Because youth: come on, justify yourselves

[La Dispute]

I prefer the model of taking on broken down ex Pick 1’s and career C-graders and paying them half a mil per year.

 

[A Bit Dusty]

I prefer the model of taking on broken down ex Pick 1’s and career C-graders and paying them half a mil per year.

 

[Freomaniac]

Patrick Cripps is more valuable then the entire current Hawthorn playing list combined, and I defy anyone to prove otherwise.

Cripps, weitering, Pretevski senton and both curnows isn't a bad core of players to work with

 

[Pessimistic]

Cripps, weitering, Pretevski senton and both curnows isn't a bad core of players to work with

as was Judd Kruezer Gibbs and Murphy back in the day. No end of threads telling us how much better Than our teams they were going to be.

maybe this group will be better, but the tone of the posts is no different

 

[Slysh]

I prefer the model of taking on broken down ex Pick 1’s and career C-graders and paying them half a mil per year.

I am glad to hear you are happy with Carlton picking up Jack Martin mate

 

[La Dispute]

I am glad to hear you are happy with Carlton picking up Jack Martin mate

Absolutely - fills an need immediate need, and we also managed to nab the greatest small forward of all time to mentor him for a year and help fast track his development.

Very nice acquisition.

 

[Slysh]

Absolutely - fills an need immediate need, and we also managed to nab the greatest small forward of all time to mentor him for a year and help fast track his development.

Very nice acquisition.

I agree with that, just a little bit funny after the original comment you made.

 

[Pessimistic]

Absolutely - fills an need immediate need, and we also managed to nab the greatest small forward of all time to mentor him for a year and help fast track his development.

Very nice acquisition.

but whatdid that do to carltons average age? Not that I’m saying its a bad thing. it’s an improvement for Carlton but has gone against the youf narrative

 

[Kwality]

Is this Bay 13 or is it too upmarket?

 

[Pessimistic]

I reckon 5 pages at least before anyone rises to the challenge, if at all.

is that proof the ‘youf’ agenda is so much fake

 

[adammania9]

Personally, I’d much rather support a young team than a good team.

 

[La Dispute]

I reckon 5 pages at least before anyone rises to the challenge, if at all.

is that proof the ‘youf’ agenda is so much fake

This thread is about ten years too late.

I’d hazard a guess most believe in building a decent core through the draft and then supplementing through trades and free agency, trying to land a big fish ala Tom Lynch (hopefully Tim Kelly too) along the way.

Does any team realistically turn their back on trading, provided players want to join them?

 

[Pessimistic]

This thread is about ten years too late.

I’d hazard a guess most believe in building a decent core through the draft and then supplementing through trades and free agency, trying to land a big fish ala Tom Lynch (hopefully Tim Kelly too) along the way.

Does any team realistically turn their back on trading, provided players want to join them?

belief, but never backed up with argument

 

[La Dispute]

belief, but never backed up with argument

What rubbish - which ‘young’ teams outside of Brisbane (actually this is questionable) are ready to contend?

 

[juss]

And yet you declined my invitation to justify it rather than just 'feels'. Lions and GWS have achieved what exactly?

What do you mean justify it? What am I justifying, its a simple matrix to understand.

Winning and older = good
Winning and young = better

Losing and young = bad but sometimes understandable
Losing and older = worse and in need of a rebuild.

In any scenario of comparable performance it is better to be younger than older. Performance trumps all, but with comparable performance younger is better.

 

[Pessimistic]

Premiership teams are invariably older

see anyone can just repeat
You are implying a rebuild is required. For most of the history of afl, the rebuild concept did not exist, it was there for a while as a theory which was followed to varying success, and is now being discredited.

it’s just some of you are taking longer to catch on

 

[Kwality]

And yet you declined my invitation to justify it rather than just 'feels'. Lions and GWS have achieved what exactly?

Dollars in the media deals, more AFL players from Q & NSW in the player pool?

 

[master bate]

Reasons for going younger:

1. The rebuild:
Geelong, Hawthorn and with all but the cup to show for it St Kilda executed youth led deep rebuilds that resulted in the 00's. The Cats didn't got quite as top 5 pick heavy as the other teams but they still bought through a really strong group of young players and had amazing success. I'm sure there was a focus on getting young players in before that but I think that's where the notion of rebuilding took off.

Verdict: there's some method here, do it right and you've got a loyal core of players that sets you up for a long time. Allows you a great deal of flexibility to build around the core.

2. Draft/trade structures
The draft structure also incentives getting more picks in when you're a bad team and then once you've got a bunch of picks in the logical conclusion is to play them more. Fans want to see a highly rated junior over a plodding veteran.

Trades - given players have to agree and free agency and the compensation system also says - when you're bad, go younger.

Verdict: some clubs just have very little choice given they can't attract talent, that said, I think teams should be more aggressive chasing guys to do short term jobs and turning over the list looking for those bargain buys.

3. Older players are too slow/too injury prone
The demands on the game and speed required certainly does make it hard for guys after 30. Meanwhile kids often do have speed or skills. Bad teams make players look worse than they are, so the old guys struggle where they might've succeeded and the cycle continues.

Verdict: there's only going to be a small handful of older guys who keep up with the game, but clubs should be more mindful of how they use veterans in roles they can keep doing. Including whether they should keep guys on a list just for leadership at a lower level and depth. At the same time, how many guys 32+ want to sit in the reserves?

4. Young players need games to develop
Get them in and testing themselves against the best and playing with their future team mates.

Verdict: This is the one I least like. Gaz Jnr wasn't rushed. Rance played a fair bit in the 2's. Tom Mitchell was made to wait. Gawn took a long time. Dane Swan took an eternity for a midfielder. Tim Kelly spent years in the WAFL. Some of the games best players have done apprenticeships in the state leagues, meanwhile a whole heap of draft busts have played early and regularly and then amounted to nothing.

 

[kozi]

What do you mean justify it? What am I justifying, its a simple matrix to understand.

Winning and older = good
Winning and young = better

Losing and young = bad but sometimes understandable
Losing and older = worse and in need of a rebuild.

In any scenario of comparable performance it is better to be younger than older. Performance trumps all, but with comparable performance younger is better.

Was about to post something similar until I saw this. I’d have gone line and length but you went full and clean bowled the thread.

 

[master bate]

Premiership teams are invariably older

see anyone can just repeat
You are implying a rebuild is required. For most of the history of afl, the rebuild concept did not exist, it was there for a while as a theory which was followed to varying success, and is now being discredited.

it’s just some of you are taking longer to catch on

Cotchin, Martin, Rance and Riewoldt were the driving forces of the Tigers 2017 premiership.

Bont, Stringer, Macrae, Libba were instrumental in the Dogs flag, as was having top picks and trading out a senior play for Boyd.

There's something very odd in many ways about Nic Nat, Sheppard and Gaff all missing the Eagles flag. Although their performances throughout the year got them in such a strong position.

Not as much as 08 but the Hawks were still cashing in on the top end talent they drafted between 01-07 when it came to the 13-15 flags.

There's still a lot said about drafting an elite group of players at the top end of the draft and the best way to do that is to acquire a lot of picks so you can be a bit hit and miss.

 

[Furn2]

It’s infesting most threads in bigfooty. Team x will be better ‘because youf’

Players older than 30 being a liability. Observations now see 29 or even 28 year old players getting disrespected in posting.

Yet it’s just given as a reason without, frankly, much to back it up.

consider:

• Most premiership teams are in the top five oldest teams in that year
• Older teams have more success in the following three years than younger teams
• Lists are half a year older on average then the period before 2010

following 7 years actually.

 

[Furn2]

It's very simple.

Winning and older = good
Winning and young = better

Losing and young = bad but sometimes understandable
Losing and older = worse and in need of a rebuild.

There is no doubt that given expected development and upside, it is better in both scenarios to be a younger team than an older team, although winning games/finals/flags regardless is just as good as an older team provided you capitalise on the period. Youth also gives teams an acceptable hall pass on losing too as that might be their development stage. See teams like the young Lions in finals of 2019 or early GWS days.

You'd always take an equivalent performing younger side over an older one, supporters just need to figure out where their club sits in the above matrix. Id say right now Richmind are in the winning/older camp.

why ? when older teams outperform younger teams for each of the following 7 years at least ?

 

[juss]

why ? when older teams outperform younger teams for each of the following 7 years at least ?

View attachment 812813

View attachment 812814

Read the next two paragraphs of my post.....

The key is in comparable performance my statement has nothing to do with youth vs older and which performs better.

If both teams performed the same youd take the younger team. It doesnt need to be any more complicated than that. Its the same concept as if you were trading for 2 players of equal ability and output you'd take the 22 year old over the 29 year old.

Thats what the obsession with youth is. Whether your team is winning or losing, its better to be younger if the performance was the same based on everything we know about upside, development, player longevity, trade value, etc.

 

[juss]

why ? when older teams outperform younger teams for each of the following 7 years at least ?

View attachment 812813

View attachment 812814

Youve just put numbers in a table without telling me what they represent? Are they a ladder position average or something?

 

[juss]

Premiership teams are invariably older

I havent once disputed that. I think youre trying to counter something other than my actual response.