Can anyone explain these two terms because there hasn't been a coach in the history of the game who continuously uses these terms.

I don't think anyone has an explanation for these two terms, Brissy can you explain please.

Are these terms an excuse for a coach who really doesn't have any explanation of why things haven't worked to plan.

You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!

Join 1Eyed Eel

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • I have no idea

  • I just looked it up. Front loading the effort means focussing on effort. Someone on here I think said, chasing the collision was embacing the heavy contact, but you are right, I have been following Parra, and the game since the early 70's, and i have never heard these terms used before by any coach.

  • I'm not sure how a player is supposed to chase the collision when the ball runner is actually coming towards him.  The player actually braces for the unavoidable collision.

    Maybe he should let the ball runner through then chase him down  ? I don't know???

    • I think he means when someone is running towards them he wants the players to move towards with power for the impact. 

  • Front loading doesn't make sense either. It's like an Olympian in a 5000m race. If the runner goes flat out at the start, he'll be farked by mid race so he front loading doesn't make sense in an 80 minute game.

    I really think the players have nfi either 

    • You are probably right Chief. They are stupid sayings. The annoying thing is, he keeps using them. Maybe it is his way to sound technical for the press? I have not watched his pressers for a long time. Same old same old and very boring.

  • Chase the collision... So if we make a break, we should run back to get tackled? I thought the aim of the game is to avoid getting tackled or breaking tackles and score tries. What do I know LOL 

  • Coaches use similar terms all the time.

    Front loading means make the extra effort before it's required, just in case you're needed. Eg, continually push up in support the ball carrier in anticipation of an off load. Nathan Hindmarsh did it as a habit with his defence. Proactive effort, not reactive habit. I'll point that both Gus & Gal agreed with what BA  was saying.

    Chasing the collision should be obvious. He wants the players to play a physical brand of footy on both sides of the ball. 

This reply was deleted.

More stuff to read

HKF replied to Troy Wade's discussion Round 1 v Storm
"What people need to keep in mind is the whole draw isn't generated by AI or any other means, certain games such as eels v tigers Easter Monday, Anzac weekend and such are predetermined. There is probably a whole bunch of games and predetermined…"
2 hours ago
Poppa replied to Eli Stephens's discussion Triple M - eels not fazed if Lomax leaves.
"Beautiful rhetoric Adam...../you miss the point about him being irreplaceable."
2 hours ago
Poppa replied to Eli Stephens's discussion Triple M - eels not fazed if Lomax leaves.
"Who is not phased? nobody who has an understanding of what he offers, which means it is not the coaches.
Eli republishing this shit is what we have talked about before!"
2 hours ago
Adam Magrath replied to Eli Stephens's discussion Triple M - eels not fazed if Lomax leaves.
"Don't get me wrong I want Lomax to stay, but if he wants out "there's the door". Same goes for anyone that doesn't want to be here or can get a better deal elsewhere."
3 hours ago
More…