Interestingly the Eels were the only club not to debut a single player this season and had an average number of NRL games nearly 100. A big change from previous seasons, particularly those wooden spoon years when the average number of NRL games would've been around 60.
Replies
Probably a bit more indicative of how much depth and versatility we now have. BA has recruited well to cover different positions.
Still short of a real dominant forward though.
To be honest I don't think you can really read too much into any of these stats. The Warriors had a similar amount of NRL experience and a similar average age yet they finished the season terribly. Storm and Cowboys used the second and third amount of players yet were in the grand final, Raiders, Dragons and Bulldogs used the least number of players but didn't make the finals. But I think something must also be said for the fact the Storm probably used a lot of those players to cover during the Origin period.
Debutants needs to be exposed the 1st grade or you run the risk of losing those players or having them debut at an inconvenient time that may be detrimental to the team.
Slowly but surely should be the plan when it comes to promoting or exposing a new player to first grade.
Poor vision from BA IMO.
We the only team that has not used any rookies.. not too sure that is a good sign.
There will be some next year. Ideally we would have blooded someone this year, but there are risks in that.
Interesting that we have one of the most experienced teams, with no rookies this year either. Given the fact that we have no rep players, it's probably the experience that got us to 4th, not just raw talent.
Some statistics truly are useless and this is example of that.
Add Bevan French, Kaysa and gutho for full season our averages go down, where if IDG wasn't retired and Beau Scott played full season it goes up.
Definitely agree with your view on this Frank.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next