17 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

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.

I'm more interested in how we shape up next week...

One thing that is overlooked a little is that we have a target on our backs as the reigning premier.

Being the hunted each week is taxing, mentally and physically. We were the benchmark and teams have had to step up their game to combat us.

We planned our peak absolutely perfectly last year and no doubt tried to replicate it in ‘22, however our draw has been the hardest of all and it’s not even debatable. No team had played against top 8 sides more and the 3 extra times we’ve done it would take its toll.

The emergence of Freo and Collingwood, combined with another year of Sydney learning their game plan all adds up

Edited September 3, 20223 yr by BW511

23 minutes ago, BW511 said:

One thing that is overlooked a little is that we have a target on our backs as the reigning premier.

Being the hunted each week is taxing, mentally and physically. We were the benchmark and teams have had to step up their game to combat us.

We planned our peak absolutely perfectly last year and no doubt tried to replicate it in ‘22, however our draw has been the hardest of all and it’s not even debatable. No team had played against top 8 sides more and the 3 extra times we’ve done it would take its toll.

The emergence of Freo and Collingwood, combined with another year of Sydney learning their game plan all adds up

It's not overlooked by those who don't put so much emphasis on the effect loading has had on us. Which would be many on here. 

There are that many factors that come into it before loading I wouldn't know where to start. 

It's just been a ridiculously overblown thread the entire year. And of course, as soon as we lose a qualifying final, (the time of season in which the entire 'loading' talk was designed for), we put in a performance that resembled those of the middle of the season. And we hear nothing from those who were happy to write a thesis on why losing those games were due to fatigue because of loading. 

 

8 minutes ago, JimmyGadson said:

It's not overlooked by those who don't put so much emphasis on the effect loading has had on us. Which would be many on here. 

There are that many factors that come into it before loading I wouldn't know where to start. 

It's just been a ridiculously overblown thread the entire year. And of course, as soon as we lose a qualifying final, (the time of season in which the entire 'loading' talk was designed for), we put in a performance that resembled those of the middle of the season. And we hear nothing from those who were happy to write a thesis on why losing those games were due to fatigue because of loading. 

 

It doesn’t have to be one or the other, which I know the ‘loading’ camp reiterates every week

Unload! Unload!

2 minutes ago, BW511 said:

It doesn’t have to be one or the other, which I know the ‘loading’ camp reiterates every week

Which is why I said emphasis. 

The emphasis is on Loading for them and everything else is secondary. 

Whereas I would say loading is the cherry on top. 

We should copy Collingwood's loading program. they have been energiser bunnies for 3 months now

In game injuries and injuries generally have a strong correlation with our losses and form. It has effected our ability to have continuity and build throughout the season. This effects our ability to prepare to our potential and has made it harder to hit the peaks we did last year. We have the players and our game plan generally stacks up, as boring as many consider it to be. Some teams have come up to a higher level and put more time into our game plan etc but we haven’t had the chance to build our year the same way we did last year. We will without question look to improve and change where needed in the off season. A better functioning forward line pretty much solves everything. Injuries dictate your ability to succeed like only a few other metrics. When you have a list like ours it’s the defining metric in many ways. So I don’t believe loading was an unreasonable talking point throughout the year. Looking to win this conversation seems to mean you misunderstood it to begin with. 
 

The principal problem I had with the mid-season loading argument was the way it was used to explain why we lost those three games in the run into the bye. The only way that argument could be shown correct was to see us running games out with aplomb at the end of the year.

That hasn't happened, at least not in any way we supporters can see. We don't look to be any fitter than our opponents, nor in any way fitter than mid-season.

Accordingly, either our loading program just didn't work, or loading wasn't a reasonable explanation for why we lost those pre-bye games.

Either way, we can put the debate behind us now, can't we?

4 hours ago, 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?

Thats what I'm thinking also, pushed them to their limits instead of resting them. We had players in form at Casey to cover too, so we've missed an opportunity to get experience into them also.

15 hours ago, SFebes said:

Thats what I'm thinking also, pushed them to their limits instead of resting them. We had players in form at Casey to cover too, so we've missed an opportunity to get experience into them also.

I tend to agree - though the retrospectoscope is an easy instrument to use after the event. 
We have some good young talent at Casey who haven’t even had a sniff, or a reasonable trial. 

Re-watched the second half last night and I was pleasantly surprised to remember that we were competitive until about half way through the third quarter and then really struggled. Indeed, we were ahead on the tackle count well into the third quarter  

But my sense was—but others at the ground would know better—that it wasn’t everyone that was struggling in the last third but mostly the centre/mid-field cohort, particularly Viney, Brayshaw, Harmes, Jackson and obviously Petracca.  These players were often slow/late to effect a spoil, failed to provide overlap run, were caught ball watching, and struggled to defend and tackle.  They certainly did not look like they were running over the top of the ground and hitting their peak in terms of performance (unlike round 23). 
 

They can’t have suddenly lost the fitness levels they possessed in round 23, so some key alternative explanations are:

a) they went too hard last week and got the bye training schedule wrong (still a fitness variable, but a short term one)

b) more of the team were effected by gastro than the club has let on (a health/fitness variable)

c) there were knock-on effects from Petracca’s injury in that others in the middle had to compensate for his poor movement and thus they ran out steam (a mid-game fitness variable)

c) the mid-field group under-estimated the Swans and/or were deflated by incidents like Harmes giving away 50m, the Melksham-Spargo goal debacle, Melksham and Gawn’s poor goal kicking when it mattered, etc which gave them a feeling that nothing was going right on the night (more an attitudinal variable, but one that may have compounded the above)

When I make this list, it forces me to realise that they’re all short-term variables that can be remedied, and quickly. And therefore I’m quietly confident that we’ll see a different performance on Friday and in the PF.  

That is not to say that there aren’t other issues (we need another tall forward, I still feel like we’re waiting for the Choco skill improvement, etc) but they are medium-long-term improvements and they can’t explain the difference in performance between round 23 and the QF.

Perhaps not so “quietly confident” given I’m posting this on demonland 😁

Edited September 6, 20222 yr by Nairobi_Demon

3 hours ago, Nairobi_Demon said:

Re-watched the second half last night and I was pleasantly surprised to remember that we were competitive until about half way through the third quarter and then really struggled. Indeed, we were ahead on the tackle count well into the third quarter  

But my sense was—but others at the ground would know better—that it wasn’t everyone that was struggling in the last third but mostly the centre/mid-field cohort, particularly Viney, Brayshaw, Harmes, Jackson and obviously Petracca.  These players were often slow/late to effect a spoil, failed to provide overlap run, were caught ball watching, and struggled to defend and tackle.  They certainly did not look like they were running over the top of the ground and hitting their peak in terms of performance (unlike round 23). 
 

They can’t have suddenly lost the fitness levels they possessed in round 23, so some key alternative explanations are:

a) they went too hard last week and got the bye training schedule wrong (still a fitness variable, but a short term one)

b) more of the team were effected by gastro than the club has let on (a health/fitness variable)

c) there were knock-on effects from Petracca’s injury in that others in the middle had to compensate for his poor movement and thus they ran out steam (a mid-game fitness variable)

c) the mid-field group under-estimated the Swans and/or were deflated by incidents like Harmes giving away 50m, the Melksham-Spargo goal debacle, Melksham and Gawn’s poor goal kicking when it mattered, etc which gave them a feeling that nothing was going right on the night (more an attitudinal variable, but one that may have compounded the above)

When I make this list, it forces me to realise that they’re all short-term variables that can be remedied, and quickly. And therefore I’m quietly confident that we’ll see a different performance on Friday and in the PF.  

That is not to say that there aren’t other issues (we need another tall forward, I still feel like we’re waiting for the Choco skill improvement, etc) but they are medium-long-term improvements and they can’t explain the difference in performance between round 23 and the QF.

Perhaps not so “quietly confident” given I’m posting this on demonland 😁

Great post Nairobi_Demon. Always appreciate the people that watch the game back and provide these insights, I'm more the kind of person that burns the tape and never wants to watch it again after a loss like that 😝. Much appreciated! 

Wasn't sure where to post this but listening to the pure footy show with David King and Daniel Hoyne from champion data - they were talking about how since round 11 we have a points differential of -97 points in 4th quarters... Only West coast and north are worse. Says plenty about our ability to run out games

 

15 minutes ago, RedFox said:

Wasn't sure where to post this but listening to the pure footy show with David King and Daniel Hoyne from champion data - they were talking about how since round 11 we have a points differential of -97 points in 4th quarters... Only West coast and north are worse. Says plenty about our ability to run out games

 

Yet stark different to last year where we were still going full throttle in last quarters and over running teams.

20 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Yet stark different to last year where we were still going full throttle in last quarters and over running teams.

Coming off a shorter pre season, as well as injuries has taken it's toll. Still can't understate what a profound loss Darren Burgess is. I'm sure Griffith learnt a lot as his understudy but Burgess was a genius.

1 hour ago, RedFox said:

Wasn't sure where to post this but listening to the pure footy show with David King and Daniel Hoyne from champion data - they were talking about how since round 11 we have a points differential of -97 points in 4th quarters... Only West coast and north are worse. Says plenty about our ability to run out games

 

This. I find it mesmerising that anyone wants to defend our fitness department given what we’ve dished up since Round 11.

I honestly think Griffith will be under extreme pressure inside the club. We are nowhere near it.

14 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

This. I find it mesmerising that anyone wants to defend our fitness department given what we’ve dished up since Round 11.

I honestly think Griffith will be under extreme pressure inside the club. We are nowhere near it.

Why is it all on the fitness department? We've continually selected players carrying niggles and soreness, that's on the selection committee. I don't recall many of our injuries being soft tissue ones, more impact related injuries, that's not on the fitness staff at all. Those injuries would clearly have impacted our training ability which in turn obviously effects how we run out games.

Highly doubt Griffith is under "extreme pressure".

40 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Why is it all on the fitness department? We've continually selected players carrying niggles and soreness, that's on the selection committee. I don't recall many of our injuries being soft tissue ones, more impact related injuries, that's not on the fitness staff at all. Those injuries would clearly have impacted our training ability which in turn obviously effects how we run out games.

Highly doubt Griffith is under "extreme pressure".

What about the doctor.  They would surely have the biggest say on impact related injuries.

45 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Why is it all on the fitness department? We've continually selected players carrying niggles and soreness, that's on the selection committee. I don't recall many of our injuries being soft tissue ones, more impact related injuries, that's not on the fitness staff at all. Those injuries would clearly have impacted our training ability which in turn obviously effects how we run out games.

Highly doubt Griffith is under "extreme pressure".

Agreed, and part of Burgess's philosophy which he has historically detailed (which comes from evidence base from both physiology and psychology over the past 10 years ie: Explain Pain ) is for players to play with 'niggles' to increase their capacity (both physiologically and psychologically) to compete whilst experiencing discomfort... it's called stress inoculation.

So some of the driving factors of match committee choosing to select  players with soreness, is based upon peer reviewed scientific journals, which I for one, value.

https://www.noigroup.com/product/explain-pain-second-edition/

Edited September 7, 20222 yr by Engorged Onion

1 minute ago, Watson11 said:

What about the doctor.  They would surely have the biggest say on impact related injuries.

I raised impact injuries to show our injuries weren't the result of the performance manager - ie not soft tissue injuries.

For sure, the club doctor would provide recommendations on injury management, but given what we know of Goody's history with such matters, how much of a bearing do you think it would have on selection? I don't think it would be the main one tbh.

1 minute ago, Engorged Onion said:

Agreed, and part of Burgess's philosophy which he details (which comes from evidence base from both physiology and psychology) is for players to play with 'niggles' to increase their capacity (both physiologically and psychologically) to compete whilst experiencing discomfort... it's called stress inoculation.

So some of the driving factors of match committee choosing to select  players with soreness, is based upon peer reviewed scientific journals, which I for one, value.

Absolutely, but Burgess isn't at the club anymore and I wouldn't think Griffith is anywhere near the strong personality Burgess is and wouldn't have as much say in selection.

3 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Absolutely, but Burgess isn't at the club anymore and I wouldn't think Griffith is anywhere near the strong personality Burgess is and wouldn't have as much say in selection.

I'd hope Selwyn also likes to read peer reviewed journals that help inform his industry (and I am sure he is all over it) , and that Goodwin and Richardson et al, also have a grounding into  what underpins why certain philosophies are put forward, particularly if Burgess (which he did) put forward when he first came into the club. If it ever arose, I'd be questioning a 180 turn on philosophy when the science backs something else.

Edited September 7, 20222 yr by Engorged Onion

1 minute ago, Engorged Onion said:

I'd hope Selwyn also likes to read peer reviewed journals that help inform his industry :)

As per my previous comment, I have no doubt Griffith knows the science, but how much sway he holds over selection is an entirely different matter, and I doubt he would have as much say as Burgess would have.

Just now, Lord Nev said:

As per my previous comment, I have no doubt Griffith knows the science, but how much sway he holds over selection is an entirely different matter, and I doubt he would have as much say as Burgess would have.

Yes, good to tease that out.