Two Coaches & a Coffee

Season 2, Episode 15

• Darren Burgess & Jason Weber • Season 2 • Episode 15

Share episode

Is sports science keeping pace with the evolving demands of modern football?  With Darren Burgess in the UK, Jason Weber flies solo to explore how sports science must continuously adapt to the game's changing nature. This episode bridges conversations from the EPL, AFL, and NFL, offering a comprehensive look at how different seasons and leagues impact gameplay and injury rates.

Jason also shares his latest research on analyzing opposition work rates in the AFL, emphasizing the importance of understanding patterns and preparing effectively for upcoming seasons (check out the paper https://www.mdpi.com/2673-2688/5/2/38). Reflecting on the tactical shifts in rugby union and football, this episode underscores the critical role of sports science in modern sports. Tune in for an enlightening discussion that provides valuable insights into how teams can better navigate the complex dynamics of their sports environments.

SpeedSig Intro

Sponsored by SPEEDSIG.com

Jason Weber:

Good day and welcome to Two Coaches and a Coffee. I'm Jason Weber and I'm here with Darren Burgess. . Well, I'm not trying to make a joke, but Burgess is not here, unfortunately. He's decided to leave me alone and fly off to the UK on another job, but I'm going to fly the flag solo today and from that perspective, obviously I've got no one to argue with.

Jason Weber:

What I thought I'd do is have a look at another podcast by a good friend of Bu, Dave Carolan, and a guy named Gary Rowett. They do a podcast called Breaking Lines out of the UK, which does, funnily enough, almost the same thing that Virgil and I do, and it was awesome. I've had a good listen to it this week. Obviously, being in the UK, they're very experienced in the EPL and football the real football, the beautiful game so those guys do their podcast based around that. But last week they did a podcast around injury crisis. Is there an injury crisis Now? That's very similar to the same subject matter that Darren and I have been talking about, so I thought I'd use some of their input to try and build a conversation, given I've got no one to talk to. But what it is really good about their podcast is, from our perspective, is that they're doing something very similar to us, so they're facing the same issues. They're both very pragmatic guys. They've got very realistic observations around what's going on in the league, the various leagues in the UK and I think the fact that we're on the same tangent means that there are people in the same area trying to solve similar problems. I think if you look at the evolution of the wheel, the wheel was created probably across in multiple places at similar times. The fact that we're all thinking along the same lines means we're challenging the same ideas, we're having the same problems. That means there's some trends there. That we're all thinking along the same lines means we're challenging the same ideas. We're having the same problems. It means there's some trends there that we can work through.

Jason Weber:

So let's start with that. One of the things David and Gary brought up was has the game changed? Birgit and I have talked about this Now. I think you can do this and address it from. Think about it from a number of perspectives. I think from the first point of view I'd like to talk about is the sports science perspective. Why are we asking the question?

Jason Weber:

Sports science as a profession should be examining this consistently and being able to say, well, this is where the game's going, but it needs to be examined explicitly. It needs to be examined explicitly within the sports you work in and at the different levels, because I'm sure epl, the championship afl, to vfl and waffle in australia would be very, very different. Same in the nfl in the states. Nfl to college football is very, very different. So I think the sports science team need to be having a really, really good look at those patterns and understand their evolutions over time and being able to be sure that they can communicate that to teams. Now, I've certainly always been of the opinion that we should be examining opposition as much as we can. I've just published I was on a team that published a paper recently looking at how to examine the different rates of work of other teams through the AFL and we'll link that in the podcast but the idea behind that, the motivation to do that, wasn't sort of duplicitously trying to undermine anybody, but to understand the patterns. Are we pursuing the right path? I mean, at the end of the day, you spend a whole big pre-season getting set up for what you think is going to happen. So understanding the patterns around the game.

Jason Weber:

The evolution of the game is really, really important. And does that game cycle across the course of the year? Is it faster in the early parts, colder and slower as the game gets colder and wetter during the winter months In any case? Are there changes? Winter and during the winter months, in any case, are there changes?

Jason Weber:

In my experience, if I look at the rugby, the evolution of rugby union from, I did the World Cups in 2003 and 2007. If you look at the rate of contact now, in particular the impact from players both in the tackle and contesting the ball on the ground, it's gone through the roof. Now there have been changes to the way we condition for that, but we're still seeing problems. We're still seeing problems in Australian rugby around props with calf problems. We've had an Achilles problem in the Australian Rugby Union. We've got props in the UK at the moment who are not coming on tour in the southern hemisphere in winter because of calf issues. Genji, one of the big UK English props, will be unavailable through calf tear. So we've got common problems, right? Is there something? The game has clearly changed and I think I'll ask some more questions about how we're training in a little bit, but the game has definitely changed.

Jason Weber:

From an AFL perspective, there's been massive changes in the last 15 years, certainly that I've been involved. We have the addition of rotations Now. The addition of rotations was supposed to protect players from getting injuries by allowing them more time to come on and off, because they're unlimited. They're kind of like ice hockey back in the day, back in the sort of 2010, that era, but the game sped up. The coaches took advantage of that and they played towards that thing, so the game got faster. And there was a change in defensive strategies. Instead of us playing AFL, a game where people were almost like netball, back in their zones, now they're pushing super hard. So when we get we're almost like a forward press, so we're getting defensive structures moving right up into the defensive 50. Increases the physical load on the entire game, particularly when teams get out and you've got to run back in defence. And more recently, we've had a reduction in rotation, so the game stayed the same time. We've got one or two. More recently, we've had a reduction in rotation, so the game stayed the same time. We've got one or two more players. You know we're interchange players now, but you've got less rotation, so you've got to ask more of certain players and when you look at the fundamentals of rotating people around, you've got to have X number of people on the ground. You have 18 people on the ground for the time of the game. So there's mathematically a limit to how many you can do, but it means some have got to run more or less. So there's been massive changes. There's no question about that. But if we consider that, if the game has changed, the question I want to ask is has our training changed to accommodate it? Now, I come from a strength and conditioning background. I've been there, I've tried to push the bar. I mean, I started back in the late 1990s, you know. So this grey beard is all quite real and we always think, you know, we're smart and I think, as a young S&c coach, when I was a zealot knew everything and all the answers. Yeah, I think I did have all the answers, but I've got to ask the question now have we changed enough to accommodate the game? The game is the game. Okay, we, we know the time frame of the game on the weekend. We, we know when the games are going to be. They're not going to change the things that change within that are going to be tactically, how the coaches approach it, and what we have to ask ourselves is what we're doing through the week contributing to that possible injury crisis? Now, if you did nothing, that would equally be as bad, but somewhere there's got to be a sweet spot. I feel at the moment when we start talking about injury crisis Now, if you did nothing, that would equally be as bad, but somewhere there's got to be a sweet spot and I feel at the moment when we start talking about injury crisis, that we're probably missing it a little bit. I certainly know I was involved in some injury crisis back in the day in the AFL and mostly that had to do with basic training, team training, going overboard and going overboard for a period and that exposing our athletes. Now I had an old guy I used to work with in rugby league who would say well, training's training, it's what the coaches want to do. Now we have to adjust on the other side of that. So we have to do more or less in the gym or more or less of whatever else we're doing to accommodate for that. Are we doing enough? I don't think I specifically have the answers, but the point of this discussion is to like when we burge us hypothetically, pose well, what if we did less? We talk about the minimal effective dose. Well, are we in the right spot? Are we close enough to that minimal or effective dose? Because if we're still getting these injury patterns and we're seeing it you know Dave and Gary talked about in Breaking the Lines, in Breaking the Lines podcast we're seeing it in AFL Rugby League in Australia at the moment has got someone emailed me the other day and said, hey, there's a hamstring crisis there. So the issue's there. The game, yes, we acknowledge that it's changed in different places, but have we changed enough on the outside? There's only so much work we can do to prevent an injury before we can also add too much work and then we create injury by overloading the athlete. Something to closely consider. One of the things we don't consider or I don't hear discussed as much I know it's out there is the concept of monotony, but monotony comes primarily from the triathlon world, the running world. We talk about the sameness of training. Now, I certainly saw this extensively in the afl, where you get into that routine week by week by week and it's almost the same thing every week. Now, what happens with that? And what I saw was a period where we just started to overload training too much and you're saying, hey, the coach, hey, we've just got to pull back a little bit, we're just going too far up and up, and up and up. And then you go, okay, we'll recover. Well, the coach finally says, yeah, we'll just go on too far, up and up and up and up. And then you go, okay, we'll recover. What the coach finally says, yep, we'll back off. But that overload creates a shadow and now that we've got this training that's been really monotonous for a time, that monotony has a shadow effect. So you've deloaded training or you've started to reduce it and you're getting injury hits, particularly the insidious onset A lot of. We see them in the AFL the calf. The calf that comes off the field is fine and 24, 48 hours later it rears its head. So that idea of monotony and of the shadow effect of when you peak, it might take three or four weeks before that overload clears. I actually saw on LinkedIn today someone I don't recall who had posted some great reports of all their monitoring data and all their data's out there and I'm looking at it going. It's just stating numbers, it's not telling us yes, there's a mean and they did this much sprint, but it's not really conveying the impact of that overload and how long that lasts for, because what we might need to be doing is really having a look at when we go overboard with speed in a game, because that's just the way the game went. There are changes in the total training amount for the following week. Now I know there are people out there making those changes not suggesting that no one's thinking like that, nor that I've got the. You know, I've had a light bulb moment. Suddenly this is solving it. But I think for younger coaches and I guess this is what Darren and I and I know Dave and Gary tried to do by talking about it by speaking about it, it just gets those ideas out there. We live in a very complex world and that complex world has so many things in it that sometimes we get focused on one area of our work and we let others go. So really have a look at your monotony of training and maybe ask yourself the question have we changed training enough to match the changes that are occurring in the game? So again in the Breaking Lines podcast, I think Gary brought up a great point he talked about. Are our players robust enough that back in the day in English football guys were playing 40 games a year. They train all week, they play every minute of every game. You know tough as nails, without question, and I think we could say that of many sports Now it all harks back to. Has the game changed? And I think there's unquestionably yes, it has. It's faster. I mean, if you look at the UK, the boys in the Break the Lines podcast talked about the changes in the surface that you, that you go from a mud-sodden pitch to really nicely manicured, you've got higher technologies in drainage and all that. The game is faster, the field is better, it can run faster, boots have changed, the ball's changed, all those type of things. So, has the game changed? Yeah, do the players need to be more robust? Well, there's no question there. Has the game changed? Yeah, do the players need to be more robust? Well, there's no question. There's two points that I'll probably bring up with regard to this. One is humans haven't evolved. We haven't changed since the last 100 years of sport, organised professional sport in the world, be it the beautiful game or whatever else. The human species hasn't evolved. So we can handle a certain amount. There's a level of tolerance to which our tissues can handle. So the question has to be are we doing too much, you know? Is it the game goes too far, and the point I'm making for us, the game's the game all right, the end of the day. I know there's in australia at the moment, afl coaches, there's some calling for a shortened game. Now, football in all its forms is a product and that product has a TV audience and a paying audience and that audience wants the product. Now, if you don't change that product too much commercially, there can be issues. So is the game going to change? I don't know. I kind of don't care. You're playing the game as it's presented to you. So are we doing too much? Well, we have to. We're trying to play the game faster, play at a better rate. But when we talked before about training and how we're doing too much to run, one of the questions I have is about monitoring. Now we spend an inordinate amount of money and time on monitoring our athletes. Gps is front and center in that. That's telling us what we do. Everyone no doubt, with the whole speed seat thing, that from my perspective I'm adamant about how athletes run and that biomechanics is a piece of it. It's not everything, but it's a piece. The biomechanics is a piece of it. It's not everything, but it's a piece. So the question I have is are we monitoring the right thing? Now? If I go back 10 years, to when I started doing the research that led to SpeedSeq, my conclusion at that time was, hey, we've got these issues, these issues being soft tissue injuries. They're not going away. So what are we looking at? The signals we've got aren't quite right now. We've tried different things and I've continued to evolve. We have the evolution of innumerate things off the field in terms of force plates, eccentric hamstring contractions and the like. Those things have evolved, but we really haven't changed injury rates at all, not one bit. Now, are they the right things? I'm not going to say they are or they aren't, but if we still keep having the injury issues, I think I've got to push it back to the sports scientists among us and those to question are we looking at the right thing? Have we got the right? It is a complicated issue. I'll talk a bit more about this in a moment but I think it comes down to the leadership in our groups, you know, in our teams being able to say, hey, we're not quite there yet, we haven't got it, not to put all our eggs in that one basket. I spoke to an NBA team just a couple of nights ago from a speed sick perspective, and one of the things we talked about was the idea that they were saying, well, hey, we've got a bunch of projects going on, but once we get going, we really have no time. Now I 100% get that and I think if I got Dave Carroll on this podcast he would agree. Once you're going in a team sport, it's very hard to keep that. Keep your eyes on anything else. But that's where I think it comes down to a crucial part of leadership within the team's professional sports environment. And I get asked about this a lot what's the difference between a high-performance manager as much as I hate that name and just being an S&C coach high performance manager as much as I hate that name and just being an S&C coach? One of the leadership qualities is the idea to step back from the trees and see the forest. You've got to really have that Google mindset where the Googleites can have time allocated through the week to work on projects. As a leader, I think you need to step back and keep trying to look and understand. What are the patterns we're seeing in the game, which we'll talk more about, but can we evaluate those? So that's one thing. The other observation that I would make about being robust is the last couple of years I've coached high school sport predominantly AFL, but rugby and football, soccer as well and just strengthening conditioning for the kids through this high school program. Now one of the patterns I've seen just go absolutely rampant in the last two years is the prevalence of lumbar par stress fractures, par's in the interarticular stress fractures. Now they weren't from lifting because guys weren't getting them in the gym and certainly there were a lot of kids that were coming, you know, referred to me because they had injuries outside, had nothing to do with the gym previously. So there was no question in my mind, it wasn't stemming from what we were doing in there. So there was no question in my mind, it wasn't stemming from what we were doing in there. But we're getting kids at young ages 14, 15, 16, some of them going overboard. In my opinion personal opinion but let's just say in general they're doing more in a specific sport than they would normally have or that a similar age kid may have done 15, 20 years ago, and is that contributing to this pattern, this beginning of injuries back when they're kids? Now, when you look at past stress fractures, fundamentally it's excessive and multiple extension rotation. So it's an overload injury that occurs across time, the stress fracture. But you've got to look at when that occurs. Now, for most of these kids cricket probably being the exception because of the bowling action but for most of these kids it occurs in running. So they are running. Not only are they running in theory too much because you're getting the creation of a stress fracture, but they're clearly running in a manner in which their back is doing two things they're trying to create extension, to generate height, lift off the ground and therefore flight phasing, running. That generation of vertical force is not happening directly from the lower body. They're extending, in my opinion, into their spine to try and get more extension. But then they're also, when they land, when they make ground contact, instead of absorbing that force through the leg and in the pelvis structure, they seem to be copying it in the back. So when you look at we talk about spring mass model and running. I won't explain that too much here. It's very hard to do it verbally, but a spring mass model basically assumes the upper body to be fairly fixed and the leg to be one, both legs to be big springs as you land on the ground, the spring absorbs and then it pushes off again. But in reality what we're seeing is these kids that have probably got a spring in their lower back that's doing too much spring in the lumbar spine and creating this extension rotation moment that's occurring as the athlete swings their arms and they consequently try to go faster with less ability and less capacity it'd probably be a better word and creating these injuries. And now I've seen these. I would have seen nearly 20 of these past fractures in the last two years. That's massive. So do we need to be more robust? That's the question it still comes back to. Are we doing too much? Have we gone too far? Has the game become too much such that our training is overboard? There's an imbalance somewhere. Now, if I remember back to my childhood, there was no. You know, we played multiple sports, but we never had kids out every other week with a back fracture. We were out for six months. One of the first kids I met at this school I met him in year 10, he'd had three past fractures, back to back to back to back, and it wasn't until I got there and we had a formulated plan and we slowed him down and we got him up and we identified this excessive back problem in his running. We're able to tidy that up, get him stronger and hopefully he'll be drafted into the AFL next year. So we had a good intervention there. But if that pattern exists elsewhere, if we're pushing our kids too far, how do they become robust? If they're being stressed to the point of breaking when they're 14, 15? Not sure, but I think again it's one of those things we need to look at. If they're being stressed to the point of breaking when they're 14, 15? Not sure, but I think again it's one of those things we need to look at From a pattern perspective. I talked about patterns a little bit earlier. I think again I'll hark back to the boys on the Breaking the Lines podcast. They asked the question what's the pattern? Is there a pattern between the gain and the injuries? Well, I think there is. I think in computer science. What's the pattern? Is there a pattern between the gain and the injuries? Well, I think there is. I think in computer science there's always this idea that if you can physically see a pattern, that the computer should be able to detect it and we can work with it. I think it's there, but I think the patterns are more complicated than I think some people are giving them credit for, particularly when we're looking at one or two variables and trying to associate that with an injury rate, it is far more complex. I was in a team that published a paper at the MIT Sloan Analytics Conference in Boston a bunch of years ago, looking at injury rates in a very, very tight group. So I mean, I don't think it's plausible to extrapolate that too much further, but nonetheless we were looking and trying to find the patterns. But we were using neural networks. We're using very complex computational techniques to bring a whole lot of information together. Now I think I'll throw this back to the Sports Science Committee guys again, I'm very much of the opinion that sports science is not a badge. You shouldn't just put it on and go hey, I'm the sports science guy, I do GPS. No, I think what a sports scientist should be doing is examining all these questions Should be on the. You know, yes, you're doing the normal day-to-day data flow, but you've got to be looking for the patterns, looking for the exceptions, pushing so that we can start to feed the practitioners, feed the S&C coaches, the medical staff to help them generate interventions that are going to make a change. Now I see this pattern quite a lot in the mail. I'm seeing younger guys and girls getting into the sports. I'm seeing people coming in and out of mathematics and science more straight sciences and being able to have a genuine impact. But I think, from a person coming through your Bachelor of Sports Science and a Master's maybe in sports science, I can't go past the computational ability, your ability to manage data at volume, be able to start looking at these patterns and really contributing to the team more than just pushing data around in circles trying to find patterns that can help practitioners make valuable change. So I think that's really something. If you're in that sports science market, I think you need to be starting to think about what you bring. I mean I've said this over and over If I was interviewing a sports science guy now, or girl either, or I would be really pushing on. What are your capabilities with data sets, with answering questions to understand how can we find this path? If you go into business, in business. There are innumerable courses around the world looking at time series data from a finance perspective, from a business perspective, from projecting. How much stock do we need? What price? What's selling, what's not it's kind of the same thing. Right, we're trying to keep our players on the field, but I think that high level ability in computational science is super important. Okay, so that's a wrap for me for two cups and a coffee for this week. Um, if you've got this far, you've listened to me the whole way. I really appreciate you getting on the podcast. Um, we do value very much our couple of hundred people that are following us every week. We'd love to see more, so get it out, share it with your buddies where you can. Like we said cross promotion, go and check out Dave Carolyn's podcast, breaking Lines. It's awesome. It's very similar to us, just a very different accent and probably a little bit different context, but nonetheless an awesome podcast. So we look forward to next week having Darren back with us different accent and probably a little bit different context, but nonetheless an awesome podcast. So we look forward to next week having Darren back with us and you guys have a good week.