TorquayFans.com | Torquay United Fans Forum

Therefore you render your argument redundant because there is no excuse for a club like TUFC not to do the same, if resources have nothing to do with it. Brixham rugby club is not like comparing to TUFC. It's more like comparing to Newton Spurs. They are little more than park rugby. TUFC is a - allegedly - full time professional outfit.

Our future now lies in Kelvin Thomas's hands. This guy needs to ensure that due diligence fit and proper persons are selected to run this club.

Should he fail in the task he has been set, Private Frazer from Dads Army would say "WE ARE ALL DOOMED!!!!!!!!!"

To be fair, during his interview he comes across very well, I wouldn't mind seeing him headup/oversee our club going forward. He is definately in the right place at the right time, so who knows.

Sunnysideup wrote: Because like it or not the Chiefs are an elite unit with lots of resources dedicated to maintaining the peak fitness levels of their players. As I pointed out, go to Arsenal or Chelsea and you find the same things in place. We are a tier 5 football club and dont appear to have the resources, staff or the will for chasing such a regime.

And I will tell you now, theres a damn sight more to it than filling a diary in and having a set of scales :slap:

Good Morning Sunnysideup, i can tell you now i was in the Chiefs dressing room at the Newcastle game a few weeks ago and there is a set of scales and diary

hector wrote:Therefore you render your argument redundant because there is no excuse for a club like TUFC not to do the same, if resources have nothing to do with it. Brixham rugby club is not like comparing to TUFC. It's more like comparing to Newton Spurs. They are little more than park rugby. TUFC is a - allegedly - full time professional outfit.

Oh dear. Perhaps I should explain in 3 letter words just for you?

The difference in resources in time and effort between the Chiefs and Chelsea is immaterial. It is the difference between elite clubs and tier 5 in their respective sports that is the factor. Comparing us to the Chiefs (an organisation at the top of their respective tree) was pointless when the equivalent in football is an Arsenal or a Chelsea.

Believe it or not, Brixham are not a park team. They currently play in the 5th tier of the national league (along with Newton Abbot as local rivals), 3 promotions away from Plymouth Albion & the Cornish Pirates. Thats the same jump as us getting to the championship (and just as unlikely).

SBP wrote: Good Morning Sunnysideup, i can tell you now i was in the Chiefs dressing room at the Newcastle game a few weeks ago and there is a set of scales and diary

Try and absorb the highlighted bit

I m talking very simply regarding a players weight. Interestingly you mentioned Damian D in an earlier posting. He use to weigh players before they left at the end of season and each player had a target weight to return

SBP wrote:I m talking very simply regarding a players weight. Interestingly you mentioned Damian D in an earlier posting. He use to weigh players before they left at the end of season and each player had a target weight to return

They also had exercise recovery targets, diet sheets, etc to make sure they stayed in shape for the summer.
Woe betide those that struggled with the MSFT.

I could happily go on about visiting several top rugby clubs around 2002 or 3, and being surprised by the number of heartrate/o2 monitors that were used in training/conditioning. It certainly seemed a more science based regime than that at Harlington.
Just as an example, a player would have bp/heartrate readings taken, be beasted for 30 minutes say, maintaining 80% of the max safe heartrate for their body, have readings taken again and monitor the time taken to return to baseline. Then repeat with a different type of exercise. Throw in weight and mass checks before and after training, fluid checks etc etc and its a regime that takes a lot of resources to run.

I understand what you are saying and agree with the above. My point is that each player has a responsibility to basically turn up for work fit. Some of them are not and i cant understand why they are still being selected and nothing appears to be changing. If our squad was fitter and stronger then we certainly would have been far improved performances.

BTW, last time i was at Harlington training ground(QPR) there was a fight involving several players. Nice little job for me as i also attended Esher(Chelsea) training facilities many times

SBP wrote:I understand what you are saying and agree with the above. My point is that each player has a responsibility to basically turn up for work fit. Some of them are not and i cant understand why they are still being selected and nothing appears to be changing. If our squad was fitter and stronger then we certainly would have been far improved performances.

BTW, last time i was at Harlington training ground(QPR) there was a fight involving several players. Nice little job for me as i also attended Esher(Chelsea) training facilities many times

Indeed, if they want to consider themselves professionals, they should of course be fit.
Whilst I can sort of understand at the start of a season that some players wont be fully matchfit until they've got 3 or 4 full matches under their belt (though they should still be turning up for pre season in a fit enough state to concentrate on match fitness as opposed to individual fitness).

I agree as well that (injuries excepted) we have players that dont appear fit 3/4 through the season. Say what you like about Bucks (and I'm sure SG will be along soon to do just that), as far as training went, him and DD set a pretty high standard as far as fitness went.

Sunnysideup wrote: Oh dear. Perhaps I should explain in 3 letter words just for you?

The difference in resources in time and effort between the Chiefs and Chelsea is immaterial. It is the difference between elite clubs and tier 5 in their respective sports that is the factor. Comparing us to the Chiefs (an organisation at the top of their respective tree) was pointless when the equivalent in football is an Arsenal or a Chelsea.

Believe it or not, Brixham are not a park team. They currently play in the 5th tier of the national league (along with Newton Abbot as local rivals), 3 promotions away from Plymouth Albion & the Cornish Pirates. Thats the same jump as us getting to the championship (and just as unlikely).

I think it's you who requires the three letter words, or maybe four - just to be sure.

Rugby has far less people playing it than football. Simply because the sports of rugby and football have 5th tiers doesn't make them comparable. Rugby, at those lower levels are barely semi-pro. The players of Brixham rugby club are essentially hobbyists - they are not full time pros, like many footballers at the 5th tier of football. Exeter Chiefs, likewise, are more the equivalent of a good league 1 football club. So the science of diet, exercise etc is no more beyond Exeter Chiefs than it is Bristol City FC. The staff employed require paying and the equipment used requires paying for. To go that you need money and Exeter Chiegs are much nearer TUFC than they are Arsenal/Chelsea, even if, which as you irrelevantly point out, they are an elite rugby club.

Elite rugby clubs don't possess secret dossiers that only they know, equally cash rich football clubs would be privy to the same information, and capable of employing the same sorts of staff.

So while there may only be 4 divisions between Exeter and Brixham, the equivalent footballing difference would be like Bristol City and Exmouth Town.

So whilst Exeter Chiefs now dwarf TUFC as a sporting institution, the difference is not as huge as you initially made out.