Neeld made a lot of mistakes, but this wasn't one of them

[Slartibartfast 17,883]

I think it's been stated many times by many people.

I'm surprised to hear you've managed to miss it.

And now Roos himself has said that its something that has pleasantly surprised him.

Yes, it has been mentioned, but is it right? You may believe everything you hear but I like to see the evidence to back it up and I've seen none. In fact I'd say the opposite could well be true.

Interestingly we've completely changed our training methodology this year which further casts doubt on the claim.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Yes, it has been mentioned, but is it right? You may believe everything you hear but I like to see the evidence to back it up and I've seen none. In fact I'd say the opposite could well be true.

Interestingly we've completely changed our training methodology this year which further casts doubt on the claim.

I think it's probably right. Misson, or Mission as many prefer, has been with much of this group now for 3 years and he's been building to this.

Yes, we're training differently and getting more match fit during these sessions than ever before, but I suspect much of the poor running last year was a result of a defeated mindset as much as anything else.

[Machsy 2,858]

Yes, it has been mentioned, but is it right? You may believe everything you hear but I like to see the evidence to back it up and I've seen none. In fact I'd say the opposite could well be true.

Interestingly we've completely changed our training methodology this year which further casts doubt on the claim.

You could be right, but it's a theory I subscribe to.

Under Bailey the players only ran one way anyway.

As H said, Misson has been saying it for years and increasing the workload over time.

I've witnessed the side progressively get better at running games out, and running both offensively and defensively, over the period between Bailey and Roos.

Players themselves have credited Neeld with raising training standards and professionalism at the club, even post-departure.

But come to think of it, the perceived change in fitness and training standards could also be impacted by those who have come and gone in the playing group.

Maybe the increase is simply due to Neeld chasing away those that weren't willing to work (or be flogged).

Also the maturity of the group.

It could have just been fortunate timing and Neeld should have walked away with absolutely zero credits to his name.

I'm not entirely sure.

[Machsy 2,858]

NB. Bailey also didn't have Misson, or the football dept funding Neeld was given.

But my comment wasn't intended to be seen as an attack on Bailey.

[Guest]

I think both BB and Machsy have it half right. I must say I am not a personal trainer or fitness expert but here is my take.

It seemed there was an obsession under the Neeld regime on aerobic running in order to 'run games out'. I think that may have improved but the problem was that other areas were neglected. I would like to know how much strength training was emphasized (we all hear Dermott's legendary tales of our blokes mucking about in the gym). I don't know how you would prepare for this but it's also been said that there was little emphasis on 'explosive speed off the mark'. Don't get me started on skills.
I noticed against less skilled, developing teams (GWS in round 4, Bulldogs in round 24) we could run games out. The bigger problem was that there really was no point having that fitness base against the Geelongs and Hawthorns of this world as the game would be over by half time and no amount of fitness would be able to get us back in.

The point Machsy made about chasing away those unwilling to comply is a valid one. Roosy wanted Col to stay but I wonder how he would handle him hitting the gas every second weekend? How would he handle Beamer doing likewise? Beamer also didn't take it too kindly upon Neeld telling him he was a one way runner. Would he react the same way to Roos telling him (hopefully in a more diplomatic way)? I'm sure Roosy could handle it but handling these ingrained problems would provide roadblocks.

[PJ_12345 1,098]

Can you explain this to me. What evidence do you have that we were fitter and better prepared under Neeld than Bailey.

I certainly didn't see any evidence on field and I find it hard to believe that a team that won just under 40% of its games over two seasons was as far off the pace as many suggest.

Misson made several comments regarding the overall fitness - quoting 3 to 4 years to get to AFL standard - when he came under Neeld.

He has pretty good experience coming from St Kilda's peak.

I think the issue of fitness originated from both the end ND's era and DB. We relied on alot of experienced players to carry the team and when most of them were pushed out or retired we were left with an unfit and inexperienced list.

The unfortunate thing about fitness is that you only get the preseason to improve it. During the season it's just maintenance, otherwise you will end up like Essendon in 2012 with 18+ soft tissue injuries.

[PJ_12345 1,098]

Yes, it has been mentioned, but is it right? You may believe everything you hear but I like to see the evidence to back it up and I've seen none. In fact I'd say the opposite could well be true.

Interestingly we've completely changed our training methodology this year which further casts doubt on the claim.

Misson made several comments regarding the overall fitness - quoting 3 to 4 years to get to AFL standard - when he came under Neeld.

He has pretty good experience coming from St Kilda's peak.

I think the issue of fitness originated from both the end ND's era and DB. We relied on alot of experienced players to carry the team and when most of them were pushed out or retired we were left with an unfit and inexperienced list.

The unfortunate thing about fitness is that you only get the preseason to improve it. During the season it's just maintenance, otherwise you will end up like Essendon in 2012 with 18+ soft tissue injuries.

This is a pretty good article in regards to fitness and including Garland's perspective.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-03-20/dees-were-unfit-last-year-garland

Just because you don't believe other people and not willing to do your own research, doesn't mean they are wrong or the opposite might be true.

Edited February 9, 2014 by PJ_12345

[Guest]

The unfortunate thing about fitness is that you only get the preseason to improve it. During the season it's just maintenance, otherwise you will end up like Essendon in 2012 with 18+ soft tissue injuries.

In Essendon's case, it was because they had so many bloody muscle monkeys running around. (See Collingwood: Fellowes, Wes)

[Scoop Junior 3,562]

I think it's probably right. Misson, or Mission as many prefer, has been with much of this group now for 3 years and he's been building to this.

Yes, we're training differently and getting more match fit during these sessions than ever before, but I suspect much of the poor running last year was a result of a defeated mindset as much as anything else.

Agree with this. It didn't appear to be fitness that caused us to get battered most weeks. It wasn't like we were in games for 3 or 3.5 quarters and then ran out of legs. We were often defeated by half time.

Roos has intimated that he is happy with our running but not our "in game" running. I agree with this 100%. And I think the two main factors for our poor in game running were:

1) running to the wrong spots to defend and filling holes that didn't need filling - this was game plan related and the players appeared confused about where they should be and appeared to have a lack of faith in the game plan because clearly it wasn't working; and

2) as Hannibal says the defeated mindset would have kicked in pretty early in games last year and it's only natural for footballers to drop their work rate when they know they have absolutely no chance of winning.

[binman 44,316]

Roos has intimated that he is happy with our running but not our "in game" running. I agree with this 100%. And I think the two main factors for our poor in game running were:

1) running to the wrong spots to defend and filling holes that didn't need filling - this was game plan related and the players appeared confused about where they should be and appeared to have a lack of faith in the game plan because clearly it wasn't working; and

2) as Hannibal says the defeated mindset would have kicked in pretty early in games last year and it's only natural for footballers to drop their work rate when they know they have absolutely no chance of winning.

Good points. I'd add that players often looked frozen and perhaps were so focused on minding their man/zone they didn't want to take the risk to run to space or provide options. I'd say this had bit to do with a defeated mindset but also about being afraid of the consequences and perhaps also not having trust in teammates to cover their man for them.

Edited February 10, 2014 by binman

[Whispering_Jack 31,068]

Yes, it has been mentioned, but is it right? You may believe everything you hear but I like to see the evidence to back it up and I've seen none. In fact I'd say the opposite could well be true.

Interestingly we've completely changed our training methodology this year which further casts doubt on the claim.

Over the two years when Neeld was coach, the club organised a number of information evenings for supporters during which those who were invited were given the opportunity to ask questions. The matter of training, conditioning and fitness was raised on more than one occasion and the responses involved explanations which indicated that fitness levels of all the levels were measured at various intervals and they improved gradually over time which we were told was as planned by Neeld and Misson from the very beginning. Since Dave Misson is still around, I'm sure the opportunity will arise to delve deeper into the issue in the future and to ascertain how fitness levels were measured and what specific programmes were used.

The fact that someone with Misson's experience and reputation was able to measure the fitness of the players to the point where we were told they were following an upward trend satisfies me for the time being that our fitness improved during Neeld's tenure.

[old dee 23,965]

So his two year reign comes down to he got a large number of the players fitter.

I would have expected he would have achieved that without Misson's input.

After all they spent two hours every weekend for six months chasing their opponents with the ball.

Sorry could not help myself.