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

[Dwight Schrute 16,722]

 

11 hours ago, bing181 said:

No we haven't and neither have they. But agree with you, staggering how much legs this has gotten for something that never happened.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. what's incredible is the conviction with which something so ridiculous is posted. 

Loading is real, it's not exclusive to AFL, we did it in 2021, i almost guarantee we've done it in 2022 as have other sides, i would be shocked if we still were at this stage of the year, so it's not an excuse for last nights result. 

but i am going to call out and challenge any posted silly enough to try and claim loading doesn't exist because it's just an absolute load of nonsense. 

[1964_2 2,357]

6 hours ago, Dwight Schrute said:

 

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. what's incredible is the conviction with which something so ridiculous is posted. 

Loading is real, it's not exclusive to AFL, we did it in 2021, i almost guarantee we've done it in 2022 as have other sides, i would be shocked if we still were at this stage of the year, so it's not an excuse for last nights result. 

but i am going to call out and challenge any posted silly enough to try and claim loading doesn't exist because it's just an absolute load of nonsense. 

Well said. 100% we have done it. Whether it benefits us, and gives us the edge we are hoping for, is the key uncertainty we are all speculating about.

 

[Nairobi_Demon 315]

19 hours ago, Wodjathefirst said:

There is fitness (loading considerations), tactics (execution of game plan) and mindset (attitude) for the want of better words. They are all to a degree interrelated. 
In my certainly  not professional opinion, if you don’t have all three switched on at the same time, that is a real issue.

I reckon we are fit enough, the tactics and even more perhaps, the mindset now need attention and adjustment. Next game will tell ( one game at a time).

We are the reigning premiers which obviously makes things even more challenging ( being the hunted, etc). I still have faith that we can go all the way. Can we? Yes. Will we? Maybe.

GO DEES 

Nice summary of the key factors influencing performance.

However, it was clear we weren’t fit enough in the last quarter. 

But what’s interesting is that each of those factors seemed to influence the game at different stages.

We can’t blame the poor set shots in the first half on fatigue. I think those must have been a combination of our skills (despite all Choco’s efforts some of our key players still have poor technique - looking at you Max) and attitude (evidence 1: Salim’s response to his miss; evidence 2: Langdon’s comments to the media on Friday). 

The last quarter was fatigue, clearly, which does raise questions about the fitness program.  But overall I’m not too worried about this. I’m convinced we’ll be running on top of the ground come finals and teams like Collingwood will crash out in straight sets.

I am starting to get a little worried about the attitude. Indeed, I found Goodwin’s and McCrae’s responses to questions about Langdon’s comments in their pressers very interesting.  Goody very strongly emphasised two things: one, that Langdon actually meant to respect the opposition. Respecting the opposition is a line he repeats all the time and he seemed to want to nip in the bud any sense of complancy/inevitability amongst the players that Langdon’s comments may have surfaced.  Two, he strongly reaffired his belief that this team can go all the way, again nipping in the bud the potential for a loss such as this to deflate the belief of the players (like it has deflated many on demonland 😆).  In contrast, McCrae thought Langdon’s comments added colour to the game. 

Goodies comments were focused on managing attitude. Indeed, with our fitness sorted like last year but with the additional challenge of our hunted status, our attitude really does need to be ruthless if we want to go back to back. I don’t think it was yesterday.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,398]

On 8/2/2022 at 6:51 PM, Dr. Gonzo said:

The problem is people looking to equate loading with results rather than performance. Your performance can lead to poor results but it's more about how you perform on the day (ie noticeable fatigue, sluggishness, inability to cover ground, inability for repeated efforts etc)

Results v performance

Performance wise we dominated Collingwood in all the key stats except the one that mattered.

The loss does not dispute that there was a period of loading.

[Lord Nev 13,511]

35 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Performance wise we dominated Collingwood in all the key stats except the one that mattered.

Don't agree on this narrative that is kicking around.

Yes, we won a lot of the areas we like to pride ourselves on, but IMO these stats were the most indicative of our performance, particularly in the second half:

Tackles - Melb 59, Coll 71

Handballs - Melb 208, Coll 99

In the context of how the game played out, that handball stat is telling.

[Binmans PA 25,893]

7 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Don't agree on this narrative that is kicking around.

Yes, we won a lot of the areas we like to pride ourselves on, but IMO these stats were the most indicative of our performance, particularly in the second half:

Tackles - Melb 59, Coll 71

Handballs - Melb 208, Coll 99

In the context of how the game played out, that handball stat is telling.

What are you talking about mate? Salem, Gawn x2 and Fritsch all missed regulation shots at goal from 20-25m out. That's the game right there.

[Lord Nev 13,511]

Just now, A F said:

What are you talking about mate? Salem, Gawn x2 and Fritsch all missed regulation shots at goal from 20-25m out. That's the game right there.

Sure, game would have looked different had we converted some pretty regulation shots, but IMO we just could not hack the Collingwood pressure in the second half and massively overhandballed and that cost us the game.

We had a handy lead early despite some poor goal kicking.

[D4Life 2,299]

On 8/6/2022 at 9:02 AM, COVID Dan said:

Agree, i accept what you're saying.

But to play devils advocate "pardon the pun", out system has consistently been broken by good teams this year in second halfs.

I am not saying the MFC can not win it, i am saying based on form and talent, we lack the big guns and offesnsive capability the Pies and Cats have.

We apparently pride  ourselves on defensive pressure, but the Pies scored at an alarming rate and efficiency last night.

You could argue until your blue if it is about coaching, personnel or form, but simple fact is the AFL want offense and will favor those teams who produce it. And in big games this year the MFC has failed time and time again to stop other teams run.

 

It's the Pies and Cats season

We kick 2 more goals rather than points we win.

Pies kicked 15-4 and two rushed, they kick 13-6 and two rushed, still very accurate they lose!

Season isn’t over yet!

Edited August 6, 2022 by D4Life
Correction

[Cheap Seats 3,300]

7 minutes ago, D4Life said:

We kick 2 more goals rather than points we win.

Pies kicked 15-4 and two rushed, they kick 13-6 and two rushed, still very accurate they lose!

Season isn’t over yet!

Agree, but we've been consistent in not converting and keeping teams in it all year.

Fact is to date (for 2022 season) we haven't been good enough to win the big games. It doesn't automatically mean we won't in the future, but writing has been on the wall all year, that we are not the side we were last year and teams with good offense are winning the big games.

Not sure we can go to that level.

[binman 37,765]

13 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Sure, game would have looked different had we converted some pretty regulation shots, but IMO we just could not hack the Collingwood pressure in the second half and massively overhandballed and that cost us the game.

We had a handy lead early despite some poor goal kicking.

We definitely handballed a lot in the last quarter as a result of their pressure, but it was clear high handball numbers was a strategy coming into the game.

We smashed them in the first half. And was handling their pressure fine

But from the get go we were handballing like crazy.

I remembered seeing the handball numbers come up on the scoreboard at quarter and half time and being amazed how high we were. We had doubled their tally.

[Lord Nev 13,511]

Just now, binman said:

We definitely handballed a lot in the last quarter as a result of their pressure, but it was clear high handball numbers was a strategy coming into the game.

We smashed them in the first half. And was handling their pressure fine

But from the get go we were handballing like crazy.

I remembered seeing the handball numbers come up on the scoreboard at quarter and half time and being amazed how high we were. We had doubled their tally.

Second half tackles were - Melb 27, Coll 46

They clearly lifted their pressure in the second half and we couldn't cope with it.

The handballs in the first half were more our 'usual' style of handballs - run and carry, give and go style, but in the second half it looked like the majority of our handballs were under immense pressure to a player within a metre who was immediately tackled a lot of the time. The context was very different IMO.

[binman 37,765]

2 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Second half tackles were - Melb 27, Coll 46

They clearly lifted their pressure in the second half and we couldn't cope with it.

The handballs in the first half were more our 'usual' style of handballs - run and carry, give and go style, but in the second half it looked like the majority of our handballs were under immense pressure to a player within a metre who was immediately tackled a lot of the time. The context was very different IMO.

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you. 

They lifted their pressure in the second half and were fantastic.

But I think it was only the last 10 to 15 minutes of the game where we couldn't deal with their pressure.

And it is that period where we were clearly fatigued.

And that is why it is important, in my opinion to factor in things like loading and fitness levels into assessment of the game. 

Because otherwise, if looking for an explanation (not you, in the genetal sense) it can be easy to default to saying the reason we couldn’t handle their pressure was we mentally couldn't.

Which perhaps is partially true. But they were stronger for longer.

The million dollar question is whether the program will have us in the right shape to run out such games to the very end come finals.

And we won't know till then.

[Neil Crompton 4,672]

4 minutes ago, COVID Dan said:

Agree, but we've been consistent in not converting and keeping teams in it all year.

Fact is to date (for 2022 season) we haven't been good enough to win the big games. It doesn't automatically mean we won't in the future, but writing has been on the wall all year, that we are not the side we were last year and teams with good offense are winning the big games.

Not sure we can go to that level.

Could it alternatively be that we are exactly the same side as we were last year, ie same game plan - and that’s the problem. Other sides have learnt and grown from our experience last year, and we simply haven’t, to our detriment. We stand still , we lose.

Whether that’s a likely alternative case or not I don’t know, but I feel that a number of posters on here have the attitude, in simple terms, that if we do what we did last year, everything will be alright - ie as soon as loading stops we will be flying. And it’s pretty evident after Friday night that we are not flying. 
Perhaps we need to have a closer look at our game plan with 2022 eyes and not 2021eyes.

[Lord Nev 13,511]

2 minutes ago, binman said:

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you. 

They lifted their pressure in the second half and were fantastic.

But I think it was only the last 10 to 15 minutes of the game where we couldn't deal with their pressure.

And it is that period where we were clearly fatigued.

And that is why it is important, in my opinion to factor in things like loading and fitness levels into assessment of the game. 

Because otherwise, if looking for an explanation (not you, in the genetal sense) it can be easy to default to saying the reason we couldn’t handle their pressure was we mentally couldn't.

Which perhaps is partially true. But they were stronger for longer.

The million dollar question is whether the program will have us in the right shape to run out such games to the very end come finals.

And we won't know till then.

Yeah that's probably fair, when I say 'second half' I don't necessarily mean the entire half, it definitely lifted as the half went on.

Hang on though, why are we factoring in loading? You've famously said we'd be flying from last week, shouldn't that mean we would have been flying for the second half this week?

I don't think we should fall into the trap of solely blaming loading for the result either way.

Personally, I think it's more to do with how we're handling the 'resilience' piece this year. Definitely seems we've continued that under Selwyn and we're pushing players who are sore or not 100% like we did last year, but we haven't been as lucky with injuries this year as last and I believe it's having more of an impact this year. Similar to loading, I wonder if we could have handled some of the players better this year in getting them cherry ripe for finals rather than riding their injuries through the season.

[binman 37,765]

5 minutes ago, Neil Crompton said:

Could it alternatively be that we are exactly the same side as we were last year, ie same game plan - and that’s the problem. Other sides have learnt and grown from our experience last year, and we simply haven’t, to our detriment. We stand still , we lose.

Whether that’s a likely alternative case or not I don’t know, but I feel that a number of posters on here have the attitude, in simple terms, that if we do what we did last year, everything will be alright - ie as soon as loading stops we will be flying. And it’s pretty evident after Friday night that we are not flying. 
Perhaps we need to have a closer look at our game plan with 2022 eyes and not 2021eyes.

Interestingly, I think goody is making changes to our game plan, and some pretty significant ones at that.

On the game against the pies, the loss was very hard to take. But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we although we lost, we played pretty bloody well.

If the pies are a legitimate flag contender, which I'd didn't think they were, but do now, then so are we.

We are seven weeks away from our optimal fitness levels. Perhaps the pies are close to their right now.

We dominated the first half and should have put the game out of reach, then ran out of legs late.

We got beaten by a goal, but on 'expected score' we win by three.

If Brown marks on the wing with aprox 2 mins to go, we probalby win the game and the tone of the discussion is different.

[binman 37,765]

43 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Hang on though, why are we factoring in loading? You've famously said we'd be flying from last week, shouldn't that mean we would have been flying for the second half this week?

We are factoring in loading, or should if we are interested in understanding what happened, because we are in the tapering phase of the program.

And in aprox week two of that phase we are still seven weeks of our optimal level. 

We were flying, but couldn't maintain that level right to the end. That was a a finals like game and we don't have finals like readiness yet.

And the pies do. I'm hoping like he'll they can't maintain that level, because if they can tbey are obviously a real contender.

I was wrong about the level the pies were at. Their ability to maintain the rage right to the end of the game was fantastic. They look super fit and very focused.

I felt even that say 75% of our optimal readiness we would be too good and too strong for them  and would smash them. I was thinking I had got it correct unti about half way through the third, when it became obvious things had levelled up. 

But a positive was that it was only really the last 10 mins of the game where we were clearly looking gassed.

I found it super strange we never tried to play tempo footy and take the speed out of the game. 

You make a good point about the resilience and mental aspect.

It is impossible to really know how much an impact Burgess had in that space, but it felt like he was an extra coach, and a psychologist as much as a sport scientist.

To be fair, last year we had very few issues to test that resilience.

This year we have mutiple injuries, in game injuries the may melksham saga, the Bartlett saga, tbe goody drinking with the boys saga and the Jackson fugazi. 

To be clear though, lest posters fell the need to launch at me, we didn't lose that game because of loading.

In my opinion we lost it for tbe reason I have been complaining about ever since I started posting in demonland - our appalling kicking for goal.

We missed so many goals we simply should never have missed. 

They kicked accurately from set shots and took their chances.

That's the game right there.

Good kicking is good football. And we have so many [censored] kicks it's not funny.

And once again it cost us a game of football. 

We take our chances in the second quarter, we then control the game in the third - and our fatigue levels never comes to the equation.

Edited August 7, 2022 by binman

[Neil Crompton 4,672]

9 minutes ago, binman said:

Interestingly, I think goody is making changes to our game plan, and some pretty significant ones at that.

Well I’ll believe that when I see us:

- not kicking out to the left every single f’ing time

- when we have the ball on the defensive wing, not waiting till a giant pack forms in our forward line before we kick directly to that pack

- our forwards actually spreading and leading to space, and we actually look for this option.

- we have a method of controlling the ball/ game even if we have run out of legs.

Until these and possibly other issues are addressed, I believe any other tweaks are simply cosmetic. My original conjecture, that we may be a stagnant clone of ‘21  - instead of trailblazing team in ‘22 - still stands. And I guess this final series will tell.

[Lord Nev 13,511]

3 minutes ago, binman said:

We are factoring in loading, or should if we are interested in understanding what happened, because we are in the tapering phase of the program.

And in aprox week two of that phase we are still seven weeks of our optimal level.

 

On 6/7/2022 at 1:24 PM, binman said:

Regardless of the cause, we were clearly more fatigued against freo and the swans, as evidenced by being run over by by both teams in the second half.

Something that simply did not happen in rounds 1 to 10 last year and this year, or from round 18 last year.

But come the pointy end of the season, fatigue won't be an issue.

You only need to remember how well we ran out games from round 18 last year (not one team, including other top 4 sides, could go with us in second halves - we were far the fittest side) to get a sense of how things will turn.

Can't help but feel you're moving the goal posts a bit here mate.

Here's you above inferring we'd be right from round 18, later on you moved that to round 20, and now you're saying it's another 7 weeks away?

Don't get me wrong, I'm a loading believer, but I don't think you can keep moving the goal posts on it to suit the results.

[JimmyGadson 3,455]

Binman. My god.

Have you considered the role a roaring Collingwood crowd plays on a team they're willing on in the final 10-15 minutes of a game?

I would say that has far more of an impact on a team's adrenaline levels than you give credit for and is perhaps the reason they rolled us as opposed to our perceived "fatigue due to loading". 

A home crowd in a football game can be an extra player. There's a reason they have been able to win so many close ones and I'd say this is almost the biggest factor for them. And I'd say if you asked the players about it, they'd agree.

Edited August 7, 2022 by JimmyGadson

[Lord Nev 13,511]

1 minute ago, JimmyGadson said:

Binman. My god.

Have you considered the role a roaring Collingwood crowd plays on a team they're willing on in the final 10-15 minutes of a game?

I would say that has far more of an impact on a team's adrenaline levels than you give credit for and is perhaps the reason they rolled us as opposed to our perceived "fatigue due to loading".

Crowd in a football game can be an extra player. There's a reason they have been able to win so many close ones and I'd say this is almost the biggest factor. I'd say if you asked the players about it, they'd agree.

It's a fair point, especially in the light of Richo and Goody's responses to Langdon's comments.

Also, here's Trac;s thoughts: “We need a crowd first to actually get ourselves going, no one comes,” he said. “When you come out and only see 30,000 there …”

 

[sue 8,410]

If we are still loading to get ready for the finals, I have only one comment.  We should have stopped loading already. With our draw, we have been effectively playing finals already.

[Wells 11 4,650]

2 minutes ago, JimmyGadson said:

Binman. My god.

Have you considered the role a roaring Collingwood crowd plays on a team they're willing on in the final 10-15 minutes of a game?

I would say that has far more of an impact on a team's adrenaline levels than you give credit for and is perhaps the reason they rolled us as opposed to our perceived "fatigue due to loading". 

A home crowd in a football game can be an extra player. There's a reason they have been able to win so many close ones and I'd say this is almost the biggest factor for them. And I'd say if you asked the players about it, they'd agree.

well if this were true the pies would win a high %  of the close games across all seasons. which they haven’t.  A brief glance at just the grand finals lost by close margins would reveal something else. 

They’re riding a wave this year. They were peaking as a team on Friday eve and I strongly believe they will not be able to sustain it and that that wave will collapse come finals. 

[1964_2 2,357]

51 minutes ago, binman said:

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you. 

They lifted their pressure in the second half and were fantastic.

But I think it was only the last 10 to 15 minutes of the game where we couldn't deal with their pressure.

And it is that period where we were clearly fatigued.

And that is why it is important, in my opinion to factor in things like loading and fitness levels into assessment of the game. 

Because otherwise, if looking for an explanation (not you, in the genetal sense) it can be easy to default to saying the reason we couldn’t handle their pressure was we mentally couldn't.

Which perhaps is partially true. But they were stronger for longer.

The million dollar question is whether the program will have us in the right shape to run out such games to the very end come finals.

And we won't know till then.

Watching the replay, I must admit Collingwood’s dare, and willingness to switch, change angles, play aggressively was really impressive. Requires a high level of skill and smarts to execute that plan, and they did it perfectly. A few teams have worn us down with that style this year. Whether or not that plan will work in finals is an uncertainty, as the contest/intensity naturally increases. 

But it is worth considering that for us to defend against that style is naturally more intensive vs last year, when we would more frequently strangle teams, as they conservatively kicked down the line. 

So another variable separate to fitness & loading is whether it is too challenging for us to run 4 qtr’s out defending against teams with the willingness and skill to execute an attacking game that involves frequent use of the corridor, switching, etc. 

[binman 37,765]

9 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Don't get me wrong, I'm a loading believer, but I don't think you can keep moving the goal posts on it to suit the results.

Nev, I'm not. And please, I'm not interested in a back and forth argument.

If you are a 'loading believer' then you also understand we are weeks away from our optimal level as tapering is a critical part of the program.

I thought we were fantastic against the dockers and also the pies, the loss notwithstanding. We are clearly more powerful and have more energy. That is evident to the eye, the scores we are putting on the board and in the stats.

That is awesome. We can see the benefit of the program. With every week we get closer to our optimal level. And we are at our peak on preliminary final day. Which of course what the loading is for. 

[binman 37,765]

1 hour ago, 1964_2 said:

Watching the replay, I must admit Collingwood’s dare, and willingness to switch, change angles, play aggressively was really impressive. Requires a high level of skill and smarts to execute that plan, and they did it perfectly. A few teams have worn us down with that style this year. Whether or not that plan will work in finals is an uncertainty, as the contest/intensity naturally increases. 

But it is worth considering that for us to defend against that style is naturally more intensive vs last year, when we would more frequently strangle teams, as they conservatively kicked down the line. 

So another variable separate to fitness & loading is whether it is too challenging for us to run 4 qtr’s out defending against teams with the willingness and skill to execute an attacking game that involves frequent use of the corridor, switching, etc. 

I think that is a very good point.

Bottom line teams know they can't beat us if they allow us to control the tempo.

Few teams have the ability to disrupt that. But doing so, foe example by going fast, taking risks, using the corridor etc, is the only path to victory.

Maybe goody has decided that we need to be better at thst ballistic style ourselved to counter the opposition teams who employ those tactics. How else to explain our decision to sy super high temp footy ahsonsy the dogs and lies?

The pies were brilliant at it - better than I had expected them to be. They have 8 weeks go sustain tnst level, but if they cam, they ate a legitimate flag chance.

Edited August 7, 2022 by binman