-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
TW came out in the media and suggested a six-man interchange bench and said, "If you want to watch dynamic football you need to have fresh players to play dynamic football." He added that “if the extended bench was not introduced then the game runs the risk of player burnout with taller players becoming increasingly rare as smaller, pacy types will be preferred by clubs to keep up with the run”.
Where is the game heading?
Will we see more rotations via the interchange ever before?
Has the game already taken a twist and AFL players are spending less time on the ground?
“In 2000, 66% of all midfielders spent the entire game on the ground – our most recent data from 2004-05 shows that this figure is now less than 20%”. This information, courtesy from Champion Data suggests the trend has already shifted, and that coaches are using this information to structure their teams for the future.
“In 2001, prime mid fielders covered an average of 17km per game – In 2005 the average was closer to 13km”. Champion data again has crunched their numbers to give coaches a statistic that reflects a shift of 17% reduction of ground coverage by AFL players.
“The additional rest players are getting when taken off the ground allows them to work harder (run faster and longer) once they return to the field.” This leads to: More ability to get to contests, harder collisions, more congestion Game played at higher intensity when ball is in play.
So will there be a trend according to the information provided by Champion Data?
Are the coaches prepared for a shift in greater intensity in play?
Lets look at the other side of the coin. Carlton President Ian Collins called for a limit on interchange rotations, saying, “the game was constantly being played at maximum intensity, increasing the risk of injuries”. Then who is right or who is wrong?
Lets look at the last 2 years of interchange rotations;
2005
Club Inter
Sydney 1115
Fremantle 1098
Kangaroos 1093
West Coast 1034
Geelong 916
Hawthorn 910
St. Kilda 884
Port Adelaide 864
Adelaide 830
Melbourne 829
Western Bulldogs 824
Richmond 818
Brisbane 773
Carlton 740
Essendon 739
Collingwood 736
2004
Club Inter
Fremantle 1086
Sydney 951
Kangaroos 865
West Coast 861
St. Kilda 845
Hawthorn 834
Geelong 782
Richmond 736
Port Adelaide 720
Western Bulldogs 712
Brisbane 652
Carlton 649
Melbourne 638
Adelaide 619
Collingwood 600
Essendon 591
What are your views? Has the RFC already started to recruit players of the calibre as per what the trends suggest, or is there just hype by TW and is he wasting his time? Blunty, I don't think he is wasting his efforts.
What's your views?
(Special thanks to Champion Data
References: http://richmondfc.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=250613
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/05/18/1053196477107.html
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:4stumTae5aQJ:www.aflauskick.com.au/files/grabdoc.php%3Ftype%3Ddoc%26id%3D1%26cid%3D294+interchange+bench+rotations&hl=en&gl=au&ct=clnk&cd=7
Where is the game heading?
Will we see more rotations via the interchange ever before?
Has the game already taken a twist and AFL players are spending less time on the ground?
“In 2000, 66% of all midfielders spent the entire game on the ground – our most recent data from 2004-05 shows that this figure is now less than 20%”. This information, courtesy from Champion Data suggests the trend has already shifted, and that coaches are using this information to structure their teams for the future.
“In 2001, prime mid fielders covered an average of 17km per game – In 2005 the average was closer to 13km”. Champion data again has crunched their numbers to give coaches a statistic that reflects a shift of 17% reduction of ground coverage by AFL players.
“The additional rest players are getting when taken off the ground allows them to work harder (run faster and longer) once they return to the field.” This leads to: More ability to get to contests, harder collisions, more congestion Game played at higher intensity when ball is in play.
So will there be a trend according to the information provided by Champion Data?
Are the coaches prepared for a shift in greater intensity in play?
Lets look at the other side of the coin. Carlton President Ian Collins called for a limit on interchange rotations, saying, “the game was constantly being played at maximum intensity, increasing the risk of injuries”. Then who is right or who is wrong?
Lets look at the last 2 years of interchange rotations;
2005
Club Inter
Sydney 1115
Fremantle 1098
Kangaroos 1093
West Coast 1034
Geelong 916
Hawthorn 910
St. Kilda 884
Port Adelaide 864
Adelaide 830
Melbourne 829
Western Bulldogs 824
Richmond 818
Brisbane 773
Carlton 740
Essendon 739
Collingwood 736
2004
Club Inter
Fremantle 1086
Sydney 951
Kangaroos 865
West Coast 861
St. Kilda 845
Hawthorn 834
Geelong 782
Richmond 736
Port Adelaide 720
Western Bulldogs 712
Brisbane 652
Carlton 649
Melbourne 638
Adelaide 619
Collingwood 600
Essendon 591
What are your views? Has the RFC already started to recruit players of the calibre as per what the trends suggest, or is there just hype by TW and is he wasting his time? Blunty, I don't think he is wasting his efforts.
What's your views?
(Special thanks to Champion Data
References: http://richmondfc.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=250613
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/05/18/1053196477107.html
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:4stumTae5aQJ:www.aflauskick.com.au/files/grabdoc.php%3Ftype%3Ddoc%26id%3D1%26cid%3D294+interchange+bench+rotations&hl=en&gl=au&ct=clnk&cd=7