Age stats

[kainokaino]

Wallace seems to come out nearly everyweek and give us bull**** stats about our age being much younger then the other team and our average amount of games played been must lower.

Well here are some stats from Saturdays game...

Average Attributes
Geelong Attribute Richmond
188.0cm Height 187.1cm
89.9kg Weight 86.3kg
24yr 8mth Age 23yr 9mth
81.3 Games 71.5

 

[tony_montana]

averages mean f.uck all

example

you have 20 players aged 25

on the other side of the ledger you have 10 players aged 20, 10 players aged 30

average the same what would you prefer? Geelongs list structure is golden, they have the majority of their playing list in that mid-age zone. Our list probably has more under 21's than anyone but thats offset by having richo, tivs, johnson, simmo, brown, bowden either side of 30


our problem is we are hamstrung by our young guys not having the body to go 4 quarters AND all bar 1 or 2 of our older players are deadset spuds

 

[kainokaino]

averages mean f.uck all

example

you have 20 players aged 25

on the other side of the ledger you have 10 players aged 20, 10 players aged 30

average the same what would you prefer? Geelongs list structure is golden, they have the majority of their playing list in that mid-age zone. Our list probably has more under 21's than anyone but thats offset by having richo, tivs, johnson, simmo, brown, bowden either side of 30


our problem is we are hamstrung by our young guys not having the body to go 4 quarters AND all bar 1 or 2 of our older players are deadset spuds

Thats what im trying to say, that stats dont mean jack****.

What i am trying to say is Terry Wallce is nothing but a liar who comes out with excuse after excuse everyweek, by looking at those averages it proves they mean nothing yet nearly everyweek he still seems to bring up average age stats.

 

[PHX]

Thats what im trying to say, that stats dont mean jack****.

Double negative?

 

[jezza]

Thats what im trying to say, that stats dont mean jack****.

What i am trying to say is Terry Wallce is nothing but a liar who comes out with excuse after excuse everyweek, by looking at those averages it proves they mean nothing yet nearly everyweek he still seems to bring up average age stats.

You are missing the entire point. As Tony said, we have a list with old guys and a lot of young guys. Geelong have a list with a lot of numbers in that middle sort of age group. So both sides have similar average ages, but we have a larger group that aren't making as big a contribution because they don't yet have the fitness or strength.

Terry's message is that we have to be patient until we have enough players with the experience of 50+ games and 4 or 5 preseasons under their belts. Unfortunately most here are impatient and want to sack the coach and repeat our mistakes of the past.

 

[Calcium Man]

The average age stat is a joke and i hate people who quote it. If you want to see how young a team is it should be broken down into groups, 22's and younger, 23-27 and 28+.

We currently have 25 kids on our list 22 and younger. But we are playing 14 or 15 of them a game compared to hawthorn who play 9 or 10 a game. Thats a third more of team with far less experience, fitness and bodysize trying to win matches.

As some one said id imagine the majority of geelongs best 22 is in the 23-27 age bracket.

 

[LVAK]

The average age stat is a joke and i hate people who quote it. If you want to see how young a team is it should be broken down into groups, 22's and younger, 23-27 and 28+.

We currently have 25 kids on our list 22 and younger. But we are playing 14 or 15 of them a game compared to hawthorn who play 9 or 10 a game. Thats a third more of team with far less experience, fitness and bodysize trying to win matches.

As some one said id imagine the majority of geelongs best 22 is in the 23-27 age bracket.

I tend to look at the three categories being over 100 games, between 50-100( for quick improvement) and under 50

Most teams go in with around 11 over 100 then a split between the other two.
Ours is generally half under 50 with a split between the other two. I think last week was 7- 4- 11( under 50's). We have had up to 13 in some games

Either way it does mean something. Someone like Hawthorn tend to have the same amount of 100 gamers than us but usually a few more 50-100 gamers and less under 50's

 

[Calcium Man]

I tend to look at the three categories being over 100 games, between 50-100( for quick improvement) and under 50

Most teams go in with around 11 over 100 then a split between the other two.
Ours is generally half under 50 with a split between the other two. I think last week was 7- 4- 11( under 50's). We have had up to 13 in some games

Either way it does mean something. Someone like Hawthorn tend to have the same amount of 100 gamers than us but usually a few more 50-100 gamers and less under 50's

Yeah i look at that way sometimes but I think you can expect more out of say a brad sewell who i think is just under or over 50 games compared to say Tambling, who has played a similar no. of games, because his body is so much more mature. He has the ability to take the hits and run for 120 minutes. Tambling can proabably do it for about 60-80 minutes.

 

[Calcium Man]

young kids can still tackle

And tambling does tackle. But they cant do it for 120 minutes. Their bodies cannot cope. AFL football is so demanding on the body kids need 4 or 5 preseasons to be able to cope.

Even Judd is a much better player then he was in his third season because the preseason is conditioning him. He gets more of the ball and lays more tackles.

 

[Calcium Man]

Too much Calcium man. Watch Rhan Hooper.

How much game time does Hooper actually play

I dint say they couldnt do it. I just said they need time to do it consitently and for 120 minutes.

You have a go at tambling but he did lay 9 tackles against Collingwood. His bung shoulder really hampered his ability to tackle after the geelong game yet he is almost averaging 3 a game.

 

[matty_hawk]

so then you guys are in trouble until you blood players or until you get real lucky in trade week like we did. (ill give you the hot tip, trade with the roos.)

 

[Calcium Man]

so then you guys are in trouble until you blood players or until you get real lucky in trade week like we did. (ill give you the hot tip, trade with the roos.)

We are in trouble until more then 50% of our best 22 are in the 23-27 age bracket.

 

[lids2004roar]

young kids can still tackle

he's a great tackler

lol Tambling was LEADING the club's tackle count before injuring his shoulder

I thought you were well researched after reading that other thread...

 

[Haggard H]

Big stuff made of the Blues having their youngest team for 37 years on the weekend. They had 10 guys with less than 50 games, we had 11. They had 9 guys 21 years or younger, we had 11.

Stats can be manipulated but I reckon these are pretty important figures.

 

[Big Punt]

Because I don't have a life, I've done some analysis of 2007 stats.

Here are some cold hard facts:

Average age of full list, RFC ranks 5th youngest behind Brisbane, Carlton, Hawthorn, Port.

Average age of players who have played SENIOR games in 2007, RFC ranks 3rd youngest behind Brisbane & Carlton.

Of the 396 senior games on offer this year so far (18 rounds x 22), RFC has given 41% of those games to players aged 21 or under - easily the highest in the league (next closest Brisbane 35%, Hawthorn 5th at 31%).

Of the 396 senior games on offer this year, RFC has given 36% of these games to players aged between 22-27, easily the lowest in the league (next closest Melbourne with 44%, Hawthorn at 58%). The top 4 teams have this age bracket at between 55-70%.

Those last two stats are very telling.