#4 Just a Kyle kind of Langford


When someone correlates haircut type with football quality and output I will listen, until then its just doesnt make sense to me.


So all Capricorns should be "The GOAT":thinking:


All this stats stuff is interesting, and I’ve read it before (Outliers the book is really good on it) but I’m not sure it’s relevant once you’ve actually been drafted and given the type of player Kyle is (big and strong - at least he is now).

The idea is that when you are born in January and you first go to Auskick you’re 5 years ie 60 months old. A kid born in December of that intake year is 4 years 1 month old ie. 49 months old ie. 18% younger which is huge in terms of co-ordination/physical development. So the January kids monster and outplay the December kids, get the footy more, develop more, eventually when they start playing in sides (at what? 8?), are still materially older and more developed, get picked in the A side, get better coaches and train an extra day or two a week, and so their paths diverge from there and you see a lot of early-born people in professional sports.

It’s pretty well documented and understood but I’m not sure it matters given someone in this discussion has actually made it (making it in this case meaning being drafted).


Thread = Derailed
Half of you are more cooked than collingwood supporters.
Tin foil hats need to come off


You can use stats to prove anything, 60% of all people know that


That’s just my opinion. You don’t have to agree with it

Like I said you can literally make a statistic for anything. Of course there is going to be ONE month more than the other 11 that has quieter, shy, introvert types. I don’t believe it’s correct though. I believe how your brought up, who you hang around, and your parents influence on your life, are what contributes to your personality. Not when your born


Born in January:
Buddy (199cm, 106kg)
Jack Martin (186cm, 79kg)

Born in December:
Paul Puopolo (173cm, 78kg)
Aaron Sandilands (211, 118kg)

It may be a factor but, surely, there are way too many factors for it to be significant.

I think this is silly, to be honest.


I think it’s pretty obvious that kids who are up to 12 months younger than their competitors are going to struggle. Just as it is obvious that kids that are up to 12 months older are going to dominate.

Winning is fun. Losing sucks.

When I was 12 and I was put into the u14 soccer squad for some ridiculous reason. I couldn’t remotely compete against the bigger kids and it 100% led to me quiting the game. I’m not a gifted athlete, but before that experience I enjoyed sport and afterwards I didn’t.

I don’t see why people don’t think the month of your birth can have a major influence on your enjoyment and confidence in sport.


Fair enough, but if you get drafted to a AFL club that’s not really applicable.


I’ll accept that. You are less likely to make it, but if you do happen to make it there’s probably little ongoing effects.


How bout that Langford? I’m that confident of him having a great season that I’m predicting we’ll see a smirk or 2 from the big unit.


Don’t get too carried away.


Really hope he starts to impose himself. Ideally plays all pre season games as that mid role and is primed for round 1.


The “drafted a year early” talk is reaching chemtrails levels


Many happies.


You know what else sucks about being born in December? All your mates get to drive around, buy beer and go clubbing in year 12 and you can’t. Well not legally anyway. Even though at our year 12 break up when I still 17 I was getting let into places and not even being asked for ID. Looking fly as ■■■■ probably helped.


The science probably says more about talented kids who were young for their age group and didn’t make it. Perhaps the likes of Langford benefited from playing against older kids, just as many talented kids play in older age divisions in any sporting code.

Besides, Langford is a big kid who effectively played key forward in U18s, and would have been bigger than most of his peers. People are interpreting the data to fit their pre-conceived notions of what sort of player Langford is.


All those stats and research seemed laconic to me, delist.


I had a dream that Langford was good last night.
True story.


prove it or I don’t believe you