|
Post by StokieAsh13 on Jul 24, 2014 9:11:16 GMT
Things looking positive.
Seems as though they are linking up well. Could this be the start of something special? Apologies if posted.
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on Jul 24, 2014 9:13:29 GMT
Why the bras??
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on Jul 24, 2014 9:17:56 GMT
If Begovic stays that's more important than any of the new signings.
Genuine world class and in the top five keepers in the world IMO.
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Jul 24, 2014 9:20:13 GMT
Measures movement and body statistics.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jul 24, 2014 9:34:40 GMT
Measures movement and body statistics. Is that seriously true? Christ almighty what a load of bollocks.
|
|
|
Post by stokeloyal on Jul 24, 2014 9:42:23 GMT
Measures movement and body statistics. Is that seriously true? Christ almighty what a load of bollocks. Actually i think you'll find sport science and technology is one of the main reason sports performance has advanced so much over the past decades. Why would elite level coaches and athletes not want this data if it's available?
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jul 24, 2014 9:47:56 GMT
Is that seriously true? Christ almighty what a load of bollocks. Actually i think you'll find sport science and technology is one of the main reason sports performance has advanced so much over the past decades. Why would elite level coaches and athletes not want this data if it's available? Look, I don't mind the fact it's there and available. I think it's great that they're utilizing technology, but what for exactly? To make them better players? For me, England's best player in the last 25 years has been Paul Gasoigne. Nobody has come close for natural flair, ability, skill, in fact, most attributes he possessed. He never had any of these body bra measuring things did he? It would have been funny if he had mind. My point being that all this sports science doesn't necessarily make better players. Training makes better players. We haven't had a player even close to Gazza's ability recently, Sports Science or not. All the technology couldn't help all these players like Wilshere and Barkley who are supposedly going to be as good, yet haven't even come close yet. Makes you wonder whether their priorities are right.
|
|
|
Post by stokeloyal on Jul 24, 2014 9:58:50 GMT
Look, I don't mind the fact it's there and available. I think it's great that they're utilizing technology, but what for exactly? To make them better players? For me, England's best player in the last 25 years has been Paul Gasoigne. Nobody has come close for natural flair, ability, skill, in fact, most attributes he possessed. He never had any of these body bra measuring things did he? It would have been funny if he had mind. My point being that all this sports science doesn't necessarily make better players. Training makes better players. We haven't had a player even close to Gazza's ability recently, Sports Science or not. All the technology couldn't help all these players like Wilshere and Barkley who are supposedly going to be as good, yet haven't even come close yet. Makes you wonder whether their priorities are right. Yes to make them better athletes... Gazza, Usain bolt, Mike Tyson, these are the genetic outliers who yes you are quite right are born with bags of ability and often become champions in-spite of there training (not because of it) For everyone else however, skill development be it speed strength, maximal strength, agility, endurance etc is very much a science. Look at the way athletes are created in the states. For professional coaches to ignore tools such as these would put the development of most of there athletes at a disadvantage. Gone are the days of telling athletes to run for miles, doing mindless hard-work with no real thought. Science wont over come genetics but it is in my opinion a key to unlocking an athletes full potential... even if that potential is less than Gazza's.
|
|
|
Post by burberrybassist on Jul 24, 2014 10:01:28 GMT
Actually i think you'll find sport science and technology is one of the main reason sports performance has advanced so much over the past decades. Why would elite level coaches and athletes not want this data if it's available? Look, I don't mind the fact it's there and available. I think it's great that they're utilizing technology, but what for exactly? To make them better players? For me, England's best player in the last 25 years has been Paul Gasoigne. Nobody has come close for natural flair, ability, skill, in fact, most attributes he possessed. He never had any of these body bra measuring things did he? It would have been funny if he had mind. My point being that all this sports science doesn't necessarily make better players. Training makes better players. We haven't had a player even close to Gazza's ability recently, Sports Science or not. All the technology couldn't help all these players like Wilshere and Barkley who are supposedly going to be as good, yet haven't even come close yet. Makes you wonder whether their priorities are right. Its about getting the most out of your players no matter what their skill level, its not like the staff think that by putting a bra on somebody it will magically turn them into Cryuff, and its not like a football teams only aim is to make their players wear bras, then leave them to their own devices and not teach them or allow them to develop.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jul 24, 2014 10:02:57 GMT
Look, I don't mind the fact it's there and available. I think it's great that they're utilizing technology, but what for exactly? To make them better players? For me, England's best player in the last 25 years has been Paul Gasoigne. Nobody has come close for natural flair, ability, skill, in fact, most attributes he possessed. He never had any of these body bra measuring things did he? It would have been funny if he had mind. My point being that all this sports science doesn't necessarily make better players. Training makes better players. We haven't had a player even close to Gazza's ability recently, Sports Science or not. All the technology couldn't help all these players like Wilshere and Barkley who are supposedly going to be as good, yet haven't even come close yet. Makes you wonder whether their priorities are right. Yes to make them better athletes... Gazza, Usain bolt, Mike Tyson, these are the genetic outliers who yes you are quite right are born with bags of ability and often become champions in-spite of there training (not because of it) For everyone else however, skill development be it speed strength, maximal strength, agility, endurance etc is very much a science. Look at the way athletes are created in the states. For professional coaches to ignore tools such as these would put the development of most of there athletes at a disadvantage. Gone are the days of telling athletes to run for miles, doing mindless hard-work with no real thought. Science wont over come genetics but it is in my opinion a key to unlocking an athletes full potential... even if that potential is less than Gazza's. Interesting points. So let me ask you this, if sheer hard work doesn't make you a better athlete, what does? These body bras can measure I assume more than just size . Perhaps fat content? How your muscles contract? Speed of muscle contractions etc? That's all nice but what can it tell you? Work harder in the gym? Work less hard in the gym? Do this particular type of workout? I'd like to know exactly what they can do with the data they're given, other than tell them to do something at the gym...
|
|
|
Post by Block 22 on Jul 24, 2014 10:03:55 GMT
Actually i think you'll find sport science and technology is one of the main reason sports performance has advanced so much over the past decades. Why would elite level coaches and athletes not want this data if it's available? Look, I don't mind the fact it's there and available. I think it's great that they're utilizing technology, but what for exactly? To make them better players? For me, England's best player in the last 25 years has been Paul Gasoigne. Nobody has come close for natural flair, ability, skill, in fact, most attributes he possessed. He never had any of these body bra measuring things did he? It would have been funny if he had mind. My point being that all this sports science doesn't necessarily make better players. Training makes better players. We haven't had a player even close to Gazza's ability recently, Sports Science or not. All the technology couldn't help all these players like Wilshere and Barkley who are supposedly going to be as good, yet haven't even come close yet. Makes you wonder whether their priorities are right. Gazza was good in his day. Pit him against todays players who are Athletes aswell as footballers he would have no chance.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jul 24, 2014 10:08:59 GMT
Look, I don't mind the fact it's there and available. I think it's great that they're utilizing technology, but what for exactly? To make them better players? For me, England's best player in the last 25 years has been Paul Gasoigne. Nobody has come close for natural flair, ability, skill, in fact, most attributes he possessed. He never had any of these body bra measuring things did he? It would have been funny if he had mind. My point being that all this sports science doesn't necessarily make better players. Training makes better players. We haven't had a player even close to Gazza's ability recently, Sports Science or not. All the technology couldn't help all these players like Wilshere and Barkley who are supposedly going to be as good, yet haven't even come close yet. Makes you wonder whether their priorities are right. Gazza was good in his day. Pit him against todays players who are Athletes aswell as footballers he would have no chance. Totally disagree. The kind of natural ability on the ball that Gazza had is a rare skill, a natural (possibly born-with) talent, that even some of the best players now haven't grasped. Very few players carry the ball with the comfort that Gazza did.
|
|
|
Post by stokeloyal on Jul 24, 2014 10:17:40 GMT
Interesting points. So let me ask you this, if sheer hard work doesn't make you a better athlete, what does? These body bras can measure I assume more than just size . Perhaps fat content? How your muscles contract? Speed of muscle contractions etc? That's all nice but what can it tell you? Work harder in the gym? Work less hard in the gym? Do this particular type of workout? I'd like to know exactly what they can do with the data they're given, other than tell them to do something at the gym... Sheer "mindless" hard work is what should be, being avoided. Not hard work completely. You can go out in the morning and kill yourself with a 5 mile run but if the event you are training for is shorter or different in nature (power-lifting for example) then despite the hard work you are putting in you're not doing to be getting much better. Keeping it football specific. Let say you've got a winger who turns up at the start of pre-season who's a little of the pace, his 40 yard dash times down from what it was last season and this on the pitch will translate to him not getting to the ball before his opponent or going around his man as easily. Data such as the 40 yard dash time can be used to effectively measure and track his improvement as he gets closer to the season. Firstly this is useful for a coach to show the athlete his improvement but it's also very helpful to see if the training is in fact working. if his time isn't getting better perhaps the drills, lifts and conditioning he's doing isn't right for him etc Bio-mechanic analysis could show muscular imbalances or muscles that aren't "firing" properly which could be fixed with corrective exercises, soft tissue work etc This is a very simple example but it's these little tweeks which make a huge difference to the weekly performance of most athletes.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jul 24, 2014 10:22:24 GMT
Gazza was good in his day. Pit him against todays players who are Athletes aswell as footballers he would have no chance. Totally disagree. The kind of natural ability on the ball that Gazza had is a rare skill, a natural (possibly born-with) talent, that even some of the best players now haven't grasped. Very few players carry the ball with the comfort that Gazza did. You are wrong. The great players and athletes of the past would still be great today - but they would only be competitive if they trained like todays player's and athletes train. I'm old enough to remember the first four minute mile. Bannister was exhausted at the end. Now many athletes run four minute miles each a week in training and many 5,000 and 10,000 metre runners are able to run four minute miles quite easily as "speed work" when training for their own longer races. A lot of the tests done wearing the "sports bras" are to measure a player's progress during pre season. Does he require more or less intensity, does he require more or less work with weights or does he perhaps need a rest day? You might think it is mumbo jumbo but the fact is that todays athletes and players are probably 10% faster, stronger and efficient than they were when I was young. Obviously ball skills and tactical awareness are just as important as they used to be. But a player who is 10% faster or 10% stronger than must have a huge advantage over an otherwise similar player who is not.
|
|
|
Post by stokeloyal on Jul 24, 2014 10:22:26 GMT
Gazza's a pretty modern example, i wouldn't want to comment if he could or could hang with the pace of today's game but certainly when you look back at the 60-70's the greats from that era wouldn't stand a chance in today's game (obviously if they trained, used the same equipment and ate like they do today they might) but if they turned up in there prime "70's" state.
Not a chance, they'd be 10 yards behind.
When you start combining "god" given talent with the modern day sports science, that's when you see the really scary developments....
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jul 24, 2014 10:22:42 GMT
Interesting points. So let me ask you this, if sheer hard work doesn't make you a better athlete, what does? These body bras can measure I assume more than just size . Perhaps fat content? How your muscles contract? Speed of muscle contractions etc? That's all nice but what can it tell you? Work harder in the gym? Work less hard in the gym? Do this particular type of workout? I'd like to know exactly what they can do with the data they're given, other than tell them to do something at the gym... Sheer "mindless" hard work is what should be, being avoided. Not hard work completely. You can go out in the morning and kill yourself with a 5 mile run but if the event you are training for is shorter or different in nature (power-lifting for example) then despite the hard work you are putting in you're not doing to be getting much better. Keeping it football specific. Let say you've got a winger who turns up at the start of pre-season who's a little of the pace, his 40 yard dash times down from what it was last season and this on the pitch will translate to him not getting to the ball before his opponent or going around his man as easily. Data such as the 40 yard dash time can be used to effectively measure and track his improvement as he gets closer to the season. Firstly this is useful for a coach to show the athlete his improvement but it's also very helpful to see if the training is in fact working. if his time isn't getting better perhaps the drills, lifts and conditioning he's doing isn't right for him etc Bio-mechanic analysis could show muscular imbalances or muscles that aren't "firing" properly which could be fixed with corrective exercises, soft tissue work etc This is a very simple example but it's these little tweeks which make a huge difference to the weekly performance of most athletes. But you don't need a body bra to measure a 40 yard dash do you? We've been doing that for years using these little devices known as stop watches. I know they're not 100% accurate, but they're normally pretty good. Still, perhaps if I saw some of this data and how it can be utilized I'd understand better how it could turn someone misfiring into perfect condition for the new season.
|
|
|
Post by Block 22 on Jul 24, 2014 10:24:36 GMT
Gazza was good in his day. Pit him against todays players who are Athletes aswell as footballers he would have no chance. Totally disagree. The kind of natural ability on the ball that Gazza had is a rare skill, a natural (possibly born-with) talent, that even some of the best players now haven't grasped. Very few players carry the ball with the comfort that Gazza did. I'm not disagreeing with that! His natural ability is up there with the very best. What I will say is the sport has changed dramatically since then. Players now have to be athletes as well as footballers in more ways than one, from nutrition to psychology. The game now is much faster and more physically demanding as a result of these factors. So yeah, Gazza's natural ability, his vision, his first-touch, his range of passing would probably shit on many players in the modern game but to deny that sports science has evolved the game would be naive.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jul 24, 2014 10:26:08 GMT
Totally disagree. The kind of natural ability on the ball that Gazza had is a rare skill, a natural (possibly born-with) talent, that even some of the best players now haven't grasped. Very few players carry the ball with the comfort that Gazza did. You are wrong. The great players and athletes of the past would still be great today - but they would only be competitive if they trained like todays player's and athletes train. I'm old enough to remember the first four minute mile. Bannister was exhausted at the end. Now many athletes run four minute miles each a week in training and many 5,000 and 10,000 metre runners are able to run four minute miles quite easily as "speed work" when training for their own longer races. A lot of the tests done wearing the "sports bras" are to measure a player's progress during pre season. Does he require more or less intensity, does he require more or less work with weights or does he perhaps need a rest day? You might think it is mumbo jumbo but the fact is that todays athletes and players are probably 10% faster, stronger and efficient than they were when I was young. Obviously ball skills and tactical awareness are just as important as they used to be. But a player who is 10% faster or 10% stronger than must have a huge advantage over an otherwise similar player who is not. Like I said to stokeloyal, I think if I saw some of this data and how it could really be utilized effectively to improve someone I would understand better. I suppose stuff like body fat content is pretty important, hydration etc which are all testable through a body bra. I don't think it's mumbo jumbo, I just wonder how they use the data to effectively improve a players ability, unless it is to simply instruct them to going the gym, which is fair enough I suppose. Can they pickup the early signs of an injury?
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jul 24, 2014 10:27:11 GMT
Totally disagree. The kind of natural ability on the ball that Gazza had is a rare skill, a natural (possibly born-with) talent, that even some of the best players now haven't grasped. Very few players carry the ball with the comfort that Gazza did. I'm not disagreeing with that! His natural ability is up there with the very best. What I will say is the sport has changed dramatically since then. Players now have to be athletes as well as footballers in more ways than one, from nutrition to psychology. The game now is much faster and more physically demanding as a result of these factors. So yeah, Gazza's natural ability, his vision, his first-touch, his range of passing would probably shit on many players in the modern game but to deny that sports science has evolved the game would be naive. Oh I don't deny it. Just interested to see what effective data they bring away.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jul 24, 2014 10:28:08 GMT
Gazza's a pretty modern example, i wouldn't want to comment if he could or could hang with the pace of today's game but certainly when you look back at the 60-70's the greats from that era wouldn't stand a chance in today's game (obviously if they trained, used the same equipment and ate like they do today they might) but if they turned up in there prime "70's" state. Not a chance, they'd be 10 yards behind. When you start combining "god" given talent with the modern day sports science, that's when you see the really scary developments.... Spot on. I watch my copy of the 1972 League Cup Final about once a year. It always strikes me that it looks like a pre season friendly in terms of the pace of the game. There were great players in both teams - but they'd have to train like players do these days to have a chance against the current Stoke side.
|
|
|
Post by ruts66 on Jul 24, 2014 10:30:34 GMT
These 'sports bras' can tell the fitness coaches a lot about the players summer holiday activities, too...
|
|
|
Post by Block 22 on Jul 24, 2014 10:32:03 GMT
I'm not disagreeing with that! His natural ability is up there with the very best. What I will say is the sport has changed dramatically since then. Players now have to be athletes as well as footballers in more ways than one, from nutrition to psychology. The game now is much faster and more physically demanding as a result of these factors. So yeah, Gazza's natural ability, his vision, his first-touch, his range of passing would probably shit on many players in the modern game but to deny that sports science has evolved the game would be naive. Oh I don't deny it. Just interested to see what effective data they bring away. I don't know anything about the data and how they implement it. My point was that if you look at how football has evolved since sports science became a significant part of the game, it does becomes quite clear how effective it really is.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jul 24, 2014 10:32:24 GMT
You are wrong. The great players and athletes of the past would still be great today - but they would only be competitive if they trained like todays player's and athletes train. I'm old enough to remember the first four minute mile. Bannister was exhausted at the end. Now many athletes run four minute miles each a week in training and many 5,000 and 10,000 metre runners are able to run four minute miles quite easily as "speed work" when training for their own longer races. A lot of the tests done wearing the "sports bras" are to measure a player's progress during pre season. Does he require more or less intensity, does he require more or less work with weights or does he perhaps need a rest day? You might think it is mumbo jumbo but the fact is that todays athletes and players are probably 10% faster, stronger and efficient than they were when I was young. Obviously ball skills and tactical awareness are just as important as they used to be. But a player who is 10% faster or 10% stronger than must have a huge advantage over an otherwise similar player who is not. Like I said to stokeloyal, I think if I saw some of this data and how it could really be utilized effectively to improve someone I would understand better. I suppose stuff like body fat content is pretty important, hydration etc which are all testable through a body bra. I don't think it's mumbo jumbo, I just wonder how they use the data to effectively improve a players ability, unless it is to simply instruct them to going the gym, which is fair enough I suppose. Can they pickup the early signs of an injury? I don't know if the sports bra can but they do have facilities to do slow-mo video as well and that picks up problems - both skeletal problems and where someone is "compensating" for a muscle or skeletal injury.
|
|
|
Post by stokeloyal on Jul 24, 2014 10:38:39 GMT
Can they pick up the early signs of an injury? Acute injury's like strains, broken bones etc No. Fatigue leading to reduced performance, increased risk of over-use injury's? Most defiantly. Even simply monitoring the resting heart rate of an athlete can give some indication as to whether he is over-training or not... If i was training athletes that are as prized as these lads are i'd want ever last bit of data to study and compare over my time working with them. I don't doubt some of the data is of little use but it can certainly paint a clearer picture of an athletes improvement through out a season... mistakes that get made in this pre-season, might not get made in the next etc
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jul 24, 2014 10:41:52 GMT
Measures movement and body statistics. Is that seriously true? Christ almighty what a load of bollocks. Also helps to reduce man boobs accumulated during the summer break. Adam currently wearing a double D cup.
|
|
|
Post by Bojan Mackey on Jul 24, 2014 10:54:21 GMT
Is that seriously true? Christ almighty what a load of bollocks. Also helps to reduce man boobs accumulated during the summer break. Adam currently wearing a double D cup. If Adam is wearing a double D cup then Palacios' must equate to being like something off Shallow Hal.
|
|
|
Post by redwhite on Jul 24, 2014 11:22:24 GMT
As exciting as our new signings are, I'm most looking forward to another season from Arnie. What a player.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jul 24, 2014 11:25:12 GMT
Anyway....
Arnie & Diouf - if they click then we surely score plenty.
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Jul 24, 2014 11:59:54 GMT
If you recall the first day of training was at St George's to compare stats with how they were when they were measured at the end of the season. Simplest way of looking at it if you have ever had a go at FM is to think of it providing the opportunity to tailor individual training programs. We would all accept I hope that ignoring injuries etc Huth and Muniesa may need different progams to get them to their peak fitness. Interesting that one of the recent comments was to "bulk up" Bojan like they did with Muni, doubt that it includes pinching pies off Palacious. Makes sense to gain every possible technical advantage.
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Jul 24, 2014 12:08:14 GMT
|
|