7 minutes ago, binman said:

Perhaps I was unclear.

I wasn't citing Buckley's comments as evidence of being hyper fatigued from a loading block.

I was agreeing with him that we are not at optimal fitness.

Which is why I cited it as a possible explanation for our week to week, inconsistency and inability to play 4 good quarters.

Perhaps that lack of fitness was exacerbated by a heavier training block, but I doubt it. More likely just the normal accumulative fatigue all teams are impacted by at the half way mark of the season, particularly those clubs, like us, with a ot of young regular best 22 players.

I wonder whether it is partly by design ie plan to develop their fitness as the season goes on with the goal of minimising the impacts of training so hard for 6 months that perhaps makes it too hard to be in peak shape in September 

And there is no doubt the impact of having mutiple players in the team off interrupted preseasons who still clearly are not fully fit yet is having an impact- but are choosing to play them anyway (which intersects with the philosophy I'm wondering about above).

As George noted, quoting Libby birch in the age article about the spate of injuries and demands of the game, and length of season, clubs are having to change their high performance programs and are traing in mutiple blocks.

For example the pies were def not at optimal shape for the first 5 weeks or so, as evidenced bybtheir method and results, and there was a suggestion that was by design.

That's the glass half full take.

The other possibility of course is that they have got the program wrong and/or the players have not done the work.

If the latter is the case we are toast. 

Either way, as I noted on the pod the Selwyn and the high performance team deserve scrutiny - scrutiny they are not getting much of on demonland. 

I'm of the view that the high performance manager is almost as important, perhaps even more important, than the coach in terms of a team's chances of winning a flag.

And should be critiqued accordingly.

Thanks for clarifying Binman. My take on Buckley's comment is that the players have not done the work.

Fwiw I enjoy your optimism and general analysis each week. Keep it up mate. 

question for the next pod before we win / lose to the filth on monday - would our premiership chances be better off in the long-run if we DON'T make finals in 2024?

Not quite finished the podcast.  Well done for turning up.

Just a general comment.  We have picked apart a few sides in the last 2 years that play the back half rebound game through applying forward half pressure (Collingwood, Geelong).  Maybe a question for next weeks pod, but do you think we are even easier to pick apart when we play this new gameplan because we have don't have line-breaking speed in our back 6, and our footskills are middle of the road.  It seems that forward half pressure is our new Achilles heel.   West coast destroyed us with forward half pressure, and against Freo I was worried when 4 of Freo's first 5 goals came from forward half pressure/turnovers.  I think what followed the first qtr could be explained by a collective drop-off from the players due to the fact they do not think the rebound gameplan is the way to go.  

Just an added comment, I couldn't believe that Ross Lyon did the opposite of forward half pressure the week before against us.

Ended up listening. Thought @Demonland was not as pessimistic as I was expecting. A lot of the comments, voicemails and questions though..............

35 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

Ended up listening. Thought @Demonland was not as pessimistic as I was expecting. A lot of the comments, voicemails and questions though..............

I'm saving it for our loss to the Kangaroos post Bye.

😱

15 minutes ago, Demonland said:

I'm saving it for our loss to the Kangaroos post Bye.

😱

If we are anywhere near as insipid on Monday as we were on Sunday then even my optimism will take a terminal hit.

Hello darknesses, my old friend.....

2 hours ago, Watson11 said:

We have picked apart a few sides in the last 2 years that play the back half rebound game through applying forward half pressure (Collingwood, Geelong). 

Maybe a question for next weeks pod, but do you think we are even easier to pick apart when we play this new gameplan because we have don't have line-breaking speed in our back 6, and our footskills are middle of the road.  It seems that forward half pressure is our new Achilles heel.  

Good questions - 'll make sure we cover in the pies pod.

But a short version of my response is yes, yes, yes, agree.

And i think there are a couple of other factors, which I'll save for the pod

As I said on the pod I suspect we might revert to our forward half method on Monday as there is a lot riding on the game.

And interestingly, the pies, who for the first 5-6 games were playing a front half game (I think because they were not fit enough yet to play their turnover, transition).

But since then have reverted to their turnover, transition game - its no coincidence they look way fitter and are covering the ground better.

3 minutes ago, binman said:

If we are anywhere near as insipid on Monday as we were on Sunday then even my optimism will take a terminal hit.

Hello darknesses, my old friend.....

It’s funny. I think that last match was - and I really dislike this overused term - “triggering” for the majority of folks here. A genuine and out-of-the-blue flashback to a time we’d thought wouldn’t come back to haunt us again, so soon. 

But aside from the despair and the deeply unsettling feeling of the ground falling away from under your feet, I was also reminded of a time when I was less invested in the possibility of a finals appearance (let alone a grand final), and was just happy whenever the team got up. I also remember my weekends being far more free of a certain distraction, and my blood pressure maintaining a consistent reading. 
 

Ultimately, I don’t want to to revisit those dark days. But my doctor/zen monk would probably be prescribing such so-called darkness. 

I was in a remote area with spasmodic internet coverage on Monday, so couldn’t listen live as I usually do.  Instead I tuned in yesterday on my drive back to civilisation, and I wasn’t disappointed.  Even though the topic was ‘grim’, I  thoroughly enjoyed the analysis, which speaks a lot about the great quality of the show. 
Thanks a lot for sitting in the ‘hot seat’ after that awful performance by our Dees, and providing a comprehensive and balanced synopsis, as always!

On 04/06/2024 at 12:16, binman said:

Perhaps I was unclear.

I wasn't citing Buckley's comments as evidence of being hyper fatigued from a loading block.

I was agreeing with him that we are not at optimal fitness.

Which is why I cited it as a possible explanation for our week to week, inconsistency and inability to play 4 good quarters.

Perhaps that lack of fitness was exacerbated by a heavier training block, but I doubt it. More likely just the normal accumulative fatigue all teams are impacted by at the half way mark of the season, particularly those clubs, like us, with a ot of young regular best 22 players.

I wonder whether it is partly by design ie plan to develop their fitness as the season goes on with the goal of minimising the impacts of training so hard for 6 months that perhaps makes it too hard to be in peak shape in September 

And there is no doubt the impact of having mutiple players in the team off interrupted preseasons who still clearly are not fully fit yet is having an impact- but are choosing to play them anyway (which intersects with the philosophy I'm wondering about above).

As George noted, quoting Libby birch in the age article about the spate of injuries and demands of the game, and length of season, clubs are having to change their high performance programs and are training hard in multiple blocks. 

For example the pies were def not in optimal shape for the first 5 weeks or so, as evidenced by their method and results, and there was a suggestion that was by design.

And that staggered approach might help explain why the cats and giants can look like world beaters for the first 7 weeks of the season then lose 4 and 3 games in a row respectively and look mid table teams.

Or help explain why the dogs suddenly look so much more dynamic 

That's the glass half full take.

The other possibility of course is that they have got the program wrong and/or the players have not done the work.

If the latter is the case we are toast. 

Either way, as I noted on the pod the Selwyn and the high performance team deserve scrutiny - scrutiny they are not getting much of on demonland. 

I'm of the view that the high performance manager is almost as important, perhaps even more important, than the coach in terms of a team's chances of winning a flag.

And should be critiqued accordingly.

This was my first time listening to the show and I thought there were a lot of good points.

I do find it a bit strange that you get frustrated when people ask you about loading though, why is this such a sore point? You sound knowledgeable in this area.

You also made a comparison with talking about the loading subject and how no-one complains when you say we aren't a good kicking team. I found this bizarre and don't see the link between something we have complete control over like training and something we have very little control over like kicking skills, really wasn't relevant and came across as the audience just being stupid. Thought it was a good show but I'd prefer less of this.

8 hours ago, Bowserpower said:

This was my first time listening to the show and I thought there were a lot of good points.

I do find it a bit strange that you get frustrated when people ask you about loading though, why is this such a sore point? You sound knowledgeable in this area.

You also made a comparison with talking about the loading subject and how no-one complains when you say we aren't a good kicking team. I found this bizarre and don't see the link between something we have complete control over like training and something we have very little control over like kicking skills, really wasn't relevant and came across as the audience just being stupid. Thought it was a good show but I'd prefer less of this.

The loading discussion has been a point of contention for 3 years on Demonland, so the framing of that and the comparison with being a bad kicking side is framed by that history. 

27 minutes ago, DeelightfulPlay said:

The loading discussion has been a point of contention for 3 years on Demonland, so the framing of that and the comparison with being a bad kicking side is framed by that history. 

But I asked why something that we have control over was compared to something we don't? It's all well and good saying that no-one complains when you say we aren't a good kicking team but they aren't comparable things.

13 minutes ago, Bowserpower said:

But I asked why something that we have control over was compared to something we don't? It's all well and good saying that no-one complains when you say we aren't a good kicking team but they aren't comparable things.

I think it was more that there's two things contributing to performance, one that no-one at all disputes and one that a lot of people dispute. 

2 minutes ago, layzie said:

I think it was more that there's two things contributing to performance, one that no-one at all disputes and one that a lot of people dispute. 

Indeed.

That was a follow on from a comment I made the previous week, and without that context might have been confusing.

My point was in relation to suggesting load management and/or fatigue as a possible causal factor to help understand a poor performance (for example several this round) being framed as making an excuse for the poor performance

Whereas I have been saying our poor kicking has been a causal factor in our poor performances for years (and unfortunately still is)- and not once has anyone on DL suggested when I do so that  i'm excusing a poor performance.

Why?

Because poor kicking being a factor  is an accepted fact. And for some the impact of load management is not.

It's in the voodoo realm and like injuries is never to be raised after a loss by coaches, players and fans lest, quelle horror, they are seen to be making 'excuses'.

By the by there is an intersecting intersection between the impact of increased load and kicking skills......

On 04/06/2024 at 22:16, binman said:

Perhaps I was unclear.

I wasn't citing Buckley's comments as evidence of being hyper fatigued from a loading block.

I was agreeing with him that we are not at optimal fitness.

Which is why I cited it as a possible explanation for our week to week, inconsistency and inability to play 4 good quarters.

Perhaps that lack of fitness was exacerbated by a heavier training block, but I doubt it. More likely just the normal accumulative fatigue all teams are impacted by at the half way mark of the season, particularly those clubs, like us, with a ot of young regular best 22 players.

I wonder whether it is partly by design ie plan to develop their fitness as the season goes on with the goal of minimising the impacts of training so hard for 6 months that perhaps makes it too hard to be in peak shape in September 

And there is no doubt the impact of having mutiple players in the team off interrupted preseasons who still clearly are not fully fit yet is having an impact- but are choosing to play them anyway (which intersects with the philosophy I'm wondering about above).

As George noted, quoting Libby birch in the age article about the spate of injuries and demands of the game, and length of season, clubs are having to change their high performance programs and are training hard in multiple blocks. 

For example the pies were def not in optimal shape for the first 5 weeks or so, as evidenced by their method and results, and there was a suggestion that was by design.

And that staggered approach might help explain why the cats and giants can look like world beaters for the first 7 weeks of the season then lose 4 and 3 games in a row respectively and look mid table teams.

Or help explain why the dogs suddenly look so much more dynamic 

That's the glass half full take.

The other possibility of course is that they have got the program wrong and/or the players have not done the work.

If the latter is the case we are toast. 

Either way, as I noted on the pod the Selwyn and the high performance team deserve scrutiny - scrutiny they are not getting much of on demonland. 

I'm of the view that the high performance manager is almost as important, perhaps even more important, than the coach in terms of a team's chances of winning a flag.

And should be critiqued accordingly.

The only reason I can think of that this doesn’t happen is it’s for internal eyes only ie a place clubs look fr an edge over other teams. So high performance managers while critical and, as you rightly point out,  who DO have a big impact on apparantly strange results, are secretive of their methods. Even so, I’m with you, you’d  think more people would at least be asking questions of them. 

I also think the days when it’s being ignored are numbered. 

3 hours ago, Wells 11 said:

The only reason I can think of that this doesn’t happen is it’s for internal eyes only ie a place clubs look fr an edge over other teams. So high performance managers while critical and, as you rightly point out,  who DO have a big impact on apparantly strange results, are secretive of their methods. Even so, I’m with you, you’d  think more people would at least be asking questions of them. 

I also think the days when it’s being ignored are numbered. 

Agree with all of the above.

Though I'd add another couple of factors as to why it is not discussed more

- the AFL and its broadcast partners prefer the illusion that every game starts with a level playing field, so to speak, and  each game will be a cracker 

- the culture in footy of not wanting to be seen to be making any 'excuses' for poor performances.

100% with your final point. Fatigue is now regularly discussed during games and commentators are alluding to the impact of increased training loads.

And coaches are starting to be asked about it. Just one example - in goody's last presser he was explicitly asked if a factor in the freo performance was increased 'training load'. And I promise it wasn't me.

It's getting pretty hard to ignore as a factor,  particularly around the bye period, with the game having become so challenging aerobically- ie when teams can't cover the ground they are toast.

Edited June 10, 2024Jun 10 by binman

8 minutes ago, binman said:

Agree with all of the above.

Though I'd add another couple of factors as go why it is not discussed more

- the AFL and its broadcast partners ptefer the illusion that every game starts with a level playing field, so to speak, and the each game will be a cracker 

- the culture in footy of not wanting to be seen to be making any 'excuses' for poor performances.

100% with your final point. Fatigue is now regularly discussed during games and commentators are alluding to the impact of increased training loads.

And coaches are starting to be asked about it. Just one example  is goody's last presser was explicitly asked if a factor in the freo performance was increased 'training load'. And I promise it wasn't me.

It's getting pretty hard to ignore as a factor,  particularly around the bye period, with the game having become so challenging aerobically- ie when teams can't cover the ground they are toast.

yep... forgot about the broadcast partners and the need to speak of a  level playing field. Thats big.  And yes also, post game you will never hear it spoken of from a losing coach or a winning one for that matter. 

It seems like the coverage CAN cope with commenting on a warped version of "loading" ie the byes as impacting results. Many comments on  who hasn't had one, who's coming off one, how many each team gets... but they still talk about the byes as representing "a rest" rather than a loading block. We've got a looong way to go. I love that you talk about all this so much by the way...Im much better informed now.