Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: List Building - More than one way to skin a cat (Read 8159 times) previous topic - next topic
ElwoodBlues1 and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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

Reply #165 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
Quote from: Thryleon – on
Yep.  We have maintained our average age in a year which means we got younger.  Collingwood got younger too.  They've drafted in young players and let go of old players.  They're still at the pointy end and the spread between 6th and 10th is .6 years. 


Now consider something what point are you trying to achieve?

Forgive me for not being happy with 'not' getting younger but getting rid of a-grade talent, wrecking a prelim side in the process.

What would i want to achieve? Anything but that.
I've made it quite clear what i would do.

What i' trying to work out, is why the above strategy is fooling every man and his dog and we're giving kudos for it in the process.
This little black duck ain't falling for it.
but we did get younger.  Had to have else our average age should or would have lifted.

Assuming this is how its calculated.  You take the total of age of all players and divide it by the number of players on the list.  So using your numbers we have had 10 to 12 leave.  Out of 46 that means the other 34 to 36 players added a year.  Then we added back the number of players we delisted and ended up at an identical average.  So the net result is despite the majority aging, we as a list have had to have gotten younger to tread water here. 

Thing is WHEN you do this is important too, because not all of our players have had their birthday post October 31st yet so maybe we are older and the birthdays havent happened yet.

For the record by the way if you take our average of 24.9, then multiply this by 46 (number of listed players) you end up with a total of about 1145.  If you add 35 years to this total, and then repeat the division across 46, your total age ends up 25.66. 

Thing is we have a vacancy currently to end up with 24.9.  Ultimately, will white or hollands will add 21 or 23 years to the total and give you a lower average.  So we will be younger even if we add hollands back.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

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

Reply #166 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
Quote from: LP – on
The importance of "the average age" is vastly over-stated.

You could average 25, then retire a broken 30 for a prime 26, replace a dud 20 with a 75 game 24 and the average would still be 25. None of which considers quality at all.

Yep....and you could retire and trade a-grade talent, get in some 2nd rate c-grader and b-graders and call it upgrading your list under the guise of getting younger.

That's changing the focus again....you've moved away from the age debate to the talent debate

Average age is pretty meaningless when you're talking in averages only a year or two different.

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

Reply #167 –
Quote from: Lods – on
Quote from: kruddler – on


Yep....and you could retire and trade a-grade talent, get in some 2nd rate c-grader and b-graders and call it upgrading your list under the guise of getting younger.

That's changing the focus again....you've moved away from the age debate to the talent debate

Average age is pretty meaningless when you're talking in averages only a year or two different.
No its going back to the original point.
Our list got weaker.

The opposition to this justify this by saying we got younger as we were too old.
I'm pointing out relative to the opposition, we got older.
The players we recruited, half of them were older than our average age.
That flies in the face of the arguement that we are rebuilding/rejuvinating and getting younger.
THIS was the justification for destroying our prelim list and the reason we are nosediving.

I'm calling BS on the rejuvination of the list as a viable strategy given we've barely moved the age needle, and done so less than most who are not doing the same thing.

All this falls back to the same question which i can't get a straight answer on.

WHY does everyone have so much faith in the current list management team?
The reasons i've had so far are contradictory at worst, and weak at best.

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

Reply #168 –
Simple answer.

Firstly, age to me is irrelevant, other than we have a good group of 23 and under.

Most important factor is that Graham Wright, a man who has built premiership sides, and has more list management experience in his little finger than any of us have in our whole bodies, has (for the time being) backed the list management team, and appears comfortable with the recruiting direction the club is taking.

Now it's quite possible, though it would be a bit of a stretch, that Wright kept the List management team on board this year because it may have been a bit late to change them and really no time for a new recruiter to get their head around things.
If that were the case we would no doubt see a change early in the New Year...in which case I may be a bit concerned.

Basically, if these guys with all their experience are happy, then I'm happy and optimistic.
I see next year as holding the line and assessing the needs.
I don't think we'll go backwards and expect a finish somewhere in the wild card group
And then some big recruiting moves prior to the entry of Tasmania...cashed up with cap space and a sound group of players to build on.

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

Reply #169 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
Quote from: Lods – on


That's changing the focus again....you've moved away from the age debate to the talent debate

Average age is pretty meaningless when you're talking in averages only a year or two different.
No its going back to the original point.
Our list got weaker.

The opposition to this justify this by saying we got younger as we were too old.
I'm pointing out relative to the opposition, we got older.
The players we recruited, half of them were older than our average age.
That flies in the face of the arguement that we are rebuilding/rejuvinating and getting younger.
THIS was the justification for destroying our prelim list and the reason we are nosediving.

I'm calling BS on the rejuvination of the list as a viable strategy given we've barely moved the age needle, and done so less than most who are not doing the same thing.

All this falls back to the same question which i can't get a straight answer on.

WHY does everyone have so much faith in the current list management team?
The reasons i've had so far are contradictory at worst, and weak at best.
As you know I agree with you regarding the list management or lack of..
The argument from the opposing opinions is that the new players as a collective combined with what we have already will be better able to execute the new improved gamestyle which includes better delivery, more variety of forward options and better quicker ball movement.
Sounds great in theory  until you figure out that most of the work will still be done by the same players with the same deficiencies and that the players we recruited won't be the quality prime movers required to initiate the changes required.

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

Reply #170 –
I have faith in the list management team because I don’t believe that an outdated, formulaic approach to building a list is the way to go.

And I’d still like to know who the A-graders are that we lost 🤔
"Negative waves are not helpful. Try saying something righteous and hopeful instead." Oddball

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

Reply #171 –
Quote from: ElwoodBlues1 – on
Quote from: kruddler – on

No its going back to the original point.
Our list got weaker.

The opposition to this justify this by saying we got younger as we were too old.
I'm pointing out relative to the opposition, we got older.
The players we recruited, half of them were older than our average age.
That flies in the face of the arguement that we are rebuilding/rejuvinating and getting younger.
THIS was the justification for destroying our prelim list and the reason we are nosediving.

I'm calling BS on the rejuvination of the list as a viable strategy given we've barely moved the age needle, and done so less than most who are not doing the same thing.

All this falls back to the same question which i can't get a straight answer on.

WHY does everyone have so much faith in the current list management team?
The reasons i've had so far are contradictory at worst, and weak at best.
As you know I agree with you regarding the list management or lack of..
The argument from the opposing opinions is that the new players as a collective combined with what we have already will be better able to execute the new improved gamestyle which includes better delivery, more variety of forward options and better quicker ball movement.
Sounds great in theory  until you figure out that most of the work will still be done by the same players with the same deficiencies and that the players we recruited won't be the quality prime movers required to initiate the changes required.

But that’s just your rather jaundiced opinion EB.

The players we lost had minimal positive impact on our 2025 fortunes and the players we traded in are a hell of a lot better than you’re willing to admit.  Then there’s a likely generational CHB, a very highly rated “tweener” forward, and a hard nut midfielder who nails his targets.
"Negative waves are not helpful. Try saying something righteous and hopeful instead." Oddball

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

Reply #172 –
Quote from: DJC – on
I have faith in the list management team because I don’t believe that an outdated, formulaic approach to building a list is the way to go.

And I’d still like to know who the A-graders are that we lost 🤔

Outdated you say? Sydney have been one of the best performed teams since the vfl turned into the afl. They felt the need to get an a-grade talent through the door. At the same time, let go a few b and c graders in the process.
What makes you think our list management team are smarter than Sydney's?
Since most of the excitement is around the guys we got from them and they poached a guy we wanted to keep, how the hell can you congratulate our guys and chastise the swans using an 'outdated' list management approach? Seriously??
... and before you answer go have a look at the trade thread and get peoples thoughts on the guys we ended up getting BEFORE the trade went through. Did anyone rate them compared to Charlie??

If i havn't made it obvious enough that Charlie is an a grade talent, Docherty is worth mentioning while we are at it. TDK has the ability to be a-grade, some may say he is already (in not one of them). It's clear the guys we got in have not had better careers than them though.