Injury Josh Cowan - achilles injury

[Vdubs]

VD, there are a thousand kids training when the drafts occur. They can actually get on the field occasionally. We've already extended the contract on one player who is very likely to not play again (Menzel), to do that with Cowan as well is irresponsible if not negligent from a list management perspective.

If you'd read further, that comment was made before I knew his contract status.

 

[Teriyakicat]

He only played one game in 2012 because of his achilles. Worth noting that the coaches have said they were keen to get him back into the side just before he did his hammy last year, but that probably just makes him a member of Scotty's 50-man best 22.

I understand the case against retaining him, but charting his early progress I think makes a case for his renewal. If someone like Hunt or Schroder gets moved specifically to keep Cowan, I'd think that was the wrong call. But you'd think given the chances of some retirement/players trying their luck elsewhere, delisting Cowan would be opening up the 4-5th spot on the list. At which point you're probably drafting in the 40-50 range, which is about where Cowan was taken in 2009. So you're probably drafting the same type of player (state squad fringes) with the expectation that he'll sit in the VFL and develop for a couple of years. Cowan was definitely on track in that regard before the achilles - finished 6th in the VFL B&F in his second season (only AFL listed players ahead of him were Guthrie and Simpkin) and did enough to debut. Yeah he didn't star but I don't think he looked totally out of place either.

tl;dr, if we are struggling to open up the minimum list spots and the choice is between Schroder and Cowan, you'd pick the former. Equally if his achilles doesn't pull up post-surgery then you wish him the best and send him on his way. But I don't really see the point of throwing away five years of investment on a player just when that investment could pay off.

Good point about what we would be drafting if we delisted him, Jester- so we lose a year of development of a 4th? rounder vs the gamble on Cowan coming back after a few years on the list? All the training he's done to get up to the level of playing VFL games would probably be worth a solid year of VFL games from a 1st year player (who, in turn, would probably follow the path of all of our other 1st year draftees who seem to have missed a few weeks each through injury and there's no guarantee that any newcomer would never see the LTIL.

It's all a gamble- the odds for each option must've been weighed and calculated by the coaches, the medics and the recruitment blokes- and this is what they've come up with.

Edit: Cowan has played 34 VFL games. Make that 2.5 seasons from a newcomer.

 

[Vdubs]

problem is we have only seen a few games from Cowan and he is still unproven, not like Menzel

Menzel if comes good is a potential AA while Cowan looks to be a useful player

hence why he'll be delisted

always the chance he could get picked up as a mature ager if his body was right, but pretty unlikely it does

All you say is true, but Menzel will have no greater chance of attaining AA than Cowan

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Pretty sure I stole it from Partridge. Or (even more ironically?) MC Extra Dollop.

I certainly can't claim that one. I think even Chris Scott has occasionally had a bit of a laugh about how many players he seems to think are 'best 22' in his time here.

 

[thejester]

That's fair enough too. But if we're basing it primarily on his VFL performances, well players like Hogan and Djerrkura have torn the VFL up as well. Sheringham and Stringer are others who regularly look a cut above at that level and would be two others whose spots could be in jeopardy, depending on what they do with Cowan.

Yeah fair point. Would you chop Stringer and Sheringham at the end of the year because (perversely) we've seen enough of them at senior level to know they're probably not up to it?

I agree. I just think it's crazy for anyone (well anyone that matters) to guarantee that Cowan will or won't be on the list next year. We've got no idea if the other fringe players who are out of contract will prove themselves to be valuable player over the remainder of the season, or become certainties to be delisted. We have no idea if players that we'd pencilled in for the 2015 squad will be traded. We have no idea if three, two, one, or zero players will want to retire. That's all important, as is the next 3-4 months for Cowan.

Yeah and I wonder if there's a difference in the club's mind between commitment and promising (getting a bit John Howard here). I know that midway through last year, when plenty of us were wondering if McCarthy was going to be retained, the club had already told him he'd get another contract. So they've got form - but presumably any commitment is made on an understanding that Cowan recovers from the injury. If he doesn't, surely there's no dishonour in saying 'thanks anyway mate' and wishing him the best.

 

[AM]

If you'd read further, that comment was made before I knew his contract status.

His contract status is to an extent the less important issue Vdubs. It's whether the people best informed rate his talent ( and I'd suggest they do); how the medical professionals rate his chances of a full recovery (I'd suggest the indications are positive) and how he fits into our plans for the future.

The thing that is in Josh's favour is he is a quick mid who finds the ball and has elite endurance. And he's a good size. They don't grow on trees and we are in dire need of that sort of player. More than one actually.

At his age he could be a 100-150 game player. He'd most likely be on the second lowest salary band so he won't cost us much.

Very confident those best able to take the decision will hold onto him. It's the way we normally handle matters of this nature.

 

[Vdubs]

His contract status is to an extent the less important issue Vdubs. It's whether the people best informed rate his talent ( and I'd suggest they do); how the medical professionals rate his chances of a full recovery (I'd suggest the indications are positive) and how he fits into our plans for the future.

The thing that is in Josh's favour is he is a quick mid who finds the ball and has elite endurance. And he's a good size. They don't grow on trees and we are in dire need of that sort of player. More than one actually.

At his age he could be a 100-150 game player. He'd most likely be on the second lowest salary band so he won't cost us much.

Very confident those best able to take the decision will hold onto to him. It's the way we normally handle matters of this nature.

I would like to believe you are correct, it is what I think of Cowan and the way Geelong deals with such issues too, BUT, his track record, the end of his contract, you can see why all including PO, would think his time with us is past history.

 

[AM]

I would like to believe you are correct, it is what I think of Cowan and the way Geelong deals with such issues too, BUT, his track record, the end of his contract, you can see why all including PO, would think his time with us is past history.

When was the last time we flicked a good player with a poor injury history? Can't think of one myself. We stick.

Throw in that all the signs coming from the club - as I read them anyway - are contrary to the negative position PO has taken.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Yeah fair point. Would you chop Stringer and Sheringham at the end of the year because (perversely) we've seen enough of them at senior level to know they're probably not up to it?

It's a tough one, with Stringer especially, I think. I'm just not sure that I've seen anything from Cowan that makes me think he's necessarily better than Stringer, especially when I think back to Stringer's form in 2012 before his off-field issues. I still think he could be a very solid player if he gets the time to settle. He's quick, he's tough and he has shown pretty good skills at times (though I think he's a bit up and down there). As for Sheringham, well, he's a few years older (not necessarily a bad thing as: a) we don't have a lot of players in that age bracket; and b) Cowan or not, Sheringham would be very long odds to still be on an AFL list in 5-6 years time, when his age would start becoming an issue) and looks like if he was to find a role in the AFL, it would either be as a back pocket or a tagger. Unfortuantely for him, we seem fairly right for back pockets and Guthrie has become a pencilled in tagger for us. Still, when fit, he's been pretty adequate midfield depth and I wouldn't be that keen to put a line through him just yet.

Yeah and I wonder if there's a difference in the club's mind between commitment and promising (getting a bit John Howard here). I know that midway through last year, when plenty of us were wondering if McCarthy was going to be retained, the club had already told him he'd get another contract. So they've got form - but presumably any commitment is made on an understanding that Cowan recovers from the injury. If he doesn't, surely there's no dishonour in saying 'thanks anyway mate' and wishing him the best.

Agreed. There's often just no way of knowing what the people in the know are really thinking here, partly because we simply aren't exposed to the players as much as they are. I've got to admit, all the hype surrounding McCarthy in the preseason was a bit baffling to me and, while I liked Burbury, I always thought he was pretty iffy to earn a promotion in the past offseason. I think both of these players (who have been forgotten a bit, as the months have gone by) could become valuable assets for us in the small forward role, as both have the tenacity required for the position, but I'd always heard/read about McCarthy's sublime skills, in particular and that just hasn't been on display, as far as I've seen. But people who know a lot more than I do seem pretty insistent that it's there, which makes me hopeful that it's only a matter of time before McCarthy makes that step. Which would be great, because we really need one of them (at least) to.

 

[Teriyakicat]

His contract status is to an extent the less important issue Vdubs. It's whether the people best informed rate his talent ( and I'd suggest they do); how the medical professionals rate his chances of a full recovery (I'd suggest the indications are positive) and how he fits into our plans for the future.

The thing that is in Josh's favour is he is a quick mid who finds the ball and has elite endurance. And he's a good size. They don't grow on trees and we are in dire need of that sort of player. More than one actually.

At his age he could be a 100-150 game player. He'd most likely be on the second lowest salary band so he won't cost us much.

Very confident those best able to take the decision will hold onto him. It's the way we normally handle matters of this nature.

Players like this, if they DO come good, would be loyal to the club that looked after them over such a long period of time and would also be very unlikely to get poached by a billionaire club. (obviously the catch here is that they have to recover from injury- and the club must see them as potentially elite players.) This is pretty important, I feel, as the older players have already experienced the 'lean years' in which they committed to the club on less bikkies, to stay together. Who knows if the club will be in a similar situation with the current A-list and potential A-list players in the future? the last thing they'd want is for someone like the Hawks or Sydney to poach a bloke they'd just put 5 years into, because the Cats couldn't match the dollars offered.

 

[dazbroncos]

I don't think that's entirely fair. He missed all of 2012 not because of the severity of his achilles injury but because the club didn't diagnose it properly. Once he was sent to the specialist in London at the start of last year who did identify what it was he went from surgery to returning to training in six weeks, which (obligatory I'm no doctor disclaimer) you'd think is pretty impressive given the usual severity of achilles injuries. Now it's the other achilles, but as Snelling said in the video now that they know what it is they're pretty confident he'll bit fully fit again in another couple of months.

Take out the achilles debacle and you're left with a couple of hamstring strains. He did play six VFL games last year so it's not like he's the same as Menzel and breaks down every time he sees a Sherrin. Think you're right that the list does need constant churn, but it's hard to believe he wouldn't be a better candidate as a rookie than most who would be available.

The bolded is correct and the first of which came about as he was played too long by the VFL MC after Snelling said he was not supposed to go over 60% game time and played 80% first game back. The next I believe was attributed to over training for the achilles recovery. Its just been bad luck….

Go Catters

 

[Partridge]

I'm not sure how I can explain any more clearly that that's a massively disingenuous way of putting it, but sure, whatever. Mitch Brown, 10 games in 5 'full' seasons because of injuries. Drafting disaster, should have been delisted at the end of last year.

And if he was out of contract he might have been. But he wasn't.

But him, and Cowan, are both out of contract at the end of this season. I'd say we're almost certainly going to see one of them go and quite possibly two.*

* - quite apart from the fact that Brown has played slightly more games in the last 3 seasons than Cowan has.

 

[Whit3y]

i wish cowan all the best in his future endeavours

 

[dazbroncos]

i wish cowan all the best in his future endeavours

You mean after the end of 2015 right.. you know he is gonna be here next year just not decided whether rookie or senior….

Go Catters

 

[Teriyakicat]

The bolded is correct and the first of which came about as he was played too long by the VFL MC after Snelling said he was not supposed to go over 60% game time and played 80% first game back. The next I believe was attributed to over training for the achilles recovery. Its just been bad luck….

Go Catters

Hmmm, daz- I wouldn't call that 'bad luck' but more 'bad management'. Definitely avoidable.
And the second from 'overtraining'- well, maybe they were trying to rush him and found that his breaking point, so to speak, was a little lower than some other players' breaking point- which is understandable, given the achilles problem was complicated by his plantaris thingy....
What a shame for the young fellow, though- when he can probably see players with similar-looking injuries having a trouble-free rehab and return to playing. Sad, really. I just hope that what they think is the root of it all is actually the problem and that it IS fixable. The Powers That Be certainly seem to think it is.

 

[rocker_oz33]

I wish him all the best hope he gets on the park at some stage.I can't remember him all that much been a while.

 

[Badtemperedbadger]

VD, there are a thousand kids training when the drafts occur. They can actually get on the field occasionally. We've already extended the contract on one player who is very likely to not play again (Menzel), to do that with Cowan as well is irresponsible if not negligent from a list management perspective.

Correction: "in your opinion"

 

[Badtemperedbadger]

I realise that you said lesser extent in regards to Vardy, but how much of guarantee are you after for a player to return after injury? I accept that player with a LTI may not come back but it seems, and maybe its just me, that injured players seem to end up on your won't make it pile fairly often.

If we differ on definitions of generosity, then its subjective and so be it. For mine, Menzel gets another shot as the knees are still structurally intact. Is it risky, sure is. But one made by people with greater medical knowledge and knowledge of the situation than I and clearly they view it to be calculated in their favour.

As for Vardy, the club is just allowing him the same playing time that he had before the knee. I realise that you have made it known that you are waiting to see how good he can be and he's a bit overrated currently - and that's fair - but is the extension not just allowing him time to do that? Im not sure its the cub being generous. Prudent maybe…



Well said, I am not sure why Partridge feels he is the doyen of injury prognosis, as you said Daz I think the club are giving players a chance and are probably, no definitely I would think, in the best position to do so.
GO Catters

 

[thegerman]

And if he was out of contract he might have been. But he wasn't.

But him, and Cowan, are both out of contract at the end of this season. I'd say we're almost certainly going to see one of them go and quite possibly two.*

* - quite apart from the fact that Brown has played slightly more games in the last 3 seasons than Cowan has.

Can't agree more. Whilst it is very high moral ground to continuously state 'we've got your back', how many more season ending injured players can we keep on the list, then keep underperforming players that once at level, just never seem settled.

I would assume that Brown, if out of contract, will find it tough to stay on the list.

 

[Pettas]

Achilles surgery

 

[dazbroncos]

Achilles surgery

You mean he just had it ( which I believe is correct) or you know something new….

Should shave been the same surgery he had in London but to the other foot..

Go Catters

 

[Vdubs]

We rarely delist players who end up hurting us at another club.
Cowan will either be on one of our lists next year, OR, he won't make it anywhere.
I favour the former

 

[AM]

You mean he just had it ( which I believe is correct) or you know something new….

Should shave been the same surgery he had in London but to the other foot..

Go Catters

Check out the Medical Room on our website ,daz. He's had the surgery and the physio commenting was present during the procedure and gave an encouraging report.

 

[Daniel McL]

Each time someone mentions Menzel I just