1 hour ago, DemonWA said:

I don't think the debate has ever been about whether loading occurs- the debate is whether it is the primary reason for our form slump. 

Yep, and after watching Geel and some other top teams struggle (who are clearly also loading) :- I am even more firmly of the opinion that it is the primary reason for our form slump (closely followed by injuries)

Geel were terrible yest:- and Scott & Selwood, confirmed the loading. If they were playing any other team than West Coast or Nth, they definitely would have lost. 
 

7 minutes ago, 1964_2 said:

Yep, and after watching Geel and some other top teams struggle (who are clearly also loading) :- I am even more firmly of the opinion that it is the primary reason for our form slump (closely followed by injuries)

Geel were terrible yest:- and Scott & Selwood, confirmed the loading. If they were playing any other team than West Coast or Nth, they definitely would have lost. 
 

One could make the assumption that they looked at their schedule... worked out where weaker opposition was, to start loading around that mark...knowing that they could lose, and what the optics look like externally.

One could also make that same assumption about Melbourne vs WCE and North + the addition of having a two game break on our nearest competitors that time, and the FD choose to continue with a particular style of heavier training, for presumed peak fitness (aside from collision injuries) later on in the post season.

ie: The luxury of the buffer has allowed us to continue to look a bit $hite rather than not loading, and carrying on...

2 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

One could make the assumption that they looked at their schedule... worked out where weaker opposition was, to start loading around that mark...knowing that they could lose, and what the optics look like externally.

One could also make that same assumption about Melbourne vs WCE and North + the addition of having a two game break on our nearest competitors that time, and the FD choose to continue with a particular style of heavier training, for presumed peak fitness (aside from collision injuries) later on in the post season.

ie: The luxury of the buffer has allowed us to continue to look a bit $hite rather than not loading, and carrying on...

Given we have got the tough games of Bris and Geel in the next 3 weeks, maybe we went earlier with the loading this year (during Nth+WC), allowing us to ease up over the next couple of weeks training.

Or maybe they are willing to risk one or both of Bris & Geel, for future fitness benefits.

Lets say we lose both, and beat Adel :-  11-5 is still a very strong position to be in, given the teams output is likely to increase from R18/19ish 

Time will tell. 

38 minutes ago, Gunna’s said:

Also, how does our timing compare to last year? We played an extra 3 games last year taking our season to the end of September (and wasn’t it great!!!). But does the reduced preseason (and extra celebratory beers) change when the loading occurs in this season?  Will we come out all guns blazing against Brisbane or are there a few more weeks of loading on the track (as some have alluded to)? Will we look to load again nearer the end of the season?

 

I think the shorter preseason would have meant we worked a little harder on the track over the early H&A season period compared to 2021, but I think the main two cycles we want to get in will be the same.  One 4 or 5 week cycle before the bye, use the CBA agreed 4 days off over the bye as a rest/recovery period before another 4 or 5 weeks after.  This will leave us with the final 4 or 5 rounds to iron out gameplan, form and personell issues and training will become all about maintiaing the fitness levels rather than improving fitness.

What this means for how we perfrom against Brisbane is anyones guess though?  We won our game after last seasons bye against Essendon, but played quite poorly.  This year the bye is extra short though, so we won't be getting in a full week of heavy training before we play (maybe 2 sessions), so could come out quite fresh.  The other unknown is what Brisbane are doin.  They will be desperate to avoid going out in straight sets again, so might be loading to the extreme.  It could be a very error riddled game.  

Edited June 19, 20223 yr by Vipercrunch

9 minutes ago, Vipercrunch said:

I think the shorter preseason would have meant we worked a little harder on the track over the early H&A season period compared to 2021, but I think the main two cycles we want to get in will be the same.  One 4 or 5 week cycle before the bye, use the CBA agreed 4 days off over the bye as a rest/recovery period before another 4 or 5 weeks after.  This will leave us with the final 4 or 5 rounds to iron out gameplan, form and personell issues and training will become all about maintiaing the fitness levels rather than improving fitness.

What this means for how we perfrom against Brisbane is anyones guess though?  We won our game after last seasons bye against Essendon, but played quite poorly.  This year the bye is extra short though, so we won't be getting in a full week of heavy training before we play (maybe 2 sessions), so would could come out quite fresh.  The other unknown is what Brisbane are doin.  They will be desperate to avoid going out in straight sets again, so might be loading to the extreme.  It could be a very error riddled game.  

Makes sense. Bris looked flat pre the bye, so it could very easily be two teams both affected by a similar training phase. 

Other factor is the chance that more teams than usual have copied our loading program from last year :-  Copying the prior years premiers is a common theme for AFL.
 

1 minute ago, 1964_2 said:

Makes sense. Bris looked flat pre the bye, so it could very easily be two teams both affected by a similar training phase. 

Other factor is the chance that more teams than usual have copied our loading program from last year :-  Copying the prior years premiers is a common theme for AFL.
 

There is no doubt that player age (time in system), biomechanical and physological output matters when setting up training cycles.

What I am fascinated about is that - let's assume that each club (18) have the top/best/most experienced, and thus all are  abrest of 'best practice' in exercise sport science.

Are the variations of loading between teams, governed by personal philosophy based on historical experience (Burgess overtly spoke about that on the podcast of his philosophy changing), or is it more nuanced and individual player based?

Would it be based on opposition you are playing over  say rounds 9-13 as well as looking at where you are currently points-wise to get to the post season?

 

 

13 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

There is no doubt that player age (time in system), biomechanical and physological output matters when setting up training cycles.

What I am fascinated about is that - let's assume that each club (18) have the top/best/most experienced, and thus all are  abrest of 'best practice' in exercise sport science.

Are the variations of loading between teams, governed by personal philosophy based on historical experience (Burgess overtly spoke about that on the podcast of his philosophy changing), or is it more nuanced and individual player based?

Would it be based on opposition you are playing over  say rounds 9-13 as well as looking at where you are currently points-wise to get to the post season?

 

 

Be fascinating to be a fly on the wall for the discussions amongst football departments.

Given all the variables, you would imagine there would be varying opinions on the best approach.

With some of those opinions remaining silent and choosing to be guided by sports science. 
 

It is very interesting that Chris Scott decided to speak up, and ensure there is a valid excuse for any near term poor performances (Reminds me of his prelim final gastro comments/excuse) 

Edited June 19, 20223 yr by 1964_2

6 hours ago, binman said:

Placing the next training stimulus too soon, before we have fully recovered, leads to fatigue levels increasing and preparedness decreasing. Placing the next training stimulus too late means supercompensation adaptations are lost [2]. Selecting the correct training dose and allowing for adequate recovery is therefore vital for optimising training gains'.

I imagine the FD saw us at 8-0 coming up against an historically terrible Eagles, followed by 4 straight games in Melbourne to lead into the bye and determined it was best to try to make use of those fixtures to begin their loading regime. There was a lot of 7 day breaks and then the 9 day break into the QB game. Enough time to have the heavy training sessions right in the middle between games and hope that the fatigue levels were manageable.

Like you, @binman, I think it's a certainty to continue after the bye. However given our two non-consecutive Thursday night games I imagine we'll see something like:

• Players returning tomorrow from the break, makes it tough to load up and not be fatigued for Thursday night. I imagine a more moderate training into the game vs the Lions 
• The 9 day break into Round 16 vs Crows offers more time to have a heavier training load 
• The 5 day break into Round 17 vs Cats will likely see an easier week on the training track, as the game itself will act as a heavy training session being so close to the previous game. 
• The 10 day break into Round 18 vs Port again offers enough time to load up once again
• Their is then a 6 day break into the Round 19 game vs the Doggies - this one could go either way. The coincidence of playing the Dogs for a second time in Round 19 exactly like last year is an amazing coincidence!

I think we will see energised performances against the Lions and Cats, and sluggish performances against the Crows and Port, and possible the Dogs. We could win or lose any of them but that's just my guess as to how the team will look during those games. 

 

Edited June 19, 20223 yr by Stu

1 hour ago, Stu said:

I imagine the FD saw us at 8-0 coming up against an historically terrible Eagles, followed by 4 straight games in Melbourne to lead into the bye and determined it was best to try to make use of those fixtures to begin their loading regime. There was a lot of 7 day breaks and then the 9 day break into the QB game. Enough time to have the heavy training sessions right in the middle between games and hope that the fatigue levels were manageable.

Like you, @binman, I think it's a certainty to continue after the bye. However given our two non-consecutive Thursday night games I imagine we'll see something like:

• Players returning tomorrow from the break, makes it tough to load up and not be fatigued for Thursday night. I imagine a more moderate training into the game vs the Lions 
• The 9 day break into Round 16 vs Crows offers more time to have a heavier training load 
• The 5 day break into Round 17 vs Cats will likely see an easier week on the training track, as the game itself will act as a heavy training session being so close to the previous game. 
• The 10 day break into Round 18 vs Port again offers enough time to load up once again
• Their is then a 6 day break into the Round 19 game vs the Doggies - this one could go either way. The coincidence of playing the Dogs for a second time in Round 19 exactly like last year is an amazing coincidence!

I think we will see energised performances against the Lions and Cats, and sluggish performances against the Crows and Port, and possible the Dogs. We could win or lose any of them but that's just my guess as to how the team will look during those games. 

 

Some top shelf prognostications there stu.

I hadn't thought much past the lions game, but I thought similarly for that game ie we will look to be as fresh as possible.

It's one game back from the port game last season, but it seems similar in terms of freshening up to play a top 4 contender, and possible finals opponent, before going hard again.

Scott's comments in his presser were fascinating. Pretty clear from his comments, they have long loaded, but never got it quite right in terms of peaking at the right time.

But are now going harder than they previously have - and damn the consequences in terms of the risk of missing the finals

Really reinforces the point made in that football Australia pages I linked to that periodisation is incredibly complex. So many variables, like game style and mix of different types of athletes (eg power v runners) and physiology.

And that within each program there must be a range of philosophies and approaches, albeit within a pretty narrow framework of what is accepted, and proven, best practice.

Also, as you suggest, during this block of  aprox 7-8 games, clubs will freshen up for specific games they want to maximise their chance of games.

Like you my gut feel is that will include the lions game, and I suspect they will also freshen up for (unless that doesn't fit with the program they have mapped out).

 

8 hours ago, Vipercrunch said:

ABC Grandstand are going to address the comments of Scott shortly. 

Did you manage to listen to the commentary from Grandstand?

6 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

Did you manage to listen to the commentary from Grandstand?

Heard some snippets on Triple M EO.

Ross Lyon and Montagna reflected on how they usually had some form of “loading” program, with varying levels of effectiveness  each year, partly dependant on fixtures, days break, W/L position at time of year etc 

 

Cats definitely looked like they'd been loading. Sluggishness central 

So now that it's spoken about publicly, what does it mean for betting companies now, going forward? SFA?

2 hours ago, Engorged Onion said:

So now that it's spoken about publicly, what does it mean for betting companies now, going forward? SFA?

SFA

3 hours ago, Engorged Onion said:

So now that it's spoken about publicly, what does it mean for betting companies now, going forward? SFA?

You honestly think that a multi million/billion dollar professional sports gambling company wouldn't already be aware of the things that may affect a teams "odds"?

I find that unusual.

 

12 hours ago, Stu said:

I imagine the FD saw us at 8-0 coming up against an historically terrible Eagles, followed by 4 straight games in Melbourne to lead into the bye and determined it was best to try to make use of those fixtures to begin their loading regime. There was a lot of 7 day breaks and then the 9 day break into the QB game. Enough time to have the heavy training sessions right in the middle between games and hope that the fatigue levels were manageable.

Like you, @binman, I think it's a certainty to continue after the bye. However given our two non-consecutive Thursday night games I imagine we'll see something like:

• Players returning tomorrow from the break, makes it tough to load up and not be fatigued for Thursday night. I imagine a more moderate training into the game vs the Lions 
• The 9 day break into Round 16 vs Crows offers more time to have a heavier training load 
• The 5 day break into Round 17 vs Cats will likely see an easier week on the training track, as the game itself will act as a heavy training session being so close to the previous game. 
• The 10 day break into Round 18 vs Port again offers enough time to load up once again
• Their is then a 6 day break into the Round 19 game vs the Doggies - this one could go either way. The coincidence of playing the Dogs for a second time in Round 19 exactly like last year is an amazing coincidence!

I think we will see energised performances against the Lions and Cats, and sluggish performances against the Crows and Port, and possible the Dogs. We could win or lose any of them but that's just my guess as to how the team will look during those games. 

 

With the way a training cycle or loading phase works, the on/off method suggested above would likely not be the answer. Generally it is a 4 week block and then recover for a week.

I would anticipate the current bye break being used as a recovery period and then another loading phase through rounds of 15, 16, 17, 18 (around 4 weeks) then pull it back and come out breathing fire for Bulldogs in Round 19.

 

 

Edited June 19, 20223 yr by BW511

1 hour ago, BW511 said:

With the way a training cycle or loading phase works, the on/off method suggested above would likely not be the answer. Generally it is a 4 week block and then recover for a week.

 

 

 

Id don't think that is true actually, at least if I understand the football Australia page linked above properly, which suggests you can tweak it week to week.

After the Port win last year (which came after a six day break), in an on ground post game interview, basically said that's what they had done - ie block of hard training in the preceding weeks and then a deliberate freshen up for the Port game.

We then went back intp a hard training block, as evidenced by our next 2-3 games.

Though I guess that scenario doesn't contradict your idea of  four week block and then recovery (that Port game would have been at about the 4 week mark of their initial heavy training block.

 

Edited June 19, 20223 yr by binman

36 minutes ago, binman said:

Though I guess that scenario doesn't contradict your idea of  four week block and then recovery (that Port game would have been at about the 4 week mark of their initial heavy training block.

 

You can certainly tweak it from week to week but you have to be applying more load as a general trend, so a 4 game period of heavy load one week, light the next and then repeated would offer little benefit.

This image is describes it in it's most simple form, although it would be more complicated and specific to peaking in then holding that through September

 

 

Edited June 19, 20223 yr by BW511

10 hours ago, Engorged Onion said:

So now that it's spoken about publicly, what does it mean for betting companies now, going forward? SFA?

I, for one couldn't give a sh8t about them

1 hour ago, binman said:

Id don't think that is true actually, at least if I understand the football Australia page linked above properly, which suggests you can tweak it week to week.

After the Port win last year (which came after a six day break), in an on ground post game interview, basically said that's what they had done - ie block of hard training in the preceding weeks and then a deliberate freshen up for the Port game.

We then went back intp a hard training block, as evidenced by our next 2-3 games.

Though I guess that scenario doesn't contradict your idea of  four week block and then recovery (that Port game would have been at about the 4 week mark of their initial heavy training block.

 

I think any deviation away from the 4 week cycle shown so perfectly in the graph posted by @BW511would be a compromise to the overall outcome.  That doesn't mean any deviation could be perfectly justified as there is always so much going in within clubs.

1 hour ago, BW511 said:

You can certainly tweak it from week to week but you have to be applying more load as a general trend, so a 4 game period of heavy load one week, light the next and then repeated would offer little benefit.

This image is describes it in it's most simple form, although it would be more complicated and specific to peaking in then holding that through September

 

 

If we are following this graph, you would think the first 4 week block has been done.

planned recovery during the bye. Come out and smash the lions.

Then another 4 week loading block up until R18/19. 

 

-      If we beat lions & crows and lose to Cats & Port we will be 12-5 heading into our R19 clash with the dogs (obviously could be a different combination, but 2W, 2L is probably a fair assumption during this period)

-     Then worst case we win 3 of our last 5 to finish up 15-7, best case we finish strong like last year winning our last 5 to be 17-5. 

-       In summary, I am of the opinion that 5W, 4L will be our worst case, and 7W, 2L will be our best case scenarios from here

-       Sure injuries are the key risk to the above, but it needs to be remembered, during our 10-0 patch, all the talk was how amazing our depth is.   I believe this to still be the case. 

 

 

23 minutes ago, Vipercrunch said:

I think any deviation away from the 4 week cycle shown so perfectly in the graph posted by @BW511would be a compromise to the overall outcome.  That doesn't mean any deviation could be perfectly justified as there is always so much going in within clubs.

It could be done in a way that the 4 week period had a greater amount of training stress overall, just not in a linear way, although large jumps in load between weeks would greatly increase the risk of injury/illness. It's a very delicate balance.

With Covid and the Flu running rampant in society, I would not want to be sitting in Selwyn's seat!

8 minutes ago, 1964_2 said:

If we are following this graph, you would think the first 4 week block has been done.

planned recovery during the bye. Come out and smash the lions.

Then another 4 week loading block up until R18/19. 

I should add, the 4 week block is the general training principle but it is not necessarily exactly what they follow at AFL level.

The loading phase would certainly be at least 2 blocks though. It takes 6 weeks for any adaptation to happen

9 minutes ago, 1964_2 said:

If we are following this graph, you would think the first 4 week block has been done.

planned recovery during the bye. Come out and smash the lions.

Then another 4 week loading block up until R18/19. 

 

-      If we beat lions & crows and lose to Cats & Port we will be 12-5 heading into our R19 clash with the dogs (obviously could be a different combination, but 2W, 2L is probably a fair assumption during this period)

-     Then worst case we win 3 of our last 5 to finish up 15-7, best case we finish strong like last year winning our last 5 to be 17-5. 

-       In summary, I am of the opinion that 5W, 4L will be our worst case, and 7W, 2L will be our best case scenarios from here

-       Sure injuries are the key risk to the above, but it needs to be remembered, during our 10-0 patch, all the talk was how amazing our depth is.   I believe this to still be the case. 

 

 

I've tipped us to go 5W-4L, finishing with 15-7.  If that means we finish outside the top 4 then so be it.  As long as we aren't overly affected by injuries (and other uncontrollables), we can still win the flag from outside the top 4 if we gain all the benefits from this period that we are hoping for.

Looking at our next 5 games, theres every reason to suggest our toughest opponents could very well be Port and Western Bulldogs who can't risk loading.  Geelong have made it public they are loading and should expect poor performances over the next period and Brisbane looks like they are too.

54 minutes ago, BW511 said:

I should add, the 4 week block is the general training principle but it is not necessarily exactly what they follow at AFL level.

The loading phase would certainly be at least 2 blocks though. It takes 6 weeks for any adaptation to happen

I suspect they would not veer too far away from the proven and accepted best practice in sports science.

So whilst of course there is some variations, and AFL have a mix of different types of athletes (though all sports do I suppose - eg cycling, even with riders on a grand tour, have power riders, ie sprinters and those looking to place high in the race), I reckon the program would not be a hugely different to say elite runners competing on the pro circuit but also preparing for a 'grand final' eg the world championships

Edited June 20, 20223 yr by binman