Panthers look to youth for success

[Wedgie]

Saw your reply after posting, Wedgie.

Perhaps we could ask blueandwhite to calculate who was the oldest team?

Over to you, blueandwhite.

Wasn't having a go at your r&b, merely pointing out to doggies why b&w made the post.

I think we did something similar last year and it appeared the 5 oldest clubs were all in the top 5 by memory.
I haven't these sort of stats on me but North and Central would have to be close to the oldest?
Perhaps followed by Sturt, Eagles and Port?

I'm guessing the Bays will have a pretty young team in 2006.

From memory at North Wintle will be turning 30 this year, Hargs has just turned 30, Bamfords turning 31 this year, I think Cox is about 28 and Howard's about 30?
Close to the rest would be just about under 25. Seems to be not many at North around the 27, 28 mark.

[blueandwhite]

Interesting that the figures I have with regard to experience more or less are a mirror image of last seasons premiership table at the end of the minor round.Except that south are below west and the bays. The teams with more experience on the ground are to be found at the top of the premiership table. So to ask a question objectively, why do we place so much emphasis on juniors when experience seems to be the successful formula?

[blueandwhite]

The oldest team in the sanfl last yr was centrals ,12 players over 27, sturt 11, eagles and norwood 7, north and west 6, port 8, glenelg 6, south 4.
100+ games, central 8, sturt 8, eagles 7, norwood 8, north 5, west 3, port 4, glenelg 3, south 2.
average age, centrals 26, sturt 25, eagles,norwood, north, west, port, glenelg 24, south 23.
average games played,central 77, sturt 70, eagles and norwood 64, north 58, west 56, port 44, glenelg 41, south 40.

[Wedgie]

Interesting stats.
North and West matched up pretty closesly everywhere except on the ladder!
Do you have stats on how many players each club had play league.
Off hand I think North had 37 that played league footy last year.

[doggies4eva]

OK, so I'll come at it from another tack - why do the successful teams have an average age higher than the non-successful?

Maybe because their players stay around longer? It is rare to recruit players who are 27+ - ie Cupido is 23 - to bring the average up. So you either need to have a good junior program where the juniors are loyal to the club and hang around (or do the AFL stint and return) or the recruits you pick need to be prepared to play out the rest of their career with your club. Cupido's statement that he doesn't plan to hang around for long is indicative of the attitude of a player of dubious value in rebuilding a club with some experience to bolster the youth program.

[Wedgie]

OK, so I'll come at it from another tack - why do the successful teams have an average age higher than the non-successful?

Maybe because their players stay around longer? It is rare to recruit players who are 27+ - ie Cupido is 23 - to bring the average up. So you either need to have a good junior program where the juniors are loyal to the club and hang around (or do the AFL stint and return) or the recruits you pick need to be prepared to play out the rest of their career with your club. Cupido's statement that he doesn't plan to hang around for long is indicative of the attitude of a player of dubious value in rebuilding a club with some experience to bolster the youth program.

Most players are at their peak around 26-28 IMHO, bigger bodies, more experience, etc.

[doggies4eva]

OK, so I'll come at it from another tack - why do the successful teams have an average age higher than the non-successful?

Maybe because their players stay around longer? It is rare to recruit players who are 27+ - ie Cupido is 23 - to bring the average up. So you either need to have a good junior program where the juniors are loyal to the club and hang around (or do the AFL stint and return) or the recruits you pick need to be prepared to play out the rest of their career with your club. Cupido's statement that he doesn't plan to hang around for long is indicative of the attitude of a player of dubious value in rebuilding a club with some experience to bolster the youth program.

Most players are at their peak around 26-28 IMHO, bigger bodies, more experience, etc.

I agree - in most sports athletes peak around 26 or 27 in terms of physical ability (there is plenty of research to back this up). The decline in physical ability can be balanced by "experience" or a "football brain" in some cases.

[redandblack]

blueandwhite, you're doing a good job with the figures, but which player lists are you using?

Did all the players on your list play league?

Was this the list at the start of the year?

You say West had 6 players over 27. I'd think most of them had retired or left by the end of the year. I would have thought Murray Hamblin would be our oldest player after you took out players such as Luke Norman, Ben Marsh, Dean Howard, Dion Myles, etc.

I will guarantee you that by the end of the year, West's league team average age was under 22.

Your figures have been interesting, good stuff.

[blueandwhite]

Yes R&B I agree westies figures may be a little misleading with the departure of a brace of senior players mid-season therefore at seasons end you may have had a much younger group on the park. Interestingly enough I've gathered the figures from the safc annual report, in particular Pymans report, so while the figures are interesting there may be a little license re:self preservation in them.

[redandblack]

Thanks, b&w.