'Peaking too early' nonsense

[drummond2fevola]

Alot of sport scientists on bigfooty

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

What happened to Geelong in 2008 affected the way the club has managed its players over the subsequent three and a bit years. Players have publicly said that in hindsight, putting the best 22 players possible, with players occasionally carrying niggles into games was the wrong way to go, particularly when there were some reasonable players running around in the twos for the majority of the year (Hawkins, Byrnes, West, Wojcinski, Djerrkura, Hogan, David Johnson...)

Just going back over recent years, I wonder how many times the eventual premier was both on top of the ladder and the premiership favourite at the half way stage. Some years they may have been one or the other, but rarely both, I imagine. Whether this is just a coincidence or it truly has something to do with the 'peaking too soon' theory or not is debatable.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

One of Geelong's biggest advantages these past few years has been the amount of wins they've had on the board by round 14-15, virtually guaranteeing themselves a home final and the opportunity to rest older players / players with niggles etc.

A lot of those wins in those first 14-15 rounds were real struggles though. Geelong would play a quarter, a half or a 10 to 15 minute burst to put the game away. As someone else has mentioned, it wouldn't have taken a lot for some of those results to go the other way.

So in my mind, peaking too early isn't a nonsense, it exists. In 2008 Hawthorn were flying come finals. Geelong were still playing well but weren't right on the edge like the Hawks were.

Look at the Geelong of the 90s. Ablett was slaying them kicking ton after ton in double quick time during the H&A, he was spent by the finals and Geelong were rooted. It didn't help coming up against the dominant sides of WC and Carlton though.

 

[pjcrows]

"Peaked too early" is an easy hindsight response which basically means "weren't good enough".

 

[Gone Critical]

While I'm at it I would just like to say last year's premiership was the only one I realy admired from your club, it was a ripper. The '07 was a chump year (Geelong was the only team "up") and '09 could have gone either way even though the Saints were an average Grandfinalist.

Mean spirited much

2007 may have lacked another standout team but if you missed out on understanding you were seeing a great team ply their trade that year I worry about your powers of football perception

2009 St Kilda an average Grand Finalist. One of the strong teams never to win a flag, who were at their heights in 2009. Saints won 20 games and dominated the competition. Only one other side was near them in 2009 , the Cats , one of the great sides of all time.

Maybe try football 101 again

 

[Jimmy Yamazaki]

While I'm at it I would just like to say last year's premiership was the only one I realy admired from your club, it was a ripper. The '07 was a chump year (Geelong was the only team "up") and '09 could have gone either way even though the Saints were an average Grandfinalist.
If you win it this year I will really take my hat off to your team, I can't remember a year in history with so many genuine contenders.

lol know much about footy? No such thing as a gimme. you still have to make the finals first to win one.. Like sure all your 16 GF wins where all competing against uber opposition...


I love bitter posts like this makes our success even better.. An no one cares if you tip your hat off Cats don't need respect from you...

 

[TradeDraft]

I'm not sure what opinion i have on the whole "peaking to early" thing, i mean, you want your side playing good footy so they are in good form but i think Geelong have proved that you don't have to blitz through a whole season to win a premiership, we paced ourselves last year and were in better shape come finals then any other side. I actually think Collingwood will take a simular route, they will try and copy what we did in 2011, so don't be to disheartened about your 2012 start, because even though you started really well in 2011, you didn't come away with anything.

Geelong learnt this leason in 2008.

We won the NAB Cup and McLeand Trophy. Though we did not come home with the Biggest Prize

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Well in 2011 it was a bit of a myth.

Geelong were 14-0, and finished the year 19-3 (I think), Collingwood 20-2, sooooooo they're pretty much identical, they both made the GF, and there can only be one winner.

So the myth was busted last year. Both sides arguably 'peaked early'. With Geelong 'peaking' even more than us, mind you, our loss to them was only by 3 points thanks to an incorect umpiring decision, so Collingwood and Geelong were as dead even as you could get all of last year.

In the end, as I said before, they both made the GF. So yeah, peaking early is a bit of bullshit.

Man management is more important.

 

[MarkT2]

Is your fitness manager still there? Your football director? How about the president? I'm sure Eddie was prouncing around when you where 20-1.

Last year and in particular at around 20-1, the Collingwood president would have had his lowest profile since he took over the gig in 1999.

 

[camtherose]

Not sure about peaking too early, or even if you can do so after two or three rounds. I think the Blues are legit this year, and are a lock for the top four, having the friendliest draw of the Big Five. Here's my take:

http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/04/09/are-carlton-the-real-deal-in-2012/

 

[Sttew]

Does anyone seriously think there is a such thing as 'peaking too early'?

Yes, its called showing your hand too early. Sure Geelong was 14:0 last year, but as it turned out, the Cats had not fine tuned the game plan that ultimately won them the premiership cup.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

so many people are either ignorant or just do not study history.

Peaking too early has happened so often over the course of footy that I am amazed this topic has been created.

Very good examples - Ess in 90, Ess in 01, Geel in 08, Saints in 04, Carlton in 00 and Pies in 11.

All started very well playing top footy, but by seasons end they were worn out and were struggling for form. Injuries can play a part, but player management is key. This is why Geelong have the 09 and 11 flags.

teams cannot sustain the high level of play for an entire season except for the few freak seasons when they are so dominant that nobody can challenge them.

 

[Richo83]

Agreed, the notion of peaking too early is stupid. It's like teams thinking they need a loss to wake them up. If you need to lose to alert you to club issues then you've already got issues.

For anyone who doesn't believe in teams peaking to early let me ask you this. Does the best team in June win the premiership or the best team in September?? Of course in a perfect world you'd take both, but we don't live in a perfect world now do we....

Teams who perform well in June and not in September generally do so because of injuries, form, or the notion that they're simply not good enough. There isn't a capped limit on form and skill which limits how well a team can perform throughout the months.

If you look at the grand final winners, most if not all of them have shown consistent form throughout the season. Flag winners generally play well in September, but they generally also play well in March, June etc. This is due to form and the fact that, surprise surprise, teams which win regularly also win flags. If someone said "would you like Richmond to go 10-0 and play like gods in the first half of the season" do I wonder, maybe this is peaking too early? No, the side takes the wins and the form. And form is a huge thing, especially as sport is often played between the ears. Start dropping games and things become iffy. Keep winning games and confidence maintains. Overall, flag winners are the side which has performed well most consistently over the season, won the most games, displayed form in most weeks and months and carry this to September. In essence, flag winners want to "peak" or whatever anytime they can. Sure, they'd also like to play their best football in September, but they aren't complaining if they also play good football in August or May.

The notion that teams "peak" is in my mind more an issue of overconfidence, where teams/media/fans think they're better than they are, in which they're exposed as what they really are. The bulldogs are a good example of this, home and away specialists, who could not make the grand final. Did they peak too early? I don't think so. If Carlton dominate the home and away season and then end up losing to Hawthorn, it may be because Hawthorn are better. A novel concept I'll admit.

 

[The Final Word]

so many people are either ignorant or just do not study history.

Peaking too early has happened so often over the course of footy that I am amazed this topic has been created.

Very good examples - Ess in 90, Ess in 01, Geel in 08, Saints in 04, Carlton in 00 and Pies in 11.

All started very well playing top footy, but by seasons end they were worn out and were struggling for form. Injuries can play a part, but player management is key. This is why Geelong have the 09 and 11 flags.

teams cannot sustain the high level of play for an entire season except for the few freak seasons when they are so dominant that nobody can challenge them.

Surprised given that you mentioned '90 that you forgot about the '91 Eagles.

http://stats.rleague.com/afl/seas/1991.html#12

Absolute beasts, started the season 12-0 at 195% Finished 19-3

Lost to Fitzroy, who they'd accounted for by 99 points in their earlier fixture, in the final week before finals and lost their first final before recovering and winning 2 to get to the GF only to be flogged by Hawthorn in the Angry Anderson Batmobile Grand Final

 

[Richo83]

so many people are either ignorant or just do not study history.

Peaking too early has happened so often over the course of footy that I am amazed this topic has been created.

Very good examples - Ess in 90, Ess in 01, Geel in 08, Saints in 04, Carlton in 00 and Pies in 11.

Geelong didn't peak in 2008, they got out coached in 2008 and they had an off day in front of goal. It had nothing to do with their home and away form. What you're essentially saying is they didn't win when it mattered, which is different. As for the pies, the pies didn't peak either, they were just beaten by a very good team, a team which had an almost identical record to them. Remember, in 2011, Collingwood struggled to beat Geelong both in the regular season and the finals, which suggests that Collingwood struggled to match up on Geelong, not that they peaked. And Carlton peaking in 2000? Good lord, no, they just faced one of the best sides in modern history. Any fan who says they didn't win the 2000 grand final because they "peaked" is forgetting the fact that even if they made the grand final, they would have lost anyway.

All started very well playing top footy, but by seasons end they were worn out and were struggling for form. Injuries can play a part, but player management is key. This is why Geelong have the 09 and 11 flags.

That's injuries though. The op is not disputing the notion that injuries/form play a factor. The op is just wondering why we talk about peaking in say "April" as if it's a bad thing.

teams cannot sustain the high level of play for an entire season except for the few freak seasons

Wuut? Yes then can, many sides in the past have. It's common for sides to win say 22 games in a year these days. It seems peculiar to blame September struggles on a team performing well in previous months.

 

[The Final Word]

Cats 2008 was possibly a case of mentally peaking and not being able to deal with a brilliant 3rd quarter by Hawthorn, I don't think it was a physical issue, probably just mental based on those bloody 2nd quarter misses.

There is however science behind physically peaking and it is more than likely that last season, right around the time the Cats lost to Essendon and West Coast after having already sewn up a top 2 finals birth, that they were starting to put heavy km's into their legs at training aiming to peak, as so many athletes do, in September. A few losses (turned out to be 3) along the way made zero difference to the end result, a home final at the MCG.

World Records don't fall in big numbers at World Titles and Olympics by coincidence you know.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Geelong didn't peak in 2008, they got out coached in 2008 and they had an off day in front of goal. It had nothing to do with their home and away form.

I thik this is a subjective thing though. As mentioned previously, a lot of Geelong players have said that in 2008, senior players were left in the side when they may have been 85-90% fit during the season and they maintained this in the finals (easy to say in hindsight, admittedly). It obvious that in recent years (particularly 2011) Geelong has rotated players and given players in their late 20s and early 30s plenty of time to rest up, both in the preseason and the home and away season. Could they have still gone 21-1 in the home and away season, with the current policy of rotations? Maybe. Does it mean they would have beaten Hawthorn in the grand final? Not necessarily.

 

[Thommo 42]

I don't think peaking too early is a myth. It just doesn't apply in some cases.

As was correctly pointed out earlier, Collingwood's form late in 2011 had nothing to do with their outstanding early 2011 form. It was a combination of factors, such as injuries, suspension and other teams abilities to breakdown the press.

While we lost the GF, the demise started back in about Round 18 when guys started dropping like flies.

I think the term is more to do with sides like Essendon in 2011, who suffered injuries, but were also spent by Round 10 such was the intensity of their play from the NAB Cup through to that point. This could not be maintained by their relatively young and inexperienced list.

 

[Lasso]

Ask Man City.

 

[BEEG]

Collingwood didn't peak to early they mismanaged their team.

Bingo we have a winner

 

[Pevers-Legend]

Geelong didn't peak in 2008, they got out coached in 2008 and they had an off day in front of goal. It had nothing to do with their home and away form. What you're essentially saying is they didn't win when it mattered, which is different. As for the pies, the pies didn't peak either, they were just beaten by a very good team, a team which had an almost identical record to them. Remember, in 2011, Collingwood struggled to beat Geelong both in the regular season and the finals, which suggests that Collingwood struggled to match up on Geelong, not that they peaked. And Carlton peaking in 2000? Good lord, no, they just faced one of the best sides in modern history. Any fan who says they didn't win the 2000 grand final because they "peaked" is forgetting the fact that even if they made the grand final, they would have lost anyway.

Geelong were not at their best come finals time. They were tired and the club admitted it after the finals and chnaged their preparation for 2009. Can't believe how people just ignore this.

That's injuries though. The op is not disputing the notion that injuries/form play a factor. The op is just wondering why we talk about peaking in say "April" as if it's a bad thing.

Of course injuries impact on form. Which is why peaking requires careful management of players. Injuries are quite often why a team peaks eraly on becasue they are full strenght without niggles. Guess what injuries are a part of footy and every player has niggles by seasons end at best. This is precisely what peaking is.

Wuut? Yes then can, many sides in the past have. It's common for sides to win say 22 games in a year these days. It seems peculiar to blame September struggles on a team performing well in previous months.

Looking at wins and losses is like looking at footy statistics and basing your argument on that. Good teams will still win games late in the season, doesn't mean they play well and are facing top teams.

This is where finals sorts eveyone out. The poor form is exposed as you don't get easy games in finals and you have to beat the best each week to win the flag.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Peak refers to optimum output (100%) so yes, technically nonsense, however, saying that, it's a marathon, not a sprint, and everyone knows, in a marathon, it's the last 5km you want to be at your best, not the first 5km

 

[Ned_Flanders]

pretty sure that AMI mob have a nasal spray for this kind of issue

 

[Richo83]

I thik this is a subjective thing though. As mentioned previously, a lot of Geelong players have said that in 2008, senior players were left in the side when they may have been 85-90% fit during the season and they maintained this in the finals (easy to say in hindsight, admittedly). It obvious that in recent years (particularly 2011) Geelong has rotated players and given players in their late 20s and early 30s plenty of time to rest up, both in the preseason and the home and away season. Could they have still gone 21-1 in the home and away season, with the current policy of rotations? Maybe. Does it mean they would have beaten Hawthorn in the grand final? Not necessarily.

I think fatigue and freshness is an obvious thing in sport. But I think when people talk about peaking too early, I think they mean something else. It's as if they've picked the wrong time to play top football (and as if they're picking times in the first place).

 

[Thrawn]

so many people are either ignorant or just do not study history.

Peaking too early has happened so often over the course of footy that I am amazed this topic has been created.

Very good examples - Ess in 90, Ess in 01, Geel in 08, Saints in 04, Carlton in 00 and Pies in 11.

All started very well playing top footy, but by seasons end they were worn out and were struggling for form. Injuries can play a part, but player management is key. This is why Geelong have the 09 and 11 flags.

You're calling other people ignorant or not studying history when you put Carlton 00 in there. The hilarity. Carlton certainly did not have a good start to 00, we lost three games in the row early on by big margins (including to Collingwood, who finished 15th that year).