Analysis Inexperience watch

Remove this Banner Ad

Reader mode
I was thinking about north for various reasons having lost Harvey 432, Petrie 316, NDS 322, firrito 275, wells 243, Waite 216

That would equate to 82 games per player across 22 players!

No wonder they are struggling.
 
Big margins in Port's favour here, boys and girls. Almost 30 games, and almost a year and a half, per player. Once again the five most experienced players on the ground will all be playing against the Lions.

If it helps you sleep at night, we're taller than they are. I reckon the balance of the side looks good with Close in and the two medium defenders back, although the heat will be on players like Harwood, Robertson, Robinson, Rich and Cutler to keep Port's speedy forward/mids on the leash.

Round 6, 2017 - Lions vs. Power at The Gabba
  • (0 to 10 games - Lions 2 vs. Power 2)
  • 0 to 24 games - Lions 6 vs. Power 3
  • 25 to 49 games - Lions 6 vs. Power 3
  • 50 to 99 games - Lions 4 vs. Power 7
  • 100 to 199 games - Lions 6 vs. Power 8
  • 200+ games - Lions 0 vs. Power 1
Extra stats:
  • Average games played - Lions 64.8 vs. Power 92.8 (= -28.0 games on average)
  • Average age - Lions 23.0 vs. Power 24.4
  • Average height - Lions 189.2cm vs. Power 188.0cm
  • Average weight - Lions 87.5kg vs. Power 87.0kg
 
Last edited:
fanackapan said:
Round 4, 2017 - Lions vs. Power at The Gabba
  • (0 to 10 games - Lions 2 vs. Power 2)
  • 0 to 24 games - Lions 6 vs. Power 3
  • 25 to 49 games - Lions 6 vs. Power 3
  • 50 to 99 games - Lions 4 vs. Power 4
  • 100 to 199 games - Lions 6 vs. Power 8
  • 200+ games - Lions 0 vs. Power 1
Click to expand...

This thread is one I regularly come back to and really love. It's a shame we seem to be continually on the younger side, but hopefully that changes as our best side starts to settle.

Anyway, I think port is missing a few in this comparison. I'd look it up and edit myself, but the whole toddler-bed thing needs my immediate attention!
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Ok... so... one of two things is going to happen here. Either one of our first round picks is going to improve, or...

brl_pta.png
Hmmmmm, I wonder what the other thing was.
 
When in Melbourne on the weekend watched a footy flashbacks episode from 1996 bears v cats, in our side were Akermanis, Voss, Lappin, Scott, Keating, White, Ashcroft, Leppitsch, they are the ones I can remember. Sometimes you forget how long they were around before we became one of the GOAT sides, we need to bear this in mind when we become impatient with our current side.
 
jason pm said:
When in Melbourne on the weekend watched a footy flashbacks episode from 1996 bears v cats, in our side were Akermanis, Voss, Lappin, Scott, Keating, White, Ashcroft, Leppitsch, they are the ones I can remember. Sometimes you forget how long they were around before we became one of the GOAT sides, we need to bear this in mind when we become impatient with our current side.
Click to expand...
Although on the other hand, the side that year made the preliminary final...
 
ZoBlitz said:
Although on the other hand, the side that year made the preliminary final...
Click to expand...

That side had a lot of veterans in it.

Round 6, 2017 Lions vs. Round 10, 1996 Bears
  • (0 to 10 games - Lions 2 vs. Bears 3)
  • 0 to 24 games - Lions 6 vs. Bears 5
  • 25 to 49 games - Lions 6 vs. Bears 3
  • 50 to 99 games - Lions 4 vs. Bears 5
  • 100 to 199 games - Lions 6 vs. Bears 6
  • 200+ games - Lions 0 vs. Bears 2
Extra stats:
  • Average games played - Lions 64.8 vs. Bears 93.2 (-28.4 games on average)
  • Average age - Lions 23.0 vs. Power 24.9
 
jason pm said:
When in Melbourne on the weekend watched a footy flashbacks episode from 1996 bears v cats, in our side were Akermanis, Voss, Lappin, Scott, Keating, White, Ashcroft, Leppitsch, they are the ones I can remember. Sometimes you forget how long they were around before we became one of the GOAT sides, we need to bear this in mind when we become impatient with our current side.
Click to expand...
And it's worth reflecting that the side that finished bottom in 1998 with 5 1/2 wins included, among others, Ashcroft, Voss, both Scotts, Hart, Lappin, Boyd, Aker, White, McRae, Power, Leppa, Black, Lambert, Lynch, Notting, Johnson, Keating, Bradshaw and Molloy. Things can turn around pretty quickly but also those players were all coming into their prime, unlike most of our current group.
 
It would be interesting, Jivlain to see your fantastic graphs, comparing today's Lions with the 2001 Premiership team. It might put some perspective on where we need to get to to be competitive, while people are trying to make those links.
 
Skoob said:
It would be interesting, Jivlain to see your fantastic graphs, comparing today's Lions with the 2001 Premiership team. It might put some perspective on where we need to get to to be competitive, while people are trying to make those links.
Click to expand...

Sadly, to date I haven't compiled data back far enough to cover our 2001 side into my database. In lieu of doing a bunch of work to import and verify all of that, here's our named side against the last few premiers (immediately before they won a flag):

Collingwood 2010:
10brl_col.png
Geelong 2011:
11brl_gee.png
Sydney 2012:
12brl_syd.png
Hawthorn 2013-2015:
13brl_haw.png 14brl_haw.png 15brl_haw.png
Bulldogs 2016:
16brl_wbd.png
 
Last edited:
The returns you get on experience diminish over time. I dont know that you get too much more in terms of output from a 200 gamer as opposed to a 150 gamer. That additional 50 games is probably less important than 0-50 or 51-100. Then, at some point, it actually becomes a negative if you have too many guys at the end of their careers because they can't always compete at the same level as a guy with 150 games.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

POBT said:
The returns you get on experience diminish over time. I dont know that you get too much more in terms of output from a 200 gamer as opposed to a 150 gamer. That additional 50 games is probably less important than 0-50 or 51-100. Then, at some point, it actually becomes a negative if you have too many guys at the end of their careers because they can't always compete at the same level as a guy with 150 games.
Click to expand...
That seems logical, and one would think the more important group is that 50-100 with fewer -50s and the comparison between our group and Premiers bears that out. The exception in those presented is the Bulldogs who won with a largely comparative experience level. The standout constant in those experience graphs though is the handful of 150+ players in each. Our middle agers seems to level off more in comparison, as opposed to a sharper rise in the middle (due to our overall youth) That could be a good thing when we come of age. It might mean better sustainability.
 
Id say somewhere around 75 games. Players over 75 games compared to under. Once you hit about 75 you are probably in your 4th or 5th year which marries up with typical thoughts about when players start hitting their prime.

Agree that the returns in players over 75 or 100 games compared to over 150 or 200 probably doesnt make a massive difference. Id say we are a good 2 years off having a good balance of players near that mark, and then a few years after that we will be looking down the barrel of losing some.

Simply vital that we retain our drafted talent is what it boils down to.
 
POBT said:
I do think there's some value in having a large group around the 100-150 mark. That's where leadership really comes in.
Click to expand...

Agree, while 75 onwards you're probably skill wise playing your best football, once you're around that 150 mark you've probably at your peak mentally as well as physically. You will have come across pretty much every scenario game positions wise and whats been successful or not in dealing with them.
 
The ins (McVeigh) and outs (Beams) mean that the margins in age and experience this week are almost identical to what they were last week against Port, which doesn't bode well. Once again, the 6 most experienced players on the field (McVeigh, Franklin, Grundy, Kennedy, Hannebery and Nick Smith) will be Swans. The numbers say we shouldn't win this one, but then again, the same numbers probably also say the Swans shouldn't be 0-6, so there's always hope.

We do have an advantage in milestones, though: Rich's 150th and Paparone's 50th vs Sinclair's 50th. Best of luck to all of them.

[Ed: updated for late change Marsh in for Aliir. Didn't make much difference to the numbers, or to the result.]

Round 7, 2017 - Lions vs. Swans at The SCG
  • (0 to 10 games - Lions 3 vs. Swans 3)
  • 0 to 24 games - Lions 7 vs. Swans 6
  • 25 to 49 games - Lions 6 vs. Swans 6
  • 50 to 99 games - Lions 4 vs. Swans 2
  • 100 to 199 games - Lions 5 vs. Swans 5
  • 200+ games - Lions 0 vs. Swans 3
Extra stats:
  • Average games played - Lions 60.4 vs. Swans 89.1 (= -28.7 games on average)
  • Average age - Lions 22.7 vs. Swans 24.1
  • Average height - Lions 189.2cm vs. Swans 187.8cm
  • Average weight - Lions 87.2kg vs. Swans 87.9kg
 
Last edited:
One of the things you'll notice in the graphs this week, however, is where Sydney's experience advantage is - it's all in the old blokes. Sydney has named six players who each have played more games than anyone on our list (McVeigh, Franklin, Grundy, Kennedy, Hannebery, Smith). But the youngest 2/3 of both squads are pretty even on games played, and I think we can agree that after 75-100 games you're into diminishing returns. This is a marked difference from the Port game, where the gap was just consistently present across the board.

This very much shows up in the other measures as well, where Port has a distinct advantage in tackles, disposals, clearances, contested possessions, etc - here it's much more even. After all, these are in many ways just down to the fact that as players mature they become better able to win the ball, land the tackle, make space, and have the endurance to do that for the length of the game.

So while we were completely up against it last week, this week it's a lot friendlier. We don't have an advantage, sure, but we're at much less of a disadvantage.
afl_syd_brl.png

In the NEAFL, meanwhile, we've got a solid advantage. You'd have to back us to go 5-0 on these.
neafl_syd_brl.png
 
Last edited:
We're older and more experienced than we were last week. We're taller and heavier than the Hawks. If you're looking good news, stop reading now.

This will be one of the biggest gaps we have this year. The hawks average more than twice as many games as us, and that's despite losing 100-odd games with their changes. To put it in perspective, we only have 2 players (Rich and Rockliff) running out who have played as many games as the Hawks average. The 7 most experienced players on the field will be Hawks, and 11 of the top 12.

Round 8, 2017 - Lions vs. Hawks at UTS
  • (0 to 10 games - Lions 2 vs. Hawks 2)
  • 0 to 24 games - Lions 6 vs. Hawks 4
  • 25 to 49 games - Lions 5 vs. Hawks 1
  • 50 to 99 games - Lions 7 vs. Hawks 4
  • 100 to 199 games - Lions 4 vs. Hawks 9
  • 200+ games - Lions 0 vs. Hawks 4
Extra stats:
  • Average games played - Lions 62.0 vs. Hawks 127.5 (= -65.5 games on average)
  • Average age - Lions 23.1 vs. Hawks 26.3
  • Average height - Lions 189.4cm vs. Hawks 187.4cm
  • Average weight - Lions 88.3kg vs. Hawks 87.3kg
Because I had work to avoid this week, I also ran some numbers on number of wins each player has played in (as opposed to games).

As a consequence of such a long run of failure, in combination with our general inexperience, we average a shocking 16.95 wins per player, as opposed to the Hawks' 81.82. We won't have a single player this weekend who has played in 50 wins (we only have four on our list, and three of those are injured). By contrast, the Hawks have 13 players with 50 or more wins, and another 5 who aren't playing this weekend.

The story is not much better when you look at percentage. The hawks average a 64% win rate, with the star being Daniel Howe (85%), and the outlier Melbourne cast-off Jack Fitzpatrick (12%). By contrast, our lads average just 27.4%, with the best performed unsurprisingly being Josh Walker (44% - only 3 named Hawks are worse than this!), and the laggards Jarrod Berry (yet to win in 5 attempts) and everyone's favourite whipping boy, Josh Schache (2 wins from 22 attempts, for a dismal 9.1%).

It'd be interesting to analyze whether some threshold of number of wins played in is a better indicator of victory than number of games played (I think percentage would be less useful), but I'm not yet in a position to run those numbers. Maybe when I have some more work to avoid.
 
fanackapan said:
We're older and more experienced than we were last week. We're taller and heavier than the Hawks. If you're looking good news, stop reading now.

This will be one of the biggest gaps we have this year. The hawks average more than twice as many games as us, and that's despite losing 100-odd games with their changes. To put it in perspective, we only have 2 players (Rich and Rockliff) running out who have played as many games as the Hawks average. The 7 most experienced players on the field will be Hawks, and 11 of the top 12.

Round 8, 2017 - Lions vs. Hawks at UTS
  • (0 to 10 games - Lions 2 vs. Hawks 2)
  • 0 to 24 games - Lions 6 vs. Hawks 4
  • 25 to 49 games - Lions 5 vs. Hawks 1
  • 50 to 99 games - Lions 7 vs. Hawks 4
  • 100 to 199 games - Lions 4 vs. Hawks 9
  • 200+ games - Lions 0 vs. Hawks 4
Extra stats:
  • Average games played - Lions 62.0 vs. Hawks 127.5 (= -65.5 games on average)
  • Average age - Lions 23.1 vs. Hawks 26.3
  • Average height - Lions 189.4cm vs. Hawks 187.4cm
  • Average weight - Lions 88.3kg vs. Hawks 87.3kg
Because I had work to avoid this week, I also ran some numbers on number of wins each player has played in (as opposed to games).

As a consequence of such a long run of failure, in combination with our general inexperience, we average a shocking 16.95 wins per player, as opposed to the Hawks' 81.82. We won't have a single player this weekend who has played in 50 wins (we only have four on our list, and three of those are injured). By contrast, the Hawks have 13 players with 50 or more wins, and another 5 who aren't playing this weekend.

The story is not much better when you look at percentage. The hawks average a 64% win rate, with the star being Daniel Howe (85%), and the outlier Melbourne cast-off Jack Fitzpatrick (12%). By contrast, our lads average just 27.4%, with the best performed unsurprisingly being Josh Walker (44% - only 3 named Hawks are worse than this!), and the laggards Jarrod Berry (yet to win in 5 attempts) and everyone's favourite whipping boy, Josh Schache (2 wins from 22 attempts, for a dismal 9.1%).

It'd be interesting to analyze whether some threshold of number of wins played in is a better indicator of victory than number of games played (I think percentage would be less useful), but I'm not yet in a position to run those numbers. Maybe when I have some more work to avoid.
Click to expand...
Wow! That really puts into perspective where we are at. I have confidence we are heading in the right direction though.
 
If last week is any indication of how we play when we're not completely overwhelmed, experience-wise... this could get ugly.

haw_brl.png
 
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
S
  • Locked
Unofficial Preview Prelim discussion v Demons/Blues / Gunston watch.
15 16 17 18 19
Replies
466
Views
18K
dlanod
dlanod

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top