Analysis Inexperience watch

Remove this Banner Ad

Reader mode

Log in to remove this ad.

Late change for us is McStay out, Green in - changes to the stats in red below:

Last of the Roys said:
Round 8, 2016 - Lions vs. Pies at the Gabba
  • (0 to 10 games - Lions 2 vs. Pies 3)
  • 0 to 24 games - Lions 2 vs. Pies 6
  • 25 to 49 games - Lions 4 vs. Pies 4
  • 50 to 99 games - Lions 9 vs. Pies 5
  • 100 to 199 games - Lions 7 vs. Pies 6
  • 200+ games - Lions 0 vs. Pies 1
Extra stats:
  • Average games played - Lions 78.3 vs. Pies 74.0 (= +4.3 games on average)
  • Average age - Lions 24.6 vs. Pies 24.3
  • Average height - Lions 185.7cm vs. Pies 188.0cm
  • Average weight - Lions 87.4kg vs. Pies 87.3kg
Well last week started so well but turned absolutely putrid way too easily. If it wasn't for that, I would be really positive going into tonight's game given the above experience numbers may be the best we see all year. For the first time this year we are slightly more experienced in terms of average games played and average age than our opposition. Even more importantly though, we only have 2 very inexperienced players who have played less than 25 games to Collingwood's 6. That should give us a big advantage.

At home with a clear experience advantage there will be nowhere to hide tonight if we aren't super competitive. Unfortunately last week's debacle sapped me of confidence and I couldn't bring myself to pick the Lions. Hopefully we see the side turn up that played so well against Sydney and Gold Coast.
Click to expand...
 
Ci4d6zWUUAYmNSi.jpg


Ahead on experience but those player rating points are pretty damning.
 
Round 9, 2016 - Lions vs. Dees at the MCG
  • (0 to 10 games - Lions 4 vs. Dees 5)
  • 0 to 24 games - Lions 7 vs. Dees 10
  • 25 to 49 games - Lions 1 vs. Dees 4
  • 50 to 99 games - Lions 8 vs. Dees 3
  • 100 to 199 games - Lions 6 vs. Dees 4
  • 200+ games - Lions 0 vs. Dees 1
Extra stats:
  • Average games played - Lions 65.4 vs. Dees 56.8 (= +8.6 games on average)
  • Average age - Lions 24.0 vs. Dees 23.1
  • Average height - Lions 187.2cm vs. Dees 186.7cm
  • Average weight - Lions 88.9kg vs. Dees 84.9kg
After the mother of all disastrous games last week, we go into our second game in a row with a clear experience advantage despite making 7 changes. If all that mattered was experience we would be feeling pretty good going into this game. Melbourne have a staggering 14 players with less than 50 games experience to our 8. We average 6.6 games more experience per player and are on average 0.9 years older.

So again there will be nowhere to hide if we are not competitive on Sunday. And yet again I will be turning up to a game with a feeling of dread. I would love to see a miraculous turn around in attitude and coaching tactics, but I am definitely not banking on it.
 
Last edited:
I think it's fair to say we can stop using inexperience as an excuse. Sure it hurts not having any 200 gamers but we're still seriously underperforming.
 
jackess said:
I think it's fair to say we can stop using inexperience as an excuse. Sure it hurts not having any 200 gamers but we're still seriously underperforming.
Click to expand...

Yeah definitely for the last few weeks we have just been genuinely crap.

Any other year you would say that this is a game we shouldn't lose. I mean the Dee's have a ridiculous 14 players out there with less than 50 games with the late change. Unfortunately we are largely the ones playing the dumb uninspired football.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Demons have been able to draft more top end talent over the previous 6 drafts and received priority and compensation picks. They might be slightly less experienced but their players are more likely to have better skills.

We're also extremely inexperienced with our forwards and defenders. Our midfield has no excuse for inexperience but our KPP'S all do.
 
Last edited:
With our team playing so poorly, experience has lost its predictive value for our games. Let's hope that lack of predictive value continues this week because we are sure going to need it.

Round 10, 2016 - Lions vs. Hawks at the Gabba
  • (0 to 10 games - Lions 2 vs. Hawks 1)
  • 0 to 24 games - Lions 7 vs. Hawks 2
  • 25 to 49 games - Lions 1 vs. Hawks 3
  • 50 to 99 games - Lions 8 vs. Hawks 3
  • 100 to 199 games - Lions 6 vs. Hawks 10
  • 200+ games - Lions 0 vs. Hawks 4
Extra stats:
  • Average games played - Lions 67.6 vs. Hawks 127.7 (= -60.1 games on average)
  • Average age - Lions 24.1 vs. Hawks 26.8
  • Average height - Lions 187.3cm vs. Hawks 187.0cm
  • Average weight - Lions 89.0kg vs. Hawks 85.9kg

What can you say about those stats. It looks like an impending massacre on paper, but who knows. 14 Hawks have played more than 100 games, with 4 (almost 5) of those with more than 200 games; compared to just 6 of our players having played more than 100 games. At the bottom end we have 7 players with less than 25 games experience to their 2.

Rather than dwelling on those stats, how about we talk about something completely meaningless like the weight statistics. I have noticed how ridiculous they are all year, but this game just takes the cake. Apparently we are about to bully the Hawks with our big weight advantage!!! Obviously sides just fill in what they want on weight. We seemed to have gone for a Collingwood of yesteryear approach and boosted our weight numbers considerably to put other sides off (the Pies used to do it in relation to height in the old days apparently) - gee that'll work. No one could possibly tell that we are constantly being out-muscled out-tackled out-contested.
 
I just reviewed this whole thread in terms of results from the start of 2012 in my original measure - which was a side would be expected to win if their opposition had 3+ extra very inexperienced players in their line up (players who had played less than 25 games each; hence the Lions with 7 today are expected to lose to Hawthorn with 2 given the difference is 5).

Anyway, here are the results since the start of 2012:

  • 2012
    • No prediction (the difference in very inexperienced players either way was less than 3) = 8 games
    • Correctly predicted loss (we had 3+ more very inexperienced players than our opponents) = 10 games
    • Correctly predicted win (our opponents had 3+ more very inexperienced players than us) = 3 games
    • Unexpected win (we had 3+ more very inexperienced players than our opponents, but still won) = 1 game
    • Unexpected loss (our opponents had 3+ more very inexperienced players but beat us) = 0 games
  • 2013
    • No prediction = 11 games
    • Correctly predicted loss = 7 games
    • Correctly predicted win = 3 games
    • Unexpected win =1 game
    • Unexpected loss = 0 games
  • 2014
    • No prediction = 9 games
    • Correctly predicted loss = 10 games
    • Correctly predicted win = 0 games
    • Unexpected win = 3 games
    • Unexpected loss = 0 games
  • 2015
    • No prediction = 13 games
    • Correctly predicted loss = 5 games
    • Correctly predicted win = 1 game
    • Unexpected win = 1 game
    • Unexpected loss = 2 games
  • 2016 (to round 9)
    • No prediction = 5 games
    • Correctly predicted loss = 0 games
    • Correctly predicted win = 0 games
    • Unexpected win = 0 games
    • Unexpected loss = 4 games (Geelong; Sydney; Collingwood; Melbourne)
  • Overall (2012 Round 1 to 2016 round 9)
    • No prediction= 46 games
    • Correctly predicted loss = 32 games
    • Correctly predicted win = 7 games
    • Unexpected win = 6 games
    • Unexpected loss = 6 games
    • [Correct prediction % of predicted games = 76.5%]

As I expected, the measure was very good at predicting games in Voss's last two years as coach, with no unexpected losses and 2 unexpected wins in that time period. In Leppa's first year in 2014 it was still very good with no unexpected losses and a new coach bounce with 3 unexpected wins.

However, last year things started to turn a bit south. We had one unexpected win and for the first time since I started keeping these stats we had 2 unexpected losses. And obviously this measure has completely nose dived this year with our woeful onfield form. We have so far had no unexpected wins and 4 unexpected losses. Now you could argue that a couple of those in reality were always going to be very tough - Geelong and Sydney (who we were very unlucky not to beat) - but there is no doubt that we are in a huge hole on-field. The Collingwood and Melbourne games in particular have exposed that as incontestable fact.
 
Last of the Roys said:
With our team playing so poorly, experience has lost its predictive value for our games. Let's hope that lack of predictive value continues this week because we are sure going to need it.

Round 10, 2016 - Lions vs. Hawks at the Gabba
  • (0 to 10 games - Lions 2 vs. Hawks 1)
  • 0 to 24 games - Lions 7 vs. Hawks 2
  • 25 to 49 games - Lions 1 vs. Hawks 3
  • 50 to 99 games - Lions 8 vs. Hawks 3
  • 100 to 199 games - Lions 6 vs. Hawks 10
  • 200+ games - Lions 0 vs. Hawks 4
Extra stats:
  • Average games played - Lions 67.6 vs. Hawks 127.7 (= -60.1 games on average)
  • Average age - Lions 24.1 vs. Hawks 26.8
  • Average height - Lions 187.3cm vs. Hawks 187.0cm
  • Average weight - Lions 89.0kg vs. Hawks 85.9kg

What can you say about those stats. It looks like an impending massacre on paper, but who knows. 14 Hawks have played more than 100 games, with 4 (almost 5) of those with more than 200 games; compared to just 6 of our players having played more than 100 games. At the bottom end we have 7 players with less than 25 games experience to their 2.

Rather than dwelling on those stats, how about we talk about something completely meaningless like the weight statistics. I have noticed how ridiculous they are all year, but this game just takes the cake. Apparently we are about to bully the Hawks with our big weight advantage!!! Obviously sides just fill in what they want on weight. We seemed to have gone for a Collingwood of yesteryear approach and boosted our weight numbers considerably to put other sides off (the Pies used to do it in relation to height in the old days apparently) - gee that'll work. No one could possibly tell that we are constantly being out-muscled out-tackled out-contested.
Click to expand...
WOAH! -60 games. Sheeesh. This gonna hurt.

Interesting to note are an average 3 kg heavier. That seems staggering.
 
Round 11, 2016 - Lions vs. Blues at Etihad
  • (0 to 10 games - Lions 3 vs. Blues 2)
  • 0 to 24 games - Lions 7 vs. Blues 4
  • 25 to 49 games - Lions 1 vs. Blues 4
  • 50 to 99 games - Lions 7 vs. Blues 5
  • 100 to 199 games - Lions 7 vs. Blues 8
  • 200+ games - Lions 0 vs. Blues 1
Extra stats:
  • Average games played - Lions 70.3 vs. Blues 89.1 (= -18.8 games on average)
  • Average age - Lions 24.3 vs. Blues 25.6
  • Average height - Lions 187.4cm vs. Blues 189.1cm
  • Average weight - Lions 89.7kg vs. Blues 88.8kg

So a much better performance last week by the Lions, at least until early into the last quarter. Hopefully we can bring the same intensity this week and give the game a real crack. Experience wise we are still predicted to lose with 7 very inexperienced players in our side compared to 4 for Carlton. Their young players are a little bit older and more experienced and have moved into the 25 to 49 game category. They also have 9 players with more than 100 games experience to our 7. I hope we can be competitive, but hope doesn't last long when you are 1 and 9.

As a side note, Schache is playing his 10th game today and Cutler his 25th. Christensen plays his 98th and Nick Robbo his 23rd in terms of players getting close to moving up a category.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jivlain
Game Day Grand final thread (feat. inexperience watch)
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
143
Views
5K
M Malice
M Malice
Squizz89
  • Locked
Unofficial Preview Prelim discussion v Demons/Blues / Gunston watch.
15 16 17 18 19
Replies
466
Views
18K
dlanod
dlanod
MSB ROYS
Ex-Lions Watch
2
Replies
27
Views
4K
luthor
luthor

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top