Analysis Inexperience watch

Remove this Banner Ad

Reader mode
The survey says Crows. This is comfortably (or perhaps uncomfortably) the least experienced side we've selected so far this year, and although the experience and age gaps aren't as extreme as they were against the Hawks, they're still significant.

Round 9, 2017 - Lions vs. Crows at The Gabba
  • (0 to 10 games - Lions 4 vs. Crows 2)
  • 0 to 24 games - Lions 7 vs. Crows 4
  • 25 to 49 games - Lions 2 vs. Crows 3
  • 50 to 99 games - Lions 9 vs. Crows 8
  • 100 to 199 games - Lions 4 vs. Crows 5
  • 200+ games - Lions 0 vs. Crows 2
Extra stats:
  • Average games played - Lions 57.8 vs. Crows 87 (= -29.2 games on average)
  • Average wins played - Lions 17.3 (29.9%) vs Crows 49.5 (56.9%)
  • Average age - Lions 22.9 vs. Crows 24.5
  • Average height - Lions 189.5cm vs. Crows 187.6cm
  • Average weight - Lions 88.3kg vs. Crows 87.0kg
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Dlions said:
If we can contain their top 4 goal kickers on that graph, we might stand some sort of chance. Tackles and clearances stan up well.
Click to expand...

Over Leppa's tenure Walker, Betts, Lynch and Cameron played all four games against us. We controlled Lynch (6 - mostly in last year's belting) and Cameron (4) fairly well but Walker (19) and Betts (12), it's fair to say, have punished us.
 
Jivlain said:
Over Leppa's tenure Walker, Betts, Lynch and Cameron played all four games against us. We controlled Lynch (6 - mostly in last year's belting) and Cameron (4) fairly well but Walker (19) and Betts (12), it's fair to say, have punished us.
Click to expand...
Yes it would be Betts and Walker that i am most worried about. Walker in particular. We have a tendancy to let those big fellas off the chain. Although they have been a bit better this year.
 
This week I've gone ahead and added some enhancements, so we can see even more clearly how much of a beating we're in for! Hooray!

For a start - new charts!
  • Average marks (dunno why I missed this before)
  • Average 1%ers (hoorah for The Premier!)
  • Draft index (I'll explain this in a bit)
  • Career Brownlow votes (well, up to 2016 obviously)
I dropped off max fantasy points to make a bit of room.

The other thing I've added is a Gini bar. In a recent article, Matt Cowgill pointed out that we're the most unequal team (in that our team's Gini coefficient for fantasy points is the highest), a fact that I've alluded to from eyeballing the charts previously but not really quantified. Anyway, it's a good idea so I've nicked it off him. A Gini coefficient measures the degree of inequality in a set of values. For example, you can calculate the Gini coefficient for the incomes of the population of a country, and learn that South Africa is more inequal than the US, which is more inequal than Australia, which is more inequal than, say, Sweden. A higher coefficient indicates greater inequality. So for each chart you can see the Gini coefficients for each team for each stat. tl;dr: smaller coefficient = better.

So far, it's only looking at the raw numbers, which means that things that have a non-zero floor like age, height & weight will pretty much automatically show low inequality regardless of what's really going on in the data. I'll try to have a think about doing something about that for next week.

Draft index, meanwhile, is based on draft order, but extending it a bit further. For each year, I merged the drafts in the following order:
  • the previous year's mini-draft
  • the national draft
  • the previous year's mid-season draft (not sure if there's anyone still in the competition whose draft index is affected by this, but anyway)
  • the PSD
  • then the rookie draft
Finally, anyone who was preselected for whatever reason gets the number after that. I only count the first time they're drafted, so if someone redrafts them later that doesn't change their index.

So, for example, Jesse Hogan has an index of 2, and Tom Boyd an index of 3 (pushed back by that minidraft). Harris Andrews has an index of 60 (we used pick 61 on matching him, but Sydney had already passed). Matho has an index of 39 (which is just the ND pick we used on him). Hammelmann, as a rookie, gets a big number for this: 140. tl;dr: smaller numbers = better.

Man, I can just rant on, can't I? Fine, have some charts.
col_brl.png
 
We are a bit taller, our top few compete on clearances and contested possies, that's about it. Could build a shopping centre in the gap between the teams on marks and tackles. Need more... everything from our mid-tier players. To even compete we probably need 10 players to play career best games :eek: Stats like these show just how far off we are, there is no "quick fix" coming and we are a couple years off even being competitive in games.
 
Last edited:
Numbers say Magpies win. Big experience gap, big age gap. This week's team is (again) the least experienced and youngest we've rolled out this year.

Round 10, 2017 - Lions vs. Magpies at The MCG
  • (0 to 10 games - Lions 5 vs. Magpies 1)
  • 0 to 24 games - Lions 8 vs. Magpies 2
  • 25 to 49 games - Lions 4 vs. Magpies 5
  • 50 to 99 games - Lions 5 vs. Magpies 6
  • 100 to 199 games - Lions 5 vs. Magpies 7
  • 200+ games - Lions 0 vs. Magpies 2
Extra stats:
  • Average games played - Lions 57.5 vs. Magpies 96.2 (= -38.7 games on average)
  • Average wins played - Lions 17.6 (30.6%) vs Magpies 45.1 (46.9%)
  • Average age - Lions 22.4 vs. Magpies 24.6
  • Average height - Lions 190cm vs. Magpies 186.9cm
  • Average weight - Lions 87.7kg vs. Magpies 87.7kg
 
fanackapan said:
Numbers say Magpies win. Big experience gap, big age gap. This week's team is (again) the least experienced and youngest we've rolled out this year.

Round 10, 2017 - Lions vs. Magpies at The MCG
  • (0 to 10 games - Lions 5 vs. Magpies 1)
  • 0 to 24 games - Lions 8 vs. Magpies 2
  • 25 to 49 games - Lions 4 vs. Magpies 5
  • 50 to 99 games - Lions 5 vs. Magpies 6
  • 100 to 199 games - Lions 5 vs. Magpies 7
  • 200+ games - Lions 0 vs. Magpies 2
Extra stats:
  • Average games played - Lions 57.5 vs. Magpies 96.2 (= -38.7 games on average)
  • Average wins played - Lions 17.6 (30.6%) vs Magpies 45.1 (46.9%)
  • Average age - Lions 22.4 vs. Magpies 24.6
  • Average height - Lions 190cm vs. Magpies 186.9cm
  • Average weight - Lions 87.7kg vs. Magpies 87.7kg
Click to expand...
What that shows me, is that with the age profile of their list - Collingwood are crap.
They may beat us - but we can only improve from here. Not sure the same can be said about them.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Scary differences, but honestly this Magpies outfit has performed poorly in the majority of their games. They've got experience and still suck. Reckon it is 5050 and karna says we're the final nail in the Buckley coaching coffin.
 
Nunez said:
Scary differences, but honestly this Magpies outfit has performed poorly in the majority of their games. They've got experience and still suck. Reckon it is 5050 and karna says we're the final nail in the Buckley coaching coffin.
Click to expand...

I disagree. They're just a mid-table team. Assuming they thump us tomorrow, they'll go past Hawthorn and Sydney (both of whom they've beaten) and they'll sit 12th, with a healthy %. They've had a fairly easy draw, but they haven't been blown out in any games (close against GWS, and not disgraced against Richmond and Bulldogs). Their only really disappointing losses were against Carlton and maybe Essendon.
 
fanackapan said:
I disagree. They're just a mid-table team. Assuming they thump us tomorrow, they'll go past Hawthorn and Sydney (both of whom they've beaten) and they'll sit 12th, with a healthy %. They've had a fairly easy draw, but they haven't been blown out in any games (close against GWS, and not disgraced against Richmond and Bulldogs). Their only really disappointing losses were against Carlton and maybe Essendon.
Click to expand...

That's the thing. They've basically gone full Vossy and brought in players once again to be a top 8 side yet they still aren't.

They should be a lot better than they are. They barely beat the Hawks last week despite them missing some of their best players.

They are easily the most underperformed team this year.
 
Nunez said:
That's the thing. They've basically gone full Vossy and brought in players once again to be a top 8 side yet they still aren't.

They should be a lot better than they are. They barely beat the Hawks last week despite them missing some of their best players.

They are easily the most underperformed team this year.
Click to expand...

That's absurd. Sydney (last year's grand finalist) and Hawthorn (18 months since a 3-peat), for starters.

People have such an irrational outlook when it comes to Collingwood.
 
fanackapan said:
That's absurd. Sydney (last year's grand finalist) and Hawthorn (18 months since a 3-peat), for starters.

People have such an irrational outlook when it comes to Collingwood.
Click to expand...

Rather than just lol and be condescending to you I'll make a few points on the above. I think Syd and Hawthorn both have reasons to be worse this season. For Sydney it's been injuries. Of you look at their list profile in early rounds they like us had a big gap in their middle age profile with a number of outs and kids playing. No coincidence since they've got players back they've been better. As for Hawthorn they pretty much fitted their engine room and a few ageing players have seen their output lower. Not saying we expected the drop off but there's reasons. For the pies I'm struggling to see the reason tbh. Ok run with injuries, net turnover was positive on the whole, fairly stable list for a number of years now so everyone should be on the same page. No real reason for them not improving really
 
Sydney's injuries were a factor early, but the biggest reason the Swans have gone to hell is that their midfield (Kennedy, Parker, Hannebery) have underperformed (relative to expectations - still better than ours, of course). Pre-season, they were the team most picked (e.g. here) to make the finals. At 3-7, you'd have to say they're 4 wins behind where they would have expected to be.

Hawthorn were the 7th most tipped team to make finals according to that survey, and the disappointment for them is the realisation of just how much they relied on S.Mitchell and Lewis, and the failure of their next level (Hartung, etc) to step up. Given their percentage, their record of 4-6 probably flatters them a bit, but its still probably 2 games behind where they would have expected to be.

Collingwood, on the other hand, was picked by exactly 0 AFL captains to make the finals, but they sit only 1 game out of 8th (and some percentage, although their percentage of 100.2% is pretty credible) at the moment, and they're probably only 1-2 games behind where they would have expected to be. Its not at all accurate to say that their list has been stable for a number of years - 13 of the 22 that played on the weekend weren't at the club 3 years ago (I'm counting Scharenberg, who was technically there, but basically didn't play). Their list has too many issues (only one key forward, and he's 21, only 2 A-grade midfielders) for anyone to realistically expect much more than what they're doing right now - pre-season promises/predictions of making the finals were always just bloviation.

If you were to go through player-for-player, you could also make a pretty good case that Gold Coast are underperforming more, too. They have reasons, too (too predictable in the way they move the ball from half-back, too Lynch-focused in attack, a s**t run with injuries, which could be seen as unlucky but after 4 years in a row is starting to look like a pattern), but given their talent, they're certainly well below where they should be.

Collingwood would be disappointed, no doubt, but to say "easily the most underperformed club" is hyperbolic.
 
Well this is a novel experience. With the Lions bringing back some experience, and Freo bringing in some new blood, the experience differential in this game is significantly less than its been in previous weeks, and its probably not really wide enough to confidently predict victory. This isn't to say the Lions are favourites, but if they lose, it will be harder to put it on inexperience than in some of our other games. We are closer in experience to the Dockers than we have been to any team in our 9-game losing streak, and I think only Richmond were more closely comparable in age.

Round 10, 2017 - Lions vs. Dockers at The Gabba
  • (0 to 10 games - Lions 4 vs. Dockers 2)
  • 0 to 24 games - Lions 6 vs. Dockers 5
  • 25 to 49 games - Lions 4 vs. Dockers 5
  • 50 to 99 games - Lions 6 vs. Dockers 4
  • 100 to 199 games - Lions 6 vs. Dockers 6
  • 200+ games - Lions 0 vs. Dockers 2
Extra stats:
  • Average games played - Lions 67.0 vs. Dockers 79.6 (= -12.6 games on average)
  • Average age - Lions 23.0 vs. Dockers 24.2
  • Average height - Lions 189.3cm vs. Dockers 187.3cm
  • Average weight - Lions 87.0kg vs. Dockers 87.0kg
 
fanackapan said:
Well this is a novel experience. With the Lions bringing back some experience, and Freo bringing in some new blood, the experience differential in this game is significantly less than its been in previous weeks, and its probably not really wide enough to confidently predict victory. This isn't to say the Lions are favourites, but if they lose, it will be harder to put it on inexperience than in some of our other games. We are closer in experience to the Dockers than we have been to any team in our 9-game losing streak, and I think only Richmond were more closely comparable in age.

Round 10, 2017 - Lions vs. Dockers at The Gabba
  • (0 to 10 games - Lions 4 vs. Dockers 2)
  • 0 to 24 games - Lions 6 vs. Dockers 5
  • 25 to 49 games - Lions 4 vs. Dockers 5
  • 50 to 99 games - Lions 6 vs. Dockers 4
  • 100 to 199 games - Lions 6 vs. Dockers 6
  • 200+ games - Lions 0 vs. Dockers 2
Extra stats:
  • Average games played - Lions 67.0 vs. Dockers 79.6 (= -12.6 games on average)
  • Average age - Lions 23.0 vs. Dockers 24.2
  • Average height - Lions 189.3cm vs. Dockers 187.3cm
  • Average weight - Lions 87.0kg vs. Dockers 87.0kg
Click to expand...
We will win this game
 
brl_fre.png
This is looking unusually even. We're a bit younger but not bad on experience: take note Ross, we've been playing the kids. On participation around the ground, usually a weak point for us, we're even general ahead (by a small margin). And we've even got a slight edge on draft index, hurrah!

brl_gcs.png
This one may surprise a few but then again, Rischitelli, Currie, Davis, and Grant are going to be the oldest players running around in our NEAFL game. Of the players yet to appear in the seniors, most of ours are from the 2016 draft class - the only exceptions being Cian and and Seymour, whereas three of Gold Coast's are u18 academy players (I've given them a provisional draft index of 180).
 
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