The Age Factor

[i am a logo]

I did some research and this is the round 1 average age ladder from oldest to youngest:
1. Fremantle 26y 150d
2. Geelong 26y 131d
3. Sydney 26y 126d
4. North Melbourne 25y 233d
5. Hawthorn 25y 227d
6. Western Bulldogs 25y 134d
7. Carlton 25y 106d
8. Essendon 25y 89y
9. West Coast 25y 85d
10. Collingwood 24y 293d
11. Melbourne 24y 206d
12/13. Adelaide, Richmond 24y 71d
14. Port Adelaide 24y 105d
15. St. Kilda 24y 48d
16. Brisbane Lions 24y 7d
17. Gold Coast 23y 27d
18. Greater Western Sydney 23y 16d

That ladder roughly corresponds to many people's 2014 ladder predictions with only a few exceptions. If you look through recent AFL grand finals on AFL tables you'll also see nearly all of the grand finalists have an average age of over 25.

So this begs the question, just how important is the age factor? Are older teams more likely to win than younger teams and why should an older team rebuild when they are more likely to experience success than a younger team?

It seems when teams begin a rebuild they start off at the bottom of the table with a young list and eventually end up as flag contenders with an old list. Once an older team starts missing the 8 there is the threat of being forever stuck in mid table, with experienced players who are past their prime, but still serviceable. So teams start getting rid of older players and stocking up on youngsters, content with being at the bottom of the table with a young list instead of being mid table with an old list. It is very rare for a young team to start regularly winning without first getting a lot of games into their inexperienced kids.

Can anyone think of any examples of younger inexperienced teams doing well and or examples of older teams having prolonged success or struggling at the bottom of the table?

 

[MF]

and why should an older team rebuild when they are more likely to experience success than a younger team?

Because on bigfooty you'll be criticized for having an "aging list". I'm fairly confident that's why clubs do it.

 

[Whos_Your_Caddy]

What is Essendons average age without Dustin Fletcher? Surely he is skewing the data.

 

[Suma Magic]

Good and bad much more important than young and old.

But you probably don't want to be old and bad, less improvement to come (to over-generalise).

 

[carnthedons]

What is Essendons average age without Dustin Fletcher? Surely he is skewing the data.

If you take him at 38 and replace him with a 19 yo, based on circa 40 players it should bring the age down by about 6 months one would think

 

[Vindicater]

What is Essendons average age without Dustin Fletcher? Surely he is skewing the data.

Fletcher is an anomaly. He is not counted in this data as it is impossible to give an age to the ageless.

 

[The Swert]

The famous 'Baby Bombers' of 1993 had an average age of 24y 106d in the 1993 Grand Final.
The Pies of 2010 were even younger at 24y 57d.

Meanwhile the Carlton team of 2002 averaged over 26y at round 1 and came last.

 

[Belnakor]

you should do a median not an average to remove the dustin fletchers which skew it considerably.

 

[cynical]

stats tell part of the story not the full story, it's why they are a basic tool for the media cos it doesn't require heavy analysis

the teams playing for a flag tend to not have the youngest guys playing because to win a flag you need the bottom end to be strong (guys who are early 20s instead of 19)

weaker teams are more likely to blood the young guys and push the older guys out (they wont win a flag with the oldies)

just by having an older list doesn't mean you are going to be good, you have to be a very good player to continue past 28

 

[Quinz]

We have the second youngest squad after GWS which means we're the second best team. See ladder also to confirm.

 

[Old_Man_James]

Geelong in 2004, 2005 made prelim and Nick Davis semi with ave age of 24y36d and 24y63d

Hawthorn won 2008 with ave age of 24y219d fairly young.

Conversely St Kilda at round 12, 2012 against Adelaide had a ave. age of 27y63 days, one of the oldest teams recently and finished up out of the finals

 

[Randy Campbell]

If you are good enough, you are old enough.

 

[loki04]

The famous 'Baby Bombers' of 1993 had an average age of 24y 106d in the 1993 Grand Final.
The Pies of 2010 were even younger at 24y 57d.

Meanwhile the Carlton team of 2002 averaged over 26y at round 1 and came last.

Pies currently have the 3rd youngest list so no surprises that we will be inconsistent in 2014.

 

[sthmelb_dimmies]

I did some research and this is the round 1 average age ladder from oldest to youngest:
1. Fremantle 26y 150d
2. Geelong 26y 131d
3. Sydney 26y 126d
4. North Melbourne 25y 233d
5. Hawthorn 25y 227d
6. Western Bulldogs 25y 134d
7. Carlton 25y 106d
8. Essendon 25y 89y
9. West Coast 25y 85d
10. Collingwood 24y 293d
11/12. Adelaide, Richmond 24y 71d
13. Melbourne 24y 206d
14. Port Adelaide 24y 105d
15. St. Kilda 24y 48d
16. Brisbane Lions 24y 7d
17. Gold Coast 23y 27d
18. Greater Western Sydney 23y 16d

That ladder roughly corresponds to many people's 2014 ladder predictions with only a few exceptions. If you look through recent AFL grand finals on AFL tables you'll also see nearly all of the grand finalists have an average age of over 25.

So this begs the question, just how important is the age factor? Are older teams more likely to win than younger teams and why should an older team rebuild when they are more likely to experience success than a younger team?

It seems when teams begin a rebuild they start off at the bottom of the table with a young list and eventually end up as flag contenders with an old list. Once an older team starts missing the 8 there is the threat of being forever stuck in mid table, with experienced players who are past their prime, but still serviceable. So teams start getting rid of older players and stocking up on youngsters, content with being at the bottom of the table with a young list instead of being mid table with an old list. It is very rare for a young team to start regularly winning without first getting a lot of games into their inexperienced kids.

Can anyone think of any examples of younger inexperienced teams doing well and or examples of older teams having prolonged success or struggling at the bottom of the table?

Is this Round 1 starting 22 or the full list?

 

[Falchoon]

Pies currently have the 3rd youngest list so no surprises that we will be inconsistent in 2014.

if you play your whole list you'll be extremely inconsistent

 

[DivideandMultiply]

you should do a median not an average to remove the dustin fletchers which skew it considerably.

No should just do a Q test to see if it is reasonable to remove Fletcher as an outlier.

 

[fidstar]

Pretty standard. If your list isn't good enough to compete you retire/move on your old guys, so the poor teams will have a younger average.

No real surprise.

 

[loki04]

if you play your whole list you'll be extremely inconsistent

If we lose the next couple, we will give a good crack i bet. Good draft I hear.

Seriously though our best 22 age wise isn't too bad but teams rarely have their best 22 on the park also in that 22 is a lot of inexperienced players.

We are phasing players out of the team Maxwell, Lynch etc plus what we turned over last 2 years in senior experience, we are in rebuild mode.

 

[Righteo]

Would like to see an "experience" ladder too if you can be bothered OP.

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

age is but a number. chris judd and gary ablett are same age. one is seemingly on decline while the other continues to go from strength to strength.

I know in big international soccer tournaments the elder statesmen teams always touch up the young whippersnappers.

 

[Badesumofu]

Just looking at the mean doesn't tell you much. For example look at GWS and GC - within 2 weeks of each other on mean, but I would imagine that if you looked at the median you would find that GC are basically one year older than GWS. GWS just had some more oldies in there dragging up the mean average. The other problem with mean average is that there seem to be break-points - judging by the improvement we saw from GC last year compared to 2012, and the difference we've so far seen with GWS this year compared to last year, it appears that there is a huge difference between having your side mostly comprised of third year players and having it be mostly comprised of second year players. A mean average can't distinguish between an 18 year-old plus a 28 year-old and a pair of 23 year-olds.

I don't think we can draw many conclusions from this data at all, beyond the fact that more experienced sides tend to do better than less experienced sides. But that is pretty obvious anyway.

 

[pavilion103]

wow only a few years between all of them. Practically all the same give or take a bit.

 

[i am a logo]

Would like to see an "experience" ladder too if you can be bothered OP.

These are the teams round 1 starting 22 ranked on number of games combined.
1. Geelong 2538 games
2. Sydney 2471 games
3. Fremantle 2436 games
4. North Melbourne 2334 games
5. Hawthorn 2201 games
6. West Coast 2183 games
7. Essendon 2154 games
8. Carlton 2092 games
9. Collingwood 2072 games
10. Richmond 1989 games
11. Western Bulldogs 1932 games
12. Port Adelaide 1854 games
13. Brisbane Lions 1630 games
14. Adelaide 1601 games
15. St. Kilda 1487 games
16. Melbourne 1371 games
17. Greater Western Sydney 1295 games
18. Gold Coast 1253 games

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

I've been recording stats over the 2012/2013 season of the age of each side. In 2012 the average age of each side was:

1. St Kilda: 26.31 (9th)
2. Sydney: 25.94 (1st)
3. Geelong: 25.91 (7th)
4. Fremantle: 25.17 (6th)
5. Hawthorn: 25.06 (2nd)
6. Adelaide: 24.98 (3rd)
7. West Coast: 24.73 (5th)
8. Carlton: 24.69 (10th)
9. Bulldogs: 24.62 (15th)
10. Essendon: 24.59 (11th)
11. Brisbane: 24.46 (13th)
12. North Melb: 24.40 (8th)
13. Collingwood: 24.25 (4th)
14. Port Adelaide: 24.22 (14th)
15. Melbourne: 24.00 (16th)
16. Richmond: 23.89 (12th)
17. Gold Coast: 22.72 (17th)
18. GWS: 21.89 (18th)


For 2013:

1. Sydney: 26.24 (4th)
2. Hawthorn: 25.97 (1st)
3. Geelong: 25.86 (3rd)
4. St Kilda: 25.54 (16th)
5. Carlton: 25.33 (6th)
6. Fremantle: 25.20 (2nd)
7. West Coast: 25.19 (13th)
8. Collingwood: 25.17 (8th)
9. Richmond: 24.96 (7th)
10. Essendon: 24.82 (9th*)
11. North Melb: 24.78 (10th)
12. Bulldogs: 24.61 (15th)
13. Brisbane: 24.55 (12th)
14. Adelaide: 24.40 (11th)
15. Melbourne: 24.04 (17th)
16. Port Adelaide: 23.75 (5th)
17. Gold Coast: 22.98 (14th)
18. GWS: 21.60 (18th)

72.0% of games were won by the team that was older and 78.2% of games were won by the team that was, on average, one year older. I only did 2012 up to round 8 but it had similar statistics (72.5% and 74.3% when 1 year older).

So there's a couple of outliers in each one but age is generally a good indicator of ability, which makes sense if you think about it.

 

[nameless]

The Brett Goodes factor comes in to play there for the Dogs - 6th oldest, but 11th most experienced.
Same will occur for other teams with mature-age recruits becoming more popular.

I do like this analysis, but don't think you can draw much from it.
Adelaide look like they have an inexperienced and young team, but in reality they were missing a lot of good players, and when they come back they could shoot up the list...