-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Changes V Cats
- Thread starter eZyT
- Start date
Attachments
Rohan out for first-gamer Jarvis.
| Club | Avg Age | Avg Gms | Avg Gls | Avg Hgt | Avg Wgt |
| Geel | 26.42 | 118.7 | 78.2 | 188.5 | 88.8 |
| Rich | 25.99 | 102.9 | 84.9 | 186.0 | 86.4 |
Geelong smallest age advantages in 2020
| Age Diff | Round | Opp | Result |
| -0.63 | 2 | Haw | W |
| +0.39 | 9 | W.C. | L |
| +0.43 | 17 | Rich | |
| +1.12 | 10 | N.M. | W |
| +1.22 | 1 | GWS | L |
| +1.40 | 7 | Coll | L |
You are missing an "L" LTRTR
Let history record that it was pointed out before the game.
Suggests Geelong's support cast is not that good.
Indded - My post should have been ...Let history record that it was pointed out before the game.
Suggests Geelong's support cast is not that good.
You are NOW missing an "L"
By my calculations it was geelong’s lowest score against us of all time
Let history record that it was pointed out before the game.
Suggests Geelong's support cast is not that good.
So am I reading this right, when they have less than a year and a halfs experience gap on the opposition they have only won against the teams in 16th and 17th?
Wow, thats a damning stat on them.
Well they can’t blame the shortened quarters for that 2017 QF scoreline then.
Here's the full list.
| Age Diff | Opp | Round | Result |
| +3.42 | St.K | 11 | W |
| +3.32 | G.C. | 5 | W |
| +2.20 | W.B. | 14 | W |
| +2.09 | Melb | 4 | W |
| +1.83 | Carl | 3 | L |
| +1.82 | Adel | 13 | W |
| +1.69 | Ess | 16 | W |
| +1.54 | Bris | 6 | W |
| +1.53 | Frem | 8 | W |
| +1.51 | P.A. | 12 | W |
| +1.40 | Coll | 7 | L |
| +1.22 | GWS | 1 | L |
| +1.12 | N.M. | 10 | W |
| +0.43 | Rich | 17 | L |
| +0.39 | W.C. | 9 | L |
| -0.63 | Haw | 2 | W |
It's a bit unusual for a good older team to be vulnerable at the lower end like that, while still holding an advantage. Suggests the veterans are essential to them performing well and the next generation aren't yet pulling their weight.
FWIW I plugged the data into a stats app and came up with the following formula for the likelihood of the older team winning (yes it's a straight line):
average win % = 49.68 + (7.85 x age difference in years)
So a team one year older wins 49.68 + (7.85 x 1.00) = 57.5% of the time. Over a period, if a team's win % exceeds this calculation then you can say they're above average for an older team. Below this line indicates below average and needing an injection of young talent. You can subtract the % from 100 and apply it to younger teams also.
Bear in mind this reflects the average of good and bad older teams. If a older team is only meeting this average and not exceeding it by a good margin, it suggests their future is limited.
e.g. Over the past four seasons, Hawthorn has recorded the following performance in relation to the average:
2017 -18.3% (13th)
2018 +15.5% (7th)
2019 -14.8% (13th)
2020 -55.0% (17th)
The last figure is dire. Of course, negative figures can be exaggerated by tanking...
