Injuries 2019

Remove this Banner Ad

BlueE said:
Agree with you about Sandi but not Bennell. He only mid 20's and hasn't played for 2 years directly because of how his calf injury have been treated by our S&C department.

With SHill, he injured a calf while rehabbing his quad which caused him problems all last year. However this has been kept a secret by the S&C dept. How many other are like him and have been kept secret?

Blackley?? Logue?? How long in total have these two been out with their hamstring problems and still have 2 or 3 weeks to go?

Hopefully Cox and Switta who haven't been with us for long don't get re injured, but who knows?
Click to expand...

Blakley was a hamstring tendon and begun at about 11-12 weeks, he has progressed as we all expected him too.

The club openly said last week that Logue has a set back in his recovery.

There is no mystery with these two guys.
 
Shill is the only frustrating one for me.

Bennell I have moved on.
Sandi has done amazing to last as long as he has.
Logue and Blakely just seem injury prone, which sucks but some players are (Shilly seems to have become this).
Switta came in with hamstring problems.

The rest are just standard injuries which every club has. If Sandi and Bennell are moved on this year (likely) and not replaced with new injury prone players then I think our list will look a lot better next year.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Hey blokes, any news on Fyfe? I fully don't expect him to play this week, but curious about the extent of the problem (as it was a pretty nasty knock). News in the paper says docs want concussed players benched for 3 weeks? Any feelings on that?
 
woosha24 said:
Hey blokes, any news on Fyfe? I fully don't expect him to play this week, but curious about the extent of the problem (as it was a pretty nasty knock). News in the paper says docs want concussed players benched for 3 weeks? Any feelings on that?
Click to expand...

It's only a game and brain trauma is serious. He shouldn't play.
 
wayToGo_ said:
**** off you piece of shit with your fake concern. Your posting history makes it pretty clear you are highly excited Fyfe might not play. I'm sure you'll be one of those WC supporters Josh Kennedy begged not to boo Andrew Brayshaw - not that it will stop you because you are a brain dead moron.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure we'll lose whether Fyfe plays or not so I'm surprised some WC supporters want us to have the excuse that Fyfe (best player and captain) not playing contributed to the loss.:huh:
 
woosha24 said:
Wow. Ok first, dickhead, if you're lame enough to check my posting history and find that, surprise surprise, a West Coast supporter hates your club, then congratulations on your detective skills Sherlock. If you dig a bit deeper you'll also find ive remonstrated with arseh*le supporters from other clubs (and even my own) about injury trolling. The two things aren't mutually exclusive.

Secondly, its not "fake concern". Im interested to learn what the deal is, because it was a really bad head knock. I was also interested to learn what you blokes thought of the 19 days thing being thrown about.

Thirdly, the personal attack isn't needed. Im aware that im on your board and so I posted my question respectfully. There's no need to go casting aspersions about what kind of person I am.
Click to expand...
In all seriousness, why? It doesnt come across well in your post to be honest. Also, if you look, you can easily see we all want Fyfe to take as long as required to be 100% and not risk serious health issues
 
Snuffaluphagus said:
In all seriousness, why? It doesnt come across well in your post to be honest. Also, if you look, you can easily see we all want Fyfe to take as long as required to be 100% and not risk serious health issues
Click to expand...

The Why is because it was a sickening head clash - the poor bastard was out before he hit the ground. Is he ok?

In terms of Fyfe taking as long as required, I agree. But my question is, if he says he's right to go for the Giants game, and the docs say that he looks fine, do you guys think its wrong for a "mandatory" 19 day no-play rule to prevent him from lining up?
 
woosha24 said:
The Why is because it was a sickening head clash - the poor bastard was out before he hit the ground. Is he ok?

In terms of Fyfe taking as long as required, I agree. But my question is, if he says he's right to go for the Giants game, and the docs say that he looks fine, do you guys think its wrong for a "mandatory" 19 day no-play rule to prevent him from lining up?
Click to expand...
Generally a question that is more for the main board but personally, mandatory anything is stupid. If they pass the standard tests which I assume have been correctly designed and implemented why would you need to introduce a no-play rule, especially when there is clearly a very wide range in severity
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

woosha24 said:
The Why is because it was a sickening head clash - the poor bastard was out before he hit the ground. Is he ok?

In terms of Fyfe taking as long as required, I agree. But my question is, if he says he's right to go for the Giants game, and the docs say that he looks fine, do you guys think its wrong for a "mandatory" 19 day no-play rule to prevent him from lining up?
Click to expand...

There is no mandatory rule, the West looked wherever they could to get the longest time frame on his return that they could quote. The same way they ring every orthopaedic surgeon to get the earliest time they could quote for their 'Nic Nat back by May' stories. That's how this shit works, Now run along.
 
Square Peg said:
There is no mandatory rule, the West looked wherever they could to get the longest time frame on his return that they could quote. The same way they ring every orthopaedic surgeon to get the earliest time they could quote for their 'Nic Nat back by May' stories. That's how this shit works, Now run along.
Click to expand...
so true
 
Square Peg said:
There is no mandatory rule, the West looked wherever they could to get the longest time frame on his return that they could quote. The same way they ring every orthopaedic surgeon to get the earliest time they could quote for their 'Nic Nat back by May' stories. That's how this shit works, Now run along.
Click to expand...

Im aware that there is currently no mandatory rule. Im just seeking opinion from your supporters on a hypothetical basis. Fyfe's head knock could form the basis for future rule changes around concussion testing.
 
Monument Hills said:
Pretty sure we'll lose whether Fyfe plays or not so I'm surprised some WC supporters want us to have the excuse that Fyfe (best player and captain) not playing contributed to the loss.:huh:
Click to expand...
Exactly :) Hence my 'moron' reference - he doesn't have the brain power to process that unaided. PR or The Worst obviously hasn't spelt that out for him to regurgitate yet.
 
Interesting that it's only Fyfe's concussion that's prompted a mandatory waiting period. How about if you want to discuss these woosha24 go do it with someone like the Saints and McCartin's issues. Or Bulldogs and Picken. It's pretty obvious why you don't want Fyfe to play this week.


Also everyone, I'm thread banning him so no need to continue replying to him.
 
Allikat said:
Interesting that it's only Fyfe's concussion that's prompted a mandatory waiting period. How about if you want to discuss these woosha24 go do it with someone like the Saints and McCartin's issues. Or Bulldogs and Picken. It's pretty obvious why you don't want Fyfe to play this week.


Also everyone, I'm thread banning him so no need to continue replying to him.
Click to expand...
Not even to call him an arsehat?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

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
90 91 92 93 94
Replies
2K
Views
146K
Alfonz
A

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top