On 20/11/2019 at 22:42, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Here's a link to that article. In my view, it puts significant doubt on sports science. I wonder what else, claimed in the name of sports science, is suspect? Perhaps we'll finally see players who kick goals staying on the ground instead of being immediately interchanged and maybe there will be more some practice at kicking for goal.

Fixed that for you.

  On 20/11/2019 at 07:33, Watts the matter said:

If it's who I am thinking of, he was working in the NFL for the Miami Dolphins if I am not mistaken. 

At the fan forum Josh Mahoney mentioned the off field team build / talent-wise and mentioned an ex Miami Dolphins experienced person but not the specific role being played.

Burgess said when he was at Arsenal they had 12 stats analysts whose jobs it was to put the info into a usable from for the coach. he said this was the greatest change he'd seen over recent years around the world when answering a question, and felt the appointment of a " Data Scientist " at the club recently was a strong move.

Stumbled upon this the other day:

Kate Roffey - MFC Vice  President

Has a "strong background in professional sport and has had the opportunity to spend time with some of the world’s leading sports teams, including the New York Yankees, Manchester United FC, Dallas Cowboys and Miami Dolphins, reviewing world’s best sporting practice.."

  On 20/11/2019 at 08:50, Rab D Nesbitt said:

Has there been any announcement on the club astrologer yet? The autumnal equinox falls on the same weekend we play in Perth whilst Mercury will be in retrograde. They still haven't reviewed the spring equinox debacle over there in 2018. 

 

There are a couple on this site who could fill that role, speak up picket fence.

  On 20/11/2019 at 22:42, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Here's a link to that article. In my view, it puts significant doubt on sports science. I wonder what else, claimed in the name of sports science, is suspect? Perhaps we'll finally see players who kick goals staying on the ground instead of being immediately interchanged and maybe there will be more practice at kicking for goal.

That article starts out with a very poor example.

There isn't enough real science to back up the cold water/ice bath theory.

In fact many are moving away from it.

Unfortunately a lot of sport science is based on fads and the real science is often very flaky...

Altitude training anyone?

  On 22/11/2019 at 10:32, rjay said:

That article starts out with a very poor example.

There isn't enough real science to back up the cold water/ice bath theory.

In fact many are moving away from it.

Unfortunately a lot of sport science is based on fads and the real science is often very flaky...

Altitude training anyone?

And what happened to extreme heat training in Darwin? 

  On 22/11/2019 at 10:32, rjay said:

Unfortunately a lot of sport science is based on fads and the real science is often very flaky...

Altitude training anyone?

Great example. From what I've seen as a casual observer (in golf, baseball, Aussie rules and cricket) there is a lot of groupthink and cargo cult science involved. Not to mention outright absurdities such as being barred from goal kicking practice in case it interferes with the preparation needed to win football games. Imagine a golfer being told not to practice putting in case it harms his being able to win at golf.

The emperor's wardrobe is never so full as in sports science.

  On 22/11/2019 at 10:32, rjay said:

That article starts out with a very poor example.

There isn't enough real science to back up the cold water/ice bath theory.

In fact many are moving away from it.

Unfortunately a lot of sport science is based on fads and the real science is often very flaky...

Altitude training anyone?

The article is not saying the real science is flaky.  The real science is sound, but the problem is real scientists didn’t get involved in sports and so stuff that was published and used was flawed.  If you read the article, real scientists are getting involved and pointing out the problems.  The organisation’s that started following real science got a leg up.  Boston Red Sox say hello.  

It’s also kind of indicative that sports nuts who didn’t have the science background got into data analyst roles and came up with the fads probably to justify their jobs.  I’d not be confident that they know what they are doing and use data to confirm their biases.  Clubs like Liverpool FC employed real scientists that knew nothing about soccer, and the data they come up with is unbiased and valuable. It played an important part in their champions league win.

  On 23/11/2019 at 03:10, Watson11 said:

The article is not saying the real science is flaky.  The real science is sound, but the problem is real scientists didn’t get involved in sports and so stuff that was published and used was flawed.  If you read the article, real scientists are getting involved and pointing out the problems.  The organisation’s that started following real science got a leg up.  Boston Red Sox say hello.  

It’s also kind of indicative that sports nuts who didn’t have the science background got into data analyst roles and came up with the fads probably to justify their jobs.  I’d not be confident that they know what they are doing and use data to confirm their biases.  Clubs like Liverpool FC employed real scientists that knew nothing about soccer, and the data they come up with is unbiased and valuable. It played an important part in their champions league win.

Sorry, didn't phrase it well.

The part of the article that they are saying is real science isn't...

There is no real science to back up ice baths, it's just a fad.

I'm all for the real science it's just sports science is often more fad than science.

  On 20/11/2019 at 20:23, Mazer Rackham said:

Surely it was Alistair Clarkson?

or that stephen fellow?

  On 23/11/2019 at 04:14, rjay said:

Sorry, didn't phrase it well.

The part of the article that they are saying is real science isn't...

There is no real science to back up ice baths, it's just a fad.

I'm all for the real science it's just sports science is often more fad than science.

yes often sports science is just an oxymoron

  On 20/11/2019 at 11:06, rjay said:

Don't want to get into an argument with you 'bin', but....

That one would be a real can of worms.

Birdman are definitely in the discussion!

Also in discussion for best live band.

  On 20/11/2019 at 11:06, rjay said:

That one would be a real can of worms.

The early Birdman would get those worms.    

  On 20/11/2019 at 22:42, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

In my view, it puts significant doubt on sports science.

No it doesn't.

Though if one article is enough to "put significant doubt on sports science", then I'd suggest you read it again, as what it's pointing out are the shortcomings of generalising conclusions from low-data studies. An example of this would drawing conclusions from a single article.

  On 23/11/2019 at 08:34, bing181 said:

No it doesn't.

Though if one article is enough to "put significant doubt on sports science", then I'd suggest you read it again, as what it's pointing out are the shortcomings of generalising conclusions from low-data studies. An example of this would drawing conclusions from a single article.

I enjoyed this ) touche'.

It also zeros in on a particularly controversial MBI technique when the analysts at Melbourne could be using a number of different techniques and perhaps not even use that technique mentioned.

I'm an analytics professional and you're job is to get as much data as possible to test hypothesis. and its the analyst responsibility to work out what is statistically significant. Almost everything has error, so its a question of how much error you are willing to accept, and non analytical types will have no idea usually as to what is acceptable. the onus is on the analyst. 

Edited November 24, 20195 yr by Bay Riffin

  On 23/11/2019 at 08:34, bing181 said:

No it doesn't.

Though if one article is enough to "put significant doubt on sports science", then I'd suggest you read it again, as what it's pointing out are the shortcomings of generalising conclusions from low-data studies. An example of this would drawing conclusions from a single article.

You are quite right. I should have said it casts doubt on some claims made in the name of sports science.

Get the ball and kick it correctly, if you canna do neither all the science in the world not going to help.

  On 20/11/2019 at 19:07, JTR said:

I didn't catch the name when mentioned at the forum, but Burgess rates highly and said "anything <name> doesn't know about sport science isn't worth knowing".

Assume it was this fella?

 

Dr. Peter Brukner.

  On 22/11/2019 at 12:07, Earl Hood said:

And what happened to extreme heat training in Darwin? 

 

I think you'll find that Burgess took Port to the extreme heat of Dubai for a couple of preseasons also.

  On 25/11/2019 at 23:27, Mach5 said:

 

I think you'll find that Burgess took Port to the extreme heat of Dubai for a couple of preseasons also.

Yeah, but that's coz he has rellies there and that way he could claim it all back