Injuries 2019

[wayToGo_]

I agree that we seem to be bad at it recently, but you can't measure it like you can something analytical like investments/finance. It is a totally different beast.

Human body in a high performance environment is chaotic. So many factors and variables. Think more climate/weather than finance if you want a comparison. Obviously not that extreme but I bet its closer than finance.

So my point is getting fed up is useless because the data doesn't give you a clear picture like it does in something quantitative (finance etc). You look at the process and I assume Weber and Co get reviewed and the process is solid. There is nothing more you can do without just guessing..

And my argument is if we continue to allow soft excuses ("but it's chaotic") for poor performance then we'll never win a premiership. Winning games of football is equally chaotic (also involves human bodies - and has a lot more variables because S&C is just a subset) but coaches are measured on their win/loss performance. I don't get why S&C teams should just get given a free ride? The data does give me a clear picture because we clearly have way too many soft tissue injuries - and soft tissue injuries have had a heap of research done about how to prevent them - similarly if you have more ACLs/PCLs than everyone else over 10+ years - over that period of time the outliers don't impact the trend and are surely an accurate indicator of comparative performance? If an injury has measures to prevent it then luck should not be a valid excuse. Our S&C team should be benchmarked against those at other clubs. If it is down the bottom (which the raw data suggests it is), it's time to pull the pin imo.

PS. I'm not sure the finance people would agree they don't have lots of variables and aren't dealing with a chaotic environment If it were that easy, everyone would be billionaires.

 

[dockerfemme]

I agree that we seem to be bad at it recently, but you can't measure it like you can something analytical like investments/finance. It is a totally different beast.

Human body in a high performance environment is chaotic. So many factors and variables. Think more climate/weather than finance if you want a comparison. Obviously not that extreme but I bet its closer than finance.

So my point is getting fed up is useless because the data doesn't give you a clear picture like it does in something quantitative (finance etc). You look at the process and I assume Weber and Co get reviewed and the process is solid. There is nothing more you can do without just guessing..

I agree, you can’t take one example of an injury and use it to measure the process, or decision making. I always take careful note of any figures published of games lost to injury by a club and we have not done well on this figure over multiple years on the information available.

I have said this before. Producing good numbers on this measure is more than the S&C team. For example, the decision to keep Harley another year, reflects badly on this number. How Harley got to his current state we don’t know, but decisions to keep him on the list mean we don’t look good in terms of having a fit and available list.

I certainly hope the club gets these numbers across all clubs and analyses them objectively.

 

[FreoRicci]

Heres your Hill update, not great news
https://thewest.com.au/sport/freman...injury-adding-to-quad-problems-ng-b881156760z

Le Ole Calf.. why you bother us so?

 

[Cesoir]

I agree, you can’t take one example of an injury and use it to measure the process, or decision making. I always take careful note of any figures published of games lost to injury by a club and we have not done well on this figure over multiple years on the information available.

I have said this before. Producing good numbers on this measure is more than the S&C team. For example, the decision to keep Harley another year, reflects badly on this number. How Harley got to his current state we don’t know, but decisions to keep him on the list mean we don’t look good in terms of having a fit and available list.

I certainly hope the club gets these numbers across all clubs and analyses them objectively.

Summed it up perfectly dockerfemme. The reactions on this particular thread are way out of proportion to the reality, which is we are generally in the same broad range as most other teams at any given time.

Clearly the S&C team at Carlton are terrible at managing knees and backs, or is that just another example of a club having a run of particular injury types.

 

[FreoRicci]

It makes you worry as it's not like this is something new. We seem to have had a problem with injuries for a long, long time now.

What I don't understand is how we can't get Bennell on the field like GC did. Unless GC ran him into the ground and our medicos did a lousy job of due diligence.

Even Gold Coast would have a better S&C team. Weber isn’t all what he’s cracked up to be. PhD means nothing in sports science, after all it’s all theoretical statiscal stuff. Clearly fails at practical and putting it into real cases.
I’d rather have Scully atm. Hill has nearly been injured the same time as him, AND still he isn’t 100%. Honestly, how the hell do we just manufacture these injuries and the team just comes out with pathetic statements.. Logue reinjury shows their incompetence and how far out of their depth they seem to be

 

[Joao]

And my argument is if we continue to allow soft excuses ("but it's chaotic") for poor performance then we'll never win a premiership. Winning games of football is equally chaotic (also involves human bodies - and has a lot more variables because S&C is just a subset) but coaches are measured on their win/loss performance. I don't get why S&C teams should just get given a free ride? The data does give me a clear picture because we clearly have way too many soft tissue injuries - and soft tissue injuries have had a heap of research done about how to prevent them - similarly if you have more ACLs/PCLs than everyone else over 10+ years - over that period of time the outliers don't impact the trend and are surely an accurate indicator of comparative performance? If an injury has measures to prevent it then luck should not be a valid excuse. Our S&C team should be benchmarked against those at other clubs. If it is down the bottom (which the raw data suggests it is), it's time to pull the pin imo.

PS. I'm not sure the finance people would agree they don't have lots of variables and aren't dealing with a chaotic environment If it were that easy, everyone would be billionaires.

I explicitly addressed the reviews in my post. I have no doubt they get reviewed, but you don't review the results, you review the process. If your process is as per standard practice then you have no other option than to assume it is just luck.

Because if you try and say: "well the process is fine but we still get heaps of soft tissue injuries"

I will then retort with: "I agree we have a problem but what do you want us to do different when the industry consensus is to do it the way we do?"

It is not sufficient to say you have a problem, you have to have a solution as well or else you are wasting breath. So if you can find somebody outside of the club that has proven results with a different method then sure. Otherwise, you are just shuffling deck chairs.

Finance has variables for sure, but my point is that it is easy to measure your method from your results which you can't do with pro athlete injuries.

I agree, you can’t take one example of an injury and use it to measure the process, or decision making. I always take careful note of any figures published of games lost to injury by a club and we have not done well on this figure over multiple years on the information available.

I have said this before. Producing good numbers on this measure is more than the S&C team. For example, the decision to keep Harley another year, reflects badly on this number. How Harley got to his current state we don’t know, but decisions to keep him on the list mean we don’t look good in terms of having a fit and available list.

I certainly hope the club gets these numbers across all clubs and analyses them objectively.

Agree with this. If you take Sandi and Harley out (as I doubt either play for us again ) then suddenly our list looks fine. Those boys staying on I am sure was not a Webber decision

 

[FreoRicci]

Summed it up perfectly dockerfemme. The reactions on this particular thread are way out of proportion to the reality, which is we are generally in the same broad range as most other teams at any given time.

Clearly the S&C team at Carlton are terrible at managing knees and backs, or is that just another example of a club having a run of particular injury types.

View attachment 647739

You can put Carlton’s list to severe bad luck. Knee is a structural injury caused often by acute damage. Docherty a key example.
It’s a stark contrast to Freo. Whereas managing what was meant to be acute injuries becomes chronic before long. It’s the mismanagment of muscular injuries which is clear.
Looking at Carlton’s list, there’s not one soft tissue injury, beside from the back injury. Contradicts your point. Richmond’s injury list has been minimal and slate free. Management clearly do it properly. Rance is an acute impact injury whereas Riewoldt as a result of forceful impact.

Could it be the ground- Freo Oval was notorious for this- that has continued on to Cockburn? Or just the loading programs coming from a Rugby Union background in Weber? Surely the club has done or if needs be do a thorough review of injuries. Bennell especially. Sandi and Hill. Stephen Hill returning to AFL not for one or two games then gets reinjury clearly shows the management not being carried out.

 

[dockerfemme]

Summed it up perfectly dockerfemme. The reactions on this particular thread are way out of proportion to the reality, which is we are generally in the same broad range as most other teams at any given time.

Clearly the S&C team at Carlton are terrible at managing knees and backs, or is that just another example of a club having a run of particular injury types.

View attachment 647739

I wasn’t particularly defending the club. Actually the opposite. We don’t seem to be in the same broad range as other clubs. On the figures I have seen we are in the worst quartile over an extended period of time (2016, 2017).

 

[Square Peg]

Summed it up perfectly dockerfemme. The reactions on this particular thread are way out of proportion to the reality, which is we are generally in the same broad range as most other teams at any given time.

Clearly the S&C team at Carlton are terrible at managing knees and backs, or is that just another example of a club having a run of particular injury types.

View attachment 647739

Maybe no dreaded TBC on that list is why the Carlton fans are more likely to be accepting. Speaking personally it's the contempt they show in not providing detail that annoys many people and probably is at least partially why their competence is often questioned.

 

[wayToGo_]

It is not sufficient to say you have a problem, you have to have a solution as well or else you are wasting breath. So if you can find somebody outside of the club that has proven results with a different method then sure. Otherwise, you are just shuffling deck chairs.

I can point to 17 other club's S&C teams who don't have the same soft tissue injury issues Freo has had for several years now. Perhaps poaching one of them is a solution? But I'm sure all the other clubs are following the exact same process and we are just "unlucky" though aren't we?

Results are an outcome of process. Results are and always will be the measure. You can't measure if a process is good or not if you don't consider the results. My employees would love to work for you, they could be complete underachievers but have endless job security because they followed a process of their own design consistently. Spoiler alert: maybe the process is flawed

 

[Joao]

I can point to 17 other club's S&C teams who don't have the same soft tissue injury issues Freo has had for several years now. Perhaps poaching one of them is a solution? But I'm sure all the other clubs are following the exact same process and we are just "unlucky" though aren't we?

Results are an outcome of process. Results are and always will be the measure. You can't measure if a process is good or not if you don't consider the results. My employees would love to work for you, they could be complete underachievers but have endless job security because they followed a process of their own design consistently. Spoiler alert: maybe the process is flawed

If you truly believe what you just posted, we have nothing further to discuss here.

 

[wayToGo_]

If you truly believe what you just posted, we have nothing further to discuss here.

So you think employees shouldn't have results based KPIs? Sorry, I'm still struggling to understand what you argument is. What is it exactly?

 

[Joao]

So you think employees shouldn't have results based KPIs? Sorry, I'm still struggling to understand what you argument is. What is it exactly?

It is exactly as I wrote it. I am not wasting my time explaining it (I have done so in other threads if you really want to read it and are not just trying to be condescending).

 

[rgauci]

It’s both list management and S&C in my opinion. No other club would persist with Apeness / Bennell as long as us. It took Apeness to pull the pin on himself. Similarly you’d be questioning signing S.Hill beyond this year. But we probably will. Each time you pay someone who doesn’t play, that’s wasted salary cap. It’s like Richmond moving on Deledio. We need to be ruthless again. I hope that young bloke is onto this concept.

 

[Taylor]

I'm not convinced you can break a person and their body down to such exact measurements that would give you a solid grounding for a KPI, not one that isn't entirely based in correlation, but being treated as if it's based in causation anyway.

Even if I wipe off the table every single difference in a squad of players that they present with, let's just talk about the in game circumstances. We aren't training a team of repeat action athletes. Well, they repeat actions but every contest is a dynamic and different circumstance that puts their unique body under a unique experience.

You won't be able to cover every possible event or result.

 

[Joao]

I'm not convinced you can break a person and their body down to such exact measurements that would give you a solid grounding for a KPI, not one that isn't entirely based in correlation, but being treated as if it's based in causation anyway.

Even if I wipe off the table every single difference in a squad of players that they present with, let's just talk about the in game circumstances. We aren't training a team of repeat action athletes. Well, they repeat actions but every contest is a dynamic and different circumstance that puts their unique body under a unique experience.

You won't be able to cover every possible event or result.

Contrary to that, apparently plenty of people in this thread alone have the capability to do that.

 

[wayToGo_]

I'm not convinced you can break a person and their body down to such exact measurements that would give you a solid grounding for a KPI.

But as I said in my original post "I don't care about individual instances"... If you are assessing on individual instances then you'll waste endless hours arguing things like the complexity of the human body. That was never my argument despite Joao trying to turn it into that. What I am saying is, if you take the full injury history for the entire club over several years (ie use a decent sample size) then you can benchmark our overall player availability against other clubs (and by types of injury). By doing this you are lessening the impact of outliers skewing the overall analysis. That should surely be a valid KPI for an S&C team to be evaluated on? If not that, then what can you assess them on?

Nobody should be calling for somebody's head because of a one off injury... it is the ongoing trend of having poor player availability that needs addressing. Like people call for the head coach to be sacked when the win loss ratio sucks (over a period), I'm saying Weber needs to have a target on him because he's the head of S&C... but I don't really care what changes are made (people who have more information than me can make those decisions) so long as there is some action taken to address what is clearly an ongoing issue for this football club. Hiding behind "it's complex because it's the human body", "we're doing what is industry standard", "we're unlucky" and an endless list of "TBAs" isn't helping anyone, especially our players and coaches.

 

[Taylor]

Contrary to that, apparently plenty of people in this thread alone have the capability to do that.

People will externally assign their feelings as a means of managing and understanding the world around them, it's normal human behaviour and has been going on since the dawn of human kind.

It's why we have religion. "Why is it a nice day today after the storm of yesterday?" (I don't know, must be something we did to please the great being in the sky)

Humans are wired to find patterns, you'll see images in the clouds, it's part of our survival defense systems. We need to find causation to suffering to avoid it.

Injuries to our players cause our team to underperform, this causes us suffering, we seek causation.

There is also appeals to omnipotent higher authorities that are coming out. Basically to avoid having to feel like a flag waving in the wind we allocate in our mind that the government has "that" under control, that doctors can cure everything and everything they don't is because of money (that's where it comes from) and sports scientists can make athletes body's work perfectly - if ours can't get it right then there is someone out there who can.

 

[Taylor]

But as I said in my original post "I don't care about individual instances"... If you are assessing on individual instances then you'll waste endless hours arguing things like the complexity of the human body. That was never my argument despite Joao trying to turn it into that. What I am saying is, if you take the full injury history for the entire club over several years (ie use a decent sample size) then you can benchmark our overall player availability against other clubs (and by types of injury). By doing this you are lessening the impact of outliers skewing the overall analysis. That should surely be a valid KPI for an S&C team to be evaluated on? If not that, then what can you assess them on?

Nobody should be calling for somebody's head because of a one off injury... it is the ongoing trend of having poor player availability that needs addressing. Like people call for the head coach to be sacked when the win loss ratio sucks (over a period), I'm saying Weber needs to have a target on him because he's the head of S&C... but I don't really care what changes are made (people who have more information than me can make those decisions) so long as there is some action taken to address what is clearly an ongoing issue for this football club. Hiding behind "it's complex because it's the human body", "we're doing what is industry standard", "we're unlucky" and an endless list of "TBAs" isn't helping anyone, especially our players and coaches.

I do see what your point is. What happens if an independent review comes back with the result that all actions were best practice and the injuries and recoveries were as best as could be expected?

If that is an unacceptable result then I would question the motivation and prejudice going into it.

 

[Joao]

But as I said in my original post "I don't care about individual instances"... If you are assessing on individual instances then you'll waste endless hours arguing things like the complexity of the human body. That was never my argument despite Joao trying to turn it into that. What I am saying is, if you take the full injury history for the entire club over several years (ie use a decent sample size) then you can benchmark our overall player availability against other clubs (and by types of injury). By doing this you are lessening the impact of outliers skewing the overall analysis. That should surely be a valid KPI for an S&C team to be evaluated on? If not that, then what can you assess them on?

Nobody should be calling for somebody's head because of a one off injury... it is the ongoing trend of having poor player availability that needs addressing. Like people call for the head coach to be sacked when the win loss ratio sucks (over a period), I'm saying Weber needs to have a target on him because he's the head of S&C... but I don't really care what changes are made (people who have more information than me can make those decisions) so long as there is some action taken to address what is clearly an ongoing issue for this football club. Hiding behind "it's complex because it's the human body", "we're doing what is industry standard", "we're unlucky" and an endless list of "TBAs" isn't helping anyone, especially our players and coaches.

Err what? I specifically stated that the human body is complex and especially so in this context and for that reason, you can't judge it based on results. You can't distance your argument from the complexity of its context and trivialise it into a simple benchmark. That will give you, at best, a feeling for who is doing a better job. That's fine for a fan having an opinion but complete garbage for a high performance environment.

Benchmarking is only useful if you can directly attribute causality, which we can't in this case. All your idea is going to do is put all 18 clubs on a chart which shows everyone who is doing well/poor over some period of time. It has no value it helping the poorer teams improve.

Also, how do you even know what the club is doing in this space? Do you have proof we don't review it? You are acting like you know for a fact we don't do anything to improve this or specifically that there is not more we could be doing.

I don't know what we are doing, but I'd bet handsome money that we are doing something.

 

[Joao]

People will externally assign their feelings as a means of managing and understanding the world around them, it's normal human behaviour and has been going on since the dawn of human kind.

It's why we have religion. "Why is it a nice day today after the storm of yesterday?" (I don't know, must be something we did to please the great being in the sky)

Humans are wired to find patterns, you'll see images in the clouds, it's part of our survival defense systems. We need to find causation to suffering to avoid it.

Injuries to our players cause our team to underperform, this causes us suffering, we seek causation.

There is also appeals to omnipotent higher authorities that are coming out. Basically to avoid having to feel like a flag waving in the wind we allocate in our mind that the government has "that" under control, that doctors can cure everything and everything they don't is because of money (that's where it comes from) and sports scientists can make athletes body's work perfectly - if ours can't get it right then there is someone out there who can.

Spot on.

With sports fans, in particular, it feels to me like we have watched too many motivational speeches and have decided all you have to do to be the best is to will it and never take no for an answer.

Unfortunately, the real ingredients are talent, **** tonnes or hard work and your fair share of luck.

 

[wayToGo_]

I do see what your point is. What happens if an independent review comes back with the result that all actions were best practice and the injuries and recoveries were as best as could be expected?

If that is an unacceptable result then I would question the motivation and prejudice going into it.

But that's not what good businesses/organisations do. They don't undertake review processes for no reason. They are generally triggered because they know there is a problem and want to find the reasons why so they can address them specifically (as it is cheaper and more effective that way). A review not finding those reasons doesn't change the fact there is still a problem. What generally happens (post a review that gives no insight) is the actions they are forced to take are more generic rather than specific - a bit of trial and error to see if it resolves the problems.

I think the club knew/knows there is a problem with player availability - hence they admitted they undertook a review. I don't know the outcome of that review but it doesn't seem like whatever action they have taken since has addressed the issue. Logic suggests they try something else and keep trying until our player availability improves

 

[dockerfemme]

Err what? I specifically stated that the human body is complex and especially so in this context and for that reason, you can't judge it based on results. You can't distance your argument from the complexity of its context and trivialise it into a simple benchmark. That will give you, at best, a feeling for who is doing a better job. That's fine for a fan having an opinion but complete garbage for a high performance environment.

Benchmarking is only useful if you can directly attribute causality, which we can't in this case. All your idea is going to do is put all 18 clubs on a chart which shows everyone who is doing well/poor over some period of time. It has no value it helping the poorer teams improve.

Also, how do you even know what the club is doing in this space? Do you have proof we don't review it? You are acting like you know for a fact we don't do anything to improve this or specifically that there is not more we could be doing.

I don't know what we are doing, but I'd bet handsome money that we are doing something.

I cannot agree with you on this. If you analysed the numbers over some years you would know whether you did well or poorly at having a fit and available list. If you didn’t analyse the numbers how else would you know?

Assuming you had reasonable details with the numbers you could understand things like whether you had more recurrence than most others, more long term injuries where players barely get on the park for years etc etc.

Without analysing these types of numbers I don’t see how you would know if you have a problem and what aspects of the problem need to be worked on.

 

[Square Peg]

Benchmarking is only useful if you can directly attribute causality

Not even close to true

 

[Joao]

I cannot agree with you on this. If you analysed the numbers over some years you would know whether you did well or poorly at having a fit and available list. If you didn’t analyse the numbers how else would you know?

Assuming you had reasonable details with the numbers you could understand things like whether you had more recurrence than most others, more long term injuries where players barely get on the park for years etc etc.

Without analysing these types of numbers I don’t see how you would know if you have a problem and what aspects of the problem need to be worked on.

All it tells you is that you have to look at why though. I am sure every clubs medical department is well aware of how they are performing against other clubs (you couldn't avoid it really) but it is not a strategy to fix anything.

So either we are already doing it and it doesn't help or we haven't done it but everybody knows/thinks we have a problem anyway.

I am not against finding out where you are at, but you can't put it up as a solution as it isn't one.