Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Recent Posts
2
Ladies Lounge / Re: AFLW 2025 Season
Last post by Blue Moon -
I have been travelling around New Zealand over the past few weeks so I missed the PF against Brisbane. The thing about NZ is that they seem to have 100 TV Channels and none of them having anything worth watching. However I did get to catch a replay of the PF and it confirms what I thought was going to happen. Our girls had played in WA on a five day break, two finals and then played Brisbane up in Queensland. The team definitely ran out of energy. I think we would gave done better against Melbourne simply for the fact that we would not have had to travel.
Since 1995, there has been four occasions where Carlton appeared to be on verge of Premiership success, 1999-2001, 2010-13, 2020-21 for the AFLW side and 2021-23, and each time we have stuffed it up by believing it was going to happen bu osmosis and not by improving the playing squad, which lead to chaos around the Coach and within the administration. Once again we are now on the verge of success with our AFLW team and it is really important that we bring in players that will strengthen the squad and that we do not lose players that lead to the squad being weakened. The lack of depth really hurt us in the end and probably cost us against Sydney and St Kilda. We need to be in the top two next year.
Next season Darcy Vescio and Breann Harrington should both play their 100th games which will be great for the Club. From a team perspective however, you would want both of them to be really fighting for their spots in the side because the team has improved.
Three years ago the Club devised a plan for our AFLW team and they have basically stuck to it. The lesson is that unless you stick to a plan there is no way you will know as to whether the plan will work or not. Sticking to a plan has not been the strength of Carlton over the past thirty years.
3
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat
Last post by kruddler -
Quote from: Thryleon – on
Quote from: kruddler – on


List age. Not team age.

Key word you skipped over 'RELATIVE'.

Every single team gets younger every single year.
What is important is how they compare against the other teams.

You are forced to bring in kids, which will always make you younger, more kids = younger still.
Always cuts come from players older than the kids you bring in, so every year you can't help but get younger.

Contrary to (seemingly) popular opinion, if we are doing a rebuild, we are doing a poor job of it as we are not refreshing the list nearly enough. A point i raised with you with outgoings vs incomings previously, i think in this very thread.

At the end of the day, talent out > talent in.
You can paint that as a rejuvination of younger talent, but the above numbers suggest thats a little white lie.

We can all cross our fingers that our talent comes on as expected (or better) but there is far from any guarantees of that. Until that can be more certain, i will remain highly sceptical of our recruiters and their ability to (re)build a list.

Nope didnt miss it, but that term "relative" is a bit of a misnomer when you dont account for the spread.

Theres lies, damn lies, then statistics without context.

So if our average didnt change after a year, what does that mean?

Also if we are older relative to the rest of the comp, what does that mean?

Finally, when we add our next player (via train on or other) if its elijah hollands, who WAS included last year, we will get younger again no?

Additionally, given we have concentrated on fleshing out the list with younger rather than mature ages, instead of topping up a prelim side, what does this argument do to yours?

You realise i didn't write the article right?

You were the one who said we were doing what we were doing to make the list younger. Do you still stand by that?
Have we actually achieved that in any meaningful way? Or are you going to be pedantic in the way that everyone gets younger year on year??
Like adding Elijah Hollands back will change our average list age from 24.9years of age to 24.87 years of age. Remarkable. Give the list management team a raise!!

For the record, incoming players....
4 players were younger than 24.9.
4 players were older than 24.9.

Lucky we are fleshing out our list with younger talent.....right?

4
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat
Last post by Thryleon -
Furthermore let me point to this one:

Quote
Draft. Picture: AFL Photos
Freo
Average age: 24.3 (equal 10th oldest)
Average games: 67.2 (13th most experienced)
Most games: Jaeger O'Meara (200)
Players with 100-plus games: 14
Players with less than 50 games: 19

We are .6 years older yes or no?

How alarming....
6
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat
Last post by Thryleon -
Quote from: kruddler – on
Quote from: Thryleon – on


Im neither here nor there on numbers but tell us how an average age of a team staying the same whilst most of them aged a year is a list getting older?  By my reckoning thats a year older but an identical result which can only be achieved by getting younger.

Also you might want to revisit what the side at opening round was measured on.  If it was names picked in the side vs players on the list then that might change that equation considerably too.

List age. Not team age.

Key word you skipped over 'RELATIVE'.

Every single team gets younger every single year.
What is important is how they compare against the other teams.

You are forced to bring in kids, which will always make you younger, more kids = younger still.
Always cuts come from players older than the kids you bring in, so every year you can't help but get younger.

Contrary to (seemingly) popular opinion, if we are doing a rebuild, we are doing a poor job of it as we are not refreshing the list nearly enough. A point i raised with you with outgoings vs incomings previously, i think in this very thread.

At the end of the day, talent out > talent in.
You can paint that as a rejuvination of younger talent, but the above numbers suggest thats a little white lie.

We can all cross our fingers that our talent comes on as expected (or better) but there is far from any guarantees of that. Until that can be more certain, i will remain highly sceptical of our recruiters and their ability to (re)build a list.

Nope didnt miss it, but that term "relative" is a bit of a misnomer when you dont account for the spread.

Theres lies, damn lies, then statistics without context.

So if our average didnt change after a year, what does that mean?

Also if we are older relative to the rest of the comp, what does that mean?

Finally, when we add our next player (via train on or other) if its elijah hollands, who WAS included last year, we will get younger again no?

Additionally, given we have concentrated on fleshing out the list with younger rather than mature ages, instead of topping up a prelim side, what does this argument do to yours?


8
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat
Last post by kruddler -
Quote from: Thryleon – on
Quote from: kruddler – on


https://www.afl.com.au/news/1457509/list-analysis-where-your-club-ranks-for-age-and-experience


As i suspected, we have actually got older, relatively speaking, in this current off-season AND we've lost a-grade talent.

Why people are fawning over our list management team i still cannot comprehend.


Im neither here nor there on numbers but tell us how an average age of a team staying the same whilst most of them aged a year is a list getting older?  By my reckoning thats a year older but an identical result which can only be achieved by getting younger.

Also you might want to revisit what the side at opening round was measured on.  If it was names picked in the side vs players on the list then that might change that equation considerably too.

List age. Not team age.

Key word you skipped over 'RELATIVE'.

Every single team gets younger every single year.
What is important is how they compare against the other teams.

You are forced to bring in kids, which will always make you younger, more kids = younger still.
Always cuts come from players older than the kids you bring in, so every year you can't help but get younger.

Contrary to (seemingly) popular opinion, if we are doing a rebuild, we are doing a poor job of it as we are not refreshing the list nearly enough. A point i raised with you with outgoings vs incomings previously, i think in this very thread.

At the end of the day, talent out > talent in.
You can paint that as a rejuvination of younger talent, but the above numbers suggest thats a little white lie.

We can all cross our fingers that our talent comes on as expected (or better) but there is far from any guarantees of that. Until that can be more certain, i will remain highly sceptical of our recruiters and their ability to (re)build a list.
10
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat
Last post by Thryleon -
Quote from: kruddler – on
Quote from: Thryleon – on
My contention is that we prioritised bringing in young talent in order to pass the proverbial baton from the older guard that might have won us something, in an effort to build a younger layer to the team and prevent us from bottoming out.  That group will come good about the time tassie joins (or not).

It puts our recruiting in a different perspective and thats all im aiming for.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/1457509/list-analysis-where-your-club-ranks-for-age-and-experience
Quote
RANKING FOR 2026...
Average age: 24.9 (sixth oldest)
Average games: 79.3 (fifth most experienced)
Most games: Nick Haynes (234)
Players with 100-plus games: 15
Players with less than 50 games: 22

        Average age of list at Opening Round, 2026   Ranking at OR, 2025
1   Collingwood   25.6   Oldest
2   Melbourne   25.4   Equal fifth oldest
=3   Brisbane   25.3   Second oldest
=3   Geelong   25.3   Fourth oldest
5   Sydney   25   Equal fifth oldest
6   Carlton   24.9   Eighth oldest
7   Western Bulldogs   24.8   Third oldest
8   Adelaide   24.7   Seventh oldest
9   Port Adelaide   24.4   12th oldest
=10   Fremantle   24.3   11th oldest
=10   Greater Western Sydney   24.3   13th oldest
=10   Hawthorn   24.3   10th oldest
13   St Kilda   24.2   Equal 14th oldest
=14   Gold Coast   24.1   Ninth oldest
=14   North Melbourne   24.1   18th oldest
16   Richmond   23.8   16th oldest
17   Essendon   23.6   Equal 14th oldest
18   West Coast   23.5   17th oldest

As i suspected, we have actually got older, relatively speaking, in this current off-season AND we've lost a-grade talent.

Why people are fawning over our list management team i still cannot comprehend.


Im neither here nor there on numbers but tell us how an average age of a team staying the same whilst most of them aged a year is a list getting older?  By my reckoning thats a year older but an identical result which can only be achieved by getting younger.

Also you might want to revisit what the side at opening round was measured on.  If it was names picked in the side vs players on the list then that might change that equation considerably too.