The Age Factor

[Freo2012]

too many factors involved and thus taking a first level stat (average) is irrelevant. Need to properly analyse the distribution as well as the AFL experience distribution and then the two combined and do correlation analysis - which will confirm the old adage of getting past "x" number of games. (ie. get some decent correlation software and enter the 2 sets of data(individual ages and AFL games experience) for each player in each AFL game played (large database) going back 20+ years which gives its own distribution and compare the GF teams to those)



A few basic logic things worth always remembering:
Increasing age gives greater strength (males strongest and fittest in late 20's, early 30's - proven scientific fact) countered by accumulation of body wear from prior years. Experience at AFL level should give greater "footy smarts" and skills.

Hence why there are some pure gems picked up in mature age recruits with potentially older playing age, presuming they are comparatively better "preserved" from body wear point of view (as they will lack from experience point of view).

Like anything, stats are very deceiving to those that don't really understand them and the levels of relevancy. Those that quote without understanding their relevancy are either dumb (as those that do understand see straight through the deception of ignorance and laugh at their mis-use) or trying to deceive the unknowing - hence why the sportsmedia love them.

The easiest way to explain why "average" anything is normally totally irrelevant is this: You can get a population that has an average of x, but the actual distribution might comprise results only above and below - the average is indeed x but no individual in the population is ever x.

 

[El_Scorcho]

To contend for and win a flag you need as many good players as you can get in the 24-29 age group where players are in their prime. Not simply having your average age their (so not lots of guys who are 29+ and lots of young guys), but having a group who are all within that age range at the same time.

You'll need a few champions sprinkled in there, but if you have 10-13 guys who regular first team players and are in the 22-25 age bracket at a given time, you're probably about come good. The expansion sides wont win flags because their talent is so much better than everyone elses. They'll win flags because they'll have so many coming through into their prime at the same time.

 

[kosifantutti]

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?

Should Adelaide/Richmond be 13/14 behind Melbourne and Port?

The Saints will bring Hayes and Montagna in this week most likely for Billings and another youngster.

 

[Andre]

To contend for and win a flag you need as many good players as you can get in the 24-29 age group where players are in their prime. Not simply having your average age their (so not lots of guys who are 29+ and lots of young guys), but having a group who are all within that age range at the same time.

You'll need a few champions sprinkled in there, but if you have 10-13 guys who regular first team players and are in the 22-25 age bracket at a given time, you're probably about come good. The expansion sides wont win flags because their talent is so much better than everyone elses. They'll win flags because they'll have so many coming through into their prime at the same time.

Which is why you'd have to be happy with Port's ones. 12th for experience on the weekend, but 14th for age. Add in last years 16th for age and 5th position and we are on track to hit that sweet spot in 2015 - 2017.

The surprises for the ladders to me are North and the Bullies. I hadn't realised North were that old a list for all the talk of up and coming and 'sure to make the eight' this year. And bullies having quite a few games of experience. I wouldn't have picked them as more than Port (of which almost 300 is attributed to Kane Cornes).

 

[telsor]

There are 2 different matters at play.

Current and potential.

For the match at hand, an older team is *probably* superior. Simple fact is, someone who is playing at 28 is probably a decent player who will have a solid 4 qtr game, otherwise they wouldn't have lasted that long.

On potential, younger players are more likely to improve than older players.

The other issue is where in the age distribution the good players are. If your best players are young (Cotchin, Fyfe, Dangerfield), then the future looks better than the present. If your best players are aging (Goodes, Mitchell, Pavlich) then you better be looking for a premiership soon.

Obviously the ideal would be to have an even spread, but realistically, you need to load up a bit for a real flag shot.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Which is why you'd have to be happy with Port's ones. 12th for experience on the weekend, but 14th for age. Add in last years 16th for age and 5th position and we are on track to hi that sweet spot in 2015 - 2017.

The surprises for the ladders to me are North and the Bullies. I hadn't realised North were that old a list for all the talk of up and coming and 'sure to make the eight' this year. And bullies having quite a few games of experience. I wouldn't have picked them as more than Port (of which almost 300 is attributed to Kane Cornes).

The Bulldogs still have a lot of experience from their years at the top.

Giansiricusa 251 games
Murphy 250 games
Boyd 221 games
Cooney 202 games
Griffen 183 games
Morris 174 games
Minson 159 games

That push up their average, with a lot of kids.

As I said, I don't think that sort of list age profile is conducive to a flag anytime soon. By the time the kids are ready, the old guys will be gone. They don't have a lot of talent in that 22-25 age range coming through, and their 20 and under players could be anything or could be nothing.

The Saints are similar with a lot of guys in their late 20s and early 30s and not a lot going on in the early 20s age range.

North need to come good soon or they wont be winning anything while the likes of Harvey, Petrie and Wells etc are on the list.

West Coast are in a pretty good spot. 15 guys between the ages of 21 and 25 with 40+ games of experience. They'll come good over the next few years

We're probably tracking a bit ahead of where we should be, but we've gotten lucky in that we have guys like Wingard and Wines who have come in and play like veterans at such a young age. We'll probably need to fire before the likes of Schulz and Westhoff go unless we have some players really step up, but we have several years before that becomes a worry.

Carlton rely heavily on guys who are already in their prime. Their age profile probably shows that they should be closer than they are, which doesn't bode well for them for this rebuild. They have 25 guys that are 24 or above, and 22 of those guys have played at least 40 games. It's time to shit or get off the pot.

Richmond similarly are at an age profile now where they should be starting to contend.

 

[lmach]

Having a younger list but being high on the experience table is also a good indication that a club has quality youth.

 

[Sttew]

Another reason Geelong had to let Chappy go - we'd be topping this chart if we'd kept him....

 

[Morris Major]

Average provides little insight for the purpose of discussing an AFL list, in terms of age/experience/premiership window

Dogs are 6th oldest on average. We have half a dozen players on 200+ games and the vast majority of the list at under 100. We have very little in the 'prime' 100-150 game category, and averages wouldn't be able to tell you that. Look at number of players in, say 18-21, 22-25, 26-29, and their corresponding number of games played if you really wanna use stats to make a call on where a list is at.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Having a younger list but being high on the experience table is also a good indication that a club has quality youth.

Or that you've just put a lot of games into your youth, which is arguably almost as important as talent.

West Coast probably have the best age profile going forward of any club as I said. You have a large, very solid core of players between the ages of 21 and 25 who have played at least 40 games. The talent is certainly there, and your list management has been terrific.

 

[lmach]

Or that you've just put a lot of games into your youth, which is arguably almost as important as talent.

Yeah that's what I was getting at. Normally if younger players have been getting regular games it means they have some talent. Of course that doesn't apply to everyone though.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Age means nothing these days, given most players are nearly match fit by 19
Games are more important

A good breakdown on a 40 player list would be

0-49 : 10-15
50-99: 15-20
100-149: 5 - 10
150-199: 0-5
200+: 0-5

These days, a player can be 23 and be over 100games
This is why experience means more then age

 

[eth-dog]

Age means nothing these days, given most players are nearly match fit by 19
Games are more important

A good breakdown on a 40 player list would be

0-49 : 10-15
50-99: 15-20
100-149: 5 - 10
150-199: 0-5
200+: 0-5

These days, a player can be 23 and be over 100games
This is why experience means more then age

Essendon's is:

0-49: 19
50-99: 14
100-149: 1
150-199: 2
200+: 4

At the end of the season we'd expect Hibberd (45) and Baguley (29) to move into the 50-99 group. We'd also like/expect Melksham (80), Hurley (80), Zaharakis (88), Dempsey (88), and Hocking (98) to move into the 100-149 group. So going by your formula we've got a pretty good list

 

[kosifantutti]

Median ages from Round 1
1. Fremantle 26y 235d
2. Geelong 25y 321d
3. Sydney 25y 272d
4. North 25y 240d
5. Collingwood 25y 233d
6. Hawthorn 25y 161d
7. Richmond 25y 104d
8. Western Bulldogs 25y 30d
9. West Coast 25y 28d
10. Essendon 25y 25d
11. Carlton 24y 336d
12. Melbourne 24y 132d
13. Adelaide 23y 359d
14. Port 23y 221d
15. Brisbane 23y 196d
16. St Kilda 23y 94d
17. Gold Coast 22y 7d
18. GWS 21y 126d

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

 

[TedDougChris]

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...

We've deliberately targeted some 'older' players in recent years, to fill holes in our recruiting/drafting that have occurred in the past - Lower, Stevens, Fuller, Goodes are all examples of this. We've also tried to keep our experienced older players around until the youngsters are pushing them aside - which is different to the Melbourne model of a few years back.

We have plenty of experienced guys (Boyd, Cooney, Minson, Gia etc), and plenty of kids - but very little between 75 - 150 games and 24 - 28 years old.

In reality, had our drafting been better in the past, players like Picken, Boyd, Gia may have been moved on earlier... And our ladder position might more reflect the age of our list.

 

[The GOAT]

Bulldogs are surprisingly high, nearly on par with hawthorn.

Edit: apparently I'm not the first person to notice that

 

[scotty13]

The key here is games played together.
If you just grabbed a heap of 26yr olds and put them together doesnt mean they will be successful, But if you get a heap of 19-21yr olds and play them together, once they reach 26, they will all know the ins and outs of each others playing style, the gameplan and have confidence in each other to be successful.

*Successful mean playing finals consistantly, because there are shit clubs like St Kilda and Melb who wont win another flag, so success for them is finals.

 

[Silvagnis]

0-49 : 22
50-99: nine
100-149: four
150-199: six
200+: three

Yarran, Garlett, Robinson, Everitt, Tuohy, Curnow, Warnock and Henderson haven't played 100 games.

Gibbs has played a lot of footy for a player who is yet to turn 25. On par with Walker and McLean who have battled injuries since 2003.

See veterans such as Carrazzo, Scotland and Judd as gravy with Curnow, Docherty and Cripps on the list.

 

[eth-dog]

0-49 : 22
50-99: nine
100-149: four
150-199: six
200+: three

Yarran, Garlett, Robinson, Everitt, Tuohy, Curnow, Warnock and Henderson haven't played 100 games.

Gibbs has played a lot of footy for a player who is yet to turn 25. On par with Walker and McLean who have battled injuries since 2003.

See veterans such as Carrazzo, Scotland and Judd as gravy with Curnow, Docherty and Cripps on the list.

Good for Carlton that, they should do what Essendon's done with Jetta to Yarran.

 

[tige19]

Which is why you'd have to be happy with Port's ones. 12th for experience on the weekend, but 14th for age. Add in last years 16th for age and 5th position and we are on track to hit that sweet spot in 2015 - 2017.

The surprises for the ladders to me are North and the Bullies. I hadn't realised North were that old a list for all the talk of up and coming and 'sure to make the eight' this year. And bullies having quite a few games of experience. I wouldn't have picked them as more than Port (of which almost 300 is attributed to Kane Cornes).

I really like Port, they are currently $2 for the 8 which is an absolute moral. They will beat the crows this week and could very well be 4-0 for the start of the season, they do have a few tough ones but they play Melbourne twice, St.Kilda at home, Doggies at home and Carlton return at home, I have them going 13-9.

 

[Silvagnis]

Good for Carlton that, they should do what Essendon's done with Jetta to Yarran.

Has more to look forward to than Essendon's players. You have winners like Myers, Baguley, Hibberd and Melksham. They must be set if they still need Fletcher and Chapman to win games.

 

[Damon_3388]

A player's prime is between 24-29 years of age. Not surprising to see most good teams having the majority of their best players in that age bracket.

 

[Schauermann]

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.

And Chris Judd was a Superstar midfielder while Ablett was still only a solid forward pocket player with a big name. Age really mean nothing...

Also Freo's oldest player are Pav, McPharlin and Sandilands. All playing position where quite a few players still do very well or even play their best footy at a high age while players like Hill or Ballantyne are probably a different story...

Premierships probably can be won based on experience and mature bodies or through talent. Or generally spoken on the right mixture of both. But going mainly through talent is much more difficult and therefor rarer...

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Essendon's is:

0-49: 19
50-99: 14
100-149: 1
150-199: 2
200+: 4

At the end of the season we'd expect Hibberd (45) and Baguley (29) to move into the 50-99 group. We'd also like/expect Melksham (80), Hurley (80), Zaharakis (88), Dempsey (88), and Hocking (98) to move into the 100-149 group. So going by your formula we've got a pretty good list

Don't think anyone denies that essendon have a good mix of experience (well, no one with knowledge of the game)
There is going to be a fair gap in the 50-99 group, not necessarily a bad thing, but it is that area which makes up the core of your depth players

Generally not fatigued like the more experienced, a decent footy brain unlike the less experienced, and still in the mindset that nothing is a given...

 

[kosifantutti]

The key here is games played together.
If you just grabbed a heap of 26yr olds and put them together doesnt mean they will be successful, But if you get a heap of 19-21yr olds and play them together, once they reach 26, they will all know the ins and outs of each others playing style, the gameplan and have confidence in each other to be successful.

*Successful mean playing finals consistantly, because there are shit clubs like St Kilda and Melb who wont win another flag, so success for them is finals.

I have no idea what that last sentence means.