- Apr 6, 2017
- 3,736
- 6,116
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Theres no structural damage.
That means no PCL. MCL and PCL are generally 2 weeks for the average human. I'd say longer for an athlete.
They'll probably give him a week though.
Injury Season 2025 - Geelong Injury Thread
- Thread starter cats_09
- Start date
- Tagged users None
That means no PCL. MCL and PCL are generally 2 weeks for the average human. I'd say longer for an athlete.
They'll probably give him a week though.
- Dec 11, 2009
- 33,097
- 43,067
- AFL Club
- Geelong
That'd be good, but I'll believe it when I see him back out there.
- Dec 11, 2009
- 33,097
- 43,067
- AFL Club
- Geelong
If that's the case, why even follow the injury reports?
I don't.
Only see them when someone posts them here.
- Dec 11, 2009
- 33,097
- 43,067
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Yeah I believe that.
But I reckon my scepticism on their injury times is only matched by their laughter when they list them.
Hence my belief in a player only when I physically see them on field.
You've come full circle to my position then. That the mandatory league enforced release of injury timelines wasn't going to improve anything. Actual return date expectations would remain mysterious. But I did feel bad for those who thought it would seriously solve the issue.
I'm in the camp that that was never greatly bothered by the return date info. The club is so addicted to obfuscating on that front that I didn't see the AFL was going to turn them around without getting really hardline. And it doesn't appear that they are prepared to do that.
So the only change I was actually hoping/expecting to see was to actually put just about all the injured players on the injury list each week. The Cats haven't bothered to do that in any comprehensive way for years. And I do believe we've seen an improvement in having the players who aren't being selected generally named on the injury list each week, no matter the level of detail that accompanies their ailment.
On the basis of that development, 'far from a solution but a definite improvement' would be my summation.
- Dec 11, 2009
- 33,097
- 43,067
- AFL Club
- Geelong
I didn't expect return dates to be specific to the day, but I did want to see all injured players acknowledged, and a little more clarity on an expected return date.
It's not significant, but I think there's been some improvement on both fronts.
The use of the injury list by the GFC has bordered on farcical imo, and I'm glad the AFL tightened it up a bit, even if only quarter of a turn.
That said, I still don't particularly trust what Scott or the club have to say about injuries. They have form with their use of the truth.
Anyways, it's good to hear Stewart's scan revealed a far lesser problem than could've been. We need him out there.
I agree that we are starting to see almost all of the injured players acknowledged on the weekly list. And we have at least moved away from the nonsensical 'short/medium/long term' to describe return dates.
Which basically just leaves the vague injury update info that the club reps offer in interviews and the trump card that is 'TBC' on the list each week as the two levers that the GFC can continue to pull to stay 'a step ahead' of the rest of the comp on injury updates.
- Dec 11, 2009
- 33,097
- 43,067
- AFL Club
- Geelong
I agree that we are starting to see almost all of the injured players acknowledged on the weekly list. And we have at least moved away from the nonsensical 'short/medium/long term' to describe return dates.
Which basically just leaves the vague injury update info that the club reps offer in interviews and the trump card that is 'TBC' on the list each week as the two levers that the GFC can continue to pull to stay 'a step ahead' of the rest of the comp on injury updates.
Agreed.
Do they really believe there is a strategic edge to be gained by fudging return dates?
I really don't see it these days. Clubs would have sources, intel, and be quite capable of making informed assessments re: players and injury I would've thought.
They clearly feel very justified in their position, based on how relentlessly they pursue it. I personally believe they're wasting energy on an area that supplies no meaningful strategic advantage whatsoever. I'd be far more concerned with protecting I.P. around overall game plan and how you're looking to counter the opposition in each game than about having other teams supposedly 'wonder' who's fronting up for us from week to week.
Still, as the evidence of recent seasons has unequivocally shown, the club apparently believes there is real value in their approach. So I expect to see much, much more of the same from the GFC in this area, unless the AFL really goes at them for treating the current guidelines with as much disdain as possible.
- Dec 11, 2009
- 33,097
- 43,067
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Completely agree.
thejester
Norm Smith Medallist
Veteran
BigFooty Official Draft Tipping Competition
Geelong Cats - Gryan Miers Player Sponsor 2018
Geelong Cats - Sam Simpson Player Sponsor 2017
Geelong Cats - Nakia Cockatoo Player Sponsor 2016
Geelong Cats - Nakia Cockatoo Player Sponsor 2015
Geelong Cats - Travis Varcoe 2014 Player Sponsor
Podcaster
- Apr 22, 2006
- 8,568
- 9,188
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Huey & Riley Freeman
What if I told you there is no program of deception and the actual reason for this has been and always will be that medical science is inexact and that sometimes players take more or less time than expected to recover from injury?
- Dec 11, 2009
- 33,097
- 43,067
- AFL Club
- Geelong
There obviously isn't a 'program' but the actual reason the AFL stepped in was to curtail the cynical use of the injury report by clubs, with one of, if not THE, worst being the GFC.
Of course you can take that view. But the GFC has such a storied history of just leaving players at 'TBC' for weeks on end (or off the injury list entirely) as to suggest that they routinely choose the most opaque reporting means possible.
I don't dispute for a moment that players heal at different rates. It doesn't stop all the other clubs typically reporting that this hamstring will be 3-4 weeks and this ankle will be 5-6 weeks. And then if the timeframes don't run as anticipated, they simply update the information.
It's not as if any club's medical staff is splitting the atom here. In the vast majority of cases, there are vast swathes of injury history at every single club that could lead to sensible estimates of when a player might return from a particular injury. So the fact that our club basically chooses to stand alone in effectively proclaiming 'stuffed if we know' when asked to estimate a player's approximate return date seems like a very knowing omission on their part.
I have never understood, and never will understand why people get worked up over this. Doesn't effect your experience in viewing/attending football games (unless you're a degenerate gambler, and f#ck them to be honest) or you have any control over.
Some people heal quicker or slower than what is the norm. Sometimes a correct diagnosis and treatment can take a while to reach involving numerous specialists. Of all the issues in the AFL, this is one of the dumbest hills to die on.
- Dec 11, 2009
- 33,097
- 43,067
- AFL Club
- Geelong
It's not something I get 'worked up' over, or a hill that I want to die on.
It's just an observation. We're talking footy and it's just my opinion on this particular subject.
Other clubs have been able to give estimates, but the GFC couldn't, or couldn't be bothered. It has been dismissive and deceptive with its use of 'TBC' and they got called out.
Fair enough too imo.
It isn't hard to give an estimate, then update it as each week passes, but I've no doubt they'll continue to try and buck a simple process.
It's a rather classic strawman that others construct here to say that those of us who think the club are quite ordinary in how they approach injury reporting are getting worked up.
There's no 'hill', there no 'losing sleep', there's nothing more than the observation that the club's desire to be difficult about the issue appears to be easily discernible and somewhat silly. Nothing more, nothing less.
- Dec 11, 2009
- 33,097
- 43,067
- AFL Club
- Geelong
cats_09
Otters United
- Jun 21, 2011
- 70,582
- 146,805
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #122
Now for an actual injury update:
Tom Stewart - Knee, Test
As announced on Monday, scans on Monday morning have ruled out of any serious injury to Tom’s right knee. With one more session before we head to Brisbane, Tom will be closely monitored before making a call at selection.
Bailey Smith - Calf, Test
Bailey was a late withdrawal ahead of the Saints game after experiencing calf soreness. We took a conservative approach and will continue to monitor Bailey throughout the week before we make a call on his availability.
Jack Martin - Management, Test
Jack reported low level calf tightness during the pre-game VFL warmup on Sunday against Sandringham. The Club took the cautious approach to withdraw him and Jack will be a test to be play in Saturday’s VFL against Northern Bullants at GMHBA Stadium.
Lenny Hofmann - Back, Indefinite
Lenny has experienced increasing back symptoms, and a scan has shown low-grade bone stress. We will take a conservative approach with Lenny, with the aim to see him return in the second half of the season.
Full GMHBA Health Update: Status and timelines reported in Round 2’s GMHBA Health Update have been updated below ahead of AFL Round 3 and VFL Round 2:
Don't go there
Tom Stewart - Knee, Test
As announced on Monday, scans on Monday morning have ruled out of any serious injury to Tom’s right knee. With one more session before we head to Brisbane, Tom will be closely monitored before making a call at selection.
Bailey Smith - Calf, Test
Bailey was a late withdrawal ahead of the Saints game after experiencing calf soreness. We took a conservative approach and will continue to monitor Bailey throughout the week before we make a call on his availability.
Jack Martin - Management, Test
Jack reported low level calf tightness during the pre-game VFL warmup on Sunday against Sandringham. The Club took the cautious approach to withdraw him and Jack will be a test to be play in Saturday’s VFL against Northern Bullants at GMHBA Stadium.
Lenny Hofmann - Back, Indefinite
Lenny has experienced increasing back symptoms, and a scan has shown low-grade bone stress. We will take a conservative approach with Lenny, with the aim to see him return in the second half of the season.
Full GMHBA Health Update: Status and timelines reported in Round 2’s GMHBA Health Update have been updated below ahead of AFL Round 3 and VFL Round 2:
| Player | Injury | Timeline |
| Bailey Smith | Calf | Test |
| Tom Stewart | Knee | Test |
| Jack Martin | Calf | Test |
| Jake Kolodjashnij | Groin | 1-2 weeks |
| Jacob Mollier | Hamstring | 1-3 weeks |
| Keighton Matofai-Forbes | Management | 2-3 weeks |
| Xavier Ivisic | Ankle | 2-4 weeks |
| Jed Bews | Finger | 6-10 weeks |
| Toby Conway | Back | TBC |
| Cameron Guthrie | Achilles | TBC |
| Tanner Bruhn | Finger | TBC |
| Mitch Edwards | Pelvis | TBC |
| Cillian Burke | Knee | Indefinite |
| Lenny Hofmann | Back | Indefinite |
GMHBA Health Update | Round 3
Check out the GMHBA Health Update ahead of Geelong's round three clash against Brisbane at the Gabba
www.geelongcats.com.au
Don't go there
Art Vandelay_
TheBrownDog
- Oct 28, 2012
- 109,467
- 152,473
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Bushrangers - Tottenham
So a fortnight or so from now we could have
B - Henry - O'Sullivan - Guthrie
HB - Stewart - Kolodjashnij - Humphries
C - Dempsey - Holmes - Mannagh
HF - Miers - Cameron - Henry
F - Stengle - Neale - Dangerfield
R - De Koning - Smith - Atkins
I/C - Knevitt - Bowes - Blicavs - Close - Clark
In: Mannagh, Kolodjashnij, Smith.
Out: O'Connor, Mullin, Clohesy.
B - Henry - O'Sullivan - Guthrie
HB - Stewart - Kolodjashnij - Humphries
C - Dempsey - Holmes - Mannagh
HF - Miers - Cameron - Henry
F - Stengle - Neale - Dangerfield
R - De Koning - Smith - Atkins
I/C - Knevitt - Bowes - Blicavs - Close - Clark
In: Mannagh, Kolodjashnij, Smith.
Out: O'Connor, Mullin, Clohesy.
