These pics bring back the pain suffered this morning after all night celebrations. It was all worth it.
I Do not but at all the poor conditioning…not at all…I see very good cosaches in S&C , specially in NZ and even in Italy…the pace of the game and the phisical side improved enormously.
Frome the material I have, I see maybe it is not up to top football S&C, but still light years ahead of sports like soccer it that field
I agree with you on the Football, I would not know about soccer. I do not however factor in football as its the second dirtiest sport after cycling. We can still learn a hell of a lot from them, but you can not remotely compare the two sports. Thus, their techniques coupled with a few other things work wonderfully well. But those techniques in S&C will not necessarily work for rugby.
Interesting… Why don’t you list all the requirements of a rugby player in terms of critical performance pre-requisites? Then we can discuss how to move forward. I think that sometimes people are loath to look at other sports because of pre-conceptions and pre-judgements…
“a few other things”…interesting.
Those other thing are not to be discussed here.
To be honost Martn, I don’t think one can truelly compare sports with each other, you can use isolated things from other sports, but you can not compare. Even more important: we can not compare athletes from different sports, the requirements are just so diffrent. In most sports there are different requirements for the various positions in the diffrent sports. I’ll list some of those for rugby a little later, I’m a bit tied up in work at the moment.
You are 100% correct on the “pre-conceptions and pre-judgements” and that is why such discussion often tend towards my sport’s athletes are better than yours. And they should not, because all sports and all athletes are not equsl.
Have you got Charlie’s vertical integration graph? That may help to pin point key performance requirements and training that are common across certain sports. By doing so, you can see where the overlap occurs and why I and many believe that certain sports may help Rugby and how certain athletes can/could make a transition into Rugby.
Those “other things”, we all know what you mean are ALSO part of top flight Rugby. I know because I have a close friend who played high level Rugby for a London based Rugby Union team. He told me what goes on so I think it is unfair for you to assume that your sport is somehow clean or cleaner. I have been told that the testers collude with the team physio/doctors and this is why you don’t see any positive tests.
Just ask yourself how can a man gain 5-10 kg of lean mass on just good ole porridge? The point I am making is not for sensational effect. It is in the context of your inference that somehow Rugby is clean and AF is very dirty. Your insistence along with others in Rugby that the trend towards unnaturally heavy players will lead to the exact methods you have alluded to that make AM in your words, “dirty”.
I think that you can compare. Don’t take my word for it read the posts by Professor Doctor Yuri Verkhoshansky on his website http://www.verkhoshansky.com/Forum/tabid/84/forumid/15/threadid/21/scope/posts/Default.aspx
Here are some excerpts
"Dear Mark Bennet,
I am very conscious of the importance of the translation of my Russian works and we are continuously searching for a good solution.
The answer to your question is a fundamental aspect of the training sport methodology, in fact on this topic I wrote a book “Special strength preparation in sport”. In the website there are also my Russian articles dedicated to role of the maximal strength for the explosive capacity.
I think that the role of maximal strength is very important in Rugby like in American Football.
According to the coach of New York Giants, Jonny Parker, my basic strength training program, made in the ’80 years for his football team, was the main factor for their two wins of the word cup.
Jonny Parker customized the degree of maximal strength level for each athlete on the base of their play role in the game and their body morfo-functional structure.
In any case you can find this program in my book “Special Strength Training: A Practical Manual for Coaches”.
As you can understand I can’t answer to your question more specifically, the design of the program should be made on the base of these constraints (and other connect to the specific environment).
Yuri Verkhoshansky"
And another;
The second question.
Your second question seem to me that you want know how to obtain the development of rugby players’ maximal strength using the long delay effect of concentrated strength work.
If I understood well you need to know how reduce the load volume to obtain the maximal strength level. In my opinion you are going in a not correct direction.
Some consideration about this issue:
- In rugby, as in the other sport games, the maximal strength level is very important only because it is a component of the power. If we talk of the strength training in rugby, we should talk, first of all, how to increase the power level of specific movements of rugby (jumps, sort sprint, throwing, pushing …). The maximal strength is very important because is the base for the developing of specific power.
- The strength load concentration doesn’t mean excessive volume of load, but only the work localized on the same period: the work with overload must be monolocalizzato, in other words it must not be assembled with the work of speed, of power or of resistance. The dominant load come from the exercises with overload performed with the progressive upsurge of the weight of the overload (from the method 10 RM till the method 1-2 RM). Then, during this period, the volume of the training increases at the beginning, because the weight of the overload of 10 RM gradually increases, but subsequently it decreases, because the intensity of the training stimulus increases (the method 10 RM is replaced by the method of 8,6,5,3 RM and at the end of 1-3RM). The total load volume of this period of strength exercises have to achieve circa 10% of total year load volume of the athlete.
- After the end of the concentrated strength there is change of the type of the work and not a simple reduction of the volume of the strength load. In the first period the work is finalized to increase the maximum strength. In the following period the work the work is finalized to increase the power (jumps, throwing, pushes etc.). The volume of this work must never be high because it foresees a certain quality for the execution of the exercises and enough long rest intervals.
Yuri Verkhoshansky
If you read the professors comments you soon come to realize that team sports like AM and rugby are related and training methods are transferable.
Reappointed Henry admits mistakes
Reappointed All Blacks coach Graham Henry has finally conceded that the reconditioning programme which many blamed for New Zealand crashing out of the World Cup was a mistake.
But he would not back down on the rotation of the squad.
Henry addressed the media this afternoon after being reconfirmed as the All Blacks coach for a further two years. The position had been readvertised by the New Zealand Rugby Union following Henry’s post-World Cup loss performance review.
The All Blacks put in their worst ever World Cup performance in France, losing to hosts France in the quarterfinal in Cardiff.
Asked whether he would repeat the controversial reconditioning programme which saw 22 top All Blacks rested from the first half of the Super 14 this year, Henry flatly stated: “No.”
“There will be a lot of discussion around that. In hindsight it was probably a mistake. I will rephrase that - it was a mistake. We need to sit down and rethink it.”
But Henry would not bow to traditionalists who claim the rotation of the squad devalued the All Blacks jersey.
“The objective is to pick the team to win the test match and that has not changed.”
Henry had not thought about the next World Cup, but he said the current coaching panel had unfinished work.
Henry said he was relieved to be reappointed.
The public support played a big role in his decision to reapply, he said.
He had not read, watched or listened to any media speculation on what decision the panel would make.
It would be negative for New Zealanders to dwell on the loss, he said.
“We must retain our dignity as a country, and I don’t think elaborating on the World Cup would be good for anyone.”
Henry conceded he was hurting. “It plays on your mind every day. Not as frequently as the first couple of days but it’s there. It will be there forever.”
NZRU deputy chief executive Steve Tew said the union was hopeful of retaining Robbie Deans, but the Crusaders coach had not given an indication of his next move.
Henry, Deans and Super 14 coaches Ian Foster and Colin Cooper were all separately interviewed last night with the NZRU board ratifying the decision to retain Henry this morning.
Deans is now widely tipped to take over the Wallabies.
At Wellington Airport today, Deans said he still hoped to coach the All Blacks in the future.
"It was great to have the opportunity. I gave it my best shot, but it was not to be.
“I’d like to coach the All Blacks one day, but it won’t be now.”
Asked whether he’d try again when Henry’s two year term lapsed, Deans said: “If it was contestable, but I think the likelihood of that is pretty remote.”
Despite speculation about Deans and the Wallabies top coaching post, he says his future in New Zealand - for now.
“Yes - I am looking forward to getting back and getting into the Crusaders programme. It’s been a hectic couple of weeks and I’m looking forward to getting back into it.”
NZRU Acting Chairman Mike Eagle said the decision was based on Henry’s results over his four-year tenure, confirming growing expectation that the NZRU would play down the significance of the World Cup.
"Graham’s record, both on and off the field, is among the best in All Blacks rugby history. He has set a very high standard in coaching, player management, and integration with the wider New Zealand rugby community. He has given a lot in a successful period for our game and the Board is convinced he has more to give the All Blacks and New Zealand rugby.
“As a result, we believe that in the best interests of New Zealand rugby, Graham and his team were the right choice,” he said.
Eagle said that the appointment followed a thorough process.
“At the end of the process, the board concluded that Graham Henry was the best candidate for the position,” he said.
"We are all disappointed not to have won the Rugby World Cup. In that regard, the NZRU Board accepts it was jointly responsible and accountable for the result and the planning that went into the campaign. We are committed to learning the key lessons, which will be explored in the independent review announced earlier this week led by Mike Heron and high performance expert Don Tricker."
SO WHAT HAPPENS IF THE REVIEW PANEL FINDS THE COACHING STAFF’S METHODS AND SELECTIONS WERE THE CAUSE? 
The reconditioning programme was the smartest thing any rugby biffo has ever revised. It ggave the top players time to recuperate and improve all aspects of their fitness leading in to some final game time before the world cup. It’s being used as a scapegoat. Everyone in New Zealand, you know, all the middle-aged pansies who reckon they know so very, very much about sport science and all its intricacies with their beer guts hanging out below their singlets, go on about how in their day no player was allowed time off to get fitter and healthier and how its nonsense because rugby is a ‘contact’ sport. All the programme did was break their season into 2 portions, and allowed them to be fitter and fresher for the 2nd and most important half-season. There was nothing at all wrong with it, in fact its the only thing that wasn’t a mistake in the entire All Blacks campaign.
You need to be more specific in support of this. For example, a late attempt at improved fitness in a limited time frame can be disasterous but R and R within the exact same time frame can work wonders.
How long was this period and what was done??
Can you provide more details including the objective?
well that was an objective post :rolleyes:
Charlie to answer your questions
Jury still out on reconditioning All Blacks
Stuff.co.nz | Tuesday, 19 June 2007
Email a Friend | Printable View
Reuters
By LINDSAY KNIGHT
To the most critical of the many questions arising from last weekend’s Super 14 semifinals, and the elimination of the Blues and Crusaders, a definitive answer won’t be forthcoming until after the World Cup has been decided in October.
And that is whether Graham Henry’s bold plan to withdraw 22 of New Zealand’s best players from the Super 14’s first half dozen matches and instead have them on a reconditioning programme has been worthwhile. The only thing now, it seems, that will satisfy New Zealanders, especially those who have been affected by the programme, is nothing short of an All Black triumph in France.
For there is not much doubt that the late entry of the All Blacks into the Super 14 cost both the Blues and the Crusaders any chance they had of winning the title. Had they been at full strength for the entire competition then either Auckland or Christchurch probably would be hosting this weekend’s Super 14 final rather than Durban.
[b]Just before last weekend’s semifinals Crusaders coach Robbie Deans confirmed suspicions of how much he had been irritated by the stand-down, claiming his star players were at a stage where it was as if they would be getting ready for their third or fourth game in the competition.
Deans is a man who chooses his words carefully. So what he said about the reconditioning was especially significant. He left no one in doubt that he believed it had provided the South Africans with a major advantage and that the late entry had resulted in several of the injuries to returnees like Mils Muliaina, Chris Jack, Jason Eaton and Jerry Collins.
Deans did not mention it. But the conditioning, and the difficulty the franchises had in re-integrating returning players, was surely a factor, too, in the Ali Williams saga and the frustration he clearly felt over being left on the sideline for so long.
[/b]
All New Zealanders, including those who are not fervent admirers of Henry, hope the All Blacks win the World Cup, and that may silence arguments over the reconditioning’s wisdom. But it might still be prudent to wonder about the state of the national game.
Has winning the World Cup become an unhealthy obsession, causing a four yearly cycle in which even the status of test matches and international tours are sacrificed? A process has now become ingrained which starts at domestic club level and goes through the various levels to the All Blacks.
Club competitions are sacrificed for the Air New Zealand Cup, which in turn, and including the Ranfurly Shield, is sacrificed for the sake of the All Blacks. Even the Super 14 was compromised this year in the interests of the World Cup.
But there is more to the game’s national well being than just the All Blacks and the World Cup. Indeed, if there is a continual tampering with the integrity of all other contributing competitions, the dilution they have suffered in playing standard will impact on even the All Blacks.
Which brings us to the future of the country’s foremost coaches, all of whom have had their aspirations compromised so much this year. It surely would be unfair if they, including David Nucifora from the Blues and Greg Cooper from the Highlanders, were to be judged harshly on this year’s results.
Deans at least may be master of his own destiny. His blunt appraisal of the effects of the conditioning programme would not have sat easily with those in high places who prefer everyone toeing the corporate line. It may well be that Deans will be off elsewhere for what he calls a fresh challenge and if so New Zealand rugby will be the poorer.
The other puzzle is where Henry might be next year. Lose the World Cup and, whether he wants to or not, he, too, might be looking for another challenge.
It’s a sobering historical statistic. Since the inaugural World Cup 20 years ago not one All Black coach has survived a cup campaign into the following season: Brian Lochore was gone for 1988, Alex Wyllie for 1992, Laurie Mains for 1996, John Hart for 2000 and John Mitchell for 2004.
Not that the Sharks and the Bulls being in this weekend’s final is necessarily a bad thing. It is a reminder of the danger the Springboks will be in the World Cup. It also may be a revival of what was once New Zealand’s main rugby rivalry. And it might even be a good omen for this year’s World Cup from an All Blacks’ viewpoint.
In 1999 and 2003 both of those Super 12 finals featured only New Zealand sides and we all know what happened at the respective World Cups of those two years.
FYI,
Robbie Deans referred to here was one of the unsuccessful applicants to take over as coach and is now the favorite to coach Australia.
It was for 12 weeks, which with the lengthy game schedule they have these days is the longest rest from rugby games they’ve had in years, other then the slightly (is it even?) longer christmas break.
All the articles I read in the paper had the players quoted as saying they’ve been hitting PB’s both on the track (ie, grass) and the weightroom (ie, their living rooms).
They only defeated SA in one of the tri-nations matches because they were significanlty better conditioned (something they weren’t in the super 14 in the weeks before the reconditioning period).
Objective was to allow their contact-ridden bodies time to recovery, a little R&R (as if rugby players don’t already get enough), and a chance to, well, recondition themselves physically in the sense of building their base levels of fitness back up. Sort of like MJ’s quote when he says he never milked his base too far, he was always topping it up throughout the season.
From my knowledge of it it seemed a very well intentioned idea and well organised too.
It certainly was not of benefit to the teams with a few AB’s.
IMO the rotation was the key problem not the reconditioning.
12 weeks is a long time. What did the reconditioning consist of? Could such a scheme have been staggered? (IE different starting times and length of exposure?) Having a whole group trying to re-integrate at the same time must present big problems.
Yes, true, but it took the players away from the normal club competitions and allowed them focus on quality training for a period and then they were re-introduced to the clubs and Super league games.
Some got injuries - mostly bone and accident injuries which were significant in the sense that they were not ‘match alert’.
However the physchological rest they got was very beneficial too which many people remember.
(IMO) The All-Blacks appeared to be VERY well prepared physically and played very good rugby until they were shocked. I don’t blame the reconditioning experience myself.
It could have been prepared better I’m sure, but on the whole I think it was a good approach.
The reconditioning allowed the players develop qualities such as strength, speed etc in a focused manner away from the worry of weekly matches.
agree. That said I think the concept of increasing the depth and picking teams based on the opposition was right just the implementation was flawed.