Not to mention that this argument makes nonsense of Butterss' comments to The Age in the article I linked.joffaboy wrote:Wouldn't it make sense that the "right" fitness staff are not overrated and that the only fitness staff that were overrated were the poor ones he employed - in his experience as an AFL coach of course?
If all fitness staff are the same, and make no appreciable difference to a club's injury list, how do you reconcile this?
One of RB and GT is an ass (at least on this subject). And the results are in.As for Butterss, it is all about St Kilda's improvement as a club. "Blind Freddie can work out that we've had (injury) issues over the past few years, probably since '04. There's no doubt in order to be competitive in September, you need the vast majority of best players on the park with a good run of games under their belt. History will tell you that.
"Historically, we've undertaken steps to eradicate this issue. With anything we do, we want to try to position ourselves in the top quartile, that is, in the top two or three clubs, whether it's on-field, off-field, financial or otherwise. For example, I think we're ranked third or fourth of Melbourne-based clubs on membership. You're at least in the game.
"That's the minimum objective with everything we do. But if you look at the statistics, we're in the bottom quartile and possibly at the bottom of the list in terms of recurring soft-tissue injuries.
"We put our hand up as a club and recognise that we have a problem. That's the most important aspect, is recognising that we have one."
Shall we finish with this dead horse too?