SAAFL Division 7 & D7R (2012)

[Q.]

All we have is observation. It's not as though anyone is undertaking studies of amateur teams who train once a week versus those that train twice a week.

Though I hardly think you need to undertake scientific analysis to know that if you have two groups of players at x level of fitness, you split them, one group trains twice a week and the other group trains once a week, then measure their fitness after y period of time, that the group who trains double the other group will have a higher level of fitness.

[morell]

kosmina turning the reds around is not anecdotal..its factual..look where they were under coolen and look where they are now.. nothing anecdotal at all.. statistically proven..go look at a premiership table

http://www.footballaustralia.com.au/aleague

We aren't trying to prove whether or not the Reds have turned around under Kosmina, we are trying to prove that his mantra on intensity at training is the cause of it.

To take it down a notch or two, I will quote The Simpsons:

After a single bear wandering into town has drawn an over-reaction from the residents of Springfield, Homer stands outside his house and muses, “Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is working like a charm!”

Lisa sees through his reasoning: “That’s specious reasoning, dad.” Homer, misunderstanding the word “specious”, thanks her for the compliment.

Optimistically, she tries to explain the error in his argument: “By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.”

Homer is confused: “Hmm; how does it work?”
Lisa: “It doesn’t work; it’s just a stupid rock!”
Homer: “Uh-huh.”
Lisa: “… but I don’t see any tigers around, do you?”

Homer, after a moment’s thought: “Lisa, I want to buy your rock…”

zedman, you're Homer.

[morell]

All we have is observation. It's not as though anyone is undertaking studies of amateur teams who train once a week versus those that train twice a week.

Correct! Finally....

Though I hardly think you need to undertake scientific analysis to know that if you have two groups of players at x level of fitness, you split them, one group trains twice a week and the other group trains once a week, then measure their fitness after y period of time, that the group who trains double the other group will have a higher level of fitness.

Also correct!

The problem being, is that we all know players and people are never all at x levels of fitness.

Therefore, doesn't it make sense that a methodology that assumes x levels of fitness might be flawed?

[The Riddler]

All we have is observation. It's not as though anyone is undertaking studies of amateur teams who train once a week versus those that train twice a week.
Though I hardly think you need to undertake scientific analysis to know that if you have two groups of players at x level of fitness, you split them, one group trains twice a week and the other group trains once a week, then measure their fitness after y period of time, that the group who trains double the other group will have a higher level of fitness.

Could become reality Quichey i've heard a strong rumour Greenacres could only be training once a week this year. If so we have our guinea pig

[morell]

2012 Greenacres = The 2002 Oakland A's?

[The Riddler]

2012 Greenacres = The 2002 Oakland A's?

Great movie by the way watched it last week

[story of my life]

Team A and its 21 players might run a combined total of 79km throughout the game

team B might run combined total of 52km

who wins

Depends who is umpiring

[morell]

2012 Greenacres = The 2002 Oakland A's?

Great movie by the way watched it last week

The book is even better!

The reason I raised it as some of the things we are talking about reminded me of the discussions the old school baseball scouts were having. Bill James (and later Billy Beane) introduced the notion of using rigorous, scientific, empirical evidence rather than traditional, anecdotal, observational theory - and it revolutionised the sport.

There is definitely scope for similar types of analysis to be done with Aussie Rules as statistical measurement (compared to the likes of baseball) is in its infancy. Maybe not at SAAFL Div 6 or 7 level or with as high degree of accuracy (baseball is much more static and the statistics isolated, which means they are easier to predict and measure), but its fun to think of possible hidden secrets in the way we play the game to make one more competitive.

[Footy Chick]

Team A and its 21 players might run a combined total of 79km throughout the game

team B might run combined total of 52km

who wins

Depends who is umpiring

whoever has the most effective disposal.

[Q.]

All we have is observation. It's not as though anyone is undertaking studies of amateur teams who train once a week versus those that train twice a week.

Correct! Finally....

Though I hardly think you need to undertake scientific analysis to know that if you have two groups of players at x level of fitness, you split them, one group trains twice a week and the other group trains once a week, then measure their fitness after y period of time, that the group who trains double the other group will have a higher level of fitness.

Also correct!

The problem being, is that we all know players and people are never all at x levels of fitness.

Therefore, doesn't it make sense that a methodology that assumes x levels of fitness might be flawed?

You would measure the fitness of each individual, therefore x equals the average.

[carey]

Team A and its 21 players might run a combined total of 79km throughout the game

team B might run combined total of 52km

who wins

Depends who is umpiring

whoever has the most effective disposal.

The team that kicks the highest score would be a fair chance.

[Footy Chick]

that too

[morell]

All we have is observation. It's not as though anyone is undertaking studies of amateur teams who train once a week versus those that train twice a week.

Correct! Finally....

Though I hardly think you need to undertake scientific analysis to know that if you have two groups of players at x level of fitness, you split them, one group trains twice a week and the other group trains once a week, then measure their fitness after y period of time, that the group who trains double the other group will have a higher level of fitness.

Also correct!

The problem being, is that we all know players and people are never all at x levels of fitness.

Therefore, doesn't it make sense that a methodology that assumes x levels of fitness might be flawed?

You would measure the fitness of each individual, therefore x equals the average.

So if you average the levels of fitness out would it be safe to assume that the individuals at the extremes of the curve would not benefit in the same way or to the same degree of those within the standard distribution?

or in simpler terms:

Would it be safe to assume that people who are either really fit, really unfit, injured, old, young or whatever might need different management to your stock standard 25 yr old midfielder?

EDIT - I think I have found a name for my theories - "Football Liberalism". I'd hate to think sa footy is filled with Communists.

[The Riddler]

2012 Greenacres = The 2002 Oakland A's?

Great movie by the way watched it last week

The book is even better!

The reason I raised it as some of the things we are talking about reminded me of the discussions the old school baseball scouts were having. Bill James (and later Billy Beane) introduced the notion of using rigorous, scientific, empirical evidence rather than traditional, anecdotal, observational theory - and it revolutionised the sport.

There is definitely scope for similar types of analysis to be done with Aussie Rules as statistical measurement (compared to the likes of baseball) is in its infancy. Maybe not at SAAFL Div 6 or 7 level or with as high degree of accuracy (baseball is much more static and the statistics isolated, which means they are easier to predict and measure), but its fun to think of possible hidden secrets in the way we play the game to make one more competitive.

I liked the bit in the discussion where one of the scouts didn't want to recruit a bloke because he had an ugly girlfriend, showed he had no confidence

[morell]

2012 Greenacres = The 2002 Oakland A's?

Great movie by the way watched it last week

The book is even better!

The reason I raised it as some of the things we are talking about reminded me of the discussions the old school baseball scouts were having. Bill James (and later Billy Beane) introduced the notion of using rigorous, scientific, empirical evidence rather than traditional, anecdotal, observational theory - and it revolutionised the sport.

There is definitely scope for similar types of analysis to be done with Aussie Rules as statistical measurement (compared to the likes of baseball) is in its infancy. Maybe not at SAAFL Div 6 or 7 level or with as high degree of accuracy (baseball is much more static and the statistics isolated, which means they are easier to predict and measure), but its fun to think of possible hidden secrets in the way we play the game to make one more competitive.

I liked the bit in the discussion where one of the scouts didn't want to recruit a bloke because he had an ugly girlfriend, showed he had no confidence

hahahaha.

Mitchell Park must be lacking some confidence then!*

* Apologies to the brilliant, hard working and very beautiful WAGS of the MPFC, they are in fact actually gorgeous and we would be lost without them.

[Footy Chick]

[GHS#33]

There is a clear and obvious positive correlation between training and game day performance. I don’t need to thrash Google Scholar to support this, it is common sense that if you aren’t training then your physical condition will decline or remain at a sub-standard level to those that are training. Hence, if you are playing footy at a fitness level below that of your opposition then you are going to struggle.

^^ This ignores the assumption that the person involved has done a pre-season, is naturally fit, strong and can play football and makes another one that all players are created equal with the same benchmark in terms of fitness and ability. Using your logic and taking it to the extreme:

If Gary Ablett Jr quit Gold Coast, joined up with Mitchell Park in Div 7, but only trained once a week, how do you reckon he would go?

You can't just do a pre-season and expect to maintain that fitness level throughout a season without consistent fitness training. If you do a pre-season and then don't train through the year your fitness level will decline! Gary Ablett Jnr has had 10 years of pre-seasons and 4-5 weekly trainings under his belt.

And with that observation you have proved my point. Do you think Gary Ablett Jnr would still be playing AFL football if he only ever trained once a week? No, he probably wouldn't have played a single game.

Good for you that you are reading a book about innovative and entrepreneurial approaches to the game, but you are out of your mind if you truly believe that training does to translate to match-day performance.

[Q.]

All we have is observation. It's not as though anyone is undertaking studies of amateur teams who train once a week versus those that train twice a week.

Correct! Finally....

Though I hardly think you need to undertake scientific analysis to know that if you have two groups of players at x level of fitness, you split them, one group trains twice a week and the other group trains once a week, then measure their fitness after y period of time, that the group who trains double the other group will have a higher level of fitness.

Also correct!

The problem being, is that we all know players and people are never all at x levels of fitness.

Therefore, doesn't it make sense that a methodology that assumes x levels of fitness might be flawed?

You would measure the fitness of each individual, therefore x equals the average.

So if you average the levels of fitness out would it be safe to assume that the individuals at the extremes of the curve would not benefit in the same way or to the same degree of those within the standard distribution?

or in simpler terms:

Would it be safe to assume that people who are either really fit, really unfit, injured, old, young or whatever might need different management to your stock standard 25 yr old midfielder?

EDIT - I think I have found a name for my theories - "Football Liberalism". I'd hate to think sa footy is filled with Communists.

It's almost a different subject, micromanagement of your players. How do you get your unfit players up to the standard of the rest of your group, how do you manage injuries, how do you keep players accountable, all while trying to perfect game plans and structures.

[morell]

There is a clear and obvious positive correlation between training and game day performance. I don’t need to thrash Google Scholar to support this, it is common sense that if you aren’t training then your physical condition will decline or remain at a sub-standard level to those that are training. Hence, if you are playing footy at a fitness level below that of your opposition then you are going to struggle.

^^ This ignores the assumption that the person involved has done a pre-season, is naturally fit, strong and can play football and makes another one that all players are created equal with the same benchmark in terms of fitness and ability. Using your logic and taking it to the extreme:

If Gary Ablett Jr quit Gold Coast, joined up with Mitchell Park in Div 7, but only trained once a week, how do you reckon he would go?

You can't just do a pre-season and expect to maintain that fitness level throughout a season without consistent fitness training. If you do a pre-season and then don't train through the year your fitness level will decline!

This would depend on many factors:

The player involved
The type of training
The players fitness history etc.

I can personally guarantee that we would have players at Mitchell Park that would get next to no physical benefit from training twice instead of once, as they have a physically demanding job, are naturally aerobically fit and lets be honest we don't train that hard at Div 7 level.

You seem to be thinking I am purporting that I think training is completely worthless - it is not and it is important, I just think it isn't as important, to some players...

Gary Ablett Jnr has had 10 years of pre-seasons and 4-5 weekly trainings under his belt.

Spot on. So do we and so do SHOC, thats half my point! In the grand scheme of things and extra night of training will no make a difference to a lot of players.

And with that observation you have proved my point. Do you think Gary Ablett Jnr would still be playing AFL football if he only ever trained once a week? No, he probably wouldn't have played a single game.

Probably not, as that is what the AFL demands. The crux of the argument, is twice a week what Div 7 demands? I think not always, depends on the person.

Good for you that you are reading a book about innovative and entrepreneurial approaches to the game, but you are out of your mind if you truly believe that training does to translate to match-day performance.

My opinions on training, fitness, football mythology etc were well formed before I read Moneyball. In fact I can recall being shot down pretty early on at Mitchell Park by team mates when I said stretching doesn't do anything for me and was told to do it anyway because everyone else was doing it. I obliged but to this day rarely actually stretch a single muscle.

And you again seem to confusing the argument. Fitness, strength and conditioning can of course be correlated to match day performance, the quality of the training before a game aka "you play the way you train" theory, cannot be. For every time someone says "we played really well after training solidly on Thursday" there would be just as many times said person forgot about the time they trained the house down and lost anyway, or had a shocking night on the track and won unexpectedly.

Two different arguments there.

[morell]

It's almost a different subject, micromanagement of your players. How do you get your unfit players up to the standard of the rest of your group, how do you manage injuries, how do you keep players accountable, all while trying to perfect game plans and structures.

Indeed it is Q! I am pleased someone has been able to understand what I am trying to say.