Our Age and Games Demographic

Football Discussion Dustin Fletcher Hangar
1

Stumbled across this stat and found it interesting.

We have only one player (Winderlich - who might not add another game) that in terms of games played for Essendon, fits between Jobe Watson (189) and Heath Hocking (119). Basically a four season gap in terms of games. Obviously we know this but effectively only 2 players who came through for us between 2004-2008 remain.

So thought just looking at our age and games played that we’re in an interesting position, thought some may be interested. List below is in order of games played for the club, Goddard etc aren’t included here but the gaps they leave shows exactly why we went after them.

Fletcher (Age 39) - 6500 games

Stanton (29) - 227 games
Watson (30) - 189 games

Winderlich (31) - 128 games
Hocking (26) - 119 games
Hooker (26) - 112 games
Zaharakis (25) - 111 games
Dempsey (27) - 106 games
Hurley (25) - 101 games
Howlett (27) - 98 games
Melksham (24) - 97 games
Heppell (23) - 85 games
Myers (26) - 84 games

Bellchambers (26) - 70 games
Carlisle (24) - 69 games
Pears (25) - 68 games
Hibberd (25) - 64 games

After this point Bags, Trav and a few others come through next with 50 odd.

In terms of games played demographics, we’re very similar to Hawthorn, Sydney, Freo and Port. Only major difference between those 5 clubs is in the fact Port have only 1 200+ game player whereas the others have a minimum of 5, as well as that they have ■■■■ all depth, 10 players yet to play a game.

Anyway, procrastination at it’s finest there, would be interesting to see if anyone can be bothered how we compare with Richmond, Norf and a few other mid table sides.

2

imagine those extra games to add on to the 6500 for fletch had he not tripped those 10000 forwards (allegedly) over the last 143 years!
golly

3

LOL, I glossed entirely over the 6500 figure.

4

I read that North have the oldest and most experienced list. The ones you have listed are next.

5

don’t forget Fletch had 3 games off due to injury

6
Stumbled across this stat and found it interesting.

We have only one player (Winderlich - who might not add another game) that in terms of games played for Essendon, fits between Jobe Watson (189) and Heath Hocking (119). Basically a four season gap in terms of games. Obviously we know this but effectively only 2 players who came through for us between 2004-2008 remain.

So thought just looking at our age and games played that we’re in an interesting position, thought some may be interested. List below is in order of games played for the club, Goddard etc aren’t included here but the gaps they leave shows exactly why we went after them.

Fletcher (Age 39) - 6500 games

Stanton (29) - 227 games
Watson (30) - 189 games

Winderlich (31) - 128 games
Hocking (26) - 119 games
Hooker (26) - 112 games
Zaharakis (25) - 111 games
Dempsey (27) - 106 games
Hurley (25) - 101 games
Howlett (27) - 98 games
Melksham (24) - 97 games
Heppell (23) - 85 games
Myers (26) - 84 games

Bellchambers (26) - 70 games
Carlisle (24) - 69 games
Pears (25) - 68 games
Hibberd (25) - 64 games

After this point Bags, Trav and a few others come through next with 50 odd.

In terms of games played demographics, we’re very similar to Hawthorn, Sydney, Freo and Port. Only major difference between those 5 clubs is in the fact Port have only 1 200+ game player whereas the others have a minimum of 5, as well as that they have ■■■■ all depth, 10 players yet to play a game.

Anyway, procrastination at it’s finest there, would be interesting to see if anyone can be bothered how we compare with Richmond, Norf and a few other mid table sides.


I was actually looking at this the other day.
North put out about the 2nd oldest listed 22 on the weekend, and most experienced - and got absolutely slapped by a younger, greener side.
We were 5th oldest, 4th most experienced, and got beaten by 2 kicks by a similarly aged/experienced side. Crucial for us is we beat all the younger/rawer teams - from Carlton down (15 such games), beat North at least once, and hopefully pinch one or two from what I think will end up being the other top 6 teams.

The others in the top 5 (Sydney, Freo, Hawks) are likely contenders.
Port are the interesting one of the finals teams, they’re mid-table - 10th oldest, 7th most experienced. They’re in great shape.

Sorry for the likely crap formatting - and note this is the 22 that ran out, slightly different to looking at the whole list.

Average age Average games North 26.92 135.55 Freo 26.95 127.86 Haw 26.68 124.82 Ess 26.26 118.82 Geel 26.06 116.36 Syd 26.42 114.95 Port 25.17 107.41 Carl 25.56 96.05 Rich 25.37 95.65 WCE 24.79 85.73 StK 25.03 82.59 Coll 24.21 81.14 Ade 24.88 77.95 WB 25.17 74.23 GWS 23.55 73.91 Melb 23.99 72.41 GC 23.63 70.91 Bris 23.88 70.05

7

Interesting, considering our list is skewed a bit by fletch. Wouldn’t be surprised if without fletch were closer to port.

8

Quoted Post

Interesting, considering our list is skewed a bit by fletch. Wouldn't be surprised if without fletch were closer to port.
Always hated this argument. If Port took out their oldest guy, they'd probably be a bit lower down as well.

He still plays. He’s still 1 of our 22 most weeks. So why shouldn’t he count? That’s called cherry picking.

9

Quoted Post

Quoted Post
Interesting, considering our list is skewed a bit by fletch. Wouldn't be surprised if without fletch were closer to port.
Always hated this argument. If Port took out their oldest guy, they'd probably be a bit lower down as well.

He still plays. He’s still 1 of our 22 most weeks. So why shouldn’t he count? That’s called cherry picking.

I agree, North would say the same with Harvey.

10

Any team would say the same for their oldest player. Cornes is Port’s oldest by 2 years & over 100 games. Etc etc

It would be worthwhile running the averages, taking out the oldest couple and the youngest couple for every club, but pointless to do it for only one club. And I ain’t doing it!

11

Quoted Post

Quoted Post
Interesting, considering our list is skewed a bit by fletch. Wouldn't be surprised if without fletch were closer to port.
Always hated this argument. If Port took out their oldest guy, they'd probably be a bit lower down as well.

He still plays. He’s still 1 of our 22 most weeks. So why shouldn’t he count? That’s called cherry picking.

Exactly. Besides, take out Fletch and we are still one of the most experienced and older sides.

12
Heppell (23) - 85 games Myers (26) - 84 games

:confused:

13

Doisons Duraboiloitoi

14

Quoted Post

Quoted Post
Quoted Post
Interesting, considering our list is skewed a bit by fletch. Wouldn't be surprised if without fletch were closer to port.
Always hated this argument. If Port took out their oldest guy, they'd probably be a bit lower down as well.

He still plays. He’s still 1 of our 22 most weeks. So why shouldn’t he count? That’s called cherry picking.

Exactly. Besides, take out Fletch and we are still one of the most experienced and older sides.

Yep. From top 4 to about top 6 Quickly in my head (taking out Fletch for say, Steinberg, = 17 years & 390 games difference, so about 8 months & 15 games), I think we would drop to somewhere just below Port. If it was for Gwilt (about 10 years & 270 games difference) I think we'd be just above Port. Either way, he's still playing, we're still getting the benefit of that experience.
15

Quoted Post

Quoted Post
Interesting, considering our list is skewed a bit by fletch. Wouldn't be surprised if without fletch were closer to port.
Always hated this argument. If Port took out their oldest guy, they'd probably be a bit lower down as well.

He still plays. He’s still 1 of our 22 most weeks. So why shouldn’t he count? That’s called cherry picking.

its not cherry picking

for the sake of getting more accurate averages, these sorts of players should be left out

im not talking people who are 33/34, but maybe someone like harvey, fletch who are considerably older than the teams next oldest player

16

Quoted Post

Quoted Post
Quoted Post
Interesting, considering our list is skewed a bit by fletch. Wouldn't be surprised if without fletch were closer to port.
Always hated this argument. If Port took out their oldest guy, they'd probably be a bit lower down as well.

He still plays. He’s still 1 of our 22 most weeks. So why shouldn’t he count? That’s called cherry picking.

its not cherry picking

for the sake of getting more accurate averages, these sorts of players should be left out

im not talking people who are 33/34, but maybe someone like harvey, fletch who are considerably older than the teams next oldest player


LOL.
Taking out a few results you do or don’t like, or setting some arbitrary exclusions, so the result represents what you want it to represent is the actual, literal definition of cherry picking.
An average is an average. It’s accurate as long as you calculate it correctly. If you want to represent the median or mode or do box plots or whatever, feel free. If you want to run the numbers without the oldest 5%, or 10%, of players, or everyone over 30, or everyone who has red hair, or everyone who’s mother’s maiden name starts with “A” - go ahead. But do it for all clubs.
17

Put in langford for fletcher its the only way.

18

I think you may have left a zero off Fletch’s games total, may pay to check?

19

Quoted Post

Quoted Post
Quoted Post
Quoted Post
Interesting, considering our list is skewed a bit by fletch. Wouldn't be surprised if without fletch were closer to port.
Always hated this argument. If Port took out their oldest guy, they'd probably be a bit lower down as well.

He still plays. He’s still 1 of our 22 most weeks. So why shouldn’t he count? That’s called cherry picking.

its not cherry picking

for the sake of getting more accurate averages, these sorts of players should be left out

im not talking people who are 33/34, but maybe someone like harvey, fletch who are considerably older than the teams next oldest player


LOL.
Taking out a few results you do or don’t like, or setting some arbitrary exclusions, so the result represents what you want it to represent is the actual, literal definition of cherry picking.
An average is an average. It’s accurate as long as you calculate it correctly. If you want to represent the median or mode or do box plots or whatever, feel free. If you want to run the numbers without the oldest 5%, or 10%, of players, or everyone over 30, or everyone who has red hair, or everyone who’s mother’s maiden name starts with “A” - go ahead. But do it for all clubs.

i said players who are significantly older than the next oldest player on the list should be excluded, and i used the example of fletch and harvey (who will probably meet the mathematical definition of an outlier). I doubt there’d by any other players which meet that definition.

that doesnt seem particularly arbitrary to me

maybe it doesnt make the averages more accurate, yeah ok bad choice of words, but it may make them more comparable

but yeah, sure, exclude all players with red hair if thatll make you feel better

20

Cooney has a soul!