Analysis Inexperience watch

[Last of the Roys]

Finally, I have looked at doing the same inexperience watch for the Lions each round as I did last year. Here are the results so far:

Here is the latest update of this year's results:

• Round 1 - Lost by 68 points vs. the Bulldogs at Etihad - Lions 8 vs. Bulldogs 7 (we had 8 players with less than 25 games experience, the Bulldogs had 7)
• Round 2 - Lost by 19 points vs. Adelaide at the GABBA - Lions 7 vs. Adelaide 3
• Round 3 - Won by 2 points vs. Gold Coast at Metricon - Lions 7 vs. Gold Coast 9

If the Lions and North sides stay the same then the inexperience factor would predict a North win:

• Round 4 - ??? vs. North at Etihad - Lions 6 vs. North 3

I think Golby would be playing his 25th games if he plays in round 4. For that matter there are a fair few Lions players that are getting up towards the 25 game mark:

• Golby 24 games, Lester 23 games, Acorn 23 games, Patty K 20 games, Green 20 games, McKeever 20 games, Zorko 19 games

 

[BuntonRules]

LotR, this has been a great thread. Cheers for your work on it.

Likewise

 

[Jorgo]

Glad to see this thread return. Thanks LOTR

 

[steveys]

The 7-25 match ratio is a definite. Need to lift

 

[Last of the Roys]

Update:

• Round 1 - Lost by 68 points vs. the Bulldogs at Etihad - Lions 8 vs. Bulldogs 7 (we had 8 players with less than 25 games experience, the Bulldogs had 7)
• Round 2 - Lost by 19 points vs. Adelaide at the GABBA - Lions 7 vs. Adelaide 3
• Round 3 - Won by 2 points vs. Gold Coast at Metricon - Lions 7 vs. Gold Coast 9
• Round 4 - Lost by 63 points vs. North at Etihad - Lions 7 vs. North 4 (going back on my original assessment of 6 Lions because Golby had only played 24 games before the North game)

I said it in the Melbourne preview thread, but I will say it again - I am worried about that we have gone with (had to go with) a very inexperienced side this week.

• Round 5 -vs. Melbourne at the GABBA - Lions 9 vs. Melbourne 6

So we are going in with 9 players with less than 25 games experience. That could be 10 if McGrath has to pull out. Add to that Golby on 25 games and Bewick on 32, and that will be 11 or 12 players out of 22 with less than 33 games experience, including 4 players who have played 2 games or less. Normally that would be a recipe for absolute disaster. However at home, on a hot day, with the Club under pressure and against a team that is not much more experienced I think we should still win. But the long odds Melbourne have been given are ridiculous.

Melbourne have 6 players with less than 25 games experience, but they also have another 4 with less than 40 games experience.

(Round 6 we take on the Swans who this week had only 1 player with less than 25 games experience against the Saints, and just two more with less than 40 games experience).

 

[Antman78]

Will be interesting to see what this is like by halfway through the season. I know we have Golby, Karnezis, Zorko, Green and Lester just outside the 25 games experience but we will probably see more of Mayes and Longer and also possibly the debut of Paps, Clarke and Doch.

Good call, any idea on Bartlett?

 

[Happy_Neale]

Certainly provided some perspective LOTR. Thanks for the effort. I reckon this would mean it's going to be at least another 2 seasons before we can be genuinely competitve in finals. At least.

On a side note, whenever I type LOTR I think of Lord of the Rings.

 

[chopperduck]

On top of single players game experience, games played together as a team would be very interesting as well nap many changes in our best 22 over the past few years. Our team certainly isn't settled or really use to playing with each other either, and I think this is sometimes overlooked when looking at team performance.

 

[Last of the Roys]

On top of single players game experience, games played together as a team would be very interesting as well nap many changes in our best 22 over the past few years. Our team certainly isn't settled or really use to playing with each other either, and I think this is sometimes overlooked when looking at team performance.

Yeah I agree.

What is suprising about most of the other teams I look at is how they have managed to get so many games into players that I have hardly even heard of - even Sydney. It is as though they consciously don't just give debuts away to anyone, but when they do they back that player in to play for quite a while.

We do seem to have a tendency of bringing young ones in and dropping them after 1-3 weeks. Obviously it is easier when the rest of the side is playing well to cover for a few inexperienced types, but perhaps we go overboard on the changes at times.

 

[T Rick]

Really pleased about the debuts of Mayes, Paparone, Clarke and Doc but it does push our "inexperience factor" to the absolute limit and I suspect this is what keeps McGrath and Polks in the team, i.e. their experience is necessary to prevent us from becoming GWS in lions clothing.

 

[POBT]

Next time you go to the footy, watch how many times our young kids are positioned in the wrong spot and have to be corrected. I reckon I saw Paparone make positioning errors at least half a dozen times...and that was just on my wing. He'd be stuck in no man's land where he couldn't influence the game - he knew he was in the wrong spot but he had no idea of where to run. He also didn't understand the interchange rotations and would regularly come to the bench only for the interchange steward to wave him back on.

Mayes was not quite as bad but still pretty ordinary in terms of positioning errors. Longer seemed to have no idea where he needed to be for some opposition kick outs (although I think that was mostly a cohesion thing with Leuey). Didn't get a chance to fully assess Doc.

This is not a knock on the individual players. It is also not a knock on the coaching. These things really only come with game experience. But it is one example of the downside of "playing the kids". Not only does it substantially increase the risk of your structure failing but it means that your more experienced players have less time/energy to focus on their own game as they are basically on field coaches for the young blokes, as well as covering their mistakes.

I think we focus quite heavily on the physical immaturity of the young blokes (eg Mayes falling off a tackle that led directly to a goal) but their immature game sense is probably more of an issue in the modern game where systems rely on 18 on field players knowing and executing their role. I can certainly see why Last of the Roys analysis is relevant. My observations of the game yesterday tells me that the reward of playing these highly skilled youngsters is off set by their lack of game awareness.

Play the kids? Sure. It is good for us long term and these guys are bringing something to the table. But I think we fans need to recognise that it isn't all upside and that it is a lot harder to implement successful systems of play when the youngsters simply aren't ready to execute the game plan 100% of the time.

Edit: I meant to add that the one bloke who seemed to "get" the structure was Clarke whose debut, I think, was more impressive than any of the others this year, simply because he fitted seamlessly into the system.

 

[whatboutbob]

Great minds POBs. I just finished noting on the match review thread that the kids not "getting" their role was particularly evident at yesterday's game.

I feel bad for singling him out, but Paparone in particular was like an excitable puppy with a tendency to get under foot. I do like his energy and enthusiasm though. Once he knows his role and gels with his teammates he will be a weapon.

Clarke on the other hand plays a much simpler role - but one he still stuck to admirably.

I cringe to consider how badly our inexperience is going to be exposed by the regimented Swans.

Unfortunately we are at the stage of our development cycle where we do just have to play these kids before they're ready, as soon as injuries start to bite.

 

[Ironmonger]

I feel bad for singling him out, but Paparone in particular was like an excitable puppy with a tendency to get under foot. I do like his energy and enthusiasm though. Once he knows his role and gels with his teammates he will be a weapon.

Clarke on the other hand plays a much simpler role - but one he still stuck to admirably.

The SCG isn't really a good ground for hard running half forwards, so I reckon if Paparone does play it'll be another difficult day for him.

It's something of a catch 22 isn't it? They can't get a regular place in the 22 until their positioning improves, and their positioning won't improve until they get a regular place in the 22.

I imagine Clarke will be sent to Reid this weekend. That's a bit of a step up in quality over Pedersen, but probably not a bad matchup for a skinny young defender.

 

[whatboutbob]

imagine Clarke will be sent to Reid this weekend. That's a bit of a step up in quality over Pedersen, but probably not a bad matchup for a skinny young defender.

With the added incentive of potentially seeing Hammo's golden child whitewashed by one of our "lowly" rookie 2nd gamers. I dare not dream (and probably just jinxed it. Reid to kick a bag).

 

[POBT]

Clarke on the other hand plays a much simpler role - but one he still stuck to admirably.

He also plays in the area of the ground where we probably have the best games per player average - playing alongside Adcock, McGrath, Merrett and Patfull probably means he gets corrected before his positioning error becomes obvious to the rest of us.

What I did notice about Clarke is that he actively contributed to the organisational stuff - I saw him calling Golby over to switch opponents when Melbourne had engineered a height mismatch.

Speaking of Golby, his game sense errors were less than the others but he still made them. A few times Adcock had to get a bit forceful with him as the "structure" was to have Adcock free as much as possible, whereas Golby was without an opponent. Yeo also made a few positional errors. Same with Ace at the other end. But you could see the difference between those guys with 10-30 games experience and the ones in their first couple of games.....just as you could see the difference between Golby/Yeo etc and guys like Rockliff, Redden and Polkinghorne who know their role in the structure.

It is easy to see how sides who only carry 1 or 2 newbies can look so much more cohesive.

 

[Luke Kathutian]

This thread isn't exactly rocket science guys. If we hadn't made the drafting/recruiting stuff ups we have maybe we wouldn't have to play kids. But the only possible pathway we have to rejoining the 8 is getting games into the kids who have the skill to take us there. Some of the older blokes on our list simply do not have the talent required if the team want to play finals again.

The 2010 draft is probably killing us a bit as far as the inexperience thing goes. Polec is well under the other guys around him in terms of games played...

Gaff - 41 games
Polec - 16 games
Conca - 39 games
Caddy - 29 games
Heppell - 48 games
Prestia - 35 games

Probably wouldn't be as bad if Karnezis (pick #25 in 2010 draft) was playing regularly but he seems to be on the outer and stuck on 20 games.

I do think Chopperduck and LOTR make a great point in that we bring young guys in to the team, give them a couple games, then boot them. Then do it again and again and again. It's all over the shop to be honest. Really comes back to our coaching team (who have also been subject to quite a bit of rotatation recently!!!). They don't seem to have a vision for the team, to be able to grab it by the balls and say 'this is how I want the team to play and these are the players that are going to get it done for me.'

 

[whatboutbob]

The 2010 draft is probably killing us a bit as far as the inexperience thing goes...

Rather than pinning our issues on 20yo's I'd look more to our drafting from ~2001=>2007 myself. That's what's left us with the structural issue of having to play a bunch of kids and makes it difficult to carry even more young'uns - especially the less physically developed ones.

 

[chopperduck]

In that example, even if Polec had matched the others, he is still under 50 games, which still falls into the inexperienced bracket. I don't think players really start getting it together until years 4-5 when they start reaching near 100 games, and that's if they play nearly every game. We lack more players around 100-150 games, and that is what hurts us. 3Rs are starting to get near 100, but they are carrying the midfield, they shouldn't be having to do that just yet. To have 8 players 25 games or under is massive, just massive, and shouldn't be underestimated in our team performance. There should be no room in the starting 22 for 4 first gamers at the same time, it shows our lack of depth.

Take excitement out of watching these kids, but don't expect huge things of them.

 

[Last of the Roys]

This thread isn't exactly rocket science guys. If we hadn't made the drafting/recruiting stuff ups we have maybe we wouldn't have to play kids. But the only possible pathway we have to rejoining the 8 is getting games into the kids who have the skill to take us there. Some of the older blokes on our list simply do not have the talent required if the team want to play finals again.
...

It is the perenial problem though - are we trying to win games now or set ourselves up for the future? Then there is the question - does it help youngsters to be better when you play a lot of them but the team itself is getting smashed?

The answer to both questions isn't straight forward. It is a fine line between giving players more experience and remaining competitive on the field.

Have a look at Melbourne for example - they had a more experienced team than us yesterday because they had gone down the route of playing inexperienced players at the expense of experienced ones (albeit with a bit of a strange reversal picking up the likes of Rodan and Byrnes). However, most people would probably agree they went too far and are now suffering the consequences - i.e. their players aren't as good as what they should be. I don't think Gold Coast or GWS have done themselves too many favours for the future with their severe lack of experience either. Their talent will still shine through to some extent - but will they be as good as young players who have come into great sides?

Geelong and Collingwood are just a couple of examples I can think of where there kids just look like they belong almost from day 1 - it helps a hell of a lot having a good team around you.

 

[Panthera]

It is the perenial problem though - are we trying to win games now or set ourselves up for the future? Then there is the question - does it help youngsters to be better when you play a lot of them but the team itself is getting smashed?

The answer to both questions isn't straight forward. It is a fine line between giving players more experience and remaining competitive on the field.

Have a look at Melbourne for example - they had a more experienced team than us yesterday because they had gone down the route of playing inexperienced players at the expense of experienced ones (albeit with a bit of a strange reversal picking up the likes of Rodan and Byrnes). However, most people would probably agree they went too far and are now suffering the consequences - i.e. their players aren't as good as what they should be. I don't think Gold Coast or GWS have done themselves too many favours for the future with their severe lack of experience either. Their talent will still shine through to some extent - but will they be as good as young players who have come into great sides?

Geelong and Collingwood are just a couple of examples I can think of where there kids just look like they belong almost from day 1 - it helps a hell of a lot having a good team around you.

Too true. Same as when the likes of Copeland and Headland were introduced into our great teams.

 

[POBT]

Geelong and Collingwood are just a couple of examples I can think of where there kids just look like they belong almost from day 1 - it helps a hell of a lot having a good team around you.

I remember when Malthouse brought Beams and Sidebottom into the Collingwood side. Despite the fact that both looked very good when they played, he only selected them in the same side once in the first half of their debut season. It was only in the finals where they strung together 3 games playing in the same side.

I have Collingwood's development program as the best in the league. As you say, their players look like senior players from the moment they step onto the park. But there is an example of a coach clearly reluctant to play the kids together too often, despite the fact that they were quite clearly "senior ready".

It is simple though. If you have 1 guy who is a bit of a liability in terms of structure/game sense, you have 21 others who can cover it up. If you have 4 or 5 who are too green, then you've got subsequently more players likely to make an error and less players to cover it up.

 

[ZoBlitz]

Too true. Same as when the likes of Copeland and Headland were introduced into our great teams.

I'd argue that it wasn't the case with Headland. Took him three seasons to be a regular and it was only in his forth season that he was really looking like a player.

 

[Last of the Roys]

Another update:

• Round 1 - Lost by 68 points vs. the Bulldogs at Etihad - Lions 8 vs. Bulldogs 7 (we had 8 players with less than 25 games experience, the Bulldogs had 7)
• Round 2 - Lost by 19 points vs. Adelaide at the GABBA - Lions 7 vs. Adelaide 3
• Round 3 - Won by 2 points vs. Gold Coast at Metricon - Lions 7 vs. Gold Coast 9
• Round 4 - Lost by 63 points vs. North at Etihad - Lions 7 vs. North 4
• Round 5 - Won by 28 points vs. Melbourne at the GABBA - Lions 9 vs. Melbourne 6
• Round 6 - Lost by 60 points vs. Sydney at the SCG - Lions 9 vs. Sydney 3
• Round 7 - ??? vs. West Coast at the GABBA - Lions 7 vs. West Coast 2

Some interesting points
- the Melbourne game was only the 2nd time in our last 28 home and away matches that the team with at least 3 more very inexperienced players has won. Although that win was hardly comparable to our win against West Coast last year.
- Out of our last 28 games, the team with more very inexperienced players have only won 7 times (or 25%)
- Last year against West Coast at the GABBA we had 8 very inexperienced players to 3 compared to 7 vs. 2 this year - so it is pretty much the same.
- Tonight it was reported that Geelong had 10 players with less than 50 games experience in their side that beat Essendon and remain the only undefeated side. It just shows you the brilliant quality of their youngsters, their development program and their club in general. The Lions have 9 players with less than 50 games against West Coast (actually we have 9 players with less than 35 games experience each).
- Lester will play his 25th game against the Eagles, Green his 24th and Zorko his 23rd (with Golby now playing his 28th he has moved my very inexpeirenced category, as Lester will next week).

 

[luthor]

Thanks LOR

Bottom line is that we need to defy the "inexperience" odds to beat the Eagles this week.

but hell....we did it last time....let's do it again

 

[western royboy]

I remember when Malthouse brought Beams and Sidebottom into the Collingwood side. Despite the fact that both looked very good when they played, he only selected them in the same side once in the first half of their debut season. It was only in the finals where they strung together 3 games playing in the same side.

I have Collingwood's development program as the best in the league. As you say, their players look like senior players from the moment they step onto the park. But there is an example of a coach clearly reluctant to play the kids together too often, despite the fact that they were quite clearly "senior ready".

It is simple though. If you have 1 guy who is a bit of a liability in terms of structure/game sense, you have 21 others who can cover it up. If you have 4 or 5 who are too green, then you've got subsequently more players likely to make an error and less players to cover it up.

I've posted on other threads but it really belongs here, Buckley played I think 6 players with <25 games in round 1 last year, they got beat and as a result he said "never again" while they were in contention and the maximum number is now 4. If you did a LOTR analysis of the Pies you would find he's kept his word.

I know Collingwoods development system first hand - it's top shelf and it's all aimed at AFL level only, everything done before that is to give the youngsters coming in the best chance of making it at senior level.