Which clubs is the pressure on in 2011?

[Scodog10]

Collingwood - having talked themselves up so much since the flag, the ferals will be out in force when & if they slip

Just for a second take a breath and think about why Collingwood were talking themselves up, we're the damn premiers, for godsake if there is any team that at the end of each year has earnt the right to talk themselves up its the premiership team

The only team that isn't under pressure in 2011 IMO is the Gold Coast simply because what they will do next year is completely unknown, they could win 2 games next year and people wouldn't be at all surprised.

If there was to be pressure placed on that club it would be completely unwarranted until they've had at least one season to adapt to the competition as both an organisation as well as the playing group. Just looking at their squad they have 12 players with senior AFL experience out of a list of 50, to put that in perspective Geelong have 12 players to have played more than 150 games and a 13th on 146 (Josh Hunt).

 

[THE_GUN]

Stkilda
W,bulldogs
Hawks
Ratten

In that order.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

We have 3 players on our senior list who have played over 100 games, less than the GC. Seriously, just think about that for a minute. I'm just being realistic. We are a long way off it yet. You grouped us with Melbourne, I think we're 12-18 months development behind them.

Agreed. If Richmond can get the results in 2011 that Melbourne got in 2010 they will be well on their way. I don't think the pressure is on Richmond this year it is a development year for them and if they don't finish bottom 4 that would be a great result.

I think the pressure is on Melbourne though. This year we need to make finals otherwise I think the pressure will be on Bailey. We have a very good draw which should be enough to get us from knocking on the door of the 8 to cementing a spot in the finals.

I think the pressure is also on Carlton as well. They need to win a final or two otherwise Ratten will be gone.

 

[absfab]

Another what?

Another poster asking a reasonable question?

No, another parochial fool cherry picking narrow elements of the youth equation.

 

[The Swert]

Collingwood. It has to be the most recent premiers. Look at what happened when the Hawks missed the 8 in 2009. We became a laughing stock, our talks of a dynasty shattered. If Collingwood somehow miss the 8 this year, with the number of a supporters and high profile status of the club, head may not roll but questions will be asked. That's much worse than once again making the finals but falling short (Dogs, Saints etc).

 

[RandB]

No, another parochial fool cherry picking narrow elements of the youth equation.

lol, what is this "youth equation" you speak of.

We're addressing a statement of fact made by another poster, ie youngest list. Neither of us have disputed it, we simply questioned the source.

I think you have this all ass about champ.

 

[Byron_Clanger]

Not so much WCE, but Woosha is definitely under pressure you would think.

Yep, definitely heat on the coach this year if they don't improve

 

[absfab]

lol, what is this "youth equation" you speak of.

We're addressing a statement of fact made by another poster, ie youngest list. Neither of us have disputed it, we simply questioned the source.

I think you have this all ass about champ.

All of that back pedalling must be really tiring.

But we have x players under x years, and x players under Y years. And my big brother can beat the crap out of your big brother.

Etcetera.

Tell you what. Stop "questioning" and provide a reasoned argument backed by relevant facts. Like the actual age of the lists, or the actual age of the best 22. Or something. Or go away.

BTW. The "lol" nearly cut me deep. If you'd only upgraded to a rofl you'd have destroyed me.

 

[WinmarToLockett]

Tell you what. Stop "questioning" and provide a reasoned argument backed by relevant facts. Like the actual age of the lists, or the actual age of the best 22. Or something. Or go away.

Wow, you just don't get it, do you?

 

[RandB]

All of that back pedalling must be really tiring.

But we have x players under x years, and x players under Y years. And my big brother can beat the crap out of your big brother.

Etcetera.

Tell you what. Stop "questioning" and provide a reasoned argument backed by relevant facts. Like the actual age of the lists, or the actual age of the best 22. Or something. Or go away.

BTW. The "lol" nearly cut me deep. If you'd only upgraded to a rofl you'd have destroyed me.

Hooray, you see the light. This was our stance until a ****stick by the name of 'absfab' came along.

The fundamental element in all of this is lost on you and is why you continue to make a fool of yourself. Neither I or the other Melbourne poster made a statement that Melbourne had the youngest list - do you get it?

Barnzy made an affirmative statement which suggests he's either made calulations or read it somewhere so assumably he has covered this and can easily confirm this - otherwise he's made a subjective statement. It's all pretty simple really.

Now, you could leave it to Barnzy to easily answer the question himself (and not turn this into a pissing comp) and we all can get on with our lives but no you continually post s**t and miss the point.

 

[absfab]

Hooray, you see the light. This was our stance until a ****stick by the name of 'absfab' came along.
.

No. Your stance was "but, but, but".

Thanks for the personal abuse though. I'll try to treat it with more respect than it deserves.

 

[Geddy Lee]

Get a room.

Melbourne should make the finals.

Hawthorn need to push for another flag.

Bulldogs have a massive monkey on their back.

Adelaide have a great list but average results.

Freo, ditto.

There's plenty of pressure on all clubs.

Except Collingwood as they just won the ****ing flag.

 

[Barnzy]

You may be the youngest, but I'm interested to see the list ages for 2011. Where did you source the information ?

Also, we have more teenagers on our list than Richmond and 4 more players under the age of 22, so I doubt there's much difference in age. We have 6 players with 100 games and you have 4 (including rookies).

I agree though that we're ahead in development.

He simply asked for a source re: the youngest list comment and added some numbers to put the comment into perspective. Nothing to do with promise or potential or flogspin.

When you consider that on top of 1 extra teen, Melbourne also have 7 20 yr olds on their senior list compared to Richmond's 3 it is actually a fair question.

When you find him can you get him to answer my question ?

Thanks.

lol, what is this "youth equation" you speak of.

We're addressing a statement of fact made by another poster, ie youngest list. Neither of us have disputed it, we simply questioned the source.

I think you have this all ass about champ.

Hooray, you see the light. This was our stance until a ****stick by the name of 'absfab' came along.

The fundamental element in all of this is lost on you and is why you continue to make a fool of yourself. Neither I or the other Melbourne poster made a statement that Melbourne had the youngest list - do you get it?

Barnzy made an affirmative statement which suggests he's either made calulations or read it somewhere so assumably he has covered this and can easily confirm this - otherwise he's made a subjective statement. It's all pretty simple really.

Now, you could leave it to Barnzy to easily answer the question himself (and not turn this into a pissing comp) and we all can get on with our lives but no you continually post s**t and miss the point.

lol.

I have no solid source ie link but i saw it stated during the year a few times in the media that we had the youngest list in the AFL. Honestly, I don't give a s**t if we do or we don't but that's my understanding. Also remember seeing the sides we were putting out on the park each week were more inexperienced (age/games) than Melbourne as per the stats on the Superfooty website. What's the big deal? You Melbourne supporters seem desperate to be the youngest. If you care so much about it you can easily work it out yourself with a calculator. Go for it.

 

[RandB]

No. Your stance was "but, but, but".

Beleive me, I'm not interested in that sort of "me too" stuff.

Two other teams that come to mind with young lists are North and Adelaide. I'm not too familiar with their specific list details and know more about Melbourne's list (hence using them as a case for the question) but you may be able to make a case with them as well in some areas.

IMO the issue for Richmond is not so much "youth" in the purest sense. It is exposure of the squad to the hardwick gameplan. From this pov some clubs like Melbourne definitely have a head start no question. Melbourne are fairly expected to perform better especially in light of the draw.

Saints and Bulldogs are under the pump the most from the main contenders IMO and every other club will have its own KPIs.

 

[RandB]

lol.

I have no solid source ie link but i saw it stated during the year a few times in the media that we had the youngest list in the AFL. Honestly, I don't give a s**t if we do or we don't but that's my understanding. Also remember seeing the sides we were putting out on the park each week were more inexperienced (age/games) than Melbourne as per the stats on the Superfooty website. What's the big deal? You Melbourne supporters seem desperate to be the youngest. If you care so much about it you can easily work it out yourself with a calculator. Go for it.

Not at all and thanks for clearing that up.

The context I'm coming from is in light of the thread debate. To use an arguement of youngest list in context of how you will go in 2011 it would have to have a pretty profound effect to be meaningful. If there isn't such a difference between the Tiges and say a couple of other clubs then it doesn't have much bearing on the over all debate - that's all I was getting at. If Richmond struggle in 2011 it won't be because of "youngest list" nobody gets a prize for youngest list here either, this was derailed a bit.

 

[hugeblueman]

No we don't.

Youngest list in the comp with only a few players having played over 100 games. That's just unrealistic. It's the punishment for the Wallace reign. Had to start at square 1 again in 2010.

Wallace blamed Frawley, now its Wallaces fault.
Ahh the endless circle of failure continues.

 

[HyperAgressiveDonk]

absfab is someone I have little time for as he is a troll and an instigator, but I can see his point. I think he is right

 

[acker]

- Western Bulldogs- Continual failure to even make a GF must place a lot of pressure on them after being a fancied pick for so long.

I think the Dogs are a bit like England...they have the stars, the coach, the ambition, and now they also have the youth after ditching the old guys such as Aker, Johnno, Eagle and Hahn

Much like when Hair had the hit tune "Age of Aquarius"

I think for 3-4 years we have just entered "Age of the Dog"

"when the moon enters the 7th ....."

[YOUTUBE]N9oq_IskRIg[/YOUTUBE]

 

[absfab]

absfab is someone I have little time for as he is a troll and an instigator, but I can see his point. I think he is right

Big call Donk. But it makes me feel uncomfortable. Like cats breeding with dogs. Not natural. In fact, kinda creepy.

 

[absfab]

I think the Dogs are a bit like England...they have the stars, the coach, the ambition, and now they also have the youth after ditching the old guys

And yet sadly still the oldest list of yesterday's men in football.

But hey, if it makes your life better go on believing that ditching the talented old guys who couldn't get it done will help the old hacks left over take the next step.

 

[Rojik of the Arctic]

If StKilda go backwards heads will roll. They have had a bloody good list for too many years not to have a flag and time is starting to run out.

This may well be Footscray's last chance for a couple of years so they will be under pressure to do something with it.

Carlton need a top 4 finish to justify some of the hype they have been throwing around over the last 2 years.

Hawthorn will be desperate to prove 2008 wasn't a fluke and they deserve to be feared.

WCE and Brisbane will need to do something to stop coaching bloodbaths.

Collingwood and Geelong will want to be thereabouts come September

Adelaide might be under pressure if they don't finish in the 8

Essendon will be forgiven almost anything this year.

Sydney and Freo will probably be happy with a similar year to last.

Richmond, Port and Nth will be looking for slow, steady improvement.

GC will be hoping not to get smashed too much and win a couple.

Which brings us to my team - You'd think finals would be the aim but I'd be happy if we stayed where we are with anything else as a bonus. Capt and VC gone and we will be trying a lot of the kids out to see who has a future and who doesn't, so as long as we minimise the blowouts and win more Q's and other such stats I'm not sure the points will be that big of a concern. The media (who seem to have fallen in love with us) might see it differently, however.

 

[Hannabal]

I have no solid source ie link but i saw it stated during the year a few times in the media that we had the youngest list in the AFL. You Melbourne supporters seem desperate to be the youngest.

You made a definitive statement and were simply asked where the information was contained - age lists for 2011 - not last years. Clearly the discussion is about lists in 2011, not 2010. You may be a tad confused.

Anyway, I didn't know that you were making it up, hence the genuine question. I suspect that on a games played basis Richmond would be close to the most inexperienced, but I'm not sure you're the youngest.

Thanks for fessing up.

 

[dapto]

...
Which brings us to my team - You'd think finals would be the aim but I'd be happy if we stayed where we are with anything else as a bonus. Capt and VC gone and we will be trying a lot of the kids out to see who has a future and who doesn't, so as long as we minimise the blowouts and win more Q's and other such stats I'm not sure the points will be that big of a concern. The media (who seem to have fallen in love with us) might see it differently, however.

Sadness thing I have read from a supporter in a long time.

Punch drunk, submissive, timid and a poor host for ambition and yet has every reason to be optimistic otherwise.

It goes to show just how unhealthy it is to be used to a lack of success. (Not trolling).

 

[Barnzy]

You made a definitive statement and were simply asked where the information was contained - age lists for 2011 - not last years. Clearly the discussion is about lists in 2011, not 2010. You may be a tad confused.

Anyway, I didn't know that you were making it up, hence the genuine question. I suspect that on a games played basis Richmond would be close to the most inexperienced, but I'm not sure you're the youngest.

Thanks for fessing up.

Bay 13 might be your go. As I said, it's my understanding that we had the youngest list last year and much wouldn't have changed this year given we offloaded Cousins and Simmonds. If I'm wrong then obviously I was mistaken on a couple of things I read during the year. As I said before, if you care so much about something so little and want to play the my dick is bigger than yours game re youth (which you obviously do going off this and other posts) then work it out for yourself. It wouldn't be hard I would imagine and I'm sure even the simplest of minds could work it out. Go on.

 

[Hannabal]

Bay 13 might be your go. As I said, it's my understanding that we had the youngest list last year and much wouldn't have changed this year given we offloaded Cousins and Simmonds. If I'm wrong then obviously I was mistaken on a couple of things I read during the year. As I said before, if you care so much about something so little and want to play the my dick is bigger than yours game re youth (which you obviously do going off this and other posts) then work it out for yourself. It wouldn't be hard I would imagine and I'm sure even the simplest of minds could work it out. Go on.

No, you're right, it's not hard to do and the fact that I haven't is evidence of my ambivalence. When I saw your post I thought I'd be able to quickly glean the latest information, hence the simple question.

Naturally, as already mentioned, I wasn't aware that your statement had been plucked from thin air.

You've wasted enough of my time. Be gone.