Analyse This

[Ronny Rotten]

After settling down & seeing other sides questionable performances over the weekend I thought to analyse our team . We have been quick to rubbish our guys, coaches & game plan, me included, but have a look at the following number of games played by the team prior to Friday, I have only identified those under 100 games.
*Colyer 1 Game
*Dempsey 33
Dyson 90
*Gumbleton 8
*Hocking 26
*Hooker 21
*Houli 22
*Hurley 10
*Lonergan 38
*Melksham 1
*Pears 31
*Reimers 29
Ryder 76
Slattery 76
Watson 97
Winderlich 78
*Zaharakis 13
* denotes under 50 games.
Thats a staggering 17 players with less than 100 games , with 12 of those playing less than 50 games. Of the possible replacements (Stanton & McVeigh) excepted & those yet to play a game, Daniher, Davey,Jetta,Laycock,Monfries,Myers,Neagle & Prismall have yet to play 100 games with only Monfries & Laycock of that lot to have played over 50 games.

It takes time & persistance to build up a solid team. I believe that most of the above have ability to become long term solid AFL players, some already are.
So a little patience maybe required here. When you have so much inexperience in the team you are bound to get inconsistency & errors of judgement.

I've been around following Essendon for some time , i saw us win the 65 Grand Final over the Aint's as a young boy, so i've seen a lot of trends over the years but one thing is common, to build up to be a regular finals contestant it takes time. For example ,our winning sides of the 80's started to come together in the late 70's. It took them 6 years to get there. Prior to 2001 the Brisbane Bears were the regular whipping boys of the AFL. Present day Geelong & the Aint's were very ordinary up to 3 - 4 years ago until their players started to gel as a team .

We have the ability, with guys such as Hurley, Pears, Gumbleton, Watson, Ryder etc we have a core group to build a successful team around. What we want now is the senior guys such as Welsh, McVeigh, Hille & Fletch to show the way.

[Rossoneri]

No arguement from me regarding that. As I have said, St Kilda and geelong have had this core since 1999-2001. However, they were playing in prelims in 04 and 05, then slipped for a couple of years before becoming the strong teams they are now.

As Robbie has pointed out, our recruiting, or lack of developement, from 1999-2006 was poor at best, especially the 1st round picks. I probably blame the lack of developement on our stratergies than our recruiting. Winderlich, Laycock, Monfries etc have talent, but it has taken them longer to come through. Why?

I think our only option is to bite the bullet, trade a couple of our higher end players and see what the GC will pay for them. With them having an abundance of picks, they may over-price some players e.g: Ordinarily, we may only get a low 1st round pick for Winderlich or high 2nd-rounder, but GC may go for a higher 1st round as he is a matured body. (Just an example, not saying we should trade him)

[Mrs Mercuri]

Geelong were considered an ordinary team only a few years back.... Steve Johnson, Jimmy Bartel and James Kelly were almost traded and Bomber was almost out of a coaching job...

How times change.

Once our young guys get more games under their belts and start playing together over the next few years we will see a dramatic improvement.

[Windy_Hill]

I dont think its the number of players with less than 100/50 games that is our problem. Its the complete lack of depth (maybe quality) amongst the 100 plus gamers.

We probably had 15 players in 1993 who had played less than 100 games yest we won a premiership. The difference being a group of very talented 100 plus gamers including Long, Bewick, Salmon, Harvey, Watson, Denham, Thompson and O'Donnell. This coupled with the youthful exuberance and undoubted talents of Misiti, Mercuri, Hird, Fletcher, Olarenshaw, Calthorpe, Hills made for an irresitable combination.

We lack this mix of experience 26-30 year olds to go with our 18-25's

Welsh, McVeigh, Hille, Fletcher, all good players, but there are just not enough of them.

[Ronny Rotten]

As Robbie has pointed out, our recruiting, or lack of developement, from 1999-2006 was poor at best, especially the 1st round picks. I probably blame the lack of developement on our stratergies than our recruiting. Winderlich, Laycock, Monfries etc have talent, but it has taken them longer to come through. Why

Therein lies our main problem now , if we had recruited young guys then instead of has beens , like Cupido , Allen , Murphy, Campo , etc they would now be at the 100 plus game stage now giving our current senior players more support in assisting the youngsters

[little_ripper]

All this is good and well, but where has the 2009 Essendon team which beat stkilda, collingwood, hawthorn gone?

How many goals did we lose when Lovett, Mcphee and the two L's left the club? Is that the difference between this year and last?

[Rossoneri]

All this is good and well, but where has the 2009 Essendon team which beat stkilda, collingwood, hawthorn gone?

How many goals did we lose when Lovett, Mcphee and the two L's left the club? Is that the difference between this year and last?

Unlikely.
Lucas was shit last year, never recovered from his knee injury at the start of 2008. McPhee was playing alot in defence and Lloyd would not have played the first three weeks of this year through suspension. Lovett is one we really miss but what could we do?

[saladin]

Very pertinent points, ronnie. Ok, I'll have a go at analysing it. Hey, here's one i prepared earlier . I posted the following on another forum over summer. We seem to have lost our way temporarily, but that's more to do with understanding systems and strategies than outright ability of the kids. I maintain the optimism of the following:


Lies, Damn Lies and statistics, 2010.

Some may recall that last year, two games into the season, I took a peak at our list and compared it to the league in terms of age and experience. What was revealed was that whilst we sat comfortably within the average level of the league, our age and experience was all held by the three champions in Lloyd, Lucas and Fletcher. The median (or “middle”) player on our list actually turned out to be the second most inexperienced median player in the comp, with only Melbourne slightly worse off. Basically, Melbourne aside, we were taking to the field with the greenest list in the comp. At the time, I viewed it as a positive because we could justifiably expect such a young group to improve, but did warn that we should expect fluctuating highs and lows. That the season panned out as it did was no real surprise given the demographic of the list.




Above: Stant's has been the one constant who we've managed to get games into. Youngest player in the comp to reach 100 games. He can get better too.


However, that article was also tagged as part 1 because I wanted to look further into where the age and games experience of the list actually lay in terms of the players being put on the field, and how quickly we could expect that to translate into consistent results. Because that seems to be the key , in my opinion, to the drive to our next flag. The potential of youth is enticing, but fleeting. Just ask Richmond. That I never got around to writing part 2 was slackness on my part, but the basic thoughts remained right through the year. Especially when watching Geelong push us aside with ease, or a robotic Adelaide running rampant in the last half of both games.

So, then, this new ramble can perhaps be best viewed as part 2 of last years, except that with new playing lists and new coaches the field has altered somewhat. So lets see if we can’t begin with some continuity from Part 1, shall we?

The Essendon figures, for those who missed it, at round 2 last year were as follows:

Average Games Played: 59.43
Average Age: 23.05
Median Games Played: 23.5
Median Age: 22.5

In other words, the middle player on our list was 22.5 years old with 23 games of experience. As noted, only Melbourne had a more inexperienced list.

Heading into 2010, the equivalent figures are now:

Average Games : 52.58
Average Age: 22.69
Median Games: 28
Median Age: 22

If you’re trying to interpret this, basically the middle player has now played an extra 5 games, but is younger again! The departures of Lucas and Lloyd are responsible of course, but so too is the Mcphee walk-out and Lovett trading. We have lost 4 of our eldest 7 players, though Williams comes in to offset one. But it’s not conclusive that this is a bad thing. In case you’re wondering, the equivalent Melbourne player is now 21 years old and has also played 28 games.

However, it struck me that a new factor needs to be looked at. The rookie list is not so subtly different this year. The mature age rookie has become part of the landscape, and despite this not really being part of the intent of part 2, I found myself looking at all the lists with all rookies included. For example, Melbourne now have Newton and Meeson as rookies, with the equivalent of a season of senior footy, and several preseasons, behind them. That this type of listing adds substantial depth to a club is not to be doubted. No longer are the rookies solely untried kids with unknown potential. So in order to establish a new base-line, I plodded through and found that our figures dropped to a median age of 21.5 years and 20.5 games. Melbourne dropped to 19 games, but stayed at 21 years old. Across the list there is virtually no difference between us and the Dee’s.



above: neagle or hooker best represent the median player for this year

But, and here’s the awkward bit, adding so many bottom end players produced some radical results for other sides. West Coast have a median experience figure of 18 games. North Melbourne, despite an identical median age to us, have played just 10 games! If the median figures ever meant anything – and at best they only provided a snapshot of where the balance point of a list lay – they are now somewhat meaningless because certain clubs can pull 30 games experience off the rookie list, and other clubs none. In our case, we have not much experience, but we’ve opted for older, physically developed candidates. Further complicating things is that some sides have just 45 players, whilst Hawthorn have 48!

So how to interpret such figures remains a difficult point for me. And does it really even matter? Probably not, other than to suggest what each coach has at his disposal if the depths of the list must be reached for. Which in many ways brings us to what was always going to be the thrust of Part 2. The thought I had whilst watching Geelong belt us around – “gee, these blokes are too big and too well-schooled” - seems even more pertinent. It is all about what you can actually put on the field week to week. What you have developing at the lower level is crucial for putting it all in place – and for keeping things rolling if injury strikes- , but obviously game day effectiveness wins the points. As a final point of interest, in terms of games played the bottom four averages are:

Essendon: 44.73
Melbourne: 43.65
North 43.00
Richmond 42.28

The bullies are top with 72 games.

Last year, AN10 made the very valid point that perhaps figures can only be truly representative if you take the 30 players likely to actually play, but the difficulty was in arbitrarily choosing the 30. Not many of us would have had Hooker playing so much footy. How best, then, to compare the effectiveness of the lists and see if it relates to real-world results? The general consensus is that players are in development for the first few seasons. Someone like Selwood obviously impacts immediately, but most do not and play bit-parts for the first 50 games or so. After this point, you expect solid – or better – AFL players to emerge. So a viewing of team lists and the number of players with 50 games or more experience is revealing. As it stands right now, Geelong have 20 players on the list with more than 50 games up. They can put a side on the field with just 2 players under this figure. The Saints are even “better” off, with an entire side of 24 being hardcore, experienced players if they so desire (though it’s looking likely that Lovett will not be available). These are staggering figures really, and the result of a concerted plan to find the talent and then let it develop in a stable environment concurrently. Collingwood, Footscray and Adelaide all have 18 or 19 players. The lists are all a bit different to last year, of course, but it seems unlikely to be coincidence that these sides filled the late finals spots. Adelaides physicality and size certainly stood out to me in the elimination final.




Above: winder is on his way to 100 games, but has been frequented with injury. He has improvement in him on two fronts, and has already demonstrated his effectiveness

Now, the really interesting thing for an impartial footy observer will be Brisbane. There is no doubt in my mind that Voss has watched the final two weeks of the last footy season and has embarked on an immediate plan to boost his sides development quickly. He’s admitted as much, but the focus seems to have been on experience as much as anything. They now have 21 players on the list at 50 or more games, but they better get it to work because they have the equal lowest number of players under 20 games in the comp. Vossy is coaching for the here and now. Less long-term potential players on the list and a restricted drafting period is a curious strategy.

But of course this is an Essendon themed analysis, and thus the main point of interest is in how we compare to the league, and the likely ramifications for us. North Melbourne look to be in trouble. They have just 13 players on that list with 50 games up. Next worse off is none other than the Essendon Football Club, with all of 14 players having run through their 50-games banner. Yep, you’ll most likely hear about the young and inexperienced lists at Richmond, West Coast, Freo and Melbourne, but they can all put at least two extra players on field who have passed our consensus driven reference point. We cannot possibly field a side with less than 8 players in their infancy. That’s more than 33%. On the face of it, it’s no wonder that Geelong can sweep us aside through sheer size and experience, and you’d think we are no better off than north.

Of course, ability also plays more than a small part! But “ability” in the AFL sense is an unusual term that is actually a composite of talent and experience with the gamestyles. And there-in lays a streak of real hope for us, in my opinion. We ran St Kilda (who the figures suggest we shouldn’t have been any better against than Geelong) close once, and knocked them over once, largely through the talent of the group. We made errors and our lack of size and experience showed at times, but the talent looked good and in fact stood up well. So is the missing ingredient merely time? Allowing talent to transform into “ability”? I believe it is, and I’d also suggest that it may not be that far off.




Above: now two preseasons after a reco, Pris showed more than enough last year. Another who will reach 50 games this year and almost certain to be hugely improved


For starters, of our 14 players, only 6 have reached 100 games. Geelong have 16, St Kilda 15. Those approaching the milestone are key’s in Jobe and Ryder, plus the ever promising Winderlich and Monfries. But even more enticing for us are those below 50. Injuries permitting, Prismall, Davey Lonergan and Dempsey will all have 50+ games to their credit this year, with substantial improvement expected from all for several reasons. Further back, Pears and Reimers will be right on the cusp, and Neagle, Hocking, Houli and Hooker approaching. Then, of course, there’s Hurley and Zaka who have shown more in 10 games than many of our players did from 2001-2005. The bottom line is, most of those names have already played some key moments and contributed to some big wins in a year where little of the load was borne by Lloyd and Lucas.



Above: Ricky took more than 50 games to find his feet and believe in himself, and is perfectly illustrative of how we need to give most kids time to become what we need


Of all clubs who must choose to fill their side with large amounts of inexperience, my genuine belief is that none choose from a more promising crop with 2012 in mind.

I will play it conservatively and say that our moment will arrive when Hurley and Zaharakis have reached 50 games. Say two years from now, heading into the third. At that point, Mcveigh, Welsh and Hille will have 200+ games to their name, Stanton 180+, Watson, Dyson, Monfries, Lovett-murray and Ryder well over 100 and a whole swag of young tyro’s between 70 and 100. With the muscle and endurance that goes with it. Plus it gives a chance for Melksham and the like to find their feet, and who knows what Gumbleton may be by then? It’s a great balance to the likely side.



Above: 19 years old, less than 30 games, built like a brick and a presence about him. With a first full preseason, who wants to bet that he won't be substantially better?

But I have a sneaky suspicion that my conservatism may be off the mark. We could easily do something much earlier than that, because so many of the emerging key players are young and have already shown an ability to carry the notionally more senior players. And I see absolutely no reason for the doom and gloom merchants who think we’ll be worse this year. Lucas was gone, Lloyd reduced effectiveness with little impact (Sewells cheek may beg to differ!), Mcphee erratic, Lovett explosive but unreliable. Nothing in that counter-acts the improvement that the increasing experience and fitness will grant across the list. The list management recently has been spot-on in terms of building towards a hard-core group who will reach a peak together. In addition, we’ve managed to still have one of the higher numbers of players with less than 20 games to their name in the league, which helps to future-proof the list through the expansion period. Look at what the current top sides have, and then look at what we are trying to do. We’re building towards a similar demographic, but if anything with a more dynamic game style. Fascinating, enticing and utterly exciting.



Above: just 10 games in, but the signs have been exceptional. Hurley with 50 games to his name is mouth-watering

Yes, figures are funny things. They can be made to support almost any pre-held position. But I feel perfectly confident in saying that you can rest assured, we’ll be better this year. All indications, both statistically and rationally, suggest so. Even allowing for some second-year blues to hit a few. It’s just a question of how much.

I cannot wait.

[uptick]

Thank you very much for such an indepth study. I was had it in my head that the Weagles ave number of games played was very close to ours and also ave age of list similar to ours, like you I value median data when talking stats, but don't have it for them. Ponit being that there are a number of similiarly youthful sides, in the league, and it shites me when they beat us, and we use, our youth as an excuse for getting done. I get over it I guess , but seing our fans respond this week, like Caaaaaaaaaaaaarlton fans did last week, then those cocks belt the crows this week, is very depressing, but I digress.

[Ronny Rotten]

Great in depth analysis, Saladin

[Windy_Hill]

Professor Saladin - I salute you Sir =D>

[Sismis]

Saladin you are a freakin marvel! I admit that watching the WC at times i felt myself slipping into the melancholy which seems to have gripped this forum. This has completely renewed my faith in where we are going!

=D>

[Brumaz]

That was without doubt the best post I have seen on this site. Good work.

[pevfan]

Well done Saladin and just to reinforce all the points that you made I found myself encouraged by tonights Chooseday game on Fox sports.

It was a replay of a Cats v Port game played at Skilled stadium in 2003. Playing in that side for the Cats were Ling, Bartel, Ablett, Scarlett, Enright, Chapman, Corey, Milburn, Harley, Johnson, Wojinski all from their 07 and 09 flag sides (cept for Wojo in 07 I think he might have just missed out that day) and Stephen King their captain in 03 who played in the 07 side. In other words basically the nucleus of their current great side (minus Harley and King now). It was the 14th round of the season and you know how many wins the Pussies had had up to then.... a big fat 3. That's right 3 wins outa 14 and they were sitting in second last spot on the ladder.

Makes you wonder just a little bit doesn't it...so Saladin I think you may have a point or two there.

[saladin]

glad it was liked. hope it was semi-informative.

look, there's a lot of work to be done, no doubt. and important guys like winder and prismall are out of form or injured, which is hurting. but in terms of how the list is shaping, the only querie i have is that the most obvious talent is within the key position kids. it's not quite as apparent how good the mids and smalls will be. we need a lot of development put into them because we have to get the optimum benefit out of Jetta, myers, reimers, sammy, zaka etc. melk looks super promising and as i mentioned in the bendigo thread, Long shows glimpses of being an excellent player. though both boys need some muscle and size.


I'm not sure that the list is suited to zoning gameplans, so we basically have to become so good with our KP strength that we become the catalyst for football entering it's next phase. use running and long kicking and hope to catch the other sides out by catching the ball, if you like.

[Sismis]

I agree about the zoning. Our defence looked a lot better one on one V the Blues.

We have the defnders who can win one out. We should be using that adantage.

[rockhole]

I dips me lid, Sal.

This has gone a long way in trying to reason why we are so inconsistent. It was a given that we would be all over the place with such a young team, but to have it spealt out so clearly helps to heal the wounds and front up with renewed confidence this week.

Fantastic post!!!

[saladin]

strangely enough, the disaster of sunday simply confirms what i already thought. until our most talented players get up to the 50,60, 80 games mark, we're going to struggle. when the kids are up and going, we're ok. when they're not, the more experienced players are simply not good enough to carry the youngsters. the talent is there, but the understanding of how to cope when the opposition have you worked out is not.

it's unpalatable, but our systems and gamestyle currently exceed the capabilities of the players. keep playing them as a group and they'll flourish eventually. when they do, it'll be like someone turned on a switch or opened a tap. until then, it's a rocky road ahead. but it can happen quickly. i still believe that either this coach, or the next, will get full value.

[saladin]

Players from last night with under 50 games played;

atko, jetta, myers, gumby, hurley, pears, lonergan, prismall, howlett, hocking, dempsey, davey, zaka

13 players of 22. 60% of the side were football babies.

doggies had 4.

and if fit, melksham was a certainty. with colyer a fringe.


massive cause for optimism heading forward.

[Sismis]

Spot on Saladin! 60% of the side and their contribution was way above that.