Injuries....Bad luck or something else?

[MacMum]

No.

I was horrified when I found out that Lappin played with his ribs like he did.......I thought it was wrong back then, still do. Although he did have plenty of time to get over the damage afterwards, it would still be a no from me in the first place.

I want premierships like the next person, but not over and above a player playing with a serious injury.

 

[lukiuslion]

This isn't Burton Bashing, as it is club doctors who make these calls not Burton.

But I was pretty sceptical with Rocky's 2 week return, shocked TBH. I had a friend recently puncture a lung and it absolutely knocked the stuffing out of him. Tom looked skinny upon return and a bit pale and TBH, it has proven to be the incorrect call. He played 4 mediocre weeks, had one decent game, and is now on the sideline again for an extended period. 2 weeks break for 3 broken ribs and a punctured lung doesn't seem sufficient.
The correct call would have been a minimum 4 weeks.

It's easy to say in hindsight, but its hard to argue that the right call was made.

I also worry about rushing hanley back, why not play him in the NEAFL for the next 2 weeks and have him return after the Bye round?

 

[Ceebee]

Is it generic playing whilst injured that is the issue or that it didn't matter - ie if we were playing in a GF and Rocky/Aish etc did their injuries would you be more inclined to accept their continuing to play in that game?

Yes. because they have months to recover.

 

[notliondown]

lukiuslion the evidence is there if you want to dig around... but my point was more simply that people are searching to apportion blame right now - be it to someone or something.

You say it's a big picture thing - you're dead right. But its too simplistic to look at our injuries in a single "dimension" for want of a better word.

We keep sending boys out to do mens work. Bodies not able to contend with the workloads already that some here want increased. Bodies already not able to handle twisting and turning and knocks and yet we should be making them bigger and heavier? It's pretty silly trying to "bulk" kids whose bodies havent yet conditioned themselves to the full rigours of AFL. Weight means stress on joints, ligaments, tendons. Get battle hardened... then add weight.

And then in the next breath we are too slow?

Somehow, what we are asking is -

Mens bodies
More size
More speed
More endurance

most are contradictory and virtually impossible to achieve at once quickly, yet we want them all at once - right now. I'm not sure that Burton, or even Steven Dank, can somehow develop those attributes without the benefit of time. And years of it. Theres a reason premiership teams are aged in their late 20's on average...

Our list is one of extremes.

Age induced injuries on players like Staker, Adcock, West, Maguire, McGuane, Merrett and a combination of increased workload/structural/previous poor recovery with players like Freeman, Gardiner, McGrath, Hanley have crueled us... and most beyond anyones control.

Add to that McStay, Aish, Close, Rockliffe (again) as genuine football injuries and suddenly its hard to see too much that can be attributed to anything other than the circumstances of the clubs list.

I agree that maybe we need to look at our programs and staff. Sometimes change for changes sake is warranted.

But as a struggling team right now we are looking for apportion blame for our position. And sometimes it simply cant be found or directed at one simple thing. Throwing the baby out with the bath water won't help either.

 

[notliondown]

This isn't Burton Bashing, as it is club doctors who make these calls not Burton.

But I was pretty sceptical with Rocky's 2 week return, shocked TBH. I had a friend recently puncture a lung and it absolutely knocked the stuffing out of him. Tom looked skinny upon return and a bit pale and TBH, it has proven to be the incorrect call. He played 4 mediocre weeks, had one decent game, and is now on the sideline again for an extended period. 2 weeks break for 3 broken ribs and a punctured lung doesn't seem sufficient.
The correct call would have been a minimum 4 weeks.

It's easy to say in hindsight, but its hard to argue that the right call was made.

I also worry about rushing hanley back, why not play him in the NEAFL for the next 2 weeks and have him return after the Bye round?

Absolutely agree with all you said.

You do have to wonder though if Rocky has learnt his lesson. I imagine no amount of doctors or training staff were going to hold him back... and sooner or later the player has to make the call and be responsible for his own actions.

With the season heading towards struggle street you can see no real reason to rush anyone back from here on in hey. Seems like just one more risk for very little reward.... especially with someone like Hanley.

 

[dlanod]

This isn't Burton Bashing, as it is club doctors who make these calls not Burton.

But I was pretty sceptical with Rocky's 2 week return, shocked TBH. I had a friend recently puncture a lung and it absolutely knocked the stuffing out of him. Tom looked skinny upon return and a bit pale and TBH, it has proven to be the incorrect call. He played 4 mediocre weeks, had one decent game, and is now on the sideline again for an extended period. 2 weeks break for 3 broken ribs and a punctured lung doesn't seem sufficient.
The correct call would have been a minimum 4 weeks.

It's easy to say in hindsight, but its hard to argue that the right call was made.

Rocky would have been back by now anyway. The original estimate was six weeks, so week 7. Buntine had a worse lung puncture and missed eight weeks, so would've been back for week 9. Roger Hayden missed 3-5 weeks and Tom McDonald only missed two weeks. I'm hard-pressed to see that there'd be a difference if Rocky had been held out for longer - he'd have played last week, he'd presumably have been injured just the same as if he'd sat out. Given Rocky got through the healing period without worry, drawing a link now that he's reinjured is lazy thinking.

 

[lionbear]

Cricket pitches in a warmer climate means we go through our ruckman like a sledgehammer through tissue paper.

And we need a proper summer training base NOW!!!!

 

[lukiuslion]

lukiuslion the evidence is there if you want to dig around... but my point was more simply that people are searching to apportion blame right now - be it to someone or something.

You say it's a big picture thing - you're dead right. But its too simplistic to look at our injuries in a single "dimension" for want of a better word.

We keep sending boys out to do mens work. Bodies not able to contend with the workloads already that some here want increased. Bodies already not able to handle twisting and turning and knocks and yet we should be making them bigger and heavier? It's pretty silly trying to "bulk" kids whose bodies havent yet conditioned themselves to the full rigours of AFL. Weight means stress on joints, ligaments, tendons. Get battle hardened... then add weight.

And then in the next breath we are too slow?

Somehow, what we are asking is -

Mens bodies
More size
More speed
More endurance

most are contradictory and virtually impossible to achieve at once quickly, yet we want them all at once - right now. I'm not sure that Burton, or even Steven Dank, can somehow develop those attributes without the benefit of time. And years of it. Theres a reason premiership teams are aged in their late 20's on average...

Our list is one of extremes.

Age induced injuries on players like Staker, Adcock, West, Maguire, McGuane, Merrett and a combination of increased workload/structural/previous poor recovery with players like Freeman, Gardiner, McGrath, Hanley have crueled us... and most beyond anyones control.

Add to that McStay, Aish, Close, Rockliffe (again) as genuine football injuries and suddenly its hard to see too much that can be attributed to anything other than the circumstances of the clubs list.

I agree that maybe we need to look at our programs and staff. Sometimes change for changes sake is warranted.

But as a struggling team right now we are looking for apportion blame for our position. And sometimes it simply cant be found or directed at one simple thing. Throwing the baby out with the bath water won't help either.

Great post. You are correct in a lot of ways. Burton is asked to keep a generally young list on the park, and the mature bodies he does have to work with have developed just fine - Roj, Browny, Steph, harwood, Goose - maybe it is just simply true that he is having a stretch of bad luck.

The question remains, has burton's tenure been good enough to earn a contract extension? I think opinion is divided, it is going to be really interesting to see which way the club goes - I must admit I would be excited if someone was to come in with a fresh set of eyes and a fresh approach.

 

[lukiuslion]

Rocky would have been back by now anyway. The original estimate was six weeks, so week 7. Buntine had a worse lung puncture and missed eight weeks, so would've been back for week 9. Roger Hayden missed 3-5 weeks and Tom McDonald only missed two weeks. I'm hard-pressed to see that there'd be a difference if Rocky had been held out for longer - he'd have played last week, he'd presumably have been injured just the same as if he'd sat out. Given Rocky got through the healing period without worry, drawing a link now that he's reinjured is lazy thinking.

I Broke my arm and returned to work after 4 days and I was physically ill, dizzy, and it took a massive psychological toll. when your body is mending broken bones it takes up so much of your energy, it is incredible, I had flu like symptoms. I am of the opinion had Rocky had a solid 3 weeks off (did nothing), then returned and did cardio and lights drills for 2 weeks, then 1 week full tilt training and contact work, total 6 weeks, his ribs, lungs, weight - would have been significantly better than after 2 weeks and thus he would have had far less chance of re-injury, than not giving it time to heal, taking knocks over 6 weeks and using energy to play as opposed to using that energy to mend, that's just conmen sense is it not?.

I don't know why you have accused me of lazy thinking or why that comment is even necessary?

I would suggest your method of, adding up the weeks he was playing, and comparing it to his estimated return date and completely denying the basic medical fact that rest as opposed to heavy contact and fatigue, would potentially heal you better (LOL) would infact be 'lazy thinking' and TBH, it just kinder seems like your are arguing for the sake of it.

If your opinion was based on opportunity cost, risk vs reward, 'we needed him back, it was worth the risk' - that would be fine. But to argue there was going to be no healing benefit in him resting is a bit strange.

 

[dlanod]

I've had broken ribs and the medical advice for me at the time was that ribs are a largely special case because it's hard to make a broken rib worse given where they are in the body. I'm hesitant to draw a strong link between what I was told by my doctor and what Rocky may have been because I'm not his doctor, but with that experience it's why I'd suggest that broken ribs are a fairly constant time to heal regardless of what you're doing, and most online sites seem to line up with that.

I try to avoid second guessing our doctors precisely because most or all of us do not have medical knowledge and we definitely don't have the ability to examine our players, but in this specific case I have a modicum of relevant knowledge. We've also seen other examples of players returning that quickly in the past without ill effects simply because they managed to avoid a subsequent hard hit in the wrong place.

I do think it's lazy thinking to claim that the results obviously indicate an error in the process. If the ribs had remained unbroken, would the same posts and analysis be made? I would say that's incredibly unlikely. The process can well be correct and the results still negative - it's definitely possible that the contact on the weekend would have broken one or more ribs anyway. It's likely (IMO) that, had Rocky sat out for six weeks and come back, he would have had exactly the same set of broken ribs as he does now.

 

[lukiuslion]

I've had broken ribs and the medical advice for me at the time was that ribs are a largely special case because it's hard to make a broken rib worse given where they are in the body. I'm hesitant to draw a strong link between what I was told by my doctor and what Rocky may have been because I'm not his doctor, but with that experience it's why I'd suggest that broken ribs are a fairly constant time to heal regardless of what you're doing, and most online sites seem to line up with that.

I try to avoid second guessing our doctors precisely because most or all of us do not have medical knowledge and we definitely don't have the ability to examine our players, but in this specific case I have a modicum of relevant knowledge. We've also seen other examples of players returning that quickly in the past without ill effects simply because they managed to avoid a subsequent hard hit in the wrong place.

I do think it's lazy thinking to claim that the results obviously indicate an error in the process. If the ribs had remained unbroken, would the same posts and analysis be made? I would say that's incredibly unlikely. The process can well be correct and the results still negative - it's definitely possible that the contact on the weekend would have broken one or more ribs anyway. It's likely (IMO) that, had Rocky sat out for six weeks and come back, he would have had exactly the same set of broken ribs as he does now.

Yeah - Rocky was rushed back, and he played 6 'ok' weeks of football and is now re-injured. I am of the opinion that had he rested and given his body the time and energy to heal, there is less chance those ribs re-break on the weekend with the same hit. What if a series of bumps and hits (which he would have received) had continued to open the breaks over several weeks, before the big hit on the weekend cracked them apart - we don't know, but surely 'rest' in heindsight would have been the safer option. That is my understanding of the healing process anyway, I may be wrong.

Its not the end of the world, they took a risk IMO, and it didn't work out. hope the same mistake isn't made with Hanley.

 

[Kevvo]

Yeah - Rocky was rushed back, and he played 6 'ok' weeks of football and is now re-injured. I am of the opinion that had he rested and given his body the time and energy to heal, there is less chance those ribs re-break on the weekend with the same hit. What if a series of bumps and hits (which he would have received) had continued to open the breaks over several weeks, before the big hit on the weekend cracked them apart - we don't know, but surely 'rest' in heindsight would have been the safer option. That is my understanding of the healing process anyway, I may be wrong.

Its not the end of the world, they took a risk IMO, and it didn't work out. hope the same mistake isn't made with Hanley.

Being fair though, there is a lot of opinion and speculation in that logic.

The club doctors most likely aren't idiots, and their ongoing employment would be threatened by risky or poor calls that lead to a heightened chance of re-injury. I'm really not convinced they have a particularly strong incentive to declare players fit too soon. That being the case, I think it is a strain to conclude based on hindsight he was rushed so much as just unlucky.

 

[notliondown]

I imagine Rocky is a bit like Browny early career too...

"screw the doctors, what would they know. I'm right to go, the boys need me, I'M PLAYING"

 

[lukiuslion]

Being fair though, there is a lot of opinion and speculation in that logic.

The club doctors most likely aren't idiots, and their ongoing employment would be threatened by risky or poor calls that lead to a heightened chance of re-injury. I'm really not convinced they have a particularly strong incentive to declare players fit too soon. That being the case, I think it is a strain to conclude based on hindsight he was rushed so much as just unlucky.

Yeah again - I fully respect your opinion on this, both opinions are speculative, saying rushing him back had no impact is also speculative. It is my opinion, that resting, is generally better for the healing process than not resting, and leaves you with less chance of re-injury.

I don't think it's a job threatening mistake, rushing players back in the AFL is a weekly occurrence, just in hindsight - given he came back looking thin and pale, had little impact, played through what he himself described as 'discomfort' the entire time, and is now re-injured, perhaps at least the original estimated time out of a minimum 4-5 weeks would have paid off better.

 

[lukiuslion]

I imagine Rocky is a bit like Browny early career too...

"screw the doctors, what would they know. I'm right to go, the boys need me, I'M PLAYING"

This exactly, and good on him! that's why he is captain. lol

 

[Elixuh]

Burton said on the BUPA recovery report that we had been a bit unlucky. Out of the 17 injuries, 12 were collision or landing based. Make of it what you will.

 

[POBT]

Burton said on the BUPA recovery report that we had been a bit unlucky. Out of the 17 injuries, 12 were collision or landing based. Make of it what you will.

Is it fair to say only one of those (Rocky's re-injury) is arguably avoidable through better medical practice/physical preparation?

 

[Elixuh]

Is it fair to say only one of those (Rocky's re-injury) is arguably avoidable through better medical practice/physical preparation?

Arguably yes, but I personally don't feel comfortable sitting on the outside commenting on Rockys particular situation. I have no experience/expertise and I don't know the particulars of the injury, the advice given to Rocky, how well he recovered or any other factors which would be relevant in forming an argument as to whether he should or shouldn't have returned when he did (so whether it was avoidable or not).

I think anyone could make the argument that it was avoidable in that he could have sat out for (probably) 3x the amount of time he did to make sure everything was as close to 100%. I would HOPE he was given the OK by the medical team and I trust that their advice would have been competent advice.

 

[POBT]

Is it fair to say only one of those (Rocky's re-injury) is arguably avoidable through better medical practice/physical preparation?

Just to add to the above, my concerns about Burton are more related to physical preparation. I know we are a young side and you can't build muscle overnight. But, I feel as though we've gone too lean, particularly in the experienced players. To the naked eye, guys like Redden, Beams, Adcock are playing a lot leaner. Is this deliberate? If so, is it successful? I feel as though Redden, as an inside mid, is too lean. Beams has almost certainly dropped some size. And Adcock seems a bit weak compared to his former self. What is hard to know is if we're seeing commensurate improvements in their endurance and athleticism and, in totality, whether this has more benefit for the side than would keeping and building size.

 

[cotter101]

Just to add to the above, my concerns about Burton are more related to physical preparation. I know we are a young side and you can't build muscle overnight. But, I feel as though we've gone too lean, particularly in the experienced players. To the naked eye, guys like Redden, Beams, Adcock are playing a lot leaner. Is this deliberate? If so, is it successful? I feel as though Redden, as an inside mid, is too lean. Beams has almost certainly dropped some size. And Adcock seems a bit weak compared to his former self. What is hard to know is if we're seeing commensurate improvements in their endurance and athleticism and, in totality, whether this has more benefit for the side than would keeping and building size.

Something I agree with.

Redden's come back slimmer over the last couple of pre seasons, speed seems to have increased a bit but his role doesn't necessarily require him being all that quick. I'd certainly rather him look a bit bigger. Adcock noticeably leaner too.

 

[Fatcat08]

Just to add to the above, my concerns about Burton are more related to physical preparation. I know we are a young side and you can't build muscle overnight. But, I feel as though we've gone too lean, particularly in the experienced players. To the naked eye, guys like Redden, Beams, Adcock are playing a lot leaner. Is this deliberate? If so, is it successful? I feel as though Redden, as an inside mid, is too lean. Beams has almost certainly dropped some size. And Adcock seems a bit weak compared to his former self. What is hard to know is if we're seeing commensurate improvements in their endurance and athleticism and, in totality, whether this has more benefit for the side than would keeping and building size.

I tend to agreee and then I guess the next question I find myself asking is is that lack of size contributing to some of our collision or even landing issues? Maybe not at the specific time but if you're undersized body wise and you have 30-40 collisions a game, eventually that must take a toll on all the support systems in your body. Its almost impossible to say definitively but you tend to think that it has to play some part. If it didn't then you wouldn't see rugby league players being the size they are. Of course there's a certain amount that can be attributed to us having a ridiculous amount of young bodies out there who will naturally be slighter in this stage of their development. But still I can't help shake the feeling that we've gone too lean.

 

[Elixuh]

Just to add to the above, my concerns about Burton are more related to physical preparation. I know we are a young side and you can't build muscle overnight. But, I feel as though we've gone too lean, particularly in the experienced players. To the naked eye, guys like Redden, Beams, Adcock are playing a lot leaner. Is this deliberate? If so, is it successful? I feel as though Redden, as an inside mid, is too lean. Beams has almost certainly dropped some size. And Adcock seems a bit weak compared to his former self. What is hard to know is if we're seeing commensurate improvements in their endurance and athleticism and, in totality, whether this has more benefit for the side than would keeping and building size.

This is what I would query as well. With the way clubs rotate players and with how many players we now see around the ball I don't know why it would be necessary for an inside type like Redden to become 'leaner'.

edit: and then as fatcat pointed out, whether its contributing to any injuries.

 

[Kevvo]

Yeah again - I fully respect your opinion on this, both opinions are speculative, saying rushing him back had no impact is also speculative. It is my opinion, that resting, is generally better for the healing process than not resting, and leaves you with less chance of re-injury.

I don't think it's a job threatening mistake, rushing players back in the AFL is a weekly occurrence, just in hindsight - given he came back looking thin and pale, had little impact, played through what he himself described as 'discomfort' the entire time, and is now re-injured, perhaps at least the original estimated time out of a minimum 4-5 weeks would have paid off better.

Yeah, that's fair enough. I'm inclined to assume that doctors wouldn't put the club captain at serious risk, but your point is reasonable.

 

[Kevvo]

Just to add to the above, my concerns about Burton are more related to physical preparation. I know we are a young side and you can't build muscle overnight. But, I feel as though we've gone too lean, particularly in the experienced players. To the naked eye, guys like Redden, Beams, Adcock are playing a lot leaner. Is this deliberate? If so, is it successful? I feel as though Redden, as an inside mid, is too lean. Beams has almost certainly dropped some size. And Adcock seems a bit weak compared to his former self. What is hard to know is if we're seeing commensurate improvements in their endurance and athleticism and, in totality, whether this has more benefit for the side than would keeping and building size.

I think that's right (re: Redden particularly), and I guess it may be a function of:

- a different gameplan
- the expectation of reduced rotations, which would probably increase the value of endurance relative to grunt.

I stand to be corrected on this, but it has always seemed to me that Hawthorn are a fairly lean built team. They physically mature and capable in contested possesions, but their senior mids other than Sewell (when he played) never really struck me as heavily built. Assuming I haven't totally misread that, it might be that is a strategy to suit Hawthorn's game style, which seems to be a conspicuous influence on the way we're trying to play.

I reckon that Leppa could have made the call that a leaner, running side are better able to execute a style of football leaning on shuffle defense and offence that relies on controlled short-mid distance kicking. That is in contrast to something like Ross Lyon's preferred style which creates more contest and suits bigger bodies.

 

[lukiuslion]

Yeah, that's fair enough. I'm inclined to assume that doctors wouldn't put the club captain at serious risk, but your point is reasonable.

Yeah and I understand ribs are also different to rushing back a knee too, don't get me wrong. Kinder ended up arguing the point more than I intended too, the whole rushing him back thing was not even a big deal, I wasn't looking to burn down the club house over it, just more in relation to the fact I am concerned about Hanley rushing back from a delicate hip without time in the NEAFL. Just hope a players determination and our desperate situation, doesen't mean the 'risky' options is being taken.