More fine work from AFL Media. Look at the date at the bottom left of the photo.

It's an interesting theory and delicate balance handling slightly injured or sore players. Firstly you need a head of performance to have the backing of the coach and FD to make potentially risky calls without fear of being blamed. It seems players training through niggles or slight injuries is more beneficial (at times) to giving them a rest even in January to build resilience. If you rest the player until they are not sore then sometimes that injury or soreness may just come back when stressed again.

Burgess certainly found a wonderful balance over the past 2 years.  Good to hear he has 12 months of mentoring the new bloke that should keep us in good nick.

 

This reminds me of the great cricket fast bowling conundrum. Modern day fast bowlers are considered to need R & R to maintain top condition and performance for a season.

Some years ago, a number of retired fast bowlers (Merv Hughes vintage) explained that the more they bowled, even when slightly discomforted by injuries, the better and more resilient they became and could maintain a full summer season of Shield matches and Test matches where they were required to bowl over 20 overs an innings.

Is there too much so-called science in sport? I am starting to think yes.

From an Explain Pain (and Fatigue) perspective  - the body wears in, it doesn't wear out. Not only was Burgess/Gooodwin/et al. exposing the body physically to distress, but emotionally to the discomfort as well - both are forms of exposure therapy and imperative in managing the experience of pain .
Which dovetails in to the anecdotal experience of what @tiers has mentioned above.Here is one of the coolest video's I have ever seen on explaining the science behind pain, as well as been amusing, it takes very complex understandings and makes it digestible.

Without boring people about one of my favourite topics -(pain and psychology) - what influences the pain (and fatigue) experience is 'meaning'. What I mean is the meaning behind the experience, will amplify the 'felt' experience.

Take Dermott in the 89' grand final - he wasnt superhuman - his brain was sufficiently able to experience the discomfort in service of what mattered - as it was a grand final (the meaning) - this would not have happened in round 18.

What does this mean for Burgess and the playing group - well, clearly there are thesholds that the tissues being used can sustain before its over its tipping point... but what Burgess and Co have done, is slowly increase the baseline of that threshold....and the lived experience is that the players can cope - both physcially and emotionally - and this is ALSO what plays out in the final quarters of matches - its belief - and I mean genuine belief that the players can 'run out' games - as its based on lived experience, which means that they are less stressed (which impacts on fatigue experiences --> disposal efficency) etc...

I would presume the athletes will also now be MORE willing to continue to train in a similar manner, and push the envelop - due to the rewards that have come in 2021. (Like Pavlov's dogs - linking success to earlier discomfort in service of something important).

 

 

Edited November 4, 20213 yr by Engorged Onion

51 minutes ago, tiers said:

This reminds me of the great cricket fast bowling conundrum. Modern day fast bowlers are considered to need R & R to maintain top condition and performance for a season.

Some years ago, a number of retired fast bowlers (Merv Hughes vintage) explained that the more they bowled, even when slightly discomforted by injuries, the better and more resilient they became and could maintain a full summer season of Shield matches and Test matches where they were required to bowl over 20 overs an innings.

Is there too much so-called science in sport? I am starting to think yes.

There's a growing school of thought in baseball that this "R&R" thing is a bit of a crock. What they've found (with the aid of some pretty hot bio-mechanists) is that if your "movement patterns" (previously known as good technique) are right, then you can go as hard and long, and as often, as you want, with no risk of injury. It's when you're not moving correctly ... eg putting too much weight on one leg, bending your elbow too much, etc ... that injuries can occur, and pretty quickly at that.

Doesn't apply to footy as much as it does to more technical sports like baseball, tennis, golf, but is still highly relevant.

1 hour ago, DubDee said:

It's an interesting theory and delicate balance handling slightly injured or sore players. Firstly you need a head of performance to have the backing of the coach and FD to make potentially risky calls without fear of being blamed. It seems players training through niggles or slight injuries is more beneficial (at times) to giving them a rest even in January to build resilience. If you rest the player until they are not sore then sometimes that injury or soreness may just come back when stressed again.

Burgess certainly found a wonderful balance over the past 2 years.  Good to hear he has 12 months of mentoring the new bloke that should keep us in good nick.

 

Who is the new bloke ? Is it Bohdan B by any chance?

1 hour ago, tiers said:

This reminds me of the great cricket fast bowling conundrum. Modern day fast bowlers are considered to need R & R to maintain top condition and performance for a season.

Some years ago, a number of retired fast bowlers (Merv Hughes vintage) explained that the more they bowled, even when slightly discomforted by injuries, the better and more resilient they became and could maintain a full summer season of Shield matches and Test matches where they were required to bowl over 20 overs an innings.

Is there too much so-called science in sport? I am starting to think yes.

Let's not confuse science with myths, irrespective of how popular the latter are. Science deals in facts. I'm not sure what "so-called science" is intended to mean, but I would happily put my faith in science if it is used properly.

35 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

From an Explain Pain (and Fatigue) perspective  - the body wears in, it doesn't wear out. Not only was Burgess/Gooodwin/et al. exposing the body physically to distress, but emotionally to the discomfort as well - both are forms of exposure therapy and imperative in managing the experience of pain .
Which dovetails in to the anecdotal experience of what @tiers has mentioned above.Here is one of the coolest video's I have ever seen on explaining the science behind pain, as well as been amusing, it takes very complex understandings and makes it digestible.

Without boring people about one of my favourite topics -(pain and psychology) - what influences the pain (and fatigue) experience is 'meaning'. What I mean is the meaning behind the experience, will amplify the 'felt' experience.

Take Dermott in the 89' grand final - he wasnt superhuman - his brain was sufficiently able to experience the discomfort in service of what mattered - as it was a grand final (the meaning) - this would not have happened in round 18.

What does this mean for Burgess and the playing group - well, clearly there are thesholds that the tissues being used can sustain before its over its tipping point... but what Burgess and Co have done, is slowly increase the baseline of that threshold....and the lived experience is that the players can cope - both physcially and emotionally - and this is ALSO what plays out in the final quarters of matches - its belief - and I mean genuine belief that the players can 'run out' games - as its based on lived experience, which means that they are less stressed (which impacts on fatigue experiences --> disposal efficency) etc...

I would presume the athletes will also now be MORE willing to continue to train in a similar manner, and push the envelop - due to the rewards that have come in 2021. (Like Pavlov's dogs - linking success to earlier discomfort in service of something important).

 

 

Yes i agree with this. The body can accept huge stresses if they are introduced carefully. The players and Club will now have belief that this hard work does bring Results. 
We should pride ourselves on being the toughest trainers every session l. 
 

Selwyn v Burgo

38 minutes ago, Bobby McKenzie said:

Who is the new bloke ? Is it Bohdan B by any chance?

Selwyn Griffiths. Had a lot of press on how good he was at the Lions and instrumental in their great run up the ladder with fitness and injuries then came to us the end of last season I assume as part of a succession plan to take over from Burgess now. 

1 hour ago, tiers said:

Is there too much so-called science in sport? I am starting to think yes.

I’d say there is too little science.  A sports scientist having an idea and trying it out isn’t science.  If you listen to Burgo and Brukkies podcasts, you can safely assume that the entire sports world believed you needed to rest people if sore etc.  At Arsenal Burgo had 7 years of detailed data and 70 staff and then hired in the rocket scientists and they could not find any correlation between player management and injury.

Burgo also had Adam Coutts and a few other gurus on his podcasts.  From what I can tell, the only 2 scientifically proven things that cause hamstrings etc is 1. variations in training loads, and 2. not stressing muscles at least once a week.  So Burgo trained us hard all the time, and players had 1 training session a week where the GPS had to show a 100% sprint.

The biggest frustration was the idea that sports scientists had that you can’t kick for goal 100x at training because it might cause a hamstring injury.  What a load of crock that is!

52 minutes ago, Bobby McKenzie said:

Who is the new bloke ? Is it Bohdan B by any chance?

Bogdan is a wiz, as well. Knew him well as a young man, very capable as his record states. If he was the new bloke, we'd be on the correct track, without doubt.

23 minutes ago, Deemania since 56 said:

Bogdan is a wiz, as well. Knew him well as a young man, very capable as his record states. If he was the new bloke, we'd be on the correct track, without doubt.

He isn’t. Selwyn Griffith is.

2 hours ago, tiers said:

This reminds me of the great cricket fast bowling conundrum. Modern day fast bowlers are considered to need R & R to maintain top condition and performance for a season.

Some years ago, a number of retired fast bowlers (Merv Hughes vintage) explained that the more they bowled, even when slightly discomforted by injuries, the better and more resilient they became and could maintain a full summer season of Shield matches and Test matches where they were required to bowl over 20 overs an innings.

Is there too much so-called science in sport? I am starting to think yes.

Jofra Archer is a good example of how the small workload/short spells can really backfire.  He wasn't used to big workloads and when he got loaded up in tests he broke down.  

1 hour ago, Mazer Rackham said:

There's a growing school of thought in baseball that this "R&R" thing is a bit of a crock. What they've found (with the aid of some pretty hot bio-mechanists) is that if your "movement patterns" (previously known as good technique) are right, then you can go as hard and long, and as often, as you want, with no risk of injury. It's when you're not moving correctly ... eg putting too much weight on one leg, bending your elbow too much, etc ... that injuries can occur, and pretty quickly at that.

Doesn't apply to footy as much as it does to more technical sports like baseball, tennis, golf, but is still highly relevant.

I reckon running technique, including posture and being physically well rounded is a huge one when it comes to footy. The rehab process from any soft tissue injury is often hours of the guys doing straight line running not just to build back up but so the fitness guys make sure they're running correctly. Not everyone will be Eddie Langdon but I reckon so many of our players just looked like far easier runners over the last 2 years since Burgo came on board. Clearly they were fitter, but wonder how much was just doing more kms and how much was refining their running techniques.

Similarly the warm up circuits and all the extras like pilates, yoga, hot/cold baths, massages etc that the players invest in make a huge difference too. Hard to know which of those things works individually but the players who invest in them all often come out with far less issues.

4 hours ago, tiers said:

Is there too much so-called science in sport? I am starting to think yes.

You're commenting in a thread about a guy who has a PhD in ... sports science.

Burgess makes the decisions he does because of science. See his comments re not telling Steven May about the severity of his hamstring for but one example.

6 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

More fine work from AFL Media. Look at the date at the bottom left of the photo.

Did Burgo get the sack from the Crows?

3 hours ago, rpfc said:

He isn’t. Selwyn Griffith is.

Thanks for that. I feel up-dated now. 

12 minutes ago, Deemania since 56 said:

Thanks for that. I feel up-dated now. 

No wo-rries.

We started the year with our two key forwards injured.  Brown and Weid.  It was lucky we had TMac to throw forward and open a path for Angus on the wing.  We got through the back end pretty well, with hunty doing an ankle, and May a hammy.  How much was luck? Resilience? Science?

he did us well, wish him the best of luck.  Selwyn should be a capable replacement with lots of handover throughout the year.

7 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Let's not confuse science with myths, irrespective of how popular the latter are. Science deals in facts. I'm not sure what "so-called science" is intended to mean, but I would happily put my faith in science if it is used properly.

Why are you on Demonland then?

I recommend that everyone have a listen to this episode in the podcast.

It's basically Burgos story about his time at the Dee's. So much more than what is covered in the article.

12 hours ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

Why are you on Demonland then?

This is Demonland? I thought it was Facebook under its new name which reflects more truthfully what everyone believes it to be.

Well done to Burgo and Goody (in trusting Burgo to do his thing).  Certainly makes sense that you train how you play, play how you train etc

At the same time, there obviously has to be the right balance when players are sore because they're injured.  We have a long (but recent) history of players with niggles managing the injury only for it to flare up - I feel like this has happened to Viney on multiple occasions.

I like the philosophy of the approach and clearly it worked... but also feel like we got lucky (with injuries) this year.

I may have missed it, but has anyone said what it was that Burgess said to Goodwin during that discussion on the boundary line during the Grand Final?