The Physical Strength of Australian Players

[AngrySeahorse]

It's ridiculous if this is true. They should be lifting seriously heavy weights and getting stronger. They should be carrying less body fat. And a Barbell squat is good, but the Deadlift is the GrandDaddy of them all.

By the way - Alcohol, in my view, should be banned during the season by the Coaching Staff. What other athletes, like Swimmers or Runners or Gymnasts, do you think have ANY alcohol during traing when they are preparing for events? Alcohol will destroy lean muscle mass better than chemo therapy and it's like a fat steroid. It's a toxin. And strength relies on muscle size, pure and simple. There are individual variations but for any given individual, bigger muscles means more strength. So you can destroy a month or more of strength gains in one night of drinking. That is a Fact.

The alcohol part is a big one. I drink alcohol but I try to stay dry during the in-season. I get how it effects strength but also with the dehydration its a killer.

 

[Brumbies Guy]

Once that strength is built, it's application in terms of the functional requirements of the sport, is about technique.

Master technique first, increase/implement strength second. Injuries are inevitable any other way.

There is a difference between building strength - IE - more lean muscle mass - and functional movement.

There's also a big difference between strength and lean muscle mass. It's a common misconception that lean muscle mass is a measure of strength and that they go hand in hand. Look at a bodybuilder's physique vs a powerlifter's for a general comparison. For a board example, you can achieve great lean muscle mass through high repetition bodyweight exercises, and while you will also gain strength, the strength you would gain through progressive resistance training over the same period would be significantly higher.

Two hard and really heavy weight sessions a week (as heavy as the person can go with a structure to build the weight) for up to 90 minutes each with proper recovery

If you're doing a "really heavy weight session" for 90 minutes, you're not doing it heavy enough. For effective strength training, you should be doing low reps with a progressive & heavy weight. You shouldn't be able to sustain this over 90 minutes, by the time you're done it would be more of an endurance/cardio routine.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

So do you build them first and then do the sprint specific training or do you do both at the same time?
Also having read the link you (seahorse) posted I am intrigued as to acceleration: you may have guessed I have a familial interest in this.
One of my offspring is fast enough over anything from 20 to 100 that no one catches him - but he seems slow off the mark: so in a 100m sprint when he comes 2nd or 3rd he does so by the margin established in the frist 20 metres. Can you train this - cos I think the first 10m is the most important in rugby.
BTW he's not the same kid mentioned in my earlier post - who is one the few who can catch him from 20-100 but who is not much interested in rugby.

 

[Karl]

Master technique first, increase/implement strength second. Injuries are inevitable any other way.



There's also a big difference between strength and lean muscle mass. It's a common misconception that lean muscle mass is a measure of strength and that they go hand in hand. Look at a bodybuilder's physique vs a powerlifter's for a general comparison. For a board example, you can achieve great lean muscle mass through high repetition bodyweight exercises, and while you will also gain strength, the strength you would gain through progressive resistance training over the same period would be significantly higher.



If you're doing a "really heavy weight session" for 90 minutes, you're not doing it heavy enough. For effective strength training, you should be doing low reps with a progressive & heavy weight. You shouldn't be able to sustain this over 90 minutes, by the time you're done it would be more of an endurance/cardio routine.

We disagree on a lot of stuff. Pretty much all of it by the looks. Too hard to discuss on here.

 

[BPC]

If you're doing a "really heavy weight session" for 90 minutes, you're not doing it heavy enough. For effective strength training, you should be doing low reps with a progressive & heavy weight. You shouldn't be able to sustain this over 90 minutes, by the time you're done it would be more of an endurance/cardio routine.

To be fair, not every exercise can, and should, be pushed to the point of absolute maximum. And you couldn't sustain maximum for 90 minutes but I don't think this is what Karl meant.

As an example (using a Westside Barbell metholodogy if anyone is familiar with that training) you may pick a maximum effort lower body exercise, a deadlift or squat variant and go for an absolute maximum lift. What with numerous warm-up sets and sufficient rest-time, this could take some time. You may then move on to the volume work, says several sets of good mornings, romanian deadlifts, split squats, or what have you at a much lower intensity to work on hypertrophy, strength-endurance or whatever you are are aiming for. You would probably do two or three different exercises at a reasonable but not maximal intensity for many sets. All up this could easily add up to a 90 minute session.

As an aside, I spoke to someone who trained in the gym that first grade club players trained at. No names will be mentioned to protect the guilty. He said that most came in and faffed around for over an hour. Lots of bench-and-biceps sets to look good at the beach with long rest periods to recover (ie gossip and dump shit on other teams) but hardly anything else. Only a few did squats and none were doing any power lifts/Olympic lifts. No supervision whatsoever. This was a few years ago but I doubt anything has changed much.

 

[Garry Owen]

Something is amiss when our cyclists are world champions and our rugby players are being dominated.

Perhaps we need to recruit some cycling 'sports nutricianists' ?

 

[Schadenfreude]

Brumbies Guy is pretty much spot on.

For rugby, you could do your power/muscle building work easily in 40 min.

Why bother doing large amounts of reps? You can get your cardio benefit at training, they don't increase strength and you want to work on "rugby" technique not "lift heavy things" technique.

Possible exception to this is core strength work.

I always thought if I ended up coaching rugby I would introduce Aikido and Pilates. Core strength, balance, flexibility and power.

 

[cyclopath]

So do you build them first and then do the sprint specific training or do you do both at the same time?
Also having read the link you (seahorse) posted I am intrigued as to acceleration: you may have guessed I have a familial interest in this.
One of my offspring is fast enough over anything from 20 to 100 that no one catches him - but he seems slow off the mark: so in a 100m sprint when he comes 2nd or 3rd he does so by the margin established in the frist 20 metres. Can you train this - cos I think the first 10m is the most important in rugby.
BTW he's not the same kid mentioned in my earlier post - who is one the few who can catch him from 20-100 but who is not much interested in rugby.

It's a curious one, IS. When I was younger, I was a sprinter, as was my best mate. Over 40-50m, I would beat him nearly every time, but never could over 100m. I had a really good start, he had the top end speed. In build terms, he was slighter than me, I had a bigger arse and quads. I always assumed it was the power from the glutes / quads that gave me the advantage initially, but his fast-twitch fibres fired faster than mine! I got to top-end speed faster, but it was less than his. On the footy field, from a jogging start, he was lightning.
I would think some specific power training could do it, without harming top-end speed.
Technique, too, is key in the first 20m.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

but surely your acceleration was useful in rugby

 

[cyclopath]

but surely your acceleration was useful in rugby

It was indeed. Especially for stepping, getting through gaps.
He was always a winger, and very good at it too. I always preferred 12, but played every position in the backline at some stage. His attributes made him a great finisher though. Different benefits, I think.
I really loved sprinting.

 

[hammertimethere]

Wasn't one of the first things said in the thread that though it seemed that our pigs were comparable to their NZ and SA counterparts height and weight wise (I feel in my gut that this is the case, no evidence though), they seemed to be less physically "strong"?

Lets break it down
1. Strength is largely a function of the nervous system, increased muscle mass is really what S and C coaches in non-bodybuilding sports call increased "potential to be strong" (i.e an increase in number and recruitment of predominantly type II fast twitch motor units) just as increased maximal (or "limit") strength can be viewed as increased "potential to be powerful"
2. If this whole concept of our forwards being physically under prepared is indeed not hogwash (remember I'm purely talking physically here - the skill/mental component is another topic, a valid one though), there has to be something happening in the SC environment that is leading to sub-optimal performance. the way I see it there are a few options
- Lack of physical ability, the boys have reached their physical ceiling and must concentrate more on their skills etc. in order to compete with more physically gifted players --> I doubt it, admittedly rugby doesn't attract australia's top athletes (Greg inglis, Israel folau, Nick Riewoldt anyone?) but we do OK, not as big a deal I think as some seem to believe
- Lack of proper emphasis on maximal strength in-season --> possible, if the boys are being periodised incorrectly in their strength training then the Australian SC coaches and the people that hired them should all be sacked. that is an utter disgrace. But to be honest I find this unlikely (not impossible). Their are some really well recognised minds in charge of our Super franchises who reportedly know their stuff.
- Lack of effort and application to in-season weights --> again I find this unlikely but not impossible. The demands are draining but with the help of these reportedly knowledgeable SC coaches the boys should AT LEAST be maintaining their strength, preferably slowly and sustainably building it (Ashley Jones once reported that he had 6 players from the cru break their bench press, squat and power clean PB's the week of the super rugby GF they won in the early 2000's)

WHat do you think? can anyone else add to the list?

 

[Schadenfreude]

Should we now start the discussion point that all the runners are slowing down at the end of the 100m?

The fastest are the ones who can sustain their pace the best.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Wasn't one of the first things said in the thread that though it seemed that our pigs were comparable to their NZ and SA counterparts height and weight wise (I feel in my gut that this is the case, no evidence though), they seemed to be less physically "strong"?

Lets break it down
1. Strength is largely a function of the nervous system, increased muscle mass is really what S and C coaches in non-bodybuilding sports call increased "potential to be strong" (i.e an increase in number and recruitment of predominantly type II fast twitch motor units) just as increased maximal (or "limit") strength can be viewed as increased "potential to be powerful"
2. If this whole concept of our forwards being physically under prepared is indeed not hogwash (remember I'm purely talking physically here - the skill/mental component is another topic, a valid one though), there has to be something happening in the SC environment that is leading to sub-optimal performance. the way I see it there are a few options
- Lack of physical ability, the boys have reached their physical ceiling and must concentrate more on their skills etc. in order to compete with more physically gifted players --> I doubt it, admittedly rugby doesn't attract australia's top athletes (Greg inglis, Israel folau, Nick Riewoldt anyone?) but we do OK, not as big a deal I think as some seem to believe
- Lack of proper emphasis on maximal strength in-season --> possible, if the boys are being periodised incorrectly in their strength training then the Australian SC coaches and the people that hired them should all be sacked. that is an utter disgrace. But to be honest I find this unlikely (not impossible). Their are some really well recognised minds in charge of our Super franchises who reportedly know their stuff.
- Lack of effort and application to in-season weights --> again I find this unlikely but not impossible. The demands are draining but with the help of these reportedly knowledgeable SC coaches the boys should AT LEAST be maintaining their strength, preferably slowly and sustainably building it (Ashley Jones once reported that he had 6 players from the cru break their bench press, squat and power clean PB's the week of the super rugby GF they won in the early 2000's)

WHat do you think? can anyone else add to the list?

The most important. Technique.

Nothing else is anywhere close to being as important.

 

[Bucko]

So do you build them first and then do the sprint specific training or do you do both at the same time?
Also having read the link you (seahorse) posted I am intrigued as to acceleration: you may have guessed I have a familial interest in this.
One of my offspring is fast enough over anything from 20 to 100 that no one catches him - but he seems slow off the mark: so in a 100m sprint when he comes 2nd or 3rd he does so by the margin established in the frist 20 metres. Can you train this - cos I think the first 10m is the most important in rugby.
BTW he's not the same kid mentioned in my earlier post - who is one the few who can catch him from 20-100 but who is not much interested in rugby.

In the first 10 or 20 metres - shorter, quicker steps. Running on the spot, developing leg speed will help .......and skipping. Grab a rope and skip.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

In the first 10 or 20 metres - shorter, quicker steps. Running on the spot, developing leg speed will help .......and skipping. Grab a rope and skip.

Skipping and court sprints was the method I used. For me it was all about acceleration (thanks to my profoundly flat feet) as my top end speed was actually pretty good.

 

[Cave Dweller]

The very large increase in the number of rucks and tackles during the game (pre vs. post 1995) results ina greater impact stress for each player, resulting in varying degrees of muscle damage. the changing laws have resulted in an increased pace of the game, longer duration of activity, and greater amounts of physical contact requiring strength and power.

The game has also evolved to have an increased number of passes, tackles, rucks, tries and ball-in-play time. Overall, these changes have resulted in an increase in the pace of the game and also the amount of physical contact.

Activities during the games at the 1995 (pre-professionalism) and 2007 World Cup tournaments

Activities for the Bledisloe Cup matches played before 1995 (n = 17) compared to the matches played after the onset of professionalism (1995) (n = 9)

Activity cycles per match (rucks, mauls, passes and kicks) at the 2003 and 2007 Rugby World Cup tournaments

I think muscle endurance is one of the most important aspects as its dependent on the muscle being able to contract repetitively without developing fatigue.

Muscle strength is defined as the ability to produce force.
Muscle power is a function of the interaction between force of contraction and the speed of contraction, is associated with the explosiveness of the muscle.
Speed consists of a number of things all of which are independent qualities namely acceleration speed, maximum speed and speed-endurance.
Acceleration the ability to accelerate and cover short distances
Repeat sprint The ability to resist fatigue after repeated short-duration, high-intensity sprints is a fitness characteristic which is important for team sports such as soccer, rugby, football, basketball and netball, to name a few.
Motor co-ordination aka skill is the combined interaction of agility, balance, co-ordination, power, speed and reaction time. In short making decisions as quickly as possible and implementing it.
Flexibility represents the range of motion specific to a joint. Can be random or static
Cardiovascular fitness refers to the collective ability of the cardiovascular system to adjust to the physiological stress of exercise.
and lastly
Body composition which is defined by the proportions of fat, muscle and bone.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Muscle strength is defined as the ability to produce force.
Muscle power is a function of the interaction between force of contraction and the speed of contraction, is associated with the explosiveness of the muscle.
Speed consists of a number of things all of which are independent qualities namely acceleration speed, maximum speed and speed-endurance.
Acceleration the ability to accelerate and cover short distances
Repeat sprint The ability to resist fatigue after repeated short-duration, high-intensity sprints is a fitness characteristic which is important for team sports such as soccer, rugby, football, basketball and netball, to name a few.
Motor co-ordination aka skill is the combined interaction of agility, balance, co-ordination, power, speed and reaction time. In short making decisions as quickly as possible and implementing it.
Flexibility represents the range of motion specific to a joint. Can be random or static
Cardiovascular fitness refers to the collective ability of the cardiovascular system to adjust to the physiological stress of exercise.
and lastly
Body composition which is defined by the proportions of fat, muscle and bone.

Most of that is complete fabrication.

That may be pub speak, loosely, for those qualities, but if you are using those definitions for any application of sport science, you're not doing yourself any favours.

 

[Ignoto]

There are individual variations but for any given individual, bigger muscles means more strength. So you can destroy a month or more of strength gains in one night of drinking. That is a Fact.

How much grog are we talking about?

 

[Karl]

How much grog are we talking about?

Not much. Depends on the idividual, but I have seen my own lean body mass drop 3% from one night drinking say 10 standard drinks and at the same time my bodyfat percentage go up 2%. From 1 night on the turps. I have seen it go 2%/1% from 3 drinks.

 

[Karl]

Here - read this -

http://lablaundry.blogspot.com.au/2009/07/alcohol-body-decompositioning-magic.html