Its a device that interacts with the heart. Players where instructed to take them off at half time.

if theyre primarily worried about the facilties, presumably the gym mostly, why not buy all the guys a gym membership. itd probably be cheaper and itd mean less time with dennis. and to save money they could buy sporn a le fern gym membership, he would be able to then come to grips, with the help of the women around him being in the same boat, with the fact he'll never play a senior game again.

_________________
"In fairness it did seem in the early days of the draft teams would just pick a name totally at random out of a hat. I'm pretty sure we picked James Cook at #2 one year. The mediocre forward, not the explorer" - Me, 12/9/2011

Carlton 2012: Lets remind them why they once feared the Dark.

It was said on the coverage and in other games that they are GPS tracking devices. It might have a heart monitor but it certainly wouldn't interact with the heart, this isn't the year 2050.

When Synners and I say facilities we're not talking about a new bench press machine, we're talking tracking devices, high FPS cameras, the works, state-of-the-art facilities. We're talking consultants who analyse the game and understand the current cutting edge methods to get the most out of a certain type of player in a certain type of position.

Sports science meets sports knowledge.

not a fan of sport science. i find it a bit of a cop out. has anyone here seen mike bassett england manager? the bit where they go to the sport science facility is brilliant. perfect satire. we just need to do the relevant training drills. contests, simulated kick in drills, kicking to moving targets, kicking to stationary targets, centre clearance drills etc. if we can develop some 'set plays' so to speak for these situations we might see a improvement. part of our problem at the moment is we arnt getting our hands on the ball first often enough, and if we do its below the knees or too high, simulating these situations would, i feel improve the players imeasurably.

but lastly, science isnt our main deficentcy, confidence in our younger guys is. play them where they are meant to be played, infact actually play them would also be good. and i agree, the facilities would have been far worse when we were a great club (we still are a great club, just in a different way). improve the players confidence, faith in themselves and eachother and we will see improved performances. we dont need any more grant thomas' in the game over anaylsing every facet. we dont need the 'you can use statistics to prove anything, 80% of all ppl know that' line of thinking. it sickens me to the core.

_________________
"In fairness it did seem in the early days of the draft teams would just pick a name totally at random out of a hat. I'm pretty sure we picked James Cook at #2 one year. The mediocre forward, not the explorer" - Me, 12/9/2011

Carlton 2012: Lets remind them why they once feared the Dark.

When have I said that this is the difference between us succeeding and us failing? It isn't, but it is certainly nice to have and makes a lot of things easier. This falls into my area of expertise.

id rather us spend the money itd take to upgrade these 'facilities' on more tangible items. sports science is a case of hit and hope with many players. the money would be better spent on things that are known to improve, as opposed to things that might. just an opinion.

id been keen to know, jimmae, the possible effect of various sports science techniques and what they actually are as i am, admittedly, not well versed in this (that isnt sarcasm, i am actually keen to find out). i know that does sound like a contradiction to the above paragraph but i reiterate, hit and hope type techniques are not what we need.

_________________
"In fairness it did seem in the early days of the draft teams would just pick a name totally at random out of a hat. I'm pretty sure we picked James Cook at #2 one year. The mediocre forward, not the explorer" - Me, 12/9/2011

Carlton 2012: Lets remind them why they once feared the Dark.

The expensive side of sports science is more the analysis tools you use, a running track, the cameras, wearable GPS in games, an employed consultant.

It's certainly not hit and hope type stuff, it ties in with what's already going on, and refines the gym and skills work players do at an individual level.

example: Player x
What are his strengths?
What are his weaknesses?
Where is he best suited?
Where else can he play?
Where would he best fit?
What physical attributes does he need to improve to play in the position we want him in?
What programs can we provide him to improve his decision making?

It's about chipping away at the margin of error involved in player training and development.

Another facet is a higher level of analysis of team strengths and weaknesses and devising simulation drills that concentrate on these, rather than just running the old bread and butter stuff.

You're working on conditioning players so the things you want them to do in games are bread and butter for them, not tricks or pushing them to their limit compared to practise. That's what all this talk about training with intensity is about. The only time a player should be pushed to their limits is when they are doing something low percentage, typical match day intensity and above should always be a part of training, rather than more static drills and sprinting exercises and so forth.

Finally another thing it is useful is for refining the game plan based on results found. Sports science is very much as it is said, an application of scientific techniques relevant to analysing and developing within a sport.

i agree totally with cutting out the old and, as u said, static modes of training. i posted earlier in the evening about moving more to the simulation side of training, i think in our position this would be far more beneficial than what we are doing. maybe they could also look at doing internal assessments, as you said, but on an individual basis (as hiring a professional could hit the hip pocket hard). get 'player x' to fill out the criteria you listed and then compare with others. this would provide interesting reading as well as an insight into their current mental condition. i think the results would show a few unhappy players. a few new things need to be tried, true. but cost is a massive issue. is there any possibility of the points u listed realisitcally being carried out in-house?

ive been pushing this new coach thing all night, and here i go again (sorry guys) but CHRIS BOND is the man to help us.

_________________
"In fairness it did seem in the early days of the draft teams would just pick a name totally at random out of a hat. I'm pretty sure we picked James Cook at #2 one year. The mediocre forward, not the explorer" - Me, 12/9/2011

Carlton 2012: Lets remind them why they once feared the Dark.

What I'm talking about may only need a small team which could merely be extra jobs for some of the guys who work in the IT and Video departments at the club, in combonation with an expert overseeing the work.

Other than that, it's merely getting the funding up for the facilities that tie in with this, which is presumably what this whole McPark as a training complex is all about.

havent they already spoken about upgrading such facilities in conjunction with the AFL and state govt. i mean, c'mon, if the bulldogs can get such a break why cant we? this hating and screwing carlton over thing is so old. it was new 3 years ago. hopefully the blues can get similar help from the govt and afl.

_________________
"In fairness it did seem in the early days of the draft teams would just pick a name totally at random out of a hat. I'm pretty sure we picked James Cook at #2 one year. The mediocre forward, not the explorer" - Me, 12/9/2011

Carlton 2012: Lets remind them why they once feared the Dark.