Training The Thread Formerly Known As The Training Thread

[DERKADERRR]

The argument is it will see players who can continue to gut run without rest differentiate themselves more from the pack and as they burn off others space opens up.

This doesn't make much sense to me, wouldn't you want to cater to both types of players? Ones who are better at endurance (Blicavs) and ones who work better in bursts (Swannie). It seems like we're putting too much emphasis on running power than skills.

Secondly fatigue will also increase the skill differential . As players tire their skills drop a bit and they don’t hit their targets. The close in congested footy we see today relies on foot and hand skills superior to the past. As more mistakes occur as players tire turnovers occur, the game opens up and scoring increases.

If you make it so that players are more tired won't that mean that they'll try to congest because they'll want to conserve energy? Won't counterattacks be more likely to fail because they can't hit targets due to fatigue, as well as not having the capacity to keep running for longer?

I think that the way to get out of congestion relys on precise skills and fast counterattacks, and hindering players ability to recover won't help that.

 

[jonmacTrag]

The argument is it will see players who can continue to gut run without rest differentiate themselves more from the pack and as they burn off others space opens up.

Secondly fatigue will also increase the skill differential . As players tire their skills drop a bit and they don’t hit their targets. The close in congested footy we see today relies on foot and hand skills superior to the past. As more mistakes occur as players tire turnovers occur, the game opens up and scoring increases.

The bolded represents a glass ceiling for players of lesser endurance but higher skill levels, there have been plenty in the past - what you suggest is making it harder for one physical type to attain the highest level of Australian rules football.

What next? Perhaps a limit on players under 2 meters to be drafted? A limit on players under a certain weight to be drafted?

Where do we stop?

This league is heading towards copying rugby enough as it is and people such as yourself are advocating pushing us further along the line.

I'm sorry but not for me.

 

[Gone Critical]

The bolded represents a glass ceiling for players of lesser endurance but higher skill levels, there have been plenty in the past - what you suggest is making it harder for one physical type to attain the highest level of Australian rules football.

What next? Perhaps a limit on players under 2 meters to be drafted? A limit on players under a certain weight to be drafted?

Where do we stop?

This league is heading towards copying rugby enough as it is and people such as yourself are advocating pushing us further along the line.

I'm sorry but not for me.

Not at all. What I am advocating would take footy back towards what it has been for most of its history.

Mass interchanging of players above the current restrictions was only bought in between about 2007-2010. The numbers of interchange exploded in that time as a coaching tactic to develop what is the modern game.

 

[Gone Critical]

This doesn't make much sense to me, wouldn't you want to cater to both types of players? Ones who are better at endurance (Blicavs) and ones who work better in bursts (Swannie). It seems like we're putting too much emphasis on running power than skills.

There is always a balance between catering for those two types of strengths in a player. The coaches from the mid 2000 decade pushed the game to suit the burst player by massively increasing the number of interchanges. Went from a adage per game 2005 50 to well over 100 5 years later.

Interesting to look back on the games history. No interchanges until 1978, prior to that just 19th and 20th man who acted a single use substitutes

1978 2 interchange players
1994 3rd interchange added
1998 4th interchange added

Until the 2000s the interchange players were not used tactically. It was used for injured players or to bring off players who were performing poorly. The use of the interchange bench tactically has been around for less than 20 years

The 80’s and 90’s which a lot of people see as a special era and a high scoring time used interchanges very sparingly. Most players who started as the 18 on the field stayed there the whole day. It was usually a black mark to be interchanged for anything other than injury through that time.

It was then also that elite midfielders probably covered more kms in a game than what’s done now. Midfielders ran all day and didn’t come off. Robert Harvey was probably the best example of this. His career stated when there were only 2 players on the interchange bench.

 

[Gone Critical]

If you make it so that players are more tired won't that mean that they'll try to congest because they'll want to conserve energy? Won't counterattacks be more likely to fail because they can't hit targets due to fatigue, as well as not having the capacity to keep running for longer?

I think that the way to get out of congestion relys on precise skills and fast counterattacks, and hindering players ability to recover won't help that.

It’s hard for anyone to know the answers for sure but I think taking the game back to less interchanges is much less radical than zones or reducing player numbers. Those type of things risk many unintended consequences.

I have attached an article I found which had addressed the defensive trend in the game and correlated it with more interchanges. We don’t know if they are right but it’s food for thought

Defence and the bench: the cause of dwindling football scores

www.unisa.edu.au

Another article below mentions Neil Craigs work on game changes from 1961 to 1997 and show the increase speed, urgency and speed of ball movement. These no doubt have increased even more and have lead to the modern game bing played in so close with such skill

https://websites.sportstg.com/get_file.cgi?id=232907

 

[Kappa]

This doesn't make much sense to me, wouldn't you want to cater to both types of players? Ones who are better at endurance (Blicavs) and ones who work better in bursts (Swannie). It seems like we're putting too much emphasis on running power than skills.




If you make it so that players are more tired won't that mean that they'll try to congest because they'll want to conserve energy? Won't counterattacks be more likely to fail because they can't hit targets due to fatigue, as well as not having the capacity to keep running for longer?

I think that the way to get out of congestion relys on precise skills and fast counterattacks, and hindering players ability to recover won't help that.

Right now, when the ball is in the opposition forward 50, all the defenders sprint the entire length of the ground to set up a zone just outside the attacking 50 to clog up the forward line and to stop the ball getting out. When those players don't get rests they'll be so fatigued they won't have the energy to sprint up the field and will stay back in defence, which will also the ball to rebound out of their attack easier and open the game up.

Less players around the ball also reduces the pressure the ball carrier is under, which leads to cleaner delivery and less stoppages

 

[jackcass]

Such a sparkling theory on cutting rotations.

What is the single biggest contributing factor to sporting injuries?

Fatigue.

I’d have thought impact.

 

[jackcass]

Right now, when the ball is in the opposition forward 50, all the defenders sprint the entire length of the ground to set up a zone just outside the attacking 50 to clog up the forward line and to stop the ball getting out. When those players don't get rests they'll be so fatigued they won't have the energy to sprint up the field and will stay back in defence, which will also the ball to rebound out of their attack easier and open the game up.

Less players around the ball also reduces the pressure the ball carrier is under, which leads to cleaner delivery and less stoppages

Not so sure it’s so much a mass sprint by defenders. More like a moving maul a set distance behind the footy. You might get the odd player sprinting as a means of providing overlap or similar.

 

[Jen2310]

*clears throat* Training friday...

now..isn't that better. I was falling asleep in here lol

 

[jonmacTrag]

Not at all. What I am advocating would take footy back towards what it has been for most of its history.

Mass interchanging of players above the current restrictions was only bought in between about 2007-2010. The numbers of interchange exploded in that time as a coaching tactic to develop what is the modern game.

And the coaches will not let go of that tactic - when the ball game is on the line against a serious opponent the coach will push the players right up to the point of total exhaustion.

The higher interchange levels were brought in to protect players from exhaustion injuries and if they are further reduced those injuries will reignite.

 

[Gone Critical]

And the coaches will not let go of that tactic - when the ball game is on the line against a serious opponent the coach will push the players right up to the point of total exhaustion.

The higher interchange levels were brought in to protect players from exhaustion injuries and if they are further reduced those injuries will reignite.

The high interchange numbers were not bought in to protect players from injuries. The numbers exploded as coaches used it as a tactic to push players to work at increased burst intensities by having more short breaks through the game.

No one knows for sure whether this helps or hinders injury rates. It’s essentially impossible to prove. There was some data a few years ago that capping interchange had slowed the game a little leading to less collision and structural injuries (joints etc) but the data was far from conclusive

 

[magpie_marty]

Such a sparkling theory on cutting rotations.

What is the single biggest contributing factor to sporting injuries?

Fatigue.

Hmzz players also get injured in the pre game warm up.

 

[KrispyKremePie]

You may be right but the other methods need to be tried 1st if indeed anything needs to be done. Personally I wouldnt go any further than reducing interchange numbers. The mandated starting positions could lead to all sorts of different tactics we dont foresee yet and risk a bigger change in the fabric of the game.

The ability to execute in confined spaces and with little time can't be reversed. The game has upskilled and become tactical. Giving the modern player time and space will only lead to more uncontested play as they spot up options. Fatigue is the only obvious way to bring that skill and close checking down as I see it. If we increase the difference between the players that can maintain skill level at longer times of physical effort it will increase differentials between players and is a battle of the fitness and natural endurance. In that senario the game eventually and naturally opens up. That's the theory anyway.

If they increased the amount of games played this season to 34 games + finals, do you think this will help? I’m thinking the longer season will mean that the players will pace themselves by not getting to as many contests and would result in games that are more open.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[frizzle]

Right now, when the ball is in the opposition forward 50, all the defenders sprint the entire length of the ground to set up a zone just outside the attacking 50 to clog up the forward line and to stop the ball getting out. When those players don't get rests they'll be so fatigued they won't have the energy to sprint up the field and will stay back in defence, which will also the ball to rebound out of their attack easier and open the game up.

Less players around the ball also reduces the pressure the ball carrier is under, which leads to cleaner delivery and less stoppages

‘your forgetting that the ball carrier is also knackered and is less likely to either break way from congestion or kick accurately. Less interchanges will give us a less skilled game. If that’s what people want then sure do it. But until the coaches are hamstrung by not being allowed to push up their backline nothing will change as far as congestion is concerned. Nobody likes the idea of zones. Gone Critical rightly points out that zones won’t be popular. But anchoring 3 or 4 players inside a forward or defensive 50 meter arc is a sure fire way to fix it straight away.The players have accurate gps devices in their jumpers. It’s not a stretch for an offield umpire to determine a field breach & award a free kick against the offending player. Do I want this? No.
coaches have done this to the game & we need to stop them.

 

[Toecrusher]

It’s hard for anyone to know the answers for sure but I think taking the game back to less interchanges is much less radical than zones or reducing player numbers. Those type of things risk many unintended consequences.

I have attached an article I found which had addressed the defensive trend in the game and correlated it with more interchanges. We don’t know if they are right but it’s food for thought

Defence and the bench: the cause of dwindling football scores

www.unisa.edu.au

Another article below mentions Neil Craigs work on game changes from 1961 to 1997 and show the increase speed, urgency and speed of ball movement. These no doubt have increased even more and have lead to the modern game bing played in so close with such skill

https://websites.sportstg.com/get_file.cgi?id=232907

You're right, changing interchange numbers is less radical, but will also be less effective.

If was as easy as changing interchange numbers, I'm sure they'd do it. The trouble is more to do with the defensive coaching methods - they'll still do their best to block the game up regardless of interchange numbers.

Zoning done properly will definitely fix it, but the AFL would rather present an ugly product than make radical changes like that. More of the same to come unfortunately.

 

[Black_White]

Way to get outraged by something that happened a year ago.

I’m outraged by this three week old post.
How dare you!

 

[Kirby]

The best footy played in the last 10 years was played 10 years ago with unlimited interchange.

You will get better play with fresh players smashing the zones than waiting for fatigue. All fatigue gives you is goals in that the last 2 minutes of quarters.

 

[Maurice Mitchell]

You're right, changing interchange numbers is less radical, but will also be less effective.

If was as easy as changing interchange numbers, I'm sure they'd do it. The trouble is more to do with the defensive coaching methods - they'll still do their best to block the game up regardless of interchange numbers.

Zoning done properly will definitely fix it, but the AFL would rather present an ugly product than make radical changes like that. More of the same to come unfortunately.

“ If was as easy as changing interchange numbers, I'm sure they'd do it.”

They have done it

 

[Apples]

Couldn't this discussion be moved elsewhere?

 

[Apples]

Just to get us back on track, I was planning on attending training on Wed 6th. When was the return changed to Friday 8th?

 

[Jen2310]

Just to get us back on track, I was planning on attending training on Wed 6th. When was the return changed to Friday 8th?

I'm quite confused whether its on Wed or friday. I've asked the club, but waiting for a reply.

 

[manicpie]

Right now, when the ball is in the opposition forward 50, all the defenders sprint the entire length of the ground to set up a zone just outside the attacking 50 to clog up the forward line and to stop the ball getting out. When those players don't get rests they'll be so fatigued they won't have the energy to sprint up the field and will stay back in defence, which will also the ball to rebound out of their attack easier and open the game up.

Less players around the ball also reduces the pressure the ball carrier is under, which leads to cleaner delivery and less stoppages

Not quite. All the Defenders don't sprint forward, it's more like midfielders and Wingers who sprint and form a structure and then the defenders behind them set up a zone for the next kick forward. This was the problem with Treloar, he never used to run both ways

 

[Jen2310]

Ugh, not this again

 

[Apples]

I wonder if this means there won't be any time trial this week. Maybe they'll do it in groups of ten?

 

[Gone Critical]

The best footy played in the last 10 years was played 10 years ago with unlimited interchange.

You will get better play with fresh players smashing the zones than waiting for fatigue. All fatigue gives you is goals in that the last 2 minutes of quarters.

That may be true or it may be the game evolved regardless of interchange numbers to its current heavily defensive mindset. The thing I see with the heavy use of interchange was it was only something that ran for a few seasons. I think it was 2013 when one game had 140 interchanges. The numbers increased dramatically for a few seasons.

I dont really believe the argument restricting interchanges is somehow changing the game because it was never part of the game for very long. . It was the spiral in interchange numbers that have allowed the intensity of the game to push higher again and is maybe one thing we can do to slow the game a little and bring back more space into the game. Truth is no one ones for sure which way things will go and as someone who loves the modern game I am not fussed if nothing is done.

I would see zoning the ground or reducing players on the ground as the worst solutions.