How Old is Too Old?

[Vader]

In 2006, Adelaide had the oldest list in the AFL. As at 1/1/2006, our average age was 24.20 (24 years, 73 days).

Despite delisting the two oldest players on the list (Clarke & Hart), Adelaide will field an even older list in 2007. As of 1/1/2007, our average age will be 24.53 (24 years, 195 days).

In all likelihood, Adelaide may well be the only club with a list averaging over 24 years of age.

In 2005, Port Adelaide fielded the oldest team in the competition with no seven players aged 30+. They collapsed big time, which has resulted in their current mass exodus. They now have one of the youngest lists in the AFL and look set for an extended stay in the lower half of the ladder as they wait for the recently drafted kids to mature (only to face the retirements of Lade & Tredrea about the time the kids come good).

In 2006, Adelaide will field a list with 5 players aged 30+ (Roo, Macca, Edwards, Bassett & Goodwin). That figure will rise to 7 by the end of the season (Torney & Biglands).

IMHO, Adelaide have done a better job of drafting in a number of youngsters in preparation for the departure of the senior citizens, but we still have a LOT of older players. A balance needs to be found between age/experience and youth/enthusiasm.

So, how old is too old? Are Adelaide still capable of winning the flag in 2007, or do we face a similar season to Port's 2005?

 

[TheFridge]

Are Adelaide still capable of winning the flag in 2007, or do we face a similar season to Port's 2005?

IMO, Adelaide are well and truly capable of go top in 07. Our 2005 was blighted by a slow start, injuries and perhaps some complacency. Even then, we did manage to make it into the finals, so were a chance right up to seasons end.

I suggest the issue is not so much age, but injuries (the two are, of course, linked). The loss of Hentschel, and to a lesser extent, Clarke and Biglands, will have an impact, so Adelaide will need their replacements to stand up. However, in Hudson/Maric/Meesen you have good cover in ruck and you will need Bock to take the next step to fill the Hentschel void. If McGregor and the Roo are able to avoid injury you definitely have the talent available.

Now of course, as a Port supporter, I hope you don't win the premiership but do hope the cup returns to SA... But you do, IMO, have reason to hope in 2007.

 

[GoSarge]

In 2006, Adelaide had the oldest list in the AFL. As at 1/1/2006, our average age was 24.20 (24 years, 73 days).

Despite delisting the two oldest players on the list (Clarke & Hart), Adelaide will field an even older list in 2007. As of 1/1/2007, our average age will be 24.53 (24 years, 195 days).

In all likelihood, Adelaide may well be the only club with a list averaging over 24 years of age.

In 2005, Port Adelaide fielded the oldest team in the competition with no seven players aged 30+. They collapsed big time, which has resulted in their current mass exodus. They now have one of the youngest lists in the AFL and look set for an extended stay in the lower half of the ladder as they wait for the recently drafted kids to mature (only to face the retirements of Lade & Tredrea about the time the kids come good).

In 2006, Adelaide will field a list with 5 players aged 30+ (Roo, Macca, Edwards, Bassett & Goodwin). That figure will rise to 7 by the end of the season (Torney & Biglands).

IMHO, Adelaide have done a better job of drafting in a number of youngsters in preparation for the departure of the senior citizens, but we still have a LOT of older players. A balance needs to be found between age/experience and youth/enthusiasm.

So, how old is too old? Are Adelaide still capable of winning the flag in 2007, or do we face a similar season to Port's 2005?

The average age thing is only an issue if you let it become one and talk of a squad being too old, by taking an average of their age is really just stupid. Proper planning and forward thinking can allow you to transition your older type players going forward by grooming the next batch of kids to play in their positions. Ie, Ricciuto and Mcleod, vital components of our midfield for years, are now playing most of their time up forward and down back respectively. New blood such as Douglas, Knights and Van Berlo can hopefully move in to the midfield (and take over it) by the time Goodwin and Edwards retire. New blood such as Meesen and Maric can hopefully become as good as Clarke and Biglands in the not so distant future with proper grooming. Both have done good apprenticeships in the SANFL.

Can we win the 07 flag ? F&*ken oath, but just like any team, we'll need a lot of luck going forward.

As for Port, I think their demise had a lot more to do with other factors than just the departure of their 30+ year olds. Quality compensation for Nick Stevens would have helped (I know it was 5 years ago, but they'd appreciate the compensation right now!) and they didnt get any 'ready-made' replacement for Josh Carr and so had to resort to developing draftees. The fact that Tredrea was injured, White didnt step up and Motlop didn't perform as expected probably all contributed to some degree aswell. Pretty sure they're not missing Primus considering Lade's superb form last year.

 

[Vader]

As for Port, I think their demise had a lot more to do with other factors than just the departure of their 30+ year olds. Quality compensation for Nick Stevens would have helped (I know it was 5 years ago, but they'd appreciate the compensation right now!) and they didnt get any 'ready-made' replacement for Josh Carr and so had to resort to developing draftees. The fact that Tredrea was injured, White didnt step up and Motlop didn't perform as expected probably all contributed to some degree aswell. Pretty sure they're not missing Primus considering Lade's superb form last year.

Actually, I think they got exactly the level of performance from Motlop that most people expected. Significantly less than what Port might have hoped for, but pretty much what was expected.

However, I do take your point that Port have lost a lot of good players in recent years, with little or no compensation.

I also think that a lot of it has to do with the fact that they had a very stable team during their years of domination ('02-'04). During that time it was very hard for young kids to break into the side. Hence, when the veterans all retired too few of their kids had the experience to step up and take their place immediately. Probably not helped by the fact that Port had a large group of players all the same age (from their inaugural squad) who all retired together (or within 1-2 years).

I'm hopeful that Adelaide will have managed to avoid this train wreck situation. Under Ayres we were headed for a cliff at 100kph, with no brakes. Craig at least has turned that around, though his arrival may have been 1 year too late (only time will tell).

 

[snakebite01]

The difference with us and Port is that Ports 30+'s were all either ******** or declining or injured (see Francou, Primus, Kingsley, Bishop, Wanganeen etc) with pretty much only Wakelin being the exception.

Conversely, our 30+'s are all still performing and are all still in our top 10 players. Mix that with the middle aged guys we've got and our youth and we can still have a serious tilt at the flag.

Port's problem was that their older guys were giving them nothing, and they had too many of them, which resulted in too much burden being placed on their younger, inexperienced guys.

 

[johnnypanther]

i think that we definitely have a show at the flag - just need some luck and good form at the right time

most of our oldies are still performing well, however, the problem i see is that IMO we have too many "2nd tier" players in the age group 26 - 29yo (eg Shirley,Bode,Doughty,Massie,Perrie,Welsh...)
and consequently

- when our oldies leave then we have these "2nd tier" players also around the 30yo mark and IMO they (the "2nd tier") should be departed asap (ie end of Y2007 &Y2008) because they are hindering the development of the next generation many of whom IMO will become 1st tier if given the chance

- IMO we have missed out on a premiership since 1998 even though we had a star studded midfield for various reasons - luck, injury and the lack of support from this 2nd tier group - we had a massive gap between our 1st and 2nd group of players. What concerns me is that when our old 1st tier group retire, this 2nd group will be our senior group (ie the leaders of the club) yet our younger players will no doubt be better players than them. Therefore i believe that this 2nd tier group should be phased out in the next 2 years alongside and even before our older elite players.

 

[Vader]

Johnnypanter: you're singing to the choir!

 

[TheFridge]

Our 30+'s are all still performing and are all still in our top 10 players. Mix that with the middle aged guys we've got and our youth and we can still have a serious tilt at the flag.

Port's problem was that their older guys were giving them nothing, and they had too many of them, which resulted in too much burden being placed on their younger, inexperienced guys.

Using Port's post premiership decline as a benchmark is interesting, and it is remarkable how many parallels there are between the two club lists.

With regard to your comment quoted above snakebite, I would suggest that your 30+'s still being in your top 10 players, is akin to the problem Port had. I disagree with you a bit though, as I think our 30+'s were still amongst our best players and therefore were regularly in our best 22 (think Montgomery, Wanganeen, Bishop, Wilson, Kingsley)

Our "next generation" had not developed to the top tier (eg Thurstans, Morgan, Gilham, M Stevens, Koula and to a lesser extent Cassisi and Dew) or more importantly left (Carr, N Stevens). You can argue that their development was in fact hindered by the success of the top tier...

The drop off that occured in 2005 was not that steep, we still competed in the finals, but were a shadow of the 2004 team. The success of the aging, but still solid, core tier of players ultimately meant 2006 became a bit of a train crash as this core was eroded.

While I agree with johnnypanther about the need to cull that second tier mature players, the question is how and at what cost? Are you picking your best 22 to win each week, or do you make the call to invest time in younger players who are not quite ahead of some older players?

So should Port have chased the 2005 season so hard at the expense of developing the next tier? I say absolutely (others will disagree with me on this). However, it did lead to problems as the core group faded in early 2006. By the end of 2006, with the next tier being provided the chance to get game time, make mistakes and learn from them we have seen good development signs in the new next generation.

Now, comparing this scenario to where AFC are today, I think you may be heading in a similar direction. You will hope that the development of the Reilly's, Porps', etc will enable them to take up the slack as the core tier succumb to age, but you will still chase a premiership hard in 2007, even if it means not giving a Douglas, or Maric, or Meesen the game time they would ideally get for their development. I for one think that Adelaide have made the absolute right decision in not recruiting/trading a mature ruckman as this sends the clear message for Maric and Meesen that there is an opening for them.

Trying to get the right balance of pushing hard for a premiership and accepting the need to get ground time for the younger players will be Neil Craig's biggest challenge, IMO.

 

[Crow-mo]

Actually, I think they got exactly the level of performance from Motlop that most people expected. Significantly less than what Port might have hoped for, but pretty much what was expected.

an excellent summary of the situation.

 

[Crow-mo]

too many people get caught up worrying about numbers of young players, draft selection as validation, age of incumbents etc etc.

the real issue is quality, not quantity.

not how old your current guys are, not how many young guys you have - but underlying quality.

Port's problem was simple, a lot of their succession players weren't/aren't very good. nothing more. that's all.

now when it comes to ours, it's not the planning, how many, when we started to re-tool, it's simply how good they are/become.

Do we have good enough players to replace the quality that has come to the end, who knows.

We have a number of guys who appear good enough to make it in the league, but are they good enough to take us over the top?

 

[WaynesWorld19]

too many people get caught up worrying about numbers of young players, draft selection as validation, age of incumbents etc etc.

the real issue is quality, not quantity.

not how old your current guys are, not how many young guys you have - but underlying quality.

Port's problem was simple, a lot of their succession players weren't/aren't very good. nothing more. that's all.

now when it comes to ours, it's not the planning, how many, when we started to re-tool, it's simply how good they are/become.

Do we have good enough players to replace the quality that has come to the end, who knows.

We have a number of guys who appear good enough to make it in the league, but are they good enough to take us over the top?

Excellent summary ....only reason clubs like Essendon and Hawthorn claim to be rebuilding is that what you said didn't eventuate.

 

[Tas]

The whole age thing is all about perception. When we played Hawthorn we had a younger side than them and the "experts" in the media called us an old team. It is all about perception.

Most sides struggle with an older list because even their fringe players are on the old side so the side tends to fall apart over a short period of time. We had this problem after Pagan's era. Another issue is player retention, particularly quality younger players. We lost Pickett and Bell in their prime and so when the 90s era team was retiring we were very thin for top class talent.

NC is pushing a lot of youth into the Adelaide side, the ultimate test when Roo, Macca, etc retire is if the younger players can rise and improve and fill the void.

Adelaide has a lot of quality young players on their list, you can't really fault the way the Crows have gone about their recruitment. You may drop down a bit after the older core retire but I think there is enough quality there that the drop wont be a signficant one and wont be for a long period of time.

 

[Eggzoi]

most of our oldies are still performing well, however, the problem i see is that IMO we have too many "2nd tier" players in the age group 26 - 29yo (eg Shirley,Bode,Doughty,Massie,Perrie,Welsh...)
and consequently

- when our oldies leave then we have these "2nd tier" players also around the 30yo mark and IMO they (the "2nd tier") should be departed asap (ie end of Y2007 &Y2008) because they are hindering the development of the next generation many of whom IMO will become 1st tier if given the chance

I agree with this fully, very well expressed. I personally wouldn't mind seeing Doughty and Shirley phased out over the pre-season, I know they did damn well last year and it probably won't happen but I think the kids can perform just as well as them and they can really start to take over the middle. I hate to think about our midfield in a couple of years if Doughty and Shirley are the two most experienced players. However a middle with any of Reilly, Douglas, Thompson, VB or Knights doesn't alarm me at all.

 

[Vader]

I agree with this fully, very well expressed. I personally wouldn't mind seeing Doughty and Shirley phased out over the pre-season, I know they did damn well last year and it probably won't happen but I think the kids can perform just as well as them and they can really start to take over the middle. I hate to think about our midfield in a couple of years if Doughty and Shirley are the two most experienced players. However a middle with any of Reilly, Douglas, Thompson, VB or Knights doesn't alarm me at all.

We need Shirley to play at least one more game. Currently stuck on 99. One more and he's eligible for F/S rule should he have any sons.

 

[J-Train]

We need Shirley to play at least one more game. Currently stuck on 99. One more and he's eligible for F/S rule should he have any sons.

No worries there mate, Shirls will play another 50 games at least.

 

[Eggzoi]

We need Shirley to play at least one more game. Currently stuck on 99. One more and he's eligible for F/S rule should he have any sons.

I'm not quite expecting it to be that drastic but I'd prefer to see things like Shirley starting on the bench with VB first tag and Doughty maybe on a flank with someone else at the first bounce.

 

[Crow-mo]

I'm not quite expecting it to be that drastic but I'd prefer to see things like Shirley starting on the bench with VB first tag and Doughty maybe on a flank with someone else at the first bounce.

do you deliberately ignore fact and reason or is it just an accident?

maybe you should take a closer look at our B&F awards as adjudicated by the coaching staff.

 

[Eggzoi]

do you deliberately ignore fact and reason or is it just an accident?

maybe you should take a closer look at our B&F awards as adjudicated by the coaching staff.

And do you only read half the thread?

I personally wouldn't mind seeing Doughty and Shirley phased out over the pre-season, I know they did damn well last year and it probably won't happen but I think the kids can perform just as well as them

Shirley and Doughty are good but do you really want a midfield where they are the two main players? So what happens when Goodwin and Edwards retire? Just throw Douglas and Knights in then with a combined 14 games experience?
Sometimes you need to take a small hit in order to improve, just like when we tapped Hart on the shoulder. He could have played next year but we can compensate for him. I'd rather deal without Doughty and Shirley now than Goodwin and Edwards in 2 years.

 

[Crow-mo]

And do you only read half the thread?

well seeing as I was referring to your whole premise, what do you think?

Shirley and Doughty are good but do you really want a midfield where they are the two main players? So what happens when Goodwin and Edwards retire? Just throw Douglas and Knights in then with a combined 14 games experience?
Sometimes you need to take a small hit in order to improve, just like when we tapped Hart on the shoulder. He could have played next year but we can compensate for him. I'd rather deal without Doughty and Shirley now than Goodwin and Edwards in 2 years.

you've taken sweeping generalisation, many of which certainly aren't true. you presume what they bring to the table is cheap and easily replaceable - but i can't see any evidence supporting that position.

 

[Eggzoi]

I'm not saying there would be no adverse effects, I'm saying that I'd rather those adverse effects as opposed to the ones of losing Goodwin and Edwards.

 

[Crow-mo]

I'm not saying there would be no adverse effects, I'm saying that I'd rather those adverse effects as opposed to the ones of losing Goodwin and Edwards.

and you think those are the choices we face???

 

[NikkiNoo]

I'm sorry but do most of you actually watch games and notice the midfield rotations? This whole fascination that we only have goodwin, edwards etc in the middle all the time is just not true. The modern game is NOT played this way, we are developing the 'youngsters' and giving them exposure by actually playing them in the middle when Goodwin and Edwards go off for their rotations.

Doughty used to be Shirley's tag replacement, but now often VB is the replacement and sometimes Reilly. We can also use two taggers on the field at the same time who also have the ability to find the ball themselves ala the west coast game with Shirley on Judd (who he normally plays very well on) and VB on Cousins. Doughty is now used on the wing due to Mattner and Burton finding themselves elsewhere for injury and team rules reasons or he can be the tag replacement if needed.

Many a game this year we had the set up in the middle of Maric, Thompson, Reilly and VB if that isn't developing the youngsters, I don't know what is. Sometimes that set up in the middle was often more potent than our 'guns'.

For those of you that think tagging is not that important go watch the saints game where Goodwin was told to tag Dal Santo - he gave that youngster a lesson he won't forget in how to be a defensive midfielder but also damaging.