My perspective based on history says both Brisbane and Carlton are very much in a window for success. Based on team age, that is not list age but best 22 and average games played. So that equates to Reaching 24 plus years and 80 plus games on average. It also means both teams have the majority of players aged somewhere around 23 to 28 in their prime with enough 100 plus gamers to lead them
In coming to those figures i went back thru premiership teams to 1986 mainly.
I had to go back to the 70's to find a 23yo premiership team. Hawthorn did it twice 76 and 78 it has not been done since. they averaged 92 and 103 games per team.
It was fairly common prior to this. I think there are some obvious reasons why, the main one being players did not play as long as they do today.
For me looking at the past and starting sort of when the game became more professional, the age of the AFL in 86, with National drafts more money in the game. Going from players working for a living to semi professional, players then becoming full time hence staying in the game longer with greater emphasis on health fitness and medical improvements in operations etc.
From 86 onwards the begining of the national comp and ND it seems to me that looking at premiership teams somethings are a constant
1/ Teams need to be aged mostly between 24 and 26. No team has won aged 23 yrs and under as stated i had to go back prior to the national comp in 1978 to find one..
As i have mentioned just 5 teams have managed the feat once they hit an average age of 27. So far the trend has been once at 27 decline happens. Teams either have to rebuild or find a way to bring in top end younger talent.
An interesting one was Brisbane and port in 2004. They averaged p/a 27years,2 days with 129 games and Brisbane averaged 27 years, 181 days with 166 games and both went into heavy decline.
2/ Teams winning premierships need to get their team to at least 80 games on average. Only adelaide in 1997 have won a flag with less than 80 games with a team average of 73 games. A point of interest StKilda who they beat were younger at 24yrs 242 days and only averaged 87 games a player.
To me around about 80 games seems to be about the minimum for success.
3/ Having enough old heads that is players with a minimum 100 games. I Have not gone thru this at all but i would guess about 8 - 10 would be a minimum
4/ Getting enough players into the prime age bracket say 23 thru 28 with enough games. Obviously that means kids have been developed and have got a decent amount of games behind them. Premiership teams have few juniors in them usually.
5/ Last having enough quality players in key areas. That one is open to what you think quality is.
Basically all im doing is looking at the past and working out as best i can where i think you need to get to at a minimum to challenge.
History in some areas tells us obvious things.
Just to finish a few things to sort of back up what im saying. WCE in 1991 made their first grand final they lost to a battle hardened seriously experienced Hawthorn team nearing the end.
They were only 23 years, 347 days and had just 65 games on average. They would go on to win the next 2 out of three flags having got a little bit older and experienced..
A far worse outcome in 1988 for Melbourne. They were thrashed by Hawthorn at their peak with a team averaging you guessed it 23 years, 237 days with an average of 60 games. For them they could not build on that and while they played finals for the next 3 or 4 seasons they could not win a flag. Being young and talented does not always mean success will come.
Last one even the so called Baby Bombers managed to get to the age games threshold at 24 years, 105 days and 86 games on average.
They did not play in another grand final until 2000.
