Analysis Explosive Pace at the Lions...

[Viceregal]

Not a whole lot. Swan and Pendlebury have always been the more obvious options.

So no real change for him then ... cool

 

[WhiteLionFeva]

Not a whole lot. Swan and Pendlebury have always been the more obvious options.

You suggesting an Operation?

 

[blynd_freddie]

When were these times taken? If they are a few years old I suspect some of those would be improved with the professional training they receive. Thought McStay would be mid 2.90s for 20m. With the averages you can see a gradual trend suggesting a slower 20m dash with an increase in height, but Green seems to be an outlier that drags the average height down a bit., and it seems the average height would be around the 191 cm mark.

Would think Zorko might be our most explosive player. Would have loved to see Akers times I would think he has been our most explosive player ever?

Sorry SM - I'm not sure of the vintage of the times - guessing the majority would be draft/combine linked as these are the most accessible and agree that if they are then there is a strong likelihood of improvement, as you say, with club coaching/strengthening.

Brad Harvey would probably take that mantle i'd say purely on sprinting times

Yeah I had Brad Harvey down as the best club linked time - with a time of 2.85sec - and just for the record a defender/mid - 185cms 83kgs and from all reports spanking thighs.

 

[blynd_freddie]

Oh and just for the record - http://www.lions.com.au/season/players/rookie-players has been updated [allow no pics as yet]

Cian Hanley has been listed as 184cms and 73kg - obviously needs to strengthen his wrists and thighs.

 

[cptkirk]

1 - bolt starts from a 3 point position where the combine starts in a standing position where you'll hit top speed faster from shorter ground contact + longer strides compared to true acceleration mechanics

2 - explosive pace is a double whattaya call it? 2 words that mean the same thing? you can;lt have explosive slowness or slow explosive pace

3 - always hated the term closing speed...it's just speed...you use the speed you have to "close in" on an opponent

4 - you need to take bodyweight into account...bmi is a shitty term that i still can't believe gets used in any profession...so you might have a 75kg player who runs a 2.75sec over 20m and a 90kg who runs a 2.95...now there's a fair difference there with the 2.75 probably being classed as elite speed and 2.95 probbaly being a level below...2.75 x 75 = 206.5 (lets call it power) vs 2.95 x 90 = 265.5...that same 75kg player also getting a 2.95 = 221.25...so the 90kg player ran a slower time but with his added load he has to moved actually has greater power

just another way to look at it

interesting thread though

 

[POBT]

You can be quick but take time to wind up. Just as the quickest bloke in the world isn't necessarily the one who gets out of the blocks first.

"Explosive pace" is where a player's first few steps/metres are much quicker than average. It doesn't necessarily equate to being genuinely quick over a slightly longer distance.

 

[cptkirk]

pace off the mark is very hard to judge in footy because reaction time and knowing where you're going to run is a huge factor in the sense of s forward knows he'll run to a certain spot in a sec or 2 when his mate gets the ball but the backman has to wait and react to the forwards movement

interesting fact: elite sprint will hit 60% of their top speed in the first 10m so you'll rarely have elite speed if you're not quick off the mark...top speed doesn't matter much if you need a wind up to reach it because by then the ball/contest/opposition is gone

 

[Ruse]

1 - bolt starts from a 3 point position where the combine starts in a standing position where you'll hit top speed faster from shorter ground contact + longer strides compared to true acceleration mechanics

2 - explosive pace is a double whattaya call it? 2 words that mean the same thing? you can;lt have explosive slowness or slow explosive pace

3 - always hated the term closing speed...it's just speed...you use the speed you have to "close in" on an opponent

4 - you need to take bodyweight into account...bmi is a shitty term that i still can't believe gets used in any profession...so you might have a 75kg player who runs a 2.75sec over 20m and a 90kg who runs a 2.95...now there's a fair difference there with the 2.75 probably being classed as elite speed and 2.95 probbaly being a level below...2.75 x 75 = 206.5 (lets call it power) vs 2.95 x 90 = 265.5...that same 75kg player also getting a 2.95 = 221.25...so the 90kg player ran a slower time but with his added load he has to moved actually has greater power

just another way to look at it

interesting thread though

Why did you multiply a person's time with his weight to get 'power'? It doesn't make sense. So if a 75kg guy ran a 5 second 20m sprint his power is 375(units of what?)? If a 90kg guy ran a 2 second 20m sprint his power is 180? How the hell would that be power?

 

[cptkirk]

force = mass x acceleration

so:

75kg x 2.75secs over 20m = 75 x 7.5 meters per second = 545 newtons

90 x 2.95secs over 20m = 90 x 6.78 meters per second = 610 newtons

i tried to really simplify it in my original post being on the phone to give an idea of where i was coming from

 

[Ruse]

force = mass x acceleration

so:

75kg x 2.75secs over 20m = 75 x 7.5 meters per second = 545 newtons

90 x 2.95secs over 20m = 90 x 6.78 meters per second = 610 newtons

i tried to really simplify it in my original post being on the phone to give an idea of where i was coming from

Right force = mass x acceleration not mass x time. You need to divide the change in distance travelled by the change in time taken to get acceleration. I mean, I flunked physics and even I knew your calculations didn't make sense.

 

[L Dizz]

Right force = mass x acceleration not mass x time. You need to divide the change in distance travelled by the change in time taken to get acceleration. I mean, I flunked physics and even I knew your calculations didn't make sense.

Actually mate, you and cptkirk are both wrong. Change in distance over change in time is velocity, not acceleration. Change in velocity over change in time is acceleration.

So if you do 20m over 2.75s to get an "acceleration" of 7.27m/s to use in your calculations of force equals mass x acceleration, you're wrong. You've just done mass x velocity which is the formula for momentum. Which is what the cptkirk worked out in his second post.

You need to do distance divided by time, divided by time to get acceleration. So the acceleration of someone doing 20m in 2.75s would be (20/2.75)/2.75 which is 2.64m/s/s.

You can then multiply that by the mass of the person (75kg) to get a force of 198 newton's.

If you want to get power from that, it's force x velocity. 198 x 7.27 gives you power of 1439 Watts.

So a 75kg person running 20m in 2.75s produces a power of 1439 Watts.

Without going through all the calculations, the second person (90kg doing 20m in 2.95s) has a velocity of 6.8 m/s, an acceleration of 2.3 m/s/s, a force of 207 Newtons and produces a power of 1407.6 Watts.

So the first person (75kg) is more powerful/explosive even though the second guy (90kg) produces more force because the first guy is faster.

If you look at the momentum as cptkirk calculated, you'd notice the second guy produces more momentum even though he isn't as powerful. I guess this would make him harder to stop/tackle.

Anyway, that's enough biomechanics nerdiness for one day

 

[brizrider]

Okay – have filled in as many of the blanks that I can with the info available…


I realise there is only a limited sample selection available [20 players] – but I still think we can have a look and discuss/decided if we can identify any trends of our fastest kids over a 20m sprint – and whether height/weight even position might be linked to ‘explosive players’.


Again I grave doubts on the accuracy of the Bergers 2007 time – considering it is 0.07 faster than the fastest ever recorded at the combine/draft – I am going to dismiss.

For me the obvious standout from the info in the above table [again after removing the Leuenberger time] is…

• A trend that time increases as height increases and
• That a high proportion are linked to a defensive role and
• Four of the best times available are defenders drafted in Leppa’s time at the club.

Discuss…

Don't think BMI has much worth as an indicator of anything for an elite athlete. It does have meaning for most of us fat bastard Big Footy posters though.

 

[SizeMatters]

Actually mate, you and cptkirk are both wrong. Change in distance over change in time is velocity, not acceleration. Change in velocity over change in time is acceleration.

So if you do 20m over 2.75s to get an "acceleration" of 7.27m/s to use in your calculations of force equals mass x acceleration, you're wrong. You've just done mass x velocity which is the formula for momentum. Which is what the cptkirk worked out in his second post.

You need to do distance divided by time, divided by time to get acceleration. So the acceleration of someone doing 20m in 2.75s would be (20/2.75)/2.75 which is 2.64m/s/s.

You can then multiply that by the mass of the person (75kg) to get a force of 198 newton's.

If you want to get power from that, it's force x velocity. 198 x 7.27 gives you power of 1439 Watts.

So a 75kg person running 20m in 2.75s produces a power of 1439 Watts.

Without going through all the calculations, the second person (90kg doing 20m in 2.95s) has a velocity of 6.8 m/s, an acceleration of 2.3 m/s/s, a force of 207 Newtons and produces a power of 1407.6 Watts.

So the first person (75kg) is more powerful/explosive even though the second guy (90kg) produces more force because the first guy is faster.

If you look at the momentum as cptkirk calculated, you'd notice the second guy produces more momentum even though he isn't as powerful. I guess this would make him harder to stop/tackle.

Anyway, that's enough biomechanics nerdiness for one day

Exactly what I was thinking.

 

[Skoob]

<Snip>
If you look at the momentum as cptkirk calculated, you'd notice the second guy produces more momentum even though he isn't as powerful. I guess this would make him harder to stop/tackle.

Anyway, that's enough biomechanics nerdiness for one day

All that science, and the end result is still a guess?

 

[MacMum]

L Dizz, you make me dizzy with all that scientific jargon.

As I've said before, I'm a simple person.....someone is either quick, or their not.

 

[L Dizz]

Just in case someone pulls me up, I realised I got the acceleration wrong by half because I worked it out off average velocity. Rookie error. I won't take you through the calculation, because it's trickier than the easy stuff I did above ;-) But trust me, I double checked it this time.

So you can double all the figures for acceleration, force and power.

End result is the same though: person A has a higher velocity, acceleration and power output. Person B produces higher force and momentum.

 

[Dicky Fitzwell]

we have the pace...but we need to kick goals

 

[James North]

So basically this is about thighs?

Where are the non-thigh threads?

 

[Haso]

So basically this is about thighs?

Where are the non-thigh threads?

I'm more of a breast man.

 

[The Flying Belgian]

I'm more of a breast man.

You are a bit of a boob.

 

[blynd_freddie]

You are a bit of a boob.

I think that is a scientific given. On the other hand, the ability for someone to sit through the 4:35 of the below clip, although rewarding in its ideological information, might just be a tad less of a certainty.

 

[WhiteLionFeva]

we have the pace...but we need to kick goals

Quickly!

 

[Greggy85]

Just in case someone pulls me up, I realised I got the acceleration wrong by half because I worked it out off average velocity. Rookie error. I won't take you through the calculation, because it's trickier than the easy stuff I did above ;-) But trust me, I double checked it this time.

So you can double all the figures for acceleration, force and power.

End result is the same though: person A has a higher velocity, acceleration and power output. Person B produces higher force and momentum.

What about resistance? Don't play footy in a vacuum. Aha.

 

[blynd_freddie]

What about resistance? Don't play footy in a vacuum. Aha.

Sure you have a valid point but having only won 7 games last year... you've got to admit a lot of our footy did really suck!