24 players used - good or bad?

[swansrock4eva]

I think there's a happy medium with that line though. In the long term, more players with experience can be a good thing because it means there's a less shell-shocked second tier waiting to be played. In a single season, while 24 players at the half-way mark is awesome in one respect, in our case it seems that there needs to be more players with game time because we're clearly carrying injuries that are costing us. If it were 24 uninjured, 100% fit players then it would be a different scenario.

Stats gurus, any idea/way to find out what's the average number of senior games for a whole playing list that's won the premiership?

[NMWBloods]

I think you'd want to use about 28-30 players each year. This gives you a core of 22, plus 4-6 backups plus 2-4 new guys to gradually introduce.

This seems to be roughly what the Swans did last year and what Brisbane did. The Swans are not doing that this year.

[Gary]

We're not doing it, & it's hard to reason why.
Our recruits have been obvious lemons for almost the whole year, & our "first (only!) reserves" (i.e. Dempster & Beaven) have been far from impressive apart from Dempsters goal from the boundary against North.
The early stated idea of playing Vogels FB, & releasing Leo should have been tried well before this, it would not have been able to damage our 1 / 3 start much! The Malceski / LRT scenario is not really accurate, with both playing earlier than stated, & showing promise that kept them motivated.
Now we might do something with some difficult games coming up...I don't get the timing...but changes must be made. Willo better have a good game quick too.