Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat (Read 7548 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat

Reply #150 –
Quote from: DJC – on
Quote from: kruddler – on

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.

There's some dodgy figures there!

According to an AFL article by Cal Twomey in June 2025, the average age per team in 2025 was:

Talk about dodgy data indeed. From your own article, perhaps you should read it next time.....
https://www.afl.com.au/news/1341020/young-fremantle-side-rising-collingwood-lead-the-way-the-oldest-and-youngest-teams-of-2025-revealed
Quote
AFL.com.au's data shows that the Dockers, who will be vying for a top four berth if they can beat North Melbourne this week, were ranked 18th for age and experience on average for the 23-man team they selected between rounds 1-12.

Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat

Reply #151 –
If Scott Pendlebury retires Collingwoods average age will drop to around 19 :D

Average age is meaningless when you're talking the difference between average 24-26.
A few oldies can skew the figures.
Judge youth by the potential of your age 23 and under group.
I reckon we stack up OK

Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat

Reply #152 –
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. 
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat

Reply #153 –
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.

Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat

Reply #154 –
So far we've lost a calf, a groin and a dicky knee. :D

Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat

Reply #155 –
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?


"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson
 

Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat

Reply #156 –
From kruddlers article:

The past three premiers have been ranked in the top six for both age and experience heading into the season they won the flag.

Collingwood, Melbourne, Brisbane, Geelong, Sydney and Carlton are top six in both categories heading into 2026.

"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat

Reply #157 –
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....
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat

Reply #158 –
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?