Analysis Some data on Crows avg games experience from 23/24

[jackster83]

It's not just games played either. Playing 15 mins as a sub counts as a game played.

Putting our younger mids in the forward pocket so we can wring everything out of a 33 year old Sloane in the middle doesn't exactly do much for development either.

Credit to them for giving Soligo bulk midfield minutes this year. The question is where is our next breakout mid coming from?

 

[ABAB]

Pretty sure you’ve missed his point, he’s talking before our rebuild when we played oldies and didn’t develop much, hence when we purged we lacked experience.

Before our rebuild we were premiership contenders and would have still been there about had the CM didn't happened, also we loss 3 young players at that time who were part of the contending team and developed Fogarty early after losing McGovern.

 

[Gtowncrow]

It’s almost as though we should be getting games into young talented players with upside. So that when they are senior players we might actually contend.

Close the thread. This is the end of the conversation.
Spot on.

 

[Sanders]

Riddle me this Drugs.

1) Which team has had the most players debut since 2020?

2) Which team has had the lowest games played by 100+ game players since 2020?

3) Which team has given the most games to players with less than 50 games experience since 2020?*


*Hint; This team has given more than 30% more games to sub 50 gamers compared to the second highest team on the list.

That’s the inconvenient thing about facts, you can check them.

And this is the exact type of experience drivel that muddies the water, where a certain type of clapper tries to pretend “experience” is the missing, fungible piece of their inexplicable theories

Yes, but… experience
No, but… experience

Of course it’s not true and makes no sense, but that doesn’t stop them

Rumours have it, that over 50% of them aren’t sure what shape of ball is used in Aussie Rules Football at the first guess

 

[GameofSloanes]

Well it took us to round 8!

Meanwhile nearly all other early picks had already played.

He's physically more ready than most 1st year players... having played senior football last year.

Sure he was injured early, but we were not exactly in a rush to bring in a very exciting highly talented player.

This is bs. He was injured in preseason, played 3 sanfl games to get some touch, then played afl after 1 good game

 

[1970crow]

In the first pic below is a table of avg games experience differential and our win loss performance.
The first row in the table is our results when we are more experienced than the opposition, ie our average games played is 1-10 games higher than our opposition. In this we have won 4 out of the 5 times in 23/24 combined.

You can see that when we're either more experienced, or within 20 games of our oppo then we perform very well, winning 2 out 3 (see the first total line).

You can also see that when we play teams whose avg games played is more than 20 higher than our own, we perform really poorly, losing typically 4 out of every 5 we play(see second total line).

View attachment 1986159

In the pic below the top pic shows our average games played for 23 and 24 seasons. The first gap is the bye in 23 and the second one is a gap I left to split the 23 season and 24 season thus far. The bottom graph shows the experience differential versus our oppo for the same games.

You can see that, kinda as expected with a young team that we were putting on roughly a game of experience per round pretty consistently across 23. Whereas in 24 we've been all over the place and for quite a few rounds getting less experienced. That said, if you look at the differentials, you can see a decrease across 23 and 24 isn't that dissimilar to late 23.

View attachment 1986160

Now do it based on quality.

 

[Sanders]

Now do it based on quality.

That’s not how he rolls

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Riddle me this Drugs.

1) Which team has had the most players debut since 2020?

2) Which team has had the lowest games played by 100+ game players since 2020?

3) Which team has given the most games to players with less than 50 games experience since 2020?*


*Hint; This team has given more than 30% more games to sub 50 gamers compared to the second highest team on the list.

That’s the inconvenient thing about facts, you can check them.

I think you and Carmo have missed your own point.

Everyone knows that inexperienced teams lose more often. That's a given and didn't need forensic analysis because every football fan with even half a clue realises this.

And we've been a young team for a number of years and still are. Again, every single football fans knows this. You haven't discovered anything.

The question is why?

Because we do stuff like not picking Josh Worrell for years. So he now contributes to this "inexperience" only because we didn't pick him. Him being inexperienced is a choice made by us.

We'll keep Jake Kelly in the team ahead of Tom Doedee. Pedlar a first round pick midfielder can be in his fourth season here without playing a game in the midfield. We'll pick Douglas and Mackay deep into finals-less seasons, even though we're not offering them a contract the following season. We'll give a bunch of young players a few games without sticking and instead yo yo them in and out of the team for years. Not moving the squad forward (Gallucci, Poholke, Himmelberg, Hamill, Sholl, Frampton, Fogarty, MacPherson, Schoenberg, Gollant, Berry, Hateley, Parnell, Cook...)

Spinning our wheels. Not identifying, not investing. Not climbing the experience ladder.

We stay inexperienced.

And when we do invest it's in low-skill types like Murphy and McHenry who will have to eventually be replaced by draftees when we finally come to our senses. Which sends us tumbling back down the experience ladder. Perennial inexperience, generated by us, by choice.

So Carmo, in answer to your thread. Yeah, everyone knows all that.

Everything we've done has led us to this point. This is what you get when we select teams like we do.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Our club in a nutshell:

Daniel Curtin plays full back vs McBean

Is it good for his development? No. Is it a role he's likely to play at AFL level? No. Are there any positives whatsoever from doing it? No. Would it be better for Curtin to be played across half back or wing? Yes.

Then why...?

Because Jordon Butts was injured, you see. Borlase was in the AFL. So we had to.

That's as far as our vision extends. That is the scope of our lens.

 

[1970crow]

So based on the premise being proposed, we'd have a better chance of wnning today if we swapped Rankine for Murphy?

 

[kirky]

Before our rebuild we were premiership contenders and would have still been there about had the CM didn't happened, also we loss 3 young players at that time who were part of the contending team and developed Fogarty early after losing McGovern.

I’m not sure about this - “we still been there about had the CM didn’t happen”.

We were 2nd oldest side going into 2018 and we had lost 3 of our better youngsters. CM wasn’t the issue in 2018 - losing Lever, McGovern and Cameron were.

 

[kirky]

So based on the premise being proposed, we'd have a better chance of wnning today if we swapped Rankine for Murphy?

So Murphy is an emergency so hope Rankine doesn’t pull a hammy in the warmup.

 

[1970crow]

So Murphy is an emergency so hope Rankine doesn’t pull a hammy in the warmup.

76 games v 101, apparently more experience makes us better.

 

[1990crow]

No one’s saying get rid of good experienced players, but keeping players just because they are experienced is pointless if they are past it or not that good to begin with.

Experienced players aren’t immune to making mistakes, it gets worse when the games gone past them. Sloane started well last year and went downhill fast and was a liability.

Does Murphy’s experience whilst he stinks it up get us anywhere?

Nicks changed our game plan because he didn’t trust our young defence and wanted to protect them, he didn’t believe we could defend our attacking play. That cost us and our young defence has proven to be our best line this year given the level of inside 50s.

Murphy a case in point on picking a player who is "experienced", but actually performs no better than someone with a handful of games.

What does experience achieve in that scenario other than wasting games and time when we could be getting someone with upside to 100 games and be in our good experienced group later on.

 

[1970crow]

So if Sloane's eye was ok, we'd be a better chance today with him instead of Soligo?

 

[NSolis]

I think the reasonable argument in favour of experience is not 'pick all the players with the most games played', it is that experience is a valuable trait in the context of a team that lacks it, when they also have talented and inexperienced players.

So the case in point would not be 'let's drop Rankine for Murphy because Murphy is more experienced', it would be having Murphy in the team over a debutant in his role that may or may not be better (i.e. not someone who is a generational talent we are leaving in the SANFL or something). So basically the perennial complaint on this board that we include experienced players of modest quality in the side instead of throwing a block of games at every young player on the list to see if they might be better.

 

[1970crow]

I think the reasonable argument in favour of experience is not 'pick all the players with the most games played', it is that experience is a valuable trait in the context of a team that lacks it, when they also have talented and inexperienced players.

So the case in point would not be 'let's drop Rankine for Murphy because Murphy is more experienced', it would be having Murphy in the team over a debutant in his role that may or may not be better (i.e. not someone who is a generational talent we are leaving in the SANFL or something). So basically the perennial complaint on this board that we include experienced players of modest quality in the side instead of throwing a block of games at every young player on the list to see if they might be better.

The issue is we keep doing this and the Mackay's, Murphys, Ned's get to 200 games. Or we blow 2 seasons extra on the Rowe, Petrenko types. And the end result is that if Murphy isn't better than the 10 gamer, then he shouldn't be picked. Cycle through the low end of the 23 and sort the wheat from the chaff. Unearth the genuine 200 gamers or move the fringe dwellers on. We lock in the experienced low end and demand the kids perform ahead of them, so when it's a choice between locked in Ned to be our worst player or a kid like Dowling, we continue to set our standard low and hamstring continual list development.

We always used our contending as the reason for this strategy, but it hasn't changed during our rebuild phase either. Reality is that it belongs always. Do not lock in experienced fringe, they don't matter, they never will. We won flags with a few 25 years ago, did we hold onto them and get them to 150 games, no, they played in flags whilst in the process of being cycled through.

 

[1990crow]

I think the reasonable argument in favour of experience is not 'pick all the players with the most games played', it is that experience is a valuable trait in the context of a team that lacks it, when they also have talented and inexperienced players.

So the case in point would not be 'let's drop Rankine for Murphy because Murphy is more experienced', it would be having Murphy in the team over a debutant in his role that may or may not be better (i.e. not someone who is a generational talent we are leaving in the SANFL or something). So basically the perennial complaint on this board that we include experienced players of modest quality in the side instead of throwing a block of games at every young player on the list to see if they might be better.

Which would be a logical thing to do, if you actually wanted a best 22 capable of winning finals.

 

[NSolis]

The issue is we keep doing this and the Mackay's, Murphys, Ned's get to 200 games. Or we blow 2 seasons extra on the Rowe, Petrenko types. And the end result is that if Murphy isn't better than the 10 gamer, then he shouldn't be picked. Cycle through the low end of the 23 and sort the wheat from the chaff. Unearth the genuine 200 gamers or move the fringe dwellers on. We lock in the experienced low end and demand the kids perform ahead of them, so when it's a choice between locked in Ned to be our worst player or a kid like Dowling, we continue to set our standard low and hamstring continual list development.

We always used our contending as the reason for this strategy, but it hasn't changed during our rebuild phase either. Reality is that it belongs always. Do not lock in experienced fringe, they don't matter, they never will. We won flags with a few 25 years ago, did we hold onto them and get them to 150 games, no, they played in flags whilst in the process of being cycled through.

I agree that we should be cycling through the low end of the list but I think this is harder than it sounds. You don't just want to discard a respectable role player who is never going to win a BnF but does a solid job week to week while adding leadership and experience to try an unknown player just because you haven't seen them in the AFL and they might be an upgrade. This sort of thing is appealing to fans because of the excitement of an unknown new player, but the club has seen plenty of everyone on the list and I'm fine with them being selective with first team promotions.

I think there is a bit of a problem with selecting who lands on that 'solid role player' tier. Ben Keays is a good example in my mind, Ned McHenry not so much.

 

[NSolis]

Which would be a logical thing to do, if you actually wanted a best 22 capable of winning finals.

I disagree. Throwing a block of games at everyone on the list is dumb. That's what SANFL, internal trials, preseason etc is for, figuring out who needs to be prioritised for first team experience. There's a balance between 'play all the kids until we are 100% sure they are no good' and never trying to upgrade the 22.

 

[WeeBlake]

The issue is we keep doing this and the Mackay's, Murphys, Ned's get to 200 games. Or we blow 2 seasons extra on the Rowe, Petrenko types.

The first is bad. The second is the price of finding out if a kid will make it or not. Rowe didn’t work out, but we gave him a decent crack then pulled the pin. That’s what we should be doing.

 

[George CantStandYa]

This is actually a good thread but not for the reason the OP was hoping.

In a nutshell and it’s been highlighted by 1970crow examples and I’d throw in one more, you’re not picking Gollant over Tex.

Good experience = good, experience plays
Injured/end of career/plodder experience= bad, experience doesn’t play and you develop your squad by giving them games

Drugs mentioned Worrell, he’s a classic example, the club didn’t think he was ready/good enough to replace an injured Doedee, plus they didn’t think we could play both in the same side. Eventually we are forced to rest Doedee, Worrell comes in and shines and has played every available game since. The irony is when Doedee returned guess what? They played both together.

Sometimes the “positive” posters need to concede the coaches don’t always make good decisions or know what they are doing because they are the Crows coach. Coaches get sacked and eventually Nicks will be too, because he doesn’t have what it takes.

 

[1990crow]

I disagree. Throwing a block of games at everyone on the list is dumb. That's what SANFL, internal trials, preseason etc is for, figuring out who needs to be prioritised for first team experience. There's a balance between 'play all the kids until we are 100% sure they are no good' and never trying to upgrade the 22.

Did I say everyone? Hint - I didn't.
More talented prospects with clear AFL traits.

 

[1970crow]

I agree that we should be cycling through the low end of the list but I think this is harder than it sounds. You don't just want to discard a respectable role player who is never going to win a BnF but does a solid job week to week while adding leadership and experience to try an unknown player just because you haven't seen them in the AFL and they might be an upgrade. This sort of thing is appealing to fans because of the excitement of an unknown new player, but the club has seen plenty of everyone on the list and I'm fine with them being selective with first team promotions.

I think there is a bit of a problem with selecting who lands on that 'solid role player' tier. Ben Keays is a good example in my mind, Ned McHenry not so much.

But those aren't the only reasons you choose them over the experienced chaff. You select them because they're fit and performing at the lower level. If you're relying on 'experience and leadership' or 'shape holding' or 'non-statistical roles' or 'selection integrity' to select a player at the end of the 23 then you're just wasting games and hampering development opportunities.

Ben plays because right now he delivers a lot more than what could reasonably be expected from anyone in the 2s. He has definite weaknesses that we should want to improve upon though. Going into a game I doubt there's a single coach or poster here that expects Ned would provide more positive influence to our performance than Dowling.

I will say that maintaining Cook ahead of Murphy is a good sign. But then, how much of that could be a rigidity to a role based strategy where only one of Murphy or Ned can play. Which would imply we've designed some sort of perfect system that just requires developing players to be plugged into it.

 

[1970crow]

The first is bad. The second is the price of finding out if a kid will make it or not. Rowe didn’t work out, but we gave him a decent crack then pulled the pin. That’s what we should be doing.

Except he wasn't a kid, he was a fully formed SANFL player.