I never understood the rationale of Misson's comment. A bottom club would turnover between 22-30 players in 3 years. By the third year, half the players on the list wouldn't be at the club. Darren Burgess at Port Adelaide was able to markedly change their fitness levels in 12 months by increasing workloads from day 1.

People never mention that Port's list was in a very different position to ours, even then. They had a much more even spread of ages through the group and plenty of hardened experienced players plus a bunch who were at the age the bulk of our list is just reaching now. They had a heap of injuries to the majority of their KPP's the year before the new regime and they all came back and were good.

Having said all of that Burgess seems to have had an incredible impact on their conditioning but you've got to take into account a more mature list and they were probably starting on a better base than our boys were when Misson started.

People keep wanting to compare Port to us but in many ways you can't. I'm still suffering from what they did to us Rd1 2013 when we thought they were a basket case and we'd beat them comfortably.

hope was not in the car with cousins

Maybe Kent stayed in Perth to start contract negotiations with his new club.

or a quick catch up with cousins

or a quick catch up with cousins

Not to mention a few aunts and uncles.

Not to mention a few aunts and uncles.

Lol

Think il wait for the real games before i judge the fitness levels

I'm in this boat aswell.

Anyone who knows anything about soccer with 11 v 10 would recognise the tactic. Unfortunately for whatever reason our players seem incredibly dull.

.

According to the Italians nobody in Australia knows how to do that.

Thanks for the training report. You guys are legends.

On the 4 years with misson. Surely we are now fit?!? We won't hear any talk of we just couldn't run out games etc. surely?!

Apparently we did 180% of the kms this pre-season compared to last according to Tommy Mac. That is significant.

Apparently we did 180% of the kms this pre-season compared to last according to Tommy Mac. That is significant.

I'm still concerned that Melbourne players aren't strong enough, the players just don't look nearly as toned or as big across the chest as other teams.

Fitness levels are all well and good but it's as if people speak about it being the difference between us being competitive and non competitive.

We've seen we can compete. There is no question of that any longer. Look at the stats we were deplorable in from last year and they all point to one thing.

Ability to hit targets quickly and often.

It really is as simple as that for us at the moment.

Edited March 12, 201510 yr by stevethemanjordan

I'm still concerned that Melbourne players aren't strong enough, the players just don't look nearly as toned or as big across the chest as other teams.

This is the movement of the football anatomy nowadays. Pushing towards long distance built athletes with lean muscle. Hawthorn is the team that embody this.

This is the movement of the football anatomy nowadays. Pushing towards long distance built athletes with lean muscle. Hawthorn is the team that embody this.

The look stronger still, maybe they are just more mature bodies.

Honestly, fitness is great, but what we want is players hitting targets rather than high bombs. I'd take less running if we could do that regularly.

The look stronger still, maybe they are just more mature bodies.

I thought this too, but when I saw a large chunk of the hawthorn players out and about including a few ex players I was shocked by how skinny they appeared

Edit: maturity probably plays a part through the middle I guess.. But on tv everyone looks bigger I think

Edited March 12, 201510 yr by Mad_Melbourne

Honestly, fitness is great, but what we want is players hitting targets rather than high bombs. I'd take less running if we could do that regularly.

Do the two have to be mutually exclusive?

I would have hoped that the increased fitness levels lead to players feeling less fatigue during games and that would lead to a higher quality of disposals.

Do the two have to be mutually exclusive?

I would have hoped that the increased fitness levels lead to players feeling less fatigue during games and that would lead to a higher quality of disposals.

That might work if the poor disposal were something that came on as the team got tired. Sadly they generally start out that way.

That might work if the poor disposal were something that came on as the team got tired. Sadly they generally start out that way.

So often our games follow a script. The other team pressures all over us. We let through a bunch of goals. We then claw our way in to the game and the game levels up for a period. Then we lose focus allowing a run of goals. Then we play out the rest of the game.

Our disposal hasn't been good enough. But neither has our two way running work and certainly neither has our attack in taken on the game. I'm happy to have all the defensive structures and game plans that Roos wants, but we have to attack the game way more this year which means running, handball receives, breaking lines, getting the ball forward quickly.

That might work if the poor disposal were something that came on as the team got tired. Sadly they generally start out that way.

To add to my point before, higher fitness levels, harder running will lead to players getting open more giving the player with the ball open targets and (theoretically) leading to better disposal efficiency

If we have players who can hit targets then we have the ball longer which means less chasing which usually leads to looking fitter.

The good teams can chase hard cos when they have the ball they hit targets and don't have to constantly turn around and sprint back to try and cover the space behind them.

I'm still concerned that Melbourne players aren't strong enough, the players just don't look nearly as toned or as big across the chest as other teams.

For some players its virtually impossible for them to put on KGs when they are doing so much aerobic work....

Apparently we did 180% of the kms this pre-season compared to last according to Tommy Mac. That is significant.

What exactly does this mean? Did we do 80% more than last year? Or they had a set number of kms that each player had to do in their program and, on average, they managed to do 80% more than was set down for them? Or something else?

What exactly does this mean? Did we do 80% more than last year? Or they had a set number of kms that each player had to do in their program and, on average, they managed to do 80% more than was set down for them? Or something else?

I assume that if each player ran, say, 100kms in training last pre-season this year they have run 180kms. It would be fair to say part of this can be explained due to the extended pre-season but part also due to upping training loads.

Whatever the explanation having nearly double the amount of Ks in the players legs and more players staying on the track this year has to be a good thing for the season proper

I assume that if each player ran, say, 100kms in training last pre-season this year they have run 180kms. It would be fair to say part of this can be explained due to the extended pre-season but part also due to upping training loads.

Whatever the explanation having nearly double the amount of Ks in the players legs and more players staying on the track this year has to be a good thing for the season proper

I had a chat to some of the players over the pre season about this, not sure what Tommy Mc meant, but Roos has certainly got them doing more k's at training,

On average except Rucks and some of the bigger guys, if you did the full session you were averaging 12-13k, light days 9k

Rucks and big guys about 11k, with light days 8k

Don't know what that totals over time

Edited March 13, 201510 yr by The Devil Inside