Thoughts on Fitness and Coaching for Gaelic Games

[Frank Casey]

I appreciate that but I've had players who just struggle fitness wise but can kick the ball over the bar with both feet. So I put guys around them who can run and do the things they can't. The point being made that you can't just drop somebody due to body fat if they have particular skills that are vital for the well being of the team. At club level you mighn't have the luxury. At county level however it is unlikely you would have the latitude to struggle fitness wise but at club level its different.

Colin Corkery formerly of Cork is a prime example. He looked the completely wrong body shape for any sport (except maybe sumo) but one he got the ball god nor man couldn't rob possession and he could score from almost anywhere.

[Zulu]

An extremely dubious statement and there is no way a coach should think like that, as I said above if your winger didn't drop any BF but was getting 2 tries a game for you would you be concerned?

You asked if a player lost 2% body fat would he be a better player and yes he would be he in context. So nothing dubious about considering the context I was talking was  6 week before preseason and preseason itself where game time would be minimal, of course as the season progresses yes performance is the key counter but if you were conceding scores in the last 20 mins well then you'd have ask are your players fit enough. To be honest if a player hasn't improved his baseline fitness what kind of coach would you be not to question why?

Just on the BF point, there is an inherent error in measuring BF especially if you are using calipers, this error can be very big if the person using them is inexperienced, on top of that the equations which are used to calculate the %BF are dubious and some people think they are no longer valid for todays athlete. The bottom line here is unless you are using a DEXA machine your BF measurements are probably wrong and although that may not be a problem if you are just looking for rough results, if you are using it to monitor small changes it is all but pointless.

[Logan]

As I said at the outset this is for debate and discussion purposes.
Apart from it being what I think etc It's not an imposition of views - if you don't agree well - fine.

What strength abilities do GAA players need?
1.   Maximum power
2.   Movement - Muscles have to be prepared for particular exercises.
3.   Force - Ability to display strength with speed (RFD)
4.   Starting strength – in the beginning of a movement, it's faster than RFD.
5.   Reactive ability – how quick a muscle can respond to stretch.
6.   Strength endurance – local muscular endurance ability to continue same movement for a prolonged period of time.

They must be developed in that order

Just a few thoughts of my own on this issue, first off I'm a bit confused by the above, I'm not saying it's wrong and as Logan knows I'm aware of at least some of his sources so I appreciate the expertise of his contributors but the order seems a bit strange to me. Also with individualization and position specific training I'm not sure there is any set order for that type of thing.
There was one or two other interesting points made also;

Not sure which aspect exactly you're confused about, but you can pm me on it if you like and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. 

1. Fitness testing is a waste of time

I agree but I'm not sure if it is for the same reasons, I have basically found that since you don't have control over all aspects of the players training that you can't influence most of their physical development and therefore testing what you can't chnage is a waste of your time. Now if you're with a sqaud who will do the work you set for them in their own time it might be different but for most of us I think fitness testing is a waste.

It is as you say important to look at the level of player you're coaching, but testing is more or less a waste of time for a whole load of reasons.
If I get a chance I'll send you a paper on it.

But essentially in GAA it's not done well or properly.

2. Hamstring injuries can be healed in 3 - 4 weeks

Too general a statement for me and one that isn't really true at club level, most of us have the local physio and that is it, a professional sport is different but even there I don't think you can say all hamstring (or any other kind) injuries can be healed in a set amount of time.

I should possibly have said that in an intercounty case or a very important club instance this is possible. But as you say not in everyday events.

3. The most important thing to coach is the nervous system

While it undoubtedly plays a vital role in the human body functioning, I think it is a bit pointless asking GAA coaches to even consider it as a goal of their training. Besides training improves all aspwects of human function so any training will effect the nervous system. However if Logan can expand on this I'd be very interested.

I'd strongly suggest that it needs to be very much considered – even moreso at club level than intercounty level.

4. There is no excuse for soft tissue injuries

Again I find this too general a comment, you can do everything right and a guy can still pick up an injury and this is especially true of an amateur set up where players may be doing physical jobs or playing other sports

Not if you look at the loads the players are doing and the reasons for most injuries. The majority are caused by overloading the volumes of training too early in a phase or training incorrectly. Some IC teams already do this very well.

5. Talent is trainable, nobody is 'born with it'

A difficult one, yes all players can improve and some of the best young players don't become great adult players but I coach underage a lot of the time and some kids have 'it' and others don't. That's just my experience and I'm not stating it as a fact but from what I've seen some kids do have it.

Yes – but the skills can be improved – even of the 'weaker' kids.
I'll send you something to read.

Finally I think all of us interested in coaching should be grateful to Logan for taking the time to put up the thoughts of some of the experts he has spoken to, it makes for interesting discussions and debates like this challenges all our individual opinions and helps make us better coaches which should be the only real goal. So thanks mate and maybe some of my own thoughts will help develop and flesh out the points made or lead to new ones.

It's impossible to write out and explain every point in detail – these are just threads to discuss and debate.

So I'll try and help discuss or explain them if anyone wants.

well i have my thoughts on coaching but wouldn't have the time nor inclination to get them transferred onto a website - fair play to logan for doing that on conditioning.

I do believe that there are small percentage points to be achieved now in logan's area but i believe there is much more scope for getting ahead through enhancing how you play as a team and particularly how each player approaches and executes his role within that team.

You're right to some degree – but as some pointed out you can't exclude them .
The problem with coaching is that most is done at juvenile level – I don't coach at that level.
Also, the coaching that is done at higher age grades has so many variables that you can't write a general document or series of points.
So this is why the coaching is near impossible to describe in bullet points.
Your reluctance to share information doesn't encourage others either.

There are a wide range of tests that can be used to quantify aerobic and anaerobic performance, sprint times, jump height, time trials etc.
The more data you have about a players physical capacity the better for you and him.
It is a valuable psychological and physiological tool.
It's all very well for a player to think he's fit.
It's much better if you can show him he's fit.

Tests take time – time you done' have at club level – and perhaps less at inter-county level.
Many tests take the time away from the real focus – playing the game and performing on the field.
How many fail skills tests? No one – because no one – or few test for skills – which is the point DuffleKing makes in one sense.
To accurately use them you need to test very regularly – no one does this – or has the facility to do this at club level often enough and very few at IC level.
Most tests take too much time and are not specific enough to the sport.
What use is a VO2 Max test for a FF anyway?
Showing a player he is fit on a sheet of paper is a waste of time compared to having him play well in reality.
I could go on  - but ... no doubt you'll simply accuse me of googling so I'll stop about now.

The two reasons you would fitness test IMO are to find out where your players are (fitnesswise) and to design appropriate training programs to improve on these areas. However when you only have them 2 nights a week you can't do everything in those sessions so many of the areas you'd like to improve are out of your control. You can give the players programs to do on their own but due to a lack of committment, playing other sports or a lack of time many of them don't do them or don't do them enough.

When I started coaching first I did wide ranging fitness tests but I found it very difficult to get the group together again to retest and even if I did I'm not sure the results would have changed my training program in any way. I had to do most of the coaching myself so breaking up the squad into small groups was generally impossible, so at club level I'd only advise a coach to fitness test what he can actually change and only retest during the season if he feels he has the room and ability to change his program.

At IC level it is different but even there I feel some fitness testing is done without any real purpose.

Agree with all of that.

Perhaps I have more resources at my disposal as I have 3 other coaches under my but I find fitness testing very important, 6 weeks before pre-season begins the players are given a programme and are tested at the start, we test vertical jump, body fat percentage, flexibility, aeroibic (150m shuttle) and sprint time over 40m. This gives us a baseline to work off they are then tested at the start of pre-season where the expectation is results will have improved and depending on results we can adjust our own pre-season plans.

Great – but how many teams do that though in GAA?
Why do a VJ and sprint test?

If you don't test, how do you know they're getting fitter?

It's about performance on the field.
NOT about improving tests alone.
This is a problem for many players – they focus on passing tests and then they find out that they aren't getting any better as players on game day ...

I would agree Dinny. How can you ever improve if you don't know where you're at. A lot of players will laugh at you when you tell them they aren't fit enough- if you can prove it to them- it usually shuts them up.

Winning games usually does it for me.

I agree with that I think vertical jumps among other things are a waste of time at club level. There are very few if any club teams that will have the expertise or facilities available to them to improve the likes of those. However a spider or bleep test can be used at club level simply to give an overall assessment of their fitness level and give the players and coaches something to work from. I wouldn't get hung up on fitness tests but its no harm a couple of times during the season.

They are the one test I would absolutely do every training session.
If you do it every session then it's a form of monitoring – not training or testing.

However a spider or bleep test can be used at club level simply to give an overall assessment of their fitness level and give the players and coaches something to work from.

I agree, there is nothing wrong with doing this test as it something that as a coach you can actually influence but power, flexibility, BF and agility are things that will need extra or specific work and therefore are of limited use to most coaches. For example if you best forward hasn't lost any BF are you going to drop him, or if a guy's flexibility has improved but he is playing rubbish are you going to start him? IMO on field performance can is the only real test that matters and if your team are doing well there then you should be happy.

Exactly

Then you have another player on the bench thinking – I improved everything in the tests – but he's not playing me!

Precisely why I consider them a waste of time . Club players generally don't have the time to perform heavy power lifting sessions. Also a squat exercise from a technique point of view is not easy to do properly. The amount of people and players I see performing incorrect squats in the gym is unbelievable. This invariably leads to hamstring injuries and tears.
Any club teams I've been involved with- I've largely taken out heavy free squats because I find after a couple of weeks the technique gets flawed and they gte up getting injury problems.
Its different a t county level - lads often have coaches there as the weights are being performed and because they are doing them from a younger age - their technique is usually perfect before they get near the heavy stuff.

I agree with this (almost) completely – but to drop squatting is not a solution.
Teaching good technique is very possible.

I appreciate that but I've had players who just struggle fitness wise but can kick the ball over the bar with both feet. So I put guys around them who can run and do the things they can't. The point being made that you can't just drop somebody due to body fat if they have particular skills that are vital for the well being of the team. At club level you mighn't have the luxury. At county level however it is unlikely you would have the latitude to struggle fitness wise but at club level its different.

Colin Corkery formerly of Cork is a prime example. He looked the completely wrong body shape for any sport (except maybe sumo) but one he got the ball god nor man couldn't rob possession and he could score from almost anywhere.

I hate fat players – however – I've seen a few guys like Corkery get a lot worse after losing 2% body fat than get better.

It's not the point of losing fat – but the method.

An extremely dubious statement and there is no way a coach should think like that, as I said above if your winger didn't drop any BF but was getting 2 tries a game for you would you be concerned?

You asked if a player lost 2% body fat would he be a better player and yes he would be he in context. So nothing dubious about considering the context I was talking was  6 week before preseason and preseason itself where game time would be minimal, of course as the season progresses yes performance is the key counter but if you were conceding scores in the last 20 mins well then you'd have ask are your players fit enough. To be honest if a player hasn't improved his baseline fitness what kind of coach would you be not to question why?

Just on the BF point, there is an inherent error in measuring BF especially if you are using calipers, this error can be very big if the person using them is inexperienced, on top of that the equations which are used to calculate the %BF are dubious and some people think they are no longer valid for todays athlete. The bottom line here is unless you are using a DEXA machine your BF measurements are probably wrong and although that may not be a problem if you are just looking for rough results, if you are using it to monitor small changes it is all but pointless.

Agreed.
And – you can't use DEXA too often for health reasons.

And on that also - there is at least a 2% differential of error to be allowed - so a 2% difference is meaningless really.

[JMohan]

Bloody hell!
Some reading to be done here!!!!!! 
I'm not sure everyone does - but like Lynch boy and some of the others I really appreciate the time you've put into this.

[blewuporstuffed]

Bloody hell!
Some reading to be done here!!!!!! 
I'm not sure everyone does - but like Lynch boy and some of the others I really appreciate the time you've put into this.

have to agree, well done to logan and some of the other posters for the effort put into this.
It has brought up some really interesting stuff

[lynchbhoy]

An extremely dubious statement and there is no way a coach should think like that, as I said above if your winger didn't drop any BF but was getting 2 tries a game for you would you be concerned?

You asked if a player lost 2% body fat would he be a better player and yes he would be he in context. So nothing dubious about considering the context I was talking was  6 week before preseason and preseason itself where game time would be minimal, of course as the season progresses yes performance is the key counter but if you were conceding scores in the last 20 mins well then you'd have ask are your players fit enough. To be honest if a player hasn't improved his baseline fitness what kind of coach would you be not to question why?

I appreciate that but I've had players who just struggle fitness wise but can kick the ball over the bar with both feet. So I put guys around them who can run and do the things they can't. The point being made that you can't just drop somebody due to body fat if they have particular skills that are vital for the well being of the team. At club level you mighn't have the luxury. At county level however it is unlikely you would have the latitude to struggle fitness wise but at club level its different.

funnily enough I have a crew that cant run around much and cant kick th ball over the bar with either foot !

as for this thread its good to see /hear what some of the rest of you think.

(am only talking about Football here Dinny and God help Nurney  u14's in a couple of years time)
I am trying to figure out where the fcuk I am going wrong, but the conclusion is - that I took my current role in the first place!

The higher up you go the smarter you have to be to play good football. Team ethic, moving the ball , plus movement of players.
The old subbeuteo static stuff is for the lower divisions.
Up higher levels as all teams should be relatively the same fitness wise, Smarter/cohesive football teams with a few scoring forwards, a few good man markers but the intellignce in their football is where wins will come from.

Fitness is only the base level. You need it to start, though you could carry one or maybe two lads not at top fitness (Keavney-ish)

[blewuporstuffed]

An extremely dubious statement and there is no way a coach should think like that, as I said above if your winger didn't drop any BF but was getting 2 tries a game for you would you be concerned?

You asked if a player lost 2% body fat would he be a better player and yes he would be he in context. So nothing dubious about considering the context I was talking was  6 week before preseason and preseason itself where game time would be minimal, of course as the season progresses yes performance is the key counter but if you were conceding scores in the last 20 mins well then you'd have ask are your players fit enough. To be honest if a player hasn't improved his baseline fitness what kind of coach would you be not to question why?

I appreciate that but I've had players who just struggle fitness wise but can kick the ball over the bar with both feet. So I put guys around them who can run and do the things they can't. The point being made that you can't just drop somebody due to body fat if they have particular skills that are vital for the well being of the team. At club level you mighn't have the luxury. At county level however it is unlikely you would have the latitude to struggle fitness wise but at club level its different.

funnily enough I have a crew that cant run around much and cant kick th ball over the bar with either foot !

as for this thread its good to see /hear what some of the rest of you think.

(am only talking about Football here Dinny and God help Nurney  u14's in a couple of years time)
I am trying to figure out where the fcuk I am going wrong, but the conclusion is - that I took my current role in the first place!

The higher up you go the smarter you have to be to play good football. Team ethic, moving the ball , plus movement of players.
The old subbeuteo static stuff is for the lower divisions.
Up higher levels as all teams should be relatively the same fitness wise, Smarter/cohesive football teams with a few scoring forwards, a few good man markers but the intellignce in their football is where wins will come from.

Fitness is only the base level. You need it to start, though you could carry one or maybe two lads not at top fitness (Keavney-ish)

would agree with that, a good level of fitness is needed for a successful Gaelic football team, but too much emphasis can beplaced on fitness.
a super-fit team generally wont fair any better than on that is just fit.As Logan posted before, it is almost impossible to say one team is fitter than the other if both of then have a good base level of fitness

[INDIANA]

Yes but it also comes down to then the type of training each team is doing. The team with the better footballers 8 times out of 10 will win the match if both teams have a good fitness level up to a certain point.
Sometimes at the highest level - smart tactical awareness can mean David can slay Goliath but that is a rare enough event.

[lynchbhoy]

Yes but it also comes down to then the type of training each team is doing. The team with the better footballers 8 times out of 10 will win the match if both teams have a good fitness level up to a certain point.
Sometimes at the highest level - smart tactical awareness can mean David can slay Goliath but that is a rare enough event.

however smart intelligent football teams mean that these are the actual goliaths (winning or hard to beat top sides!)

[Logan]

Just a few notes on coaching (I've a few other notes to add) ...

'Coaching' is generally what you do with under age teams and younger age groups.

But the higher up the levels you go the less time is on coaching and the more is spent on team tactical improvements and work.

You can't spend time teaching adults how to kick the ball and how to catch – only if it's an extreme circumstance.
If they do, then there is a serious amount of time needed to unlearn a skill and then relearn it is some thing that needs to be carefully considered.

In terms of tactics the first thing is to look at the people available to you. Pick the best characters , then pick the best players.
If you pick the best players – then look at them as a whole, look at the style the county or club play and then decide on a style.
This determines the nature or the type of game and levels of fitness you need.

A running game for example needs a lot of fitness and endurance whereas a kicking game needs possibly more strength emphasis.
It's not that black and white – but that's a very simple description, it gets far more complex to be honest if you break it down and look at the positions within each of the styles of game.

Fitness is not the key – BUT what is more important is how it is gotten – AND how it is all managed (this is where the nervous system is relevant).

People are right to say 'there is too much emphasis on fitness ' and this comes from too many people from outside football, with no knowledge of it, coming in and doing fitness training completely without the ball. That's not to say all training needs to be with the ball – no way.
Anyone who says all training needs to be with the ball is full of nonsense – but a balance is needed.

It is almost impossible to say one team is fitter than the other – because teams who win always look fitter. Ever see an unfit team win? Very rarely.

One thing is certain is that the team with better footballers has NO guarantee of winning.  In fact the 'best players' is again a debatable concept.
I know many 'good' players that I wouldn't rate very highly – but fitted very well into the plan and program of the team and thus were regarded as great 'corner backs' etc.

[Logan]

Bloody hell!
Some reading to be done here!!!!!! 
I'm not sure everyone does - but like Lynch boy and some of the others I really appreciate the time you've put into this.

have to agree, well done to logan and some of the other posters for the effort put into this.
It has brought up some really interesting stuff

Thank you - I'm just trying to put some different thoughts out there that you don't learn on courses or from books etc