Which clubs enter 2022 with the oldest and youngest lists?

[GoTigers2015]

Hard to believe Balta is just 22

Celebrated his 21st birthday with a premiership.

 

[Moppey]

Yes and no, for starters we have much more young talent on our books than the cats. (ignore CCJ from the below list).

Even the doggies are only one month younger than us, and the dees are only 6 months younger and 9 games less experience. Port, Brissy and Sydney are also around the mark.
We have drafted some exciting talent in this latest draft and hopefully, they all make the grade in the coming years along with Ryan, MRJ, Cumberland, Miller, and Biggy.
But if we can get 4-5 from this group, Ross, RCD, Dow, Ralphsmith, Martyn, Mansell being regulars, it will go a long way in keeping us up.

View attachment 1294314

We're heading into red alert Geelong territory.

Not sure about that.

IMO i think just about all clubs have a similar number of players aged 18 - 24. Obviously a couple of clubs have gone to total rebuild so to speak and have more. Thats basically every clubs juniors 18-21 and Development 22-24 players.

By my count and let me say the numbers could be wrong or god forbid i have misread. we have 22 players aged 18 thru 24. we also have 11 vets that is players aged 29 plus. What hit me was so few of our players in the group had even double digit games to their names and the number of vets was high compared to most.



Tiges - 22 aged 18 - 24. What was pertinent imo was we had just 7 players in the group with more than 10 games. we have 11 vets.
Cats - 23 aged 18 24yo. 10 with more than 10 games. they have 15 vets
Eagles 22 aged 18-24. 10 with more than 10 games. They have 8 vets.

Thats the three oldest lists

Crows - 30 aged 18 - 24. 17 with more than 10 games. 5 vets.
Roos - 31 aged 18 - 24. 18 with more than 10 games. 7 vets.
Hawks - 28 aged 18 - 24. 11 with more than 10 games. 5 vets

Thats the three youngest lists

Lions - 24 aged 18 - 24. 14 with more than 10 games. 6 vets.
Swans - 26 aged 18 - 24. 15 with more than 10 games. 8 vets.
Power - 23 players aged 18 -24. 10 with more than 10 games. 8 vets.
Dees - 22 players aged 18 - 24. 10 with more than 10 games. 8 Vets
Dogs - 22 players aged 18 - 24. 11 with more than 10 games. 8 vets.
Blues - 25 players aged 18 - 24. 15 with more than 10 games. 3 vets.
Pies - 27 players aged 18 - 24. 11 with more than 10 games 7 vets.
Bombers 26 players aged 18 - 24. 14 with more than 10 games. 5 vets.
Dockers - 26 players aged 18 - 24. 15 with 10 games or more. 7 vets.
Suns - 30 players aged 18 - 24, 17 with 10 games or more. 5 vets
Giants - 28 players aged 18 -24. 17 with 10 games or more. 7 vets.
Saints - 22 players aged 18 - 24. 12 with 10 games or more. 4 vets.

The averages were
25.3 18-24 yo per team. we had 22 which is below average and the equal lowest amount in the age group.
13.7 was the average number of players in the age group with 10 or more games. we had just 7.
7.0 Was the average number of vets we had the second highest with 11.

The biggest concern out of all this for me is the vast majority of players in the 18 - 24 bracket are unknowns.
Five of the seven who have played more than 10 games are smalls. with just one medium sized player and one tall.

We probably have the least amount of games into the least amount of kids of any team or at best on a par with the worst of them.

Maybe im reading it wrong maybe others will take a different view with the above.

 

[sante]

What is it with BigFooty and the obsession with a players age?

 

[DoItForCaptBlood]

Not sure about that.

IMO i think just about all clubs have a similar number of players aged 18 - 24. Obviously a couple of clubs have gone to total rebuild so to speak and have more. Thats basically every clubs juniors 18-21 and Development 22-24 players.

By my count and let me say the numbers could be wrong or god forbid i have misread. we have 22 players aged 18 thru 24. we also have 11 vets that is players aged 29 plus. What hit me was so few of our players in the group had even double digit games to their names and the number of vets was high compared to most.



Tiges - 22 aged 18 - 24. What was pertinent imo was we had just 7 players in the group with more than 10 games. we have 11 vets.
Cats - 23 aged 18 24yo. 10 with more than 10 games. they have 15 vets
Eagles 22 aged 18-24. 10 with more than 10 games. They have 8 vets.

Thats the three oldest lists

Crows - 30 aged 18 - 24. 17 with more than 10 games. 5 vets.
Roos - 31 aged 18 - 24. 18 with more than 10 games. 7 vets.
Hawks - 28 aged 18 - 24. 11 with more than 10 games. 5 vets

Thats the three youngest lists

Lions - 24 aged 18 - 24. 14 with more than 10 games. 6 vets.
Swans - 26 aged 18 - 24. 15 with more than 10 games. 8 vets.
Power - 23 players aged 18 -24. 10 with more than 10 games. 8 vets.
Dees - 22 players aged 18 - 24. 10 with more than 10 games. 8 Vets
Dogs - 22 players aged 18 - 24. 11 with more than 10 games. 8 vets.
Blues - 25 players aged 18 - 24. 15 with more than 10 games. 3 vets.
Pies - 27 players aged 18 - 24. 11 with more than 10 games 7 vets.
Bombers 26 players aged 18 - 24. 14 with more than 10 games. 5 vets.
Dockers - 26 players aged 18 - 24. 15 with 10 games or more. 7 vets.
Suns - 30 players aged 18 - 24, 17 with 10 games or more. 5 vets
Giants - 28 players aged 18 -24. 17 with 10 games or more. 7 vets.
Saints - 22 players aged 18 - 24. 12 with 10 games or more. 4 vets.

The averages were
25.3 18-24 yo per team. we had 22 which is below average and the equal lowest amount in the age group.
13.7 was the average number of players in the age group with 10 or more games. we had just 7.
7.0 Was the average number of vets we had the second highest with 11.

The biggest concern out of all this for me is the vast majority of players in the 18 - 24 bracket are unknowns.
Five of the seven who have played more than 10 games are smalls. with just one medium sized player and one tall.

We probably have the least amount of games into the least amount of kids of any team or at best on a par with the worst of them.

Maybe im reading it wrong maybe others will take a different view with the above.

Glass half full / half empty really....
Unknown yes... A graders to be unearthed?

 

[Moppey]

Glass half full / half empty really....
Unknown yes... A graders to be unearthed?

Thats the point though all sides have an of opportunity to unearth A graders or even just half decent players.

Most sides have a better chance because imo they have more players in this group.
The other obvious factor is where in the draft we have been forced to take our kids. Mostly later than most clubs. Yet we as supporters constantly talk down other clubs picks and hype up our own.
We constantly talk up our 18-24 yo and how well off we are compared to other clubs. FMD even Geelong have more players aged 18-24 and have managed to get more of them into double digit games.

The other points are clearly
vets on the list means you have to be looking to replace them in the not too distant future its one reason why most vets only get 1 year contracts.

the other point is we have only found it pertinant to play 7 blokes on a regular basis in this bracket the rest have struggled to get games.That includes Mansell with just 13 games.
15 of our 22 aged 18-24 have not reached double figures in this we are behind all clubs.Those 15 players have just 29 games and average just 1.9 games between them.
The other 7 who are regulars including Mansell have 333 games at an average of 47.5.
To my way of thinking It means like it did last year if we cop injuries we will drop away more than most it is clear there is a gulf between our regular players and the youth when it comes to experience.

As i have stated Juniors 18-21 are a glimpse at what might be with absolutely no guarantees. When talking about our chances next year the vast majority don't even come into the debate as regulars.
It is this that has me puzzled when people talk about overall lists and a clubs chances for the year. Realistically all clubs have only 30 odd players who will make decent contributions. So why does overall lists come into it.

Of all 18 - 21 yo only Stack 33 games would be considered some sort of cert to get regular games. Mansell 13 games well hes currently behind Stack, Short, Rioli, and even Baker.
Ross 29 games has totally stagnated and when all are fit won't get a game unless he significanly improves. Dow 7 games would be the other but hes not pushing anyone out atm and needs to find another level to demand a regular game.

Development players 22 - 24 are clearly players we have decided to further develop and are reasonably confident will become at least good solid players for us or have already.

There is just the four atm Baker 24, Graham 24, Bolton 23,Balta 22 who are regulars. The rest in the group have serious questions about them imo.

I suppose the questions im asking is are we really better off than other clubs in getting games into enough kids? Im not so sure .Are we really way more talented than them as well? We have talented kids but are they really more talented than the kids on other lists and do we really have a better chance of unearthing A graders?
Well if we go by the numbers and where we have been forced to take most of them thus giving yourself a bigger opportunity then no.

Again im just trying to get people to look at both sides of the fence here. besides it off season and we need topics to thrash out

 

[DoItForCaptBlood]

Thats the point though all sides have an of opportunity to unearth A graders or even just half decent players.

Most sides have a better chance because imo they have more players in this group.
The other obvious factor is where in the draft we have been forced to take our kids. Mostly later than most clubs. Yet we as supporters constantly talk down other clubs picks and hype up our own.
We constantly talk up our 18-24 yo and how well off we are compared to other clubs. FMD even Geelong have more players aged 18-24 and have managed to get more of them into double digit games.

The other points are clearly
vets on the list means you have to be looking to replace them in the not too distant future its one reason why most vets only get 1 year contracts.

the other point is we have only found it pertinant to play 7 blokes on a regular basis in this bracket the rest have struggled to get games.That includes Mansell with just 13 games.
15 of our 22 aged 18-24 have not reached double figures in this we are behind all clubs.Those 15 players have just 29 games and average just 1.9 games between them.
The other 7 who are regulars including Mansell have 333 games at an average of 47.5.
To my way of thinking It means like it did last year if we cop injuries we will drop away more than most it is clear there is a gulf between our regular players and the youth when it comes to experience.

As i have stated Juniors 18-21 are a glimpse at what might be with absolutely no guarantees. When talking about our chances next year the vast majority don't even come into the debate as regulars.
It is this that has me puzzled when people talk about overall lists and a clubs chances for the year. Realistically all clubs have only 30 odd players who will make decent contributions. So why does overall lists come into it.

Of all 18 - 21 yo only Stack 33 games would be considered some sort of cert to get regular games. Mansell 13 games well hes currently behind Stack, Short, Rioli, and even Baker.
Ross 29 games has totally stagnated and when all are fit won't get a game unless he significanly improves. Dow 7 games would be the other but hes not pushing anyone out atm and needs to find another level to demand a regular game.

Development players 22 - 24 are clearly players we have decided to further develop and are reasonably confident will become at least good solid players for us.

There is just the four atm Baker 24, Graham 24, Bolton 23,Balta 22 who are regulars. The rest in the group have serious questions about them.

I suppose the questions im asking is are we really better off than other clubs in getting games into enough kids? Im not so sure .Are we really way more talented than them as well? We have talented kids but are they really more talented than the kids on other lists and do we really have a better chance of unearthing A graders?
Well if we go by the numbers and where we have been forced to take most of them thus giving yourself a bigger opportunity then no.

Again im just trying to get people to look at both sides of the fence here. besides it off season and we need topics to thrash out

Fair points but we had an amazing few years (17 - 20) from an injury list perspective, and the team was THE best team in the competition during those years, so 'getting games' into younger players was not possible.
When injuries happened, younger players came in. Then when Prestia, Cotchin Astbury etc were match ready, they came back in. Are you suggesting it would have been better to leave the senior players out of the team for a few more weeks?
Being forced to draft players in the latter picks is the system. Finishing top 4 for so many years consecutively of course we will be selecting juniors with a much lower chance of becoming quality AFL players, certainly within the first few years.
The club has done an amazing job imo to set up for another tilt and stay competitive for a few more years. When Cotch, Jack, Shedda, and yes, Martin, are gone, the team will be decimated of experience, but we don't know which younger players have another level. We have 5 new recruits to work with though!