roosters up against warriors

[Penelope Pittstop]

I personally have no idea what fitness level the Warriors are. What I am aware of is that the Roosters have a great fitness trainer in Ronnie Palmer. The Bulldogs are the latest team to follow Ronnies lead, in introducing Body Science as part of their training regime.

 

[dice]

If you guys can't tell the difference in physique and fitness levels between the roosters forwards and NZ forwards then you have no idea. Keep your blinkers on boys 'cause your fats boys will get whats coming to them. I hope the semis are played in 40 degree heat just so you can remember what it was like on that hot day we smashed your fat boys 44-0 :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

If you guys can't tell the difference in physique and fitness levels between the roosters forwards and NZ forwards then you have no idea. Keep your blinkers on boys 'cause your fats boys will get whats coming to them. I hope the semis are played in 40 degree heat just so you can remember what it was like on that hot day we smashed your fat boys 44-0

Would you please explain it to us then, rather than talking sh!!t?

 

[Penelope Pittstop]

Thierry Henry I will not tolerate language or abuse in this forum.

Your post has been edited.

 

[dice]

Would you please explain it to us then, rather than talking shit?

It is common knowledge the roosters are the fittest team in the comp. In a blip fitness test earlier this year the roosters had 14 players pass a certain level of fitness (can't remember the rating) whereas most teams are lucky to have 5 or 6 players with the same level of fitness. In Ron Palmer's words "This years roosters are fitter than any team I have been associated with and even fitter than last years premiership team". Don't forget Ron is also the NSW and Australian trainer.

You just have to take our look at some of our bigger players. Fitzy is an 80 minute fitness freak as is Ricketson even after 40 tackles in a game. Cayless and Morley have very low body fat levels and are very mobile for guys that size. Compared to Villisanti, Seu Seu, Lauiti'iti, Guttenbeil, and Paleaaesina, it really is no contest in the fitness stakes. I am not sure why you can't see it and have a problem with it.

 

[ozzie]

It's true that the Roosters fans have taken the loss pretty well. Sorry about appearing to bag you because I didn't really mean it.

However, I think both Ricky Stuart and Brad Fittler made ridiculous comments. Fittler said that Webb took a minute, then the clock was stopped, then he "stood over the ball for a minute and a half" (or something to that effect) which is a ridiculous exaggeration. If you have a look at the clock on all of Webb's kicks, Mander stopped the clock within 30-45 seconds, and either restarted it when Webb had taken the kick, or when he was back to his mark. Sure, it seems like Webb takes an awful long time just standing at the top of his mark, but realistically, it's no more than 30 seconds. Stuarts claim that the 2 or 3 extra minutes Webb might have wasted (if any) led to there being only 71 (he wrongly said 69) sets of six in the game, as opposed to the usual 84 or 85, is also ludicrous.

Also, I would love to know your sources about the Warriors players being unfit? I assume you have all of their fitness test results on hand? Otherwise, I can't think of any possible reason for such comments except a racial motive.

Therry here are the stats from the Telegraph as per time lost and you can see why fans are complaining about time lost in games:

Brent Webb 7 attempts - game time used 10 minutes 16 secs, time off by ref 2 minutes 51 seconds making a total time being used for attempted kicks 13 minutes 7 secs..

Chris Walker 5 attempts - game time used 7 minutes 28 secs, time off 27 secs - total time taken 7 min 55 secs

Brad Fittler attempt 1 min 31 secs, time off 27 secs total time used 2 min 11 secs

Now it is obvious to anyone that something has to be done - that makes a total of 19 minutes 15 seconds for BOTH sides being used with only 3 minutes 58 seconds blown off making a total time of 23 mins 13 secs total time taken..

If this keeps going the fans will be issued with miners lights to attend games in the future.. Keep your ear to the group the swelling of the fans upset about this is rising...

Some interesting items from the article in particular are: Coaches believe the refeees could call time-out when a try is awarded and the stop watch put back on when a kicker is poised to strike the ball. Not a bad idea - then the player can use the time he normally does if he has a set routine..

Anderson said it is for the NRL to look at and not for the players to worry about - true...

Gallop - referreees have the discetion under the games international laws to blow time off..true.
Gallop again - it is not in the best interest of the game to have too much time lost by goalkicking...true

Ray Chesterton Makes the statement and I quote "watching and waiting for Webb to kick a goal seems longer than the gestation period for a female elephant..longer than the Roman Empire to fall - he could teach Trappist monks about mediation"

Webb and other goal kickers like him (I like this part) are another intrusion into a game that now has more stoppages than the Waterside Workers union at their best.

Now that your theory of the ref blowing time off has been torn asunder - lets talk realistically about what can be done to stop the constant drainage of time that the fans come to watch. If I pay $18.00 I want to see 80 minutes of football not 60 and twenty minutes of two goal kickers have shots at goal..Boy i am looking forward to a game between canberra and Auckland in a semi..Webb and Shifcoskie - the players would be sitting on the half way line awaiting the kicks to be taken.. They wouldn't need a shower after the game because they wouldn't raise a sweat!!

 

[dice]

Ozzie, stopping the clock won't solve all the problems. The reason many teams waste time is to give their big forwards a break. Start stopping the clock and players will just take even longer to give their forwards an even bigger break. I really think we need a shot clock for kicks and to start awarding penalties for teams wasting time during scrums.

 

[ozzie]

either way mate they still get the break - but my idea of losing the penalty kick or conversion after 90 seconds should be introduced..how about if they have a conversion and it takes more than 90 seconds - they have to kick off and lose the conversion attempt.

 

[Anonymous]

Dice, do you even know who Guttenbeil is? :lol:

Ozzie, I'll take your word about the stats on kicking time, although I watched the game, watched the clock closely on every kick, and saw nothing of the sort :? But it doesn't bother me anyway :lol:

 

[ExJnrKiwi]

Gos from the NRL indicates that a 2min shot clock will introduced next year. Time will probably start from when the kicker has a tee, sand or whatever to take his kick.

Dice - fitness is a subjective thing. There are several different types of fitness and Beep tests only measure aerobic fitness (running). There is no test for measuring upper body fitness nor do I think there ever will be an objective one designed.

Every team has a different composition of players with a wide range of body types. Each role within a team requires a different focus on fitness.

The Warriors are predominantly polynesian with their inherent genetic differences to european physiology. They have a higher bone mass and density, higher percentage of anerobic (fast twitch) muscle fibre than europeans and different physiological and biomechanical characteristics to europeans.

Trainers base program design around all these things and in conjunction with coaching objectives. While the Roosters probably have one of the highest aerobic fitness levels of all teams few match the Warriors for anerobic fitness - horses for courses I'm afraid.

 

[dice]

ExJnrKiwi, very true what you have said and there lies the problem. An anaerobically fit team will dominate for short periods of time but require lots of breaks to replenish their fuel supplies, whereas an aerobically fit team requires a free flowing game to wear the opposition down. You then get the situation where both teams will try the play the game to their advantage and can be aided by different reffing styles.

BTW, I don't have a problem with what the warriors did on sunday as it was all within the rules. The problem I have is with the rules and consistency between the refs . It is farcical to think that the roosters fate in the semis could be determined by whether or not we get Bill Harrigan who favours a free flowing game.

 

[ExJnrKiwi]

ExJnrKiwi, very true what you have said and there lies the problem. An anaerobically fit team will dominate for short periods of time but require lots of breaks to replenish their fuel supplies, whereas an aerobically fit team requires a free flowing game to wear the opposition down. You then get the situation where both teams will try the play the game to their advantage and can be aided by different reffing styles.

The Warriors match fitness levels are as good as any other team in the comp. I think Lockeyer said of the Bronco's Vs Warriors game the other week that that game was almost SOO intensity. Hard to argue with that.

The Warriors not only have a sufficiently well developed aerobic fitness level capable of matching it with any team in the comp but their anaerobic (strength, power etc) capacity is second to none. It's what makes the Warrior forward pack one of the most intimidating and hard to handle of all the teams.

Its unlikely that a free flowing game would hinder the Warriors considering they are renowned for their ability in this area.

 

[Anonymous]

Dice, do you even know who Guttenbeil is? :lol:

Ozzie, I'll take your word about the stats on kicking time, although I watched the game, watched the clock closely on every kick, and saw nothing of the sort :? But it doesn't bother me anyway :lol:

I never saw the game - that is why I had to rely on the stats as per the telegraph..but the fans from all clubs are being cheated and it is time that a foot is put down - i think I am echoing thoughts of many a fan - not only Rooster fans...

That is very weird. That last paragraph is definitely not mine.

 

[dice]

That is very weird. That last paragraph is definitely not mine.

You can't even remember what you said and you expect us to take you seriously? :lol:

ExJnrKiwi, I don't believe the Warriors are as aerobically fit as the roosters, panthers, or bulldogs. But we'll agree to disagree on that one.

 

[ExJnrKiwi]

ExJnrKiwi, I don't believe the Warriors are as aerobically fit as the roosters, panthers, or bulldogs. But we'll agree to disagree on that one.

Its a moot point. There are 3 primary energy systems: aerobic (<80%max), anerobic alactic (>80% - <95%) and anerobic lactic (>95%). Sports trainers design programs that influence all 3 so that overall performance is optimal. Its a bit like tuning the carb on a car but it depends on how you drive the car as to how you tune it.

A players aerobic base is instrumental in recovery from anaerobic exercise, however, lab tests indicate that an athlete needs to exercise at 70 -80% of max to recover the quickest. This rarely happens in RL. This means that regardless of aerobic fitness levels if a player cannot work aerobically at optimal levels to recover from anaerobic effort recovery will be delayed. Repeated bouts of anaerobic activity accumulate and eventually debilitate the player to the extent they usually become exhausted and have to stop.

While the Roosters may have the highest aerobic fitness levels of any team the gap between them and other teams may not be an advantage. Many trainers are coming to the conclusion that once a certain level of aerobic fitness has been reached there is no further benefit to be gained from trying to improve it to an even higher level.

Aerobic fitness alone is a poor indicator of general fitness. For example a 100m sprinter can do more work and recover faster than a 10 000m runner yet the 10k runner will have a much higher aerobic thresh hold. A game of RL is a complex mix of all 3 energy systems and applies differently to the variety of body types and the position played.

The true test of team's fitness is how much work the team can do, at what intensity and how quickly it can recover to repeat more work all over an 80 min period. Most teams only have 2-4 players who can handle big workloads - eg Ricketson, Tallis etc. You'll find that in a team something like 30% of the players do 60 - 70% of the work.

So when you say the Roosters have a high aerobic fitness level and they have more players who score higher on beep tests - to me its almost irrelevant. If you had 17 players that could work at Ricketson's rate and intensity over 80mins then you'd be talking.

 

[dice]

Why would you dismiss a blip test? It is the closest thing you will get to running 10m make a tackle, go back 10m, run up 10m, make a tackle, penalty do it all over again, line drop out do it all over again. It forces a player onto the lactic threshold and stay there for a couple minutes. Whilst it is no guarantee that the player can last 80 minutes (endurance) it is highly likely that a player that is aerobically fitter would last longer than a player that is anaerobically fitter.

By saying the Warriors are anaerobically superior and also being able to last the 80 minutes as well as any other team is like saying a 100m sprinter or a powerlifter is capable of running a 10km event as well as a 400m runner or a 1500m runner. It ain't going to happen.

As for 80 minute players, all of the roosters team with the exception of the two front rowers are 80 minute players. No other team has that level of fitness and "endurance". Do you really think it was a fluke that the roosters won all their games in last years finals in the last twenty minutes?

 

[RoostarGirl]

No Dice that was no fluke....we mowed them all down in the last 20 minutes because we were mentally and physically better than the rest of them.

I reckon its time you guys took it outside :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[ExJnrKiwi]

First of all Beep tests are a poor measure of aerobic capacity. They start off aerobic and as the time between beeps shortens the exercise eventually becomes anaerobic. All they measure is how long it takes to reach exhaustion with a gradual increase in intensity. It doesn't measure or indicate steady state aerobic capacity nor recovery ability.

Secondly there is no upper body involvement to any degree in a beep test so including tackling as an aspect is not relevant.

The beep test is just one of many tests used to measure fitness. On their own they have little relevancy and are open to distorted interpretations.

 

[Anonymous]

You can't even remember what you said and you expect us to take you seriously?

Well, it's pretty obvious that that paragraph was from a Rooster fan P.O.V. Maybe some dirty moderator taking the piss?

 

[ExJnrKiwi]

You can't even remember what you said and you expect us to take you seriously?

Well, it's pretty obvious that that paragraph was from a Rooster fan P.O.V. Maybe some dirty moderator taking the piss?

Have to admit I don't recall seeing that para when I 1st read your post.