While it's not a bad idea to find the best fitness guys, there's awhole lot of factors that need to be taken into account.
It's the chicken v egg argument in the sense did burgess turn a bunch of slobs into above 16 beeps on the test, or did he improve a bunch of 15 beepers to 16 ?
I say that in the sense, you can't say simply transfering someone like him to our club, would improve our players to that high a standard, it's not that simple, you've gotta have the players that have a high fitness level to begin with, which is where I think we struggle to begin with.
Then you add in the skill level of players, no good being able to run above 16 if you butcher the ball every second possie.
Then you add in gameplan, our supposed lack of fitness pushed the Hawks, one of the 2 examples given along the way in this thread. Our fitness/gameplan allowed us to control the majority of the game, work harder than hawthorn.
Unfortunately their skill level and flaws in said gameplan also were exploited very well.
As Peos said, we've struggled across three different coaching panels, with 3 different supposed experts in their field, that had had success previous to or with us, so really it's not as simple as fitness or the wrong sort of fitness is the problem. It may be a part of the problem, but not the whole problem.
While it's not a bad idea to find the best fitness guys, there's awhole lot of factors that need to be taken into account.
It's the chicken v egg argument in the sense did burgess turn a bunch of slobs into above 16 beeps on the test, or did he improve a bunch of 15 beepers to 16 ?
I say that in the sense, you can't say simply transfering someone like him to our club, would improve our players to that high a standard, it's not that simple, you've gotta have the players that have a high fitness level to begin with, which is where I think we struggle to begin with.
Then you add in the skill level of players, no good being able to run above 16 if you butcher the ball every second possie.
Then you add in gameplan, our supposed lack of fitness pushed the Hawks, one of the 2 examples given along the way in this thread. Our fitness/gameplan allowed us to control the majority of the game, work harder than hawthorn.
Unfortunately their skill level and flaws in said gameplan also were exploited very well.
As Peos said, we've struggled across three different coaching panels, with 3 different supposed experts in their field, that had had success previous to or with us, so really it's not as simple as fitness or the wrong sort of fitness is the problem. It may be a part of the problem, but not the whole problem.
All true.
One thing I couldn't but help noticing recently is that the Swans generally seem to have a different body shape than us. More power as well as better endurance.
Just an observation.
I think one of the first things our fitness staff were tasked with was to stop the friggin soft tissue injuries. Remember the hammies every week?
Then build from there.
There's a long way to go, IMO it's too early to judge.
Agree. Last year was pretty outstanding with soft tissue. Similar this year.
Morale has an effect on ability to gut run.
Geez I’d really love to have a chat to Angus Monfries to what he thought the difference between Port and us was. I think Burgess has played a big role in their improvement. However, I don’t think that means going out and getting the best (flavour of the month) person from overseas. The reason Burgess works is because he is an Aussie and understands the demands of AFL. I doubt some fitness guru from the NFL would readily understand the different fitness needs of AFL.
While it's not a bad idea to find the best fitness guys, there's awhole lot of factors that need to be taken into account.
It's the chicken v egg argument in the sense did burgess turn a bunch of slobs into above 16 beeps on the test, or did he improve a bunch of 15 beepers to 16 ?
I say that in the sense, you can't say simply transfering someone like him to our club, would improve our players to that high a standard, it's not that simple, you've gotta have the players that have a high fitness level to begin with, which is where I think we struggle to begin with.
Then you add in the skill level of players, no good being able to run above 16 if you butcher the ball every second possie.
Then you add in gameplan, our supposed lack of fitness pushed the Hawks, one of the 2 examples given along the way in this thread. Our fitness/gameplan allowed us to control the majority of the game, work harder than hawthorn.
Unfortunately their skill level and flaws in said gameplan also were exploited very well.
As Peos said, we've struggled across three different coaching panels, with 3 different supposed experts in their field, that had had success previous to or with us, so really it's not as simple as fitness or the wrong sort of fitness is the problem. It may be a part of the problem, but not the whole problem.
All true.
One thing I couldn't but help noticing recently is that the Swans generally seem to have a different body shape than us. More power as well as better endurance.
Just an observation.
End of COLA will change all of them to skinny wimps overnight.
Not sure why anyone is comparing Burgess to Robinson. Weapon was a strength guy not endurance. I believe the reports from Geelong were that he was only in charge of their weights programe not overall fittness. We made the decission to add strength & size to our players & apart from the whole sorry saga, the results we saw were massive soft tissue injuries.
All that's true - but go back 2-3 years, EB was starting similar fapping threads over getting Robinson.
"Get staffer X off leading club Y = insta-flag" always get a few excited.
Its all part of the puzzle. Getting good quality people, equipment & practices in every department is what we can control & therefore should expect. We just need to make sure in the future that we get something fit for purpose. Getting Robinson was a good move (without using hindsight) but there were concerns about him long beofre the drugs scandal broke. We got one of the best weights guys around (great move) & thought he could control the entire fittness dept (bad move). We absolutely should learn from that but continue to look for the best people possible.
FWIW I reckon Port's list management deserves as much credit as anything for their rise. Picking up guys like Monfries, Ebert & Polec, all former 1st round picks, without giving up much is a big bonus. (Ahhhh - I will continue to dream of what might be) -_-
Not sure why anyone is comparing Burgess to Robinson. Weapon was a strength guy not endurance. I believe the reports from Geelong were that he was only in charge of their weights programe not overall fittness. We made the decission to add strength & size to our players & apart from the whole sorry saga, the results we saw were massive soft tissue injuries.
All that's true - but go back 2-3 years, EB was starting similar fapping threads over getting Robinson.
"Get staffer X off leading club Y = insta-flag" always get a few excited.
Its all part of the puzzle. Getting good quality people, equipment & practices in every department is what we can control & therefore should expect. We just need to make sure in the future that we get something fit for purpose. Getting Robinson was a good move (without using hindsight) but there were concerns about him long beofre the drugs scandal broke. We got one of the best weights guys around (great move) & thought he could control the entire fittness dept (bad move). We absolutely should learn from that but continue to look for the best people possible.
FWIW I reckon Port's list management deserves as much credit as anything for their rise. Picking up guys like Monfries, Ebert & Polec, all former 1st round picks, without giving up much is a big bonus. (Ahhhh - I will continue to dream of what might be) -_-
Not so much saying that Port aren't doing things right more often than not, or Burgess is no good - more that playing copycat often ends up in tears.
We need to find an edge, not try and copy someone else's.
Not sure why anyone is comparing Burgess to Robinson. Weapon was a strength guy not endurance. I believe the reports from Geelong were that he was only in charge of their weights programe not overall fittness. We made the decission to add strength & size to our players & apart from the whole sorry saga, the results we saw were massive soft tissue injuries.
All that's true - but go back 2-3 years, EB was starting similar fapping threads over getting Robinson.
"Get staffer X off leading club Y = insta-flag" always get a few excited.
Its all part of the puzzle. Getting good quality people, equipment & practices in every department is what we can control & therefore should expect. We just need to make sure in the future that we get something fit for purpose. Getting Robinson was a good move (without using hindsight) but there were concerns about him long beofre the drugs scandal broke. We got one of the best weights guys around (great move) & thought he could control the entire fittness dept (bad move). We absolutely should learn from that but continue to look for the best people possible.
FWIW I reckon Port's list management deserves as much credit as anything for their rise. Picking up guys like Monfries, Ebert & Polec, all former 1st round picks, without giving up much is a big bonus. (Ahhhh - I will continue to dream of what might be) -_-
Not so much saying that Port aren't doing things right more often than not, or Burgess is no good - more that playing copycat often ends up in tears.
We need to find an edge, not try and copy someone else's.
Bingo. You don't steal what the current power is doing, you steal what they're going to do next.
Not sure why anyone is comparing Burgess to Robinson. Weapon was a strength guy not endurance. I believe the reports from Geelong were that he was only in charge of their weights programe not overall fittness. We made the decission to add strength & size to our players & apart from the whole sorry saga, the results we saw were massive soft tissue injuries.
All that's true - but go back 2-3 years, EB was starting similar fapping threads over getting Robinson.
"Get staffer X off leading club Y = insta-flag" always get a few excited.
Its all part of the puzzle. Getting good quality people, equipment & practices in every department is what we can control & therefore should expect. We just need to make sure in the future that we get something fit for purpose. Getting Robinson was a good move (without using hindsight) but there were concerns about him long beofre the drugs scandal broke. We got one of the best weights guys around (great move) & thought he could control the entire fittness dept (bad move). We absolutely should learn from that but continue to look for the best people possible.
FWIW I reckon Port's list management deserves as much credit as anything for their rise. Picking up guys like Monfries, Ebert & Polec, all former 1st round picks, without giving up much is a big bonus. (Ahhhh - I will continue to dream of what might be) -_-
Not so much saying that Port aren't doing things right more often than not, or Burgess is no good - more that playing copycat often ends up in tears.
We need to find an edge, not try and copy someone else's.
Bingo. You don't steal what the current power is doing, you steal what they're going to do next.
We barely know what we're doing now, let alone what anyone else is going to do next..
The number of last quarters that Port have won this season and last suggests that their fitness is a major factor.
Port are rated number 2 in last quarters behind Hawthorn. It's a bit of a misleading stat because if you dominate games ( circa Essendon 2000 ) you have the game won at half time and ease up in the last half. Port are undoubtedly fit but its not the major reason for their rise.