Let's just break this thesis down.
Extra physical workout (either weights or cardio presumably) does not improve physical performance (even if they were laying on the sofa all week?) but would most likely lead to chronic fatigue syndrome, otherwise known as ME??

I suggest you send this to the Lancet as to my (layman's) knowledge the causes of CFS are still a mystery within the medical profession. If Lowes has identified a common factor this would be an extraordinary breakthrough.

I guess Martin was meaning that very hard work physical work, as much pre-seaon work is, is done to help long term muscle improvement and is not normally done close to competition times, as it can indeed have the opposite effect.

When I was involved in athletics overdoing the training was referred to as 'leaving your strength on the road' or 'on the training track'. The normal way is to do the heavy work early in the schedule and then wind down the physical stuff, long heavy weights sessions, long runs etc, as the competition starts. Competition itself, along with shorter sharper training bursts are then sufficient to keep somewhere near your peak both in a cardio vascular and power sense.

Have to say it would be interesting to know what exactly what was involved in Jimmy's 'mini' pre-season last year but the way the players seemed fresher and more up for things suggests to me that it wasn't a full on pre-season schedule, which as Martin suggests would probably have left them knackered. Some weights, no doubt, and some 'fresh ideas' in the mix. A change is as good as a rest, I suppose.

Maybe Jimmy had paid to watch the Wigan game - so the "mini" pre-season was a punishment?

Just as momentum is a product of mass times velocity, think about what I am saying about fitness (in the context we are talking about) as a product of muscle times mind set. Muscle of itself is not sufficient. The Lumberjack may produce as much momentum into a tackle as Tahraoui because he looks a bit faster on his feet which compensates for lighter weight. So with mindset. if you are less motivated it does not matter how much muscle you put on, if you cannot be bothered to get off your booty and use it.

and if we are one 18 stone prop short next season we were three short last season, with the knock on effects on morale through having nothing in the middle of the pitch. the shortage of tackle capacity in the squad meant more burden on the rest. That is going to wear you down mentally. Being continually beaten as a result of three props short is going to wear you down mentally. Having a good game with four props only for one of them to decline further loan will wear you down mentally. Having a coach that repeats himself because he has no magic answer to the lack of props will wear you down mentally. going on a blog site and reading the comments of fans who dont realise what three props short means to you as a player wears you down mentally. etc etc ad nauseam mensorum.

and I am not saying that this was a conscious thing by the players last year, I am sure they all wanted to do their best. But the subconscious can be a strong brake on the conscious and therefore performance. Change that mindset, and unleash the potential. Or is that an unfair interpretation of the truism, a change is as good as a rest?

I wish our moderators would stop getting off their rcs to change my Englishisms into Americanisms such as booty. (edit by me) An rs is an rs by any other name - misquote.

What training/conditioning can and does do is put the physical components into top condition.

However what it cannot and does not do is put the brain into the right mindset to go out each week and crush the opposition, keeping in that mindset for 80 minutes.

And also it doesn't manufacture the various substances, eg adrenaline, which can suddenly at the flick of some neuron switch turn an almost dead-on-his feet player into a tiger.

And also it doesn't create confidence or arrogance or a feeling of invincibility.

Yes, games can and do change drastically if a team playing well suddenly runs out of steam, but it's my opinion that all the other factors are within the province of the coach and also the on-field leaders of the team, and if any given two teams are not all that far apart in basic physical equipment and fitness, then it is, I think, much more in the head and hormones that games are won or lost.

Strange in all these posts on physical condition, attitude, size, strength and even hormone levels and how they can impact the result of a game - I cannot see skill mentioned once as a factor?
If I could add one more player to the current squad it would be a skilful half - irrespective of his size

To be fair, I'm pretty happy with the skill levels of Siejka [as evidenced by his earlier Aussie career] and Gaskell. I certainly don't think we'll lose out at half back if they deliver what I believe they are capable of. My own, half hearted, wish for another half was merely as a back up, but if Harry is now 'fully fit', as he says, it really depends on how he gels with Lee and I guess only time will tell on that one.

Yes agree in Gaskell we should have a stand out half for the championship, not seen Siejka so not sure what we can expect from him.

But going back - admittedly many years - to my playing days before the phrase "game plan" was in general usage, to the extent any instructions were given by the coaches it tended to be "splat their scrum half". Judging by the incident at the Grand Final that is still a common tactic - so would feel safer with another out and out half rather than an out of position 2nd row as back up.

Well, we still have space for one more I think - even an overseas player. I certainly wouldn't argue with another half, though for my money our squad is strong enough to maybe hold fire and see what happens injury wise, or even who may yet become available.