Remove this Banner Ad

Universal Love David Teague

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aphrodite
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Pentatonic Flat Fifth said:
But even so - why do you decide that this is where it finishes ?.
Click to expand...

Because the argument is that in 2019 when Bolton was sacked and we hired Teague he traded youth for wins. Hence the argument ends in 2019.
 
I think it becomes even clearer when we average out the entire year - and as we can also see 2019 has the side by side variations as well.

Again - this is not a personal thing - its the actual, factual data - removed of "selective bias" and of course entirely impersonal - just reducing it to the numbers to remove the personal bias we all want to put on our views of things..


average_yearly_ages.png
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

SkyhorseTamer said:
The players you're comparing from Bolton to Teague are quite literally older when playing under Teague, as one complete and obvious hole in that 'analysis'. You've got no corrections for that rather obvious effect of the passage of time. Lol.
Click to expand...

True, but that doesn't explain the drastic increase within the year they both coached the side.

Not that I mean to fan the flames of this debate, I think it's a rather futile one.
 
juzz88 said:
True, but that doesn't explain the drastic increase within the year they both coached the side.

Not that I mean to fan the flames of this debate, I think it's a rather futile one.
Click to expand...
Tbh wrt that poster I wouldnt even believe the raw numbers unless I saw them myself. That analysis is still fairly useless, wick provided the reasons as to the age increase the half season Teague was caretaker.
 
Pentatonic Flat Fifth said:
I think it becomes even clearer when we average out the entire year - and as we can also see 2019 has the side by side variations as well.

Again - this is not a personal thing - its the actual, factual data - removed of "selective bias" and of course entirely impersonal - just reducing it to the numbers to remove the personal bias we all want to put on our views of things..


View attachment 1140367
Click to expand...

It's almost like the players on our list are mysteriously and inexplicably getting older...

Can someone find me a medical paper on this unheard-of phenomenon?
 
SkyhorseTamer said:
The players you're comparing from Bolton to Teague are quite literally older when playing under Teague, as one complete and obvious hole in that 'analysis'. You've got no corrections for that rather obvious effect of the passage of time. Lol.
Click to expand...

Players are recruited, players retire - Thomas, Simpson etc.
 
Blue__Balls said:
It's almost like the players on our list are mysteriously and inexplicably getting older...

Can someone find me a medical paper on this unheard-of phenomenon?
Click to expand...


Then there should be teams that are an average age of fifty - should there not. But players are retiring and new kids brought in. Age profile of most lists varies less than about 6 months. Some of the teams vying for flags will have an older profile - Geelong.
 
SkyhorseTamer said:
Tbh wrt that poster I wouldnt even believe the raw numbers unless I saw them myself. That analysis is still fairly useless, wick provided the reasons as to the age increase the half season Teague was caretaker.
Click to expand...


NO he provided an highly subjective analysis in my view - hence why the only way to settle the debate was with raw numbers.

You said you do not trust me - pretty disrespectful - so here are the raw numbers.



average_player_ageroundyearcoach
26.86541​
1​
2016​
Bolton
26.49613​
2​
2016​
Bolton
25.90734​
3​
2016​
Bolton
25.7022​
4​
2016​
Bolton
25.89607​
5​
2016​
Bolton
26.81541​
6​
2016​
Bolton
25.97856​
7​
2016​
Bolton
25.97856​
8​
2016​
Bolton
25.6909​
9​
2016​
Bolton
26.07413​
10​
2016​
Bolton
25.59146​
11​
2016​
Bolton
25.63981​
12​
2016​
Bolton
26.69566​
14​
2016​
Bolton
26.30791​
15​
2016​
Bolton
26.77592​
16​
2016​
Bolton
25.4144​
17​
2016​
Bolton
25.61945​
18​
2016​
Bolton
26.05811​
19​
2016​
Bolton
26.44042​
20​
2016​
Bolton
25.99513​
21​
2016​
Bolton
26.44703​
22​
2016​
Bolton
25.72761​
23​
2016​
Bolton
24.73373​
1​
2017​
Bolton
24.73373​
2​
2017​
Bolton
24.44647​
3​
2017​
Bolton
23.67532​
4​
2017​
Bolton
24.47677​
5​
2017​
Bolton
24.43123​
6​
2017​
Bolton
25.05047​
7​
2017​
Bolton
24.42316​
8​
2017​
Bolton
23.90641​
9​
2017​
Bolton
23.60595​
10​
2017​
Bolton
24.35678​
12​
2017​
Bolton
23.77687​
13​
2017​
Bolton
24.3956​
14​
2017​
Bolton
24.48093​
15​
2017​
Bolton
24.24712​
16​
2017​
Bolton
24.52114​
17​
2017​
Bolton
23.56505​
18​
2017​
Bolton
23.99638​
19​
2017​
Bolton
24.43792​
20​
2017​
Bolton
24.3259​
21​
2017​
Bolton
23.8839​
22​
2017​
Bolton
24.39224​
23​
2017​
Bolton
25.77629​
1​
2018​
Bolton
24.09628​
2​
2018​
Bolton
25.64247​
3​
2018​
Bolton
25.54485​
4​
2018​
Bolton
25.7013​
5​
2018​
Bolton
27.08295​
6​
2018​
Bolton
27.82291​
7​
2018​
Bolton
24.35987​
8​
2018​
Bolton
24.41089​
9​
2018​
Bolton
23.92404​
10​
2018​
Bolton
23.68136​
11​
2018​
Bolton
24.08818​
13​
2018​
Bolton
25.44771​
14​
2018​
Bolton
26.48195​
15​
2018​
Bolton
26.34815​
16​
2018​
Bolton
25.11463​
17​
2018​
Bolton
25.5181​
18​
2018​
Bolton
25.38657​
19​
2018​
Bolton
25.59334​
20​
2018​
Bolton
23.99478​
21​
2018​
Bolton
23.91816​
22​
2018​
Bolton
24.29899​
23​
2018​
Bolton
25.78616​
1​
2019​
Bolton
25.7304​
2​
2019​
Bolton
24.88121​
3​
2019​
Bolton
24.94987​
4​
2019​
Bolton
24.87436​
5​
2019​
Bolton
24.93361​
6​
2019​
Bolton
24.6182​
7​
2019​
Bolton
23.07477​
8​
2019​
Bolton
23.36147​
9​
2019​
Bolton
25.25806​
10​
2019​
Bolton
24.49003​
11​
2019​
Bolton
23.90279​
12​
2019​
Teague
24.55364​
13​
2019​
Teague
26.1828​
15​
2019​
Teague
26.25355​
16​
2019​
Teague
26.13272​
17​
2019​
Teague
26.55676​
18​
2019​
Teague
27.61284​
19​
2019​
Teague
26.94769​
20​
2019​
Teague
25.15988​
21​
2019​
Teague
26.04846​
22​
2019​
Teague
26.11484​
23​
2019​
Teague
25.86367​
1​
2020​
Teague
26.58239​
2​
2020​
Teague
26.1131​
3​
2020​
Teague
25.6852​
4​
2020​
Teague
25.89956​
5​
2020​
Teague
27.75226​
6​
2020​
Teague
27.75226​
7​
2020​
Teague
27.50661​
8​
2020​
Teague
27.50661​
9​
2020​
Teague
26.88836​
11​
2020​
Teague
26.69899​
12​
2020​
Teague
25.60955​
13​
2020​
Teague
25.62721​
14​
2020​
Teague
25.43878​
15​
2020​
Teague
25.01214​
16​
2020​
Teague
25.9617​
17​
2020​
Teague
27.34212​
18​
2020​
Teague
25.43746​
1​
2021​
Teague
25.64451​
2​
2021​
Teague
25.88089​
3​
2021​
Teague
27.02025​
4​
2021​
Teague
27.55942​
5​
2021​
Teague
27.63903​
6​
2021​
Teague
25.08697​
7​
2021​
Teague
25.2462​
8​
2021​
Teague
25.80208​
9​
2021​
Teague
25.24664​
10​
2021​
Teague
 
juzz88 said:
True, but that doesn't explain the drastic increase within the year they both coached the side.

Not that I mean to fan the flames of this debate, I think it's a rather futile one.
Click to expand...


I agree it is entirely futile - the ONLY reason I have any concern at all is that players being played out of position, given short change as "emergency", no real run in the firsts while others who have done far worse - or nothing - but are older come straight in - will result in damage to confidence and possibly players leaving.

This is my only concern - think Teague is a great coach - but am concerned of the impact on players, and the future. If Dow, Obrien, SPS etc start to ask for trades we will look like Essendon - and it will ruin our flag push.

Want to make that clear - its not a negative attack on Teague - I would have no one else really.
 
The good thing this year is that Dow got a block early then dropped then back and looked likely till he wore one for the jumper . Cunners in and building beautifully until . Stocker given a block and cemented so far .Love him . Owies in and cemented so far . Cottrell getting games as well as Park and he’s 19 .Lob and SPS are the interesting ones.



On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Pentatonic Flat Fifth said:
Then there should be teams that are an average age of fifty - should there not. But players are retiring and new kids brought in. Age profile of most lists varies less than about 6 months. Some of the teams vying for flags will have an older profile - Geelong.
Click to expand...

And which way did our age profile skew after culling an entire lists worth of players over 3 years, replacing as many as possible with draftees or young/cheap replacements from other clubs? Could it be we're returning to the norm...?

Mate, your data is fine, but if you think you're not applying a biased opinion to what it represents you're kidding yourself.

I could draw you a graph that shows how many times Casboult and Charlie have been selected in the senior side under Teague, and then try and claim it shows Teague is playing old blokes over kids. Context of selection is more important than numbers without context.

You're also then slapping on yet another opinion - that selecting (for example) a Newnes over a LOB is detrimental to development. Feel free to try and find some evidence that proves that.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

norway blue said:
The good thing this year is that Dow got a block early then dropped then back and looked likely till he wore one for the jumper . Cunners in and building beautifully until . Stocker given a block and cemented so far .Love him . Owies in and cemented so far . Cottrell getting games as well as Park and he’s 19 .Lob and SPS are the interesting ones.



On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...


Totally agree - and as you can see from the first posted chart there was massive drop in age profile after the media and AFL broader community including supporters started throwing fits about this.

I was screaming for Cunners to come in, just didn't get the directives he was given. Still think more can be done. Personally think Honey should be given a shot sooner rather than later.

I think Obrien and SPS have issues behind the scenes - may well be on the table with other clubs.
 
Pentatonic Flat Fifth said:
Totally agree - and as you can see from the first posted chart there was massive drop in age profile after the media and AFL broader community including supporters started throwing fits about this.

I was screaming for Cunners to come in, just didn't get the directives he was given. Still think more can be done. Personally think Honey should be given a shot sooner rather than later.

I think Obrien and SPS have issues behind the scenes - may well be on the table with other clubs.
Click to expand...

Yeah tunings fair post. On Honey he has to displace our two small forwards but not yet .


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
norway blue said:
Yeah tunings fair post. On Honey he has to displace our two small forwards but not yet .


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...


When Murphy was in the forward line it irked me. Eddie started the year the same as most of last year with very lackluster performances. He turned it around and delivered what I would consider to be reasonable - he is not delivering Cameron style.

People think these kids need to be delivering Farmer like GOAT performances to get into the firsts - we need them to get ready for 2023, our stated tilt at a flag. If Betts holds his spot all year, then next - then retires - holy smoke are we in trouble.
 
Pentatonic Flat Fifth said:
When Murphy was in the forward line it irked me. Eddie started the year the same as most of last year with very lackluster performances. He turned it around and delivered what I would consider to be reasonable - he is not delivering Cameron style.

People think these kids need to be delivering Farmer like GOAT performances to get into the firsts - we need them to get ready for 2023, our stated tilt at a flag. If Betts holds his spot all year, then next - then retires - holy smoke are we in trouble.
Click to expand...

Well on Honey then. Give him a block later to have a really close look. Couldn’t drop Owies or Eddie on current .


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Blue__Balls said:
You're also then slapping on yet another opinion - that selecting (for example) a Newnes over a LOB is detrimental to development. Feel free to try and find some evidence that proves that.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure LOB played 35 games in 2 seasons until Newnes arrived, he has since played 2 games.

I know it’s simple, but IMO recruiting Newnes has stalled LOBs development.
 
DangerousD said:
Pretty sure LOB played 35 games in 2 seasons until Newnes arrived, he has since played 2 games.

I know it’s simple, but IMO recruiting Newnes has stalled LOBs development.
Click to expand...


Playing so many games in the seniors straight up when he wasn't ready may have also had some effect on his development. Has anyone considered that maybe he's never going to be a great AFL standard player? We all know he has skills but that doesn't always translate into being a good AFL Player. We are always looking to blame someone else when a player doesn't make it, maybe they're just not good enough. I'm not saying this is definitely the case with LOB but it is a pssibillity.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

gab213 said:
Playing so many games in the seniors straight up when he wasn't ready may have also had some effect on his development. Has anyone considered that maybe he's never going to be a great AFL standard player? We all know he has skills but that doesn't always translate into being a good AFL Player. We are always looking to blame someone else when a player doesn't make it, maybe they're just not good enough. I'm not saying this is definitely the case with LOB but it is a pssibillity.
Click to expand...
I’d say before Newnes came he was on his way to being a good AFL player. His last 10 games when Teague took over 2 years ago he started to really improve and show good signs
 
DangerousD said:
Pretty sure LOB played 35 games in 2 seasons until Newnes arrived, he has since played 2 games.

I know it’s simple, but IMO recruiting Newnes has stalled LOBs development.
Click to expand...

Or it's allowing us to develop him...

This is the kicker though - who bloody knows. We don't know if he'd be better in the long run if he'd just held his senior spot every week, or if he stands to benefit more in the long run by working on his game in the reserves.

What I do know is that trying to claim that "the data" shows that Teague is favouring old blokes to the detriment of youth development is so far from reliable it's astounding to think anyone would believe it.

Firstly, the data is incredibly general and vague, and is being viewed without any effort to apply contextual understanding - age profile of list, list profile by position/age, availability of players through injury/suspension, form of players...the selectors aren't selecting on age alone, so using it as the sole measure to prove a selection policy is...not smart.

And secondly, as before, even were one able to find some kind of conclusive proof that Teague is deliberately overlooking kids in favour of old blokes (which he's clearly not...Walsh, Stocker, Owies, Cottrell, Fogarty...seems the ones who perform their role keep their spots) it's almost certain that the kids being "overlooked" are actually being "developed".
 
Pentatonic Flat Fifth said:
NO he provided an highly subjective analysis in my view - hence why the only way to settle the debate was with raw numbers.

You said you do not trust me - pretty disrespectful - so here are the raw numbers.
Click to expand...




Raw numbers do not take into consideration absolutely vital things including:

  • Reason for the omission - was the player out of the side due to injury? Was he out for personal reasons? Was he managed? Was he omitted?

  • Player availability - the fact is that a lot of our young players have had extended stints on the sidelines with injury. With your raw data injuries and availability are not considered. Your data even argues that had we dropped Levi for an injured Charlie Curnow is favorable.

  • Football ability - your raw data takes no consideration of ability, e.g. your data makes no discernible difference between the most talented player on the list and the least talented player to the point where had Teague dropped Cripps for Finbar O'Dwyer (our best player for one of our youngest, and ultimately deemed not good enough to maintain his list position) your position would have been considered favorable

  • List management structure -- beyond the incumbent Teague's fault. If we lose a key forward (e.g. Teague lost Charlie Curnow to LTI) and we have no AFL-ready young KPF (e.g. TDK was ready in the second half of 2020, something that has proven to be astute) your data is favorable if we drop him for a younger player regardless of position or team structure.

AFL players are not numbers. They are not statistical data. Without examining the reasons behind these things and many other flaws (this is the tip of the iceberg) your raw data is completely worthless.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom