Sorry for the essay, again. And firstly, I am NOT having a go at Freddy – I am giving my opinion on the justification for the players setting this rule in place, and sticking to it.
It sounds like the rule was introduced by the players, or at the very least supported by them, maybe on advice from the club medicos. It sounds like other clubs have similar rules.
I would think that a group of young males (in Australia mind you) would not simply decide on a whim to not drink alcohol 6 days from a game.
I would think that multiple groups of young males around the country, all with a level of independence from each other’s decision making, would not make rules if they thought they were silly.
Why did they come up with that rule? Because they thought it would help them, in some small way, reach the ultimate success. Why did they think that? They're not idiots (well, I can name a few from a certain club up the road who are, but that’s beside the point) or a bunch of highly superstitious lads who think green socks or unwashed undies will help them win. One or two of them, maybe. The whole lot, from multiple clubs? Yea naaaaaaa.
I haven't read any scientific papers on this matter. Have you? I would think that the club medicos have. Possibly some members of the coaching staff and maybe some of the players too, the study results anyway.
I would think that there is *a* level of scientific evidence suggesting that alcohol negatively impacts performance.
Personally, if I have a heavy night out and they try to go to the gym the next morning, I am *way* under my normal level. If I have a medium night out, then the impact is less, but still clearly noticeable. Do I notice a drop if I have a single stubby with a burger the night before? Nope. But then, I'm not measuring my performance with wizbang KPIs and performance managers and all that jazz. I am in no way an elite sportsperson so a fraction of a percent hardly matters anyway, and it's only a sample size of 1 besides. You tell me how you go at the gym/run/etc the morning after downing a six-pack.
We know that alcohol will reduce performance for "a period" of time afterwards. Fact. How much, and how long is that period, now that's up for debate - and variable dependent on the individual and other circumstances.
You don’t want your players getting smashed, or even mildly drunk the night before a game - I think we'd all agree there. Is one glass ok? Possibly. What about 2? Or 3, 4 or 5? Dunno.
But you gotta draw the line somewhere right? I would think that zero drinks the night before game day is not an unreasonable expectation for an elite, professional, highly paid athlete.
Why should training be any different to game day?
How you train (over time) directly impacts your game-day performance (within your inherent limits anyway). Fact.
I don't know what the players do 6 days prior to a game. Probably some sort of training. Whatever their reasoning, I doubt they pulled the number "6" out of their ass.
Is one drink (assuming that’s what it was in this instance), by one player, once a year, one night before training going to make a material difference? I doubt it. What about 18 players once a year, one night before training? Probably not much, if any. What about one player every round? Hmm. What about every player every round? If one player breaks an agreement and there are no repercussions, what message does that send to the others? How long before others follow suit?
Set a rule. Set expectations. Get everyone on the same page, working to the same goal, all putting in their best effort. Each player knows that the bloke next to him is giving his all. They drive each other on. They bond though their joint effort and joint sacrifice. They perform better. Some may argue that it is less important to follow a rule set by the players, rather than the club. I would argue it is just as important, or more so.
Let's also get something else out in the air. No one is forcing anyone to want to be a professional AFL player. If you want to enjoy a stubby or 6 the day before a game, then there's a place for that: it's called the local footy club or state league (not sure on WAFL club policies). But if you want to be an AFL player getting paid, $100k, $300k or $800k, well sorry, but there are some sacrifices that need to be made. Like, oh, I don’t know, maybe don’t book a 5-week holiday with the missus to Europe in July? Dam, all those footy players miss out on Europe in summer for 10 years of their life. Or, dam, they need to follow a diet recommended by the club. What? You think you can tell me what to eat? You mean for 6 whole months I can’t smash a Big-Mac every second night of the week? Each year for my whole career? Ridiculous!
And again. The rule is does *not* prohibit them from having a cold-one for 6 months straight. Only on 6 day breaks, or the day before training or whatever the specifics of the rule are (to this point I haven't seen the *exact* wording). 22 games a year, plus, if you do really well, 4 games of finals. 26 games. Roughly half of them will have 7+ day breaks, plus 1 bye. So, even if you make the GF, there's still 14 weeks out of 27 weeks where you can enjoy a pint with some mates or glass of red with the missus on at least one day in the week.
Let's talk performance enhancing drugs. There are loads of them that athletes could take during training, days/weeks/months prior to their 'event', that are totally and completely out of their system on the 'big day'. Why do they take them? Because it lets them train that extra fraction harder, and that will directly correlate to better performance on the day. Again, I haven't read peer-reviewed papers on the topic - but given the stance of sporting bodies globally, I would suggest that the impact of performance enhancing drugs taken during training can be assumed as a solid fact. Sure, there might be some discrepancy on the level of impact of certain substances, but if there is a level of evidence that it may enhance performance, then it gets added to the list.
The opposite is also true - some substances hinder performance, and hindering performance on training will hinder it for 'event day'.
So, you tell me, as a supporter, do you want the players taking a (possible/likely) performance hindering substance prior to training?
Regardless what you or I or that other bloke in the corner think, it seems the players know where they stand - hence they set a rule.
Like I said, I don't know how conclusive the scientific evidence on the matter, but the players set the rule with the belief that they would perform even fractionally better.
If Freo win the premiership, you go ask any player whether the sacrifices (this and many other sacrafices) they made during the year were worth it. And, since it is a player set rule, I'm sure they could get rid of it if they wanted to.
Can't wait to see Freddy back after the bye. Love watching him play to bits. And I hope he has himself a jolly good time during the bye - within the player guidelines anyway.
