Crows bring in two external fitness gurus

[Cap]

Put Sam Day from birth in a family who goes to church on Sunday and has no involvement in sport and he wouldn't be choosing between three sports. Or any sports.
.

yeah, but he would still have the capacity to be bloody good at the sports should he ever chose to.

someone like me who is crap at sports can go to church and have no involvement in sport with the luxury of knowing.....i ain't going to be playing AFL,NBA or baseball

Whilst nature v nurture hasn't been solved its fairly clear that nurture enhances that natural ability someone has. Regardless of how good the environment you bring kids up to a whole lot of them are going to be just average

 

[feenix67]

Didn't mean to confuse this issue with terminology - what I meant by 'natural' in that context was what he does without thinking.


Environment... plus the kid's socio economic background, his ethnicity, family stability etc... two ofthose extras ARE environment.

Put Sam Day from birth in a family who goes to church on Sunday and has no involvement in sport and he wouldn't be choosing between three sports. Or any sports.

Agree though that some things are indeed inherited and have an impact on future sporting endeavours - inherited physical traits (hair colour, eye colour, height, body shape) some of which will be an advantage if you combine them with a healthy, sporting environment. The kid of two 5" 6' parents is not going to be an NBA star, no matter how many balloons he plays with as a toddler.

Anyway, this is essentially a nature vs nurtue debate... one which hasn't been resolved by science, let alone on this board.

Again, Im pretty sure we've ended up saying the same thing:

Certainly environment plays a role, as do the kid's socio economic background, his ethnicity, family stability etc etc. But to say a child doesnt inherit attributes that lead to natural proficiencies in certain areas is just plain wrong.

I have 4 kids and have coached kids for over 10 years. The only things that Im certain of is that environment will not dictate their ability to do something well, and natural ability will not guarantee their success. My 16 yr old is great at footy, cant do maths. My 13 yr old couldnt kick a footy to save his life and is not a sporting child at all, but is like Rainman when it comes to maths. They both have grown up in our sport mad family environment, but are two completely different kids. The result is that both enjoy sport and physical activity, but only one is any good at it. The environment has made them enjoy and value physical activity, but it hasnt impacted their relative ability to any great extent.

In my observation coaching kids and being involved with families at that level, thats a pretty consistent outcome.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Feenix, this is an entirely unrelated question, but as a Sturt supporter, I reckon you might know the answer to my pressing query.

Who had the Grand Old Flag club song first, Norwood or Sturt?

 

[feenix67]

Feenix, this is an entirely unrelated question, but as a Sturt supporter, I reckon you might know the answer to my pressing query.

Who had the Grand Old Flag club song first, Norwood or Sturt?

I have absolutely no idea

 

[Slippery Pete]

I have absolutely no idea

Anybody?? Spackler???

 

[swanfan]

If this experiment doesn't work and we have a mediocre season by club standards, would it be remiss of me to say that it would be another avenue that Craig is using to shift blame ?

 

[srv23]

I have absolutely no idea

My understanding as a Norwood supporter (and wife of a Sturt supporter) is that Norwood had it first. Sturt used to have a version of the Carlton song "We are the Double Blues..." Not to sure of all the details behind this though. One of the thoughts behind why it changed was preparing the Eastern suburbs people for an inevitable merger between Sturt and Norwood.

 

[Vader]

If this experiment doesn't work and we have a mediocre season by club standards, would it be remiss of me to say that it would be another avenue that Craig is using to shift blame ?

That would depend upon whether Craig actually implements the recommended changes and the reasons, what your definition of "mediocre season" is, and the reasons for the "mediocre season".

If we get through to the start of 2011 with a relatively full list, having suffered minimal injuries (especially to our 1st and 2nd year draftees), then I doubt that it would be used for any blame shifting at all.

 

[King Elvis]

Yes, our percentage has been below average this year. We can certainly get it back up again, and perhaps even slightly over for a period of time.
But goalkicking %s across the board will not improve.

I have heard people compare set shots to free throws in basketball. Free throws are a very specific skill. There's no variables at all, except for the players' mind. Same distance, no wind, no rain, no man on the mark. It is the EXACT same action every time. A skill like this is very easy to make almost foolproof, because the variables dont change. Practise really does make perfect.

Now, a good free throw shooting percentage in the NBA is around 80%. The greatest NBA free throw shooter of all time shot at around 90%. Even HE missed 1 out of every 10, but nevertheless, we can establish that 90% is about the best somebody can shoot from the stripe over a career.



Now, let's apply that to kicking for goal, where the variables change every time you line up - distance, wind, rain, angle, height of the man on the mark.....every kick is completely different. It is nothing like a free throw, yet we're expecting clinical and measured improvements..........

You cannot have a consistent improvement when there are so many variables effecting the execution of the skill. That's why we havent seen goalkicking improve for 30 years, it's why we wont see it improve for another 30, and it's why we'll see huge inconsistencies in goalkicking percentages year to year from individual teams.

The variables you mention wouldn't be a factor most of the time.

Distance; that's not really a variable - they should kick it the same, regardless.

Wind; an issue at times, but has nothing to do with bad kicking, and they should be able to compensate for it.

Angle; obviously, yes, but that suggests we aren't missing plenty of shots from right in front.

Height of the man on the mark; you're reaching, and that shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Anybody?? Spackler???

I started watching footy as a little tacker in the mid 80's and Sturt had "We are the double blues" as our song.

Well, I'm pretty sure. The 2-3 wins we had in my first 15 years of supporting the club I'm almost certain that was the tune echoing around the empty Adelaide Oval grandstands.

I reckon it was mid/late 90's that we switched to the Norwood one. I wish we'd stayed with the other song but I think that the Norwood song was the one we originally had. For whatever reason we switched (probably to be different) then some old fogies got on the board and demanded we switch back to the original.

As to who had it first... not old enough sorry.

Johnnypanther might be our man!

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

yeah, but he would still have the capacity to be bloody good at the sports should he ever chose to.

No he wouldn't.

The thousands of tennis ball catches, games of chasey in the backyard, getting a little footy for his first birthday, running after the dog, kicking the ball, throwing a baseball around in the backyard... take away all the physical activity stuff he no doubt did from the ages of 0-8 and he'd be a spud. A tall spud but a spud nonetheless.

Whilst nature v nurture hasn't been solved its fairly clear that nurture enhances that natural ability someone has. Regardless of how good the environment you bring kids up to a whole lot of them are going to be just average

Well, environment won't make them taller or have better eye sight admitedly which is a benefit in most sports.

Still no sign of the 'behavioural gene' though sorry.

 

[Schulzycrow]

The variables you mention wouldn't be a factor most of the time.

Distance; that's not really a variable - they should kick it the same, regardless.

Wind; an issue at times, but has nothing to do with bad kicking, and they should be able to compensate for it.

Angle; obviously, yes, but that suggests we aren't missing plenty of shots from right in front.

Height of the man on the mark; you're reaching, and that shouldn't be an issue.

All good King Elvis.

Angle and wind come from practice. The amount of gimmie goals 30-40 metres out at very slight angles we burnt this season can be improved upon and have to be if we expect to move back into the 8.

Example: Kenny McGregor, the most ugly kick at goal you ever saw, but he made sure his drop was straight and allowed for his r to l swing. Watching games from 05 and 06 at the mo and we didn't miss too many from in front.

Posters saying that you can't, hell lets throw in the towel now if we can't improve set shots from that distance. The act of set shot kicking is something that needs to be worked on. I can't believe with all the coaches and videos and laptops and camera angles that things that we can see are kicking faults, mental issues, routines etc can't be worked on.

Also think that too much other bs is filling up players time and goal kicking is something players have to do off their own bat. I don't have a problem with this, all the forwards and mids/hb line should have that as an extra expectation as it is from them that 95% of the goals are going to come from them.

Hell if I was getting paid what they are I'd be wanting to make sure I wasn't letting the team down with dodgy kicking for goal.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I have 4 kids and have coached kids for over 10 years. The only things that Im certain of is that environment will not dictate their ability to do something well, and natural ability will not guarantee their success. My 16 yr old is great at footy, cant do maths. My 13 yr old couldnt kick a footy to save his life and is not a sporting child at all, but is like Rainman when it comes to maths. They both have grown up in our sport mad family environment, but are two completely different kids. The result is that both enjoy sport and physical activity, but only one is any good at it. The environment has made them enjoy and value physical activity, but it hasnt impacted their relative ability to any great extent.

In my observation coaching kids and being involved with families at that level, thats a pretty consistent outcome.

So, two kids who have come out of the same gene pool have turned out completely different? The 'black sheep' is so rare it even has a name.

I've got almost the exact same situation in my family. Two younger brothers, one loves sport one doesn't. Fairly sporty family although dad in particular is quite IT savvy. I've thought quite a bit about why two brothers in the same family turned out so differently.

Looking back now, me and my first brother spent every waking minute in the backyard. He wasn't that many years behind me so he could actually bowl to me properly, kick the footy a decent distance etc. It was actually a bit of a chore when 'little bro' who was 3 years younger wanted to join in. He couldn't kick it properly, threw tantrums, it meant we got fewer kicks/hits... we basically had to humour him. It was babysitting, whereas when it was just me and the older one it was fun.

We certainly didn't encourage him to join us in the backyard, even to the point that we developed a series of secret signals that we were going to slip outside quietly and could do so without little bro realising. Seems so cruel now!

By the time little bro started schools and could start doing Auskick or cricket he wasn't all that interested. He sort of did sport for a couple of years but didn't really like it, was shit at it and once he'd found a few friends who weren't really sporting either he didn't bother. Same house, same genes but completely different experiences in their formative years led to two completely different people.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Posters saying that you can't, hell lets throw in the towel now if we can't improve set shots from that distance. The act of set shot kicking is something that needs to be worked on. I can't believe with all the coaches and videos and laptops and camera angles that things that we can see are kicking faults, mental issues, routines etc can't be worked on.

I'm sure we're doing all this stuff.

Which might be part of the problem.

Lots of explicit information going into Kurt's head, very little implicit understanding of how to kick the ball.

 

[Schulzycrow]

I'm sure we're doing all this stuff.

Which might be part of the problem.

Lots of explicit information going into Kurt's head, very little implicit understanding of how to kick the ball.

Agree.

With Tipp he was kicking them better in 09 than this year.

This year if he gets it 20 - 30 m out I would be thinking 70-30 he'll miss this trying to guide it through and not kick it.

Sure he'll come out better next season as he is the type to really want to improve.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Agree.

With Tipp he was kicking them better in 09 than this year.

This year if he gets it 20 - 30 m out I would be thinking 70-30 he'll miss this trying to guide it through and not kick it.

Sure he'll come out better next season as he is the type to really want to improve.

The positive we have with Kurt is that he is an exceptional athlete. He might not have played much footy up to 18 years of age compared to other AFL players but he played heaps of other sports and was heading for a decent basketball career if I remember correctly.

So his coordination, his hand eye and his ball skills aren't an issue. He should be able to become a decent kick of the football. I wish we'd just let him go with his kicking and allowed him to work it out himself.

Instead we seem to have gone down the explicit path and now he is consciously aware of every step, every movement, the grip, the routine, the run up... it all looks very careful and rehearsed. The danger with teaching skills via the explicit path is that they tend to break down when under pressure. You become too reliant on instructions and technical focus points. Paralysis by analysis.

The best kicks of the football execute the skills without thinking about the mechanics - this stuff is automatic so their minds are free to consider stuff like the wind, the options upfield, where the opposition are etc. This is why the best players always seem to have so much time; they can do several things at once.

 

[feenix67]

So, two kids who have come out of the same gene pool have turned out completely different? The 'black sheep' is so rare it even has a name.

I've got almost the exact same situation in my family. Two younger brothers, one loves sport one doesn't. Fairly sporty family although dad in particular is quite IT savvy. I've thought quite a bit about why two brothers in the same family turned out so differently.

Looking back now, me and my first brother spent every waking minute in the backyard. He wasn't that many years behind me so he could actually bowl to me properly, kick the footy a decent distance etc. It was actually a bit of a chore when 'little bro' who was 3 years younger wanted to join in. He couldn't kick it properly, threw tantrums, it meant we got fewer kicks/hits... we basically had to humour him. It was babysitting, whereas when it was just me and the older one it was fun.

We certainly didn't encourage him to join us in the backyard, even to the point that we developed a series of secret signals that we were going to slip outside quietly and could do so without little bro realising. Seems so cruel now!

By the time little bro started schools and could start doing Auskick or cricket he wasn't all that interested. He sort of did sport for a couple of years but didn't really like it, was shit at it and once he'd found a few friends who weren't really sporting either he didn't bother. Same house, same genes but completely different experiences in their formative years led to two completely different people.

I bet he likes computers

Sorry Carl, my 16 yr old and 13 yr old are out the back playing some sort of sporting game all the time. Backyard cricket, for example, is a particular summer staple. My 16 yr old has all the shots and can bowl pretty quick. My 13 yr old is the polar opposite. He still loves being outside, he's just not very good at sport. And he's no black sheep either, thanks very much.

And your earlier reference to the "missing" behavioural gene is misplaced. We're talking about hand-eye coordination, judgement and depth perception, peripheral vision, decision making ability, balance, fine motor skills. These aren't behavioural, they're physiological.

There is no "nature v nurture" debate. Both factors carry weight in determining a person's success at a particular pursuit. To say there is no such thing as natural ability is to suggest that every person, given the same environmental factors and physical attributes, has exactly the same abilities. Simply not true.

 

[feenix67]

The best kicks of the football execute the skills without thinking about the mechanics - this stuff is automatic so their minds are free to consider stuff like the wind, the options upfield, where the opposition are etc. This is why the best players always seem to have so much time; they can do several things at once.

One bloke Id love to have kicking a set shot for goal to save my life would be Matthew Lloyd. Also coincidentally has one of the most mechanical, repeated kicking routines of any player I can think of. Is he wrong too? This is what he had to say:

"I wasn't a great kick at the start," Lloyd said.

He again expressed surprise that clubs did not have a specialist kicking coach, as distinct from a former full-forward who came to the club occasionally.

"It's something all clubs will move to."

Lloyd said he and 2000 premiership teammate Scott Lucas spent hours honing their kicking for goal, with or without the permission of fitness staff.

"We just went and did it because we knew that was our craft."

He cited the 2000-01 seasons and the reward for hard work.

"I kicked 109 goals in the premiership year, 109.60, and said 'I'm just not working hard enough on my kicking'," he said.

The next year, he kicked 105.36 (74 per cent).

"Scotty and I would do a hundred a week," he said. Every one of them as if they were kicking in a match, down to a man on the mark.

Here's the full article

 

[arrowman]

I started watching footy as a little tacker in the mid 80's and Sturt had "We are the double blues" as our song....
I reckon it was mid/late 90's that we switched to the Norwood one.

I'll see your mid 80s and raise you late 60s, with a fadeout in interest in the late 70s / early 80s.

IIRC "It's a Grand Old Flag" was the Sturt song when I was a little tacker, and I've never heard "We are the Double Blues" (version of the Carlton song?) as the club song.

Maybe (and my memory may be faulty) they adopted "We are the Double Blues" as some sort of ill-fated marketing ploy, and later reverted to the original?

 

[Kickin_Goals]

The only way kicking has been allowed non-improvement in 30 years is in the instances the staff of teams didn't credit goal kicking and recruited terrible kicks and didn't practice or get a specialized coach for it.
Goalkicking improvement can be skewed and be seen to not have improved due to the spread of goals required and the quality of the goalkickers involved in that spread.
Where as in the past teams would have focal points where near every goal would go through those who were exceptional at the skill through the honing shown above and it's a joke to proprose that such things are innate that they have nothing to do with conditioning.
As much as you might like to think these players were born with the footy in their hand knowing how to play, they weren't and were conditioned from their starting age rightly and wrongly.
You can bet your ass elite basketball teams have shooting coaches and even at ABA level will they attempt to adjust the flaws in your technique.
Why compare free throw shooting though, field goal shooting is a set shot from the point you take it.....

 

[jenny61_99]

My 9 year old is a freak. Kicks "Motlops" all over the park. Brilliant checkside, amazing boundary line drop punts.... put him straight in front? Misses. Kicked 28 goals 22 this year in 16 games and only 22 quarters in the forward lines. Field kicking is pretty good, but could be better. But it's the "Motlop specials" he spends hours practising.

 

[Slippery Pete]

My 9 year old is a freak. Kicks "Motlops" all over the park. Brilliant checkside, amazing boundary line drop punts.... put him straight in front? Misses. Kicked 28 goals 22 this year in 16 games and only 22 quarters in the forward lines. Field kicking is pretty good, but could be better. But it's the "Motlop specials" he spends hours practising.

I've watched a few of the Motlop You Tube videos recently. They are nice, but nobody seems to mention the fact he doesn't kick any of the goals with his opposite foot.

To me, the true test of skill and ability is how well a guy kicks on his opposite foot.

Anybody remember Motlop's 50m checkside goal on the run in 2007? All that kick proved was that he didn't have a left foot.

I really hate the fact that players who kick checksides on the run are deemed "skillful." If anything, this shows a lack of skill. Kicking the ball well on your non-preferred foot is much harder than kicking a checkside.

 

[jenny61_99]

I've watched a few of the Motlop You Tube videos recently. They are nice, but nobody seems to mention the fact he doesn't kick any of the goals with his opposite foot.

To me, the true test of skill and ability is how well a guy kicks on his opposite foot.

Anybody remember Motlop's 50m checkside goal on the run in 2007? All that kick proved was that he didn't have a left foot.

I really hate the fact that players who kick checksides on the run are deemed "skillful." If anything, this shows a lack of skill. Kicking the ball well on your non-preferred foot is much harder than kicking a checkside.

I think that's very unfair. It's not a lack of skill - it's a different skill that they have mastered - perhaps as a result of a weakness on their non-preferred side. The fact that they've found a way around their weakness is a good thing?

I agree that players should be able to use both sides of their body by both hand and foot - a challenge that has been given to my 9 year old in the off season.

One of the drills I saw the Brisbane Lions do over the pre-season was very interesting. A series of circles either side of the goals, progressing further away with each one. A player had to kick a goal from one side (preferred leg) then the other, then their non-preferred and so on. They couldn't progress to the next circle until they had kicked a goal with both feet.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

One bloke Id love to have kicking a set shot for goal to save my life would be Matthew Lloyd. Also coincidentally has one of the most mechanical, repeated kicking routines of any player I can think of. Is he wrong too? This is what he had to say:

Thanks for the article, good stuff. I love hearing that he and Lucas basically said 'bugger the fitness advice' and went and kicked goals anyway. I can't believe that the fitness staff have so much control. All the crap about quad injuries...

I bet it is only that the players can't do the endless running activities the fitness staff want them to do PLUS all the goalkicking activities so they advise them to drop the goalkicking. I call bullshit. Heck, kids at school will kick the footy before school, after school, recess, lunch and all day on the weekend and I don't see too many 10 year olds breaking down with quad injuries. Less running, more goalkicking. There aren't too many Peter Hudson's running around for the Crows who have mastered the art of goal kicking and don't need the training!

As for Lloyd's kicking action, you have to also remember that Lloyd was an exceptional talent, one who Essendon moved heaven and earth to bring to their club as a 16 year old, off loading a heap of players to Fremantle and brilliantly exploiting the AFL zone concessions to land a sublime young talent.

The regimented part of his goalkicking (the socks, the grass, the 45 second wait) came later, the brilliance, talent and skill came first. He added the routine and it made him more consistent. In your article from a 'bad' 109.60 to a 'good' 105.36 - geez, we dream of 109.60! Everyone sees the grass throwing and assumes that the reason he was so good is because of his routine. No. He was an exceptionally skillful player first and then added a routine. There are no shortcuts. IMO we are trying to take a shortcut with Tippett.

What I liked about Lloyd (and Lockett and Modra for that matter) was his kicking action was clean, uncluttered and simple. He never marked spots on the ground or stepped out paces. His kick remained pure. The regimented part was largely in the build up and preparation.

 

[feenix67]

The regimented part of his goalkicking (the socks, the grass, the 45 second wait) came later, the brilliance, talent and skill came first. He added the routine and it made him more consistent. In your article from a 'bad' 109.60 to a 'good' 105.36 - geez, we dream of 109.60! Everyone sees the grass throwing and assumes that the reason he was so good is because of his routine. No. He was an exceptionally skillful player first and then added a routine. There are no shortcuts. IMO we are trying to take a shortcut with Tippett.

Point being that Lloyd achieved significant improvement via a practice regime. Given his already solid accuracy it's a remarkable improvement. Imagine how much Kurt could gain from such a practice focus. He needs to find a technique thats comfortable and that works for him, then practice like a golfer would to make that technique repeatable under pressure.

And the purists will tell you Lloyd's technique is less than perfect - bent knee, slight left footers hook etc. But he kicks it the same way every time, thats the secret.