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

[RedBlueandTrue 359]

1 minute ago, Lord Nev said:

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

  

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.

  

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.

  

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.

  

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

  

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.

 

That's all a bit much for me.

I will respond to first one though. As I said before, improved fitness helps ALL facets of the game - it's certainly not binary in that it only helps either spread OR contest as your logic seems to imply? Weird one. Anyway have a good one go dees!

[Lord Nev 13,512]

Just now, RedBlueandTrue said:

That's all a bit much for me.

I will respond to first one though. As I said before, improved fitness helps ALL facets of the game - it's certainly not binary in that it only helps either spread OR contest as your logic seems to imply? Weird one. Anyway have a good one go dees!

Far out. No mate, I didn't say that. I was pointing out you contradicted yourself.

 

[Ethan Tremblay 30,824]

[DistrACTION Jackson 8,554]

I have de-loaded on beers this week to make sure I'm cherry ripe for Friday night.

I think I'll be able to increase my beer intake by about 10-20% as a result.

[D4Life 2,436]

4 hours ago, Action Jackson said:

I have de-loaded on beers this week to make sure I'm cherry ripe for Friday night.

I think I'll be able to increase my beer intake by about 10-20% as a result.

I gave up drinking during Covid well first twelve weeks - no impact on weight or gut size  - both very disappointing.

Then went on a weekly long walk with a Buddy  3 kms to bottle shop, acquisition of dozen beers, consumption of said beers on 3km walk back. Result after 12 weeks - weight & gut still same!

Does de loading have any impact on weight or gut size? Should de loading start round 11? 

[Vipercrunch 2,820]

15 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

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

 

This was addressed at the time.  The CBA rules that go with the bye make it the perfect week to plan a deload week.  If our bye was 14 days long, we could have very well also begun and completed the next load week, and would have played fatigued for that game.  However, we only had a 9 day bye break so there was no time to do do a full week of load in two days, therefore we played looking fresh.

[HarpenDee 249]

17 hours ago, mfcrox said:

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.

Big Ben Binman Brown also said something similar when questioned about our loss to Sydney. I felt he intimated loading played a part. Go Dees.

[Lord Nev 13,512]

2 hours ago, Vipercrunch said:

This was addressed at the time.  The CBA rules that go with the bye make it the perfect week to plan a deload week.  If our bye was 14 days long, we could have very well also begun and completed the next load week, and would have played fatigued for that game.  However, we only had a 9 day bye break so there was no time to do do a full week of load in two days, therefore we played looking fresh.

But that flies against what some have said in this thread about how immediate the impacts are of the 'release' of the loading. Binman went on and on about how it would be 6 weeks before we saw the benefits. That's my point about how little we know as fact and how many times the goal posts have been moved on this issue.

What's the explanation then for the round 21 MG figures that were very very low?

[rjay 24,852]

57 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

But that flies against what some have said in this thread about how immediate the impacts are of the 'release' of the loading. Binman went on and on about how it would be 6 weeks before we saw the benefits. That's my point about how little we know as fact and how many times the goal posts have been moved on this issue.

What's the explanation then for the round 21 MG figures that were very very low?

If we look fresh from here on does it matter?

[Lord Nev 13,512]

3 minutes ago, rjay said:

If we look fresh from here on does it matter?

We're probably getting a few wires crossed here - I'm 100% in the loading camp and expect us to be looking pretty fresh from here on out.

The original point was I just didn't agree with Denoos saying that metres gained was an accurate measure of fitness/loading patterns. Won't start it all again, but that was where I was differing.

[Watson11 2,240]

7 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

We're probably getting a few wires crossed here - I'm 100% in the loading camp and expect us to be looking pretty fresh from here on out.

The original point was I just didn't agree with Denoos saying that metres gained was an accurate measure of fitness/loading patterns. Won't start it all again, but that was where I was differing.

I agree 100% with you.  We could probably have a far more accurate correlation of metres gained to the weather than we could to fitness.

Edited August 31, 2022 by Watson11

[JimmyGadson 3,455]

BUMP. 

Let's hear it 'loaders'. 

Don't go quiet now!

Would love some analysis surrounding our noticibly low energy/motivation levels last night that clearly impacted our ability to bring our pressure game which the rest of our game-plan relies on...  Sounds familiar.. 

I mean, it was eerily similar to the game we played against them earlier in the season. Yet the loaders were more than happy to dissect that game and point out that our lack of energy was due to the heavy loading phase we were going through. 

@binman @Lord Nevand @1964_2 we're all waiting for last night's explanation for an almost identical game. 

Or are we STILL LOADING?

Over to you loaders. 

 

Edited September 2, 2022 by JimmyGadson

[The heart beats true 18,107]

Regardless of what we have tried to do this year in terms of training loads it hasn’t worked. Our last half form has been atrocious since round 11 onwards.

We’ve won 4 last halves in our last 14 games. I wouldn’t want to be the fitness department this week. 

 

[sisso 2,577]

I just don’t think the boys want it as badly this year, last season our attack on the ball and man was as brutal as I’ve seen, it’s absent this year….

[rpfc 28,248]

I was waiting for this bump. I was worried earlier in the season with how we were playing and I said that loading was a ‘red herring’ and this is what I meant.

Loading is a real thing that the best teams do, but you’re not meant to be revealed like we were revealed with some of those performances in 2nd halves in the middle of the season.

We are not moving the ball well, have little dare and run, and our forward line can’t compete against defences that are set up. And they also allow the ball out too easily.

[Hellaintabadplacetobe 4,294]

2 minutes ago, rpfc said:

I was waiting for this bump. I was worried earlier in the season with how we were playing and I said that loading was a ‘red herring’ and this is what I meant.

Loading is a real thing that the best teams do, but you’re not meant to be revealed like we were revealed with some of those performances in 2nd halves in the middle of the season.

We are not moving the ball well, have little dare and run, and our forward line can’t compete against defences that are set up. And they also allow the ball out too easily.

Agree on all this.

No doubt loading happens, every team in finals contention are doing it, but there's enough sample size now to understand it can't be used an an excuse for our form.

The dare is the big one for me, it's just not the same as last year but I think a lot of this comes from good opposition coaching who know it won us games last year. We still appear to have no Plan B.

Bizarre we are at our worst at the G, and miraculously look a different team interstate. 

[Lord Nev 13,512]

3 hours ago, JimmyGadson said:

BUMP. 

Let's hear it 'loaders'. 

Don't go quiet now!

Would love some analysis surrounding our noticibly low energy/motivation levels last night that clearly impacted our ability to bring our pressure game which the rest of our game-plan relies on...  Sounds familiar.. 

I mean, it was eerily similar to the game we played against them earlier in the season. Yet the loaders were more than happy to dissect that game and point out that our lack of energy was due to the heavy loading phase we were going through. 

@binman @Lord Nevand @1964_2 we're all waiting for last night's explanation for an almost identical game. 

Or are we STILL LOADING?

Over to you loaders.

I put last night's loss down to:

- Swans having our measure. Their pressure was fantastic, we didn't cope.

- Team selection. Been too stagnant this year, cost us last night.

- Against an intense pressuring team; the niggles we're carrying were found out more.

I'm not in the exact same camp as binman, my opinion is that we did the loading some time around the bye (but probably not during the bye) and that we were aiming to be 100% by round 23. I don't put our performance last night down to loading or not loading tbh.

To add to the existing niggles, we also had Fritsch pre-game, Petracca during the game, and Spargo and Melksham also all 'injured' which IMO tipped the balance too far when combined with players like Gawn, Jackson, Brown, Hibberd, Salem and probably more already not 100%.

In the end, it wasn't a shock loss, I'm not sure why many seem surprised.

Edited September 3, 2022 by Lord Nev

[Engorged Onion 10,215]

3 hours ago, JimmyGadson said:

BUMP. 

Let's hear it 'loaders'. 

Don't go quiet now!

Would love some analysis surrounding our noticibly low energy/motivation levels last night that clearly impacted our ability to bring our pressure game which the rest of our game-plan relies on...  Sounds familiar.. 

I mean, it was eerily similar to the game we played against them earlier in the season. Yet the loaders were more than happy to dissect that game and point out that our lack of energy was due to the heavy loading phase we were going through. 

@binman @Lord Nevand @1964_2 we're all waiting for last night's explanation for an almost identical game. 

Or are we STILL LOADING?

Over to you loaders. 

 

 

It sure looked like lower energy. Not sure low motivation comes into it.

My take... aside from injuries to players in game yet again. The Swans clearly match up on us very well. And we've known this for years. I'm always a bit cynical and can appreciate some blow back on this thought, but I do wonder about the messaging about 'gastro' earlier on in the week as some kind of preparation for expectation for fans.

I'm not sure how else to describe the difference in style and energy between last night (which I saw on TV) vs Brisbane, which I attended live.

More broadly back on loading. What I feel you're trying to say is - because of the similarities, it must be the same reason as the earlier match this season vs last nights match. I'd say there are multiple factors including loading for the first and this match was not due to loading, but other in game reasons from a personnel perspective, but also the Swans fantastic game plan against us.

Reflecting this morning, for the loss, I was super surprised/disappointed, whilst NOT being surprised based on how 2022 vs 2021 has 'felt' comparatively. Even though we essentially had the same win/loss record, and scored and conceded within 40 points the same amount as 2021, with a far tougher draw.

 

[Watson11 2,240]

3 hours ago, JimmyGadson said:

BUMP. 

Let's hear it 'loaders'. 

Don't go quiet now!

Would love some analysis surrounding our noticibly low energy/motivation levels last night that clearly impacted our ability to bring our pressure game which the rest of our game-plan relies on...  Sounds familiar.. 

I mean, it was eerily similar to the game we played against them earlier in the season. Yet the loaders were more than happy to dissect that game and point out that our lack of energy was due to the heavy loading phase we were going through. 

@binman @Lord Nevand @1964_2 we're all waiting for last night's explanation for an almost identical game. 

Or are we STILL LOADING?

Over to you loaders. 

 

I’m a loading believer, but I also think Burgo, who is probably the premier high performance person in the AFL, would laugh at loading being used as an excuse at any time. If you listen to the Travis Boak podcast, Burgo explained why he made Port do 100x100’s in 40C heat a few hours after getting off a 16 hour flight to Dubai. It was simply to show the players that they are capable of pushing through a lot more than they thought and could draw on it later.  I can’t imagine what he would think if the players used tiredness as an excuse for 4th qtr efforts now or in July.

I don’t agree it was similar to rd 12 though.  In that game we didn’t score a single goal from turnover.  Last night we had 3 at qtr time.  But our inability to stop sides scoring from inside 50 was identical and has been a problem since round 7.

[1964_2 2,357]

4 hours ago, JimmyGadson said:

BUMP. 

Let's hear it 'loaders'. 

Don't go quiet now!

Would love some analysis surrounding our noticibly low energy/motivation levels last night that clearly impacted our ability to bring our pressure game which the rest of our game-plan relies on...  Sounds familiar.. 

I mean, it was eerily similar to the game we played against them earlier in the season. Yet the loaders were more than happy to dissect that game and point out that our lack of energy was due to the heavy loading phase we were going through. 

@binman @Lord Nevand @1964_2 we're all waiting for last night's explanation for an almost identical game. 

Or are we STILL LOADING?

Over to you loaders. 

 

Without doubt the loading camp (myself included) dismissed obvious game style issues (and player related issues) during the loading period, and got it wrong to expect those issues would simply disappear when at or near peak fitness. 

I have no issues admitting that. And to argue the contrary would be delusional. 
 

[Garbo 1,518]

Think we can definitely call this bunk, dees have been a first half team most of the year and specifically the 2nd half of the season and last night was no different. We simply don’t have the fitness to run out games and the difference between last year and this year is night and day. If we did any special loading it has had absolutely no positive effect.

Edited September 3, 2022 by Garbo

[JimmyGadson 3,455]

Paging @binman

? 

[The heart beats true 18,107]

5 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

I put last night's loss down to:

- Swans having our measure. Their pressure was fantastic, we didn't cope.

- Team selection. Been too stagnant this year, cost us last night.

- Against an intense pressuring team; the niggles we're carrying were found out more.

I'm not in the exact same camp as binman, my opinion is that we did the loading some time around the bye (but probably not during the bye) and that we were aiming to be 100% by round 23. I don't put our performance last night down to loading or not loading tbh.

To add to the existing niggles, we also had Fritsch pre-game, Petracca during the game, and Spargo and Melksham also all 'injured' which IMO tipped the balance too far when combined with players like Gawn, Jackson, Brown, Hibberd, Salem and probably more already not 100%.

In the end, it wasn't a shock loss, I'm not sure why many seem surprised.

I agree that it wasn’t a shock loss, but I wonder what the club makes of where we are at with our fitness. Our last halves have been horrible for 3 months (hence not a shock). Last night at 3/4 time I watched the players come in for the huddle and they  looked absolutely cooked. I’ve felt that at all the games I’ve seen in Melbourne since Freo before the bye. It’s why I brought into the loading idea so heavily.

I’d think the club is very unhappy with our ability to run out games. We look to have got it wrong.

[Lord Nev 13,512]

13 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

I agree that it wasn’t a shock loss, but I wonder what the club makes of where we are at with our fitness. Our last halves have been horrible for 3 months (hence not a shock). Last night at 3/4 time I watched the players come in for the huddle and they  looked absolutely cooked. I’ve felt that at all the games I’ve seen in Melbourne since Freo before the bye. It’s why I brought into the loading idea so heavily.

I’d think the club is very unhappy with our ability to run out games. We look to have got it wrong.

The thing I wonder about fitness wise this year is if we've maybe not got the balance right between resilience and recovery. We've clearly played players when they've had niggles, every team does to an extent, but could we have pushed it too far and ended up with it impacting our fitness at the pointy end of the season?

[The heart beats true 18,107]

Just now, Lord Nev said:

The thing I wonder about fitness wise this year is if we've maybe not got the balance right between resilience and recovery. We've clearly played players when they've had niggles, every team does to an extent, but could we have pushed it too far and ended up with it impacting our fitness at the pointy end of the season?

100%. I think there might have been an over reliance on what has worked, when clearly a third of our best 22 are battling to stay out there. Will be interesting to see how we shape up next year.