It's a good thread this, let's not drag it down and just agree to differ eh?

Well, I don't mind a differ trust me. But in the many years I've been on this forum I've never known him be anything but negative about our club all be it that on this occasion he couched it as the whole game. It's just tiresome, why not say it might work who knows - best of luck - just once it would be nice even if he doesn't mean it

i wonder whether its worth having two conditioners? a forwards and a backs conditioner. being as they are conditioned differently.....

have props and interchange hookers conditioned first alongside back row forwards. then have backs condition training after but have youre back row forwards take part in both as they have to go through more work as they are on for longer stints.

instead of having players able to manage 2 40 minute stints surely it would be a better idea for them to be able to last longer than 40 minutes (ie trained to operate fully for 50 minutes) for games where they have to do more work... or it goes to extra time. then they would be able to cope better... just a thought. i await to be shot down and told i dont know what im on about

A conditioner should be able to take the whole squad and assess there differences/weaknesses by pre testing and discussions with the head coach as to where he wants the players to be and what role they are requested to play. A back and a forward could need the same routine. If they have a specific weakness identified in testing.

It is probably best to group these players with similar training needs together so you can work in sub groups.

Eg I was once asked to increase the vertical jump height of a teams back 3 as they were all fairly short and it was seen as a weakness. There was also a hooker in the same team the coach required more explosive scoots from the play the ball, the basic flaw/requirement was lower leg power so these players were grouped together to work on this flaw.

essentially this is what i am saying. those who need certain training to be grouped together so they are focused on more, hopefully receiving greater benefits

Same guy can do this though if they are half decent. You don't need to focus on big guys and little guys like you do with skills.

I think we are also over stating the effects here by getting into the detail, interesting as that is.
It isn't the case that just because the props may be concentrating on bulking up and overall power, that they will simply burn out after 20 minutes. Fitness doesn't just focus on one area.

There are of course cases where someone like a Gledhill will need to get bigger simply to compete with people in his position, but that can be done without losing all his stamina to go the full game. It is as much about how you play the game as it is how fit you are. (I think someone has already said that). The wrestle techniques being used are as much about saving your own energy as using the attackers up. When you grip right but gradually lower them to the ground you are resting (especially with 3 doing it) and the rest of the team are also resting, whereas just throwing them to the floor allows the one runner to sap the energy of all the players then having to chase him down.
I'm certain that if Korki were playing in the back row (not that you would want him to) he could last the full game. He isn't piling into 3 defenders and trying to wrestle with them when playing out wide. So it isn't that he is unfit, we just want him to concentrate on a particular area.

So back to the point made above......if we want the team to better in fitness terms....we need someone who understands the game as much as they understand the science of the human body. In this area, we shouldn't be looking at someone from another sport to try and get a new angle. We need good basics and get a proven fittness/strength expert with experience of rugby league.
I'd actually do what Huddersfield did and find someone doing a good job and simply offer him money to do the same job with us. Even if it means playing with one less player in the squad because of the cash needed.