Training 2024 Preseason training reports and discussion

[Grasshopper17]

6 on the bench is dumb & detracts from the game's attraction in my opinion....why not make it 10 on the bench then? or 15?

Part of the games strength's is playing under duress pressure. When a player gets worn out, there should be game strategies in helping him & the team get through his fatigue at that time rather than simply put him on the bench for a spell while he recovers.
In the case where he is simply getting beaten, its too easy now to put him on the bench rather than find another way. 6 on the bench will just make that an easier decision to make.

Agreed. Let's go back to 2 on the bench. Better yet, 1 and make it a substitute. Just like the good old days.

 

[Mighty Lions]

Agreed. Let's go back to 2 on the bench. Better yet, 1 and make it a substitute. Just like the good old days.

Just as dumb

 

[Grasshopper17]

Just as dumb

But I thought we wanted to see how players perform under duress and pressure??

 

[Harris Specter]

Is there a way to find out when & where they will be training next week? I'll be in Brisbane for work and would like to see if I can take a few photos.

 

[Section 5]

Sometimes I really think people like making things more complicated than need be simply to justify the existence of their job.

The interchange conundrum is really very simple.

6 on the bench. One for each line of the ground, in theory. It's going to happen eventually anyway so stop pussyfooting around and get it done.

Then, unlimited interchange. BUT you can only do it after a goal. Or there's a blood rule or serious injury of course.

Personally, i do not like unlimited interchanges. Was happy when it slowly got reduced to the present 75.
Actually, i would prefer it to continue to be reduced.
65-71 interchanges would be my preference with no changes between breaks. Would settle for the 65-71 though.
I have said many times the correct interchange number is when players especially forwards are not taken off after a goal is scored.

I am happy with 5 on the bench as i mentioned above.

 

[Mr Ripper]

Is there a way to find out when & where they will be training next week? I'll be in Brisbane for work and would like to see if I can take a few photos.

Mon 8am; Wed 4pm; Fri 8am.

As always, subject to late change without notice.

 

[brutus76]

Gunners was:
1. A better one on one mark than any of our current forwards
2. A better kick for goal than any of our other key bigger forwards (63% v Daniher 59%, Hipwood 57%)
3. Read the ball better than any of our other key bigger forwards

Hopefully the group learnt a few thing from a 3 TIME PREMIERSHIP PLAYER about all facets of the same seeing there are so many premiership players on the Lions list - not!

So it didn't work out - he wasn't a bust like Grundy at Melbourne

 

[Maboo]

6 on the bench is dumb & detracts from the game's attraction in my opinion....why not make it 10 on the bench then? or 15?

Part of the games strength's is playing under duress pressure. When a player gets worn out, there should be game strategies in helping him & the team get through his fatigue at that time rather than simply put him on the bench for a spell while he recovers.
In the case where he is simply getting beaten, its too easy now to put him on the bench rather than find another way. 6 on the bench will just make that an easier decision to make.

I would be happy with an extended bench, the game is a lot quicker now and players are expected to run like never before. I think an extra 1 or even 2 on the bench would help to reduce soft tissue injuries when fatiguing.

 

[Mighty Lions]

I would be happy with an extended bench, the game is a lot quicker now and players are expected to run like never before. I think an extra 1 or even 2 on the bench would help to reduce soft tissue injuries when fatiguing.

Are the soft tissue injuries caused by fatigue?

 

[Maboo]

Are the soft tissue injuries caused by fatigue?

Not on its own but it would have to be a contributing factor, how often do you see a ****ed out player ping a hamstring at full pelt late in a qtr.

 

[Scubaveg]

But I thought we wanted to see how players perform under duress and pressure??

********.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[The Flying Belgian]

Give me 16 a side with 6 on the bench.

 

[Section 5]

Give me 16 a side with 6 on the bench.

So, one more than AFLW

 

[The Flying Belgian]

So, one more than AFLW

I'd have them both the same.

 

[Morbidly_Obese]

Give me 16 a side with 6 on the bench.

 

[dlanod]

Give me 16 a side with 6 on the bench.

I've come around to the fewer players = more space argument over time, especially watching the AFLW. Constantly reducing interchanges isn't making a difference, especially when everyone's still flooding and zoning everyone back. Go back and watch our premiership games and you'll see similarities to the women's game now - kicks into space, massive room on the wings, fast ball movement (ok, maybe not that last one). Move two players off the field, increase the number of interchanges, and let them loose.

 

[KissKiss]

I've never liked the unlimited interchange and miss the days when you needed to be tactical about making them. Honestly would be interested to see them dropped to like 10 (or less a quarter) so you need to be really smart about who/when/how you rotate them around the field and have coaching be a bigger aspect.

Also dont mind the idea of dropping two off the field as well. It definitely has merit to explore

 

[Section 5]

I've come around to the fewer players = more space argument over time, especially watching the AFLW. Constantly reducing interchanges isn't making a difference, especially when everyone's still flooding and zoning everyone back. Go back and watch our premiership games and you'll see similarities to the women's game now - kicks into space, massive room on the wings, fast ball movement (ok, maybe not that last one). Move two players off the field, increase the number of interchanges, and let them loose.

Fewer players on the field automatically gives more ground space per player.
When the AFLW started with reduced numbers (16) i was hopeful we would see a more open game.
In my opinion that did not happen and after 7/8 seasons i don't see a great difference.
I would hate the mens game to go down a similar path.
There are still way too many stoppages in the AFLW than is desirable.
The last touch rule eliminated what would be more stoppages so thank heavens for that rule.

Yes, the AFLW game does open up some in turnovers but not always in a good way.
You see time and time again a team breaking away from the wing only to wrongly kick to nobody up forward.
That kick may go into space, but it is usually cleaned up by the opposition.
Maybe in the AFL the men would wait for reinforcements (like the AFLW should do) with a sideways/slightly backward kick to a teammate. Retain possession until players can get forward of the ball.

In our premiership years the interchange numbers would have been very low as 4 on the bench only came into play in 1998.
I can't find a record of interchanges made in the 2001-3 premiership era, but it would have been well below 56.
The reason i say below 56 is from what i could find on interchanges from Wikipedia.

So, if you wish to go back to our premiership style you mentioned, reducing the numbers is the way to go in my opinion.
...........................

Historically, the interchange bench was used sparingly, and mostly to take poor-performing or players who were injured and unable to continue out of the game. There was a marked change in this at the top level as professionalism grew in the sport between 2000 and 2010, and the interchange bench began to be used much more frequently as a means of rotating players to manage player fatigue through the game and offer rest periods for hard working players and game time for young/old players. The average number of interchanges in the AFL doubled between 2007 (56 changes per team per game) and 2010 (113 changes per team per game) as coaches sought to give frequent rests to their running players.[33] Rule changes in the 2010s and 2020s placed restrictions on the number of interchanges, on the theory that lower fatigue levels were enabling a more defensive play style which was stifling open play and scoring, and that restricting rotations and increasing fatigue could reverse that trend.[34]

 

[dlanod]

Fewer players on the field automatically gives more ground space per player.
When the AFLW started with reduced numbers (16) i was hopeful we would see a more open game.
In my opinion that did not happen and after 7/8 seasons i don't see a great difference.
I would hate the mens game to go down a similar path.
There are still way too many stoppages in the AFLW than is desirable.
The last touch rule eliminated what would be more stoppages so thank heavens for that rule.

Yes, the AFLW game does open up some in turnovers but not always in a good way.
You see time and time again a team breaking away from the wing only to wrongly kick to nobody up forward.
That kick may go into space, but it is usually cleaned up by the opposition.
Maybe in the AFL the men would wait for reinforcements (like the AFLW should do) with a sideways/slightly backward kick to a teammate. Retain possession until players can get forward of the ball.

The women (in general) don't have the professional fitness levels required to get ahead of the ball and spread into the space to better account for it, nor the skills to successfully hit players in that space. We're starting to see the latter with some good ball movement from teams including us where it's surprisingly easy to go from end to end because of that space, as long as you're actually hitting targets in stride. The men can do both today. It will change over time in the women's as well.

I would love the last possession rule to come in too, but that's because it's so much cleaner than the "insufficient intent" lottery currently played.

 

[p4p1]

I've come around to the fewer players = more space argument over time, especially watching the AFLW. Constantly reducing interchanges isn't making a difference, especially when everyone's still flooding and zoning everyone back. Go back and watch our premiership games and you'll see similarities to the women's game now - kicks into space, massive room on the wings, fast ball movement (ok, maybe not that last one). Move two players off the field, increase the number of interchanges, and let them loose.

I suspect that the athleticism difference between the men and the women is a bigger factor than 2 less on the field.

 

[p4p1]

Historically, the interchange bench was used sparingly, and mostly to take poor-performing or players who were injured and unable to continue out of the game. There was a marked change in this at the top level as professionalism grew in the sport between 2000 and 2010, and the interchange bench began to be used much more frequently as a means of rotating players to manage player fatigue through the game and offer rest periods for hard working players and game time for young/old players. The average number of interchanges in the AFL doubled between 2007 (56 changes per team per game) and 2010 (113 changes per team per game) as coaches sought to give frequent rests to their running players.[33] Rule changes in the 2010s and 2020s placed restrictions on the number of interchanges, on the theory that lower fatigue levels were enabling a more defensive play style which was stifling open play and scoring, and that restricting rotations and increasing fatigue could reverse that trend.[34]

Last time I watched one of our premierships, the bench absolutely was only used for injuries and a very small number of rotations. Definitely old school.

I believe and I could be wrong so anyone feel free to correct me if I am, that it was Paul Roos that started the current trend of a shitload of interchanges because of the flooding he implemented. I am in full agreement with you that the interchange during our premiership era and even as late as 2004 would have been well below 56, which I believe is from 2007. Roos and the swans win in 2005 with their flooding game plan, which helped them beat a much more talented eagles side. You can find posts from 2005 about how Roos is ruining the game with flooding. I don't have the stats but I am sure that one of the ways Roos was able to keep the swans flooding all game was being the first to introduce a lost more rotations. Other teams had to adapt and implement to compete, they worked on improving, and figured, if 45 rotations helps keep players fresh and running harder for longer then imagine what 50 would do, then 55 etc.

We do look at the older games with rose tinted glasses though, even watching our threepeat, the speed difference in the game is staggering. The AFL is trying to find a balance between keeping the speed there, limiting the flooding by capping interchanges etc. But if the AFL did cap the rotations at 10 per quarter, we would all start complaining about how slow the game is and how we miss players running at full speed all game.

I would prefer the AFL gets rid of the stupid stand rule before they worry about capping the interchange again.

 

[Grasshopper17]

Last time I watched one of our premierships, the bench absolutely was only used for injuries and a very small number of rotations. Definitely old school.

I believe and I could be wrong so anyone feel free to correct me if I am, that it was Paul Roos that started the current trend of a shitload of interchanges because of the flooding he implemented. I am in full agreement with you that the interchange during our premiership era and even as late as 2004 would have been well below 56, which I believe is from 2007. Roos and the swans win in 2005 with their flooding game plan, which helped them beat a much more talented eagles side. You can find posts from 2005 about how Roos is ruining the game with flooding. I don't have the stats but I am sure that one of the ways Roos was able to keep the swans flooding all game was being the first to introduce a lost more rotations. Other teams had to adapt and implement to compete, they worked on improving, and figured, if 45 rotations helps keep players fresh and running harder for longer then imagine what 50 would do, then 55 etc.

We do look at the older games with rose tinted glasses though, even watching our threepeat, the speed difference in the game is staggering. The AFL is trying to find a balance between keeping the speed there, limiting the flooding by capping interchanges etc. But if the AFL did cap the rotations at 10 per quarter, we would all start complaining about how slow the game is and how we miss players running at full speed all game.

I would prefer the AFL gets rid of the stupid stand rule before they worry about capping the interchange again.

In the very excellent book Time And Space, Chris Connolly at Fremantle is given most of the credit/blame for the skyrocketing use of interchange.

 

[Clarkythelion]

Gunners was:
1. A better one on one mark than any of our current forwards
2. A better kick for goal than any of our other key bigger forwards (63% v Daniher 59%, Hipwood 57%)
3. Read the ball better than any of our other key bigger forwards

Hopefully the group learnt a few thing from a 3 TIME PREMIERSHIP PLAYER about all facets of the same seeing there are so many premiership players on the Lions list - not!

So it didn't work out - he wasn't a bust like Grundy at Melbourne

I get what you're saying and on long term averages you're right. For 2023 only it's a slightly different story. No doubt the recruitment of Gunston was right for the Lions, right in strategy that is. Our attack was used to the 3 taller forwards with McStay and Gunston seemed the perfect fit but would take his opportunities better and kick more goals than McStay would although Mcstay was stronger down the line and on transition.

Gunners unfortunately didn't have his best year with the boot, his set shots were off for the few opportunities he got and had he been getting his 2 or 3 goals a game it would have been happy days. Hopefully our guys did learn something from him. I don't think any damage has been done, he is back where he wants to be and the Lions have more salary cap to use, without loosing for us, a locked in top 22 player but a very good player.

 

[Hanley]

In the very excellent book Time And Space, Chris Connolly at Fremantle is given most of the credit/blame for the skyrocketing use of interchange.

Sounds interesting, I'll look that up. In my head a big jump was with Mick Malthouse leading up to the 2010 premiership, in particular to be able to use Dane Swan in repeated 4 minute bursts before he got gassed.

 

[brutus76]

Even on a "down year" Gunners got more touches per game and kicked straighter than Hipwood who was on way more coin in 2023