Jump to content

Discussion on recent allegations about the use of illicit drugs in football is forbidden

binman

Life Member
  • Posts

    14,210
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    90

Everything posted by binman

  1. I dont understand how you can say that with such confidence. What are you basing that assessment on? How clubs and or local footy teams have historically managed players, your vibes, applying some sort of assumed 'common sense'? No disrespect, but you (nor me or 99.9% of fans) don't know what bb's individual high performance plan is. It's a science that is planned to the second. Perhaps the deloading bb would have experienced if they rested him after the Port game would have thrown out 1his program because it would have meant a 12 day break into the Lions game followed by the bye break. Maybe they wanted to load him up and then give him a longer break than his teamates because of his degenerative knee issues. Who knows? And that's the point we don't. What I would like is the footy media providing some education and analysis about team's high performance programs. Team's high performance programs are one of the most critical determinative factors in terms of their performance and chances of success. Yet they are shrouded in mystery like some dark arts. Take the pies. Joey montagna said on first crack that there is talk their high performance program plan was to ease into the season (ie nmeaning they would not be in their optimal shape in the first few rounds) because of their late start to their preseason. And there is evidence to support that idea. They look like they have concrete in their boots for 5 rounds and then suddenly look like a million dollars in running over the top of port. Of course that may not be the case. But wouldn't it be great if it was explored?
  2. I don't think so (that it will become a no contact sport). But they will have to take steps to minimise head trauma. And the logical thing is to take out elements of the game that increase the likelihood of head trauma without fundamentally changing the nature of the game. They have started that process, for example players turning their body when two players ate congestion the pill. The idea that players are supposed to 'put their head over the ball in such scenarios is already changing. And the game has not suffered or changed. Contact still happens and still hurts. The same will be true when they inevitably ban the bump. The bump serves zero purpose, it won't change the game and there will still be ferocious contact and injuries - just fewer to the head. Jnr's point about it becoming like basketball used to be a common refrain. But it won't. Tacklesfoe instance will never be banned and tackles at AFL level are full on. Besides, if you've ever played basketball or even watched elite basketball, you'd understand it is incredibly physical and tough. It is a complete myth that it is a non consct sport.
  3. Not necessarily. He has chronic knee issues that he and the club have said will need to be managed for the rest of his career. Not selecting him now may well be part of that management plan.
  4. In terms of reducing the likelihood, and severity for that matter, of concussions I hadn't really considered this. But, you're right it should be in the mix. I'm not quite sure how they would enforce it. A free I guess. It would a bit tricky, for example differentiating between running back with the flight to spoil or mark and coming in from an angle. But the game is full of tricky decisions. With all team and zone defences and players swarming forward and back, there is hardly ever space to run into (except for overlap goals). So contact is usually inevitable. And if there is contact, what is actually achieved? How many marks are taken running back with the flight? Particularly when running full tilt? Think how few marks like the famous riewoldt and Brown marks there have been since. And really a spoil is hard to pull off, unless the oppo player is standing still (and even then they almost always give away a free for front on contact). The risk reward equation is out of whack. Marks and spoils are both unlikely. And there's a good chance of giving away a free for front on contact. There is a huge risk of injury, particularly concussion, but also things like broken ribs. And there is a high risk of severe concussion when two 90kg athletes are running towards each other. All for what? A pat on the back from ex footballers in the commentary box for being 'brave' (or a pat on the shoulder from a teammate as they get carted off the ground). Clarry's decision not to run into fogarty is the perfect example. What would it have achieved if he had done so? In all likelihood clarry gets hurt, possibly fogarty also. And unless he managed to get a clean fist on the ball to spoil, no small feat, he would have almost certainly given a free away.
  5. Maybe yes, maybe no. We'll never know. But what we do know is bracing for contact in the way Greene does ONLY protects one person - him. What would people's response to the incident be if instead of not being hurt Boyd was knocked out cold? It was just luck he wasn't. If the underpinning philosophy was to try and protect the player being hit as well as the hitter they would soon land on a technique that maximized protection for both parties - just as they have when opponents are running head first at the same contest. For ever and a day the standard approach to that scenario was the old 'head over the ball', head first approach. Now players are getting much better at both turning their bodies juts before contact and hitting each other side to side. Over time, players would master the technique to protect both the hitter and the player being hit. Goody has said they train players not to bump. It takes time, but ultimately dees players instinct will not be to bump when another, safer alternative exists. At some point the AFL will be forced to ban the bump (with exceptions for say scenarios like the one i note above with opponents running head first at the same contest). So in the Green scenario, it would be black and white - he bumped so he cops an automatic minimum suspension, say one week. The number of weeks might then depend on factors like injury to the opponent, the players record or mitigating circumstances. And then players will be forced to find another technique. And would because the clubs would train it to avoid their players being suspended (which is exactly why Goody is training his players not to bump). #ban the bump
  6. Yes, of course he is allowed to protect himself. But I'd argue the real question is, is bracing for contact the only way he could protect himself? And the answer to that question, is no, of course not. It's just the accepted way. That has to change because in choosing to brace and bump the person being hit is not protected. Again, i'd argue if that scenario happened in say a match sim at a GWS training, Greene would choose another action (for example putting his hands out to brace as is instinctive when say falling forward) because he would try and protect a teammate - which completely takes away the instinct, football act argument that is always trotted out in such incidents (that's to say if it so instinctive he would barrel his teammate and players would be getting knocked out cold at every training session). The reality is that in a game it is only an instinctive 'football act' to protect yourself at the total expense of an opponent because rattling the cage of an opponent (read knocking them into next week) is baked into footy culture. That culture can change without changing the nature of the sport. I have watched footy all my life and with the velocity players are hitting each other now it has never been more brutal.
  7. JVR is not a part time forward as he is only takes aprox 10% of ruck contests. That's bugger all in the scheme of things. Take the Lions game. Max took 96 ruck contests and Rooey only 10 (and no other player took any). Whilst i agree i'd prefer him to not have to take any, and just focus on his forward craft, two lessons from the Gawndy experiment were Maxy as part time forward doesn't work, as he is never going to become a natural forward, and he plays his best footy when he basically rucks solo. On the latter point, Maxy can only do so much rucking becuase he is so incredibly fit. I take your point about the cats and blues both having decent ruck combos. But their number one rucks - Stanley and Pittonet - are levels below maxy. And Conway and De Koning are even more levels below. Maxy taking 90% of ruck contest creates a real issue for oppo coaches - when do they give their number one ruck a chop out? No other ruck is as fit and athletic as Maxy. Take Pittonet. Can he go with Maxy? I don't think so, at least not for 90% of ruck contests. So when does Voss rest him? Lets say he can only take 80% of ruck contests. That would mean De Koning going up against Max in 10% of ruck contests, which gives us an edge. As an example of what i mean this is the Lions ruck numbers when we played them: Ruck Contests Hitouts To Adv. Oscar McInerney 87 26 8 Joe Daniher 13 1 0 Darcy Gardiner 2 0 0 Eric Hipwood 5 0 0 (Note: probably a bad example in the sense that we got smashed at stoppages, but there were other factors at play and Maxy's hitouts to advantage were bang on his season average).
  8. It might be ok: Cloudy. High chance of showers, most likely in the morning and afternoon.
  9. Weird auto check Yes, jarman
  10. I can't stand the pies, but to be honest it's more the media sycophantic saturation in the last two years that I really hate (though I'm still disgusted with their fans booing Gus after being concussed).. But really the only team I hate is the hawks. Leigh Matthews knocking Steven Smith out. The prelim heart break. Jarman refusing to come to the dees, and instead going to the hawks. The grand final heart break. The long run of losses. The way they seemed to relish bullying and beating us. Their smug MCC wannabes fans. Their stupid jumper. Jeff Kennett. Jeff Kennett. VFL Park. Go roos.
  11. What i find weird is the lack of conversation about what I thought would be the obvious point about an incident like greenes hit - the need for players to learn a new technique in such circumstances. Because 90% of the footy media is ex footballers they see Greene's instinct to brace to protect himself as a normal football action. Because it always has been. The clear implication is it is ok to protect yourself at the expense of the player about to be smashed in the head. But until the last few years so was going head first into a contest. Now players are getting better at turning the body as they are about to run into each other to avoid head contact. In five years that action will be instinctive. Players need to learn a new action in situations like Greene's hit. Do what they would do at training - put their hands out to minimise the risk of them getting hurt whilst still offering some protection for the opponent who can't protect themselves. If they did, in five years time that would be the instinctive reaction - not risking knocking out a player cold because your safety is more important than theirs. For gods sake, we have had four young men (McCartin, Adams, Gus and murphy)in the prime of their sporting life have to retire and fear CTE for the rest of their lived because of players prioritizing their own safety. It's beyond time to ban the bump. It serves zero purpose.
  12. I don't think I'm being optimistic FD. I think I'm being realistic and objective. Its a cliche that it's a long season because its true. The media love to pretend that every game is of critical importance and every result is some sort of bellweather for team's chances of winning a flag (or making top 4, or finals, or wooden spoon etc etc). They're not. If they were, then last week the only conclusion that could be reached is that the blues have no chance of winning a flag given they were beaten by a winless, and decidedly average, crows outfit. Or does only this weeks result count? And what of the giants? Everybody's darlings and flag pick. They were cruising, 20 points up halfway through the third and caved, conceding a 7 goal turn around in a quarter and a half. No longer a contender? The swans were similarly lauded after starting the season with terrific wins over the dees, pies and bombers. Such stunning ball movement. Such brilliant kicks. Gulden is a kicking God. Heeney a midfield genius. Then they get beaten by the tigers. Not a contender any more? They also love to pretend each game is played in isolation, a game in a bubble unmoored from other considerations (schedule, byes, high performance programs, how teams match up with specific opponents, injuries, trialling new roles or strategies, conditions etc etc). They're not. Each individual game, particularly in the first half of the season, is a piece of a larger puzzle. A step towards the final prize. Its about winning the battle, not the wars.
  13. Really? You can't take much from the cats lions game given the conditions, and def not that they are ahead of us. Carlton played well, but defensively were average, giving up nearly a hundred points. They were slight favourites to win that game, unsurprising given it was in Melbourne. And so the win was hardly a shock. To be honest, despite losing, the giants worry me more. The pies got rolling, and good on them. But they also looked shakey defensively and they benefited from ports absolutely woeful defence (im shocked port didn't make changing their defensive system a condition to agree to resign hinkley - they will never win a flag with their current defensive method).
  14. Hodge: 'Needed to be more smart there' Hodgey could be smarter.
  15. 50 minutes is a long time in football.
  16. I did my hammy when I was 14. Still waiting to get back to full pace.
  17. This article is the perfect example of my point about the impact of fatigue being ignored in analysis. It's nuts that this article doesn’t even mention fatigue as a possible factor. The swans' pressure has dropped off. That supposedly the key reason for their drop off. But stats are symptoms not cause. Fatigue may not be a factor, but surely it's worth asking the question: Bloods run cold: What's slowed the Swans down? https://www.afl.com.au/news/1110621
  18. Edit completed: Even factoring in the fatigue it was a shocking performance.
  19. I get that od. But i read your post as weed's journey provides evidence that not all players who show potential fulfill it. Sure some were hot for weed. But the heat dissipated pretty quickly. In his third season at the club JVR has only given fans more reasons to be confident he will be a star. Get on board OD, the kids a jet.
  20. Not taking a pot shot at you BBP, but your post highlights a real bug bear of mine. As even occasional dl posters would know, I'm of the view that the impact of fatigue (what ever its causes may be) on performance is routinely ignored. And if it is ignored, any subsequent assessment or analysis is fundamentally flawed. My bug bear is this perspective (not mine specifically, but in the general sense) is often misrepresented. The suggestion or implication being that fatigue is used as an excuse and that other factors (eg coaching, tactics, flaws in method, strength of opponent etc etc) are ignored or given short shrift. A related bug bear is the conflation of reasons for poor performance with excuses for poor performance. Saying fatigue was a factor in our loss to the lions is not making an excuse, it is suggesting a possible causal factor. So, for example, there are a number of posters, me included, who have suggested fatgue was a factor in our performance against the lions. But I have not read a single post that solely or mostly blamed our recent schedule for our loss to Brisbane. Personally I'm of the view it was a significant factor, but of course far from the only factor. I'm probably an outlier, but I also think it was the most significant factor - because pretty much any other factor is exacerbated by fatigue. For example, in the simplest terms we lost because the lions were much harder at it than us, as evidenced by being smashed for cps, pressure and tackles. No argument there. But logically, tackling, applying elite pressure and winning contested possessions is a real challeng if across the board players are fatgued. On the saints performance I 100% think fatigue was a significant factor in, and one of the reasons for, their performance. I would argue if someone doesn’t, then, to be completely frank, they do not understand AFL football circa 2024. But is fatigue an excuse for their performance? No. And in fact, if you accept fatigue was a factor in both ours and the saints performance, there is another data point to consider. Playing a team at their level, the saints were completely and utterly woeful. Beaten in every quarter, never in the game, they were ultimately smashed by 10 goals and despite being one of the most defensive teams in the AFL conceded a crazy 124 points. Even factoring in the fatigue it was a shocking performance. Coming of our 5 day break, we were able to beat crows on their home deck despite completely hitting the wall in the last quarter. Impressive. We then play the lions, and whilst we had a seven day break, we were clearly feeling the impact of 4 games in 19 days and were obviously fatigued. Like the saints, we also played a team at our level, one that was up and about and as evidenced by their numbers, not fatigued. Despite that we kept one of the best offences to 82 points and only lost by 22 points. Sure, we played poorly, but analysed through that lens, suddenly the performance does not look so bad.
  21. I feel like I've been to every one of those 764 floggings.
×
×
  • Create New...