For those who have been able to get down to training, or have some inside knowledge - Have you noticed any obvious or subtle changes to Melbournefc's conditioning strategy this pre-season?

I'm interested to know proportionately, how much responsibility has fallen on the Physical preparation staff for last years injuries, and how much they have simply put it down to bad luck.

Cause if they have made significant changes to conditioning (apart from Bailey's input) - That might provide the answer.

Good Post.

Good Post.

Yeah not bad - I think I've outdone myself

Do you reckon someone actually has an answer?

If I do my groin, maybe that might attract someone from the fitness staff to make a comment.

to be a little bit bias as a positve fan..i think the fact that the club kept BB and this year have the two other fitness staff, it says something about their belief in him...yeah, maybe he can make changes and he probably has, some to do with DB input but when you look at the injuries, some of them were extrememly bad luck...ala moloney falling on bartrams ankle during a simple training drill, ricky pettard getting a punctured lung, robertson falling badly after a specky attempt, david neitz is a tough one because he was already on a special program, and ppl with OP is fairly tight to blame on the fitness staff and poor planned conditioning...there are probably changes but at the moment i am sticking to my belief that it pretty sour luck

to be a little bit bias as a positve fan..i think the fact that the club kept BB and this year have the two other fitness staff, it says something about their belief in him...yeah, maybe he can make changes and he probably has, some to do with DB input but when you look at the injuries, some of them were extrememly bad luck...ala moloney falling on bartrams ankle during a simple training drill, ricky pettard getting a punctured lung, robertson falling badly after a specky attempt, david neitz is a tough one because he was already on a special program, and ppl with OP is fairly tight to blame on the fitness staff and poor planned conditioning...there are probably changes but at the moment i am sticking to my belief that it pretty sour luck

Well said - Thanks for your response.

You certainly can't argue with the improvement in running out games last year - That's a positive

So far, from people's descriptions and photos from training, there seems to be more bulking up going on (But that could easily just be Bailey's request) so that's one change....

But I reckon some responsibility must have fallen on the fitness staff, despite the "story" that we got at times, which served to protect them from criticism and prevent outrage.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not having a go and I'm as keen as anyone for improvement....I'm just curious to know if there have been any noticeable changes, cause that would certainly indicate that they identified a need for change, despite bad luck reasoning

I think recovery and rehab have been our problem.

We have plenty of injury-prone players, and many who suffer/ed from OP. Learning how to manage these players short and long term, is the key to having a healthy list.

Impact injuries can't be avoided, no matter how brilliant your conditioning department is. But for Sylvia not to have done a full pre-season for 4 years, or for Moloney to spend 2 years out of the game because of his groin, that's stuff which I believe the club wants to improve.

The other issue is of course working on our endurance and not having repeat situations where we've run out of steam by round 19.

There was a lot of negativity around at the end of the season following the injuries that we suffered last year, and people were trying to slate it home to the conditioning and training staff.

Some injuries are simply bad luck. Nothing can be done about a knee or a break. Soft tissue is probably the area where medical and physiotherapy staff have the greatest responsibility to assist the players get back on the track. But is it luck, great medical facilities or younger bodies that gets the player back on the track this week or the week after?

Probably the responsibility of the training and conditioning staff, in terms of injury, lies in the muscle preparation with the good old "hammy" as the major source of time out of the game. Once it happens then the medicos take over and the duration of time out is dependant upon the extent of injury. ( and perhaps the younger body again..)

With our current crew headed by Bohdan B, they are first class preparers ( is there such a word? ) of athletes. They have been doing it for years. And they prepare the bodies according to the task at hand. Marathon runners need different preparation to sprinters. Weightlifters different to gymnasts.

So what do AFL footballers need? They need to be marathon runners who can sprint, and muscle bound weightlifters who can leap and gyrate on a pin point. It ain't easy.

So logically, if they cannot prepare the perfect body for the game of AFL, they prepare the best upon the coaches instructions. And this is the important point....if the coach says make them lose muscle because he wants them to run faster, then BB and his crew can do it.

If the coach wants more muscle so they are not pushed out in a contest of strength, then the running might get reduced. Look at the example purported to be happening at Footscray where "muscle up" is the order of the day. And this coming from Eade who is one of the great advocates of the running game.

So what I'm trying to get to is that the preparation for our game is heavily dependant upon the direction of the coaches. Last year the training staff were told to trim the players down for the running game. Did that work? Probably not. Did it cause more injury? Maybe made some players more susceptible to certain types of injury. Was it the fault of the conditioning staff....absolutely not.

Back to the question...I don't know if anyone can answer it from around here, as we don't have access to what is going on in weights rooms and what sort of running is happening. However, there have been snippets from players that indicate that this year, the miles in the legs is being achieved by the training drills, rather than pounding the tan.

My observations are that training is going much longer than last year, and there has been an increase in the time spent in the run and carry and touch football drills. It goes for an hour at a time. Then they do it again some more. The players are exhausted at the end, and then they have to do more beep test type drills.

Is this a better preparation for the game today? We will see, but BB and his crew are obviously preparing according to the coaches instructions.

Yes it's different. Will injuries be less? Who knows. Will the players be stronger? Who knows.

Is this the best preparation for the type of game we intend to play? Yes.

What is that plan?....wait for the first game

I think recovery and rehab have been our problem.

We have plenty of injury-prone players, and many who suffer/ed from OP. Learning how to manage these players short and long term, is the key to having a healthy list.

Impact injuries can't be avoided, no matter how brilliant your conditioning department is. But for Sylvia not to have done a full pre-season for 4 years, or for Moloney to spend 2 years out of the game because of his groin, that's stuff which I believe the club wants to improve.

The other issue is of course working on our endurance and not having repeat situations where we've run out of steam by round 19.

Thanks for your response

There was a lot of negativity around at the end of the season following the injuries that we suffered last year, and people were trying to slate it home to the conditioning and training staff.

Some injuries are simply bad luck. Nothing can be done about a knee or a break. Soft tissue is probably the area where medical and physiotherapy staff have the greatest responsibility to assist the players get back on the track. But is it luck, great medical facilities or younger bodies that gets the player back on the track this week or the week after?

Probably the responsibility of the training and conditioning staff, in terms of injury, lies in the muscle preparation with the good old "hammy" as the major source of time out of the game. Once it happens then the medicos take over and the duration of time out is dependant upon the extent of injury. ( and perhaps the younger body again..)

With our current crew headed by Bohdan B, they are first class preparers ( is there such a word? ) of athletes. They have been doing it for years. And they prepare the bodies according to the task at hand. Marathon runners need different preparation to sprinters. Weightlifters different to gymnasts.

So what do AFL footballers need? They need to be marathon runners who can sprint, and muscle bound weightlifters who can leap and gyrate on a pin point. It ain't easy.

So logically, if they cannot prepare the perfect body for the game of AFL, they prepare the best upon the coaches instructions. And this is the important point....if the coach says make them lose muscle because he wants them to run faster, then BB and his crew can do it.

If the coach wants more muscle so they are not pushed out in a contest of strength, then the running might get reduced. Look at the example purported to be happening at Footscray where "muscle up" is the order of the day. And this coming from Eade who is one of the great advocates of the running game.

So what I'm trying to get to is that the preparation for our game is heavily dependant upon the direction of the coaches. Last year the training staff were told to trim the players down for the running game. Did that work? Probably not. Did it cause more injury? Maybe made some players more susceptible to certain types of injury. Was it the fault of the conditioning staff....absolutely not.

Back to the question...I don't know if anyone can answer it from around here, as we don't have access to what is going on in weights rooms and what sort of running is happening. However, there have been snippets from players that indicate that this year, the miles in the legs is being achieved by the training drills, rather than pounding the tan.

My observations are that training is going much longer than last year, and there has been an increase in the time spent in the run and carry and touch football drills. It goes for an hour at a time. Then they do it again some more. The players are exhausted at the end, and then they have to do more beep test type drills.

Is this a better preparation for the game today? We will see, but BB and his crew are obviously preparing according to the coaches instructions.

Yes it's different. Will injuries be less? Who knows. Will the players be stronger? Who knows.

Is this the best preparation for the type of game we intend to play? Yes.

What is that plan?....wait for the first game

Thanks George…very insightful

I do question the level at which a coach has a say over conditioning though. Purely because there would have to be a line drawn between BB's knowledge of what's best fitness wise, and Bailey's. BB is the fitness expert at the club (not Bailey) so surely he would be having a large portion of say into how to extract the player’s elite levels of fitness/conditioning

If you are correct and the coaches have a heavy say into conditioning, then that could potentially lead to problems IMO, because the fitness staff can't be left to do there job how they know best. Maybe this applies even more so when a coach is on the last year of his contract and desperate to try anything/ have too much control over matters that they shouldn't have after 10+ years.

I wonder if they scrapped the Bikram Yoga sessions from last year? All of that dehydration may have tweaked a hammy or two

BB went to extraordinary lengths to tailer a program to meet the requirements of DB's (evolving) game plan and address the deficiencies of last year. They had plenty of time to do it to. The back to basics kicking and handballing drills smacks of Chris Connolly. He did that at Freo.

BB went to extraordinary lengths to tailer a program to meet the requirements of DB's (evolving) game plan and address the deficiencies of last year. They had plenty of time to do it to. The back to basics kicking and handballing drills smacks of Chris Connolly. He did that at Freo.

I don't dispute that it has a Bailey flavour to it - But BB is the Chief architect.... Is he not?

Much the same as with recruiting.

BB only creates and implements the fitness program in response to the requirement of the football department to address issues like strength and endurance. The program BB put in place was in response to the requirements of ND's footy department. The terrible run of injuries we had last year were primarily due to a series of contingent events on the ground which were not a function of the BB program. How many more soft tissue injuries did we incur in 2007 above 2006?

In regard to the long term OP sufferers the issue the Club needs to address is given the available knowledge of this medical problems that was available had they implemented the right treatment. The problem seems to be the nature and impact of the injury rather than the actions taken to correct it. Unless someone can provide me evidence to the contrary.

For all the criticism of fitness staff, I have yet to see a researched assessment on this site that has validated those concerns beyond posters pushing their own biases and myths.

I dont buy that the fitness group work autonomously and just advise the coaching panel of the program. That's rubbish. Clearly if a Coach has a game plan set up hard running these features will be part of the fitness preparation prepared by BB. This would also extend to individual players who either require more strength or alternatively need to cut down to play their game role. One of the players who did manage to play nearly all games this year and who clearly benefited from the conditioning was Nathan Jones.

I have read many times how ND wanted players to lose muscle to accommodate a run and carry game plan and now note with interest that Rodney Eade wants his players to bulk up.

I would have thought that you need both types in your team, ie strong bullocking types who can get the hard ball (ala jones) and fast outside players who can carry & move it on quickly (ala Davey). Surely each player should play to their individual talents and strengths which would compliments their teammates attributes.

I can't see how anyone could have turned Robbie Flower into a Todd Viney or visa versa, but both were important players for us.

"I dont buy that the fitness group work autonomously and just advise the coaching panel of the program. That's rubbish."

And who has stated that this is what happens? I haven't - Slight exaggeration if you are implying that I did.

Let's not get this out context - My original question:

When it comes to the crunch, proportionately who is responsible? Are you saying it is equal? I only want to know what changes there have been.

If we follow some of these lines of logic, what point is there in having a physical preparation manager - Is he responsible at all? To what degree?

What about the concepts that BB has introduced that have little to do with the coach’s ideas on fitness training, and more to do with BB's philosophies?

Such as Pilates, sprint training, the slalom poles/ cones, those ladder things that they run over and anything else that they do that I haven’t seen. Are they Bailey's too? If so, why were we doing them last year as well?

If you go back to my original question you will notice that I'm purely asking whether anyone has noticed changes between last season's training and this year. That's all

What conclusion you want to draw from that information is your opinion and I don't mind where you go with it - That's your choice, as it is mine.

BB started in December 2006. So his impact on 2007 would have been muted to some extent not having been part of the whole pre season. So I am not sure you can make an accurate comparison between a full pre season program and a program devised part of the way through a season. Also given the change of Coaches clouds the capacity unless you are on the football dept inside to work out what are DB changes and what are BB inspired changes to program.

I dont think you can read to much into it comparison wise and I think some of your questions regarding philosophies could only be answered by DB and BB themselves.

As I said before the fitness coach is responsible to prepare the fitness programs for an individual and group basis under the communicated football objectives of the football coaching department. The established programs would be agreed with the coaching team and incorporated into the training program for the individuals and the group. He is responsible for the impact of the fitness programs on those football objectivesd

If you looking at responsibility for the outcomes of a season's injuries and player's states of fitness (the crunch), you must review what transpired over the year in player performance including the need to look at why the injuries occurred (game collision, tackle or landing awkwardly) or were they related to physical incapabilities of players bodies to fufill functions (eg chronic hamstring problems, back etc.) and were the latter types of injuries more or less than in previous years and how much impact changes in rules and game plans impacted. If you are looking at the causes of the latter types of injuries then a review of the fitness program is part of that process. If the fitness progeam is deficient then it is the responsibilty of the fitness adviser to correct these shortcomings and report back to the football department. Its foolhardy to apportion responsibility for these outcomes without doing a thorough analysis of why they occurred. From year to year the reasons can change and vary.

I dont buy that the fitness group work autonomously and just advise the coaching panel of the program.

Well this obviously wasn't the case down at Geelong in 2006. Their fitness adviser Loris Bertolacci was sacked after their end of season review.

The fitness adviser would have the autonomy to devise the fitness training program based on the coaching panel's direction. They would also devise the post game recovery sessions, and fitness programs for players in rehab.

Fitness advisers are not infallible. They can get it wrong. Geelong was a case in point.

Well this obviously wasn't the case down at Geelong in 2006. Their fitness adviser Loris Bertolacci was sacked after their end of season review.

The fitness adviser would have the autonomy to devise the fitness training program based on the coaching panel's direction. They would also devise the post game recovery sessions, and fitness programs for players in rehab.

Fitness advisers are not infallible. They can get it wrong. Geelong was a case in point.

How do you know? Do you know the specfic reasons why he sacked? I agree fitness advisers should be dismissed like any other party that gets it wrong? What did Bertolacci do wrong? Was he sacked or was it a mutually agreed parting of the ways?

How do you know? Do you know the specfic reasons why he sacked? I agree fitness advisers should be dismissed like any other party that gets it wrong? What did Bertolacci do wrong? Was he sacked or was it a mutually agreed parting of the ways?

Well given that he launched legal action against the club for wrongful dismissal, it's fair to say that he was sacked.

And I doubt that the people who made the decision to sack him were physical training experts either. Like most of us on this forum, they make assessments based on observations and end results. If you try to quantify everything, you end up finding excuses for people, and nothing changes.

Well given that he launched legal action against the club for wrongful dismissal, it's fair to say that he was sacked.

And I doubt that the people who made the decision to sack him were physical training experts either. Like most of us on this forum, they make assessments based on observations and end results. If you try to quantify everything, you end up finding excuses for people, and nothing changes.

Thanks for the legal action info. I was not aware of that. The manner and terms of the dismissal may be the issue not necessarily the reason for the dismissal.

But with due respect, I would think that those in the Footy department should be in a better position with more information at hand to make more informed decisions than posters who go to the footy once a week and sit in row T of the grand stand. Its not a matter of quantifying matters that cannot be realistically quantified but understanding through research of the facts why problems occur and making people acountable for their responsibilities in reference to the problems. Otherwise nothing does change and nothing is improved.

Thanks for your responses Rhino and Mo - much appreciated

You both raise valid points, and I think there's a bit of truth to everything that has been said. - It's not an easy one

Rhino; whist I take your point/s that it is hard know for sure without specific facts and statistics etc. and it's obvious that it pays to have inside knowledge into matters like this.

It also pays to stand back once in a while, without all the details and people's versions, and just ask what general impression do you get here? Intuition goes a long way, especially the more complicated that it gets.

I have a whole bunch of alternative theories on injuries and conditioning etc. that I feel inappropriate to bring into the discussion (cause more conflict than good)

So I really wanted to keep it simple and kind of get people's observations so I could just judge for myself. I feel that has been accomplished to some degree and I'm grateful for your input.

At the time Bertolacci was sacked it was insinuated the club believed he was passing on inside information to other clubs.

Could've been any number of reasons, but I don't think his example really applies.

As for the responsability in terms of injuries suffered... I think it is too hard to point a finger without inside information.

Obviously the Head Coach is directing the Fitness Coach on what sort of fitness is required for his particular gameplan, and then in turn getting feedback from the Fitness Coach on how this will affect the players durability.

To say whether the problem is the type of fitness DB / ND is asking for

OR

the execution by BB to achieve this level of fitness

OR

some other outside factors ....

is something none of us can really answer without a lot more inside info.

is something none of us can really answer without a lot more inside info.

Agreed - Now how to get it? What's Bertolacci doing these days?

Agreed - Now how to get it? What's Bertolacci doing these days?

Runnin Melbourne's Fitness Dept. .... sorry to be a smart arse, but how do you mean?

Runnin Melbourne's Fitness Dept. .... sorry to be a smart arse, but how do you mean?

Haha Sorry, my bad, was thinking BB

Not sure. I think after his whole drama it might be hard to find work for a while.

They've tarnished his name pretty badly, whether justified or not

Anyway, here is a bit of info into what happened with Bertolacci and what the cats said, if anyone cares...

http://www.theage.com.au/cgi-bin/common/po...4198378280.html

Basically they accused him of providing a detailed dossier of Geelong players to rival clubs, detailed strengths & weaknesses.