Injury 2023 injury thread

[D BRIDGE]

I just want players that are injured on a list with the reason why they are not playing listed next to them.

Example: Willis (foot).

Having multiple guys throughout the year missing bunches of games and not even being listed as if they don't exist is taking the mickey IMO.

Having a solid dip at estimating the games missed would be nice, and I think people would know if the club was trying here and cop it on the chin if they weren't 100% correct all the time.

But first things first... Get injured guys on an injured list and then shoot for the stars from there.

Baby steps.

 

[Cataholic]

Any JC updates?

The club expects it'll be short term, and certainly no longer than medium term, though to be forthright, the possibility that it could be long term always exists.

 

[catempire]

So are you saying you'd be happy with 2-4 weeks but not short term, both of which are really nothing more then estimates and don't actually provide real clarity as far as I see.

100%

One, it’s being transparent and treats supporters evenly with the way other clubs treat theirs.

Two, it makes them less liable to play games with the timeframes, which Geelong frequently does, by obfuscating with vague descriptors rather than what they know to be a reasonable approximation.

Furthermore, if it provides no real clarity then there should be absolutely no downside to doing it. Every single reason put forward as to why they use vague descriptors goes out the window if this change would make no difference.

 

[dont stop me meow]

No pun intended here whatsoever but this thread is becoming painful to read

 

[cats_09]

So are you saying you'd be happy with 2-4 weeks but not short term, both of which are really nothing more then estimates and don't actually provide real clarity as far as I see.

Geelong should just go back to the old Neil Balme, "2-weeks away" for all injuries

 

[dont stop me meow]

According to that graphic it states "AFL to mandate clubs provide return dates for injured players" which if true is total BS.

Could we have given a specific date for Henry's return when even the medical staff probably had no idea how long it would take for him to recover, and there are numerous similar examples where it would be impossible to provide accurate information.

Just my personal opinion, but I think the whole thing it just much ado about nothing

Stanley for example?

 

[Cattery]

100%

One, it’s being transparent and treats supporters evenly with the way other clubs treat theirs.

Two, it makes them less liable to play games with the timeframes, which Geelong frequently does, by obfuscating with vague descriptors rather than what they know to be a reasonable approximation.

Furthermore, if it provides no real clarity then there should be absolutely no downside to doing it. Every single reason put forward as to why they use vague descriptors goes out the window if this change would make no difference.

On the flipside though, if it makes no difference then where's the upside.
Two-four weeks or short term, which to me are basically the same, and are really nothing more then guesstimates anyway, as in a lot of cases the club probably has no real idea how an injury will respond, E.g. Henry, Stanley, and even Dangerfield, who at first was thought to miss three to six weeks and now looks like possibly only missing the one match.

All just semantics as I see it, as I said previously, and of course it's just my personal opinion, it's much ado about nothing.

 

[Cattery]

Geelong should just go back to the old Neil Balme, "2-weeks away" for all injuries

Works for me, Ottens will be back it two weeks, and fifteen weeks later he finally shows up.

Stanley for example?

Yep, him as well, along with Henry, DeKoning and probably quite a few others (Menagola, Guthrie) practically impossible to put a timeframe on their return.

 

[you pick one]

It’s not about being definitive. It’s about being transparent.

Most teams already do it.

What if a player is having some sort of drug/ mental issue and doesn't want the world to know about it and club puts him down as foot injury at training that wouldn't be transparent are we going to have to provide proof of injury.Can of worms over nothing.

 

[kickazz]

A lot of people missing the point here. It’s not about successfully predicting the exact date a player will return. It’s about being transparent about what the club expects will happen. It’s information they currently possess. We see most clubs do that easily now by providing an estimated number of weeks - either a single number or a small range. There is absolutely no good reason not to have all clubs do that as best practice.

Why should they have to be transparent about this though?

Should they also be transparent about their intended match ups and strategies for upcoming games? Should they be transparent about set plays they use? This is all also info they currently possess.

I get the desire for fans to know - I'd like to know what's going on with Cam Guthrie and Sam Menegola for example; but if the club prefers not to be transparent about it then so be it I recon.

 

[Cattery]

Why should they have to be transparent about this though?

Should they also be transparent about their intended match ups and strategies for upcoming games? Should they be transparent about set plays they use? This is all also info they currently possess.

I get the desire for fans to know - I'd like to know what's going on with Cam Guthrie and Sam Menegola for example; but if the club prefers not to be transparent about it then so be it I recon.

Played in the VFL the other night, hope that helps.

 

[kickazz]

What if a player is having some sort of drug/ mental issue and doesn't want the world to know about it and club puts him down as foot injury at training that wouldn't be transparent are we going to have to provide proof of injury.Can of worms over nothing.

Yeah this is the other angle. Is everyone who is demanding to have more details happy to have their medical situation divulged to the public as well?

The players have public profiles so probably cannot expect the same level of privacy as the rest of us, but there still may be aspects of their health that they, and the club, want to keep from the public and I'm more than fine with that.

 

[cats_09]

What if a player is having some sort of drug/ mental issue and doesn't want the world to know about it and club puts him down as foot injury at training that wouldn't be transparent are we going to have to provide proof of injury.Can of worms over nothing.

There seems to be a consensus that the mysterious 8 - 10 week calf injuries we've seen some players fall victim to (and sometimes on multiple occasions), aren't actually calf injuries but rather an accepted option for listing a "forced holiday" without going into further details - will that still be permitted?

 

[Hamingja]

I couldn't access the HUN story, but I hope that in mandating return dates / clearer injury timeframes the AFL isn't pandering to the betting agencies?

When have they ever cared about the fans?

Sure players will have injury setbacks but you know what you do in those cases? You advise of the setback and adjust the timeframe on the injury list. Cutting edge stuff.

 

[catempire]

On the flipside though, if it makes no difference then where's the upside.
Two-four weeks or short term, which to me are basically the same, and are really nothing more then guesstimates anyway, as in a lot of cases the club probably has no real idea how an injury will respond, E.g. Henry, Stanley, and even Dangerfield, who at first was thought to miss three to six weeks and now looks like possibly only missing the one match.

All just semantics as I see it, as I said previously, and of course it's just my personal opinion, it's much ado about nothing.

The upside is clear: many supporters, the media and gambling companies clearly want it.

If you don’t care either way, great! It will make no difference to you whether it’s changed or not.

 

[catempire]

What if a player is having some sort of drug/ mental issue and doesn't want the world to know about it and club puts him down as foot injury at training that wouldn't be transparent are we going to have to provide proof of injury.Can of worms over nothing.

Not sure what you arguing for here. Heaps of players have taken time off for mental health reasons transparently.

 

[cats_09]

I get the desire for fans to know - I'd like to know what's going on with Cam Guthrie and Sam Menegola for example; but if the club prefers not to be transparent about it then so be it I recon.

I have no doubt some will disagree with this, but I'm not sure the Club was being deliberately vague with Guthrie's injury and it was more that they didn't have a time frame on return during the early period of his injury

Turf toe is most often a 2-3 week injury/time on the sidelines allowing the injury to heal, but you've got to see how it's responding - so if the Club comes out week one and says they expect 2-3 weeks on the sidelines for Guthrie, but then a month later when it's not getting better they now say, "he'll need surgery and out for a few months", are people going to complain about being mislead?

It really feels this year that the Club is reporting what they know, but when they aren't 100% sure they then don't give an update as to not provide misinformation and they'll provide an update when they're more sure of what they're reporting

 

[catempire]

Why should they have to be transparent about this though?

Should they also be transparent about their intended match ups and strategies for upcoming games? Should they be transparent about set plays they use? This is all also info they currently possess.

I get the desire for fans to know - I'd like to know what's going on with Cam Guthrie and Sam Menegola for example; but if the club prefers not to be transparent about it then so be it I recon.

For reasons already stated. There’s no thin edge of the wedge argument here. Nobody is calling for them to open up their playbooks. Straw man.

 

[kickazz]

For reasons already stated. There’s no thin edge of the wedge argument here. Nobody is calling for them to open up their playbooks. Straw man.

I must have missed the reasons then, my apologies. Transparency in itself isn't a reason.

 

[Cataholic]

What if a player is having some sort of drug/ mental issue and doesn't want the world to know about it and club puts him down as foot injury at training that wouldn't be transparent are we going to have to provide proof of injury.Can of worms over nothing.

If the AFL was fair dinkum about drugs in the sport it'd immediately suspend a player until they're proven to be clean imo.

 

[Strange Cat]

No pun intended here whatsoever but this thread is becoming painful to read

Just pages and pages of whinging about the club information regarding injuries and expecting the posts to change anything or add any new information

 

[D BRIDGE]

If the AFL was fair dinkum about drugs in the sport it'd immediately suspend a player until they're proven to be clean imo.

The amount of guys doing this stuff is so rife that if the AFL wouldn't have a competition if it was hardcore on it.

 

[Shadow89]

My issue all along has been the omission of players entirely - which seems to have caused the most confusion.

It's one thing to have 'short term', 'medium term', 'long term' - it's another to omit players for weeks on end, and provide no clarity on their return, or what their injury might even be. That's what I hope this mandate from the AFL fixes.

 

[Cataholic]

I have no doubt some will disagree with this, but I'm not sure the Club was being deliberately vague with Guthrie's injury and it was more that they didn't have a time frame on return during the early period of his injury

Turf toe is most often a 2-3 week injury/time on the sidelines allowing the injury to heal, but you've got to see how it's responding - so if the Club comes out week one and says they expect 2-3 weeks on the sidelines for Guthrie, but then a month later when it's not getting better they now say, "he'll need surgery and out for a few months", are people going to complain about being mislead?

It really feels this year that the Club is reporting what they know, but when they aren't 100% sure they then don't give an update as to not provide misinformation and they'll provide an update when they're more sure of what they're reporting

Within a relatively short time post injury the club has a medically qualified insight into the what / how / why of an injury, and a best estimate re: timeframe based on available info at that point in time.

As each week passes the club knows how the injury is healing, and whether it's conforming with the original timeline. They update accordingly. Pretty simple process to implement I would've thought.

ie Guthrie suffers turf toe. The club advises a 3 week return.

Come week 2 the club knows full well it's not responding as usual, and updates its injury list to reflect the fact that the original 3 week return is now expected to become, say, 5 weeks.

 

[Cataholic]

The amount of guys doing this stuff is so rife that if the AFL wouldn't have a competition if it was hardcore on it.

The AFL needs to take a stance like Athletics Australia, and not be the wimp it currently is.