Doesn’t that depend on the choices parents make with respect to enrollment? For a kid turning 5 this year before April 30th, it’s the parents’ election whether the kid starts school this year (as a relatively ‘young’ starter) or next year (as a relatively ‘old’ starter). If every parent of a child born in these months made the decision to start their kid next year rather than this year, then the kids born in these months would be the oldest/largest in their cohort.
It’s what’s inferred from the stats, not the stats themselves.
Yep, it does depend on parent choices; some start young, ( I believe it’s a bit more than half), others start later.
So statistically it’s a mix of bigger & smaller - statistically even, whereas the May to June cohort will be bigger older / bigger than the July-December plus the younger Jan - April starters.
Bigger / older than about 85% of their peers,
So they should be the stand out birthdate grouping if the theory holds re AFL players or Victorian elite sportspeople.
That seems roughly right - this article says that ~16% of kids are 6-year olds by 30th April of their first year of school - http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/a-parents-dilemma-should-your-fouryearold-start-prep/news-story/c7c8d86f6811b08fc5eb9d0187e16bfb - which implies roughly a half-half split between early and late starters, given 16% is a rough midpoint between the expected values of (4/12)*0% (if every kid born in those 4 months started early as a 5-year old) and (4/12)*100% (if every kid born in those 4 months started late as a 6-year old), ignoring slight differences in commonality of birth months.
In any event, as far as talk about AFL footballers (or any elite sports in general) go and based on what i remember of the research (from one of the Freakonomics or Gladwell books, can’t remember which one), the more relevant discussion is not school cut-off dates but is instead the cut-off dates for elite junior football programs (like TAC Cup or whatever) - the theory is that older kids within each age group (those born after but most proximate to the cut-off date) of elite junior sports programs are over-represented. Given Barnett’s research showed AFL players born in Jan/Feb are over-represented, the suggestion is presumably that elite junior AFL programs have a 1 Jan or 31 Dec cut-off date?
Yep, a junior sport program based on Jan 1st cut off, or a school enrolment (which I think Queensland is) will potentially have this effect.
My point was the researchers assumption that it’s school enrolment dates that influence sporting high achievement.
That’s not the case re AFL.
Langford can blame Auskick for the fact he’s a laconic tall midfielder.
Dodoro has been doing wrong all along.
Stuff the 3km time trial. Stuff the goal kicking test. Stuff the beep test.
Just draft people based on their date of birth.
No need, you’ve got it the wrong way around. It’s already happening by itself.
I made a mistake above, I recalled incorrectly the age cutoff for US junior baseball competitions, it is July 31. See below.
What the hell has happened to this thread?
Like the Langford it’s trying to grow up.
Currently in awkward adolescent stage.
Alternating between over confidence and crippling self doubt.
So that’s why I never made it as a professional sportsman. The Langford and I share a birthday.
“A” birthday? How many do you have?
Well I mean every day of the year is someone’s birthday. One of those belongs to The Langford and I.
It’s my birthday today!
You can literally make a statistic about anything. Doesn’t mean it’s right. Langford’s a introvert because he’s born in December? FMD
If he ends up being any good, GOOD, but for farkes sake it’s up him.
Sagittarius don’t football good
Not commenting on The Langford directly, but there’s heaps of peer reviewed literature backed by significant data findings to support the notion that the timing of your birth with respect to your school calendar or sports calendar has a statistical effect on performance.
When is your birthday WOB?
You seem like a bit of an extrovert.
I do admit that in any specific case I could be taking shiit, but the idea is based on older kids being more developed, more mature and more dominant in a group, as a generalisation.
Why bother arguing using rational data with someone who has already made their mind up that the data is wrong.
WOB has succumbed to alternative facts and anti science as well. It’s a brave new world.
The statistics tell us nothing at all about Langford as an individual, they tell us about the population in general. Langford has already made an AFL list so is obviously not one of the fraction of people who suffer from late birth syndrome.