In Season - Loading/Periodisation: Put your conjecture here.

[Demon Disciple 12,274]

6 minutes ago, binman said:

The tigers in 2018 is an even better example.

Yes, I’d argue that Richmond’s best team was their 2018 version, and even that wasn’t good enough for the flag.

[binman 43,826]

24 minutes ago, Demon Disciple said:

Yes, I’d argue that Richmond’s best team was their 2018 version, and even that wasn’t good enough for the flag.

Agree.

They were by far the best team in 2018

[Dr. Gonzo 24,315]

1 hour ago, Demon Disciple said:

Yes, I’d argue that Richmond’s best team was their 2018 version, and even that wasn’t good enough for the flag.

 

51 minutes ago, binman said:

Agree.

They were by far the best team in 2018

Pretty unlucky to have multiple players with gastro and Martin hobbled with injury in the Prelim. They would have won in a canter otherwise.

[DeeZone 10,147]

4 hours ago, binman said:

Exactly. Look at most of the goals in the first half, and in particular the first quarter.

I actually really liked the camera angels last night actually as they had lots of down the ground and high shots that enabled you to see the incredible spread by every single dees player on the ground. Incredible running.

Almost all the goals were a function of our up and down the ground gut running in waves.

A great example was the one involving Langers tapping the ball to kozzie. Watch where those two players started their run from defence. Both had direct opponents who simply could not go with Kozzie or Langers - basically running 100 odd metres at top speed.

And there were multiple other options all running down the ground. And am i right in thinking that goal stared with Brown marking 20 metres out form their goal? 

That swarm running is key to our offence and is the reason why we can generate free players inside our 50 metre arc - particularly against the lions who simply do not have the leg speed to go with us.

That sort of all team wave running is only possible to the level we showed last night when we are near or at optimnal fitness. 

That is awesome forecasting binman I as many on here have been watching the boys checking the stats looking for the signs of improvement in the fitness levels and running the games out. Over the past three weeks it started to turn and came with a rush last night. I will be following your comments and feeding off your confidence and knowledge much more closely in future. Thanks !!

[Deenooos_ 647]

I found @djr points about metres gained very interesting in the “Premiership metrics” thread and wanted to compare the MG metric of 2021 and 2022 to maybe get an idea of how much we benefit from the loading during the finals and to see if it directly correlates to our loading period and how it varies throughout the season.

In this thought experiment I’m assuming MG is a direct indication of fitness, which it isn’t, but it makes way of understanding simple.

Interestingly my analysis suggests we gain an extra 5-7.5% in physical performance from loading. I came to this conclusion simply by looking at the average MG from rounds 1-8 of both the 2021 and 2022 H&A season, in both seasons we had the highest MG at this time of the year. I'm using these rounds because you would assume that we are the fittest at the start of the season and hit the ground running from our work in the pre-season. I assume we can only maintain this peak fitness for about 8 weeks as from round 9 onwards it drops by roughly 3,5% which doesn’t sound like a lot but in a sport of inches it can have significant effects. The time of the drop off also coincides with the time period we think loading begins. We saw a slight uptick in MG from r20 onwards this year however not last year which is interesting. This may indicate that we truly only hit our peak a week after the H&A season and as many have said are aiming to peak on Prelim final day.

The numbers are: 

2021: r1-8 - 6167 MG

2022: r1-8 - 6269 MG

2021: r9-17 - 5956 MG

2022: r9-17 - 6022 MG

2021: r20-23 - 5823 MG

2022: r20-23 - 6149 MG

In finals last year our average metres gained per match was about 6628 which is an increase of 7,5% on our early season MG, an increase of 13,5% from our last 4 rounds and an overall increase of 9% on the season as a whole. The extra 7,5% in performance goes along way in outrunning our opponents and what we did against the lions should be the norm throughout the entire finals series with maybe an extra few % come the first QF against the swans.

 

 

Edited August 24, 2022 by Deenooos_

[mfcrox 143]

Interesting listening to Ben Brown on SEN this morning.  When asked about how the group treated the bye round, his response:

 

"Yeah, we took it as a bit of an opportunity to have some de-load time, and a little bit of time off legs.  In amongst that though, the training we did do was of a really high intensity.  We did some match-play on the Thursday, and it was good to have that bit of a run around because it sorted us pretty well in last years finals series which was pretty well documented"

 

Good to have some de-load time and a little bit of time off legs.  Hmmmm.

[Lord Nev 13,512]

On 8/25/2022 at 6:42 AM, Deenooos_ said:

I found @djr points about metres gained very interesting in the “Premiership metrics” thread and wanted to compare the MG metric of 2021 and 2022 to maybe get an idea of how much we benefit from the loading during the finals and to see if it directly correlates to our loading period and how it varies throughout the season.

Hang on, metres gained includes kicking and handballing as well as running.

How would it be an accurate measure of fitness in that case?

 

[Deenooos_ 647]

7 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Hang on, metres gained includes kicking and handballing as well as running.

How would it be an accurate measure of fitness in that case?

 

Because being fatigued would decrease all of those. Not as much run and carry with the ball.

Our ability to move the ball from coast to coast and quickly by that, is minimised therefore our MG is less as a result. 

[Lord Nev 13,512]

8 minutes ago, Deenooos_ said:

Because being fatigued would decrease all of those. Not as much run and carry with the ball.

Our ability to move the ball from coast to coast and quickly by that, is minimised therefore our MG is less as a result. 

Christian Petracca leads the Dees for average metres gained. There is no chance he is our fittest player or covers the most kms per game. Using MG as a metric for fitness doesn't stack up IMO.

It's more a measure of style of football. We rebound, especially off turnovers and deliver the ball deep, particularly when we're playing well, this means our metres gained number goes up as we're not chipping backwards. In terms of fatigue - a team/player may simply decide to 'go long' more often to save the running, this would then increase their metres gained. Too many holes in this theory I think.

Again, "run and carry" is irrelevant here - Metres gained is a total of distance ran with the ball, distance you kick it and distance you handball it. Unless you have the breakdown of the percentage of each of those in relation to MG then it's not an accurate measure of fitness or distance covered. To add to that, one of our strengths is how players run when not in possession, yet that's not even touched on by MG.

 

Edited August 30, 2022 by Lord Nev

[layzie 34,014]

24 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Hang on, metres gained includes kicking and handballing as well as running.

How would it be an accurate measure of fitness in that case?

 

This is true.

[Lord Nev 13,512]

Just now, layzie said:

This is true.

Jack Watts once had a game in the negatives for metres gained. Must have been dead...

 

[layzie 34,014]

Just now, Lord Nev said:

Jack Watts once had a game in the negatives for metres gained. Must have been dead...

 

Maybe we need a 'metres ran' stat 

[Lord Nev 13,512]

1 minute ago, layzie said:

Maybe we need a 'metres ran' stat 

Now you're talking. Or even the 'repeat sprints' one that is talked about. That kind of thing is a better indicator I reckon than something that is mostly due to disposals. Champion Data hoard all that stuff though don't they?

[Deenooos_ 647]

31 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Christian Petracca leads the Dees for average metres gained. There is no chance he is our fittest player or covers the most kms per game. Using MG as a metric for fitness doesn't stack up IMO.

It's more a measure of style of football. We rebound, especially off turnovers and deliver the ball deep, particularly when we're playing well, this means our metres gained number goes up as we're not chipping backwards. In terms of fatigue - a team/player may simply decide to 'go long' more often to save the running, this would then increase their metres gained. Too many holes in this theory I think.

Again, "run and carry" is irrelevant here - Metres gained is a total of distance ran with the ball, distance you kick it and distance you handball it. Unless you have the breakdown of the percentage of each of those in relation to MG then it's not an accurate measure of fitness or distance covered. To add to that, one of our strengths is how players run when not in possession, yet that's not even touched on by MG.

 

1. If you actually read my post I specifically said that MG is not an indication of fitness and I was just using it as a thought experiment. 

2. After having a look at the numbers to see if they would marry up with our supposed period where we load and sure enough there was a definite drop in MG from r11 and the highest from r1-8.

3. If you think MG has more to do with the “style” you play rather than the fitness to move the ball forward and keep it in our forward half then what do you think is the cause for us to play a different style midyear? We aren’t changing our gameplan so what other reason is there?

When we are at our "best" our MG is 6500+. When we are fit players are running parallel and receiving forward handballs and running forward. We are also rebounding better from our d50 by winning contests better all of the ground, whereas during the middle of the year our running and transition game was just not there and it was stagnant and boring. If you can't see how this stat would in some way reflect our running ability I don't know what else to tell you.

Edited August 30, 2022 by Deenooos_

[RedBlueandTrue 359]

Surely metres gained would trend upwards strongly with increased fitness? With increased spread from contest, kick down field hits a target instead of turnover or handball therefore further metres gained from the next possession. Also improved fitness isn't just about running, it's about all facets of the game - more contests won - better quality of possession - better avenue to goal - more metres gained. I would've thought it was clearly a good indicator of fitness. 

[Lord Nev 13,512]

8 minutes ago, Deenooos_ said:

1. If you actually read my post I specifically said that MG is not an indication of fitness and I was just using it as a thought experiment. 

2. After having a look at the numbers to see if they would marry up with our supposed period where we load and sure enough there was a definite drop in MG from r11 and the highest from r1-8.

3. If you think MG has more to do with the “style” you play rather than the fitness to move the ball forward and keep it in our forward half then what do you think is the cause for us to play a different style midyear? We aren’t changing our gameplan so what other reason is there?

1. Sure, but you kinda said 'so it's not an indicator, but here's how I think it's an indicator....' And referenced a post that talks about MG as an indicator of fitness.

2. Correlation and causation. Because metres gained indicates disposals, game style and the link then performance of your opponent will directly impact it as well.

We had only 5,682 total metres gained against Collingwood in round 21 yet many have commented about how it was the fittest we've looked for weeks.

We had a whopping 6.953 metres gained in round 15 against Brisbane, yet that is the week after many believe we started our heavy loading period.

It just doesn't add up accurately.

3. I didn't say our style changed. But quality of opponent, defensive pressure, personnel, success of the game style will all impact our ability to have high metres gained numbers in comparison to our average. For example - the Brisbane game above, we had 35 rebound 50s, the Collingwood game above we had 25. That's one factor that would impact our metres gained total.

 

[Lord Nev 13,512]

1 minute ago, RedBlueandTrue said:

Surely metres gained would trend upwards strongly with increased fitness? With increased spread from contest, kick down field hits a target instead of turnover or handball therefore further metres gained from the next possession. Also improved fitness isn't just about running, it's about all facets of the game - more contests won - better quality of possession - better avenue to goal - more metres gained. I would've thought it was clearly a good indicator of fitness. 

You get the metres gained whether you hit a target, kick it to the opposition or kick it to grass. Quality of possession doesn't come into it.

 

[RedBlueandTrue 359]

Just now, Lord Nev said:

You get the metres gained whether you hit a target, kick it to the opposition or kick it to grass. Quality of possession doesn't come into it.

 

Yes it does because you get more metres gained as a team when you hit an effective kick 50 and mark it and then kick it another 50 = 100 rather than kicking it 50 to a turnover. On an individual level of course it doesn't matter but it does for the team total.

[Lord Nev 13,512]

28 minutes ago, Deenooos_ said:

during the middle of the year our running and transition game was just not there and it was stagnant and boring. If you can't see how this stat would in some way reflect our running ability I don't know what else to tell you.

Yet our highest MG for the year was the week after the bye when many (myself included) think we were doing heavy loading...

 

Edited August 30, 2022 by Lord Nev

[Lord Nev 13,512]

4 minutes ago, RedBlueandTrue said:

Yes it does because you get more metres gained as a team when you hit an effective kick 50 and mark it and then kick it another 50 = 100 rather than kicking it 50 to a turnover. On an individual level of course it doesn't matter but it does for the team total.

But you can also kick it long to the boundary, then get a clearance from the throw in and kick it again... Doesn't mean anyone is doing tons of running. Just way too many holes in this argument.

[RedBlueandTrue 359]

1 minute ago, Lord Nev said:

Yet our highest MG for the year was the week after the bye when many think we were doing heavy loading...

 

I thought predictions prior to this game were that we had de loaded and were always going to be fresh for that game, we went in confident for this reason?

[Lord Nev 13,512]

1 minute ago, RedBlueandTrue said:

I thought predictions prior to this game were that we had de loaded and were always going to be fresh for that game, we went in confident for this reason?

I reckon the argument has flip-flopped based on results week to week tbh, which is part of my problem with many of the arguments made in this thread.

You'd have to go back and check out what people were saying at the time, but I reckon you'd also find many have changed their thoughts across the journey.

If you go back to the famous loading expert's post here he implies our fitness will mirror that of 2021 when we were flat for a few games after the bye. He agrees with another poster it "could take several weeks after the bye to see the effect", yet that first game after the bye there we are with a huge metres gained number.

[RedBlueandTrue 359]

2 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

But you can also kick it long to the boundary, then get a clearance from the throw in and kick it again... Doesn't mean anyone is doing tons of running. Just way too many holes in this argument.

Sure, and with increased fitness you get more numbers to the contest and increase the likelihood of winning the clearance. The reality is that high metres gained is an indicator of good performance in a match. With increased fitness comes increased performance. Increased performance = higher metres gained. 

If you don't think that increased fitness is a massive factor in increased performance then you won't think its the reason for metres gained either, so we go in circles a bit.

There's been 3 times this year when BEFORE a game there have been predictions that we have deloaded and will destroy the opposition. First Brisbane game, the freo game and the second Brisbane game. It's been like clockwork! 

Is it coincidence and all a bit magic? I don't think so but I can only analyse based on the facts in front of me - maybe it is!

[RedBlueandTrue 359]

3 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

I reckon the argument has flip-flopped based on results week to week tbh, which is part of my problem with many of the arguments made in this thread.

You'd have to go back and check out what people were saying at the time, but I reckon you'd also find many have changed their thoughts across the journey.

If you go back to the famous loading expert's post here he implies our fitness will mirror that of 2021 when we were flat for a few games after the bye. He agrees with another poster it "could take several weeks after the bye to see the effect", yet that first game after the bye there we are with a huge metres gained number.

Yeah well I wish I could be bothered going back, all I remember is that I have been supremely confidant of a big win exactly 3 times this season - and made sure all my mates tipped dees for them. Brisbane, Freo, Brisbane. Extremely anecdotal and not of much use to others but it's enough for me! 

[Lord Nev 13,512]

1 minute ago, RedBlueandTrue said:

Sure, and with increased fitness you get more numbers to the contest and increase the likelihood of winning the clearance.

Hang on, you said before that increased fitness was responsible for run and spread, but now it's better for contested footy?

  

1 minute ago, RedBlueandTrue said:

The reality is that high metres gained is an indicator of good performance in a match.

No, I don't agree with that entirely. Our game against Collingwood in round 21 had very low metres gained for both sides, yet that was an intense, pressure filled game.

  

1 minute ago, RedBlueandTrue said:

With increased fitness comes increased performance. Increased performance = higher metres gained.

Round 15 (expectations from posters were we'd be flat) - Huge metres gained.

Round 21 (expectations were we'd be hitting our straps) - Very low metres gained.

  

1 minute ago, RedBlueandTrue said:

If you don't think that increased fitness is a massive factor in increased performance then you won't think its the reason for metres gained either, so we go in circles a bit.

Don't roll with the strawman stuff mate. Nowhere have I said increased fitness isn't a factor in increased performance. I'm simply pointing out using metres gained as an indicator of fitness is flawed.

  

1 minute ago, RedBlueandTrue said:

There's been 3 times this year when BEFORE a game there have been predictions that we have deloaded and will destroy the opposition. First Brisbane game, the freo game and the second Brisbane game. It's been like clockwork!

Incorrect. Go back to the post/page I've already linked and see the predictions were we'd be flat.

  

1 minute ago, RedBlueandTrue said:

Is it coincidence and all a bit magic? I don't think so but I can only analyse based on the facts in front of me - maybe it is!

I have no idea what this is meant to mean. I firmly believe in loading and that we've been doing it. I just don't agree metres gained is an accurate metric for it and have provided data to back up my argument.