Toast Freo the least experienced team this year (by a big margin)

[NicoNicoNico]

I found this stat via a reliable source on Twitter. It is the average median games played across all 20 games this season. This is very good news for the future (also good news for Geelong and Melbourne).

Bonus: Each slime players is, on average, 2.3 x as experienced as his Freo opposite number.

 

[Unique Name]

Port/Hinkley are so s**t.

 

[its free real estate]

This is very good news for the future (also good news for Geelong and Melbourne).

It's neither good nor bad news. There are plenty of clubs who have had the youngest team in the comp for years, and have struggled to escape it.

 

[theGav56]

I found this stat via a reliable source on Twitter. It is the average median games played across all 20 games this season. This is very good news for the future (also good news for Geelong and Melbourne).

Bonus: Each slime players is, on average, 2.3 x as experienced as his Freo opposite number.

We really do seem to be building some depth (especially in the critical midfield area), and also to be addressing some of the major holes in our list. I had expected our backline to function a bit better than it has and believe that it has the potential to become elite, so hoping that we will see further cohesion next season. Forward we can only see glimpses of where it is going at this stage.

 

[Scham]

Agree that it's neither necessarily good nor bad news. Highlights our poor injury record also. If Fyfe and Sandi were fit, they'd obviously play.

 

[NicoNicoNico]

Agree that it's neither necessarily good nor bad news. Highlights our poor injury record also. If Fyfe and Sandi were fit, they'd obviously play.

But the fact is that they haven't played, and despite having by far the youngest playing side we will finish 13th on the ladder (not 18th, where you would (all other things being equal) the least experienced side to finish).

 

[MadDocker]

Not a bad thing. Hopefully a nice base to build off over the next couple of years. Last time we blood the yoof under Harvey it worked out reasonably well for us in the period after.

 

[Taylor]

The trend that successful teams are usually are full of older players could be as much about their ability to carry the physical workload as it is simply that players have to be good to stick around on a list for 7 to 10 years.

 

[wayToGo_]

It's neither good nor bad news. There are plenty of clubs who have had the youngest team in the comp for years, and have struggled to escape it.

Except almost all those teams finished 17th or 18th on the ladder. We don't need to hold a parade but we can at least acknowledge we've performed reasonably this season for a very inexperienced team.

It's a pity they didn't calculate the average age experience against so you could get the differential which would perhaps be even more useful indication of how teams compare.

 

[Suma Magic]

Bonus: Each slime players is, on average, 2.3 x as experienced as his Freo opposite number.

The stat is average of median, so this isn't quite true. On the weekend your average games experience was about 75 and ours about 105.

 

[Taylor]

The stat is average of median, so this isn't quite true. On the weekend your average games experience was about 75 and ours about 105.

Which is more subject to change from extreme outliers, median or average?

 

[Suma Magic]

Which is more subject to change from extreme outliers, median or average?

I think we both know the answer to that question. I was just correcting the post.

 

[salim malik]

The stat is average of median, so this isn't quite true. On the weekend your average games experience was about 75 and ours about 105.

30 more games on average is an extra pre season plus an extra years experience

 

[Suma Magic]

30 more games on average is an extra pre season plus an extra years experience

Yeah it's a massive difference. I'm not trying to downplay it - we are really experienced and you guys are the opposite.

There was just a misunderstanding of the stat in the OP so I pointed it out.

 

[UYD 4 Life]

 

[Tbonefreo]

Pretty good development year all things considered. A few injuries like Logue, Darcy that were disappointing but it's still early for them.

 

[salim malik]

But Hawthorn are rebuilding.

 

[nurries]

We had the 5th lowest amount of games on average played but we played on average the 2nd most experienced team in terms of games

 

[Joao]

But Hawthorn are rebuilding.

That rhetoric is only bandied about by Clarkson and people who clearly don't think for themselves. Unless of course a rebuild is now playing 2-3 sub 50 gamers amongst 12 triple premiership players + change.

 

[wayToGo_]

Thanks. Matches the numbers I get for us as well (you use AFL Tables as source?). You don't have it based on Median instead of Mean do you?

Interesting that The Dogs and us have often played the oldest/more experienced teams. We had a stretch from round 17 to 20 where every opposition team was over 26 years old avg (Port, Ess, Hawks, Egos)! Really the only young team we've played all season is the Dogs back in Round 5.

We've been older and more experienced than our opposition 4 times this season. Rounds 1, 2, 3 & 5. We won 3 of those games. Round 1 is the only game where we were more experienced on the field this season and lost.

Massive 53 games experience differential against Port Adelaide and we won. Similarly 45 games against Adelaide. But we also lost against Hawks, Pies, West Coast, Essendon and Melbourne where we gave up at least a full season (~22+ games) of experience per player (Hawks was 50 games, Pies 38 games).

Still think the numbers highlight how bad we were against Brisbane. Giving up 13 games per player in experience but really should have been far more competitive. And similarly against North Melbourne. IMO those were our two worst games this year (excepting Rd 1). Some will say Hawks but they played one of the most experienced teams that any team has fielded all season against us.

 

[Joao]

Thanks. Matches the numbers I get for us as well (you use AFL Tables as source?). You don't have it based on Median instead of Mean do you?

Interesting that The Dogs and us have often played the oldest/more experienced teams. We had a stretch from round 17 to 20 where every opposition team was over 26 years old avg (Port, Ess, Hawks, Egos)! Really the only young team we've played all season is the Dogs back in Round 5.

We've been older and more experienced than our opposition 4 times this season. Rounds 1, 2, 3 & 5. We won 3 of those games. Round 1 is the only game where we were more experienced on the field this season and lost.

Massive 53 games experience differential against Port Adelaide and we won. Similarly 45 games against Adelaide. But we also lost against Hawks, Pies, West Coast, Essendon and Melbourne where we gave up at least a full season (~22+ games) of experience per player (Hawks was 50 games, Pies 38 games).

Still think the numbers highlight how bad we were against Brisbane. Giving up 13 games per player in experience but really should have been far more competitive. And similarly against North Melbourne. IMO those were our two worst games this year (excepting Rd 1). Some will say Hawks but they played one of the most experienced teams that any team has fielded all season against us.

I think the Brisbane game is the counter to the first Carlton game. As bad as the blues are, they are not as bad as we made them look in the first half of that game. They got byed as we did against Brisbane. Pretty hard to explain those two games being separated by only 2 weeks without some external factor.

 

[UYD 4 Life]

Thanks. Matches the numbers I get for us as well (you use AFL Tables as source?). You don't have it based on Median instead of Mean do you?

Interesting that The Dogs and us have often played the oldest/more experienced teams. We had a stretch from round 17 to 20 where every opposition team was over 26 years old avg (Port, Ess, Hawks, Egos)! Really the only young team we've played all season is the Dogs back in Round 5.

We've been older and more experienced than our opposition 4 times this season. Rounds 1, 2, 3 & 5. We won 3 of those games. Round 1 is the only game where we were more experienced on the field this season and lost.

Massive 53 games experience differential against Port Adelaide and we won. Similarly 45 games against Adelaide. But we also lost against Hawks, Pies, West Coast, Essendon and Melbourne where we gave up at least a full season (~22+ games) of experience per player (Hawks was 50 games, Pies 38 games).

Still think the numbers highlight how bad we were against Brisbane. Giving up 13 games per player in experience but really should have been far more competitive. And similarly against North Melbourne. IMO those were our two worst games this year (excepting Rd 1). Some will say Hawks but they played one of the most experienced teams that any team has fielded all season against us.

No worries - it was from the same twitter post as the OP (think it was posted in another thread as well). I don't have it based on median

 

[UYD 4 Life]

Thanks. Matches the numbers I get for us as well (you use AFL Tables as source?). You don't have it based on Median instead of Mean do you?

Interesting that The Dogs and us have often played the oldest/more experienced teams. We had a stretch from round 17 to 20 where every opposition team was over 26 years old avg (Port, Ess, Hawks, Egos)! Really the only young team we've played all season is the Dogs back in Round 5.

We've been older and more experienced than our opposition 4 times this season. Rounds 1, 2, 3 & 5. We won 3 of those games. Round 1 is the only game where we were more experienced on the field this season and lost.

Massive 53 games experience differential against Port Adelaide and we won. Similarly 45 games against Adelaide. But we also lost against Hawks, Pies, West Coast, Essendon and Melbourne where we gave up at least a full season (~22+ games) of experience per player (Hawks was 50 games, Pies 38 games).

Still think the numbers highlight how bad we were against Brisbane. Giving up 13 games per player in experience but really should have been far more competitive. And similarly against North Melbourne. IMO those were our two worst games this year (excepting Rd 1). Some will say Hawks but they played one of the most experienced teams that any team has fielded all season against us.

here's the source - if you have twitter he might help you out

 

[Square Peg]

Interesting stats.
Along with Geelong we have the greatest right skew of all teams, which suggests the most unbalanced teams/lists, in our case presumably reflecting the lack of players in the middle number of games bracket versus a lot with either very few or very high numbers of games.
Eagles are the only team out of 18 with a (slight) leftward skew, so they are (on statistics alone, if you know nothing about footy) the premiership favourites!!!

 

[basashi]

Agree that it's neither necessarily good nor bad news. Highlights our poor injury record also. If Fyfe and Sandi were fit, they'd obviously play.

Whilst it is not necessarily good news, it would be worse to be winning 7/22 and having the oldest playing group and only 2 picks under 80 in coming draft.

Freo and others have had patches of playing equal to or worse than this but without such an easily identifiable talent cohort* for the future.

*(Cerra, Banfield, Cox, Brayshaw, A Pearce, Hamling, Wilson, Logue, Blakely, Ryan, Langdon + some others who may well join that first group, if they haven't already. Fyfe, Neale and the 2 Hills still have high level footy in them.)