Injuries 2019

Remove this Banner Ad

dockerfemme said:
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.
Click to expand...
Reviewing those numbers relies on the assumption that the same players at different clubs would have different results, where as a player like Bennell who has had calf problems at two clubs, a player like Freeman who had persistent hamstring issues at two clubs are either seen as outliers who don't fit the answer being sought or they show that the players are unique.

And all clubs don't have the same players, if the clubs did then the only variables would be the in-game interactions and demands, the local distractions on the players (read: nightlife) and the strength and conditioning team.

Widening the view doesn't make that more accurate. You'd find a similar correlation (again, not causation) between having a large flying load not having players reach 300 games. The quality of the player has more to do with that, in my opinion.

The quality of the player decides how diligent they are with recovery etc.
 
Joao said:
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.
Click to expand...
That is true, although I think the numbers can provide a greater understanding. If the alternative is to ignore the numbers and just carry on, I would look at the numbers.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I think no matter what you do the sample size with a 40ish man squad is not going to be large enough (even over several years) to be able to make a reliable assessment which leads you back to reviewing your practices and the ability of your employees to implement them.
 
Joao said:
Enlighten me.

Lets say Party A performs 10% better than Party B.

What use to anyone is that if I don't know why?
Click to expand...

You do understand the meaning of the word causality do you?
 
Tayl0r said:
Reviewing those numbers relies on the assumption that the same players at different clubs would have different results, where as a player like Bennell who has had calf problems at two clubs, a player like Freeman who had persistent hamstring issues at two clubs are either seen as outliers who don't fit the answer being sought or they show that the players are unique.

And all clubs don't have the same players, if the clubs did then the only variables would be the in-game interactions and demands, the local distractions on the players (read: nightlife) and the strength and conditioning team.

Widening the view doesn't make that more accurate. You'd find a similar correlation (again, not causation) between having a large flying load not having players reach 300 games. The quality of the player has more to do with that, in my opinion.

The quality of the player decides how diligent they are with recovery etc.
Click to expand...
I agree with you to an extent. Strength and conditioning is not the only factor that influences the numbers. Keeping Morabito on the list for 6 years influences the numbers. Recruiting Switta looks like it could influence the numbers.

In my view, the numbers say we are poor at having a fit and available list. Maybe we need to shift our focus on recruitment, maybe we need to be more hard nosed about cutting the Morabitos and Harley’s of this world, maybe we need a better S&C team, maybe we need to do all three.

I just don’t accept it is all luck over a number of years.
 
All clubs have injury concerns, but how do you not fix or add to the issue in rehab? WC, Hawks injuries
seem better managed, and it's still in their favour at the end of the year.
Yet every year we limp to the finish, missing key players, I wouldn't blame just one person or department.
Our game plan, style, coach not resting, rotating players with our training regime has probably cost us at
least one premiership.
 
blue shark said:
All clubs have injury concerns, but how do you not fix or add to the issue in rehab? WC, Hawks injuries
seem better managed, and it's still in their favour at the end of the year.
Yet every year we limp to the finish, missing key players, I wouldn't blame just one person or department.
Our game plan, style, coach not resting, rotating players with our training regime has probably cost us at
least one premiership.
Click to expand...

It certainly didn’t cost us in 2013. Had probably 19-20 of the best 22 out there.
 
Docker82 said:
It certainly didn’t cost us in 2013. Had probably 19-20 of the best 22 out there.
Click to expand...
In 2011 Freo sought special permission from the AFL to bring in players from outside the list to cover a (near unprecedented) massive injury toll. So injury lists can go up and down, regardless of who's in charge.

But I would say that not having McPharlin has cost us in 2012, 2014 and 2015, to what degree is speculative but it's probably no coincidence that in 2013 he saw it through to the GF. Maybe we should've been more ruthless with his position on the list? :think:
 
Last edited:
Tayl0r said:
Reviewing those numbers relies on the assumption that the same players at different clubs would have different results, where as a player like Bennell who has had calf problems at two clubs, a player like Freeman who had persistent hamstring issues at two clubs are either seen as outliers who don't fit the answer being sought or they show that the players are unique.

And all clubs don't have the same players, if the clubs did then the only variables would be the in-game interactions and demands, the local distractions on the players (read: nightlife) and the strength and conditioning team.

Widening the view doesn't make that more accurate. You'd find a similar correlation (again, not causation) between having a large flying load not having players reach 300 games. The quality of the player has more to do with that, in my opinion.

The quality of the player decides how diligent they are with recovery etc.
Click to expand...
Harley injured his left calf at Freo when he told he had to prove himself to get in the team and had to play for Peel. Near the end of the fourth quarter he was kicked in his good calf that he'd never been injured, and there started his injury problems at Freo.

It was rehabbing this injury that the Gods who rule Freo S&C decided he had to get his calf 40% stronger than anyone else at the club. Unfortunately when he attained this unattainable level the calf became injured again. Ross says when looking back at that it probably wasn't a good idea to strengthen the muscle 40% more than anyone else's at the club. Ya think? This was all reported in the papers and I've mentioned before in my defence of Harley and the way S&C have treated him.

Don't think it was Ross's idea and he has taken him under his wing in the last few years I think. Maybe because a particular player agent has been throwing around words like incompetent and negligent? I don't know but only guessing why a possible delisting became relisting in a few hours before the f&b last year.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Tayl0r said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hang on ... you'd question the motivations and prejudice of someone wanting a review of Freo S&C 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?

You don't think injuring different muscles while in rehab needs questioning?
Or that the large number of hamstring injuries and re- injures need questioning?
Or the large number of calf injuries and other soft tissue injuries need questioning?
Or why those injuries are not effectively rehabilitated and keep occurring needs questioning?

But you would not question that "independence" or quality of that review?

You would probably know the CSK case was reviewed 11 times. This was mostly by independent cops from SA. Det Caporn liked to quote to the press it was the most reviewed case in Australia! However in all of those reviews except one, only parts of the case was looked at under narrow terms of reference. Nothing was found that wasn't best practice and the case was as good as could be expected.

The difference was the Schamm review in 2004, which was thorough and identified many new lines of Inquiry including a Telstra subject and possible DNA on Ciara that needed to be tested. Great review, but these recommendations were ignored or incompetently followed up. DNA was found 2 year later when the identified item finally was tested.

Now the public is being told there was a Telstra guy driving around offering lifts to young girls for a couple of years before the murders, a Telstra knife found close to Jane Rimmer's discovery site and a Telstra guy (this was the accused) responsible for a assault in Hollywood Hospital serious enough that he had to attend a sexual offenders programme.

Not saying he's guilty but after 11 reviews there was 1 Telstra suspect investigated (not the accused) and 3,500 taxi drivers that gave DNA, despite all the Telstra evidence they now say there was, but 10 of those reviews didn't find and one innocent suspect hounded for many years (wasn't his DNA which they knew).

Mr Lampard (Deputy Commissioner Murray Lampard) points out that Macro has been reviewed 11 times, making it the most reviewed investigation in WA history.

None has identified any errors or oversights, he says. Each review made recommendations which were accepted and implemented. Those recommendations sought to enhance investigative and forensic work already done.

https://www.news.com.au/news/lost-in-the-devils-garden/news-story/009820814c5c97e33cd17008a39c89f2

Funny even the words are remarkably the same as your Taylor! What you are saying is "Nothing to see here!" What I am saying is bull shit!
 
BlueE said:
Hang on ... you'd question the motivations and prejudice of someone wanting a review of Freo S&C 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?

You don't think injuring different muscles while in rehab needs questioning?
Or that the large number of hamstring injuries and re- injures need questioning?
Or the large number of calf injuries and other soft tissue injuries need questioning?
Or why those injuries are not effectively rehabilitated and keep occurring needs questioning?

But you would not question that "independence" or quality of that review?

You would probably know the CSK case was reviewed 11 times. This was mostly by independent cops from SA. Det Caporn liked to quote to the press it was the most reviewed case in Australia! However in all of those reviews except one, only parts of the case was looked at under narrow terms of reference. Nothing was found that wasn't best practice and the case was as good as could be expected.

The difference was the Schamm review in 2004, which was thorough and identified many new lines of Inquiry including a Telstra subject and possible DNA on Ciara that needed to be tested. Great review, but these recommendations were ignored or incompetently followed up. DNA was found 2 year later when the identified item finally was tested.

Now the public is being told there was a Telstra guy driving around offering lifts to young girls for a couple of years before the murders, a Telstra knife found close to Jane Rimmer's discovery site and a Telstra guy (this was the accused) responsible for a assault in Hollywood Hospital serious enough that he had to attend a sexual offenders programme.

Not saying he's guilty but after 11 reviews there was 1 Telstra suspect investigated (not the accused) and 3,500 taxi drivers that gave DNA, despite all the Telstra evidence they now say there was, but 10 of those reviews didn't find and one innocent suspect hounded for many years (wasn't his DNA which they knew).

Mr Lampard (Deputy Commissioner Murray Lampard) points out that Macro has been reviewed 11 times, making it the most reviewed investigation in WA history.

None has identified any errors or oversights, he says. Each review made recommendations which were accepted and implemented. Those recommendations sought to enhance investigative and forensic work already done.

https://www.news.com.au/news/lost-in-the-devils-garden/news-story/009820814c5c97e33cd17008a39c89f2

Funny even the words are remarkably the same as your Taylor! What you are saying is "Nothing to see here!" What I am saying is bull shit!
Click to expand...
That's an impressive low bow you've drawn there.

My comment was that if a review came back that the fitness team had done everything right and that made you feel like the review was wrong, then you're going into it with prejudice.

I didn't specify a narrow review or a simple gloss over. I was talking about there being an established bias against our strength and conditioning team that would potentially colour the reception of a review.

I'm exploring a confirmation bias.
 
Tayl0r said:
That's an impressive low bow you've drawn there.

My comment was that if a review came back that the fitness team had done everything right and that made you feel like the review was wrong, then you're going into it with prejudice.

I didn't specify a narrow review or a simple gloss over. I was talking about there being an established bias against our strength and conditioning team that would potentially colour the reception of a review.

I'm exploring a confirmation bias.
Click to expand...
Confirmation bias goes both ways. If a review comes back that the fitness teams had done everything right, it's not prejudice to feel the review is wrong.

Your ignoring the results. So where is the prejudice if the players are continually getting soft tissue injuries including in other muscles while doing rehab?

I think the CSK examples make it easier to understand how you can design any independent review to say what you want. Don't know if this is the only review Freo have had of if there are a few but end result for CSK was Telsta man information among other important details that got the accused arrested, got ignored for 20 years. End results for Dockers is that avoidable soft tissue injuries keep happening.

Even the words you used to justify Freo Injury review were almost exactly the same as police justification of its 11 reviews.

1554471942619.png
 
The irony here is Weber originally got the job after Freo commissioned him to do an independent review into their S&C dept and were so impressed with his report they offered the role to him.
 
The day that Harley gets on the track I'll be ****ing ecstatic, I still have that glimmer of faith that it could happen, but of course you can't put all your eggs in one basket
 
I think Ross is on record saying they should probably have rested McPharlin more in 2013.
S Hill is constantly brought back as soon as he's available and seems to break down again shortly after.
As was pointed out above Harley has been given excessive fitness demands, who knows if he been allowed to play off a lower base and without having to play 3-4 games at Peel and had his minutes managed in bursts if we would actually been able to get some game time out of him.
My, completely personal opinion is we are too rigid in how we condition our players.
 
MadMundy said:
The day that Harley gets on the track I'll be ******* ecstatic, I still have that glimmer of faith that it could happen, but of course you can't put all your eggs in one basket
Click to expand...

I’ll be happy with a tangible update on his progress at this stage in life.
 
E Shed said:
My, completely personal opinion is we are too rigid in how we condition our players.
Click to expand...

We have to be rigid - otherwise how would they predict when a player is going to come back from injury? And as spectators we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!
 
E Shed said:
I think Ross is on record saying they should probably have rested McPharlin more in 2013.
S Hill is constantly brought back as soon as he's available and seems to break down again shortly after.
As was pointed out above Harley has been given excessive fitness demands, who knows if he been allowed to play off a lower base and without having to play 3-4 games at Peel and had his minutes managed in bursts if we would actually been able to get some game time out of him.
My, completely personal opinion is we are too rigid in how we condition our players.
Click to expand...

The trouble with having an overall high rate of soft tissue injuries within your program is that it makes it very hard to manage players. Every time McPharlin should’ve been rested, his back up Silvani was also on the sidelines so McPharlin had to battle through. The same happened with Jonno late in his career, Ross promised that he’d be managed to better see the year out but it rarely happened because we didn’t have the back up fit and available.
 
E Shed said:
I think Ross is on record saying they should probably have rested McPharlin more in 2013.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure resting was the answer for McPharlin. In 2013 he made it to the GF fine and dandy. In 2015 he was rested right before the finals and never made it back from the resting.
 
BlueE said:
Harley injured his left calf at Freo when he told he had to prove himself to get in the team and had to play for Peel. Near the end of the fourth quarter he was kicked in his good calf that he'd never been injured, and there started his injury problems at Freo.

It was rehabbing this injury that the Gods who rule Freo S&C decided he had to get his calf 40% stronger than anyone else at the club. Unfortunately when he attained this unattainable level the calf became injured again. Ross says when looking back at that it probably wasn't a good idea to strengthen the muscle 40% more than anyone else's at the club. Ya think? This was all reported in the papers and I've mentioned before in my defence of Harley and the way S&C have treated him.

Don't think it was Ross's idea and he has taken him under his wing in the last few years I think. Maybe because a particular player agent has been throwing around words like incompetent and negligent? I don't know but only guessing why a possible delisting became relisting in a few hours before the f&b last year.
Click to expand...

This has been my number one issue with these S and C clowns(along with like eshed said the constant mismanagement of shills injury’s,-(in particular the bewildering decision to have him train all early pre season pre Christmas, only then to get to the Xmas break and THEN decide “yeah , nah it’s probably better he go in to surgery after all!” )
seriously wtf?

The club,well ross in this case,has stated on record that they stuffed this up.(Harley’s fitness plan)

So considering the amount time and money the clubs invested in Harley I’d say it’s a pretty significant one too

As pointed out why they saw fit to “overload “ his calf to such an extent is beyond me other than the club/s+c/coaches got greedy in hoping it would see Harley play full time mid/ bullet proof him from calf issues ever again

Fanciful thinking from those that should know better.

Which reminds me of Cyril Rioli hamstring issues at hawks .

Clarko made mention of their desire to play him more midfield however his hamstrings just weren’t up to it so they compromised meaning it only saw him playburst midfield minutes (and to great effect too) outside the fwd line.

Point being they identified what would work best for player and club with the hand they were dealt.

Shame Weber and co never did the same with Harley.

Speculation only I know but who’s to say this ignorant decision hasn’t exacerbated Harley’s calf woes to the point they are now?
(I’m guessing scar tissues a major issue for him these days?)

Im fully aware of the highly intangible nature of the human body and all it’s nuances in terms of injury management.
It’s definitely not an exact science

....HOWEVER like with anything in the medical field/dealing with the human body)you still have people Who are either good in their field , average or poor and just as important to note with differing opinions .
Weber’s been there what 9 years? In such a highly subjective field and with an overall record for injury management sitting mid table was it , or lower?

perhaps it’s time the club tried something different

Just as in drafting (also not an exact science) you can definitely increase your chances of success (or failure )dependant on those who you appoint to oversee your program.
- I’m willing to guess a fair majority of those who simply shrug their shoulders and say it’s all just luck in regards to the S+C team also do likewise when it comes to our drafting .

Good organisations ,SUCCESSFUL organisations,don’t simply throw their hands up in the air and say”well theirs nothing we can do ,it’s all in the laps of the gods”
 
Last edited:

Injuries 2019

Similar threads

DocT
Fixture Season Length? Game Length? Byes? Injuries? A new thought?
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
FreoGirl
FreoGirl
Lach72
Injury 2024 Injury Thread
77 78 79 80 81
Replies
2K
Views
127K
Rhufus
Rhufus

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top