Dogs to have NAB Cup bite, again

[Scraggers]

Dogs to have NAB Cup bite, again

DESPITE seeming to suffer a NAB Cup premiership hangover last year, ruckman Ben Hudson says the Western Bulldogs won't be taking the upcoming competition lightly.

The Dogs beat St Kilda in the 2010 pre-season grand final, but struggled to hit top form in their opening home and away matches.

As a result, some tinkering has been done to their training load this time around.

"There are always changes from year to year but there's been no major overhaul," Hudson told afl.com.au.

"Billy Davoren (head of physical conditioning) is in his third year now, so he's been able to have a good system in place and we've pretty much followed that.

"I suppose now that Christmas is out of the way we can all see that the games are ahead of us.

Link

[LostDoggy]

Huddo loves having a dig at teammates, doesn't he? Love the quip about Veszpremi's mixing skills.

[Before I Die]

The below is quoted from a Brent Harvey interview. Does anybody have a handle on these selection rules? Does it mean Geelong not only get a longer rest, they can also select fresh players whereas we cannot? It does not seem fair at all.

NORTH Melbourne captain Brent Harvey says the rules for the first round of next month's NAB Cup are unfair on teams that have to play two matches in a row.
North plays Geelong at Skilled Stadium in the round-robin NAB Cup over two 20-minute halves on February 20 before taking on the Western Bulldogs later the same day.

Geelong then faces the Bulldogs in the late match.

As North play two consecutive matches, the only changes they can make to their 26-man team from game one to game two can come from their three emergencies.

But Geelong, playing in the opening game and the third match, can make unlimited selection changes. Essendon is in the same situation as Geelong and coach james Hird said today the Bombers could use every available player over the two games.

"You'd probably want it to be an even playing field over the whole lot," Harvey said at Arden St today.

"The rules probably need to be set for the whole three teams on the day.

"We've got a lot of young guys who are going to miss out.

[divvydan]

Essentially that's the case. Clubs who have the break in between matches were concerned that the cooling down and then re-starting could cause a number of injuries and so the AFL have decided that those teams can make an unlimited number of changes for their second match.

[boydogs]

It makes it hard to take it seriously doesn't it

[mjp]

They are only half games...do you guys seriously think this is going to make a difference??? 26 players is AMPLE...using 40? Whatever - you would have to almost set up two teams with one running off and another running on like a local comp trial game.

Brad Scott wants to play Majak does he? Awesome - PLAY him then.

This is such a non-issue. If North honestly believe that the 40th player on their list is the difference between them winning and losing the competition then boy are they in trouble.

[Before I Die]

They are only half games...do you guys seriously think this is going to make a difference??? 26 players is AMPLE...using 40? Whatever - you would have to almost set up two teams with one running off and another running on like a local comp trial game.

Brad Scott wants to play Majak does he? Awesome - PLAY him then.

This is such a non-issue. If North honestly believe that the 40th player on their list is the difference between them winning and losing the competition then boy are they in trouble.

My issue is that these are games are part of a supposedly meaningful competition, yet the rules are not the same for the two teams competing. If there is no advantage either way, why not make the rules the same for both teams? Either both teams are restricted, or neither team is.

As for the separate question of whether there actually is an advantage.

Well a lot of coaches seem to believe that fresh legs are everything, and legs that have already run for half a game are not as fresh as legs that haven't.

Would the 27th player on fresh legs be more value than the 20th player who has played for a half?

If we don't care too much about winning, wouldn't it be nice to give our players coming off pre-season ops and our veterans just half a game to ease into the season?

[boydogs]

My issue is that these are games are part of a supposedly meaningful competition, yet the rules are not the same for the two teams competing. If there is no advantage either way, why not make the rules the same for both teams? Either both teams are restricted, or neither team is.

As for the separate question of whether there actually is an advantage.

Well a lot of coaches seem to believe that fresh legs are everything, and legs that have already run for half a game are not as fresh as legs that haven't.

Would the 27th player on fresh legs be more value than the 20th player who has played for a half?

If we don't care too much about winning, wouldn't it be nice to give our players coming off pre-season ops and our veterans just half a game to ease into the season?

Nice post. I agree that fresh legs and being able to give gametime to as many players as possible are distinct advantages.

[mjp]

My issue is that these are games are part of a supposedly meaningful competition, yet the rules are not the same for the two teams competing. If there is no advantage either way, why not make the rules the same for both teams? Either both teams are restricted, or neither team is.

Yeah....but one team is playing continuous footy and the other team has to deal with the whole cool-down issue...the conditions aren't the same. The rule has been introduced to protect players - especially vets - from the risks of cooling down/playing again and have been recommended by the medical guys.

The conditions of play aren't the same hence the rule isn't the same.

As for the separate question of whether there actually is an advantage.

Well a lot of coaches seem to believe that fresh legs are everything, and legs that have already run for half a game are not as fresh as legs that haven't.

Would the 27th player on fresh legs be more value than the 20th player who has played for a half?

If we don't care too much about winning, wouldn't it be nice to give our players coming off pre-season ops and our veterans just half a game to ease into the season?

Well, all of that is fair enough in some respects, but go back to Harvey's complaint and the example about Majak Daw. Is it about winning or giving players a shot?

He quotes the Majak example because he wants to give the kid a go - you are talking about winning. Which is the real issue?

I contend that fresh legs will not be much of an issue in this competition and 26 players is a massive number to rotate across 4 quarters...midfielders and high hf's will only be going for 3 or 4 minutes MAX with these sort of player numbers.

They will be fine.