3 Things Learned - R11, 2025

[Stevo]

They are also inexperienced with under 50 games and will learn. What the MC has to determine is whether they have the talent to take the next step.

Can we really use this as an excuse or a reason? It's always a balancing act of the now and development
Can I also ask why we are using the 50 game mark as a way of measuring a players experience?
As an example O'Donnell, Baker and Poulter haven't played 50 games but I wouldn't regard them as inexperienced.

[Bornadog]

Can we really use this as an excuse or a reason? It's always a balancing act of the now and development
Can I also ask why we are using the 50 game mark as a way of measuring a players experience?
As an example O'Donnell, Baker and Poulter haven't played 50 games but I wouldn't regard them as inexperienced.

50 is an average used by AFL when breaking up experience

image.png

Of course some players adapt to AFL better than others

[GVGjr]

50 is an average used by AFL when breaking up experience

image.png

Of course some players adapt to AFL better than others

I suppose the question is around the likes of Baker and Poulter who have been in the system for while and I don't regard them as inexperienced just because they haven't hit the 50 game target
They're depth player and how many games they've played or haven't played isn't that relevant.

[Danjul]

Can we really use this as an excuse or a reason? It's always a balancing act of the now and development
Can I also ask why we are using the 50 game mark as a way of measuring a players experience?
As an example O'Donnell, Baker and Polulter haven't played 50 games but I wouldn't regard them as inexperienced.

In the last 50 games Baker has been in the 22 match players only 9 times and sub 6 times. He isn’t getting experience or continuity. That’s why the main group tend to ignore him.

By contrast McNeil has been in the 22 on 29 occasions and sub 4 times

[jeemak]

50 is an average used by AFL when breaking up experience

image.png

Of course some players adapt to AFL better than others

It really shows our issues with recruiting/ retaining players for whatever reason who should be in that cool calm and collected 100-150 range of AFL games.

[jeemak]

1 - Bad kicking is bad footy. Otherwise, despite all the overreaction to a loss, we are better than them, and that will show by seasons end

2 - Big home crowds, do influence the incompetence of the umpires

3 - We might have a few, not built for the big stage, need to figure that out by Round 20

We don't have personnel with the polish and finishing power on the outside for success on the big stage if we're going to play the game like we did last night. If we continue on this path our offence will give us enough opportunities to kick 100 points or more a game, but that'll be at the expense of limiting scoring opportunities against the big clubs at the same time as not being able to put them away with efficiency (at our conversion rate we would have required another five or six scoring shots). Cameron and Neale kicking 11 straight has very little to do with defensive personnel.

Given we can't materially change personnel at this point of the season, we need to go more defensive and find a way to make things more difficult for better opposition up-field. We'll keep losing the close ones if we don't. Shoot outs are OK against shit teams like those we've pummeled, but the best teams will beat us every time.

[Dogs 24/7]

50 is an average used by AFL when breaking up experience

image.png

Of course some players adapt to AFL better than others

Do you regard Khamis who's been in the system for 7 seasons as an inexperienced player just because he's played less than 40 senior games?
It seems to be a slightly flawed logic because he was drafted the same year as Vandermeer, West, B.Smith and Gardner.

[DOG GOD]

1. Too many VFL standard players
2. English will not take us to a premiership
3. when you allow someone like Neale to kick 5, you’re backline is in trouble. MC got it terribly wrong.

[Mitcha]

1. Too many VFL standard players
2. English will not take us to a premiership
3. when you allow someone like Neale to kick 5, you’re backline is in trouble. MC got it terribly wrong.

Clarification needed on Point three. How did the match comittee get it "terribly wrong"?
Are you actually blaming the backline players because Neale kicked 5 because you could have had Weitering and Sam Taylor as your key backs and they wouldn't have been able to cover after some of our diabolical turnovers that gifted them half of their scoring opportunities. How would your selections have been different to that of our MC?

[GVGjr]

Do you regard Khamis who's been in the system for 7 seasons as an inexperienced player just because he's played less than 40 senior games?
It seems to be a slightly flawed logic because he was drafted the same year as Vandermeer, West, B.Smith and Gardner.

To me, if a player has been in the system for 4 years how many games he has played is somewhat secondary. Khamis and Baker are not lacking experience.

[SonofScray]

It really shows our issues with recruiting/ retaining players for whatever reason who should be in that cool calm and collected 100-150 range of AFL games.

I had a brief chat with some football department folk a few years ago, and noticed the same theme emerge in a discussion with a high level national coach at he rink recently.

Getting players through to that 150 game mark is paramount to cashing in on their development, additionally, bringing a bulk of players through with the continuity that they’ve played roughly that amount of games together seems to be an indicator or high success.

Wonder what our average games played together as a squad looks like across this season so far.

[comrade]

One thing I continue to learn is to never trust the bloody models. For the most part, our overall ratings have gone up despite losing.

[jeemak]

To me, if a player has been in the system for 4 years how many games he has played is somewhat secondary. Khamis and Baker are not lacking experience.

Players don't start their careers at the same level of preparedness. Some also come into the system as one type of player and have to learn to be another type.

Games played absolutely counts as a major indicator of how experienced a player is and how they should be expected to perform. Particularly given past performance is usually a pretty good indicator of what future performance might look like, so if you have fewer games over a period of time as a sample size you'll have fewer indications of what to expect. You can only coach so much into players, experience counts for a lot.

[GVGjr]

Players don't start their careers at the same level of preparedness. Some also come into the system as one type of player and have to learn to be another type.

Games played absolutely counts as a major indicator of how experienced a player is and how they should be expected to perform. Particularly given past performance is usually a pretty good indicator of what future performance might look like, so if you have fewer games over a period of time as a sample size you'll have fewer indications of what to expect. You can only coach so much into players, experience counts for a lot.

I don't agree, the 50 game milestone is just a number to consider and it isn't really an indicator of experience.
Gardner is on 53 games and at his 2nd club and I wouldn't count him as inexperienced if he was on 48 games.
The same appliers to Baker who's on 43 games and at his 2nd club. I'm not cutting him any slack if he performs somewhat poorly in a game and then writing it off as him being inexperienced.
The same applies to Khamis who's clearly not on his P Plates.
Sure the likes of Sanders and Freijah can be given some allowance because they're new players but counting Baker as inexperienced given he has been in the system for 8 years and is 26yo seems a lazy piece of analysis.

[Bulldog Joe]

One thing I continue to learn is to never trust the bloody models. For the most part, our overall ratings have gone up despite losing.

The models do suggest we should have won this game and I certainly believe that.

There were 2 major factors contributing to the loss.

1. An unusually high turnover count that Geelong scored more heavily from than is expected. Yes that is on us but our change after half time showed that we are capable of adjustments.

2. Failure to convert opportunities which is again on us, but we were very close and 5 posters is apparently the second most in a game for the year. If 3 of those were goals we win without considering the impact of our other misses.