binman

That concept (only possible to peak twice a year) jags perfectly with the model that seems to be standard in the AFL. That's to say, do a big block in preseason and taper to be cherry ripe round one. Win as many games as possible in the next two and a half months. In that period, there is diminishing returns in terms of losing a bit of condition that was built preseason (because the match is the big load and training sessions focus on recovery and maintenance). Explains why we looked dominant early and then slowly came back to the pack. Then do another big block pre bye (which explains our obvious fatigue in our three losses), a little freshen up (and hopefully a win againstthe lions), and then another big block (which will likey mean more 3-4 games where we are fatigued), with a view to peak preliminary final day.

I suspect they would not veer too far away from the proven and accepted best practice in sports science. So whilst of course there is some variations, and AFL have a mix of different types of athletes (though all sports do I suppose - eg cycling, even with riders on a grand tour, have power riders, ie sprinters and those looking to place high in the race), I reckon the program would not be a hugely different to say elite runners competing on the pro circuit but also preparing for a 'grand final' eg the world championships

Id don't think that is true actually, at least if I understand the football Australia page linked above properly, which suggests you can tweak it week to week. After the Port win last year (which came after a six day break), in an on ground post game interview, basically said that's what they had done - ie block of hard training in the preceding weeks and then a deliberate freshen up for the Port game. We then went back intp a hard training block, as evidenced by our next 2-3 games. Though I guess that scenario doesn't contradict your idea of four week block and then recovery (that Port game would have been at about the 4 week mark of their initial heavy training block.

SFA

Some top shelf prognostications there stu. I hadn't thought much past the lions game, but I thought similarly for that game ie we will look to be as fresh as possible. It's one game back from the port game last season, but it seems similar in terms of freshening up to play a top 4 contender, and possible finals opponent, before going hard again. Scott's comments in his presser were fascinating. Pretty clear from his comments, they have long loaded, but never got it quite right in terms of peaking at the right time. But are now going harder than they previously have - and damn the consequences in terms of the risk of missing the finals Really reinforces the point made in that football Australia pages I linked to that periodisation is incredibly complex. So many variables, like game style and mix of different types of athletes (eg power v runners) and physiology. And that within each program there must be a range of philosophies and approaches, albeit within a pretty narrow framework of what is accepted, and proven, best practice. Also, as you suggest, during this block of aprox 7-8 games, clubs will freshen up for specific games they want to maximise their chance of games. Like you my gut feel is that will include the lions game, and I suspect they will also freshen up for (unless that doesn't fit with the program they have mapped out).

I looked up the definition of a backhanded compliment and that is what i read

My response to a similar question in another thread was: It's a good question. The AFL listed players all train with the seniors and do all the same fitness work. I assume VFL teams - and non AFL players - also load, but presumably their training is not at the same level of professionalism as the AFL, so the demands are perhaps not as great in teams of how taxing it is (though, its probably not far behind - i wonder if they have GPS trackers for all sessions and games as is the case in the AFL?). Have we seen a drop off after half time in the last 3 weeks? Hard to say because the weather has been variable, and we have had so many more AFL listed players than our oppostion, but on scores alone you could make an argument that yes we have - in two of the games at least. Against Frankston on 29 May we scored 8.4 in the first half and only 2.0 in the second half (from memory the second half was wet - that said Frankston had 6 scoring shots in the first half and 12 in the second half). The following week against the swans we scored 4 first half goals and 8 second half goals - so no drop off there. And last week we scored 11 first half goals and only three second half goals (the pies kicked 2 in the first half and 4 in the second half). It should be noted that it hammered down in the third quarter for a while. But it was sunny for the last i think and we could only manage the one goal.

Well, i don't think that is entirely true. Plenty of posters (this year and last year) dismissed the idea completely. In any case surely the debate whether loading is the primary reason (by which i assume you mean the main factor) is also over. There are many factors involved in our current form slump, but the evidence makes it clear to me that loading is the main one in terms of casualty and impact (by the by i'm happy for people to disagree with this opinion, but can't be bothered entering into a debate about it).

Based on the chart EO has posted, and the evidence Vipercrunch posted about the performance of the 2021, 2019, 2018 and 2017 premiership winners in the five games either side of the bye, the periods of higher training loads (volume and intensity) is quite long and goes from aprox round 10 right though to round 17 or 18. So a full two months. This jags with our performance trajectory last year. We didn't look like we were running at full rat power until the round 20 game against the Sun's on 1 August. Dees fans should buckle up because it is very likely we will have to endure another 5-6 weeks of sub optimal performance.

Ultimately the highly paid Head of Strength and Conditioning, Selwyn Griffith, makes this decision. And it is very much a science.

I found this fascinating page on Football Australia's website. I was going to post it a few a days ago, but didn't get 'round to it, with a caveat that i wasn't posting it to make the case for loading happening in the AFL (it doesn't speak to a mid season hard block of training specifically). I just thought it might be of interest to posters who were on board the loading train. It is a pretty basic page, but has some fascinating info that helps explain how heavy periods of training can impact performance and puts our recent performances into some context. For example it talks about supercompensation, which is defined as: 'Supercompensation theory states that any given training stimulus elicits a fatigue response, which decreases our preparedness to train or compete again. This fatigue response is generally related to the intensity and work we are required to do. When we allow our bodies time to recover, we adapt beyond pre-existing levels, thereby increasing our levels of preparedness [2]. Placing the next training stimulus too soon, before we have fully recovered, leads to fatigue levels increasing and preparedness decreasing. Placing the next training stimulus too late means supercompensation adaptations are lost [2]. Selecting the correct training dose and allowing for adequate recovery is therefore vital for optimising training gains'.

I don't think gambling is a factor in why loading is not discussed in the media. For one thing it has been happening for many years, and the practice predates the boom in sports betting. Another is that discussion of it would have zero negative impact on footy betting. In fact, it may even have a net benefit on betting turnover as once people accept that the top say 6-7 teams (ie those with top 4 aspirations) are vulnerable in this period, they may be more likely to back an outsider at the line or to win and/or more interested in betting in game that has an overwhelming favourite. And the business model for bookies, in both horse racing and footy betting, is giving the punters as much information as possible - you only need to look at their websites to get sense of this. They don't want punters to be keep in the dark - they want engaged punters and try to support this with a huge amount of relevant information to help them make their decisions. And besides, the big pools are driven by the pros, who don't back with their heart - and the pros know about loading (which is probably what we are still the clear favorites to win the flag). My take on why it is not discussed in the media is two fold. As i have posted before, i think it is related to the culture in footy of never being seen to make an excuse for poor performance, and to provide any reason for sub optimal performance is a sign of weakness. That same culture explains why there is a collective minimization of the impact of injury on a teams' performance and chances of winning a flag (see demonland circa 2019 for plenty of evidence of this phenom) I think another factor is that, unlike the bookies, the media and AFL have a vested interest in keeping footy fans in the dark. The AFL and media (particularly the radio and TV broadcasters) don't want to promote the fact that there is a couple of months where the top teams won't be playing at their best and/or half the games will be riddled with skill execution errors, fumbles, poor decision making, turnovers and clearly fatigued players.

The post was encouraging responsible gambling. By winning

If you are a footy punter this is an excellent time of year to make a profit. Back the opponent of the top 4 aspirant (but only if the opponent isn't also a top 4 aspirant) at the line. Why? As Goody would say, join the dots. So far this round, if you had applied that formula you would have saluted on the tigers, bombers, port and West coast. And if greedy, you could have just backed each of those teams for a win - and had three from four collects. Money for old rope.

Makes sense. They have the money and the need. Freo have enty of good players who will need a pay rise and in Darcy they have a future out and out star. But if he goes to WC he can expect a minimum of 5 years playing for a rubbish team. To have any chance of being a flag contender in the next 6 or so years, WC will have to turnover the sort of number of players we did in the 2-3 years post roos coming on board. The smart play would be sign with us for 3 years and rhe go home and ay for the Eagles as they start coming good and as nic nat looks to retire.

That is funny

Speaking of punting, this is an excellent time of year to make some money. Look for top 4 teams against teams just outside or inside the 8 and back the team pushing for a final 8 spot at the line. It doesn't quite fit the profile, but I'll be loading up on the bombers at tbe 24.5 line against the saints tonight - a game I predict will be low scoring scrap.

As a general rule, I don't back the dees. Except to win grand finals. And I generally back the line not the win If i were setting a market, I'd probably have us a touch longer, but still favourites. The pool would be small at this point in time and the odds for a dees win will almost certainly drift a touch before game day and be close to even money. So, by my reckoning the current odds are a touch unders, so I wouldn't take those odds. But plenty of people have obviously, hence the price.

Ours or rhe lions? We have lost our last three. But the lions have lost 2 of their last 4 and tbe the two wins were far from impressive. They were 5 goals down early against the giants and only the giants woeful defence saved them. And they were woeful in their win against the saints. The saints were had two players concussed by half time (or soon after) and by the last quarter were down to one player on the bench. It's been a long time since I have seen such a low standard game between two good teams.

That's the correct conclusion, but a slighty wrong premise. The bookies frame the initial market. And that is very much based on their assessment of the 'true odds' of a certain event occurring, in this case the dees winning the flag. The better they are at this assessment the more money they make. That is because the art of punting is finding value - which means making your own assessment of the true odds and backing 'overs' (ie over the true odds). Successful punters are good at this assessment (and disciplined enough not to accept 'unders' or search for a bet for a bets sake) and look to take advantage of any overs. So bookies who get that initial price wrong lose money. In this scenario, when the bookies opened the 2022 GF market last year, their assessment of the true odds of the dees winning the flag was something like $3.20 (which was the price the dees opened). From that point the 'market' determines the odds the bookies offer. The market is punters betting. So, early doors, we start winning, look like the best tam in the AFL, and the punters come for us and slam the $3.60. The bookies then respond by trimming the odds of the dees (and 'turning out' the odds of other contenders) to limit the hit to their bottom line if the dees do win the flag and to balance their overall exposure. And we start losing and our price drifts and other contenders tighten. So in fact your conclusion caries even more weight. A punter backing the dees is putting their own hard earned money on us - it is not some unaccountable prognostication. The bigger the pool of money, the more people are backing up their assessment of who will win the flag. And the bigger the pool the more it is dominated by professional punters who make a living out of punting, so are clear eyed and unemotional about their betting choices. For some bet types the pool is so small the price offered for a particular bet isn't a good indication of the true odds. But in big pools the price is an excellent indication of the true odds. There is likely to be something in the order of $1.5 million dollars in the Sportsbet GF pool, so you can be pretty confident $3.60 is pretty close to the true odds of us winning a flag. I'm amazed it hasn't drifted further after our loss to the pies and the news about gawn being out for 5 weeks. What that indicates is that the pros (who are the ones that have the most influence on the price) have not backed any of the other contenders to any great degree and the market still has us as clear favorites to win the flag.

Snap. Me too

Third I think. Only a few minutes after disco knocked himself out.

It's a good question. The AFL listed players all train with the seniors and do all the same fitness work. I assume VFL teams - and non AFL players - also load, but presumably their training is not at the same level of professionalism as the AFL, so the demands are perhaps not as great in teams of how taxing it is (though, its probably not far behind - i wonder if they have GPS trackers for all sessions and games as is the case in the AFL?). Have we seen a drop off after half time in the last 3 weeks? Hard to say because the weather has been variable, and we have had so many more AFL listed players than our oppostion, but on scores alone you could make an argument that yes we have - in two of the games at least. Against Frankston on 29 May we scored 8.4 in the first half and only 2.0 in the second half (from memory the second half was wet - that said Frankston had 6 scoring shots in the first half and 12 in the second half). The following week against the swans we scored 4 first half goals and 8 second half goals - so no drop off there. And last week we scored 11 first half goals and only three second half goals (the pies kicked 2 in the first half and 4 in the second half). It should be noted that it hammered down in the third quarter for a while. But it was sunny for the last i think and we could only manage the one goal.

Excellent points. As dpostive correctly notes we were ahead late in all three losses. So we had our chances to scramble a win. I was really impressed by Freo's win against the hawks for this reason ie they did scramble a win when clearly fatigued. Last year we did well to scramble some wins in this period (though still went 3 losses, 1 draw and 2 wins from rounds 13 -19). The Port, Swans and Bombers games were all good examples of us winning when playing sub optimally. Unfortunately this year the outs and injuries, and in particular the in game injuries, have made things that much harder for us. For context, we were 11-2 at this same stage last year. We are 10-3 now, so in much the same position. I actually think we have played really well in all three losses given the challenges we have faced. Yes loading carries a risk in the short term in terms of losing games we might otherwise win, but we have no chance of winning a flag without loading now. Nor do the Freo, Saints, Lions or the blues (the teams fighting for a top 4 spot - no other team has realistic chance of winning the flag this year) Nothing has changed. We are the best team in the AFL. By a significant margin. That is of course no guarantee we will win this year's flag. By far the biggest determinant of success in the AFL is injury. Always has been and always will be. If we have a bad run with injury between now and the end of the season then we won't win the flag. If we have a good run with injury, i am extremely confident we will win the flag. Goody has said we are in better shape this season than last year. People can scoff all they want, but that is his stated opinion. And i'm happy to accept the word of our head coach. All the hand wringers (i don't count you in this group layzie) should harden up and have some bloody faith. Surely the club has earned that.

Hells bells, i have answered this question multiple times and can't be bothered doing so again, other than to say of course we are not the only team loading ATM and the other contenders ARE struggling with stamina RIGHT now. Don't believe me? Watch the Freo v hawks replay. Freo were clearly fatigued and had none of the zip they had against us. The commentators made that very point ie that Freo clearly didn't have their normally run and speed. Why not? And then watch the Lions v saints replay. You will never see two more fatigued teams. Both looked completely gassed almost from the get go. Fumbles, skill execution issues, woeful kicks, inability to get back and defend, players on their haunches from early in the game etc etc. This from two top 4 aspirants. Sound familiar? In commentary, Brown made the observation on multiple occasion that the lions looked exhausted. The saints were equally gassed - and that was before the lost 2 players during the game. After that point they could barely raise a gallop.