If Ayres copped it, why doens't Craig?

[Crow-mo]

I think you've chosen some misleading dates there as finals are always going to be played by more experienced players than when you've thrown the towel in mid-season.

I dare say if you compared our 2002/2003 finals exits with whatever choice you want of finals exits under Craig (perhaps 05/06 to match up with the years coaching) those numbers would equalise or invert.

no. you've missed the point.

where is the evidence that we are doing anything different? the standard dogma is how different everything is, but is it?

our finals teams in 2002/03 were similarly aged to our current teams, i.e. no different.

Ayres last game isn't everything either but it also shows that we did have young players.

 

[Crow-mo]

2003 - Semi Final team v Brisbane:

Average age 26 years 360 days.
30+: 3 (Burns, Carey, Smart - Clarke was 30 the following week).
<21: 1 (Johncock, age 20 yrs 326 days).

exactly. in a thread about the differences, where are they?

5.5 years into the job, and craig's teams have been just as old.

 

[Crow-mo]

Lets make it a fair comparison though - no point in comparing Ayres' last game (when the towel had been thrown and the experiments were on) with finals (when the best & most experienced are always selected). How about a comparison of R5 2010 with R5 2004? No, I haven't even looked to see what team was selected for R5 2004, there is no intended bias involved.

sites down right now, but if the results aren't heavily in favour of a younger 2010 then I am not sure what we can be taken from that. after nearly 6 years in charge Craig has no excuse for not fielding a considerably younger line. especially as that was one of his briefs.

[edit. round 5 isn't up yet.]

Round 4, 2004, vs St Kilda lost 15 pts


Ave 25 yrs 164d 4 players 21 or less; 3 players > 30.
median 24 yrs 256 (doughty)


Round 4, 2010 vs Carlton lost 48 pts
Ave 25 yrs 140d 7 players 21 or less; 5 players > 30
median 24 yrs 197d (vince)


So again, I ask where is the visible, significant difference?

lets look at the differences versus our opponents. rather than compare between ourselves, lets also get a little normalisation in era going.

Differences vs Opponents
Round 4, 2004, vs St Kilda lost 15 pts


Opponent 1 yr 30d younger; 4 players <=21 more; 0 diff players >30

St Kilda were top of the table. but still definably younger than we were in round 4 2004.

Round 4, 2010 vs Carlton lost 48 pts

Opponent 2 yrs 38d younger; 2 players <=21 more; 5 players > 30 less

Carlton 7th on table, and significantly younger than us.

despite our (alleged) injury concerns we are not even a young team still. We are miles behind Carlton.

If we have an emphasis on younger development, we can't see it clearly versus ourselves or versus our opponents.

I'm also not the least bit surprised that the team got older initially under Craig, rising by close to a year on average in both 2005 & 2006. Once again, this was because Craig didn't have any kids he could bring in at that stage - he didn't inherit any and those he'd drafted himself were in their 1st or 2nd years on the list and (mostly) still doing their SANFL apprenticeships.

except its already been shown that this isn't true. there were 9, count them, 9 players in the team 21 or under when Craig took over.

He alone chose to ignore them and only play the most senior players, just like he does now.

he rode the team he got given hard, and fair enough. but as I said, doesn't that make him the downstream beneficiary and not not some list changing saviour?

I would be very surprised though, if the average/median age didn't start to come down again from 2007 onwards.

I don't accept the median age argument when he chooses to rely so centrally on his senior players, their weighting of age is an accurate reflection of our team as it has taken the park.

we've already seen the ages of the 2008 & 2009 finals team.

 

[Crow-mo]

That's a very, very good point. If we're going to obsess about the age of lists (and that obsession goes well beyond the Adelaide board), a short whiteboard session on some basics of statistics might help the discussion.

why is it a good point?

excluding 5 senior players, who are still the backbone of our team is massaging the numbers not an accurate reflection of the underlying state. picking and choosing is poor statistical analysis. if they were on the outer, that might be different. In Smart's example in Ayres last game he was 35, 5 years older than anyone else and it was his last game. looking at that, you could make an argument that this is a not a fair reflection, however when these 5 player remain central first choice players...

I'd need the argument of *why* median is appropriate, particularly in context of claims about the number of young players in the team and an emphasis on youth.

seems to be me its entirely unsuited. average isn't perfect, but if there was a weighting towards young players then we should see it in the cumulative #.

what is very suited to the purpose is #'s of players <21 and >30.

 

[Crow-mo]

I'm coming in late to this debate, so I may have got the original tone wrong, but don't these stats actually show us precisely that when Craig took over he had no youth left to pick up the slack of aging players?

no they say the diametric opposite. they also show how little has changed.

If we had some teenagers, then five years later they'd be the players ages 24 and younger bringing our average down, but we didn't. Instead we've had to rely on entirely new youth that has taken time to develop, and only in the last couple of years have we managed to stabilise the upwards trend in our squad's average age by playing them.

how long do you think he's been in charge? 9 players less than 21 *IN* the team he took over. not on the list, on the field.

and where is the impact of this youth he introduced in the 2008/09 finals team? he believes in senior players, not young players. as has always been the case.

Mind you, I'm only looking at three data points over five years, so it's hard to make any real conclusions If anything, with those stats you could probably justify several, contradictory, arguments. It is interesting though, kudos for the analysis. We had a very high average age for those finals.

true. but there is basis for all 3.

1. the point of handover.
2. finals teams across his entire tenure.

they're not random.

As I said in an earlier post if there was a significant difference between the 2 of them, how come we can't see it?

what is certainly true is that we would need to get 'creative' to identify/manufacture a significant difference.

 

[NTRabbit]

except its already been shown that this isn't true. there were 9, count them, 9 players in the team 21 or under when Craig took over.

How many of them were any good though? Age is far from the only piece of data to consider, surely.

Just quickly, I'm seeing Fergus Watts, Josh Krueger, Luke Jericho, Brent Reilly, Ben Finnin, and Jacob Schuback. Which three am I missing?

Could also add Meesen, van Berlo, Maric and Knights from the '04 draft if you want to start it from his first full season.

Reilly played every game, van Berlo played 11, Jericho 5, Knights 2 and the rest played none in 2005.

 

[Crow-mo]

How many of them were any good though? Age is far from the only piece of data to consider, surely.

I agree, its about context. I am only arguing against the flawed argument that we need "teenagers" on the list, and that is a good thing regardless of how good they are. quantitative vs qualititative.

all that matters really is how good they are. why is it a pejorative to have a potential 10 year, 200 gamer on your list at 21, and a good thing to have someone 19 who will never make it.

the "there weren't any young players" argument is both wrong (there were) and inappropriate (because 1 x 200 gamer is worth how many no hopers?)

Just quickly, I'm seeing Fergus Watts, Josh Krueger, Luke Jericho, Brent Reilly, Ben Finnin, and Jacob Schuback. Which three am I missing?

Bock, Rutten, Hentschel, Mattner, Skipworth, Johncock.

the #'s are there, and the quality isn't bad either.

 

[marvin]

Lets make it a fair comparison though - no point in comparing Ayres' last game (when the towel had been thrown and the experiments were on) with finals (when the best & most experienced are always selected). How about a comparison of R5 2010 with R5 2004? No, I haven't even looked to see what team was selected for R5 2004, there is no intended bias involved.

I'll compare R4 2010 with R4 2004, as the data for both these games are up.
(Sorry the formatting is screwy - anyone more able than me is welcome to tidy it).

2004	Name	Yrs	Days	Games		2010	Name	Yrs	Days	Games
Smart	Nigel	34y	332d	276		McLeod	Andrew	33y	256d	332
Carey	Wayne	32y	326d	264		Edwards	Tyson	33y	254d	315
Clarke	Matthew	30y	212d	206		Goodwin	Simon	33y	112d	263
Ricciuto	Mark	28y	314d	244		Burton	Brett	31y	348d	174
McLeod	Andrew	27y	257d	197		Doughty	Michael	30y	255d	170
Edwards	Tyson	27y	255d	178		Thompson	Scott	27y	34d	159
Bassett	Nathan	27y	132d	110		Johncock	Graham	27y	178d	170
Hudson	Ben	25y	53d	2		Rutten	Ben	26y	324d	130
Burton	Brett	25y	349d	89		Reilly	Brent	26y	156d	117
Welsh	Scott	25y	132d	103		Porplyzia	Jason	25y	141d	71
Bode	Matthew	24y	293d	75		Vince	Bernie	24y	197d	59
Doughty	Michael	24y	256d	39		Maric	Ivan	24y	103d	53
Gallagher	James	24y	152d	29		Douglas	Richard	23y	70d	60
McGregor	Ken	23y	79d	78		Knights	Chris	23y	204d	72
Massie	Kris	23y	323d	76		Tippett	Kurt	22y	344d	47
Stenglein	Tyson	23y	276d	88		Schmidt	Chris	21y	28d	4
Begley	James	23y	270d	50		Mackay	David	21y	266d	43
Stevens	Scott	22y	93d	28		Cook	Myke	20y	190d	7
Johncock	Graham	21y	179d	52		Dangerfield	Patrick	20y	12d	27
Hentschel	Trent	21y	114d	7		Petrenko	Jared	20y	116d	13
Schuback	Jacob	20y	141d	4		Walker	Taylor	19y	357d	18
Jericho	Luke	19y	182d	1		Davis	Phil	19y	230d	1

Median in 2004 was 24.75 yrs, Median this year is 24.41.

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle of the two arguments. There's undoubtedly been some regeneration in the Craig years - last year's B+F awards, where 5 of the top 10 (4 of the top 7) were either new under Craig or debuted under him - is evidence of some good levels renewal.

However, The overall balance of the list in terms of age distribution is something that has teetered on a knife's edge for a few years though, and this years injury curse has blown it apart.

For years, we've had a long (if promising) "tail" in terms of our squad. For example, the last time I looked at it properly, we went into 2009 Brad Symes (20 games) was our 22nd most experienced player. We've really struggled to build some experience into the depth players in the squad, and while we've been lucky in the way some players (e.g. Otten and Dangerfield last year) have stepped right in to be automatic selections, the more normal development pattern is the Cook / Petrenko model, where it takes years to become fully productive at AFL level. Even at the middle-low level of experience in the current side, Maric and Douglas are still struggling for an identity at the top level, much as their 2004 peers were (Doughty, Begley et al).

 

[Crow-mo]

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle of the two arguments. There's undoubtedly been some regeneration in the Craig years - last year's B+F awards, where 5 of the top 10 (4 of the top 7) were either new under Craig or debuted under him - is evidence of some good levels renewal.

there aren't 2 arguments. there is only one, and the question about whether it can be justified.

the highlighted part is relevant. yes that has been some, there had better be given how long he has been there. he's our longest ever serving coach.

is it enough?

We've really struggled to build some experience into the depth players in the squad, and while we've been lucky in the way some players (e.g. Otten and Dangerfield last year) have stepped right in to be automatic selections, the more normal development pattern is the Cook / Petrenko model, where it takes years to become fully productive at AFL level. Even at the middle-low level of experience in the current side, Maric and Douglas are still struggling for an identity at the top level, much as their 2004 peers were (Doughty, Begley et al).

interesting, and I think you're probably right.

perhaps the point is today we haven't gotten enough out of the 2004/05 drafts? which given the mandate for regeneration would be disappointing.

or is it simply that we have a long fat tail, because not enough guys are developing out of it and into the core of the team? we're top heavy because there isn't enough coming up from the bottom?

 

[NTRabbit]

perhaps the point is today we haven't gotten enough out of the 2004/05 drafts? which given the mandate for regeneration would be disappointing.

or is it simply that we have a long fat tail, because not enough guys are developing out of it and into the core of the team? we're top heavy because there isn't enough coming up from the bottom?

A little from both columns I'd say - we have two of five from 2004 as first team regulars (van Berlo, Knights) with one (Maric) probably only getting a game through lack of genuine competition for spots.

From 2005, we have one of four (Vince) really stepping up to be a core member, with one (Douglas) still hovering around the fringes.

The missing four have all been delisted.

Without knowing the actual numbers it would seem to be around the league average success rate for any given draft.

I'd probably include the 2003 draft in this as well, since those players should be at peak age - precisely 0 of those players are still on our list.

Our long fat tail stems from the 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 drafts - while 06 and 07 seem to be once again on the average hit rate, we've gotten pretty much nothing out of 08 and 09 to date. Whether you blame that on our tendency to draft slower developing talls instead of sooner ready smalls is another story.