Bevo out

[hutchy31]

We have the most talented list of players we have ever had but are still struggling to even make the eight.

We should be performing much better imo, especially as we added a good KPD and a potentially good KPF to a team that was probably top 6 last year.

Our glaring weaknesses which we haven’t addressed are-

1. Strong ruckman at clearances
2. Forward line and conversion.
3. Transition defence at turn over.

These are not new problems. I see no strategy to address these problems either. Maybe some here may disagree.

Hopefully the coaching and recruiting staff can finally sort these issues out.

I would add another recurring problem which is no less worrying. Our horrible season starts.

Our games against Collingwood and the Saints were embarrassing. In 2019 we lost to GC and Carlton in rounds 2 and 3 and in 2018 lost our first two games by over 50 points.

Question needs to be asked- why are we preparing so badly to start the season.

Every year we finally get it together about round 16 or 17 finish the year solidly but are never a threat to the top teams.

Bevo obviously can coach but I’m not convinced the Coaching panel,look after the basics well enough to become a top 4 side.

2019 we actually were 2-0 (swans, hawks) and I remember getting excited because we had GC and Carlton in the next few games so would be 4-1 or maybe even 5-0. Cue the one kick loss to GC, close loss to the pies then the Carlton debacle.

Your point is a good one though - although I’ve argued it’s more an issue against poor teams. My view is we constantly take games against “poor” teams for granted, rocking up expecting to win after taking liberties at selection.

 

[ScottyDogg]

Yes maybe we're talking at cross-purposes. No biggy.

But just to be clear I'm not in the sack Bevo camp. I'm in the camp that says we should have an external review and - pending the findings of that review - make a few changes around him in the footy dept. Anecdotally such reviews have been quite productive at certain other AFL clubs in recent years and it strikes me as sound practice to do some sort of review each year (we probably do that anyway) as well as an independent review every few years, or when the progress of the side seems to have stalled. This year would be a good time for that.

Lots of us have been critical of Bevo but as far as I can see only a very few are suggesting we tear up his contract and pay him out this year.

Spot on! I rate Bevo highly and have no interest in sacking him...BUT a great head coach is far from enough.

Have a think of the quality and depth of personnel that Clarko has had around him over the last 12 years. Off the top of my head 6 are currently or were recently employed as head coaches elsewhere.

We need a serious review of our coaching and development team and the broader footy department as Bevo needs different view points and support.

 

[dogwatch]

Do you think we need an independent review? What sort of person/background is desirable to conduct such a review? Should a knowledge of football or process carry more weight? Will the Crows hang on and will the sun rise tomorrow?

So many questions!

I have had a bit of experience in this sort of thing with various government agencies and a national quasi-NGO (but very little to do with sport) so I'll have a shot at some answers.

Do we need an independent review? I've pretty much answered that already but to reiterate, there seems to have been a clear benefit for at least a couple of other AFL clubs that have done it. Forgotten which ones (was Richmond one?) but it has been mentioned a few times here. It'll only work if there's a genuine willingness to improve and it is embraced from the very top with a strong amount of buy-in through the hierarchy. If you haven't got that sort of willingness then you probably have a different set of problems (i.e. not just the footy department) as well as leadership issues. Also the key participants have to set aside their egos for the collective good which can be a challenge in many high-powered organisations, including footy clubs.

Why independent? Because sometimes the internal reviews only get you so far. There can be existing baggage, power relationships and tensions, and of course the problems that need to be fixed might in fact stem from the very person leading the internal review, so of course they won't get addressed adequately. Or the truth that needs to be spoken is to someone higher up the ranks so it gets watered down and becomes ineffective.

What sort of person/background should conduct it? It wouldn't be one person. It'd probably be a sports or management consultancy. That way they would bring proven methodologies, metrics, questionnaires, experience elsewhere, a matrix of different skills and insights and so on. You don't want to have to invent the methodology from scratch. You want one that's been tried successfully elsewhere. An obvious starting point would be to go to the consultancies that have already done AFL club reviews in recent years. However it's possible that won't give you the leapfrog opportunity over other clubs that you want so it would be worth considering an international sports consultancy that has operated and delivered results in say Europe, UK, NZ or the USA.

Should a knowledge of football or process carry more weight? Well certainly both are critical. I've jumped ahead of an important aspect of it and that's the Terms of Reference. Is it just the footy department being reviewed or are we talking more widely (eg PR, membership, operation of the Board etc). What I'm thinking about here is just a review of the footy department - structures, staffing, processes, needs, etc. That would include list management and recruiting. I'd think it only addresses the AFL (with a small section on the VFL) and nothing on the AFLW or VFLW aspects because otherwise it becomes too broad and diffuse.

Somewhere along the way it also needs to bring in an assessment of how the club has been going against expectations - should we really be top 4 every year or is par for our list going to be about mid-table? That's obviously pretty subjective but there are ways to make it more objective, e.g. by assembling opinions and metrics from a range of internal and external voices and also reviewing internally documented targets.

What a broad-based sports consultancy might do is bring all the generic sporting methodology but then hire a lead subject matter expert who is well-regarded e.g. an ex-coach like Mick Malthouse or Rodney Eade (but not those two specifically because they have been coaches at Whitten Oval themselves). They might also bring in one or two other people with senior AFL expertise, not necessarily ex-players. You need people with an insight into how AFL clubs run and the sorts of issues that arise.

The Terms of Reference should also identify any particular areas of concern, e.g. assistant coaching, player welfare, strength and conditioning, medical and physio or whatever. That'd be up to Bains and Gordon I'd expect.

Will the Crows hang on? Yes, I think so.

Some other considerations:
When? I'd be kicking it off now and concluding it before the place goes quiet in the off season. Probably get all the data gathering done by the end of October and report by end of November. That gives time to make substantive changes before the New Year. Naturally that timetable would be affected if we played deep into the finals.

Why this year? There are pros and cons. The reduction in club budgets might well mean it's not affordable. However if the game has been changed because of Covid19 (eg reduction in footy department staff levels) it might be more important than ever to get the reduced expenditure and staffing directed into the right places. Implicitly an independent review would have to be commissioned because there is a feeling that there may be some deep-seated or systemic problems that aren't easily uncovered, explained and fixed. And that these problems are likely to hold us back. If Bains and Gordon think everything is going just hunky-dory well there's no point even thinking about it.

Limits to recommendations. There are certain realities that can't be changed, e.g. existing coaching contracts, public commitments, budgets, AFL constraints, etc. So it has to be pragmatic as well as aspirational. Ultimately it can never guarantee a flag of course, but it can help ensure you have best practice in as many critical areas as possible.

That's just my view of how it might be done and I'm sure there's a lot I've overlooked or not thought about deeply enough.

The reality of it might be completely different. To streamline both cost and duration you could maybe just bring in 2-3 AFL elders/experts (with long and wide experience) and perhaps a management consultant to pull it all together and get them to go hard at it for a month by the seat of their pants. After all, that might be all we could afford in the current climate.

 

[Next Waiting]

So many questions!

I have had a bit of experience in this sort of thing with various government agencies and a national quasi-NGO (but very little to do with sport) so I'll have a shot at some answers.

Do we need an independent review? I've pretty much answered that already but to reiterate, there seems to have been a clear benefit for at least a couple of other AFL clubs that have done it. Forgotten which ones (was Richmond one?) but it has been mentioned a few times here. It'll only work if there's a genuine willingness to improve and it is embraced from the very top with a strong amount of buy-in through the hierarchy. If you haven't got that sort of willingness then you probably have a different set of problems (i.e. not just the footy department) as well as leadership issues. Also the key participants have to set aside their egos for the collective good which can be a challenge in many high-powered organisations, including footy clubs.

Why independent? Because sometimes the internal reviews only get you so far. There can be existing baggage, power relationships and tensions, and of course the problems that need to be fixed might in fact stem from the very person leading the internal review, so of course they won't get addressed adequately. Or the truth that needs to be spoken is to someone higher up the ranks so it gets watered down and becomes ineffective.

What sort of person/background should conduct it? It wouldn't be one person. It'd probably be a sports or management consultancy. That way they would bring proven methodologies, metrics, questionnaires, experience elsewhere, a matrix of different skills and insights and so on. You don't want to have to invent the methodology from scratch. You want one that's been tried successfully elsewhere. An obvious starting point would be to go to the consultancies that have already done AFL club reviews in recent years. However it's possible that won't give you the leapfrog opportunity over other clubs that you want so it would be worth considering an international sports consultancy that has operated and delivered results in say Europe, UK, NZ or the USA.

Should a knowledge of football or process carry more weight? Well certainly both are critical. I've jumped ahead of an important aspect of it and that's the Terms of Reference. Is it just the footy department being reviewed or are we talking more widely (eg PR, membership, operation of the Board etc). What I'm thinking about here is just a review of the footy department - structures, staffing, processes, needs, etc. That would include list management and recruiting. I'd think it only addresses the AFL (with a small section on the VFL) and nothing on the AFLW or VFLW aspects because otherwise it becomes too broad and diffuse.

Somewhere along the way it also needs to bring in an assessment of how the club has been going against expectations - should we really be top 4 every year or is par for our list going to be about mid-table? That's obviously pretty subjective but there are ways to make it more objective, e.g. by assembling opinions and metrics from a range of internal and external voices and also reviewing internally documented targets.

What a broad-based sports consultancy might do is bring all the generic sporting methodology but then hire a lead subject matter expert who is well-regarded e.g. an ex-coach like Mick Malthouse or Rodney Eade (but not those two specifically because they have been coaches at Whitten Oval themselves). They might also bring in one or two other people with senior AFL expertise, not necessarily ex-players. You need people with an insight into how AFL clubs run and the sorts of issues that arise.

The Terms of Reference should also identify any particular areas of concern, e.g. assistant coaching, player welfare, strength and conditioning, medical and physio or whatever. That'd be up to Bains and Gordon I'd expect.

Will the Crows hang on? Yes, I think so.

Some other considerations:
When? I'd be kicking it off now and concluding it before the place goes quiet in the off season. Probably get all the data gathering done by the end of October and report by end of November. That gives time to make substantive changes before the New Year. Naturally that timetable would be affected if we played deep into the finals.

Why this year? There are pros and cons. The reduction in club budgets might well mean it's not affordable. However if the game has been changed because of Covid19 (eg reduction in footy department staff levels) it might be more important than ever to get the reduced expenditure and staffing directed into the right places. Implicitly an independent review would have to be commissioned because there is a feeling that there may be some deep-seated or systemic problems that aren't easily uncovered, explained and fixed. And that these problems are likely to hold us back. If Bains and Gordon think everything is going just hunky-dory well there's no point even thinking about it.

Limits to recommendations. There are certain realities that can't be changed, e.g. existing coaching contracts, public commitments, budgets, AFL constraints, etc. So it has to be pragmatic as well as aspirational. Ultimately it can never guarantee a flag of course, but it can help ensure you have best practice in as many critical areas as possible.

That's just my view of how it might be done and I'm sure there's a lot I've overlooked or not thought about deeply enough.

The reality of it might be completely different. To streamline both cost and duration you could maybe just bring in 2-3 AFL elders/experts (with long and wide experience) and perhaps a management consultant to pull it all together and get them to go hard at it for a month by the seat of their pants. After all, that might be all we could afford in the current climate.

I appreciate the very comprehensive reply DW. A lot of food for thought. It may take me some time to respond in kind......

 

[Mutt]

With the win on Sunday, Bevo (54.96%) went past Rocket (54.94%) as our best ever percentage winning coach (minimum 100 games).

And yet since the Premiership, he has a losing record.

I'm not advocating that we get rid of Beveridge... but his performance over the past four years must be seriously questioned. Things can't continue on our current path.

 

[Deadly Darcy]

Interesting posts.

I don’t believe our list has major issues. We have talent on every line, and high quality talent in all the spots that are the hardest to get talent in.

We’re not inexperienced anymore, maybe we don’t have any 250+ game players, but most of our best players are at or over 100 games now.

Inconsistency is the hallmark of an inexperienced team - but we’re not that at all. We are a consistent mid-table performing team. Beat the teams below us, lose to those above us. Consistent performance also indicates a ceiling may have been reached.

2016 was completely different - lost to cellar dweller Saints, but also beat very good Swans away. A young, exciting, and bloody inconsistent team that blossomed in September.

I think the list build is A+, but our ceiling right now looks like a B...

Who do you have in the Morris, Picken, Boyd and Wood catagories on our list? I know Wood is still around but he’s not the player he was. Morris, Picken and Boyd’s sheer willingness to die for their teammates, cunning, maturity and cool heads were of inestimatable value in that flag team. Wallis is arguably becoming a similar leader but we need a couple more. Bont is maturing into his role but is still a young player without the gravitas that a plus 30 player brings to the table. I think we should see if we can bring an old dog new tricks player across for a year or two from another club. I’d target someone like Kennedy from Sydney (who are going nowhere) like Brisbane did with Hodge. The list is really missing an older statesman or two.

 

[josh the gent]

Who do you have in the Morris, Picken, Boyd and Wood catagories on our list? I know Wood is still around but he’s not the player he was. Morris, Picken and Boyd’s sheer willingness to die for their teammates, cunning, maturity and cool heads were of inestimatable value in that flag team. Wallis is arguably becoming a similar leader but we need a couple more. Bont is maturing into his role but is still a young player without the gravitas that a plus 30 player brings to the table. I think we should see if we can bring an old dog new tricks player across for a year or two from another club. I’d target someone like Kennedy from Sydney (who are going nowhere) like Brisbane did with Hodge. The list is really missing an older statesman or two.

The team from history that was most like our 2016 team (in age profile) were the Hawks in 2008.

Mostly youngsters, with calm heads of Crawford, Croad and Dew providing 200+ games experience.

That team also dropped off in 2009 when they lost those 3.

In 2010 they were knocked out of finals in week 1 (not so different to our 2019).

But.... by 2011 they had an 18-4 record and just lost a Prelim to Collingwood. If you look at Hawks team around say round 17 of 2011 (roughly comparable to where we’re up to this season), they had:

- 1 player 200+ (Guerra, 208 games)
- 3 players 150-199
- 6 players 100-149
- 12 players under 100 games

It’s not that different to where our list is at - but we are nowhere near being an 18-4 team as they were.

Yes we had a couple of list bumps the Hawks didn’t (namely Stringer and Dahlhaus) - but I feel our issues are more game style related than they are holes with our list, if you look at those stats...

 

[BEaston]

And yet since the Premiership, he has a losing record.

I'm not advocating that we get rid of Beveridge... but his performance over the past four years must be seriously questioned. Things can't continue on our current path.

We did a mini-rebuild of the list in that time. It's been spoken about by many at the club post-2016. Nobody at the club is questioning his performance that's for sure. Maybe if we're missing finals in the next few years.

 

[BEaston]

The team from history that was most like our 2016 team (in age profile) were the Hawks in 2008.

Mostly youngsters, with calm heads of Crawford, Croad and Dew providing 200+ games experience.

That team also dropped off in 2009 when they lost those 3.

In 2010 they were knocked out of finals in week 1 (not so different to our 2019).

But.... by 2011 they had an 18-4 record and just lost a Prelim to Collingwood. If you look at Hawks team around say round 17 of 2011 (roughly comparable to where we’re up to this season), they had:

- 1 player 200+ (Guerra, 208 games)
- 3 players 150-199
- 6 players 100-149
- 12 players under 100 games

It’s not that different to where our list is at - but we are nowhere near being an 18-4 team as they were.

Yes we had a couple of list bumps the Hawks didn’t (namely Stringer and Dahlhaus) - but I feel our issues are more game style related than they are holes with our list, if you look at those stats...

Haha you love to cherry pick some stats.

Firstly, to compare the two teams' trajectories just because they both won a premiership at a certain time is such a shallow way of looking at it and completely ignores all context over the following 3-4 year period in which a million things may have happened.
Secondly, Hawthorn didn't even play a game in round 17 of 2011, so I'm not sure where you're getting those numbers from.
Thirdly, look at a bigger sample size of Hawks games that year:



We have struggled to put a team out with more than around avg 85 games played this season.
In 2011 Hawthorn had the 6th most experienced list in the league. This year we are 12th for experience.

Not even in the same ball park sorry.

History tells us that the vast majority of successful finalists play sides of 100+ avg games, often a lot higher (in 2011 that Hawks side was beaten by eventual premiers Collingwood, with a team averaging 140 games played). In 2016 we were an outlier for being successful with our list profile.

Sorry mate, as I've repeatedly shown you but your narrative that our list is in a prime age bracket just doesn't stack up.

 

[Charlie Bucket]

The team from history that was most like our 2016 team (in age profile) were the Hawks in 2008.

Mostly youngsters, with calm heads of Crawford, Croad and Dew providing 200+ games experience.

That team also dropped off in 2009 when they lost those 3.

In 2010 they were knocked out of finals in week 1 (not so different to our 2019).

But.... by 2011 they had an 18-4 record and just lost a Prelim to Collingwood. If you look at Hawks team around say round 17 of 2011 (roughly comparable to where we’re up to this season), they had:

- 1 player 200+ (Guerra, 208 games)
- 3 players 150-199
- 6 players 100-149
- 12 players under 100 games

It’s not that different to where our list is at - but we are nowhere near being an 18-4 team as they were.

Yes we had a couple of list bumps the Hawks didn’t (namely Stringer and Dahlhaus) - but I feel our issues are more game style related than they are holes with our list, if you look at those stats...

So what your saying is, If we don’t match the Hawks era 2011 onwards it’s a massive fail and would put it down to our current game plan?

 

[josh the gent]

Haha you love to cherry pick some stats.

Firstly, to compare the two teams' trajectories just because they both won a premiership at a certain time is such a shallow way of looking at it and completely ignores all context over the following 3-4 year period in which a million things may have happened.
Secondly, Hawthorn didn't even play a game in round 17 of 2011, so I'm not sure where you're getting those numbers from.
Thirdly, look at a bigger sample size of Hawks games that year:

View attachment 957605

We have struggled to put a team out with more than around avg 85 games played this season.
In 2011 Hawthorn had the 6th most experienced list in the league. This year we are 12th for experience.

Not even in the same ball park sorry.

History tells us that the vast majority of successful finalists play sides of 100+ avg games, often a lot higher (in 2011 that Hawks side was beaten by eventual premiers Collingwood, with a team averaging 140 games played). In 2016 we were an outlier for being successful with our list profile.

Sorry mate, as I've repeatedly shown you but your narrative that our list is in a prime age bracket just doesn't stack up.

Show me where i’ve said our list is in a prime age bracket?

I’ve repeatedly said we’re not super young anymore, and quickly approaching our prime years. Indeed my point is that our age profile is not an excuse for poor performance - and provided stats to back that view up.

Regarding your points:

1. Of course it’s not a perfect measure, but there are enough parallels between wb 2020 and Hawks 2011 to draw from.
2. Ok fair enough - those stats were from round 18, 2011 (Melb vs Hawthorn). Pick another Hawks game around that time if you think i’m cherry picking. Of course you’re welcome to correct any grammatical errors i make as well.
3. Using the mean average is a poor representation of teams experience, it’s heavily impacted by outliers (such as GWS in season 1). Further, sighting the total number of games on the list is not really relevant to match day performance - it’s all about the team selected.

My point, is that there are considerable similarities between the age profile of teams that the Hawks selected throughout 2011, and the teams we’ve selected in 2020.

We are nowhere near being an 18-4 team though - why???

 

[josh the gent]

So what your saying is, If we don’t match the Hawks era 2011 onwards it’s a massive fail and would put it down to our current game plan?

Where did I say that?

Hawks 2011’s teams had a similar age profile to ours in 2020. They also shared a similar history to us regarding the 2008 and 2016 premierships.

However, Hawks were a super competitive team in 2011 - we’ve been uncompetitive versus the better teams this year.

Does that help?

 

[bresker]

Some say the magic formula isn't just one hundred plus games; it's 100+ games played as a team . That’s when you know what your teammate is going to do next , where to pass to, where to run to, what to cover.

Hunter, keath , Wallis, Libba are all experienced players . We don’t need to parachute in a Luke Hodge type, though it might help. I’d prefer a speedy forward than an aging midfield general.

 

[Charlie Bucket]

Where did I say that?

Hawks 2011’s teams had a similar age profile to ours in 2020. They also shared a similar history to us regarding the 2008 and 2016 premierships.

However, Hawks were a super competitive team in 2011 - we’ve been uncompetitive versus the better teams this year.

Does that help?

Your argument loses all credibility if you’re suggesting our current pass mark, on the back of our age/experience demographic (which isn’t comparable to Hawks of 2011 anyway) is Hawthorns 2011 season win/loss record. Which is what you have done in multiple posts now asking why our current win loss record isn’t 18-4.

You’re bringing the goal posts in to within a foot of each other with those expectations.

 

[BEaston]

Show me where i’ve said our list is in a prime age bracket?

I’ve repeatedly said we’re not super young anymore, and quickly approaching our prime years. Indeed my point is that our age profile is not an excuse for poor performance - and provided stats to back that view up.

Regarding your points:

1. Of course it’s not a perfect measure, but there are enough parallels between wb 2020 and Hawks 2011 to draw from.
2. Ok fair enough - those stats were from round 18, 2011 (Melb vs Hawthorn). Pick another Hawks game around that time if you think i’m cherry picking. Of course you’re welcome to correct any grammatical errors i make as well.
3. Using the mean average is a poor representation of teams experience, it’s heavily impacted by outliers (such as GWS in season 1). Further, sighting the total number of games on the list is not really relevant to match day performance - it’s all about the team selected.

My point, is that there are considerable similarities between the age profile of teams that the Hawks selected throughout 2011, and the teams we’ve selected in 2020.

We are nowhere near being an 18-4 team though - why???

Did you even read my post? I did look at other Hawks games. It shows they were way more experienced, especially for their finals teams. Of course list experience matters because week to week you're often selecting several players from your 23rd to 30th player on the list due to injuries. I would have thought that was obvious.

You talk about outliers then use GWS season 1 as the reasoning..... which is an outlier in itself being a totally new club. Mean is a perfectly fine measure to use for experience in normal situations.

I've just demonstrably shown that we are not similar to Hawks in 2011. I couldn't make it any more clear.

 

[josh the gent]

Your argument loses all credibility if you’re suggesting our current pass mark, on the back of our age/experience demographic (which isn’t comparable to Hawks of 2011 anyway) is Hawthorns 2011 season win/loss record. Which is what you have done in multiple posts now asking why our current win loss record isn’t 18-4.

You’re bringing the goal posts in to within a foot of each other with those expectations.

My point is that despite similarities in experience profiles, the Hawks were super competitive in 2011, the Dogs in 2020 are not.

 

[Next Waiting]

My point is that despite similarities in experience profiles, the Hawks were super competitive in 2011, the Dogs in 2020 are not.

Hold that thought. It ain't over till it's over.

 

[josh the gent]

Did you even read my post? I did look at other Hawks games. It shows they were way more experienced, especially for their finals teams. Of course list experience matters because week to week you're often selecting several players from your 23rd to 30th player on the list due to injuries. I would have thought that was obvious.

You talk about outliers then use GWS season 1 as the reasoning..... which is an outlier in itself being a totally new club. Mean is a perfectly fine measure to use for experience in normal situations.

I've just demonstrably shown that we are not similar to Hawks in 2011. I couldn't make it any more clear.

Yes, you’ve provided stats that back your view.

As have I.

Comparing our last 6 games available on afltables (games 9-14 of this season - from Richmond match onwards), versus Hawthorn’s games 9-14 in season 2011:

- Hawks teams had an average of 9.8 players per game with over 100 games experience.
- We had an average of 9.3 players on same stat.

Not much difference. Fast forward to the Hawks last 6 games that season (incl finals):
- Their number goes up to 10.7
- Hypothetically ours would also similarly increase with Lloyd and McLean approaching 100 games.

Those statistics prove there are similarities.

For me, list inexperience is not the reason behind our poor 2020 performance - but i never have been one to drink the kool-aid.

 

[josh the gent]

Hold that thought. It ain't over till it's over.

Hahahaha, here’s hoping!

Mate i will be delighted if we win the whole thing this year.

 

[Next Waiting]

Hahahaha, here’s hoping!

Mate i will be delighted if we win the whole thing this year.

The correct BF phraseology is "I'd love to be proven wrong" e.g. 'Gardner will never make it but I'd love to be proven wrong' or "Bailey Williams is sh1t and we should trade him to Adelaide for whatever we can get...but I'd love to be proven wrong", "Libba is done, he will never recapture his 2016 form...but I'd love to be proven wrong" et cetera...et cetera

 

[Boyd oh Boyd]

Hawthorn 2011 in their first 15 games

Round	150+	100-149	50-99	0-49	Average age older than opponent?	Result
1	Haw: 4 (Ade: 3)	Haw: 8 (Ade: 5)	Haw: 4 (Ade: 6)	Haw: 6 (Ade: 6)	YES	LOSS
2	Haw: 5 (Mel: 1)	Haw: 8 (Mel: 4)	Haw: 4 (Mel: 5)	Haw: 5 (Mel: 12)	YES	WIN
3	Haw: 5 (Ric: 1)	Haw: 8 (Ric: 1)	Haw: 4 (Ric: 7)	Haw: 5 (Ric: 13)	YES	WIN
4	Haw: 6 (WC: 5)	Haw: 7 (WC: 1)	Haw: 5 (WC: 7)	Haw: 4 (WC: 9)	YES	WIN
5	Haw: 6 (Gee: 11)	Haw: 7 (Gee: 1)	Haw: 6 (Gee: 6)	Haw: 3 (Gee: 4)	NO	LOSS
6	-	-	-	-	-	-
7	Haw: 5 (Port: 3)	Haw: 6 (Port: 4)	Haw: 6 (Port: 7)	Haw: 5 (Port: 8)	YES	WIN
8	Haw: 5 (StK: 8)	Haw: 7 (StK: 3)	Haw: 3 (StK: 6)	Haw: 7 (StK: 5)	NO	WIN
9	Haw: 5 (Syd: 6)	Haw: 6 (Syd: 3)	Haw: 3 (Syd: 4)	Haw: 8 (Syd: 9)	NO	WIN
10	Haw: 5 (WB: 7)	Haw: 6 (WB: 4)	Haw: 3 (WB: 4)	Haw: 8 (WB: 7)	NO	WIN
11	Haw: 4 (Fre: 3)	Haw: 5 (Fre: 3)	Haw: 4 (Fre: 4)	Haw: 9 (Fre: 12)	YES	WIN
12	Haw: 4 (Gee: 11)	Haw: 6 (Gee: 2)	Haw: 5 (Gee: 4)	Haw: 7 (Gee: 5)	NO	LOSS
13	Haw: 3 (GC: 4)	Haw: 7 (GC: 3)	Haw: 3 (GC: 1)	Haw: 9 (GC: 14)	YES	WIN
14	Haw: 5 (Ess: 5)	Haw: 5 (Ess: 3)	Haw: 2 (Ess: 5)	Haw: 10 (Ess: 9)	YES	WIN
15	Haw: 5 (Coll: 7)	Haw: 4 (Coll: 6)	Haw: 3 (Coll: 2)	Haw: 10 (Coll: 7)	NO	LOSS
16	Haw: 4 (Bris: 4)	Haw: 4 (Bris: 3)	Haw: 4 (Bris: 4)	Haw: 10 (Bris: 11)	YES	WIN

And Western Bulldogs 2020 in our first 15 games

Round	150+	100-149	50-99	0-49	Average age older than opponent?	Result
1	WB: 2 (Coll: 5)	WB: 7 (Coll: 5)	WB: 5 (Coll: 6)	WB: 8 (Coll: 6)	NO	LOSS
2	WB: 1 (StK: 4)	WB: 3 (StK: 3)	WB: 5 (StK: 5)	WB: 10 (StK: 10)	NO	LOSS
3	WB: 1 (GWS: 6)	WB: 7 (GWS: 4)	WB: 7 (GWS: 3	WB: 7 (GWS: 9)	NO	WIN
4	WB: 0 (Syd: 3)	WB: 7 (Syd: 5)	WB: 5 (Syd: 6)	WB: 10 (Syd: 8)	NO	WIN
5	WB: 1 (NM: 7)	WB: 7 (NM: 5)	WB: 6 (NM: 4)	WB: 8 (NM: 6)	NO	WIN
6	WB: 1 (Car: 5)	WB: 7 (Car: 5)	WB: 5 (Car: 4)	WB: 9 (Car: 8)	NO	LOSS
7	WB: 2 (Ess: 3)	WB: 8 (Ess: 2)	WB: 3 (Ess: 9)	WB: 9 (Ess: 8)	NO	WIN
8	WB: 2 (GC: 3)	WB: 7 (GC: 5)	WB: 2 (GC: 4)	WB: 11 (GC: 10)	YES	WIN
9	WB: 4 (Ric: 5)	WB: 7 (Ric: 1)	WB: 4 (Ric: 4)	WB: 7 (Ric: 12)	YES	LOSS
10	WB: 2 (Port: 5)	WB: 7 (Port: 5)	WB: 6 (Port: 5)	WB: 7 (Port: 7)	NO	LOSS
11	WB: 2 (Bris: 5)	WB: 6 (Bris: 5)	WB: 7 (Bris: 6)	WB: 7 (Bris: 6)	NO	LOSS
12	WB: 2 (Ade: 7)	WB: 5 (Ade: 3)	WB: 6 (Ade: 1)	WB: 9 (Ade: 11)	NO	WIN
13	WB: 2 (Mel: 3)	WB: 8 (Mel: 5)	WB: 4 (Mel: 6)	WB: 8 (Mel: 8)	NO	WIN
14	WB: 2 (Gee: 10)	WB: 9 (Gee: 3)	WB: 4 (Gee: 5)	WB: 7 (Gee: 4)	NO	LOSS
15	-	-	-	-	-	-
16	WB: 1 (WC: 6)	WB: 8 (WC: 4)	WB: 7 (WC: 7)	WB: 6 (WC: 5)	NO	WIN

Hawthorn has an average age higher than their opponent more than us (9 to 2), have more 150 gamers more than their opponent than we do (6 to 0), and less 0-49 players than their opponent than we do (8 to 3) which goes a long way to explain how they were a more consistent side than we are this year. Also of note is that we usually have more 100-149 players compared to them, maybe suggesting that we're just a little bit behind in experience than Hawthorn were that year.

Thanks for helping me kill time.

 

[josh the gent]

Hawthorn has an average age higher than their opponent more than us (9 to 2), have more 150 gamers more than their opponent than we do (6 to 0), and less 0-49 players than their opponent than we do (8 to 3) which goes a long way to explain how they were a more consistent side than we are this year. Also of note is that we usually have more 100-149 players compared to them, maybe suggesting that we're just a little bit behind in experience than Hawthorn were that year.

Thanks for helping me kill time.

Kudos - that is some pretty cool analysis.

What really strikes me is that both the Hawks 2011, and Dogs 2020, had more players in the 100-149 game bracket in all games bar 1 each.

I suppose it remains to be seen the difference it will make when our glut of players move to the 150-200 game bracket.

To be fair, Hodge/Burgoyne/Mitchell were in the 150-200 group that year...

Either way - no doubt Bevo is going to stay in his job so i suppose we will find out!

 

[BEaston]

Yes, you’ve provided stats that back your view.

As have I.

Comparing our last 6 games available on afltables (games 9-14 of this season - from Richmond match onwards), versus Hawthorn’s games 9-14 in season 2011:

- Hawks teams had an average of 9.8 players per game with over 100 games experience.
- We had an average of 9.3 players on same stat.

Not much difference. Fast forward to the Hawks last 6 games that season (incl finals):
- Their number goes up to 10.7
- Hypothetically ours would also similarly increase with Lloyd and McLean approaching 100 games.

Those statistics prove there are similarities.

For me, list inexperience is not the reason behind our poor 2020 performance - but i never have been one to drink the kool-aid.

More cherry picking. All that proves is that we're missing players at that top end of experience. I daresay there's a reason you used 100 as the cut off and not 150 or 200. Also rounds 9-14 of 2011 nicely aligns to when Hawks were playing their least experienced teams that year (most likely due to injury).



Over the season, 98 v 82 games played average.
Hawks 6th most experienced list in the league 2011, Dogs 12th most experience this year.
They aren't a similar list profile sorry.

Your narrative is wrong. We have a young list, and are fielding a consistently younger team than the opposition week to week. I've shown that in this thread previously.

Your last line is fine but that's not what you've said previously... if you think our list inexperience is not the reason for any of our performance, that's totally fine and your opinion but to deny it's inexperienced in the first place is just demonstrably incorrect.

If you think our gameplan is the issue I'd be interested in seeing some posts regarding that specifically rather than drawing false equivalences to other teams based on list profile. I had a quick browse of the thread, apart from your assertion that the game plan is broken I couldn't actually see much on the topic. I'd be keen to read some of your analysis on that.

 

[Boyd oh Boyd]

Kudos - that is some pretty cool analysis.

What really strikes me is that both the Hawks 2011, and Dogs 2020, had more players in the 100-149 game bracket in all games bar 1 each.

I suppose it remains to be seen the difference it will make when our glut of players move to the 150-200 game bracket.

To be fair, Hodge/Burgoyne/Mitchell were in the 150-200 group that year...

Either way - no doubt Bevo is going to stay in his job so i suppose we will find out!

Also strikes me that when Hawthorn were older than their opponent they won 8 out of 9 times. We've been older than our opponents 4 times over the past two years for 1 win 3 losses. Very very weird. Maybe it's just too small a sample and we'll need to wait to get a good sized sample across a single season like Hawthorn that year.

 

[Virgin Dog]

Also strikes me that when Hawthorn were older than their opponent they won 8 out of 9 times. We've been older than our opponents 4 times over the past two years for 1 win 3 losses. Very very weird. Maybe it's just too small a sample and we'll need to wait to get a good sized sample across a single season like Hawthorn that year.

Looking at the quality of our older players, you can sort of see why that would be the case. Trengove, Dickson, Suckling, Wood, Lloyd and Duryea are our 6 oldest.

Trengove, Dickson and Lloyd are no longer AFL quality. Duryea is a decent player, but he fits into the 16-22 category, not the kind of guy who carries a team on his back. Wood is inconsistent the last couple of years, and Suckling is going downhill. None of the 6 oldest players on our list can be considered best 22.