Strategy Load Management

[Bianconeri]

In 2023, the widely accepted theory was the teams training loads increased to in the second half of the season to prepare the squad for the finals. Whilst this led to a drop in performance at the back end of the year, the team still retained top spot and were left cherry ripe to take home our 16th cup that September.

In 2025 the theory has popped up again, this time with a bit more confirmation from Fly mentioning it in press conferences. On top of this, our older players were also managed throughout the year missing games they would not have in 23. Also unlike 23 the team couldn't hold top spot and dropped down to 4th. The team was not refreshened and ready to take on the challenge in the finals, and were left breaking down by the time of the prelim.


Will the club change load management strategy in 2026?

2023 the extra loading worked, but with an even older team the loading seemed to compromise results too much 2025. And even with resting our older players, they seemed to break down by the time the prelim rolled around.

I see 2 main options:

1. Change the list profile to and best 23 to be younger and more able to handle our loading strategy of 2023.
2. Adapt our load management and gameplan to be less taxing on the older player.

Option one is the option 1 is perhaps a good strategy in in AFL 26, but perhaps it isn't feasible with our draft hand and trade currency. Still we have young players on our list we can invest in that have shown promise such as Parker, Steele and West and pending how Harrison and Reef go returning from their injuries they could be handy additions into the team. There are always the state leagues we could raid we're we've found Long and Steele.

Option 2 presents it's own challenges. We're a team that's built off forward pressure, how do change a successful part of our DNA to something that's less taxing on the older players? Do we look to the Hawks dynasty 2013-15 we're they had their more experienced players in the back half playing keepings off? Do we become a bigger stoppage side, keep the game closed up and congested so our oldies don't have to run back and forth up the field as much.

Practically I don't know how either option would look but I favour option one at them moment. I don't think we can uproot our whole style to fit players who mightn’t be able to last the season. However I do think if our oldies could get through the season option 2 would yield greater rewards.


Keen to hear the boards thoughts.

 

[gouki88]

I think we got it decently right with our load management this year. Our injury list was almost exclusively kids at the pointy end of the season, and we finished in the top 4. We got unlucky with the Hill situation and a couple of older players got hurt, but most teams have players go down throughout the year.

I think some extra athleticism in our team (Hill returning, as well as Harrison + West + Buller + Allan + McInnes getting some number of games) should help us tighten up our defensive structure by being a bit less susceptible to quick cross-ground kicks opening us up. I also think it’ll help to get some additional speed at ground level when relying on marking contests down the line.

So I guess I see tweaks around the edges as having some real benefit. Growth from youth will help give us the flexibility to take it easier on some of the bodies that might not hold up as well to the heavy load periods. I think we’re a bit hampered insofar as big list changes based on our draft capital & list spots, but internal growth will help us. The Lions were readymade to beat us with their ability to kick sharply in their back half, spreading our zone, and capitalising on a bit of a disorganised stoppage setup to kick lots of scores.

Our system, with tinkering, holds up. Assuming we keep Elliott & some growth from youngsters, our talent does too IMO.

 

[Kes1984]

I think we were probably a bit too heavily focused on getting the older blokes through a long season, in addition to counting our chickens before they hatched - when we hit 14 wins.

As a result, I feel we probably overdid the training loads, focusing on going deep into September, when we hadn't officially qualified for finals, let alone going deep. It was at the expense of winning a few more games in the latter part of the season. We possibly lost some confidence too - loss after loss can be a bit demoralising.

In hindsight - with the Port Adelaide win over Gold Coast, and then our win over Adelaide, we still had the same result as had we finished first so it didn't really matter, but we were lucky that it didn't.

We did however, lose our match-winning, confidence-driven game style. The Adelaide game was more of an anomaly in the end, I think fueled by the Rankine stuff. We looked fit for that game but definitely not for the Prelim despite the week off.

Prelim was probably more reflective of where we were really at in the end. You could probably say our experiment of trying to win a flag with the oldest list in history, got a C

Far from a fail, given we made it to the penultimate weekend, but I feel that flattered us really, given we came up against Adelaide when they were acting like brats over Rankine etc.

Next year, we can't go in as old - have to balance that better with some of the youth getting a go.

 

[PiCkLeJuiCe]

I see 2 main options:

1. Change the list profile to and best 23 to be younger and more able to handle our loading strategy of 2023.
2. Adapt our load management and gameplan to be less taxing on the older player.

Maybe something like 2010 where our list changed quite substantially between the start and end of the year. Fraser, Medhurst, Lockyer and O'Bree all started in Round 1 against the Doggies. By the GF we had Dawes, Blair, Macaffer and Reid , all who played 10 games or less before the start of 2010.

 

[Matt_352]

Maybe something like 2010 where our list changed quite substantially between the start and end of the year. Fraser, Medhurst, Lockyer and O'Bree all started in Round 1 against the Doggies. By the GF we had Dawes, Blair, Macaffer and Reid , all who played 10 games or less before the start of 2010.

I can see Parker, West, Steele, Harrison all massively staking a claim to be best 23. Especially Parker and West.

 

[PiCkLeJuiCe]

I can see Parker, West, Steele, Harrison all massively staking a claim to be best 23. Especially Parker and West.

That's what I think too. And with West replacing one of the MMM, Steele replacing Steele and Parker replacing Howe, our age profile changes considerably as does our load management.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

I think we need to be a lot younger next year

Not overly fussed how

Even if it means taking a step back and missing finals next year. Pump games into more of the younger players. We can't take such an old team into another season. This year showed it's simply that little bit too old.

 

[GCPie]

I don't think there should be a generic Load Management to the entire list.
I think we should have been smarter and had a generic Load Base in the pre season and then during the season had a tailored Load Change due to the age, injuries etc., - but never should have missed games - that is where I think we got it way wrong.
Training is like class room and the games are the exam - you can miss classes and still do well in the exam.
No matter how much you want training to look like game day you can't.

 

[Run n Spread]

Pendles sidebottom Howe and Elliot should be playing 15 home and away games Max next year
Need to utilise whole squad

 

[gouki88]

Pendles sidebottom Howe and Elliot should be playing 15 home and away games Max next year
Need to utilise whole squad

Ludicrous! Elliott just kicked 60 in a career year and was our only dangerous forward, and you for some unknown reason want him to play fewer games?? What!?

 

[sherrife]

I appreciate the thoughts here but I don't think the issue this year was the loading. Pendles, Sidey, Crisp simply are not elite midfielders any more, and to the extent we rely on them to be our core again we are on the road to a solid finish at best but no glory.

The only scenario we're contending in 27 is if we get some fresh midfield talent in from the outside because Allan isn't it and HH is the only possible mid on our youth list with clear AFL potential in the short term.

26 is going to be a transition year IMO, but that's ok because we've had a fantastic run.

 

[The Phantom]

Groan
And another term for Load Management would be….

Play the best 23 available.
We’re transitioning out the veterans.
If they get surpassed by other players whose form comes up during the year, so be it.

Bianconeri - I’m calling this out as a pro rester thread. I see you.

 

[Scodog10]

IMO, as completely uneducated as it is, we got it wrong in the back half of the season and a lot of it was around nursing our 30+ contingent to the line and too much tinkering. It resulted in us taking 3 guys into a PF that weren’t fit to perform. We’d put all this work into getting them there and it amounted to nothing in the end.

It was a twofold issue. The first was the majority of our injuries this year were to the 25-35 group on our list. The second was we need to back in the depth of our list a little further. You combine those factors and it tells a story of why we went with the 3 under clouds over 3 lesser known options. When I talk about backing the younger group in I like a tap analogy. Our tap dripped in 2025 and it needs to be more of a trickle in 2026.

It’s crunch time for the likes of HH, Parker, McInnes, Ryan, Steene and Allan get busy this off-season and take a senior players role from them. As much as it would hurt to be out of contention a 2023 Geelongesque reset where we transition to a younger more vibrant mix adding a top end FA (Bailey for me) and draft talent in the process wouldn’t be the worst outcome. I ventured away from the topic a little, but I feel like a better mix of experience and talent like Geelong have will hold us in better stead by managing one or two in the back end not half a dozen.

 

[larrikan]

Wade has been as important as anyone at the club during the past years. I trust him to tinker with it and get it right.

I agree with the 2010 transition. It’s time for the younger guys to push the older players out. Unfortunately we had injuries to that group of younger players in the VFL this year.

Load management is interesting. Why does a professional footballer like Nick Daicos need to miss training sessions?

Younger players like Hayes need a few pre seasons to build endurance for the long season. They tend to drop away.

How do the Cats get it right? I’m sure Wade looks at that.

 

[Kes1984]

Pendles sidebottom Howe and Elliot should be playing 15 home and away games Max next year
Need to utilise whole squad

They play based on merit, not name.

Based in this season, Elliott easily best 18. Pendles definitely. Steele too.
Howe second half of the season no. Too injury interrupted.

Rest of the crew needs more youth.

 

[sherrife]

They play based on merit, not name.

Based in this season, Elliott easily best 18. Pendles definitely. Steele too.
Howe second half of the season no. Too injury interrupted.

Rest of the crew needs more youth.

If we're still playing Sidey and Pendles in the guts at the end of next year I think we're not contending. Especially if Long remains part of the core midfield mix. That combo is pretty diabolical.

 

[Granit1962]

Ludicrous! Elliott just kicked 60 in a career year and was our only dangerous forward, and you for some unknown reason want him to play fewer games?? What!?

No not ludicrous. If you have an overly high reliance on veterans throughout the year, you have a greater chance of them not peaking for finals, or, otherwise being injured. I’m not advocating for 15 games, however, unless we have a spread of younger players to spread the load, I don’t see us improving.

 

[Granit1962]

IMO, as completely uneducated as it is, we got it wrong in the back half of the season and a lot of it was around nursing our 30+ contingent to the line and too much tinkering. It resulted in us taking 3 guys into a PF that weren’t fit to perform. We’d put all this work into getting them there and it amounted to nothing in the end.

It was a twofold issue. The first was the majority of our injuries this year were to the 25-35 group on our list. The second was we need to back in the depth of our list a little further. You combine those factors and it tells a story of why we went with the 3 under clouds over 3 lesser known options. When I talk about backing the younger group in I like a tap analogy. Our tap dripped in 2025 and it needs to be more of a trickle in 2026.

It’s crunch time for the likes of HH, Parker, McInnes, Ryan, Steene and Allan get busy this off-season and take a senior players role from them. As much as it would hurt to be out of contention a 2023 Geelongesque reset where we transition to a younger more vibrant mix adding a top end FA (Bailey for me) and draft talent in the process wouldn’t be the worst outcome. I ventured away from the topic a little, but I feel like a better mix of experience and talent like Geelong have will hold us in better stead by managing one or two in the back end not half a dozen.

Yes, agree with this. We need to back in our youth and find out who is up to it. In two years time the likely hood of more than a couple of Allan, Reef, Harrison, Allan, Parker, TJ, becoming first choice B+ or A grade player is low.

Unlikely any of the rest make it.