and at nearly a mill a year eachMay, Lever, OMac, Hibberd, Jetta is a pretty decent backline though.
Clearly May and Lever are the 2 keys they'll build it around, although injury prone.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
and at nearly a mill a year eachMay, Lever, OMac, Hibberd, Jetta is a pretty decent backline though.
Clearly May and Lever are the 2 keys they'll build it around, although injury prone.
I like to trot out a table whenever this claim is made. Performance of older teams since 1897:
Bracket (difference in avg age to opponent) Played Won Lost Drawn Win %< +0.5y 4902 2491 2366 45 51.27+0.5 to +1y 4187 2317 1826 44 55.86+1 to +1.5y 2906 1703 1171 32 59.15+1.5 to +2y 1832 1162 651 19 63.95+2 to +2.5y 1002 667 323 12 67.17+2.5 to +3y 485 338 143 4 70.10> +3y 318 251 64 3 79.40
If you're not performing to at least those win percentages, you're failing by definition.
Anyway I'm done discussing the Hawks for the time being. My opinion isn't important in the scheme of things.
4 of the top 5 are 25 or under.
RTB, is there any way you can break this data down further, perhaps eliminating where the 'young' side was "x" below the median AFL age?
I'm pretty sure GC/GWS startups would skew those figures pretty heavily
| Bracket (difference in avg age to opponent) | Played | Won | Lost | Drawn | Win % |
| < +0.5y | 4359 | 2212 | 2109 | 38 | 51.18 |
| +0.5 to +1y | 3742 | 2039 | 1660 | 43 | 55.06 |
| +1 to +1.5y | 2568 | 1479 | 1059 | 30 | 58.18 |
| +1.5 to +2y | 1594 | 981 | 595 | 18 | 62.11 |
| +2 to +2.5y | 860 | 564 | 285 | 11 | 66.22 |
| +2.5 to +3y | 402 | 275 | 123 | 4 | 68.91 |
| > +3y | 237 | 179 | 56 | 2 | 75.95 |
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
I’m not sure some on our own board stuck through round two...
That’s why RTB’s data is helpful though, to flesh out Bunk’s initial question. Data nerds are always welcome with me.I agree with most of your premise Ron, and bow down to your data.
But I guess your historic data and point is exactly what the OP was originally about, that successful teams climb the mountain they reach their peak (hopefully win a flag (or multiple)) but then all teams eventually fall away.
What usually happens is teams get old, champions retire, and then the clubs spend time in the wilderness hoping to develop the next wave of champions...most fail to ever come on, and hence plenty of clubs spend decades just churning through kids losing games.
Hawks are trying a different approach, they are targeting ready made players - grab Mitchell just as he is ready to win a Brownlow, get JOM/Patton and Scully and get them fit, bring in guys like Wingard who are quality, and then plug gaps with senior players like Henderson, Frost and Impey who have been great pickups.
Sure they may not ‘win’ another premiership this year, but going down the full rebuild blow up the list and start again StK style isn’t any guaranteed approach either.
They won the 2015 flag, only 9 from that team still playing...that is a decent turnover, and argue it is an entirely new group doing the heavy lifting - Mitchell, JOM, Worpel, Sicily, Wingard, Hardwick, Henderson and Ceglar as #1 ruck!!
That group didn’t cost Hawks any elite top end draft picks.
I was looking forward to Hawthorn falling away, but unfortunately think I will be waiting a few years again.
I wants some standard deviation of list ages from the league age average ...if that makes sense. So we can kill the get rid of Burgers and we aren’t that bad argument - or indeed confirm the argument.Not sure exclusions are valid on that basis. You'd also have to exclude the following recent wins by the Bulldogs.
2019 R23 d. Ad 23.85 diff -3.29
2019 R21 d. Es 24.76 diff -1.35
2019 R16 d. Ge 24.55 diff -1.95
2019 R2 d. Ha 24.27 diff -2.50
2019 R1 d. Sy 24.30 diff -1.06
2018 R21 d. NM 23.85 diff -2.20
2018 R15 d. Ge 23.33 diff -2.26
2018 R8 d. Br 22.57 diff -1.84
2018 R6 d. Ca 22.97 diff -1.57
2018 R3 d. Es 23.56 diff -1.85
Which is a side above the line in development...
But for the record, here are the figures to the end of 2010:
Bracket (difference in avg age to opponent) Played Won Lost Drawn Win %< +0.5y 4359 2212 2109 38 51.18+0.5 to +1y 3742 2039 1660 43 55.06+1 to +1.5y 2568 1479 1059 30 58.18+1.5 to +2y 1594 981 595 18 62.11+2 to +2.5y 860 564 285 11 66.22+2.5 to +3y 402 275 123 4 68.91> +3y 237 179 56 2 75.95
I'm yet to come across a Hawthorn supporter in recent times who likes the numbers, and Gralin may yet be along to delete these tables. They are what they are.
I wants some standard deviation of list ages from the league age average ...if that makes sense. So we can kill the get rid of Burgers and we aren’t that bad argument - or indeed confirm the argument.
c’mon rtb.
be great to see how all the teams stack up too
Lists on the park with standard deviation thenEh, I don't do list ages. Only the teams on the park. The Dallas Willsmores and Jono O'Rourkes cloud the issue.
Champion Data are pretty good at coming up with methodologies to quantify awkward things, but they're a little speculative by nature.
Lists on the park with standard deviation then
| Club | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 |
| Ad | 23.98 (3.19) | 25.00 (3.40) | 24.43 (3.15) | 24.95 (3.31) | 24.75 (3.02) | 25.13 (3.22) | 25.35 (2.93) | 25.89 (3.55) | 26.42 (3.32) | 25.19 (3.46) |
| Br | 23.98 (3.63) | 24.49 (4.06) | 24.58 (3.79) | 23.67 (3.95) | 23.68 (3.39) | 23.83 (3.41) | 23.47 (3.25) | 24.31 (4.07) | 25.20 (4.07) | 25.24 (4.01) |
| Ca | 24.41 (2.79) | 24.72 (2.88) | 25.36 (2.96) | 25.69 (3.10) | 25.37 (3.27) | 25.31 (3.42) | 24.55 (4.26) | 24.55 (4.35) | 24.60 (4.37) | 26.17 (4.13) |
| Co | 25.05 (3.25) | 24.27 (3.15) | 25.19 (3.47) | 24.72 (3.10) | 24.18 (3.18) | 24.32 (3.01) | 24.90 (3.09) | 24.91 (3.46) | 26.19 (3.15) | 26.30 (3.18) |
| Es | 24.08 (3.77) | 24.62 (3.54) | 24.85 (3.33) | 25.34 (4.02) | 25.17 (3.83) | 25.20 (4.14) | 25.68 (3.93) | 25.50 (3.49) | 25.28 (3.21) | 25.49 (2.99) |
| Fr | 24.39 (3.31) | 25.21 (3.15) | 25.24 (3.09) | 26.48 (3.42) | 26.56 (3.73) | 25.95 (3.93) | 24.92 (4.02) | 24.39 (4.26) | 24.80 (3.58) | 24.46 (3.37) |
| Ge | 26.67 (4.04) | 25.94 (4.03) | 25.89 (3.93) | 26.07 (3.74) | 25.62 (4.48) | 26.19 (3.76) | 25.99 (3.53) | 25.43 (3.78) | 26.21 (4.26) | 27.24 (4.30) |
| GC | 22.35 (3.59) | 22.69 (3.32) | 23.02 (3.15) | 22.92 (2.89) | 23.31 (3.01) | 24.08 (3.53) | 23.94 (3.57) | 23.94 (3.50) | 23.95 (3.44) | 23.59 (3.49) |
| GWS | 21.91 (4.61) | 21.63 (3.11) | 22.35 (2.96) | 23.23 (2.94) | 24.83 (3.52) | 25.07 (3.44) | 25.21 (3.35) | 25.59 (3.90) | 25.89 (3.78) | |
| Ha | 24.97 (3.07) | 25.09 (3.03) | 26.00 (3.36) | 25.84 (3.26) | 26.81 (3.56) | 26.49 (3.77) | 26.13 (3.95) | 26.13 (3.83) | 26.52 (4.28) | 28.16 (3.90) |
| Me | 23.26 (2.90) | 24.04 (2.72) | 24.08 (2.87) | 24.66 (3.14) | 24.68 (3.57) | 23.72 (3.13) | 24.57 (3.33) | 24.89 (3.54) | 24.82 (3.10) | 25.34 (3.19) |
| NM | 24.26 (3.52) | 24.45 (3.51) | 24.82 (3.42) | 25.82 (3.80) | 26.74 (4.12) | 27.62 (4.39) | 25.24 (3.74) | 25.64 (3.58) | 25.80 (3.63) | 26.30 (3.76) |
| PA | 24.22 (3.25) | 24.25 (2.94) | 23.80 (3.07) | 24.54 (3.27) | 25.09 (2.90) | 24.66 (2.81) | 25.13 (3.12) | 25.79 (3.28) | 25.21 (4.20) | 26.15 (4.35) |
| Ri | 23.18 (2.67) | 23.92 (3.11) | 24.99 (3.05) | 24.87 (2.89) | 25.10 (2.97) | 24.81 (2.88) | 24.65 (2.90) | 25.41 (3.09) | 25.02 (3.44) | 26.31 (3.44) |
| St | 26.07 (2.92) | 26.35 (3.60) | 25.57 (4.13) | 25.10 (4.39) | 24.71 (4.24) | 25.22 (4.26) | 25.09 (3.64) | 24.41 (3.22) | 24.41 (2.63) | 25.13 (3.18) |
| Sy | 25.27 (3.83) | 25.97 (3.74) | 26.27 (3.80) | 26.23 (3.77) | 26.48 (4.07) | 25.16 (3.73) | 25.09 (3.74) | 25.43 (4.09) | 24.36 (3.65) | 24.62 (3.40) |
| WC | 24.31 (3.41) | 24.76 (3.31) | 25.22 (3.29) | 25.02 (2.95) | 25.12 (2.91) | 26.02 (2.85) | 26.76 (3.77) | 25.73 (3.31) | 26.11 (3.54) | 26.96 (3.36) |
| WB | 24.96 (3.96) | 24.65 (3.72) | 24.64 (4.02) | 24.99 (4.16) | 24.29 (4.13) | 24.53 (4.00) | 25.00 (4.15) | 23.54 (3.38) | 24.43 (3.62) | 24.93 (3.24) |
I’m sorry sir, this is a contravention of the first law of Big Footy. Thou shalt not change ones mind under weight of evidence; thou shalt double down. Yellow card for you!
There are degrees of rebuild. It's impractical for a club that has been to the top to opt for a rebuild from ground zero; it's too big a fall for the casual fan to cop, and membership suffers. Not what I'm suggesting Hawthorn should do. All I'm saying is that the current approach is unsustainable. The conveyor belt needs to keep moving at the bottom end.
H&A games played by under-22's:
Year Ad Br Ca Co Es Fr Ge GC GWS Ha Me NM PA Ri St Sy WC WB 2020 10 10 4 5 4 12 8 14 10 6 5 8 9 5 7 12 5 8 2019 71 138 189 48 122 107 107 181 102 104 61 101 126 112 96 120 80 126 2018 86 164 198 107 86 137 114 150 78 92 68 71 76 91 106 111 86 186 2017 39 198 160 104 112 135 81 154 58 76 139 110 98 121 111 130 63 140 2016 99 186 95 109 132 85 50 166 87 64 161 37 109 91 117 119 39 147 2015 94 195 102 159 102 69 97 170 193 43 131 47 88 87 138 84 78 160
2019 not too bad, but only four u25 players in the top 18 in the b&f. It isn't enough.
Fair enough if they can grab enough of the pool of available 25yo's to launch another assault. But there aren't enough to go around and someone's got to miss out.
Where's your data showing playing more u22s has any advantage ?
You're basing all your findings off the false assumption than youth equals improvement and age equals decline when actual data shows it doesn't happen in reality.
Not sure exclusions are valid on that basis. You'd also have to exclude the following recent wins by the Bulldogs.
2019 R23 d. Ad 23.85 diff -3.29
2019 R21 d. Es 24.76 diff -1.35
2019 R16 d. Ge 24.55 diff -1.95
2019 R2 d. Ha 24.27 diff -2.50
2019 R1 d. Sy 24.30 diff -1.06
2018 R21 d. NM 23.85 diff -2.20
2018 R15 d. Ge 23.33 diff -2.26
2018 R8 d. Br 22.57 diff -1.84
2018 R6 d. Ca 22.97 diff -1.57
2018 R3 d. Es 23.56 diff -1.85
Which is a side above the line in development...
But for the record, here are the figures to the end of 2010:
Bracket (difference in avg age to opponent) Played Won Lost Drawn Win %< +0.5y 4359 2212 2109 38 51.18+0.5 to +1y 3742 2039 1660 43 55.06+1 to +1.5y 2568 1479 1059 30 58.18+1.5 to +2y 1594 981 595 18 62.11+2 to +2.5y 860 564 285 11 66.22+2.5 to +3y 402 275 123 4 68.91> +3y 237 179 56 2 75.95
I'm yet to come across a Hawthorn supporter in recent times who likes the numbers, and Gralin may yet be along to delete these tables. They are what they are.
| Bracket (difference in avg age to opponent) | Played | Won | Lost | Drawn | Win % |
| < +0.5y | 543 | 279 | 257 | 7 | 51.38% |
| +0.5 to +1y | 445 | 278 | 166 | 1 | 62.47% |
| +1 to +1.5y | 338 | 224 | 112 | 2 | 66.27% |
| +1.5 to +2y | 238 | 181 | 56 | 1 | 76.05% |
| +2 to +2.5y | 142 | 103 | 38 | 1 | 72.54% |
| +2.5 to +3y | 83 | 63 | 20 | 0 | 75.90% |
| > +3y | 81 | 72 | 8 | 1 | 88.89% |
Playing youth nearly always invokes a performance hit. It's what you have to do when you go over the cliff (e.g. Adelaide) or what you try to do with an eye beyond winning this week's game. It's a balancing act that involves sacrifice whichever way you go.
Getting that balance right looms as Richmond's biggest challenge this year. The time is fast approaching for us to take a few risks in order that the team continues developing. Very hard to promote without the VFL in action, though.
old + winning = good
old + losing = bad
young + winning = great!
young + losing = jury out
The data doesn't support that. Older lists do better both in the now and the future
So why is old and bad worse than young and bad and why is young and good better than old and good ?
RTB, are you able to compare individual clubs age-related performances (esp Hawthorn and any other clubs you want to note for comparison) with these age differences over the period since 2010?
Have you got a table or chart of games played by under 22's and compared it to future performanceThere are degrees of rebuild. It's impractical for a club that has been to the top to opt for a rebuild from ground zero; it's too big a fall for the casual fan to cop, and membership suffers. Not what I'm suggesting Hawthorn should do. All I'm saying is that the current approach is unsustainable. The conveyor belt needs to keep moving at the bottom end.
H&A games played by under-22's:
Year Ad Br Ca Co Es Fr Ge GC GWS Ha Me NM PA Ri St Sy WC WB 2020 10 10 4 5 4 12 8 14 10 6 5 8 9 5 7 12 5 8 2019 71 138 189 48 122 107 107 181 102 104 61 101 126 112 96 120 80 126 2018 86 164 198 107 86 137 114 150 78 92 68 71 76 91 106 111 86 186 2017 39 198 160 104 112 135 81 154 58 76 139 110 98 121 111 130 63 140 2016 99 186 95 109 132 85 50 166 87 64 161 37 109 91 117 119 39 147 2015 94 195 102 159 102 69 97 170 193 43 131 47 88 87 138 84 78 160
2019 not too bad, but only four u25 players in the top 18 in the b&f. It isn't enough.
Fair enough if they can grab enough of the pool of available 25yo's to launch another assault. But there aren't enough to go around and someone's got to miss out.
Jesus Christ we are ****ing ancientH&A teams, avg age with SD in brakcets. Not sure it adds very much, given outliers at both ends of the age spectrum will increase SD.
Club 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ad 23.98 (3.19) 25.00 (3.40) 24.43 (3.15) 24.95 (3.31) 24.75 (3.02) 25.13 (3.22) 25.35 (2.93) 25.89 (3.55) 26.42 (3.32) 25.19 (3.46) Br 23.98 (3.63) 24.49 (4.06) 24.58 (3.79) 23.67 (3.95) 23.68 (3.39) 23.83 (3.41) 23.47 (3.25) 24.31 (4.07) 25.20 (4.07) 25.24 (4.01) Ca 24.41 (2.79) 24.72 (2.88) 25.36 (2.96) 25.69 (3.10) 25.37 (3.27) 25.31 (3.42) 24.55 (4.26) 24.55 (4.35) 24.60 (4.37) 26.17 (4.13) Co 25.05 (3.25) 24.27 (3.15) 25.19 (3.47) 24.72 (3.10) 24.18 (3.18) 24.32 (3.01) 24.90 (3.09) 24.91 (3.46) 26.19 (3.15) 26.30 (3.18) Es 24.08 (3.77) 24.62 (3.54) 24.85 (3.33) 25.34 (4.02) 25.17 (3.83) 25.20 (4.14) 25.68 (3.93) 25.50 (3.49) 25.28 (3.21) 25.49 (2.99) Fr 24.39 (3.31) 25.21 (3.15) 25.24 (3.09) 26.48 (3.42) 26.56 (3.73) 25.95 (3.93) 24.92 (4.02) 24.39 (4.26) 24.80 (3.58) 24.46 (3.37) Ge 26.67 (4.04) 25.94 (4.03) 25.89 (3.93) 26.07 (3.74) 25.62 (4.48) 26.19 (3.76) 25.99 (3.53) 25.43 (3.78) 26.21 (4.26) 27.24 (4.30) GC 22.35 (3.59) 22.69 (3.32) 23.02 (3.15) 22.92 (2.89) 23.31 (3.01) 24.08 (3.53) 23.94 (3.57) 23.94 (3.50) 23.95 (3.44) 23.59 (3.49) GWS 21.91 (4.61) 21.63 (3.11) 22.35 (2.96) 23.23 (2.94) 24.83 (3.52) 25.07 (3.44) 25.21 (3.35) 25.59 (3.90) 25.89 (3.78) Ha 24.97 (3.07) 25.09 (3.03) 26.00 (3.36) 25.84 (3.26) 26.81 (3.56) 26.49 (3.77) 26.13 (3.95) 26.13 (3.83) 26.52 (4.28) 28.16 (3.90) Me 23.26 (2.90) 24.04 (2.72) 24.08 (2.87) 24.66 (3.14) 24.68 (3.57) 23.72 (3.13) 24.57 (3.33) 24.89 (3.54) 24.82 (3.10) 25.34 (3.19) NM 24.26 (3.52) 24.45 (3.51) 24.82 (3.42) 25.82 (3.80) 26.74 (4.12) 27.62 (4.39) 25.24 (3.74) 25.64 (3.58) 25.80 (3.63) 26.30 (3.76) PA 24.22 (3.25) 24.25 (2.94) 23.80 (3.07) 24.54 (3.27) 25.09 (2.90) 24.66 (2.81) 25.13 (3.12) 25.79 (3.28) 25.21 (4.20) 26.15 (4.35) Ri 23.18 (2.67) 23.92 (3.11) 24.99 (3.05) 24.87 (2.89) 25.10 (2.97) 24.81 (2.88) 24.65 (2.90) 25.41 (3.09) 25.02 (3.44) 26.31 (3.44) St 26.07 (2.92) 26.35 (3.60) 25.57 (4.13) 25.10 (4.39) 24.71 (4.24) 25.22 (4.26) 25.09 (3.64) 24.41 (3.22) 24.41 (2.63) 25.13 (3.18) Sy 25.27 (3.83) 25.97 (3.74) 26.27 (3.80) 26.23 (3.77) 26.48 (4.07) 25.16 (3.73) 25.09 (3.74) 25.43 (4.09) 24.36 (3.65) 24.62 (3.40) WC 24.31 (3.41) 24.76 (3.31) 25.22 (3.29) 25.02 (2.95) 25.12 (2.91) 26.02 (2.85) 26.76 (3.77) 25.73 (3.31) 26.11 (3.54) 26.96 (3.36) WB 24.96 (3.96) 24.65 (3.72) 24.64 (4.02) 24.99 (4.16) 24.29 (4.13) 24.53 (4.00) 25.00 (4.15) 23.54 (3.38) 24.43 (3.62) 24.93 (3.24)
Wow, that’s the most confusing graph I’ve ever encountered.Not sure if this will give stat points with hovering - but this is plotting the games played per year from RTB figures, vs final ladder position.
OLD-GOOD = Top Left
Young-Good = Top Right
Old - Bad = Bottom Left
Young - Bad = Bottom Right
View attachment 896006
Edit: Meh, can't work out how to get the trendline to show. Pretty clear almost 45 degree top left to bottom right as you'd expect.
Yep I was stunned when I heard it. Was from a Melbourne guy in the club.lol really?