Injury Season 2025 - Geelong Injury Thread

[goyoucatters]

Wow so 80% of our 2024 draftees are currently injured

I know we could all debate how many of the players on this week's injury list are actually notable omissions from the group you would consider for senior footy right now. But to have 14 players potentially out of action at Week 3 of the season is a pretty startling achievement. Over 30% of the entire playing group is supposedly looking at being unavailable for this coming weekend.

 

[thejester]

Of course you can take that view. But the GFC has such a storied history of just leaving players at 'TBC' for weeks on end (or off the injury list entirely) as to suggest that they routinely choose the most opaque reporting means possible.

I don't dispute for a moment that players heal at different rates. It doesn't stop all the other clubs typically reporting that this hamstring will be 3-4 weeks and this ankle will be 5-6 weeks. And then if the timeframes don't run as anticipated, they simply update the information.

It's not as if any club's medical staff is splitting the atom here. In the vast majority of cases, there are vast swathes of injury history at every single club that could lead to sensible estimates of when a player might return from a particular injury. So the fact that our club basically chooses to stand alone in effectively proclaiming 'stuffed if we know' when asked to estimate a player's approximate return date seems like a very knowing omission on their part.

And when they update the information, the reaction of fans is that the club has been deceiving them all along - as happened in this very thread! If you cannot see the basic problem that fans are demanding exact information about something that is inexact and that everything flows from that, I can't help you.

 

[thejester]

There obviously isn't a 'program' but the actual reason the AFL stepped in was to curtail the cynical use of the injury report by clubs, with one of, if not THE, worst being the GFC.

They stepped in because gamblers demanded an exact number. That exact number can never be provided, but because gamblers are by definition people interested in numbers they think 'Jed Bews 6-10 weeks' is an improvement on 'Jed Bews Medium Term'.

 

[goyoucatters]

And when they update the information, the reaction of fans is that the club has been deceiving them all along - as happened in this very thread! If you cannot see the basic problem that fans are demanding exact information about something that is inexact and that everything flows from that, I can't help you.

You must be confusing me with someone else. I've never once complained about them updating the information. It's been the absence of updates that has been noted by me as being indicative of a slipshod approach.

 

[Cataholic]

You must be confusing me with someone else. I've never once complained about them updating the information. It's been the absence of updates that has been noted by me as being indicative of a slipshod approach.

This.

And no demand for 'exact' information either.

Just a desire to see an update in the first instance, an expected return date, and a weekly update of that thereafter if required.

Seems simple, but obviously not.

 

[cats_09]

They stepped in because gamblers demanded an exact number. That exact number can never be provided, but because gamblers are by definition people interested in numbers they think 'Jed Bews 6-10 weeks' is an improvement on 'Jed Bews Medium Term'.

100% this - it would have been the pressure coming from the betting companies which is the key reason why the AFL made it appear that they took action on things 18 months ago

And in reality it took less than half a season for teams to revert to reporting as they had been prior to the apparent crack down, and there was no push back from the AFL on that

I just looked at the injury list published on the AFL website for this week, and the 3 most common time frames being used are: Indefinite, Test & TBC

Adelaide are the only team to not use any of those terms, likely due to only having 2 players on their injury list, while GC has one player listed as 6+ weeks (so also a little open)

At the other end of the scale, Richmond is using those terms for 7 of the 10 players on their injury list, with Brisbane using it for 5 of 6 players

Geelong is like a good number of teams where it's closer to an even split between those terms & listed time frames

 

[D BRIDGE]

They stepped in because gamblers demanded an exact number. That exact number can never be provided, but because gamblers are by definition people interested in numbers they think 'Jed Bews 6-10 weeks' is an improvement on 'Jed Bews Medium Term'.

I prefer 6 - 10 weeks over medium or long term.

At least the club has had a dip by saying 6 - 10.

All I want is the club's best estimation.

 

[Tony Barber]

This probably deserves to be in the conspiracy thread.

Simpson on radio on the weekend said that at the eagles they'd receive an email every week from the AFL about definitive injury time frames.

"Then we'd see the Geelong injury report with TBC, TBC. They get treated differently down there"

 

[goyoucatters]

I just looked at the injury list published on the AFL website for this week, and the 3 most common time frames being used are: Indefinite, Test & TBC.

Everyone would acknowledge that 'test' is an entirely valid injury list descriptor, though. It has an inherent timeframe attached to it right away.

 

[bombersboy]

Wow so 80% of our 2024 draftees are currently injured

If you look back it is a trend especially with the Talls we recruit. COS probably the exception. It has raised the question for me as to whether there is an issue with our physical screening of draftees.

Would be interesting to know what the injury rate is for draftees across the League in their first couple of years.

 

[Kobe Gryant]

If you look back it is a trend especially with the Talls we recruit. COS probably the exception. It has raised the question for me as to whether there is an issue with our physical screening of draftees.

Would be interesting to know what the injury rate is for draftees across the League in their first couple of years.

I think if there's anything there, it's that we're usually picking later on in in the draft.

The thought process would be "This kid has far more ability to make it at AFL level than anyone else available this late in the piece, but the caveat is we don't know if his body can hold up".

There's some exceptions, and we haven't gotten them all right by any means, but I'd say they're just looking at risk vs reward in a lot to cases.

 

[#6 Thorp #7 Selwood LOL]

If you look back it is a trend especially with the Talls we recruit. COS probably the exception. It has raised the question for me as to whether there is an issue with our physical screening of draftees.

Would be interesting to know what the injury rate is for draftees across the League in their first couple of years.

I'd say it's a two-fold issue.

One is that we rarely have premium picks, so we go hunting for value on distressed assets with high upside.

Second is that we take a long term view on draftees, ie. we rarely expect them to contribute in the first couple of years, meaning we are happy to take the time to help them get their body right.

EDIT: Yeah, what he said ^^

 

[Tomcat Waits]

They clearly feel very justified in their position, based on how relentlessly they pursue it. I personally believe they're wasting energy on an area that supplies no meaningful strategic advantage whatsoever. I'd be far more concerned with protecting I.P. around overall game plan and how you're looking to counter the opposition in each game than about having other teams supposedly 'wonder' who's fronting up for us from week to week.

Still, as the evidence of recent seasons has unequivocally shown, the club apparently believes there is real value in their approach. So I expect to see much, much more of the same from the GFC in this area, unless the AFL really goes at them for treating the current guidelines with as much disdain as possible.

I believe not a skerrick of wasted energy goes into what they decide to report

 

[Vdubs]

I believe not a skerrick of wasted energy goes into what they decide to report

agree with that- a very unimportant and overrated topic.

 

[goyoucatters]

I believe not a skerrick of wasted energy goes into what they decide to report

I can see that is one way of interpreting why 'TBC' (and routinely leaving players off the list entirely for weeks at a time) have been endemic in the club's approach to injury reporting for years.

I can also see that there is another way of interpreting that approach, though. Each to their own, I guess.