Shane - at the risk of agreeing with you …
i) Muscle fibres come in two types - commonly known as slow and fast twitch, with fast twitch having a further subset known as “super” fast twitch. Generally speaking, fast twitch fibres provide speed and power, and slow twitch provide endurance. Slow twitch fibres require aerobic energy, whereas fast twice fibres can operate relatively anaerobically for shorter periods (ie. you can be a very fast sprinter with a relatively low aerobic capacity but you cannot be an endurance runner with a low aerobic capacity). You cannot change the proportion of fast/slow twitch you are born with (not through normal training anyway). People with higher proportion fast twitch fibres tend to bulk up more, and more quickly. But the increase in strength and power comes at a cost, because they have more capacity to injure themselves - particularly when under fatigue (remembering that fast twitch fibres fatigue more quickly). There is also a theoretical max muscle load ratio to body size and skeletal frame. You can make your fast twitch operate more efficiently, which increases endurance, but this is a very limited improvement, and you CANNOT change or increase the proportion of slow twitch by training.
ii) in the late 1990’s sports scientists ran a series of muscle fibre tests across one of the European Soccer leagues (Netherlands or Belgium from memory). They tested a sample of the elite players in the top league. the results were surprising in that they found a lower incidence of high proportion fast twitch fibres across this group than in the general population. In a sport where speed and power are critical factors, this seemed anomalous. Subsequent testing in lower leagues and in junior development squads showed a normal or higher rate of high proportion fast twitch in players. So there was some investigation done, and what they found, after interviewing coaches and monitoring sample cohorts, was that the vast majority of players with high proportion fast twitch simply could not cope with the training loads expected of the elite level soccer players, and very quickly broke down. Coaches commented that they were “always injured”, and “unreliable” and they ended up being cut, and returning to lower levels, where they often flourished. This was - subjectively - attributed to the fact that the game at that time required high level running over extended periods, wth repeat games (2-4 per week in some cases). Quite simply, the game and training regimes had screened out the majority of burst players by creating an environment that they simply could not - by virtue of their genetic disposition - operate in successfully. This should be ringing a few bells for you out there I reckon …
iii) elite endurance is strongly linked to the combination of muscle type and body type. It is no accident that the Kenyans and Ethiopians are amazing endurance athletes. The lighter the build, and also the shorter the limb in proportion to the body and smaller the extremities, the less energy required to drive the body over distance. People with long limbs, and larger muscles, particularly in the calves, and heavier boned legs and ankles, suffer a distinct disadvantage in distance endurance events. From memory, 100gm on your lower leg is equivalent of carrying a more than a kilo on your torso in terms of relative energy used.
iv) putting all this together, along with the modern trend for full field pressure, and big-bodied midfielders, you put an enormous strain on the body. We ask our bigger athletes to run endurance events every game (think Nat Fyfe). We ask our fast athletes to run endurance events every game (think Stephen Hill, Haydn Ballantyne). None are physically suited to this. I think this is a massive contributor to the injuries that we are seeing. Look at Brad Hill, who would (conjecture) probably have 70-30 slow twitch muscles and a small frame. He is ideally suited to endurance style work, and - not surprisingly - he runs out games, and is relatively robust. Look at the difference in build between him and Stephen - now, and when they first came into the game. As a skinny kid, Stephen was lightning fast. Off the half back flank - with a slightly different style of game - he dominated and was marked for a tag in his first season. Then at some point, someone decided we needed an inside midfielder, and he went away and bulked up. And yes, he did bulk up, quickly. Characteristic of high proportion fast twitch fibres. But from that point on - switching into a more continuous running role, carrying a shedload of extra weight, and with a higher muscle mass which was spending a greater proportion of each game in a fatigued state, he started breaking down. IMO Haydn Ballantyne is an identical case in point.
So - My take on this - Clubs and the AFL have to find a way to balance the game style we see today, with the need to train and use players selectively according to their skills and physical strengths, instead of a one size fits all model. Whether this is through the individual bravery of a club recognising the impact of burst players and accommodating them into the structure (as, I hate to say it, Wet Toast do) , or whether there needs to be systemic change - via interchange or zoning - to reduce the requirement for endurance above skill and speed I am not sure. But there is more at play here than just Lyon’s game plan and the Docker’s fitness staff. There’s a failing in both the system and the clubs at the moment, and it’s hurting the game and taking some amazing players out of the game.
