binman

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.

I feel like I've been to every one of those 764 floggings.

Fair enough OD. But I think any comparisons to weed are a stretch. I saw weeds first practice match. It was against the pies at Olympic park and i happened to be standing next to his grandfather. Weed looked the goods that day. Strong leads and clean hands. Good stock and Hollywood looks. Weed was a top 10 draft pick, so hopes ane expectations were justifiably high. But without bagging weed it became apparent pretty quickly that he lacked perhaps the most important attribute of any AFL footballer - competivness and desire for the contest. Sure players can develop their intensity but really they either have it or they don't. One of the clearest indicators is whether second and third efforts are 100% instinctive. From the get go weed always seemed to have a millisecond delay in getting after the ball after the initial contest. That might fly at the junior level, but it doesn't cut it at AFL level. The complete opposite is true of JVR. The thing that jumped out at me straight away when I first saw Roey play live was his intensity, competitiveness and will for the contest. That want for the contest and the ball is the reason why I'm so confident jvr is going to be a star. A kid now, he will be an absolute beast when he is in his mid twenties

Exactly. Money is king is the AFLs core value. As life long football fan i have no sense that the AFL consider or prioritise the views of the key stakeholders - us. The only time they do is as if those views relate to their money is king mantra, that's to say will we stop spening money on the 'product'.

Seriously? JVR, who only tuned 21 two days ago, is so obviously a gun i'm astounded any footy fan could not see it. Obviously the club do. And its not just potential. His first season provides evidence of his ability and a clear sense of his ceiling. His first year of senior footy matches or exceeds that of every gun forward for the last 30 years, in including the current crop (King brothers, Oscar Allen, JUH, Amiss, Logan McDonald).

Ive dropped the ball in getting good seats. My plan is to get a GA and go up the top of the Ponsford and stand (behind the wheelchair area). Its a good spot.

They can and they do and it does work like that (if they get it right). But I've been in this movie before and my experience has been that i have a low success rate of changing people's mind on this topic. So let's agree to disagree and move on.

Spot on. They were flag favorites before the season started. Poor start to the season, but they'll be there or there about when the whips are cracking. The other factor is that some sides, for a range of reasons, match up well against specific sides. Brisbane match up well against us: - their midfield is not miles of ours - we haven't had the leg speed to exploit their lack of leg speed - their talls can negate maxy in those critical down the line marking contests - and we struggle to cover their four excellent medium forwards

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