Saw a great stat last night.
The team that played last week was in the 20 youngest teams to ever represent the blues.
The other 19 youngest teams were all in the 1964-70 era.
Omens look good!
| TalkingCarlton http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/ |
|
| Youngest team http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17354 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Jarusa [ Mon Aug 06, 2007 9:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | Youngest team |
Saw a great stat last night. The team that played last week was in the 20 youngest teams to ever represent the blues. The other 19 youngest teams were all in the 1964-70 era.
Omens look good! |
|
| Author: | verbs [ Mon Aug 06, 2007 9:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Read that it was our youngest team since 1970. Didn't we win the flag in 1970? 
|
|
| Author: | johntall [ Mon Aug 06, 2007 9:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Jarusa, can you tell us the last time Carlton team DIDNT feature a premiership player? I am assuming Carlton didn't have one in the team last week agains Pies. |
|
| Author: | George Harris [ Mon Aug 06, 2007 9:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Last time we had no premiership players would have been the Grand Final in 1968 I'm guessing. |
|
| Author: | AGRO [ Mon Aug 06, 2007 9:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
George Harris wrote: Last time we had no premiership players would have been the Grand Final in 1968 I'm guessing.
Technically speaking 20th man Peter Mclean (1968 Grand Final side) was a premiership player for Melbourne in their 1964 Premiership side although ironically he was 20th man for that side as well and did not take the ground at all. http://www.blueseum.org/cfc/tiki-index. ... al%2C+1968 
|
|
| Author: | molsey [ Mon Aug 06, 2007 9:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.blueseum.org/cfc/tiki-index. ... on%20Teams Now up in lights on the Blueseum... johntall, there was a thread on this over the last week as to the last time our list didn't have a premiership player, but the first time we didnt run out with a premiership player in the team was covered last year: http://www.blueseum.org/cfc/tiki-index. ... 11%2C+2006 |
|
| Author: | Jarusa [ Mon Aug 06, 2007 10:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Nice one molsey.
The youngest team to ever represent the Blues turned out at Princes Park in round 9 of 1964. http://www.blueseum.org/cfc/tiki-index. ... +9%2C+1964 Amazingly this team managed to narrowly defeat the Tigers. Does anyone have any memories of this game? |
|
| Author: | tommi [ Mon Aug 06, 2007 10:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yup Jarr............... i remember it like it was forty three years ago...............! kindest regards tommi |
|
| Author: | buzzaaaah [ Mon Aug 06, 2007 10:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
On the radio , they said it was the youngest team since Rd 3, 1970 |
|
| Author: | 7dominator [ Mon Aug 06, 2007 10:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I would have been at that Game but cannot remember it. Whilst it might have been our youngest team it certainly bore little resemblance to the team 4/6 years later. Only Lofts,Serg, Hall,Barry Gill, Big Nick and Ian Collins contributed to our renaissance. Poor old Maurie Sankey was killed in a car crash at the end of that year and Gordon Collis, whilst winning the Brownlow that year couldn't handle R.D.B. Most of the players above had been in the system a while then, the real kids of the team largely never kicked on. |
|
| Author: | molsey [ Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
buzzaaaah wrote: On the radio , they said it was the youngest team since Rd 3, 1970
Yes buzz, that's right. Have a look at the Blueseum link and the Round 3, 1970 game was the most recent in the 'Top 20 Youngest Teams' chart in the Blueseum. This is where the 37 years comes from. The Bleuseum table focusses on teh 20 youngest, of which 19 of the 20 came from 1964 to 1970 with Round 3, 1970, being the most recent. |
|
| Author: | molsey [ Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ive put this together just to see what happened to our youngest ever team in 1964: http://www.blueseum.org/cfc/tiki-index. ... 20Teamlist It shows that a few players kicked on, but really, the point underneath is probably most relevant. Crane, Gallagher and Goold didn't line up that day so even if this particular young team wasnt brilliant, we did have a deep list of young talent coming through to form the 1968-1972 power team. |
|
| Author: | Jarusa [ Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Seeing all of those teams reminded me of Barassi's theory at the time IIRC, it was basically if you have not made it as a VFL footballer by the age of 20 you will never make it. Looks like he really did turn the team over looking for talent year in year out. Reaped dividends in the end. |
|
| Author: | 7dominator [ Tue Aug 07, 2007 1:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
molsey wrote: Ive put this together just to see what happened to our youngest ever team in 1964:
http://www.blueseum.org/cfc/tiki-index. ... 20Teamlist It shows that a few players kicked on, but really, the point underneath is probably most relevant. Crane, Gallagher and Goold didn't line up that day so even if this particular young team wasnt brilliant, we did have a deep list of young talent coming through to form the 1968-1972 power team. One other interesting player made his debut that year and was not part of this game, Jim Miller, better known as Frosty. " Frosty " went on to be a champion Dandenong player in the revitalised VFA Competition. |
|
| Author: | Prussian Blue [ Tue Aug 07, 2007 1:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: The Bleuseum table focusses on teh 20 youngest, of which 19 of the 20 came from 1964 to 1970 with Round 3, 1970, being the most recent.
I was trying to figure out why so many young teams between 64 and 70. All I can think of is that there was a shortage of babies in the early 40s due to WWII. Would that be it? |
|
| Author: | 7dominator [ Tue Aug 07, 2007 2:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Prussian Blue wrote: Quote: The Bleuseum table focusses on teh 20 youngest, of which 19 of the 20 came from 1964 to 1970 with Round 3, 1970, being the most recent. I was trying to figure out why so many young teams between 64 and 70. All I can think of is that there was a shortage of babies in the early 40s due to WWII. Would that be it? Might partly explain it but i really think it was a combination of several factors.... 1) the lean years (1962 excepted) through the 50,s and early 60,s and the subsequent political turmoil at the Club.... Sound familiar?? 2) An age where the battling player was reliant on wages from outside work. Thus is was hard to commit full-time or for example leave the Farm. The number of players who made their debut in 1964 and preceding years are as follows.... 1964 (10) 1963 (7) 1962 (7) 1961 (8) 1960 (7) 1959 (5) 1958 (13) 1957 (4) 1956 (10) 1955 (13) 1954 (10) 1953 (12) 1952 (7) 1951 (8) 1950 (12) 1949(6) 1948 (8) 1947 (7) 1946 (6) 1945 (10) 1944 (12) 1943 (10) 1942 (13) 1941 (6) 1940 (7) 1939 (4) 1938 (7) 1937 (7) 1936 (9) As you can see turnover was consistant before and after the War. Not suprisingly new players were high in 1942-1945 as players moved in from other states and Clubs that closed down. Also those who joined up had to be replaced. At the end of the day i think it was the lack of cash in footy. |
|
| Author: | Springsteen [ Tue Aug 07, 2007 4:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
well last year when kouta was injured we fielded a team with no premiership player |
|
| Author: | Springsteen [ Tue Aug 07, 2007 4:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
in fact that may have been the 1st team in many many years even without a grandfinal player. |
|
| Author: | camel [ Tue Aug 07, 2007 4:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Springsteen wrote: in fact that may have been the 1st team in many many years even without a grandfinal player.
Skinny would have played the 99GF, and Lance too??? I assume one, or both, of those guys played in the game you refer to from last year? |
|
| Author: | Springsteen [ Tue Aug 07, 2007 6:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
camelboy wrote: Springsteen wrote: in fact that may have been the 1st team in many many years even without a grandfinal player. Skinny would have played the 99GF, and Lance too??? I assume one, or both, of those guys played in the game you refer to from last year? sorry i meant last weekends game would have been 1st for many years with no GF player |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC + 10 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|