When do we stop being a "young" team?

[Dry Rot]

For a few years now, we've been described as a young team, with prominent early draft picks and the number of Murphy draft year players etc. More recently, injuries have propelled young players forward.

Is this still a fair description? With one of the best sets of veteran players and the Murphy era players hitting their mid twenties are we a "young" team anymore?

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Re: When do we stop being a "young" team?

I think we are, but not for much longer.

The Murphy era is coming into its own this year, but below that they're still kids.

I'd think after 2007, we wouldn't be labelled young pups. Rather, we'd be look upon as a maturing side that needs to begin challenging. Somewhat like The Saints of 04/05. I think our 07/08 will be "aged" like that.

[LostDoggy]

Re: When do we stop being a "young" team?

Simply speaking we should no longer be classed as a young team.

1) Our veterans are still playing good football and not many teams can boast the level of experience and games that the likes of Smith (ret) Johnson, Grant, West and Darcy offer. On top of that we have Eagleton, Montgomery and Robbins who are very experienced players. Eagleton and Robbins are not showing signs that their skills or value are on the decline and Monty if used correctly can still be a viable option for us.

2) The class of the 99 draft has gained significant experience. Murphy, Giansiracusa, Hahn, Gilbee and Hargrave have all gained considerable experience and the coach has faith that these guys will deliver week in and week out.

3) We then have the guys selected and traded for from 2000 and beyond in McMahon, Cross, Harris, Power, Minson, Street, Cooney, Ray and Griffen. Not a huge amount of senior games in this group but they are very much regular players that the coach can rely on. There is also Morris who is more experienced and mature than his game record would indicate.

Overall I think we have passed the 'young team' tag and should now be classed as a team entering it's prime. There is no room for excuses now and we need to deliver the results.

Just as a gauge, the Cats started their rebuild phase two seasons before the Dogs and I think we have well and truly passed them. It was interesting to read today that the Cats have focused on their players slimming down and shedding a few KG over the summer months. This might sound arrogant but I think they are trying to emulate our running game such was the impact. The fact that the players adapted to the game plan shows that they have the maturity.

I can no longer offer up the excuse that we are still a young team.

[Dry Rot]

Re: When do we stop being a "young" team?

Overall I think we have passed the 'young team' tag and should now be classed as a team entering it's prime. There is no room for excuses now and we need to deliver the results.

Agreed, indeed it raises the question about premiership windows while we still have our quality vets on the park - we can expect one or two to retire now for the next three seasons.

[Dry Rot]

Re: When do we stop being a "young" team?

Maybe this answers the question:


AFL Squads Average AFL Games Played (prior to 2007 season)

Hawthorn – 48
Port Adelaide – 49
Carlton – 52
Geelong – 56
Brisbane – 57
Richmond – 58
Kangaroos – 61
West Coast – 62
Collingwood – 68
Sydney – 68
Adelaide – 70
Essendon – 71
Melbourne – 73
St Kilda – 73
Western Bulldogs – 73
Fremantle – 76


AFL Squads Average Age (at 30 March 2007)

Hawthorn – 22 years, 82 days
Carlton – 22 years, 110 days
Port Adelaide – 22 years, 132 days
Brisbane – 22 years, 173 days
West Coast – 22 years, 180 days
Richmond – 22 years, 298 days
Kangaroos – 22 years, 326 days
Geelong – 22 years, 327 days
Collingwood – 23 years, 0 days
Sydney – 23 years, 61 days
Essendon – 23 years, 98 days
Western Bulldogs – 23 years, 166 days
Melbourne – 23 years, 219 days
St Kilda – 23 years, 299 days
Fremantle – 24 years, 39 days
Adelaide – 24 years, 126 days

- Source: AFL Record Guide to Season 2007

http://portadelaidefc.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=313310

[GVGjr]

Re: When do we stop being a "young" team?

Agreed, indeed it raises the question about premiership windows while we still have our quality vets on the park - we can expect one or two to retire now for the next three seasons.

Not sure how big the window is but the next two years are vital for us.

[Go_Dogs]

Re: When do we stop being a "young" team?

The averages thing is ok - but having a few really old guys can offset that quite a bit, such as Granty, Westy, Johnno, Darcy etc... all being a bit older and having played a lot of games pushing our average up.

Cooney is going to be playing his fourth year though, Murphy about his 6th or 7th?? So generally I would say that we are no longer really holding that young team tag, and we really have to start putting the results on the board.

[alwaysadog]

Re: When do we stop being a "young" team?

Macca 23 you're no dill. These averages mean little when the range is so small. A few older players very easily skew them. Have a look at the mean and you will get a very different idea, not that it is a reliable measure either but it will tell a different story. Neither mean too much.

The world seems to be hooked being average when we are hoping to excel. Let's ignore overly simple statistical devices, popular as they are.

[alwaysadog]

Re: When do we stop being a "young" team?

Here's the player ages


Now because the range is so narrow 17 - 34 years the mid point is virtually the same.

On the other hand if we examine the games played



We get a different picture. The average is 73 games but the mid point point on the scale, player 22 has played only 41 games. So what does that mean. Half the list has played 41 games or less and half has played more. If we take the average then 15 have played more and 27 have played less, a completely different picture. Or as DR said elsewhere quite recently, there's lies, damned lies and statistics. Or perhaps the facts only get in the way of a good argument.

[Go_Dogs]

Re: When do we stop being a "young" team?

Interesting statistical analysis. I think that's a very good representation of how well balance our list is at the moment too. We have 22 players who are all reasonably experience, some have played a couple of seasons at least, whilst others are veterans. We then have a good group beneath it, that are a bit younger and still developing.

That said, you would imagine that the majority of teams would be quite similar at any given time - having a few different tiers of players in different age brackets. Especially around this time when the drafts have just been done and a lot of young players selected.

I would tend to think that we are about average I guess. We are a bit odd though for the fact that we have a core group of old players who have all played so many games. Last year we had three 300 game players in a team, that had to be some sort of record! But we do have a good, even spread of talent from guys aged about 25 down, so it's a good mix.

[GVGjr]

Re: When do we stop being a "young" team?

We do have a well balanced list however, the quality of the talls is the big question mark.

[Bornadog]

Re: When do we stop being a "young" team?

We do have a well balanced list however, the quality of the talls is the big question mark.

Yes we haven't developed the talls to the extent we have developed the mid field, but they say the big guys take longer to mature.

[Dry Rot]

Re: When do we stop being a "young" team?

Yes we haven't developed the talls to the extent we have developed the mid field, but they say the big guys take longer to mature.

Brings us back to the old question of how good are the young ones we have?

Harris has proven himself, Wight looks promising. Most have written off walsh and Skipper, while no-one really knows what Williams will be like. Everitt will take a few years.

[Bornadog]

Re: When do we stop being a "young" team?

Brings us back to the old question of how good are the young ones we have?

Harris has proven himself, Wight looks promising. Most have written off walsh and Skipper, while no-one really knows what Williams will be like. Everitt will take a few years.

The way I look at it, the mid field young gunns are in the above average category compared to all players in the AFL and some have potential to be in the elite class. (Cooney, Griffen, Ray etc). The talls are in the average to below category and I am not sure if any will actually make the elite. Wight has potential, Harris was a little dissapointing last year and really needs to go up a few notches this year. Minson has great enthusiasm, but needs to be a lot fitter at the elite level. Others are unknown at this stage, ie Williams, Walsh etc.

[Dry Rot]

Re: When do we stop being a "young" team?

Worth bumping this with Williams, Addison, Harbrow, Lynch and Higgins in the side?