Is lack of experience an excuse?

[clown]

I was just looking at our list and though i would compare it to Geelongs. I was initiallygoing to compare the height but i ended up noticing the games played. What i noticed was that for games played there is not much difference at all with Geelongs average being 61.8 games and ours 61.45. They also have 6 more players with 10 or less games experience than us. There is virtually no difference in 10- 50 and 50-100 games experience the only difference i can see is they have 5 more players with over 100 games experience. So i ask the question can the Richmond football club use inexperience as excuse for failure? or do i have too much time on my hands?

 

[Six Pack]

you've just shown how stats can be misleading, Clown.

 

[clown]

Let's hope your right

 

[U2Tigers]

Nothing frustrated me more last year when TW, every week came out with the

" as a group we've only played a total of ----- games compared to the opposition, who've played ------ games as a group.

He actually counted up the totals and used that as an excuse.

What is there a magical amount that we need to actually win a game is there.

I honestly got so sick of the comparison, Our blokes just weren't coming on.

 

[hopper]

It's slightly more feasible than the excuse that we had "too long" to prepare for this game.

 

[GoodOne]

I was just looking at our list and though i would compare it to Geelongs. I was initiallygoing to compare the height but i ended up noticing the games played. What i noticed was that for games played there is not much difference at all with Geelongs average being 61.8 games and ours 61.45. They also have 6 more players with 10 or less games experience than us. There is virtually no difference in 10- 50 and 50-100 games experience the only difference i can see is they have 5 more players with over 100 games experience. So i ask the question can the Richmond football club use inexperience as excuse for failure? or do i have too much time on my hands?

You need to look at who is playing not who's on the list. Every team has youngsters on the list who drag the average age down. On the weekend Geelong averaged 10 games more per player. That's 220 games more experience on the ground. Geelong had 13 players plus Johnson (who is just short of 100 but should be 100 if he was disciplined) who had over 100 games under their belt on the weekend to the Tigers 6 (which includes McMahon and Brown) and Polak who is just under 100.

Geelong's problem for next year is that apparently 11 players are up for new contract negotiations. Salary cap issues will be interesting.

 

[clown]

You need to look at who is playing not who's on the list. Every team has youngsters on the list who drag the average age down. On the weekend Geelong averaged 10 games more per player. That's 220 games more experience on the ground. Geelong had 13 players plus Johnson (who is just short of 100 but should be 100 if he was disciplined) who had over 100 games under their belt on the weekend to the Tigers 6 (which includes McMahon and Brown) and Polak who is just under 100.

Geelong's problem for next year is that apparently 11 players are up for new contract negotiations. Salary cap issues will be interesting.

True but i think most of these players whos have been through Geelongs lean period and now success know that some salary sacrifice will be needed if they want to stay together, but there are always mercenarys (judd)

 

[Harry]

It's all about quality.

Just remember that players like Chaffey, Rogers and the Kellaways played well in excess of 100 games for this club. The same will occur with Tuck, Raines, Johnson, Tambling and Jackson.

It's about quality, not quantity.

Someone like Geelongs Selwood playing in his 10th game is more effective than one of the above in their 100th game.

 

[Tigerblood]

You are spot on Clown. I'm sick of hearing that excuse too. There is no huge difference across the board in the AFL despite what they try to make us believe. And I also think that trotting it out is detrimental to players' development: it allows them a comfort zone, a readymade excuse in their own heads for not being good enough on the day.

I would love to hear a coach say "Don't ever put a losing performance down to being too young. Because you'll still be thinking that in 3 years time, while the bloke who never allowed himself that luxury has since grown into a man."

 

[clown]

I know the bombers got flogged on the weekend but i think that Knights will do well as a coach because of his sink or swin attitute towards the young players. People say that throwing them in too early will effect their development in a bad way but i think it's the opposite. I see it as kind of like natural selection and a good way to find out who can play (fast) insted of sloooow process we seem to go through. I say churn the young players over and shure you may miss one or two along the way but at least you wont be stuck with half a list "potentials"