binman

Agree. I think that is almost certainly the case for both Petts and Clarry (i did also think that perhaps they figure the best thing for clarry's mental health is playing). Which goes to my point i just made in another thread that they don't always give themselves the best chance of winning specific matches. For example, if they looked at the Lions game in isolation and the only goal was to win the match, then perhaps they play Laurie ahead of Oliver. But until we get to the business end of the year there are always other considerations, eg building the match fitness of critical players (eg picking Tmac and BBB for round one when both were clearly underdone) or maximizing the likelihood we are in optimal shape come finals.

They absolutely target specific games at the potential expense of others. All clubs do. They have to because its not possible to be at the same level of physical readiness every game. Of course teams never go into a game not wanting to win it, but that's not the same as ensuring they give themselves the best chance of winning every. Calculated risks. It's about winning the war not the battles. Take the lions game. If you accept fatigue was factor in the result, then logic suggests if the lions was a must win game they could have had super light week on the track to give players the chance to recover from 3 games in 13 days(and 4 games in 19 days) in order to be as fresh as possible. Which is what they did between the Port and Crows game - albeit that was only a 5 day break so they had little choice. That approach would have maximized our chances of beating the Lions but potentially also thrown the high performance program out of whack (a super complex regime that is planned down to the minute) decreasing our chances of winning future games and peaking at the right time. Perhaps they did do that. But if so, it was a massive fail. But lets say that rather than giving the players an easy week on the track they just completed their normal regime with standard loads, giving players no chance to recover from their demanding schedule and making it all but certain we would come into the Lions game in less than optimal shape. In doing so they would be prioritising future performance at the expense of our performance in the the Lions game.

All good points. But I disagree that we we would not voluntarily choose a path that would leave us less than fully fit to play the Lions at the G. As i noted we have done so, in my opinion, against the cats. And i also disagree that we can categorically say we did not do anything extra in advance of the lions game. I agree it is probably unlikely, but i think we might have. The other possibility is that we didn't do a heavier block of training, but rather our normal regime instead of an easier week designed to allow players to recover from 3 games in 13 days in order to be as fresh as possible for the lions game (at the possible expense of program as a whole). We had a full week to recover from the Adelaide trip. If it was just accumulative fatigue the game would have looked more like the crows where we started ok and ran out of gas late (much like the lions did). But we were completely flat from the get go.

Further to the above, i found this page on the AIS website interesting in terms of the complexity of high performance programs and the challenges of getting them right: Training load in relation to loading and unloading phases of training From the page: Sports performance is multifactorial in nature with exercise training, recovery, heath, nutrition, psychological skills and skill acquisition as key factors in athletic preparation. Systematic training prepares the athlete for the demands of their sport such that physical abilities and sport specific skills are enhanced. Well-planned training loads promote structural and metabolic adaptations that underpin training outcomes such as improved physical performance, injury and illness resistance, and optimised mental and physical health. Rest or ‘unloading’ may be defined as a substantial decrease in training load from the normal. A decrease in training load can be absolute (no training) or relative (as a percentage drop from normal load). Long periods of absolute rest cause a detraining effect and a reduced physical capacity. Mathematical modelling and retrospective data analysis have assisted coaches, sports science and sports medicine personnel to better understand the training dose-response relationship in elite Australian athletes. Key findings support previous anecdotal evidence: Effectively planning load and monitoring the individual training response can enhance training exposure and improve performance. Consistent training availability increases an athlete’s capacity to perform in both team and individual sports. There is an increased risk of illness and/or injury when reloading after a planned, or unplanned period of unloading if the volume, intensity and frequency of training are accelerated quicker than the athlete’s ability to adapt to the training stress. The time required to return to a full training load is proportionate to the length of the reduced workloads and the amount of training completed during the unloading period.

Impossible to say really given how opaque the whole high performance regimes are, however they were def up and about. Interesting that Fagan say that was the best they had played for a long time. Each clubs' high performance program would be different. So i don't think we can take too much from the Lions experience. For example we might have targeted the Port and Crows games and the Lions may have targeted the dees game, which i assume means managing the program and loads to be in optimal shape for those games, potentially at the risk of not being in optimal shape for other games. That said, each program would share some key similarities, one of which being taking advantage of the opportunity to rest players the bye creates to increase loads - ie heavier than normal training block (aerobic, strength and power) then deloading. The benefit of this would be felt over a number of post bye games, and potentially of most benefit two to three weeks after the bye (my sense, and this could well be wrong, is that we haven't always had as much zip the first week after the bye, but get te benefit in the following matches). I'll be curious to see how much zip the swans and pies, who both just had a bye, have this week All that said, I think there is every chance we will target both the Cats and Blues game. In previous years we have played the Cats at Kardinia park around the bye period and looked flat, suggesting to me at least that they were not target games. But this year we play them at the G and given they are direct rivals i think we target that game. Ditto for the blues game. And the timing of the games, coming three weeks after our bye, should mean we can go into the games running on top of the ground. The other thing to consider is we get another bye in round 14, the week after we play the Pies. The opportunity for two lots of in season loading and deloading, as opposed to just one represents a massive change to the high performance program for the 8 teams that played in OR. Who knows what impact that might have, but lets say two byes gives those teams a competitive advantage. That would be yet another example of the AFL creating fixture that is inherently flawed and putting money (gate receipts, TV ratings, trying to one up the NRL etc) ahead of fairness.

Yeh, that could work. Riv could play a more traditional lock down role, with the duke taking his run and carry role. But as i note above, i expect Tuner will be selected and play as a defender. He can take any lock down role on medium, or even small, allowing riv to keep his role and windsor to stay on the wing

I think Howes is safe, though see your point, but agree the other two are at risk. I think Billings probably lucky with Salo going out because his selection creates some versatility, for example if say Langdon did play back then billmgs could take his wing sport (or in the mix with Windor and Hunter). Woey looked all at sea at HB, so i cant see him being picked as defender. But he could also play wing. To be honest i'd add Petty. He has been average at best since coming in to the side, and was woeful against the Lions (his player rating was -0.6!). I wonder if that was part of the thinking in trialing turner as a forward. I suspect Turner will come in for the tigers game. He is versatile and athletic enough to play on medium down back, and he could also take Tmac's role if needed, allowing Tmac to go forward. Or he could replace Petty in the forward line (unlikely, but Petts would want to get going).

Diff dude to my old mate I meant. The aints were a funny group. Reflective of the angst that surrounded the saints.

I used to know an Andrew Stafford as a teenager. Was a big music fan. How old is this Andrew Stafford? Scratch that. Just read the info at the link. Different dude.

Totally reasonable questions. Which point to another aspect to not ignoring the issue of fatigue. If you accept fatigue plays a big role in the outcome of any given match then it is reasonable to critique the performance of the high performance team, decisions like not bringing in fresher players (eg would Laurie have been a better option than Clarry?) or target specific games at the potential expense of others.

Brilliant. Finally a footy journo makes the bog obvious point about the impact of the insane aerobic demands on AFL players in the modern game. I love this line: 'The fixture is contentious enough already without placing such insane demands on the athletes, who need adequate time to recover between half-marathons' And even more importantly factors the impact of those demands into their analysis of the game. The job of footy journos is helping fans understand the game. They do fans a complete disservice if they ignore a critical factor like physical readiness and the impact of fatigue on performance. Take the loss to the Lions. What are the reasons we lost? In the this thread factors such as poor coaching, poor selection, players mentally not strong enough, smashed at the contest, not enough pressure and not running two ways have all been highlighted. And fair enough too, all are potential factors. But if the impact of fatigue is also not factored into any analysis of our performance, you are only left with such factors as potential reasons for the loss. Which means the assessment is off. For example our all team defence is incredibly taxing, as is winning the clearance count, as is applying elite pressure, as is setting up one down at stoppages etc etc etc. Logic says that if the players are fatigued, these, and other key elements of our method will be more difficult to implement (which will be reflected in the stats) and our chances of winning will decrease. Factoring in fatigue is not making excuses, it is simply ensuring all potential reasons for a performance are considered. Were the dees fatigued against the lions? The eye test says yes, absolutely. What was the cause of the fatigue? Who knows. Perhaps, as Stafford suggests it was simply that we were playing our third game in just 13 days, which included a physically draining and intense win over Port Adelaide and backing up 5 days later to beat the Crows. It is clear they targeted those games and in order to maximise our chances of winning both they would have designed their high performance program to peak for both games. If so, is it possible to then be in peak shape for the Lions game? Or perhaps in addition to the above, we also took the opportunity to get a heavy training block in ahead of our bye to take advantage of the two week week break to the tigers game (ie, so players have time to recover and taper)? That may not be the case of course, but equally it shouldn't be rejected out of hand. In that context, as another poster noted, it's worth noting the pre bye record of the teams that played in the OR: Dees: 22 point loss to the lions Lions: 23 point loss to Freo Suns: 48 point loss to the dogs Tigers: 39 point loss to the Eagles Pies: led the hawks at half time by 38 points, stopped to a walk in the second half, only kicking 2 goals (none in the last) to luckily scrape in by 2 points Blues: scrappy, lucky 5 point win over the tigers Swans: beat west coast by 26 (having lost to the tigers the previous week) Giants: thumped Eagles

Nice of the blues to make my point so soon by losing a home game against the winless and hapless Crows. But seriously, how many posters actually objectively think that loss is evidence the Blues are not contenders, won't make top 4 and can't win the flag? And the giants were very lucky to win at home against a middle of the road saints. Yes they won, but if the dees won a home game against the Saints in such an unconvincing fashion there would be plenty of DL posters saying it was evidence we are not contenders.

Apply Occam's razor.

Precisely my take.

Yep, sums up the game in a nutshell. Fairly predictable the level of henny penny, sky is falling reactions in this post match thread. I'm sure there was a similar level of angst on the swans Demonland equivalent after they were completely woeful in their loss to a very average tigers outfit. But as objective footy fans, I'm pretty confident few Demonland posters think that very disappointing loss is evidence the swans are no good, won't make top 4, can't win the flag etc etc. Similarly, when one of the other real contenders - giants, Port, blues and cats - inevitably lose a match they are favourites to win, few will argue that's evidence they can't win a flag.

Good call. Tmac was excellent all night

Just got home. Won't be watching no replay tonight. The only positive from that woeful display was it gave me a chance to revisit a sledge from the dim past: 'you're going nowhere lions - a half decent team would have flogged us by 10 goals'

Indeed. I'm most definitely in the Hoyne camp. Hoyne highlighted that, like this time last year our above average accuracy should be factored in to any assessment of how we are travelling. As At the break of Gawn notes Daniel Hoyne highlighted 'we’ve been losing inside 50, clearances, contested possession and we're only a middle of the road side at defending ball movement.' Hoyne's other point was that gives scope for improvement. Which I agree with, particularly with Bowser and Melksham both available in the back half of the season. But Hoyne didn't note that a couple of weeks back, when discussing our changed method, that Dees' fans will have to be patient as we will give up scores on turnover and make mistakes as we adjust to a different method, particularly the transition stuff. That said, I think there is a chance those numbers are not necessarily an indication of problems. I agree with @Binmans PA and others analaysis that we are setting up deep defensively and creating space in front of us to transition more effectively. I dont have any data to support this, but we also seem to be more fluid in terms of defenders rolling off their man and taking different opponents. Lever, may and tmac have been waxing and swapping opponents and zoning off super well. And as has been the case for three years, they are brilliant at ensuring there is a player behind the ball. It's striking how infrequently we give up walk in or out the back goals. But playing deep defensively means part of the method is accepting the need to absorb more deep inside 50s. And when we win it back we are more often starting the transition from closer to the opponents goal, decreasing our chances or successfully scoring from our back half. Perhaps the stats Hoyne notes reflect these factors. And besides, sure we have been accurate, but we have also kept opponents, including two of last year's highest scoring sides to bloody low scores. Our defence has been incredible.

No. But there is no doubt that our run into the finals last year took a physical and psychological toll. Ditto for 2022. Conversely, our run into the 2021 final, even with the drama of the last round win against the cats, was far less taxing.

Even if the pies are back to their best, the last 5 games is a pretty good run home. Four of our last 5 games in Melbourne - with three at the G. Yes, two games against a likely top 4 team (Port and Giants), but both on our home ground. The other 3 games against teams likely to battling to get into the 8.

Agree. I'd also add that we have also struggled their other excellent medium half forwards/mids/utilises in particular mcluggage and McCarty. Defensively it's been our Achilles heel for years. Part of the issue against the lions is we have to send one of our best mid sized defenders to Cameron - and basically play him man on man (ie not much zoning off). But it's also a personnel issue. Nev was brilliant as a small/medium defender in 2018, just about the best. But since then we've struggled in that space. The juddster was brilliant last year and has become our go to player for the opposition's best medium forward. But the lions have four excellent medium forwards to cover. I think Howes was brought in to strengthen our ability to cover such players and thus far had been terrific at doing so. He'sslotted in down back like a 200 gamer and gives us so much more flexibility. So, I'm more confident than I have been for ages that we have the tools to cover the lions' dangerous medium forwards.

I don't get the whole you can't start a debutant as a sub. Particularly now that it is not a medical one. It's a team sport, and it's never been more important that players play their assigned role. If the best thing for the team is for a debutant to start ad sub then so be it. The alternative is what? Selecting them in the starting 22, even though that's not in the best interest of the team? Or not picking them at all, even if Goody has been criticised for playing favourites with selection, with the implication being it comes at the expense of the team I think those criticisms are plain silly. But I understand why people would have an issue with it if he was selectiing favourites, not the best option. Team has to come first. Same argument applies to the selection of a debutant.

I see the low impact argument, but I'm OK with koz getting a week, not for the bump, but for raising his elbow. Yes he only glanced his head, but I'm in the factor in the risk of injury camp. If his elbow had, say flushed his temple then some real damage could have been done. But I'm not ok with the hypocrisy of the coverage of what was really an incidental incident compared to the can't miss a grand final for a 'football action' vibe that dominated the coverage of Maynard's hit on Gus. And even more frustratingly, there is zero reflection by the media about that blatant hypocrisy. For god's sake one action ended the football career of a bloke in his mid 20s (at all levels - and I presume Gus can no longer play ANY contact sport, eg basketball). And the other caused NO injury, with the player 'hit' going on to be his team's best player, even getting coached votes. And why? Because whilst koz was silly to put his elbow out, it was fleeting and he realised immediately wrong, and pulled it back. That's to say successfully tried to minimise impact. Maynard did the opposite. No thought at at all to minimise the impact on Gus. His instinct was 100% solely to protect himself. The media should be ashamed of the coverage of the Maynard hit. And ashamed about the white noise it is creating painting koz as a sniper with form.

In lots of ways. Being completely nuts being one.