Talking Footy

The AFL lads get oh so many stoppages in play, oh so many ball ups, ball ins, behinds, goals etc. So so many, an then there's quarter time and three quarter time

And then....we'll then ... there's 90 interchanges, down from 120 and Eddie McGuire reckons they'll need performance enhancers to handle less bench time!!

Elite athletes? Not a chance!

The AFL players are **** the most rested professional sports persons in the world.

King-Eliagh wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:28 pm

The AFL lads get oh so many stoppages in play, oh so many ball ups, ball ins, behinds, goals etc. So so many, an then there's quarter time and three quarter time

And then....we'll then ... there's 90 interchanges, down from 120 and Eddie McGuire reckons they'll need performance enhancers to handle less bench time!!

Elite athletes? Not a chance!

the number of stoppages is irrelevant when the data clearly shows they run faster, run far further, run more often and with less time in between efforts.

RL as a game obviously allows players to rest more often. Twice as often in fact, irrespective of the natural breaks in ARs

oh no nlol...

90...down from 120 ?

I'm sure we could all agree the mid fielders work the hardest in the AFL, but I'm not too sure what position in league is generally considered the "hardest" worker.
What's everyone's thoughts on this?

NlolRL wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 7:29 am

King-Eliagh wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:53 pm

I've never touted rugby league players as being awesome endurance athletes. They're power speed and strength dynamos.

And don't lie, we all know they run more than a few hundred metres per game. Look I know ur getting ur arse kicked the shit out of and ur probably getting groggy from the thorough bashing, but common dude, don't just dribble lies while ur down.

the data I sourced states RL players only cover 150-350m with high intensity running. Dont accuse me for lying when I'm only quoting official figures which were published in a peer reviewed journal.

Of course you could always provide some of your own data for once instead of claiming victory based on your opinion

That's all he ever does NlolRL. Provide his "own" data. Somehow, over the years his delusion of grandeur has him convinced that his "own" (pulled from his arse) data better reflects reality than actual impartial data from credible sources. (Mainly due to how shit it makes RL look)
So you see, in his deluded reality he's always right.
There's a term for people like this. Sounds like "duck spit"

But, imo, the data you presented is exceptional. The sprinting efforts particularly. This is where AFL reign supreme. When you consider you burn 60% more calories when sprinting it is quite remarkable what they punch out every week. Petrol tickets are a true measure in a way.

So when KE says with the eloquence of a fourth grader-
"Now what I have been saying is AFL players get many ... Many many many ... Many MANY .... many MANY more resty my legs times than Rl and soccer put together. "

He's basically explaining the recovery times required for repeated ultra high physical outputs.
In other words,
The physical output of RL and soccer combined is many ... Many many many ... Many MANY .... many MANY times less than AFL.

The Tugfest is over leaguers.

I'm chalking this one up to NlolRL in the light of irrefutably detailed evidence.

Next!

sport? It's like you've always got this mammoth green booger hanging from ur nose whenever you speak. You sooorrrta sound like you know what ur talking about but there's something oh so wrong and off putting when one reads

Members and guests I urge you to consider the real deal. Here's the only tugfest that's being considered right now.

AFL players are being considered supreme endurance athletes.

Here's my data.

I didn't make it up, it's the real deal

AFL players are on field for .... 120 minutes

AFL teams now get 90 interchanges. Down from 120

AFL players cover about 14k per game. 14 k in two hours is very very slow going. There are many grandmas and grandpas who could easily cover such distance. In such time

AFL is played over 4 quarters meaning they get additional 2 breaks than the other footy codes

AFL scores are way more often and way higher than the other footy codes meaning they get additional breaks for resting the legs

AFL has many more breaks for ball ups and ball ins compared to the rugby codes again giving players heaps of time for rest.

It's just look, the AFL athletes aren't that amazeballs for their running ok?

NlolRL wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:32 pm

King-Eliagh wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:28 pm

The AFL lads get oh so many stoppages in play, oh so many ball ups, ball ins, behinds, goals etc. So so many, an then there's quarter time and three quarter time

And then....we'll then ... there's 90 interchanges, down from 120 and Eddie McGuire reckons they'll need performance enhancers to handle less bench time!!

Elite athletes? Not a chance!

the number of stoppages is irrelevant when the data clearly shows they run faster, run far further, run more often and with less time in between efforts.

RL as a game obviously allows players to rest more often. Twice as often in fact, irrespective of the natural breaks in ARs

'The number of stoppage is irrelevant' what a complete load of shit.

A Wingers or an outside backs might get a bit of rest in Rugby League during the play (allowing them to sprint just 4 tenths of a second slower than Usain Bolt for a try) but halves or hookers get very little rest. Most forwards don't get much of a rest either, because League coaches don't have 120 or 90 interchanges up there sleeve nor do they have 30 odd minutes of breaks,

When an AFL runner pounces/runs about (in gay abandon) how many times does he experience Collisions with greater G force than astronauts experience???

...90 interchanges down from 120

Would love to see these fumblers continuously smash an opposition player who is running at them .
Then run at 3 100kg+ men who smash you .
This goes on & on .
I'll put it this way for the not so bright fumblers .
How would your elite half/ quarter marathon runners go running in a race if they continuously run into a 300kg Wall .
Then a 100 kg man ran at them over & over & you had to stop them before you continue your race .

Would that affect how far a they could run in 120 mins .

It's the fact you keep ignoring .
You get smashed . You have to get up & keep going .

That's the difference between a collision sport & your sport .

pussycat wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:44 am

NlolRL wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:32 pm

King-Eliagh wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:28 pm

The AFL lads get oh so many stoppages in play, oh so many ball ups, ball ins, behinds, goals etc. So so many, an then there's quarter time and three quarter time

And then....we'll then ... there's 90 interchanges, down from 120 and Eddie McGuire reckons they'll need performance enhancers to handle less bench time!!

Elite athletes? Not a chance!

the number of stoppages is irrelevant when the data clearly shows they run faster, run far further, run more often and with less time in between efforts.

RL as a game obviously allows players to rest more often. Twice as often in fact, irrespective of the natural breaks in ARs

'The number of stoppage is irrelevant' what a complete load of shit.

A Wingers or an outside backs might get a bit of rest in Rugby League during the play (allowing them to sprint just 4 tenths of a second slower than Usain Bolt for a try) but halves or hookers get very little rest. Most forwards don't get much of a rest either, because League coaches don't have 120 or 90 interchanges up there sleeve nor do they have 30 odd minutes of breaks,

When an AFL runner pounces/runs about (in gay abandon) how many times does he experience Collisions with greater G force than astronauts experience???

...90 interchanges down from 120

the GPS figures show that AFL players have half the breaks in between sprints compared to RL players, EVEN WHEN natural breaks like stoppages are taken into account. Therefore, these breaks are basically irrelevant because RL provides regular slow periods of play. This was backed up by ex RL player Dr Gibbs who said: ''In rugby league, there are lots of times you can have a rest. You can sit in the defensive line where the ball isn't".

Furthermore, ARs may not have the same intensity or number of collisions as RL but RL doesnt players to play directly next to an opponent for the entire game. It may not involve the same G force collisions but it's constant body on body push and shove for positional advantage over 2 hours takes its toll.

AFLcrap1 wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:09 am

Would love to see these fumblers continuously smash an opposition player who is running at them .
Then run at 3 100kg+ men who smash you .
This goes on & on .
I'll put it this way for the not so bright fumblers .
How would your elite half/ quarter marathon runners go running in a race if they continuously run into a 300kg Wall .
Then a 100 kg man ran at them over & over & you had to stop them before you continue your race .

Would that affect how far a they could run in 120 mins .

It's the fact you keep ignoring .
You get smashed . You have to get up & keep going .

That's the difference between a collision sport & your sport .

I acknowledge that. However, this is a discussion about the AFL breaks, which I'm putting into context.

Yes, RL players need to 'get up and keep going' again and again, but so do AFL players. A backman can be run off his feet from repeated sprints keeping up with a forward, yet he doesnt have a choice to sit behind the play and let someone else do it. He has to keep running or his opponent will be unmanned and the entire defensive structure breaks down.

AFL breaks arent used because players cant cover the distance required, they are used primarily for the midfield so they can run at maximum pace for the entire game. Teams which dont use their rotations generally lose because their midfield slows towards the end of the game. This is the modern game where congestion and defensive grid are utilised, which requires fresh legs.

Personally I hope they cut the interchanges to 5 per quarter

NlolRL wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:30 am

pussycat wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:44 am

NlolRL wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:32 pm

the number of stoppages is irrelevant when the data clearly shows they run faster, run far further, run more often and with less time in between efforts.

RL as a game obviously allows players to rest more often. Twice as often in fact, irrespective of the natural breaks in ARs

'The number of stoppage is irrelevant' what a complete load of shit.

A Wingers or an outside backs might get a bit of rest in Rugby League during the play (allowing them to sprint just 4 tenths of a second slower than Usain Bolt for a try) but halves or hookers get very little rest. Most forwards don't get much of a rest either, because League coaches don't have 120 or 90 interchanges up there sleeve nor do they have 30 odd minutes of breaks,

When an AFL runner pounces/runs about (in gay abandon) how many times does he experience Collisions with greater G force than astronauts experience???

...90 interchanges down from 120

the GPS figures show that AFL players have half the breaks in between sprints compared to RL players, EVEN WHEN natural breaks like stoppages are taken into account. Therefore, these breaks are basically irrelevant because RL provides regular slow periods of play. This was backed up by ex RL player Dr Gibbs who said: ''In rugby league, there are lots of times you can have a rest. You can sit in the defensive line where the ball isn't".

Furthermore, ARs may not have the same intensity or number of collisions as RL but RL doesnt players to play directly next to an opponent for the entire game. It may not involve the same G force collisions but it's constant body on body push and shove for positional advantage over 2 hours takes its toll.

Do they show that they have 5-10m at quarter time, 20??? m at big lunch and then a further 5 to 10 at three quarter time . Have I already mentioned that in case they were feeling a bit puffed or had grassburnned knees they had 120 interchanges up there sleeve.

Meanwhile the Gold Coast player was travelling the equivelant of Burleigh Heads to Surfers paradise in 90m. Made near 50 tackles and whilst travelling the 10.5k experience 74 G-Force collisions greater than what an Astronaut would experience.


I clearly recall the average for an AFL player was 11.2K that's over150m - NRL payer travelled 10.5km in 90m. The Gold coast player might have been one of the harder workers in the NRL at the time but there certainly isn't(way way more distance) as you like to pretend. The AFL player doesn't make any tackles (non of a realistic nature) nor does he experience any G- Force collisions of any significance.

pussycat wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 1:47 pm

NlolRL wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:30 am

pussycat wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:44 am

'The number of stoppage is irrelevant' what a complete load of shit.

A Wingers or an outside backs might get a bit of rest in Rugby League during the play (allowing them to sprint just 4 tenths of a second slower than Usain Bolt for a try) but halves or hookers get very little rest. Most forwards don't get much of a rest either, because League coaches don't have 120 or 90 interchanges up there sleeve nor do they have 30 odd minutes of breaks,

When an AFL runner pounces/runs about (in gay abandon) how many times does he experience Collisions with greater G force than astronauts experience???

...90 interchanges down from 120

the GPS figures show that AFL players have half the breaks in between sprints compared to RL players, EVEN WHEN natural breaks like stoppages are taken into account. Therefore, these breaks are basically irrelevant because RL provides regular slow periods of play. This was backed up by ex RL player Dr Gibbs who said: ''In rugby league, there are lots of times you can have a rest. You can sit in the defensive line where the ball isn't".

Furthermore, ARs may not have the same intensity or number of collisions as RL but RL doesnt players to play directly next to an opponent for the entire game. It may not involve the same G force collisions but it's constant body on body push and shove for positional advantage over 2 hours takes its toll.

Do they show that they have 5-10m at quarter time, 20??? m at big lunch and then a further 5 to 10 at three quarter time . Have I already mentioned that in case they were feeling a bit puffed or had grassburnned knees they had 120 interchanges up there sleeve.

Meanwhile the Gold Coast player was travelling the equivelant of Burleigh Heads to Surfers paradise in 90m. Made near 50 tackles and whilst travelling the 10.5k experience 74 G-Force collisions greater than what an Astronaut would experience.


I clearly recall the average for an AFL player was 11.2K that's over150m - NRL payer travelled 10.5km in 90m. The Gold coast player might have been one of the harder workers in the NRL at the time but there certainly isn't(way way more distance) as you like to pretend. The AFL player doesn't make any tackles (non of a realistic nature) nor does he experience any G- Force collisions of any significance.

Get your hand off it. Top AFL players are covering 20kms. The published figures show the average is nearly 12kms. The average RL players figures were 5km.

The breaks are 6 minutes at quarter time and 3 quarter time, and 20 mins at half time.

As for no tackles, lol, it may not be a tackle where someone runs blindly into you, but its still a tackle which ******* an opponent.

120 interchanges is about 1 per minute. Given there are 22 players and 18 on the field at any one time, theres a bit over one break per player per quarter lasting a few minutes or so.

King-Eliagh wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:53 pm

sport? It's like you've always got this mammoth green booger hanging from ur nose whenever you speak. You sooorrrta sound like you know what ur talking about but there's something oh so wrong and off putting when one reads

Members and guests I urge you to consider the real deal. Here's the only tugfest that's being considered right now.

AFL players are being considered supreme endurance athletes.

Here's my data.

I didn't make it up, it's the real deal

AFL players are on field for .... 120 minutes

AFL teams now get 90 interchanges. Down from 120

AFL players cover about 14k per game. 14 k in two hours is very very slow going. There are many grandmas and grandpas who could easily cover such distance. In such time

AFL is played over 4 quarters meaning they get additional 2 breaks than the other footy codes

AFL scores are way more often and way higher than the other footy codes meaning they get additional breaks for resting the legs

AFL has many more breaks for ball ups and ball ins compared to the rugby codes again giving players heaps of time for rest.

It's just look, the AFL athletes aren't that amazeballs for their running ok?

For starters, the 90 cap has been enforced for two seasons already. It's not a new thing. Your timing seems a bit out **** other things. Anyway.....

You're right though, allot of people could cover the same distance in the same time. Even old Nana and Pa would give it a nudge.
But during this leisurely stroll could they include 100 sprints up to 36kph, kick and handball the ball with laser accuracy 40 times, leap on a man's shoulders and Mark the ball over 4m in the air a few times and land without smashing every bone in their body, tackle and be tackled from any direction with the ferocity of a league prop, kick goals from 60m out, get hip and shouldered with the G force an astronaut experiences and constantly concentrate on the game all around them and what they need to do next?

It would be fucking funny if they could but the short answer is NO FUCKING WAY. The same applies to your city to surf runners and your dad bod bud.

If I apply the same logic to league I could say a determined baby on all fours could cover the distance in the same time that league players do. Can't be that hard.

That's how rediculously stupid you sound.

I have no doubt the physical condition most league players are in is the optimum condition for the rigors of playing league.
The same applies for AFL just way fitter.

Now, this is fight club so I can appreciate you attempting to discredit the AFL.
But seriously, you've chosen the single most physically demanding aspect and IMO one of the great things that seperates AFL from every other form of footy. Constant, large movement of play in all directions.
No other league comes close.

You said-
"AFL players are being considered supreme endurance athletes."
There's no consideration required. No other athlete on the planet could do what they do without AFL training.
The breaks are pivotal in allowing recovery so they can go again and again and again and again.

So next time you're trawling through ancient stories for an angle. Spare a thought for how stupid you might end up looking.

Now watch out..... I'm going to Bushman's blow this booger out and you in my line of fire.
Sshhhhnnnnnnooooottttttttt!

True sportscap. I looked up distances covered for all major sports like soccer, baseball, basketball and gridiron and the AFL has all of them covered by a massive distance