Youth v Experience

[Southerntakeover]

This has been a consistent theme around our great board lately, so i thought itd be worthwhile having a thread discussing some the issues related to it.

Now, i want to preface things... i dont want a discussion on whether or not we are too reliant on the big four etc. Thats been done to death.

What im interested in is how posters perceive the value of respective players. In the AFL, there seems to be a trend, atleast amongst fans of younger is better. We get ridiculous threads on the main board discussing how one team is more likely to win premierships in the future because they are an average of half an hour younger and similiar rubbish.

Theres a downside to youth though. Inconsistent performances, and weakness in contested ball and clearances are generally hallmarks of a young and inexperienced team. This week we were smashed in both areas. its no cooincidence we had an uncharacteristically young team.

Still, lets look at the off season. Alot of fans were celebrating the delisting of Robert Shirley, a player whos specialties were contested ball and clearances. It was argued that Shirley was too old, and we were better off getting more youth in the team. The question is, where does this logic stop, or does it trap you into a cycle of always being 'close to challenging for a premiership', but never actually contending. Is there something wrong with developing a team with experienced players and actually contending?

Ok, so im pretty much just ranting, but ill throw the floor open. Anyone have thoughts on the subject?

 

[Mad Fan of AFL]

Agree with your assessment southerntaker. Ideal team is a mixure or balance of youth (which creates excitment and enthusiasm) and experience (consistent performer and leadership)

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Fremantle had kids up the ying yang. Barlow, Broughton, Duffield, Suban, Ballantyne, Hill, Mayne, Silvagni, Ibbotson, Morabito and van Berlo. Lack of experience wasn't the problem.

IMO our problem under Neil Craig has been that in the interests of playing our Best 22 every week, we've persisted with experienced players who are solid and consistent but have absolutely no influence on the result of games. I'm talking Stevens, Doughty, Reilly from the weekend and previously Shirley, Perrie, McGregor, Massie, Skipworth, Biglands, Clarke etc.

You never improve past the output that these players can deliver. They are never going to consistently have an impact against the best teams and if we continue to play them then we will keep coming up short when it counts.

If it was up to me you'd pick your match winners first. Second you would pick the players on your list who are physically capable of handling AFL football and have the potential to develop into match winners. After that, you add in your mid-range, solid types. If there are any place left that is.

We have never picked our teams in that order. We reward training form. We reward experience. We value solid, reliable performers who might not be standouts but can fill a role.

You might take a step backwards to go forwards and the 'potentials' you select may take a season (or longer) to adapt and start producing consistently good football. But, providing that your recruiters/match committee are good judges, then their ceiling is higher than the mid-range players and therefore so is that of the teams.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Ok, so Carl, you'd be willing so suffer a season of Fremantle game like performances for the greater good?

And what if we're wrong about our talent assessments of the young players who arent ready now? Do we enter a Richmond cycle of perpetual rebuild?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Ok, so Carl, you'd be willing so suffer a season of Fremantle game like performances for the greater good?

Basically yes (although as stated above, the Fremantle performance had absolutely nothing to do with a lack of experience). To build a team capable of winning a premiership then you might need to go through some heartache. Though I don't believe that would happen. Collingwood debuted 10 players one year under Malthouse and made a prelim, almost toppling premiers Geelong in the process. Blooding young players is not synonymous with losing matches. I think NC believes it is though.

I'm not talking about culling half the list, finishing in the bottom four for half a decade and building from scratch. I'm saying simply to give the high level talent you already have on your list the maximum opportunity to develop, and place this priority somewhere near the top. Not down the bottom of the To Do List or writing it off as "they'll get games where they're ready."

And what if we're wrong about our talent assessments of the young players who arent ready now? Do we enter a Richmond cycle of perpetual rebuild?

Of course if your talent assessment is wrong then you're screwed. Surely you're not suggesting we should play it safe with selection just in case we're wrong? Surely you back yourself to be right. What are these guys paid to do?

 

[Southerntakeover]

Basically yes (although as stated above, the Fremantle performance had absolutely nothing to do with a lack of experience). To build a team capable of winning a premiership then you might need to go through some heartache. Though I don't believe that would happen. Collingwood debuted 10 players one year under Malthouse and made a prelim, almost toppling premiers Geelong in the process. Blooding young players is not synonymous with losing matches. I think NC believes it is though.

And yet, Collingwood didnt win a premiership with that team, did they?

Infact, very few teams ever win premierships with really young teams, explaining why the few teams that do it earn nicknames like 'baby bombers'.

Indeed, the Collingwood example is probably blown out of the water by the fact that theyve gone the opposite route now to try and win a premiership- spending key draft picks to recruit ready made, mature, proven footballers in order to make themselves a genuine contender.

I'm not talking about culling half the list, finishing in the bottom four for half a decade and building from scratch. I'm saying simply to give the high level talent you already have on your list the maximum opportunity to develop, and place this priority somewhere near the top. Not down the bottom of the To Do List or writing it off as "they'll get games where they're ready."

See, i agree that you give them the maximum opportunity to develop, i just dont happen to agree with your theory on what the maximum opportunity actually is. Its certainly not just dropping players into AFL football before they're ready. You overlook the fact that this can do damage to a players career, through potential injury because of underdeveloped bodies, or simply lost confidence through struggling at the top level. Theres more to it than simply filling a team with 'young top potential kids' and riding the gravy train.

Of course if your talent assessment is wrong then you're screwed. Surely you're not suggesting we should play it safe with selection just in case we're wrong? Surely you back yourself to be right. What are these guys paid to do?

I dont think the match committee should be guessing actually. I think the policy of forcing players to earn games through strong SANFL form, and training performances has been a good one for us.

As far as what are these guys paid to do, i see it as two distinct and clearly different departments.... recruiting and selection. One should be more speculative, one should be factual.

 

[ringo200]

I think we have seen in the last few years the value of young players consistently getting a game in a competitive AFL side, even if their form doesn't neccessarilly warrant it. Tippett is the biggest example, in 08 he had a lot of games where he pretty much did nothing then came out in 09 all guns blazing.

Mackay had the same path, consistent football in 08, he played well yes, but if he was 25/26 and putting in those performances he'd be a much maligned player, in 09 he became a player that could really influence matches.

Vince the same, had his first year of consistent football in 08 and wins the B & F in 09.

Otten is the obvious exception who came into the side straight away as an important player.

I think its crucial though the players get these games in a competitive side, learning off the likes of McLeod and Goodwin. Its a very fine line to walk but players seem to be developing pretty well under Neil Craig and at the same time we have been a very good side under him so there isn't much to complain about really.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Interesting phrase there is competitive side. Obviously then, there must be some limit on how many youngsters you can play before the side becomes uncompetitive.

I think thats a fair assessment. My concern is that people are no longer respecting the need for balance in list management.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

And yet, Collingwood didnt win a premiership with that team, did they?

Infact, very few teams ever win premierships with really young teams, explaining why the few teams that do it earn nicknames like 'baby bombers'.

No Collingwood haven't, but they have been genuine contenders and are again this year. Even young players get a year older every year!

Indeed, the Collingwood example is probably blown out of the water by the fact that theyve gone the opposite route now to try and win a premiership- spending key draft picks to recruit ready made, mature, proven footballers in order to make themselves a genuine contender.

It isn't at all.

Collingwood recruiting a couple of match winning experienced players does absolutely nothing to diminish my theory. Just to reiterate, I'm saying choose match winners first, potential match winners second, then fill in the gaps with your mid-range players. I'm not saying pick youth at all costs.

See, i agree that you give them the maximum opportunity to develop, i just dont happen to agree with your theory on what the maximum opportunity actually is. Its certainly not just dropping players into AFL football before they're ready. You overlook the fact that this can do damage to a players career, through potential injury because of underdeveloped bodies, or simply lost confidence through struggling at the top level. Theres more to it than simply filling a team with 'young top potential kids' and riding the gravy train.

This 'when they're ready' statement always seems to crop up. There is no ready! Coaches will have differing opinions about when this time comes. It is subjective, an inexact science.

People use that when they're ready line as though there is some magic, universally agreed point in a player's career where they go from being Not-Ready-Yet to Ready-To-Play. This point doesn't exist!

Coaches will always be able to find legitimate reasons to blood a new player and they will be able to find legitimate reasons not to. Whether they are selected depends as much on the coach's nature - optimistic/risk-taker vs pessimistic/defensive - as on the ability of the player.

I dont think the match committee should be guessing actually. I think the policy of forcing players to earn games through strong SANFL form, and training performances has been a good one for us.

As far as what are these guys paid to do, i see it as two distinct and clearly different departments.... recruiting and selection. One should be more speculative, one should be factual.

Of course my theory is supposition only, no evidence. But there is plenty of evidence now about what result the 'play your best 22' approach will bring. Because we've been living it. We've seen what results it brings. Save for a couple of preliminaries when our Legends were in their prime, since it has been a string of fairly tokenistic finals appearances without ever being a real threat. Same approach will equal the same results.

Good thread by the way. It is an interesting (divisive!) topic.

 

[Macca19]

In the AFL, there seems to be a trend, atleast amongst fans of younger is better.

Certainly not a perception. And not just amongst supporters as well...the media push the young=good barrow all the time as well.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Certainly not a perception. And not just amongst supporters as well...the media push the young=good barrow all the time as well.

The clubs do this themselves.

Anytime they lose they trot out the 'oh we've got a lot of young players who are learning the game' to justify it.

If the now is bad then they need to sell to the fans that the future will be better. If you're experienced and losing... then you've got nothing and will always have nothing.

It is certainly not a media or fan-talk beat up.

 

[Macca19]

Of course. Port have mentioned that they have only 5 players over 23 or whatever it is numerous times over the past 12 months. Its a nice stat because youth portrays hope, but youth certainly doesnt = premiership in 4-5 years time. But hey...you gotta get excited at something I guess.

The Pelchen theory does ring true a bit in that if you arent seriously pushing for a flag then you need to be doing everything you can to get to that stage...that often means playing kids and seeing who has that something that can turn them into a 150+ gamer.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I've mused before that the manner of our 97/98 premierships were the worst things that couldn't happen to us and to this day shape how we operate.

We finished fourth and fifth in those years, had some fortune with the old finals draw system (home final vs Geelong who finished above us in 97, lost to Melb and survived in 98) and then got our shit together on the big stage. We've won premierships but we've never been the best team in the competition.

It has created a culture that believes if you make the finals then anything can happen. And Rintoul and Keating have premiership medallions so we believe that you don't need stars... This was proven 'right' in 97/98 so we keep going back to that well. As a result we set the bar too low, hope to make the finals and then roll the dice in September. Along the way we are content to pick teams who can win 12-14 minor round games without ever really trying to bridge the gap with the top ranked clubs.

 

[NTRabbit]

You pick the best available 22, with respect to team balance - ie you need to pick at least one ruckman - every week.

Youth should not be a consideration. People who argue for stacking a team with young players for no other reason than being young, even ahead of better players who are older, are for lack of a better description complete and utter idiots. You end up with a few seasons of floggings, no senior experienced players to lead them and a bunch of conceited players who think they are owed a spot by default because it was given to them, rather than going out and earning it. Carl Spackler, your obsession with this patently absurd theory I'm going to call "Football Creationism" or "Intelligent List Design" has gone far beyond crazy, and into the realms of pity.

The Fremantle team was full of young players because, guess what, most of those young players are better than the spuds they've mostly finished offloading already.

There is only one player on our list I would even consider a suitable backup for Scott Stevens right now, and that's Will Young. There's no way I'd be picking him ahead of Stevens without an injury or several game form slump. McKernan and Davis were both exposed as being horribly out of their depth at AFL level, and still need another season of SANFL, lest they be any more torn up by their opponents than they already have been. The newest rookies are still lightweights who mostly came from TAC clubs, and need a season in the SANFL to learn the difference between juniors and playing against men.

On the weekend, we had a quartet of 20 year old midfielders deputise for injured senior players, and while most of them showed some work and endeavour, not one of them staked any sort of serious claim towards being ready to play AFL football, let alone hold onto that spot from the returning players.

There is a very brief number of players each year capable of coming right into the league as an 18 year old and make an impact - that number never even covers the top 10 drafted midfielders. Go back through the last few drafts and find some first year draftees who actually played the majority of the season and made an impact, not just played 22 games because they were at a horrendous club where they immediately became a top 5 player before attending their first training session.

 

[Southerntakeover]

No Collingwood haven't, but they have been genuine contenders and are again this year. Even young players get a year older every year!

They were two points or so more genuine than us. I tend to think that their offseason moves demonstrates just how genuine they thought they were.

It isn't at all.

Collingwood recruiting a couple of match winning experienced players does absolutely nothing to diminish my theory. Just to reiterate, I'm saying choose match winners first, potential match winners second, then fill in the gaps with your mid-range players. I'm not saying pick youth at all costs.

I think you're using a selective definition of match winning. Its not a clear cut and defined term.

All that is clear is that Collingwood see the value in having experienced, known entity players when challenging for a premiership.

As far as your theory goes... what about youth that arent going to be match winners? Are you suggesting that theres no place for them in your team? Is it boom or bust with youngsters, and no inbetween?

This 'when they're ready' statement always seems to crop up. There is no ready! Coaches will have differing opinions about when this time comes. It is subjective, an inexact science.

People use that when they're ready line as though there is some magic, universally agreed point in a player's career where they go from being Not-Ready-Yet to Ready-To-Play. This point doesn't exist!

Coaches will always be able to find legitimate reasons to blood a new player and they will be able to find legitimate reasons not to. Whether they are selected depends as much on the coach's nature - optimistic/risk-taker vs pessimistic/defensive - as on the ability of the player.

I agree to a point, theres certainly no magic formula.

I dont agree that theres no difference in AFL readyness at all between differing players. Thats completely false. Look at the difference in the weekend between Barlow and Armstrong. Its certainly possible for players to be developed to be more ready when they are dropped in, than they are when drafted.

The question of course is at what point they are ready. As you say, thats a subjective decision, but one thats within a coaches field of decision making.

Of course my theory is supposition only, no evidence. But there is plenty of evidence now about what result the 'play your best 22' approach will bring. Because we've been living it. We've seen what results it brings. Save for a couple of preliminaries when our Legends were in their prime, since it has been a string of fairly tokenistic finals appearances without ever being a real threat. Same approach will equal the same results.

I think you're applying fairly subjective measures yourself now.

For example, you qualify a prelim final as being a contender... we were one kick away from the prelim final, yet we're only a tokenistic appearance, and not a real threat?

Good thread by the way. It is an interesting (divisive!) topic.

Ive got to say, im loving the clash of ideas here. Its one of the subjects that most interests me atm. Im certainly not pretending i know the answers.

 

[SydCrow]

Couldn't agree more NTRabbit.

STO - How do you think Walker's development has been handled? Dangerfield's? Mackay's? Tippett's?

Who isn't playing now who should be getting games?

 

[Southerntakeover]

Couldn't agree more NTRabbit.

STO - How do you think Walker's development has been handled? Dangerfield's? Mackay's? Tippett's?

Who isn't playing now who should be getting games?

Out of interest, did you read the opening post?

I only ask, because if you're in agreement with NTRabbit completely, i see no reason why you should be questioning me as if im at odds...

Have you made an incorrect assumption about what i may or may not have been arguing?

 

[SydCrow]

Out of interest, did you read the opening post?

I only ask, because if you're in agreement with NTRabbit completely, i see no reason why you should be questioning me as if im at odds...

Have you made an incorrect assumption about what i may or may not have been arguing?

Sorry I meant Carl

I think I agree with you. And describing any finals appearance as tokenistic is insulting to the entire playing and coaching staff. Many clubs can only dream about playing finals.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

All that is clear is that Collingwood see the value in having experienced, known entity players when challenging for a premiership.

They recruited quality in areas they have deficiencies. They didn't make a grab for Staker-esque padding.

As far as your theory goes... what about youth that arent going to be match winners? Are you suggesting that theres no place for them in your team? Is it boom or bust with youngsters, and no inbetween?

Seeing as I'm spouting the theory I thought I'd actually go through a team selection using my logic to see how it played out. Stay with me here...

Match winners - McLeod, Goodwin, Edwards, Burton, Porplyzia, Thompson, Vince, Johncock, Rutten, Bock, Tippett, Knights (12 players)

Potential match winners - Dangerfield, Walker, Mackay (3 players)

So these are my first 15 players picked. Every time.


Mid-range players - Doughty, Hentschel, Griffin, Stevens, van Berlo, Reilly, Douglas, Maric, Moran, Sellar, Symes (11 players)

Kids - Davis, McKernan, Cook, Petrenko, Sloane, Armstrong, Craig, Gunston, Jacky, Shaw, Talia, Young (12 players)

These 23 are gunning for the other 7 spots. From what I have seen of our kids I would back Davis, McKernan, Cook and Petrenko as players who are physically capable of playing AFL and could be significant contributors down the track. So they're in.

So that means only 3 of the mid-range players get selected. Probably VB, Maric and one more. This group becomes depth players, there for injury/attrition cover only.

B Johncock - Rutten - Davis
HB McLeod - Bock - Goodwin
C Vince - Dangerfield - Mackay
HF Knights - McKernan - Porplyzia
F Burton - Tippett - Walker
1R Maric - Thompson - Edwards
INT Petrenko - Cook - van Berlo - one more

Pretty good mix of youth and experience IMO. Not exactly the creche Rabbit is suggesting.



As for being a contender, I'd say at the moment being able to beat St Kilda, Geelong and the Bulldogs qualifies you as one.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Match winners - McLeod, Goodwin, Edwards, Burton, Porplyzia, Thompson, Vince, Johncock, Rutten, Bock, Tippett, Knights (12 players)

Potential match winners - Dangerfield, Walker, Mackay (3 players)

So these are my first 15 players picked. Every time.

Mid-range players - Doughty, Hentschel, Griffin, Stevens, van Berlo, Reilly, Douglas, Maric, Moran, Sellar, Symes (11 players)

See, i have massive troubles with your spurious definition of match winner.

What constitutes one? A player who is capable of being best on field? A player who can single handedly win a game? There are problems with your list with either if you applied it.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Sorry I meant Carl

No problem.

Just had to ask, because theres certainly some on this board that seem to respond first, read second.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Youth should not be a consideration. People who argue for stacking a team with young players for no other reason than being young, even ahead of better players who are older, are for lack of a better description complete and utter idiots. You end up with a few seasons of floggings, no senior experienced players to lead them and a bunch of conceited players who think they are owed a spot by default because it was given to them, rather than going out and earning it. Carl Spackler, your obsession with this patently absurd theory I'm going to call "Football Creationism" or "Intelligent List Design" has gone far beyond crazy, and into the realms of pity.

If you're still struggling for a name how about we call it the Hawthorn Theory?

I'd love to claim credit, but planning for your next premiership and investing games into talented youngsters isn't my theory. It's a practice that quite a few AFL teams have, and continue to, use. Some with success, some without.

There is only one player on our list I would even consider a suitable backup for Scott Stevens right now, and that's Will Young. There's no way I'd be picking him ahead of Stevens without an injury or several game form slump. McKernan and Davis were both exposed as being horribly out of their depth at AFL level, and still need another season of SANFL, lest they be any more torn up by their opponents than they already have been. The newest rookies are still lightweights who mostly came from TAC clubs, and need a season in the SANFL to learn the difference between juniors and playing against men.

Ok, so let's imagine we have a couple of talented young players who are out of their depth at AFL level and struggle with the speed of the game. Do we help them improve by sending them to play in a lower league where the bodies are smaller, the pressure is lower and the speed is slower? Is that really going to help them acclimatise?

On the weekend, we had a quartet of 20 year old midfielders deputise for injured senior players, and while most of them showed some work and endeavour, not one of them staked any sort of serious claim towards being ready to play AFL football, let alone hold onto that spot from the returning players.

Ok, let's pick Cook since I have chosen him in my team from my last post. He's raw and unpolished. Is quick and takes the game on. He makes mistakes. He takes risks. His disposal under AFL pressure is questionable. He brings something to our team no one else does. What a conflict!

Do you pick Cook expecting an instantaneous consistent return? I'd suggest that if you select Cook you are banking on a future return and are using the AFL environment to help mould him as a player.

This is how I would handle him. I would NOT send him back to Noarlunga and hope that he improves his disposal and decision-making in the mean time.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

See, i have massive troubles with your spurious definition of match winner.

What constitutes one? A player who is capable of being best on field? A player who can single handedly win a game? There are problems with your list with either if you applied it.

Again, subjective, inexact science, one coach would see it one way another would see it a different way...

But it doesn't matter. What constitutes it is whatever a coach (in this case me) thinks it does.

For me it is someone who, if they play well, then our team is a better chance of winning the game. The mid-range players are the ones who whether the play well or play badly has no relation to the result of the game.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Again, subjective, inexact science, one coach would see it one way another would see it a different way...

But it doesn't matter. What constitutes it is whatever a coach (in this case me) thinks it does.

For me it is someone who, if they play well, then our team is a better chance of winning the game. The mid-range players are the ones who whether the play well or play badly has no relation to the result of the game.

In which case its not very enlightening.

Example... Scott Stevens has kicked 7 goals in a final... is he not a potential match winner? Surely if he plays well, we're a better chance of winning etc.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

In which case its not very enlightening.

What were you hoping for? A mathematical formula?

Ok, if Games Played x B&F Votes x Draft pick taken at / shoe size is > 119 then the player is a match winner

Example... Scott Stevens has kicked 7 goals in a final... is he not a potential match winner? Surely if he plays well, we're a better chance of winning etc.

We lost that game!

Of course if anyone plays well you are a better chance of winning.

You're acting as though this ranking of players is a completely foreign concept for clubs. Pay scale? Imagine an opposition match committee sitting around the table going through their plans, tactics and worries for a game against Adelaide. Who are they most concerned about nullifying, about tagging, about bypassing?