- Nov 1, 2008
- 2,557
- 3,109
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Dallas Cowboys/New York Yankees
As much as we might criticize Burgess, the thing that he brought was a sound program and a scientific approach. His method of training may have not worked but to think that he doesn't or the team he left behind haven't got the resources to self reflect and correct.
Minimizing injuries, tracking training loads and periodizing is an art that is developed through the self reflective process. And conditioning coaches are not personal trainers. They are as sought after as sport scientists. Our old fitness guys Russell was a conditioning coach while Burgess is more of a sport scientist. In the US there are plenty of conditioning coaches that have turned teams around and gelled well with the coaching staff to create a competitive advantage.
I was a little disappointed when Burgess didn't have conditioning to the same standard as his team of university educated coaching staff. The advantage of conditioning experts is that they are more into the technique of training and the sports application.
I have been disappointed to sometimes see sloppy technique in the gym and this means that they are science heavy and lighter on conditioning. Doesn't mean that what they are doing isn't world class.
But his approach was very good for Charlie Dixon. He did a lot of ladder and agility work which I felt strengthened what I used to see as flat feet on Chrlie Dixon. I think his emphasis on quick feet was a godsend for players who have ankle injuries. If the conditioning department is smart (and I think they are) they would have kept what worked and worked on what hasn't. Charlie is noticeably more buffed in the last season.
Young Taj on the other hand, with the dodgy ankles could do with a bit of the Burgess style training. It is horses for courses IMO.
Minimizing injuries, tracking training loads and periodizing is an art that is developed through the self reflective process. And conditioning coaches are not personal trainers. They are as sought after as sport scientists. Our old fitness guys Russell was a conditioning coach while Burgess is more of a sport scientist. In the US there are plenty of conditioning coaches that have turned teams around and gelled well with the coaching staff to create a competitive advantage.
I was a little disappointed when Burgess didn't have conditioning to the same standard as his team of university educated coaching staff. The advantage of conditioning experts is that they are more into the technique of training and the sports application.
I have been disappointed to sometimes see sloppy technique in the gym and this means that they are science heavy and lighter on conditioning. Doesn't mean that what they are doing isn't world class.
But his approach was very good for Charlie Dixon. He did a lot of ladder and agility work which I felt strengthened what I used to see as flat feet on Chrlie Dixon. I think his emphasis on quick feet was a godsend for players who have ankle injuries. If the conditioning department is smart (and I think they are) they would have kept what worked and worked on what hasn't. Charlie is noticeably more buffed in the last season.
Young Taj on the other hand, with the dodgy ankles could do with a bit of the Burgess style training. It is horses for courses IMO.
Last edited:
