List Mgmt. Geelong’s looming list profile crisis (it’s not what you think)

[Seeds]

Don’t forget Gary Ablett. Geelong didn’t make the finals in 2002 yet all of Ablett, Bartel, Johnson and Kelly played enough games in the twos to qualify for the VFL finals. If some of the posters on here had their way they should’ve shipped em off, not up to it.

What a terrible comparison. That was those players first draft year. You are comparing them to players in their 2nd, 3rd and 4th year.

 

[Seeds]

5 players out of 6 drafts seems very very average. No wonder he had to trade in mature players to fill in age gaps.

If we didnt trade in mature players we would of had better draft picks to use During those years.

 

[Seeds]

Clark Will be an A grade. but broadly you have a point.

Not if they dont play him

 

[Turbocat]

We’re the 11th oldest list using median. That’s what he meant. Median is more suitable to understand what group of players we have who are around the same age and therefore potentially hit the Afl premiership sweet spot.

Im not sure measuring age of list really that useful.. we can add 3 or 4 late pick kids every year and two years later sweep them out the door. Even this year .. if we lose Narkle , Constable , Cockatoo .... meanwhile we lose Taylor and Ablett. ... so in theory our side should get younger.... unless we bring in players like Higgins and Steven

To me its ave age of the group of players who play senior games.. the bottom of every list is youngish

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Not if they dont play him

That wasn't the point being made...but I do think they will play him.

 

[00VicWard001]

If all four of those want out then my biggest concern is that we have an environment where good younger players don't want to stick around to be part of the future. Which presumably means that the club/coaches are failing to make them feel like there's a positive future to be a part of.

Every year, every team loses/delists/trades young players. It doesn’t mean anything more than a mutual agreement that they are not really going to fit into the teams plans going forward. And every year, teams draft and trade in new young players. It doesn’t mean a thing about culture or a nurturing environment.

That being said, if a player is not good enough to break into the best 22 due to capability, form or injury, and they want to leave because of this reason, that’s really on them, not on the club.

 

[catempire]

Im not sure measuring age of list really that useful.. we can add 3 or 4 late pick kids every year and two years later sweep them out the door. Even this year .. if we lose Narkle , Constable , Cockatoo .... meanwhile we lose Taylor and Ablett. ... so in theory our side should get younger.... unless we bring in players like Higgins and Steven

To me its ave age of the group of players who play senior games.. the bottom of every list is youngish

Absolutely but so long as people erroneously keep referring to average list age as meaningful it needs to be called out.

I agree it’s the average age of the 22 that tells you something. I bet we see something different though. I see age correlated with success.

 

[00VicWard001]

Not if they dont play him

He was injured and his body doesn’t appear to be ready for AFL. And we need to play him?

 

[Turbocat]

Absolutely but so long as people erroneously keep referring to average list age as meaningful it needs to be called out.

I agree it’s the average age of the 22 that tells you something. I bet we see something different though. I see age correlated with success.

as in ..an older group is successful? Id say it may be even more relevant to know the age of the best 8 middle 8 bottom 6 ... how old are your best players..?

as I sort of mentioned in your stat post our best players, our highest picks are all close to falling off the cliff, sure they are good players still ..but Joel for example is not the Selwood he was. Hawkins has been fantastic this year ..but at his age and type.. the end could come quickly.

Maybe if we looked at the age of the top 10 in each clubs best and fairest , it would give one an idea of success relative to age. I think from memory our best 10 last year had 1 player under 25.

 

[redmond_herring]

He was injured and his body doesn’t appear to be ready for AFL. And we need to play him?

I think we all fell in love with the kid last year because his natural instinct is blitzkrieg football.
This is such a welcome bloody change from all the stop start CS robots.
He also seems to have genuine pace and can roost a ball.
Neither of these attributes have been forthcoming on any other sub 25year old at the moment.

But what I saw of him this year, it was obvious his body needs development to backup his game style (this is commonly discussed).

I also fear his instinct will be "Scott-ed" out of him if he hangs around with us, and would not be shocked if he gets bored of kicking backwards and heads back to Perth in a year or so.

 

[catempire]

as in ..an older group is successful? Id say it may be even more relevant to know the age of the best 8 middle 8 bottom 6 ... how old are your best players..?

as I sort of mentioned in your stat post our best players, our highest picks are all close to falling off the cliff, sure they are good players still ..but Joel for example is not the Selwood he was. Hawkins has been fantastic this year ..but at his age and type.. the end could come quickly.

Maybe if we looked at the age of the top 10 in each clubs best and fairest , it would give one an idea of success relative to age. I think from memory our best 10 last year had 1 player under 25.

I’m talking about how age relates to likelihood of winning a flag in a given year. Without checking, I expect the average age of best 22 strongly correlates with success.

I think this would be even stronger if you looked at the average age of top 10 in the B&F. You want your best players to be in the sweet spot for winning flags - ie mid to late 20s.

I suspect youre talking about indicators of future success and I would guess, again without checking, there’s no statistical relationship between age and future success. I think many people assume there is and that’s why youth is fetishised.

 

[Down at K Park]

I’m talking about how age relates to likelihood of winning a flag in a given year. Without checking, I expect the average age of best 22 strongly correlates with success.

I think this would be even stronger if you looked at the average age of top 10 in the B&F. You want your best players to be in the sweet spot for winning flags - ie mid to late 20s.

I suspect youre talking about indicators of future success and I would guess, again without checking, there’s no statistical relationship between age and future success. I think many people assume there is and that’s why youth is fetishised.

We have the oldest 22. Why do we keep failing then?

I think we have moved past the age sweet spot. Towards too old and slow now. Experience has less value when reaction, foot and hand speed slow down with age.

 

[catempire]

We have the oldest 22. Why do we keep failing then?

I think we have moved past the age sweet spot. Towards too old and slow now. Experience has less value when reaction, foot and hand speed slow down with age.

Do you understand correlation?

 

[Down at K Park]

Do you understand correlation?

Yes.

 

[Turbocat]

I’m talking about how age relates to likelihood of winning a flag in a given year. Without checking, I expect the average age of best 22 strongly correlates with success.

I think this would be even stronger if you looked at the average age of top 10 in the B&F. You want your best players to be in the sweet spot for winning flags - ie mid to late 20s.

I suspect youre talking about indicators of future success and I would guess, again without checking, there’s no statistical relationship between age and future success. I think many people assume there is and that’s why youth is fetishised.

Id admit there is a lot personal bias imo. ...although we can reference our era etc ... but there would be far more example of non success ..list built around better picks than we have had ..have fallen like a rock. So youth ..pure age is not the golden child or the golden ticket ...
only 1 team can win from 18 .. and that means ever if all clubs did exactly the same thing. .. 17 would still fail.

That 1 thats succeed may or may not be able to be copied. I have reservations about us trying replicate our previous era. How often does one have the Father Son talent we had the chance to add.

Having said all that , im not convinced our current method will reap ultimate success... it sort of like we have become the star in a footy version of 27 dresses movie.I look at what ingredients are common and to me thats having single figure draftees , (not trade ins) , and group of you best players playing near their best. ..which most likely coincides with them being in that 22-28 range. After 28 .. its very individual some are done ..other can keep playing well into their 30's. . To me we are pushing the envelope with guys like Danger ..who only has to ease a bit and we would be a lot worse. We have been very lucky , extraordinarily lucky ..until recently we had only two players that made it to 300 games

 

[Seeds]

That wasn't the point being made...but I do think they will play him.

You thought they would definagely play steven over atkins in the finals. You got my hopes up. I thino yuo are underratig how much scott cares about defence.

 

[4quarter_cat]

Excite you? I don’t think one of those will be a genuine A grader. Parfitt a solid B grader. Henry has good attributes but will never get to an Enright or Milburn level. We will need at least 6 bona fide A graders to be able to compete with the top teams. We just don’t have that coming through atm.

Geez, you're spoiled aren't you. It will be a very long time, maybe never again will have such a talented list. Doesn't mean one shouldn't be excited.

Henry might be no Dasher or Boris, but he does a good job nevertheless, and year on year his rebounding ability continues to improve.
Parfitt a B grader, again very harsh. He's going to be in the better half of our midfield team for a long time. I think he'll end up being good enough to be picked in every midfield in the competition (if he's not there already). For a start the guys tackling is elite, every team needs those players.

We may end up lacking the "Star power" of having a the likes of Danger, Selwood, Ablett. But we might end up with a very flat list of guys who are all above average, and the strongest bottom six in the league. Champion team beats a team of champions.

 

[year of the cat]

Geez, you're spoiled aren't you. It will be a very long time, maybe never again will have such a talented list. Doesn't mean one shouldn't be excited.

Henry might be no Dasher or Boris, but he does a good job nevertheless, and year on year his rebounding ability continues to improve.
Parfitt a B grader, again very harsh. He's going to be in the better half of our midfield team for a long time. I think he'll end up being to be picked in every midfield in the competition. For a start the guys tackling is elite, every team needs those players.

We may end up lacking the "Star power" of having a the likes of Danger, Selwood, Ablett. But we might end up with a very flat list of guys who are all above average, and the strongest bottom six in the league. Champion team beats a team of champions.

It's not a matter of being spoilt. I barracked for the Cats for nearly 40 years before seeing a flag so I'm hardly in the "entitled" category. All I want is to see the club make good decisions with regard to list management.

I don't think you can win a flag without 4-5 A grade guns. We don't have one in my opinion with our young players. So it just stands to reason that we need to get them if we are to see our next flag. That's what I'm about. The topping up means we are stuck in this position of making finals but not really contending each year. Stuck in limbo. I think we will ultimately need to fall down the ladder, as Sydney and Hawthorn have done, in order to secure a few A grade youngsters.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

If we didnt trade in mature players we would of had better draft picks to use During those years.

You are essentially complaining that we have not been tanking for picks.

 

[year of the cat]

You are essentially complaining that we have not been tanking for picks.

That's not tanking. It's merely playing the kids you draft. Cherry picking the odd mature aged type.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Geez, you're spoiled aren't you. It will be a very long time, maybe never again will have such a talented list. Doesn't mean one shouldn't be excited.

Henry might be no Dasher or Boris, but he does a good job nevertheless, and year on year his rebounding ability continues to improve.
Parfitt a B grader, again very harsh. He's going to be in the better half of our midfield team for a long time. I think he'll end up being to be picked in every midfield in the competition. For a start the guys tackling is elite, every team needs those players.

We may end up lacking the "Star power" of having a the likes of Danger, Selwood, Ablett. But we might end up with a very flat list of guys who are all above average, and the strongest bottom six in the league. Champion team beats a team of champions.

I'd also add that if you have a list of capable role players and no stars then you're in probably a good position to bring in a- grade free agents having a star shaped hole in both the list and the salary cap.

If you don't get the star free agents you fall down the ladder and get a star draftee.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

That's not tanking. It's merely playing the kids you draft. Cherry picking the odd mature aged type.

Fair enough though I'd argue that if you're gifting games that aren't earned it's a recipe for disaster.

There's plenty of kids I'd like to have seen get more games by now but I don't think it's a massive deviation. There's also benefits in pushing high expectations onto young players

 

[4quarter_cat]

Do you understand correlation?

As long as people acknowledge that correlation does not equal causation. It's a slippery slope.

 

[4quarter_cat]

It's not a matter of being spoilt. I barracked for the Cats for nearly 40 years before seeing a flag so I'm hardly in the "entitled" category. All I want is to see the club make good decisions with regard to list management.

I don't think you can win a flag without 4-5 A grade guns. We don't have one in my opinion with our young players. So it just stands to reason that we need to get them if we are to see our next flag. That's what I'm about. The topping up means we are stuck in this position of making finals but not really contending each year. Stuck in limbo. I think we will ultimately need to fall down the ladder, as Sydney and Hawthorn have done, in order to secure a few A grade youngsters.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then.

imho some are already very close. I think we'll see more of it next year, as places on our list start to open up more.

 

[4quarter_cat]

I'd also add that if you have a list of capable role players and no stars then you're in probably a good position to bring in a- grade free agents having a star shaped hole in both the list and the salary cap.

If you don't get the star free agents you fall down the ladder and get a star draftee.

An excellent point.