Our List

[swans song]

On closer examination some interesting facts appear
Games played
Ablett 126
Barry 234
Bevan 100
C. Bolton 185
J. Bolton 222
Buchanan 116
Crouch 215
Goodes 241
Hall 248
Jolly 155
Kirk 206
Mattner 133
McVeigh 116
O'Keefe 175
O'Loughlin 292
Richards 114
LRT 108
Shaw 105
Total 3003 or 90%
Grundy 35
Jack 36
Malceski 66
Moore 42
Playfair 63
Bird 29
Total 271 or 8%
Barlow 15
Brabazon 1
Laidlaw 1
Meredith 7
O'Dwyer 2
Pyke 2
Schmidt 17
Smith 2
Thornton 4
Vespremi 6
White 11
Total 68 or 2%
Currie,Haneberry Heath,Johnston & DOK all haven't played

So 18 players who have played 100+ games have played 90% of total games
6 Players who have played less 100games = 8%
11 Players who have played less than 20 games =2%
This is where our problem lies not only for the remainder of this year but in the ensuing years.
I fully understand the need for success but at what cost for the future.
Sydney Harbour Bridge was built from the bottom up not from the top.The future must lie in younger players, we can't keep plugging the dyke for much longer.

[Nico]

Tells you a bit doesn't it. All but a few have lost the run in their legs and it shows.

Why McVeigh is ever played in a defensive role staggers me. Last week I doubt he passed the forward 50 line.

Maybe if they reversed the time on the ground bias and gave the developing/younger players more game time we might see more run and confidence.

[31 hard at it]

The key is the potential of the 20 -40 game players who are the near term key.
We are very light in this area and the 0 - 20 are not getting games primarily because of injury.
Recruiting over the next 2 years will be more important than ever before !

[laughingnome]

You've got to be kidding me. We have 18 100 game players or more, and you're suprised that they take up the bulk of your games played percentage? The skew is astronimical because you haven't measured something accountable. Those 18 include Shaw, LRT, Bevan, Richards, McViegh - all of which are young and provide plenty of future talent. Sure you have an "alarming" statistic, but it means absolutely nothing.

For example, you're 8% list includes Grundy, Jack, Malceski, Moore, Bird - all players either on the fringe or in the starting 22. This is the very reason the have games - they are good enough and injury free to get them. The same goes for your 18 100-gamers. Then I look at the 2% that haven't played many seniors games and I see talent waiting to blossom and I think your figures stink like a politicians paper. Bias.

Run a comparison with other clubs - you'll find similar numbers across the board.

[desredandwhite]

I'm sorry - this is a set of numbers that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

OF COURSE if you simply add up total games, the players with more experience will have contributed more games. Makes sense.

What might be a more interesting comparison is a year by year breakdown. So in 2009, if you added up the games played by the 100+ club, and compare it to the games played by the under 50 club... what do you get?

[swans song]

age this year games this year out of 11
Ablett 126 27 6
Barry 234 32 0
Bevan 100 25 11
C. Bolton 185 29 11
J. Bolton 222 29 11
Buchanan 116 27 8
Crouch 215 31 6
Goodes 241 29 11
Hall 248 32 9
Jolly 155 28 11
Kirk 206 33 11
Mattner 133 27 11
McVeigh 116 24 11
O'Keefe 175 28 11
O'Loughlin 292 32 6
Richards 114 26 11
LRT 108 26 10
Shaw 105 28 11

Grundy 35 23 11
Jack 36 22 11
Malceski 66 25 10
Moore 42 23 10
Playfair 63 26 0
Bird 29 20 8

Barlow 15 22 4
Brabazon 1 23 0
Laidlaw 1 22 0
Meredith 7 20 7
O'Dwyer 2 21 0
Pyke 2 25 2
Schmidt 17 23 0
Smith 2 21 0
Thornton 4 21 4
Vespremi 6 20 0
White 11 21 9

This might give a better look but the bottom line doesn't change

[liz]

This might give a better look but the bottom line doesn't change

But what is the bottom line? That our less experienced players are less experienced?

[Mike_B]

The thing about these numbers that stands out for me is that of the guys in the 20-100 game bracket (by which time you are starting to get a true indication of ability) we really only have one future star in Bird. The rest will be solid yet unspectacular contributors at best. That is what worries me, that we don't have much quality coming through from that group.

While we think we have some top quality players in the likes of Vez, we still haven't seen enough to really know what we're dealing with in that group with less than 20 games.

[BSA5]

Wow, the players that have played the most games.... HAVE PLAYED THE MOST GAMES!!!! Who would have thought?

[liz]

The thing about these numbers that stands out for me is that of the guys in the 20-100 game bracket (by which time you are starting to get a true indication of ability) we really only have one future star in Bird. The rest will be solid yet unspectacular contributors at best. That is what worries me, that we don't have much quality coming through from that group.

Malceski made the AA top 40 squad before he played 50 games. Written him off completely?

And on performances to date, Jack has been as impressive as Bird. I am (probably) with you in that I suspect Bird might have more scope for improvement, but on the other hand, Jack brings some real pace to an otherwise slowish midfield. (Even when and if our core small midfield comprises Vez, Meredith, Hannebury and Bird, alongside McVeigh, most of those are mid-paced rather than genuinely quick.)

[Mike_B]

Malceski made the AA top 40 squad before he played 50 games. Written him off completely?

And on performances to date, Jack has been as impressive as Bird. I am (probably) with you in that I suspect Bird might have more scope for improvement, but on the other hand, Jack brings some real pace to an otherwise slowish midfield. (Even when and if our core small midfield comprises Vez, Meredith, Hannebury and Bird, alongside McVeigh, most of those are mid-paced rather than genuinely quick.)

I have my doubts on Malceski now, but will give him 2010 to return to his 2007 form. They do say it takes a full season after major injuries to get back to normal, so I'm willing to write this year off as well. However what really does concern me is his propensity for shying away from a physical contest.

Agree that Jack has performed well, but my concern is on his skills - can't doubt his effort, but in terms of being an elite player, he will need to sharpen his skills over the next couple of pre-seasons.

[Justice]

Another factor that skews the 'stats' is that six (Bolton, Hall, Jolly, Mattner, Richards and Shaw) of the 100 gamers have been recruited from other clubs for specific purposes and IMO with good effect. All have played almost every games possible since their respective recruitment with none dropped because of form (although I remember Richards being a late emergency "recall" once and Hall missing some games due to his brain snap(s) last year).

So the raw 'stat' quoted that the players who have played the most games are the players who have played the most games is simply stating the obvious.

Cheers

Justice

[liz]

Agree that Jack has performed well, but my concern is on his skills - can't doubt his effort, but in terms of being an elite player, he will need to sharpen his skills over the next couple of pre-seasons.

He's not overly reliable but his kicking is significantly better in terms of penetration (and arguably direction) than either Jude B or Kirk. And Bird is equally capable of some very ordinary kicks/decisions at times.

It is really hard to tell where the really good players are going to emerge from, even when they have played around 30 games.

ROK looked little more than a GOP. Kirk was on the verge of being delisted. Even Hall was little more than a talented but fiery, undisciplined and inconsistent forward. Craig Bolton was in the processing of escaping from being a perenniel fringe player in an ultra-strong squad. Despite having won the NRS, Goodsey was a flashy, inconsistent forward who seemed incapable of doing the basic things right much of the time. McVeigh was on his way to winning a "most improved" award but would endure a very mediocre season when he looked tentative, rushed and poorly skilled before emerging last year. Jolly had spent his career to that point alternating between the Dees' reserves and gathering splinters on the bench between 2 minute stints each quarter to relieve White.

[Plugger46]

ROK looked little more than a GOP. Kirk was on the verge of being delisted. Even Hall was little more than a talented but fiery, undisciplined and inconsistent forward. Craig Bolton was in the processing of escaping from being a perenniel fringe player in an ultra-strong squad. Despite having won the NRS, Goodsey was a flashy, inconsistent forward who seemed incapable of doing the basic things right much of the time. McVeigh was on his way to winning a "most improved" award but would endure a very mediocre season when he looked tentative, rushed and poorly skilled before emerging last year. Jolly had spent his career to that point alternating between the Dees' reserves and gathering splinters on the bench between 2 minute stints each quarter to relieve White.

Excellent point. It's alright to have an opinion on whether a player will make it but I reckon some people are far too quick and definititive in writing young players off.

[swans song]

On closer examination some interesting facts appear
Games played
Ablett 126
Barry 234
Bevan 100
C. Bolton 185
J. Bolton 222
Buchanan 116
Crouch 215
Goodes 241
Hall 248
Jolly 155
Kirk 206
Mattner 133
McVeigh 116
O'Keefe 175
O'Loughlin 292
Richards 114
LRT 108
Shaw 105
Total 3003 or 90%
Grundy 35
Jack 36
Malceski 66
Moore 42
Playfair 63
Bird 29
Total 271 or 8%
Barlow 15
Brabazon 1
Laidlaw 1
Meredith 7
O'Dwyer 2
Pyke 2
Schmidt 17
Smith 2
Thornton 4
Vespremi 6
White 11
Total 68 or 2%
Currie,Haneberry Heath,Johnston & DOK all haven't played

So 18 players who have played 100+ games have played 90% of total games
6 Players who have played less 100games = 8%
11 Players who have played less than 20 games =2%
This is where our problem lies not only for the remainder of this year but in the ensuing years.
I fully understand the need for success but at what cost for the future.
Sydney Harbour Bridge was built from the bottom up not from the top.The future must lie in younger players, we can't keep plugging the dyke for much longer.

So who should have stayed or who should have GONE