| Own worst enemy?? 13:02 - Sep 10 with 7323 views | borodale4 |
Not that I am anywhere near a Coleman out opinion I just dont feel the guy is helping himself. This is modern era football and no matter what people's opinions are you cant deny sports science and training methods have evolved, however, not seemingly in JC's head. His training sessions are archaic, though admittedly, enjoyed by the majority of players. The club has no full time sports scientist, that makes us the only professional football club in the country to not do this. All teams need a triangle of management; players, management and support staff (eg, strength and conditioning coaches, physios, nutrionalists). If any of these are not up to the required standards success becomes very hard to achieve. In my opinion we are at least failing on the support staff side.
I am aware I posted this as a respose to an ealier post, just fancied seeing people's opinions. [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
|  | | |  |
| Own worst enemy?? on 00:28 - Sep 12 with 1151 views | pl56 |
| Own worst enemy?? on 11:16 - Sep 11 by 49thseason |
Be in no doubt, League two players are bigger, faster, stronger and far better prepared now than they were ten, five, even two years ago. If Rochdale are failing to match our competition in all areas of the game, then we will inevitably fall behind them. Professional athletes now need (and probably expect) a level of preparation that goes far beyond anything John Coleman experienced in his non-league playing days. If he has been unable to sign a sports scientist for financial reasons (or worse didn't want one) then I think he has made a major budgeting error which will show itself in more injuries and lacklustre performances especially during the weeks when we play 3 games in 7 days.
This is no longer a league which allows you to survive by doing things in a half-arsed way it requires a laser-like attention to every detail no matter how small.
|
I think this echoes my view .
If nothing else Hill and Flitcroft should have left a clear template of what brought consistent success at our level . I've read on other threads that what they achieved was a "fluke" . Bollocks , you don't achieve 5.5 years success by fluking it ; there was a clear strategic vision . The principles of that vision should have been key elements in the person specification for those who followed ; I suspect those responsible for the recruitment of successors either failed to recognise whether those they appointed shared the vision , or ignored it themselves . Sports science seemed a key element of the period of success , and if it is disregarded by successors , or not funded by the board , then they are culpable for failing to follow the template .
People also claim we can't compete at the levels we were ; in response I would offer Stevenage as the contrary argument . They too are a team who have over-performed based on gates/income etc . However they have a template for success that their Board appear to have stuck with , and they still over-perform .
My own view is that , if we had stuck with the Hill/Flitcroft template , we would not have seen some of the journeymen we've endured over the past 2 seasons , we'd have stuck with hungry young players as our source of recruitment , and have a balanced side with width and pace . |  | | |
| Own worst enemy?? on 02:00 - Sep 12 with 1137 views | maccawozzagod |
when I was Chairman of the Supporters Club at Accy, we were approached by Coley for funding for some 'sports science' recommended energy drinks. They were endorsed by a who's who of sports stars (who's that? who's this? lol) amongst them was the Arsenal squad. At the time we'd just won the Conference by a huge margin and scored a sackful of goals. We'd settled into League 2 and seemed to be holding our own comfortably ensconced in the play off positions.
Thinking that these fantastic drinks would give us that extra 10 minutes of energy at the end of the match meant that we would piss that tin pot league, we sanctioned the purchase of a wagon load of drinks at a cost of around £700 (twas a powder form thing). I dont think we won for about two months afterwards, we also seemed to get a lot more red cards!
The point is that its all bullshit really, you or me could quite comfortably learn to run for 90 minutes by jogging up and down Owd Betts. Throw on a rucksack full of spuds and you'll garner some new muscles around your shoulders as well. As a previous poster stated, train right and you can eat what you want.
I like to use the example of selecting the right captain, its often said that suchabody started giving an extra 10% when given the armband, and it does seem to be true. State of mind gives a bigger boost to performance than the perceived extra given by eating the right sort of lettuce.
Finally, whatever sports science mumbo jumbo Coley believes in or not, would be the same sort of mumbo jumbo that he utilised at Accy. It was working fine there so should work fine at San Spotty.
I'd be far happier with the suggestion that, bankrolled teams apart, success is pretty much luck for clubs like ours. Every now and again you get the right blend of players, management and fair wind. The rub of the green goes your way and your toast always lands the right way up. For two and a half seasons Coley and his band of misfit released players and free transfers seemed to defy logic and produce results that they had no right to produce. Its not all luck, the manager has to mix the ingredients right, but it goes a hell of a long way | | | |
| Own worst enemy?? on 09:03 - Sep 12 with 1092 views | wimborne_dale |
| Own worst enemy?? on 02:00 - Sep 12 by maccawozzagod |
when I was Chairman of the Supporters Club at Accy, we were approached by Coley for funding for some 'sports science' recommended energy drinks. They were endorsed by a who's who of sports stars (who's that? who's this? lol) amongst them was the Arsenal squad. At the time we'd just won the Conference by a huge margin and scored a sackful of goals. We'd settled into League 2 and seemed to be holding our own comfortably ensconced in the play off positions.
Thinking that these fantastic drinks would give us that extra 10 minutes of energy at the end of the match meant that we would piss that tin pot league, we sanctioned the purchase of a wagon load of drinks at a cost of around £700 (twas a powder form thing). I dont think we won for about two months afterwards, we also seemed to get a lot more red cards!
The point is that its all bullshit really, you or me could quite comfortably learn to run for 90 minutes by jogging up and down Owd Betts. Throw on a rucksack full of spuds and you'll garner some new muscles around your shoulders as well. As a previous poster stated, train right and you can eat what you want.
I like to use the example of selecting the right captain, its often said that suchabody started giving an extra 10% when given the armband, and it does seem to be true. State of mind gives a bigger boost to performance than the perceived extra given by eating the right sort of lettuce.
Finally, whatever sports science mumbo jumbo Coley believes in or not, would be the same sort of mumbo jumbo that he utilised at Accy. It was working fine there so should work fine at San Spotty.
I'd be far happier with the suggestion that, bankrolled teams apart, success is pretty much luck for clubs like ours. Every now and again you get the right blend of players, management and fair wind. The rub of the green goes your way and your toast always lands the right way up. For two and a half seasons Coley and his band of misfit released players and free transfers seemed to defy logic and produce results that they had no right to produce. Its not all luck, the manager has to mix the ingredients right, but it goes a hell of a long way |
So are you saying that Sports Science is tosh? I wonder, if Team GB abandoned Sports Science (and I'm not just talking about powdered drinks) how many golds would they have won? If England Rugby or a Premiership Football Club abandonned Sports Science and just worked on fitness and ball skills and eat-what-you-like, what kind of results would they then produce? I think the world has moved a long way since the days of Jimmy Greaves having pie and chips for lunch before a 3.00pm kick off. We can move with it or reap the consequences. |  |
| |
| Own worst enemy?? on 13:02 - Sep 12 with 1039 views | maccawozzagod |
| Own worst enemy?? on 09:03 - Sep 12 by wimborne_dale |
So are you saying that Sports Science is tosh? I wonder, if Team GB abandoned Sports Science (and I'm not just talking about powdered drinks) how many golds would they have won? If England Rugby or a Premiership Football Club abandonned Sports Science and just worked on fitness and ball skills and eat-what-you-like, what kind of results would they then produce? I think the world has moved a long way since the days of Jimmy Greaves having pie and chips for lunch before a 3.00pm kick off. We can move with it or reap the consequences. |
TEAM GB are Elite Athletes, Premiership footballers are Elite Athletes, Sports Science gets those extra little bits out of them. If an athlete is operating at 95% (talent and fitness) of what is physically acheivable then the little bits extra count.
A Tier 4 athlete operating at about 60% of what is acheivable isn't particularly going to see a noticeable difference.
Its not all tosh at all, but if you are a poor club (and most L2 clubs are) then sinking a hundred grand into something like that seems daft. I might be old fashioned but in terms of value for money I dont think its worthwhile below Tiers 1 or 2 | | | |
| Own worst enemy?? on 13:27 - Sep 12 with 1025 views | maybee |
| Own worst enemy?? on 13:02 - Sep 12 by maccawozzagod |
TEAM GB are Elite Athletes, Premiership footballers are Elite Athletes, Sports Science gets those extra little bits out of them. If an athlete is operating at 95% (talent and fitness) of what is physically acheivable then the little bits extra count.
A Tier 4 athlete operating at about 60% of what is acheivable isn't particularly going to see a noticeable difference.
Its not all tosh at all, but if you are a poor club (and most L2 clubs are) then sinking a hundred grand into something like that seems daft. I might be old fashioned but in terms of value for money I dont think its worthwhile below Tiers 1 or 2 |
I disagree Macca.
In the very top tier, the science bit will enhance performance by a smaller % because those athletes/footballers are performing closer to their maximum potential. (i.e; there isn't much left to improve on)
As you drop down the tiers, using your figure of say 60% of potential, the introduction of Sports Science will have a greater effect.
I reckon that a 10% increase in performance is attainable by correct sports science usage at our level...wheras it will be 1-2% in the very top level.
10% when equated to a season of performances could add another 5 points to an average team, or perhaps 6-7 points to one capable of challenging for the play offs.
Of course; it's all down to interpretation, and some will argue that the money allocated to Sports Science would be better suited to buying one additional player. My own view is that you should always try to get the best out of those players at your disposal, and having seen the results that Hillcroft produced (many "broken toys/cast offs becoming saleable assets) I know where I stand on the argument. |  | | |
| Own worst enemy?? on 13:55 - Sep 12 with 1007 views | Sandy_Lane |
The problem with the 'adding an extra 1%' argument is that you've still got the same donkey of a CB who can't control it. He may be able to run 1% further and be 1% stronger, etc. but if he mis-controls a pass and that lets the opposition striker clean through then his extra 1% is worth FA.
Unfortunately at our level the number of basic mistakes/inadequacies mean that adding 1% is, in the grand scheme of things, pointless.
For a real life example - if you make Jon Boardman 1% fitter, you've still got Jon Boardman, just a 1% fitter (not better) version. | | | |
| Own worst enemy?? on 14:02 - Sep 12 with 999 views | pl56 |
| Own worst enemy?? on 13:27 - Sep 12 by maybee |
I disagree Macca.
In the very top tier, the science bit will enhance performance by a smaller % because those athletes/footballers are performing closer to their maximum potential. (i.e; there isn't much left to improve on)
As you drop down the tiers, using your figure of say 60% of potential, the introduction of Sports Science will have a greater effect.
I reckon that a 10% increase in performance is attainable by correct sports science usage at our level...wheras it will be 1-2% in the very top level.
10% when equated to a season of performances could add another 5 points to an average team, or perhaps 6-7 points to one capable of challenging for the play offs.
Of course; it's all down to interpretation, and some will argue that the money allocated to Sports Science would be better suited to buying one additional player. My own view is that you should always try to get the best out of those players at your disposal, and having seen the results that Hillcroft produced (many "broken toys/cast offs becoming saleable assets) I know where I stand on the argument. |
I'm with you on this .
Sports Science may mean different things to different people , but for me its systematic analysis of factors contributing to each individual's performance to maximise areas like agility , stamina , pace , speed of action and thought etc for every participant . Like you , I reckon a small increase of say 1% in each one can potentially improve team performance by 10% or more . It is certainly much more than merely quaffing energy drinks/supplements
The concept of running up and down Owd Bett's all day treats everyone the same , and may well improve one facet (stamina) , but it does not necessarily maximise improvement in all equally . It also does nothing for pace , agility , or the mental side of things . These are all key in elite sportsmen , and if well paid , full time professional sportsmen are not in that "elite" class , then God help us . | | | |
| Own worst enemy?? on 14:10 - Sep 12 with 995 views | wimborne_dale |
| Own worst enemy?? on 13:27 - Sep 12 by maybee |
I disagree Macca.
In the very top tier, the science bit will enhance performance by a smaller % because those athletes/footballers are performing closer to their maximum potential. (i.e; there isn't much left to improve on)
As you drop down the tiers, using your figure of say 60% of potential, the introduction of Sports Science will have a greater effect.
I reckon that a 10% increase in performance is attainable by correct sports science usage at our level...wheras it will be 1-2% in the very top level.
10% when equated to a season of performances could add another 5 points to an average team, or perhaps 6-7 points to one capable of challenging for the play offs.
Of course; it's all down to interpretation, and some will argue that the money allocated to Sports Science would be better suited to buying one additional player. My own view is that you should always try to get the best out of those players at your disposal, and having seen the results that Hillcroft produced (many "broken toys/cast offs becoming saleable assets) I know where I stand on the argument. |
I think you've hit the nail on the head there Maybee. The key to success at our level is getting the best out of the players we can afford. This happens in other sports too. Sometimes a county cricket team will punch well above its weight owing to an inspired captain or coach that knows how to get the best out of his players and can get them working together and for each other, even though they may not be supersatars in their own right. I think that was also Hillcroft's strength.
When you say "10% when equated to a season of performances could add another 5 points to an average team", I would suggest it could well be considerably more. A 10% better performance might equate to turning close defeatsd into draws and draws into wins. Think of the points that would rack up. Also you often get tight subgroups forming in the leagues, e.g. 3 or 4 teams within a point of each other chasing the last promition place. That's when small percentages count.
It is also worth pointing out that a fitter team is less likely to fade in the dying stages and concede late goals. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Own worst enemy?? on 14:49 - Sep 12 with 983 views | maccawozzagod |
fair comments I suppose but you'd still not change my mind!
Before your friends down the road signed Andy Bishop Coley was apparently close to signing him, at the time we lost out by a couple of hundred quid a week. "Greedy Bastard, good riddance" we all said at the time, then he had a career purple patch and we all thought "tight bastards, should have paid it" At the time Stanley simply didn't have the money, but we did have a goalkeeper coach, a fitness coach, an away travel coach .....
horses for courses but for me its something for the affluent clubs to spunk their money | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
