TalkingCarlton
http://talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/

Development and Playing Teenagers
http://talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9922		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Jarusa [ Thu May 04, 2006 1:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Development and Playing Teenagers
Seeing as there has been some discussion about development around the traps lately I thought I would have a look at a few facts.

Decided to see how many games each team has given the teenagers on their list in 2005-2006. The cutoff point for age was 1st September 1985 for the figures in the table below.

Makes for very interesting reading.

Essendon* way out in front, Carlton middle of the pack and Freo amazingly on the bottom with just 2 games.

What are your thoughts with respect to Carlton? Have we given our teenagers on the list enough games? Are you happy with how they are developing?

Image



Author:  Elwood Blues1 [ Thu May 04, 2006 1:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
Not surprising....Sheedy gives youth a good go and is prepared to take risks and be inventive.....Hawthorn of course have gone with a stated youth policy during that period.....
Pagan at North was known for not really trusting youth on mass and in his later years wasnt popular with the younger players...Carey's lack of popularity with the younger players didnt help their cause either, as he helped pick the team...

I think Pagan to start with was less inclined to go for youth and worry about development but in recent times has embraced it more but not enough and its been more about desperation than planning....

Livingston has been harshly done by IMO.....Scarlett, Fletcher etc as youngsters would have been cut more slack in their development and allowed more down games before they were dumped....Livo has had the yo yo treatment and never really settled....even no names like Brian Harris were given more time...
Author:  Sydney Blue [ Thu May 04, 2006 1:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
How do you keep finding this stuff - I like it though

Three teams stand out on that list

Freo - would have thought they would have more
Kangaroos- but do they have youth
Carlton - to low down on that list for a team that finished last
Author:  The Tyrant [ Thu May 04, 2006 2:14 pm ]
Post subject: 
nicely developed table there, Jars :wink:
Author:  woof [ Thu May 04, 2006 2:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
I would expect our 2006 number to be 7 before not too long.
Hartlett would be playing if he was not injured. Kennedy will be added. I would expect Blackwell will be in sooner rather than later.
Setanta for the purpose of this exercise gets excluded but in terms of football experience you could argue that he falls into that catergory for other reasons other than age.
Good stats.
I think one thing it highlights is that Hawthorn and Richmonds trading of experienced players for early picks will in the long run be the best development plan you can put in place. We as a club have not have the courage to do the deal. Boards fault, Pagan's fault? Don't know?
Author:  showbag [ Thu May 04, 2006 2:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
It would be interesting to get some idea of time on ground as well. Russell would be counted as getting 3 games in that period, but has probably 'played' less than a full game of football.
Author:  Jarusa [ Thu May 04, 2006 2:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
The Tyrant wrote:
nicely developed table there, Jars :wink:


I thought you would like it. It pretty much supports some of your arguments.
Author:  The Tyrant [ Thu May 04, 2006 2:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
Jarusa wrote:
The Tyrant wrote:
nicely developed table there, Jars :wink:


I thought you would like it. It pretty much supports some of your arguments.


kinda... but I think the bigger issue is where they're played and how, and who is around them.

And the list of retreads is the only proof I need :wink:
Author:  Dukes [ Thu May 04, 2006 2:50 pm ]
Post subject: 
Not sure it proves anything except it's the worst teams which have room to play teenagers. Perhaps its clouded by the obvious tanking of a few sides late last year. Whether it's good for the players' long-term development, we'll have to wait and see.

Sheedy is a past master of playing guys just because they're young, even when their ability and performance doesn't warrant it. Not sure how this policy has helped them in the long run. They hardly have a list bursting with promise and are sitting level with us at 1-4 this year.

Sh!t players will always be sh!t players ... regardless of the number of games they play. If Wiggins, Livo and Sporn were good enough they would have played more games in the weakest period of the club's history. Think of all the players in the early 90s who dominated reserves football and then had to go elsewhere because we had too many quality players. Livo and co are lucky to have played as many games as they have in the navy blue without being delisted yet.
Author:  london blue [ Thu May 04, 2006 2:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
sorry Jarusa i can't open it....so please excuse my following point if irrelevant....
a qualifier i'd be interested in is what % of those players available on each list at the age group specified have been played. i.e if you haven't included it would likely make our number at the blues look a more ordinary (as we should have a higher number of kids on our list than most other clubs)....
Author:  Rod Waddell [ Thu May 04, 2006 3:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
Jarusa can you help me here. Does your table indicate that Ess, Haw & Rich have blooded 12, 11 & 16 teenagers respectively during calendar years 2005 & 2006? I'm astounded if these clubs have so many teenagers on their list!
Author:  Jarusa [ Thu May 04, 2006 3:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
Rod Waddell wrote:
Jarusa can you help me here. Does your table indicate that Ess, Haw & Rich have blooded 12, 11 & 16 teenagers respectively during calendar years 2005 & 2006? I'm astounded if these clubs have so many teenagers on their list!


No, the numbers are just how many teenagers have played in each year, so there is a fair bit of overlap with player like Deledio etc. playing both years.

This is from earlier in the year but it showed how many teenagers each list had. (the 1st Sept 1985 cutoff accounts for the different Brisbane number)



Image
Author:  The Tyrant [ Thu May 04, 2006 3:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
If I were coaching, I'd have a set target number of players that I wanted on the list under 4 categories: Rookies (say, under 21), Young Players (21-25), Experienced (25-29), Veteran (29+) and trade/draft every year to maintain the balance. Lets say out of 44, you'd have in an ideal team

12 rookies, 15 young players, 13 experienced players and 4 Veterans. Something like that.. I haven't made a science of this yet, so I'm just guessing at the numbers... and every year when I looked at the list I would trade and draft according to those targets. A team with too many "experienced" players doesn't create chances for young players, and a team with too few experienced/veterans isn't the perfect learning environment.

So, I would happily trade for a player like Pickett, if we weren't deep in the over 29s list and had too many kids... or trade a player like Whitnall because there are young players knocking on his door for his position (whom I thought would be better options)

Its not too dissimilar to the trading that Essendon* and West Coast did in the late 90s.
Author:  Skippers Blues [ Thu May 04, 2006 3:43 pm ]
Post subject: 
i think the reason sheedy has played so many teenagers is the fact he has always had a good core of older players to support these young players, which i know doubt feel helps them develop far quicker than if they were in a team such as ours with little or no older leadership type players, i think the ability hird, lloyd, lucas and fletcher ect have not only to bring the young players into the game but also the auroa (i dunno how to spell it) that surrounds playing with a superstar player like hird is likely to inspire young players
Author:  TruBlueBrad [ Thu May 04, 2006 4:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
We've been drafting fewer numbers the last few years so most of our younger players are in the 20-23 age bracket I would think.
Author:  dannyboy [ Thu May 04, 2006 4:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
Now Tyrant couldn't you argue that's exactly what Denis did. the years with no picks he went mainly for the 23 - 26 bracket (couldn't access quality 17-18 bracket nor the star bracket in the PSD)

and since has drafted quality picks on kids and then retreads aminly for the rest.
Author:  The Tyrant [ Thu May 04, 2006 6:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
dannyboy wrote:
Now Tyrant couldn't you argue that's exactly what Denis did. the years with no picks he went mainly for the 23 - 26 bracket (couldn't access quality 17-18 bracket nor the star bracket in the PSD)

and since has drafted quality picks on kids and then retreads aminly for the rest.


doesn't work if you add shit ot the list, Danny
Author:  dannyboy [ Thu May 04, 2006 6:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
yeah but sometimes you have to dip your fingers in, raise it to your nostrils and smell


then ya know its shit!
Author:  The Tyrant [ Thu May 04, 2006 6:41 pm ]
Post subject: 
dannyboy wrote:
yeah but sometimes you have to dip your fingers in, raise it to your nostrils and smell


then ya know its shit!


if it looks like shit and smells like it, you don't need to waste your time finding out.
Author:  dannyboy [ Thu May 04, 2006 6:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
doesn't alays look like,
sometimes ya can't smell it unless ya get close

once you recognize it, you get rid of it
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC + 10 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/