left field stat? Hell, Neagle (who is yet to perform to expectation) averaged more goals then Walker this year. What does that mean? Absolutely nothing.

To the very, very few Adelaide fans who are continuing to push this, please have a look at the point that was made. One fan decided to include Walker alongside Tippett as an already established star, to which he was quickly pulled up. Nobody is trying to say Walker has no potential - because a blind man could see that he does. But a claim that he is already a star is an out and out error, and should be acknowledged as such.

Hmmmm...

Walkers first year
Games - 14
Goals - 23
Scoring Shots - 42

3 Scoring shots per game

Neagles first year
Games - 1
Goals - 1
Scoring shots - 1
1 scoring shot per game

2nd year
Games - 7
Goals - 10
Scoring shots - 15
2.14 scoring shots av pg

3rd year
Games - 12
Goals - 19
Scoring shots -23
1.91 shots av pg

Actually 18 year old 1st year Walker averaged 1.64 goals per game. 3rd year 21 year old Neagle averaged 1.58 goals per game. Neagle has great accuracy, Walker needs to work on this as highlighted to his 19 points (fair few posters in there I might add...)

I never stated that Walker is a star, just showed the stats. As a 17 year old with a skinny little body, coming from the under 18s Broken Hill side I think. he dominated the SANFL against mature, experienced players much older and stronger than him. He was only sent back to the SANFL because of his fitness and defensive pressure are a bit lacking. Craig is a perfectionist and Walker wasnt quite there yet.

I also never said Neagle is a nobody, or a spud. I just think Walker is already better than him

Just to add - Walker had more scoring shots in is 14 game debut season than Neagle has had in his 3 year 20 game career

 

[Yoda_]

Hmmmm...

Walkers first year
Games - 14
Goals - 23
Scoring Shots - 42

3 Scoring shots per game

Neagles first year
Games - 1
Goals - 1
Scoring shots - 1
1 scoring shot per game

2nd year
Games - 7
Goals - 10
Scoring shots - 15
2.14 scoring shots av pg

3rd year
Games - 12
Goals - 19
Scoring shots -23
1.91 shots av pg

Actually 18 year old 1st year Walker averaged 1.64 goals per game. 3rd year 21 year old Neagle averaged 1.58 goals per game. Neagle has great accuracy, Walker needs to work on this as highlighted to his 19 points (fair few posters in there I might add...)

I never stated that Walker is a star, just showed the stats. As a 17 year old with a skinny little body, coming from the under 18s Broken Hill side I think. he dominated the SANFL against mature, experienced players much older and stronger than him. He was only sent back to the SANFL because of his fitness and defensive pressure are a bit lacking. Craig is a perfectionist and Walker wasnt quite there yet.

I also never said Neagle is a nobody, or a spud. I just think Walker is already better than him

Just to add - Walker had more scoring shots in is 14 game debut season than Neagle has had in his 3 year 20 game career

Yes, but I would actually prefer a bloke that has kicked nearly 1000 goals throughout his career, hm, who was that bloke again. Pretty hard for a kid to get past a legend of the game!

 

[Pilchard_Adams]

Yes, but I would actually prefer a bloke that has kicked nearly 1000 goals throughout his career, hm, who was that bloke again. Pretty hard for a kid to get past a legend of the game!

True. Lucas seemed to do OK though...

Walkers first year
Games - 14
Goals - 23
Scoring Shots - 42

3 Scoring shots per game

Lloyds first & 2nd year combined
Games - 16
Goals - 25
Scoring Shots - 38

2.37 shots per game


Very similar, with Walker just ahead in each aspect. Lloyd was slightly younger so pretty even...

 

[Yoda_]

I have gone over both lists and only used players that have played a minimum of 10 games at senior AFL level and are younger than 25 years old (as of 7th October 2009).

I have then placed them into groups.
3 points for a PROVEN player: who has shown that they can play at the highest level, consistantly getting a game, and at a high level.

2 points for a POTENTIALLY good player: Who has shown to demonstrate that they have the ability to become a very good/elite player at the highest level, some players have been placed into this category even though they have shown that they can play elite football on the big stage, just not consistantly yet.

1 Point for an AVERAGE player: 1 Point has been awarded to players who have been in the system a while and has shwon nothing more than just being a solid player, both sides have there fair share of these, and thus, i find these results fair on both parts.

Here is Adelaide's list:

Proven: (6 Players)
Andy Otten
Kurt Tippet
Bernie Vince
Chris Knights
Jason Porplyzia
Nathan Van Berlo

Potential: (5 Players)
Taylor Walker
Brad Moran
Patrick Dangerfield
Ivan Maric
David Mckay

Average: (4 Players)
Johnathan Griffen
James Sellar
Richard Douglas
Brad Symes

Now here is Essendon's list:

Proven: (6 Players)
Jobe Watson
Brent Prismal
Paddy Ryder
Jason Winderlich
Brent Stanton
Tayte Pears

Potential: (9 Players)
David Zaharakis
Michael Hurley
Cale Hooker
Bachar Houli
Kyle Reimers
Courteany Dempsey
David Myers
Jason Laycock
Heath Hocking

Average: (8 Players)
Jarrod Atkinson
Jay Neagle
Leroy Jetta
Sam Lonergan
Jay Nash
Henry Slattery
Ricky Dyson
Angus Monfries

Totals are in, and it would seem that our younger guys are fairly better than yours, it does help when we blood younger guys and not hold onto our veterans that are holding out team together.

ADEALAIDE CROWS
PROVEN: 6 players/18 points
POTENTIAL: 5 players/10 points
AVERAGE: 4 players/4 points
TOTAL 15 players/32 points

ESSENDON BOMBERS:
PROVEN: 6 players/18 points
POTENTIAL: 9 players/18 points
AVERAGE: 8 players/8 points
TOTAL: 23 players/44 points

So there it is ladies and gentleman, results are in and it would seem that the Bombers group of younger players are par if not better than the Crows younger players.

 

[Yoda_]

True. Lucas seemed to do OK though...

Walkers first year
Games - 14
Goals - 23
Scoring Shots - 42

3 Scoring shots per game

Lloyds first & 2nd year combined
Games - 16
Goals - 25
Scoring Shots - 38

2.37 shots per game


Very similar, with Walker just ahead in each aspect. Lloyd was slightly younger so pretty even...

OK, look at accuracy now though champ?

 

[Pilchard_Adams]

ADEALAIDE CROWS
PROVEN: 6 players/18 points
POTENTIAL: 5 players/10 points
AVERAGE: 4 players/4 points
TOTAL 15 players/32 points

ESSENDON BOMBERS:
PROVEN: 6 players/18 points
POTENTIAL: 9 players/18 points
AVERAGE: 8 players/8 points
TOTAL: 23 players/44 points

So there it is ladies and gentleman, results are in and it would seem that the Bombers group of younger players are par if not better than the Crows younger players.

Yet Adelaide players scored an average of 2.13 points per player where as Bombers scored 1.91 points per player

 

[Pilchard_Adams]

OK, look at accuracy now though champ?

Lloyd was always a great shot at goal. He is the more accurate of the 2. I wish i could find a stat for posters cos I know Walker had about 6.

Accuracy Lloyd may win, but crunch the numbers ( total score divided by games) and Walker contributed 11.21 points to the scoreboard per game, Lloyd contributed 10.18

 

[Yoda_]

Yet Adelaide players scored an average of 2.13 points per player where as Bombers scored 1.91 points per player

yes, but we have alot more players who have potential, rather than flogs.

We have a fair amount of list fillers, but give it time and we will be a real force. it is our young guys leading the way, not our old guys

 

[Campbell's Chunky]

I have gone over both lists and only used players that have played a minimum of 10 games at senior AFL level and are younger than 25 years old (as of 7th October 2009).

I have then placed them into groups.
3 points for a PROVEN player: who has shown that they can play at the highest level, consistantly getting a game, and at a high level.

2 points for a POTENTIALLY good player: Who has shown to demonstrate that they have the ability to become a very good/elite player at the highest level, some players have been placed into this category even though they have shown that they can play elite football on the big stage, just not consistantly yet.

1 Point for an AVERAGE player: 1 Point has been awarded to players who have been in the system a while and has shwon nothing more than just being a solid player, both sides have there fair share of these, and thus, i find these results fair on both parts.

Here is Adelaide's list:

Proven: (6 Players)
Andy Otten
Kurt Tippet
Bernie Vince
Chris Knights
Jason Porplyzia
Nathan Van Berlo

Potential: (5 Players)
Taylor Walker
Brad Moran
Patrick Dangerfield
Ivan Maric
David Mckay

Average: (4 Players)
Johnathan Griffen
James Sellar
Richard Douglas
Brad Symes

Now here is Essendon's list:

Proven: (6 Players)
Jobe Watson
Brent Prismal
Paddy Ryder
Jason Winderlich
Brent Stanton
Tayte Pears

Potential: (9 Players)
David Zaharakis
Michael Hurley
Cale Hooker
Bachar Houli
Kyle Reimers
Courteany Dempsey
David Myers
Jason Laycock
Heath Hocking

Average: (8 Players)
Jarrod Atkinson
Jay Neagle
Leroy Jetta
Sam Lonergan
Jay Nash
Henry Slattery
Ricky Dyson
Angus Monfries

Totals are in, and it would seem that our younger guys are fairly better than yours, it does help when we blood younger guys and not hold onto our veterans that are holding out team together.

ADEALAIDE CROWS
PROVEN: 6 players/18 points
POTENTIAL: 5 players/10 points
AVERAGE: 4 players/4 points
TOTAL 15 players/32 points

ESSENDON BOMBERS:
PROVEN: 6 players/18 points
POTENTIAL: 9 players/18 points
AVERAGE: 8 players/8 points
TOTAL: 23 players/44 points

So there it is ladies and gentleman, results are in and it would seem that the Bombers group of younger players are par if not better than the Crows younger players.

lol, i love how tayte pears is in the proven category - danger is mere potential...

 

[Jade]

lol, i love how tayte pears is in the proven category - danger is mere potential...

Yeah funny that, in the proven category. All he's done is stand most of the major forwards in the game (and beat a lot of them), play the season out and look like the best young defensive key position prospect in the game.

Really expected more from you Tayte, geez.......

 

[Hirdy_5]

lol, i love how tayte pears is in the proven category - danger is mere potential...

I love how you quote a very long response, only to write a one line response that adds nothing to the conversation at hand.

Tayte had an outstanding year. Played the whole season as a key defender and was hardly beaten once. Took on some of the monster forwards and won.

 

[Campbell's Chunky]

I love how you quote a very long response, only to write a one line response that adds nothing to the conversation at hand.

Tayte had an outstanding year. Played the whole season as a key defender and was hardly beaten once. Took on some of the monster forwards and won.

Yep, not doubting that.

So why isn't Danger in that category. Danger had a monster year too.

 

[Hirdy_5]

Yep, not doubting that.

So why isn't Danger in that category. Danger had a monster year too.

Danger had a solid year, not so much of a monster year. He has shown the signs of becoming the player the Crows are hoping for, but he hasn't done it on a consistant basis as yet, or realy stamped his authority on a game. When some of the Cros more senior players move on, this is when we will see Danger become that player.

 

[Campbell's Chunky]

Danger had a solid year, not so much of a monster year. He has shown the signs of becoming the player the Crows are hoping for, but he hasn't done it on a consistant basis as yet, or realy stamped his authority on a game. When some of the Cros more senior players move on, this is when we will see Danger become that player.

All 10 coaches votes v Fremantle Rd 3?

2nd in Goals out of the Rising Star nominees this year (ironically behind Taylor Walker).

Highest % in the AFL out of all midfielders for contested possessions (yes, above Judd, Ablett etc).

 

[Hirdy_5]

All 10 coaches votes v Fremantle Rd 3?

2nd in Goals out of the Rising Star nominees this year (ironically behind Taylor Walker).

Highest % in the AFL out of all midfielders for contested possessions (yes, above Judd, Ablett etc).

My post was badly worded. Danger has shown promise, yet hasn't stamped his mark on a game on a regular basis. I'm not arguing with you that he isn't a terrific young player, I'm saying he has shown the potential to become a a very good player but he isn't there yet, Thus he was placed in the group marked potential. Consistancy is the key, and consistancy is rare for a second year player.

 

[Jade]

Yep, not doubting that.

So why isn't Danger in that category. Danger had a monster year too.

Quick look at the stats for 2009 suggests:

Dangerfield: 21 games, 20 or more touches once
Pears: 23 games: 20 or more touches nine times

AND Pears had to stand the number one forward each week.

 

[Jade]

My first input into this thread was to make a good case for the Bombers young brigade, as the first few posts on the thread seemed to agree that Adelaide's younger guys and prospects were superior to those from Windy Hill. I wasn't trying to claim ours were better, just felt like putting a case forward, to show we had some good kids as well.

After taking part in some lively debate, and seeing some of the arguments put forward, I have to say, Essendon's younger guys and prospects appear to be hands down superior to that of Adelaide. This is particularly supported by some of the 'one line' responses to some of the more thought out and presented posts.

Not saying Adelaide don't have a great set of kids, nor do I claim that ours will eventually prove better (because you never know), but everything presented thus far in this thread suggests Essendon's are superior, and by a margin.