Play Nice The 'all things Carlton' mega-thread

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Of course they're simplistic, they're single figures. Of course outliers will distort the truth a little. But the truth is still evident.

This weekend's teams

Ca|WB
\18.51|18.39
\18.59|18.80
\19.85|19.76
\20.16|20.69
\20.32|21.28
\20.34|21.48
\21.21|21.75
\21.96|21.79
\23.09|21.86
\23.61|22.13
\24.98|22.22
\25.50|22.40
\26.10|22.66
\26.15|23.13
\26.80|23.71
\27.15|24.88
\28.10|25.45
\28.35|25.49
\28.45|25.66
\30.42|28.62
\30.83|29.74
\33.96|30.56

Not a great deal of difference at the bottom end.

At this stage I'll be tipping Carlton, and I don't expect they will embarrass themselves. But if a debacle comes to pass then I maintain Carlton insiders will take a very dim view. It's a big game.

That key 22-25 bracket where talented youngsters really step up is key for me. We have 4, they have 10.

We have a few above that age group who are depth players stepping in because of injury.

A loss won't be too much of a concern because it is those from Cripps down ie 23 down we are really looking at. That's where the talent is.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Yeah but we have a total of 5? (Cripps, casboult, simpson, rowe, curnow) Players that were on our list 50 games ago and the guys like mullet and O'Shea bumping our average age up are only getting a game due to.injuries.

And that's where the focus might be - Carlton playing retreads while the Dogs take their lumps and grow their own. At a minimum, the retreads need to be able to tide you over against kids.

If not, the spotlight will be squarely on the quality of WB's kids v Carlton's kids. Anyway I've stated my point and don't have any more to add. We'll see what transpires.

 

[RudyBlue]

At this stage I'll be tipping Carlton, and I don't expect they will embarrass themselves. But if a debacle comes to pass then I maintain Carlton insiders will take a very dim view. It's a big game.

That's probably a reasonable judgement.

I know you're big on average ages, and average age differentials as a predictor of winning, but have you looked much into age distribution?

It seems (without data at hand) that teams tend to push up the ladder when they have a core group of players aged ~22-29ish that have 60-80 games together.

 

[Ron The Bear]

That's probably a reasonable judgement.

I know you're big on average ages, and average age differentials as a predictor of winning, but have you looked much into age distribution?

It seems (without data at hand) that teams tend to push up the ladder when they have a core group of players aged ~22-29ish that have 60-80 games together.

Not much, I've kept it simple. Sure, Carlton is, generally speaking, a young team with its future ahead of it. This match-up makes for some interesting comparisons as the Dogs' rebuild has gone under the radar. All I'm suggesting is that a poor performance will have Carlton insiders seriously rethinking the club's direction.

 

[newblueo]

can i have the stat for average players we have a stack.lamb mullet.

game style wise we have taken Gibbs out an his replacement hurt himself 5mins into the season. an the draft pick is to come.. jard to replace 30 touches a game

 

[RudyBlue]

Not much, I've kept it simple. Sure, Carlton is, generally speaking, a young team with its future ahead of it. This match-up makes for some interesting comparisons as the Dogs' rebuild has gone under the radar. All I'm suggesting is that a poor performance will have Carlton insiders seriously rethinking the club's direction.

Agree re: poor performance. We need to maintain the standard from the Eagles game and that will allow us to put up a good fight.

Would it be unfair to suggest the expectations at the Dogs should be a bit higher though? Whilst our bottom ends are pretty similar, they probably have more players that should be performing right now- Dahlhaus, Bont, Macrae, Libba (injured), Wallis, JJ, Hunter, Wood (on the older side), Boyd (on the young side but same age as Cripps). These are guys they've recruited and developed from their previous build. They all played a strong role in their 2016 premiership. In saying that, I can understand the toll carrying 8-10 kids can have on a team, especially if there isn't a smooth transition.

In our middle age group, we have Cripps, Docherty (injured), Plowman (not a whole lot). As a result, our core experienced players are all very close to, or over 30. We have a lot of fillers in that middle group that have been acquired for minimal outlay and have allowed SOS to cut the list as hard as he has. You can't feasibly replace 42 players in three seasons with 42 draftees and meet TPP without giving away money to players who haven't performed to a level justifying that money.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Agree re: poor performance. We need to maintain the standard from the Eagles game and that will allow us to put up a good fight.

Would it be unfair to suggest the expectations at the Dogs should be a bit higher though? Whilst our bottom ends are pretty similar, they probably have more players that should be performing right now- Dahlhaus, Bont, Macrae, Libba (injured), Wallis, JJ, Hunter, Wood (on the older side), Boyd (on the young side but same age as Cripps). These are guys they've recruited and developed from their previous build. They all played a strong role in their 2016 premiership. In saying that, I can understand the toll carrying 8-10 kids can have on a team, especially if there isn't a smooth transition.

In our middle age group, we have Cripps, Docherty (injured), Plowman (not a whole lot). As a result, our core experienced players are all very close to, or over 30. We have a lot of fillers in that middle group that have been acquired for minimal outlay and have allowed SOS to cut the list as hard as he has. You can't feasibly replace 42 players in three seasons with 42 draftees and meet TPP without giving away money to players who haven't performed to a level justifying that money.

Those Bulldogs players have struggled to recapture the form of 2016 so yeah, the onus is on them to lift. As you say, it's difficult with a lot of kids as the opposition can narrow its focus on negating.

As for Carlton's mix, yeah, there has to be a balance between building for the future and being competitive now. It's a different approach to the one that was adopted under Ratten, where 10 wins were secured in 2008 with teams aged under 23.5 and only Scotland, Fevola and Stevens of any note among the over-25's. Is Carlton's balance optimal? Are the kids making satisfactory progress? The jury is out.

 

[PP34]

Of course they're simplistic, they're single figures. Of course outliers will distort the truth a little. But the truth is still evident.

This weekend's teams

Ca|WB
\18.51|18.39
\18.59|18.80
\19.85|19.76
\20.16|20.69
\20.32|21.28
\20.34|21.48
\21.21|21.75
\21.96|21.79
\23.09|21.86
\23.61|22.13
\24.98|22.22
\25.50|22.40
\26.10|22.66
\26.15|23.13
\26.80|23.71
\27.15|24.88
\28.10|25.45
\28.35|25.49
\28.45|25.66
\30.42|28.62
\30.83|29.74
\33.96|30.56

Not a great deal of difference at the bottom end.

At this stage I'll be tipping Carlton, and I don't expect they will embarrass themselves. But if a debacle comes to pass then I maintain Carlton insiders will take a very dim view. It's a big game.

I'm sorry but I just don't agree at all with looking at teams like Carlton like this. It's incredibly simplistic. You're basically assuming that our older players are actually valuable contributors to the team and in many cases they aren't.

There is a massive difference between our older players and their older players. Ours from the weekend consist of Liam Jones, Aaron Mullett, Sam Rowe, Kade Simpson, Ed Curnow, Dale Thomas, Levi Casboult, Matt Wright, Andrew Phillips and Cam O'Shea. Of those guys Kade Simpson is the only elite contributor. Jones reached lofty heights at times last year but has been allover the place this season, then the others either contribute a bit (Wright, Casboult, Curnow and Thomas) or are average to poor footballers (Rowe, Mullett, Phillips and O'Shea).

Compare that to the Dogs older players and there's a bit of a talent difference. Suckling, Wood, Johannison, Dahlhaus, Wallis and Dickson. They might not have as many older players as Carlton had on the weekend, but I think it's pretty clear that there's a bit of a difference in talent.

Then when you look at the guys in the 21-25 age bracket, once again it works in the Dogs favour. Plowman, Cripps, Kerridge, Garlett, Curnow and Lamb vs Honeychurch, Webb, Bontempelli, Dunkley, Gowers, Boyd, Macrae, McLean, Jong, Daniel and Dale. Lamb and Garlett are nothing players, Plowman has been bad this season and Curnow is a rising star yet to play real elite footy and Cripps is a star. The Dogs have Macrae, Bontempelli and Daniel who are all guns or close to being guns, then the likes of McLean, Jong, Dale and Dunkley who have all played decent footy at the AFL level already. Then Boyd who hasn't shown much lately and Honeychurch, Webb and Gowers who are either average/poor or haven't shown much at AFL yet.

The clear difference in talent is the same with almost every team we play. Looking at average age and saying we're not that much different to other teams is such a dumb argument unless you seriously think Cam O'Shea, Aaron Mullett etc are contributing a heaps to our football team, and if that's the case, then you need to watch us more.

 

[Ron The Bear]

The clear difference in talent is the same with almost every team we play. Looking at average age and saying we're not that much different to other teams is such a dumb argument unless you seriously think Cam O'Shea, Aaron Mullett etc are contributing a heaps to our football team, and if that's the case, then you need to watch us more.

Older teams have a significant statistical advantage; that much is indisputable. If you want to argue that Carlton is in some way a special case, fair enough, but I'm not seeing it. If Carlton's older players are not contributing, they need to be upgraded or replacements need to be groomed, and the sooner the better.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Older teams have a significant statistical advantage; that much is indisputable. If you want to argue that Carlton is in some way a special case, fair enough, but I'm not seeing it. If Carlton's older players are not contributing, they need to be upgraded or replacements need to be groomed, and the sooner the better.

Um yeah ... thus the rebuild.

Also check out the injury list. Not looking hard enough.

 

[PP34]

Older teams have a significant statistical advantage; that much is indisputable. If you want to argue that Carlton is in some way a special case, fair enough, but I'm not seeing it. If Carlton's older players are not contributing, they need to be upgraded or replacements need to be groomed, and the sooner the better.

And I'm saying Carlton are a special case.

Our older players aren't contributing much and our younger players are very inexperienced. I have been saying for the last few weeks that Carlton clearly lacks older players who can actually be valuable contributors.

There wouldn't be many older teams trotting out a group of older players as mediocre as Mullett, O'Shea, Rowe, Casboult etc. Then you look at midfield when fully fit, it's essentially Cripps, Murphy, E.Curnow and either kids or mediocre players like Kerridge.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Um yeah ... thus the rebuild.

Also check out the injury list. Not looking hard enough.

In measuring Carlton against historical standards, I'm saying they should beat the Bulldogs. Sue me.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

In measuring Carlton against historical standards, I'm saying they should beat the Bulldogs. Sue me.

I enjoy statistics but sometimes people can be a little rigid holding on to their favourites. Average age is just one statistic in this case. I'm not sure why you are defending that one stat so strongly just because it holds historical significance. Most statisticians like to see outliers and search for other stats to determine why.

 

[Mr.X]

If there is another flogging this week, then anything could happen

Could we see this old favourite being prepared ??

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

If there is another flogging this week, then anything could happen

Could we see this old favourite being prepared ??

Nope

 

[Ron The Bear]

I enjoy statistics but sometimes people can be a little rigid holding on to their favourites. Average age is just one statistic in this case. I'm not sure why you are defending that one stat so strongly just because it holds historical significance. Most statisticians like to see outliers and search for other stats to determine why.

Ah, it's just a neutral's perspective. Those stats are pretty reliable indicators, and I expected back in 2015 that Carlton would be further along the track by now.

In the four matches under Bolton where Carlton had a 1.5-year advantage (all in 2016), they won three and lost the other by a kick. Friday night's match serves as a checkpoint of sorts.

 

[Juddernaut08]

Ah, it's just a neutral's perspective. Those stats are pretty reliable indicators, and I expected back in 2015 that Carlton would be further along the track by now.

In the four matches under Bolton where Carlton had a 1.5-year advantage (all in 2016), they won three and lost the other by a kick. Friday night's match serves as a checkpoint of sorts.

Good stat. Interesting that in 2 seasons we've had

40 games where we were younger
4 games we were older

That is astounding and probably why Bolton is getting seemingly so much grace.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Good stat. Interesting that in 2 seasons we've had

40 games where we were younger
4 games we were older

That is astounding and probably why Bolton is getting seemingly so much grace.

That's not exactly true, Carlton's been the older team in 22 of 49 games. Sure, coaches who start where Bolton did get an exemption while they clear out the dead wood. But for how long?

 

[Juddernaut08]

That's not exactly true, Carlton's been the older team in 22 of 49 games. Sure, coaches who start where Bolton did get an exemption while they clear out the dead wood. But for how long?

probably until they finish clearing out the dead wood.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Ah, it's just a neutral's perspective. Those stats are pretty reliable indicators, and I expected back in 2015 that Carlton would be further along the track by now.

In the four matches under Bolton where Carlton had a 1.5-year advantage (all in 2016), they won three and lost the other by a kick. Friday night's match serves as a checkpoint of sorts.

Our youngest player in all but one of those games was 21. Our average was 26. We didn't have this yawning chasm between our bottom and top range.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

That's not exactly true, Carlton's been the older team in 22 of 49 games. Sure, coaches who start where Bolton did get an exemption while they clear out the dead wood. But for how long?

Until the players from Docherty down are at a level of experience where they should be winning games regularly. That's where our wave is coming from. That is Bolton's side.

 

[Juddernaut08]

Our youngest player in all but one of those games was 21. Our average was 26. We didn't have this yawning chasm between our bottom and top range.

Players can be split up into 4 categories:

• Baby (before prime, 22 and under)
• Old Man Willow (after prime)
• Prime Age - Good Player [23 years to 29 years]
• Prime Age - Bandaid

Let's break it down

6 players in prime age
Cripps - Prime
Jones - Prime
Phillips - Prime (not good but better than Bandaid)
Casboult - Prime
Wright - Prime
Ed Curnow - Prime

4 bandaid (prime age, but injury replacements brought in cheaply as list depth)
Lamb - Bandaid
OShea - Bandaid
Mullett - Bandaid
Kerridge - Bandaid

9 babies
C. Curnow - Baby (albeit superman baby)
Plowman - Baby
Fisher - Baby
SPS - Baby
McKay - Baby
LOB - Baby
Dow - Baby
Silvagni - Baby
Garlett - Baby

3 Old man Willows
Thomas - Old Man Willow
Simpson - Old Man Willow
Rowe - Old Man Willow

 

[HalloweenJack]

That's not exactly true, Carlton's been the older team in 22 of 49 games. Sure, coaches who start where Bolton did get an exemption while they clear out the dead wood. But for how long?

I have been following your Stats Ron and it makes sense.

This figure shows that Carlton's list was very poor. It has probably improved this year but injuries are hitting home at the moment.

If our Board has any sense they will stay the course with Bolton. Not "winning" the spoon will help.

 

[Juddernaut08]

I have been following your Stats Ron and it makes sense.

This figure shows that Carlton's list was very poor. It has probably improved this year but injuries are hitting home at the moment.

If our Board has any sense they will stay the course with Bolton. Not "winning" the spoon will help.

Yep, hopefully Brisbane get back to back no.1 picks!

 

[AstroboyUK]

why should the AFL intervene with a democratically electrd board appointed in accordance with the club constitution?; if Csrlton members dont like the board there is already andtraightforward mechanism for replacing them: ie dont vote for them! . and in exteme cases teigger an EGM to bring chnages forward of the normal
election cycle. why should the AFL do something the club members themselves arent prepared to do?