Rd 8: NSFW Waratahs vs The Auckland Blues

[Quick Hands]

well call them and ask for it. What are you intending to do with it? i.e. are you qualified to properly analyse it?

Well, I can read and if something has been scientifically examined by qualified experts I can read what they say and come to a conclusion based on evidence rather than emotion. Usually these papers are published somewhere by universities etc. and are available to be read by all of us in these days of information technology. You're perfectly entitled to accept at face value what is presented to you, but I don't know why you seem threatened by others asking to see some research or studies which can give a scientific basis to what is occurring.

 

[Quick Hands]

.

Makes me think this is all a Shute Shield/NSWRU conspiracy to piss off RA.

No funding revenge like having to answer complicated strength and conditioning journalists questions through the media

Wow, you've come out of left field with this one. Break out the tin foil hats.

So, now people asking for evidence to support an assertation are engaged in some sort of cosmic conspiracy to bring down RA.

From my observations, RA need no help in stuffing things up.

 

[Quick Hands]

And that's where this whole resting policy becomes disputable. Even if there are small gains are they actually going to make a difference? I don't remember losing games last year because of a lack of fitness but I do remember some very strange selections and questionable defensive patterns. In fact we played a lot better against Ireland before the players were put through Cheika's fitness gauntlet before the Rugby Championship. Seems to me like we're trying to solve something that wasn't really a great issue to start with.

And on the other side, the resting policy has meant we've got players like Beale, who have been stuffed around for the first half of the season, completely out of form.

That's the thing. His approach to fitness and training has never been particularly scientific and now we're asked to believe that he's employing cutting edge S & C programmes (without any scientific evidence to support any of it)

 

[Quick Hands]

I think it would be very clear it's not going to make a tremendous amount of difference.

You're trying to get small gains that could make the difference at the business end of the year.

There's also very limited times when they can get more fitness/strength work into players as the season wears on. Players get banged up and managing them from week to week becomes a crucial factor.

Observation is a big part of science. They are very definitely consulting with sports science companies and collecting a log of data about player workloads and efforts etc. They measure pretty much everything. I can guarantee you this isn't just some guy standing on the sideline speculating about what he thinks is a good idea.

You make some sensible points, although I'd be interested in how you came to the conclusion in the last sentence.

 

[Braveheart81]

You make some sensible points, although I'd be interested in how you came to the conclusion in the last sentence.

Because I know that they collect a large amount of data through GPS of what players do in training and games etc.

 

[Quick Hands]

Because I know that they collect a large amount of data through GPS of what players do in training and games etc.

That's not what I was alluding to. I was talking about this statement:

I can guarantee you this isn't just some guy standing on the sideline speculating about what he thinks is a good idea.

 

[fatprop]

You make some sensible points, although I'd be interested in how you came to the conclusion in the last sentence.

Dean Benton is the current S&C guy, he isn't an idiot

 

[Quick Hands]

Dean Benton is the current S&C guy, he isn't an idiot

Nobody said he was. People are just asking for published scientific evidence to support what's happening. As yet nobody has produced any research or study on which things are based.

 

[Braveheart81]

That's not what I was alluding to. I was talking about this statement:

I can guarantee you this isn't just some guy standing on the sideline speculating about what he thinks is a good idea.

That's what I was replying to.

As in they have the data that shows the loads players have gone through and what they're individually capable of. There is plenty of research out there about fitness, loading and injuries.

 

[Braveheart81]

Nobody said he was. People are just asking for published scientific evidence to support what's happening. As yet nobody has produced any research or study on which things are based.

There's lots of studies on fitness, loading and injuries for professional sportspeople.

 

[Number 7]

That's what I was replying to.

As in they have the data that shows the loads players have gone through and what they're individually capable of. There is plenty of research out there about fitness, loading and injuries.

Spot on. All the Super Teams and the Wallabies are clients of Catapult Sports who supply the worlds leading player data analytics to Rugby, EPL, NFL, etc teams. Included in their modules are load management systems. The analytics and athlete management technology came out of the AIS to support the Australian Olympic program. I reckon they're pretty on top of it.

https://www.catapultsports.com/blog/australian-wallabies-rugby-gps

 

[KOB1987]

Nobody said he was. People are just asking for published scientific evidence to support what's happening. As yet nobody has produced any research or study on which things are based.

Because us armchair muppets don't have a copy of the research at hand does that mean it doesn't exist? I'd suggest that the research does exist and that the RWC program being employed is based on consultation with experience sports management professionals, and therefore that the onus should be on you to find evidence to the contrary.

Secondly, it's been widely stated that the players aren't being rested as such, they are being given a program to work on during their 'rest' window to improve their level of conditioning without the need to taper for a game, that's why they are getting the game off. Presumably the program varies for each position, more probably each player.

I have a strange stance to this super season, I'm not at all invested in the outcomes of the games, I still like to see the Tahs win though of course, but I'm more interested in the performance of the individual players and some combinations across all our franchises, particularly the potential Wallabies. I literally just can't wait for the RWC.

 

[Up the Guts]

That's what I was replying to.

As in they have the data that shows the loads players have gone through and what they're individually capable of. There is plenty of research out there about fitness, loading and injuries.

Having access to data doesn’t really mean anything if you’re formulating the wrong conclusions based on that data. There’s plenty of research out there on volume management and the benefits for sports like weightlifting but I don’t see that as being particularly informative for rugby. At the end of the day are a couple of extra hill sessions in March going to translate to a better performance in the RWC, not particularly in my opinion. If Kerevi has to remain in Australia is this going to hurt the Reds tour of SA, almost certainly. The trade off is just not worth it imho.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I am willing to accept that there might be more than seat of the pants pseudo-science at work with the resting policy, but I can't see how it is being applied to achieve the most benefit when it is up to the Super Rugby clubs to decide when to rest the players involved. It still looks quite amateurish to me.

 

[Braveheart81]

At the end of the day are a couple of extra hill sessions in March going to translate to a better performance in the RWC, not particularly in my opinion.

I guess it comes back to wanting the players to be fitter and if you want to do that there are very limited windows in which to do it.

If you're going to work a player particularly hard it also can only be done in weeks where they aren't playing a game.

 

[KOB1987]

I am willing to accept that there might be more than seat of the pants pseudo-science at work with the resting policy, but I can't see how it is being applied to achieve the most benefit when it is up to the Super Rugby clubs to decide when to rest the players involved. It still looks quite amateurish to me.

I'd say they have told Cheika & Benton and co which players they plan to rest and for which games, or have least been asked to report their plans on a regular basis, so that they can formulate something around that.

 

[Quick Hands]

That's what I was replying to.

As in they have the data that shows the loads players have gone through and what they're individually capable of. There is plenty of research out there about fitness, loading and injuries.

There is plenty of research and all the ones that I have read recently indicate that resting players during the competition phase can actually lead to an increased risk of injury as the body's routine of exercise and recovery is interrupted. This is why I have asked to be referred to studies which say otherwise or provide some scientific basis for what is happening. To date nobody has been able to cite such as study. Broad generalisations such as plenty of research out there about fitness, loading and injuries aren't evidence of anything.

 

[Quick Hands]

Because us armchair muppets don't have a copy of the research at hand does that mean it doesn't exist? I'd suggest that the research does exist and that the RWC program being employed is based on consultation with experience sports management professionals, and therefore that the onus should be on you to find evidence to the contrary.

If you want to describe yourself as an armchair muppet, go right ahead. I wouldn't use that term to describe you or anyone else on these threads. I actually find it quite odd that people become so resentful when they are asked to produce evidence to support what they want others to believe. If I was trying to convince people of something, I'd spend a bit of time searching for evidence to support what I was trying to say.

You seem to have quite a short memory, as I provided two research papers on another game thread which questioned the proposition that player rotation lessens risk of injury. In fact both suggested that they opposite was more likely. I'll keeping looking around myself, because I'm one of those people who like to expand their knowledge by reading research and studies prior to coming to opinions.

Secondly, it's been widely stated that the players aren't being rested as such, they are being given a program to work on during their 'rest' window to improve their level of conditioning without the need to taper for a game, that's why they are getting the game off. Presumably the program varies for each position, more probably each player.

.

I'd like to know the scientific basis for this. I'm not saying it's wrong, I just like to form opinions based on evidence not just what other people tell me. In fact, I've never said that the strategy is wrong, I've simply questioned it's basis and pointed to research which indicated that certain things had been questioned.

For some reason you and a couple of others get all hot under the collar when asked to prove a position using evidence. It's actually quite a lazy intellectual approach to say that just because one doesn't have evidence to support one's argument that it doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't exist.

It used to be the case that differing views could be discussed rationally, perhaps this is the wrong place for that?

 

[KOB1987]

There is plenty of research and all the ones that I have read recently indicate that resting players during the competition phase can actually lead to an increased risk of injury as the body's routine of exercise and recovery is interrupted. This is why I have asked to be referred to studies which say otherwise or provide some scientific basis for what is happening. To date nobody has been able to cite such as study. Broad generalisations such as plenty of research out there about fitness, loading and injuries aren't evidence of anything.

But they aren't being rested. Their workload is being altered or even increased specific to a particular program and continuing over the lead up to the game when they would normally be tapering. I'm sure there is some science to what they are doing but unless we know what it is they are actually doing it's impossible to make judgement either way, let alone produce a thesis on the matter. You're just seeing that they aren't playing and making the assumption that that's the result of the 'rest strategy'.

As an aside I think your Googling found the same article I did. Yes it did make mention of lessening the workload and hence lowering fitness levels mid season resulting in a higher incidence of injury. It also makes mention of fatigue leading to more injuries. I didn't post it at the time because it doesn't seem particularly relevant to what the players are actually doing. But here it is:

https://www.scienceforsport.com/acutechronic-workload-ratio/

 

[Up the Guts]

I am willing to accept that there might be more than seat of the pants pseudo-science at work with the resting policy, but I can't see how it is being applied to achieve the most benefit when it is up to the Super Rugby clubs to decide when to rest the players involved. It still looks quite amateurish to me.

I don't think anyone has necessarily suggested it is pseudo-science. More that it would be good to see what outcomes resting is supposed to be beneficial for (is it better performance, reduced injury, or linking the two together?), how the research delineates between high and low injury prone players and how significant the overall effect of these rest/fitness blocks are on whatever outcomes it is supposed to be beneficial for (if it's relatively insignificant then a closer weigh up of the costs and benefits may be needed).