2005 Lists comparison vs others

[LondonTiger]

Hey all,

Got into a discussion about Richmond and Hawthorn and the fact they drafted kpp instead of midfielders.  It gave me a chance to compare the 2005 lists,

Well here are the results

      Avg Ht   Avt Wt   Avg Age   Avg BMI   Avg Games
Brisbane      188.18   85.74   23.7   24.21   116.93
Collingwood   186.73   85.9   23.28   24.64   99
Sydney      185.79   83.05   24.06   24.06   96.47
Port Adelaide   186.72   85.72   24.34   24.59   92.34
Richmond      187.61   83.68   23.16   23.78   87.93
Adelaide      188.18   85.28   23.97   24.08   85.73
Western Bulldogs    188.48   84.23   23.17   23.71   84.59
Kangaroos      186.79   87.49   23.39   25.07   84.58
Hawthorn      186.28   83.92   23.13   24.18   83.59
All players average   187.12   85.05   23.43   24.29   83.45
St Kilda      186.3   83.57   23.55   24.08   78.77
Essendon      187.05   84.46   23.17   24.14   77.56
Fremantle      185.44   83.46   23.31   24.27   75.64
Melbourne      187.72   86.26   23.58   24.48   75.31
West Coast      187.14   86.14   23.08   24.6   70.52
Geelong      188.28   87.73   22.94   24.75   68.82
Carlton      187.16   84.08   23.11   24   65.28

From above, we are still the 5th most experienced team in terms of games played

We are the 6th tallest team

From tallest to smallest

Western Bulldogs
Geelong
Adelaide
Brisbane
Melbourne
Richmond
Carlton
West Coast
Essendon
Kangaroos
Collingwood
Port Adelaide
St Kilda
Hawthorn
Sydney
Fremantle

From Heaviest to Lightest

Geelong
Kangaroos
Melbourne
West Coast
Collingwood
Brisbane
Port Adelaide
Adelaide
Essendon
Western Bulldogs
Carlton
Hawthorn
Richmond
St Kilda
Fremantle
Sydney


From Youngest to Oldest

Geelong
West Coast
Carlton
Hawthorn
Richmond
Essendon
Western Bulldogs
Collingwood
Fremantle
Kangaroos
St Kilda
Melbourne
Brisbane
Adelaide
Sydney
Port Adelaide


In conclusion

Geelong are full of young, fat, tall, inexperienced kids

Port are old, short, and fat

Collingwood are just crap.

Brisbane are the most experienced and well weighted.  I expect them Premiers

Brisbane, Adelaide, Sydney and Port are all quite old, or is that, all Melbourne based clubs are beginning the re-build mode to challenge the interstaters.

Melbourne and West Coast could be the big improvers in 2004.

St Kilda aren't the tall, young, fit team everyone makes them out to be.

WB the tallest?  I expect them to challenge for the eight this year.  Certainly there or thereabouts imo.

Richmond, - well we will wait and see...  Taller than I thought, about as light as I thought, more experienced than I thought.


Amazing statistics hey....



p.s.  Work is pretty quiet this time of year
 

[Bulluss]

Great work LT,

I wouldnt read too much into those stats though all the same.

Bulldogs have a lot of tall players who are crap. Street and Bandy to name just 2

And just because the average weight is high, doesnt mean their fat. Port players all have matured bodies with plenty of muscle.

[LondonTiger]

No worries Mr Bull,

That was my attempt at humour, but alas, missed the mark

[mightytiges]

Collingwood are just crap.

Can't argue wth that LT 

Just on the average age stat. Our's is misleading as we have very few blokes who are around the average value. Most of our guys are either 26+ or teenagers thanks to our great recruiting under Geischen and Frawley  . Our middle tier is pretty thin.

No doubt we are lightweights. As WP pointed out in another thread, Wallace in the members DVD speaks about noticing our guys as having "sailors" legs  when he first arrived and spoke to them as a group.

[WilliamPowell]

Just on the average age stat. Our's is misleading as we have very few blokes who are around the average value. Most of our guys are either 26+ or teenagers thanks to our great recruiting under Geischen and Frawley  . Our middle tier is pretty thin.

Actually this was mentioned at the AGM by Greg Miller - he made the comment that we have 19 guys (I am pretty sure it was 19 ) on the list under the age of 21.

Clinton Casey made the point that when Tezza completes his first  5 year contract  , Brett Deledio will only be 22

You take out Campbell, Richo, Gaspar and Kellaway out of the list and we are young

[froars]

Not related to this topic, but couldn't be bothered starting a new thread for a tidbit.
Listening to Bondy on 3AW this morning, was great to hear how excited he was over the Richmond recruiting this year.  He said we had done the best with getting the two best kids in the country, along with Simmo, Knobel, Graham etc.
If Bondy's excited - i'm excited.
Go Tiges in 2005 

[mightytiges]

Actually this was mentioned at the AGM by Greg Miller - he made the comment that we have 19 guys (I am pretty sure it was 19 ) on the list under the age of 21.

Clinton Casey made the point that when Tezza completes his first  5 year contract  , Brett Deledio will only be 22

Many of the young guns at the Cats and Saints were 20-21 this year. In fact only around 12 players on each of their lists debuted prior to 2000 and a number of those older types joined the Saints from other clubs after 2000. Compare that to the 20 we had on our list in 2004 before the clean out over off-season . We've now knocked that number down to 12 ourselves.

Guys like Ball, Dal Santo, Riewoldt, Maguire, Ablett, Bartel, Kelly, Steven Johnson only debuted 3 years ago. If your development of your talented youngsters is right then it doesn't take long to turn things around. In 3 years time we'll also still have Brown, Johnson, Bowden, etc around.   

[LondonTiger]

This should just about be the time I am back in OZ