The oldest

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Apparently we have the oldest list in the league.
Question for today . . . does this matter?

Numbers, personnel point to the Hawks

[Primmy]

Que?

Our oldest players include Goodes, Bolton, Mattner, LRT, ROK, Shaw, Richards and our youngest include Reid, Hannerbury, Johnson, Parker, Rohan, Kennedy, ........

smoke and mirrors. I would rather concentrate on the quality of our players rather than their supposed need to be sent out to pasture. No, don't think it matters with this particularly squad.

[Dosser]

Que?

Our oldest players include Goodes, Bolton, Mattner, LRT, ROK, Shaw, Richards and our youngest include Reid, Hannerbury, Johnson, Parker, Rohan, Kennedy, ........

smoke and mirrors. I would rather concentrate on the quality of our players rather than their supposed need to be sent out to pasture. No, don't think it matters with this particularly squad.

Agreed, Primmy. I'd rather have an 'old' Adam Goodes than an 18yo who may never play a game.

[SydAFLFan]

The frustrating thing as we all know is that the whole article focuses on how Hawthorn & St Kilda a ripe for a premiership charge but totally ignores Sydney despite the three teams being very similar in statistics. The swans are only 25 days older on average than Hawthorn, are only two short on average team games, and the only "big" difference is that the Swans are down 4 players compared to Hawthorns 14 players playing over 100 games. I would not have mind so much if they explained why Sydney should not be considered similar but the only reference is to say that they are oldest team. Oh, well.......

[swansrob]

I like this bit

That's close enough to the standard set by the last dozen premiers, where the typical age of players has averaged 24 years and 145 days.

But the Swans, who are closer to that average age, aren't close enough??

[Ruck'n'Roll]

I've never even thought of looking at the age of a squad, but I have noticed that the average age of peremiership teams tends to be 25 or 26 years old (Geelongs win last year was an exception). FWIW I think out best 22 would be around 25.5, but averages are such mean statistical instrument.

[Untamed Snark]

Weren't we too young last year and too old the year before?

[ShockOfHair]

Apparently we have the oldest list in the league.
Question for today . . . does this matter?

Numbers, personnel point to the Hawks

We're 26 days older than the Hawks, who according to that story are right in the premiership zone, so I'd actually see it as a positive. Experience and time played together do matter - Hawthorn surprised even themselves in 2008.

The club that stands out in that table is Carlton. Supposedly in their premiership window, they're the fifth youngest.

[dimelb]

I've never even thought of looking at the age of a squad, but I have noticed that the average age of peremiership teams tends to be 25 or 26 years old (Geelongs win last year was an exception). FWIW I think out best 22 would be around 25.5, but averages are such mean statistical instrument.

I saw what you did - well up to par I'd say.

[satchmopugdog]

I have always looked through the lists to see who has the most 25 year olds as that is when men are in their prime. geelong blew my theory outt the window last year..but I didn't state in their prime for what????

[Velour&Ruffles]

I've never even thought of looking at the age of a squad, but I have noticed that the average age of peremiership teams tends to be 25 or 26 years old (Geelongs win last year was an exception). FWIW I think out best 22 would be around 25.5, but averages are such mean statistical instrument.

That mode of humour may appeal to some, but not to me.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

I saw what you did - well up to par I'd say.

That mode of humour may appeal to some, but not to me.

I feel the need to make some quip about standard deviations, but I just don't know you that well to comment.

[707]

If you read the article in The Age carefully, their averages quoted are taken INCLUDING ROOKIES. Now I dont know about you but I don't think a club premiership hopes are decided by rookies so why include them?

This is a stupid way to do it because the more rookies you have on your list the lower your average age and games will be. Carlton has 10 rookies, we have 6 so in that case Carltons averages are divided by 4 more players.

Did you wonder how Brisbane has a younger list than Gold Coast? Because Brisbane has 8 rookies and Gold Coast has just four.

If you look at the averages for the senior listed players only then the numbers are a fair bit different. I'll post the real averages a little later today.

[ugg]

The AFL prospectus has done that already. Excluding rookies we are the second oldest behind IIRC St Kilda

[Xie Shan]

Would be interested to see the numbers for senior listed players only, I thought the averages in the Age article seemed very young! Still, I'm surprised at how close together the 'average games' figures are. While they could be skewed somewhat by the inclusion of rookies, this would normally point to the competition being more open than in previous years...