I probably should have started this thread in a day or so.
| TalkingCarlton http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/ |
|
| A Question of Fitness? http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=33020 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | cimm1979 [ Fri Jun 07, 2013 11:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | A Question of Fitness? |
Just a question for those who know about these things. Last year, and the few season before, we appeared to be a side capable of running games out. Sometimes we were shite but it didn't look (to me anyway) as though we lost games because we couldn't run games out. Tonight (and a couple of other games this year) we appeared to fatigue. Tonight it appeared to start halfway through the third (i missed the second half of the third) and we were jogging on the spot for the last quarter. For what it's worth, i don't think the Bumholes ran anywhere near as far or as hard as we did tonight. So was a tonight a matter of us giving a lot in the first half and spending all our tickets or 3 x 6 day breaks in a row? Or is it a function of the MM game plan that requires so much defensive running of the team that we don't have the fitness base to meet the demands. Does hard two way running (if thats what we're doing) tax the bodies differently to the sort of running we used to do,? Is it simply kilometres run in a game or is it the way you run them? Can you get fit enough to meet the demands of his plan? I think it's possible because I think Freo, Swans and Hawks now have the kind of fitness you need. Looks like size is out and speed and endurance are the way to go again. |
|
| Author: | TruBlueBrad [ Fri Jun 07, 2013 11:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A Question of Fitness? |
Not fitness, tonight was mental toughness. Wasn't the last quarter. Should have put them away before then. Our 'get out' clause is the Garlett goal, but it should have been all over well before then. |
|
| Author: | Wet Willie [ Fri Jun 07, 2013 11:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A Question of Fitness? |
I sat with binoculars all night. I don't think it was fitness - I think it's the commitment to the "process"... In the first half it was a training drill (especially in the second quarter): Maintain possession, go out the back, switch to two players on the other side, go up the wing and find a target at fifty... After half time, there were a number of players actually looking the other way when the ball was about to be kicked to them (Gibbs and Lucas) time and time again. This halted play and sometime the switch was made back in the opposite position because the opportunity was lost. The confusion and hesitations continued to build until they were playing hope rather than control. |
|
| Author: | cimm1979 [ Fri Jun 07, 2013 11:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A Question of Fitness? |
I probably should have started this thread in a day or so.
|
|
| Author: | Wet Willie [ Fri Jun 07, 2013 11:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A Question of Fitness? |
I reckon we all will still be here...!! |
|
| Author: | cimm1979 [ Fri Jun 07, 2013 11:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A Question of Fitness? |
Wet Willie wrote: I reckon we all will still be here...!! Probably. 
|
|
| Author: | Mrs Caz [ Fri Jun 07, 2013 11:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A Question of Fitness? |
My friend said after the first Q..."they're going gangbusters... they'll be stuffed later". I wasn't watching at the time so couldn't comment, but maybe he was right? Accuracy could have helped the cause? |
|
| Author: | Megaman [ Fri Jun 07, 2013 11:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A Question of Fitness? |
Maybe these guys aren't very good at their chosen profession |
|
| Author: | bluedog [ Sat Jun 08, 2013 12:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A Question of Fitness? |
http://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/2013-06-07/less-oxygen-more-benefits |
|
| Author: | cimm1979 [ Sat Jun 08, 2013 12:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A Question of Fitness? |
Mrs Caz wrote: My friend said after the first Q..."they're going gangbusters... they'll be stuffed later". I wasn't watching at the time so couldn't comment, but maybe he was right? Accuracy could have helped the cause? Maybe but we didn't get that many shots on goal. It just seem worked extremely hard in the first quarter (Inside 50's) were off the chart for nothin much, had lots of play, got more reward in the second and then stopped halfway through the third. |
|
| Author: | Effes [ Sat Jun 08, 2013 12:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A Question of Fitness? |
cimm1979 wrote: It just seem worked extremely hard in the first quarter (Inside 50's) were off the chart for nothin much, had lots of play, got more reward in the second and then stopped halfway through the third. At qtr time Essendon*'s top DT scorers were Carlisle Heppell Hooker Fletcher Baguley Myers Goddard Obviously DT scores aren't everything but it indicated how much the team wasted it going in there; scum defenders had a picnic. |
|
| Author: | cimm1979 [ Sat Jun 08, 2013 12:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A Question of Fitness? |
Effes wrote: cimm1979 wrote: It just seem worked extremely hard in the first quarter (Inside 50's) were off the chart for nothin much, had lots of play, got more reward in the second and then stopped halfway through the third. At qtr time Essendon*'s top DT scorers were Carlisle Heppell Hooker Fletcher Baguley Myers Goddard Obviously DT scores aren't everything but it indicated how much the team wasted it going in there; scum defenders had a picnic. And I reckon that killed us. Running around like headless chooks and doing what Carlton have done for years was tiring. In the second quarter we were much more deliberate and absolutely pole-axed them, but we were still running hard. In the third we hit the wall at the halfway mark. I'd also like to know what the @#$%&! happened to our kicking in the third quarter, it was pie floaterville. |
|
| Author: | Synbad [ Sat Jun 08, 2013 8:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A Question of Fitness? |
physical fitness is ok i reckon its the mental sideof being fit we lack. when youre tired how do you push through it??? |
|
| Author: | club29 [ Sat Jun 08, 2013 8:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A Question of Fitness? |
We were going hard early. I thought to myself if we don't get this on the board we are gone. I reckon Hird and co saw it to and played accordingly. Defended and stopped as many goals as they could until we were out of puff. Micks plan worked at Collingwood because they caught everyone out with the press and because he had an extra player with no sub rule. He also was way ahead on the interchange rotations. Now days it is harder. Ratts had the same problems trying to play like Collingwood with the press. It is taxing and you need reward when you have it in your half for 3/4 of footy otherwise you will get slammed in the other quarter. I think we can get fitter. I think we can use possession football to kills some minutes (Ratts chip chip anyone?) and we can get better in those minutes when we are spent. Mentally we have to improve but that will take changes to the list/team. |
|
| Author: | Synbad [ Sat Jun 08, 2013 8:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A Question of Fitness? |
club29 wrote: We were going hard early. I thought to myself if we don't get this on the board we are gone. I reckon Hird and co saw it to and played accordingly. Defended and stopped as many goals as they could until we were out of puff. Micks plan worked at Collingwood because they caught everyone out with the press and because he had an extra player with no sub rule. He also was way ahead on the interchange rotations. Now days it is harder. Ratts had the same problems trying to play like Collingwood with the press. It is taxing and you need reward when you have it in your half for 3/4 of footy otherwise you will get slammed in the other quarter. I think we can get fitter. I think we can use possession football to kills some minutes (Ratts chip chip anyone?) and we can get better in those minutes when we are spent. Mentally we have to improve but that will take changes to the list/team. can just see possession chip chip with guys with balls the size of watermelons..... Lucas for example his attack on the ball for a mark will be commited his passes will be crisp and not hang in the air Do it!!! |
|
| Author: | club29 [ Sat Jun 08, 2013 9:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A Question of Fitness? |
Synbad wrote: club29 wrote: We were going hard early. I thought to myself if we don't get this on the board we are gone. I reckon Hird and co saw it to and played accordingly. Defended and stopped as many goals as they could until we were out of puff. Micks plan worked at Collingwood because they caught everyone out with the press and because he had an extra player with no sub rule. He also was way ahead on the interchange rotations. Now days it is harder. Ratts had the same problems trying to play like Collingwood with the press. It is taxing and you need reward when you have it in your half for 3/4 of footy otherwise you will get slammed in the other quarter. I think we can get fitter. I think we can use possession football to kills some minutes (Ratts chip chip anyone?) and we can get better in those minutes when we are spent. Mentally we have to improve but that will take changes to the list/team. can just see possession chip chip with guys with balls the size of watermelons..... Lucas for example his attack on the ball for a mark will be commited his passes will be crisp and not hang in the air Do it!!! It would be scary watching Lucas while playing possession football to kill some minutes to help with running out games. |
|
| Author: | club29 [ Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A Question of Fitness? |
I have been thinking of ways we can improve our ability to play the way we want for longer periods. Clearly the game plan is taxing but before we run out of puff seems pretty robust apart from our conversion. We can do everything we can to improve conversion and make sure we have enough on the board to make up for when we are fatigued later. This sounds easier enough but I think teams are onto us and are prepared to wear our punches. Have a complete defensive mindset only hoping to score on the counter attack until we are done trying. This tactic has worked against us for years. We can change our gameplan to become more economic like the swans. Sit a bit further back and focus on a press of sorts around our halfback line and counter into space. I like this plan but it will take some time to get going and a change in thinking. We can work within our current gameplan but find ways to get more run into our team. We look at the 22 and find which players in positions that run lower kms we can swap an onballer into. This plan requires us to have some onballers in the twos waiting to come in but lets say we did have one that was a good runner. Gibbs to Crameri for example and White swapped out of the team for a decent onballer with good running numbers. Then we have room for more flexibity to relieve players in positions that require a lot of energy. Another rotation. With the interchange/sub rule in place Malthouses gameplan has been tied down a bit. We need to find a way to adjust. I am sure there are plenty more ideas out there and I am sure Malthouse will be looking for them. Can't imagine he will sit back and watch us run out of puff and fatigue each week. Must be frustrating for him. |
|
| Author: | SurreyBlue [ Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A Question of Fitness? |
Take our opportunities when we have momentum, defend when they have it and flower go up a level when the opposition do! Until we decide that we want to win at all costs and hunt the football like no tomorrow, we won't be improving. |
|
| Author: | DenimUndies [ Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A Question of Fitness? |
SurreyBlue wrote: Take our opportunities when we have momentum, defend when they have it and flower go up a level when the opposition do! Until we decide that we want to win at all costs and hunt the football like no tomorrow, we won't be improving. Don't think it's a matter deciding about wanting to win. Every team wants to win. The fact they've remained in the contest in every game shows theveffort is there. The reason they haven't gone to the next level is that cumulatively their not good enough, skill wise and natural smarts. Previously Judd made up for what was lacking. |
|
| Author: | SurreyBlue [ Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A Question of Fitness? |
Disagree DU. 3 losses this year, the opposition have wanted to win more when it mattered and we were waiting for someone else to get it and do it for us. No real win at all costs mentality. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC + 10 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|