Roast Shame on some people

[Dixie Flatline]

I'm not questioning fans commitment, I'm simply stating that if you truly believe that the club would play Franklin regardless of if they thought he was fit or not, then your faith and trust in the club is completely and utterly shot.

The point I'm making though is that the club shouldn't be surprised if this reaction is reaching the club because of the way it's released information about player injuries in the past.

 

[Glacier]

TAITA
Going back a few posts Taita, I reckon the mate you are referring to would be a certain Mr FILO ???
Anyway, for what it's worth a pretty ordinary decision by the club to play Franklin and the man himself has to take a bit of responsibilty too
I hope the injury now does not keep reaccuring as hammy's tend to do

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

The point I'm making though is that the club shouldn't be surprised if this reaction is reaching the club because of the way it's released information about player injuries in the past.

Off the top of my head, I think most people's gripes have been about layoff times.

Hodge, Young and Croad for example. 2 weeks away. 3 weeks away. TBC. Indefinite. Season.

People want the players back, they want them playing. I understand that. But maybe the club is simply just updating the masses with info as it comes to hand, and are simply handing out timeframes when they become apparent.

The club have to be critical and meticulous in their diagnosis and rehabilitation of players who are injured, and as we know mishaps, inflammations and setbacks can occur over that time, so it's not always black and white and a concrete number of weeks on the sidelines.

As for Franklin, he was passed as fit and named by people who know him and his body much better than any fan on these boards( who are saying he wasn't fit) will probably ever get the chance to.

 

[go hawks!!!]

I've steered clear of it all in that, for me mate in my ignorant mind, I would not have let him play - simple as that.

For all the window dressing about crowd figures and other bullshit - it came down to Buddy wanted to play and the club let him.

If it was Cyril, who has a long history of hamstring problems I would be swinging from the chandeliars.

However I also understand that hammys aren't necessarily all the same - one of my best mates who played over 450 games of senior footy in the Bendigo League (midfielder btw) had a hammy 'pop' when he had half a season at Balranald early in his career - he missed the rest of that game only, and it was the only time he ever had a hamstring concern in his entire career (because as he constantly pointed out, even his hamstrings where genetically superior to most/all). Given that both he and Buddy have a similar kick on them, I would expect Buddy to have extremely well constructed hamstrings and certainly it all could have amounted to nothing/or maybe a masterstroke if he had got through (in that sitting on your arse is not considered recovery these days).

Probably better to focus on the recovery moreso than the opponent - the 'total waste' is the feeling of angst that I am getting from brothers in that if he had of done it against Collingwood it would have been justified but GWS was not - dunno - he could have done it at training for what it's worth.

We move on.

Re: Hodge - there is still much time but he will be the cream, not the sausage and two veg we have become accustomed too. I'd like to see him pull the pin on the media stuff and just concentrate on footy for the duration - and I know that is an opinion based totally on ignorance and angst, but I'd prefer to see him doing everything possible to make a return to this football side than being reminded of his absence everytime I have the misfortune to tune into C7.

Sorry TAITA I don't use the like button, but I 'LIKE' this post.

 

[Off The Couch]

I take it no one saw Piggy on 'the insiders' tonight.

He said the club would do the same thing again, and that Franklins "tightness" was treated no differently than any number of players who report sore spots each week. That being, if a player ticks all the boxes over the week and during recovery, proves their fitness at training(sprints, drills etc), gets the ok from the docs(scans), and reports no ill felling they will be named to play.
Dunstall was also very keen to mention that Franklin wasn't 99% fit, he was without doubt 100% fit.

People seem to forget that Franklin didn't do this injury in the first 5 minutes. He kicked 4, then went off.

At which point Lynch and King could barely control the laughter. As Lynchie said - "it's like letting black cavier run in the Fiji Cup'.
They didn't question the processes the club followed, what they questioned like most people have, is why let him play at all, especially in a game the club was going to win anyway. For mine that's the biggest factor in why I am so pissed off at the club atm - at the end of the day we can't do anything but vent at that decision on a forum that imo is the perfect place to vent and yet in doing that, loyalty is questioned, we are accused of being fickle supporters and to top it off I'm supposed to feel ashamed of myself - I respect those who support the club to the absolute hilt but that respect should also be a two way street but obviously it's not.

 

[TAITA]

TAITA
Going back a few posts Taita, I reckon the mate you are referring to would be a certain Mr FILO ???
Anyway, for what it's worth a pretty ordinary decision by the club to play Franklin and the man himself has to take a bit of responsibilty too
I hope the injury now does not keep reaccuring as hammy's tend to do

Probably didn't leave myself a lot of wriggle room there - yes it is. I'm guessing the 'genetically superior' hamstrings gave it away.

 

[Glacier]

Probably didn't leave myself a lot of wriggle room there - yes it is. I'm guessing the 'genetically superior' hamstrings gave it away.

Haha, the mention of a ridiculous number of games played actually !!
D Filo, true legend of country footy

 

[macdaddio]

At which point Lynch and King could barely control the laughter. As Lynchie said - "it's like letting black cavier run in the Fiji Cup'.
They didn't question the processes the club followed, what they questioned like most people have, is why let him play at all, especially in a game the club was going to win anyway. For mine that's the biggest factor in why I am so pissed off at the club atm - at the end of the day we can't do anything but vent at that decision on a forum that imo is the perfect place to vent and yet in doing that, loyalty is questioned, we are accused of being fickle supporters and to top it off I'm supposed to feel ashamed of myself - I respect those who support the club to the absolute hilt but that respect should also be a two way street but obviously it's not.

This is so true.....

 

[PottSie2]

I'm not questioning fans commitment, I'm simply stating that if you truly believe that the club would play Franklin regardless of if they thought he was fit or not, then your faith and trust in the club is completely and utterly shot.

People aren't suggesting that, people are venting that given,

Franklin pulled up sore the week prior
Franklin didn't train all week
We were playing G. W. Fn S

It was ridiculous for the club to risk him regardless of whether he pulled up fit or not. The OP is ridiculous in that common sense would have dictated Buddy should have been rested given people knew e above.

 

[MinerBoy]

The point I'm making though is that the club shouldn't be surprised if this reaction is reaching the club because of the way it's released information about player injuries in the past.

I don't see the relevance. Regardles of whether we know how serious Hodge's injury is or not, they still haven't played him. The club may not be telling us the full extent of that injury (probably because they didn't know) but that is completely different to suggesting they would let Buddy play if they thought he was any chance of doing himself harm.

The issue isn't one of what information is made available to us Joe Averages, but of whether you really believe.....think about it - REALLY BELIEVE.....whether the HFC match committee would have selected Buddy to play against GWS if they didn't think he was right to go, after taking into consideration the medical evidence available and the advice of those that provide it.

For me - no way.

Docs: "Clarko, scan shows signs of XYZ injury. There's a chance Bud could do some damage if he plays. He needs to miss XYZ weeks."
Clarko: "I think we'll pick him anyway".

C'mon. It ain't happening.

It's perfectly plausible the severity of the diagnosis was incorrect, and sure that's an issue, but there is absolutely no way known medical caution was given and he was still selected in spite of that.

I have said it before - I'd bet the left one on it.

 

[MinerBoy]

at the end of the day we can't do anything but vent at that decision on a forum that imo is the perfect place to vent and yet in doing that, loyalty is questioned, we are accused of being fickle supporters and to top it off I'm supposed to feel ashamed of myself -.

Sorry CP, need to pull you up here. Not a go at you personally because you're a terrific poster but to the general feeling from you and others that this is happening.

I don't think there is any 'loyalty questioning' going on at all. There are differences of opinions but the 'Angry at the club' mob seems to be taking this all too personally.

I, and others, don't agree with the opinions many of you share on this, but I never question your love and dedication to the club.

 

[MinerBoy]

People aren't suggesting that, people are venting that given,

Franklin pulled up sore the week prior
Franklin didn't train all week
We were playing G. W. Fn S

It was ridiculous for the club to risk him regardless of whether he pulled up fit or not. The OP is ridiculous in that common sense would have dictated Buddy should have been rested given people knew e above.

He is a Hawthorn footballer. He plays football. Hawthorn were playing football against GWS on the weekend. He was assessed as fit. He plays football.

The assessment was wrong, not the decision to play him based on that assessment.

Makes absolutely zero sense if he is supposedly right to go to then not play him. We'd recently had a bye so he should have been fresh and was deemed injury free.

 

[Roger Rogerson]

I don't see the relevance. Regardles of whether we know how serious Hodge's injury is or not, they still haven't played him. The club may not be telling us the full extent of that injury (probably because they didn't know) but that is completely different to suggesting they would let Buddy play if they thought he was any chance of doing himself harm.

The issue isn't one of what information is made available to us Joe Averages, but of whether you really believe.....think about it - REALLY BELIEVE.....whether the HFC match committee would have selected Buddy to play against GWS if they didn't think he was right to go, after taking into consideration the medical evidence available and the advice of those that provide it.

For me - no way.

Docs: "Clarko, scan shows signs of XYZ injury. There's a chance Bud could do some damage if he plays. He needs to miss XYZ weeks."
Clarko: "I think we'll pick him anyway".

C'mon. It ain't happening.

It's perfectly plausible the severity of the diagnosis was incorrect, and sure that's an issue, but there is absolutely no way known medical caution was given and he was still selected in spite of that.

I have said it before - I'd bet the left one on it.

Agree the query is on the diagnosis. And that is what is of the most concern.

Can Anyone from a physio background comment on Buddy's week:

Scans early in week which show no bleeding. Then doesnt train until the saturday to test it. That is the bit I dont understand and would love someone w a physio background to explain the logic in that process. I would have thought if you are cleared by the scan you train tues or thurs to test it. Not wait until sat. Waiting until sat suggests there may have still been soreness?

 

[hawks realist]

Agree the query is on the diagnosis. And that is what is of the most concern.

Can Anyone from a physio background comment on Buddy's week:

Scans early in week which show no bleeding. Then doesnt train until the saturday to test it. That is the bit I dont understand and would love someone w a physio background to explain the logic in that process. I would have thought if you are cleared by the scan you train tues or thurs to test it. Not wait until sat. Waiting until sat suggests there may have still been soreness?

I'm no physio but i contributed lots of coin to them in my playing and now working days and everyone from bush league up should know that if you strain a hammy you rest it for at LEAST a week,scans or no scans.Let alone arguably the best player in the league versus a bunch of kids.

As far as Bud's training for the week goes he did some light jogging and didn't kick on his left all week which rings alarm bells loud and clear.Whoevers decision it was for him to play was a monumental **** up and i really hope there are no lingering hamstring issues(after 3 weeks off).

I couldn't make any sense of it when he lined up sunday and am still flabbergastered as to why any club would take that risk

 

[Dinner Plate]

I don't think there is any 'loyalty questioning' going on at all. There are differences of opinions but the 'Angry at the club' mob seems to be taking this all too personally.

To the claim (directed at myself and many others) about taking this personally, have a look at the title of this thread. Everything that follows from posters (not including you, MinerBoy) who agree with the OP, merely qualifies that sentiment, backing away from outright accusing us of abandoning the club. Accepting (at face value) everything the club has said about the injury is naive, at best. And shaming those who don't agree, amounts to dogma, in my opinion.

I'm prepared to admit I am rising to the bait here. But isn't that what footy tragic forums like this are for?

Anyhow.

The common sense feeling about the incident, across various media outlets, fans of other clubs, and many Hawthorn fans (including the many posting here) is that Buddy, whatever the medical assessment, should not have played against weak opposition after zero training. Of course it is Buddy's and the club's feeling about his fitness leading up to the game that is what counts.

All we have left is hindsight, and a depleted list going in to an important month.

 

[MinerBoy]

I respectfully disagree Dinner Plate.

 

[PottSie2]

He is a Hawthorn footballer. He plays football. Hawthorn were playing football against GWS on the weekend. He was assessed as fit. He plays football.

The assessment was wrong, not the decision to play him based on that assessment.

Makes absolutely zero sense if he is supposedly right to go to then not play him. We'd recently had a bye so he should have been fresh and was deemed injury free.

He is our best player. Arguably the best player in the league.

We were playing GWS.
He had come off sore the week prior.
He did not train.

Commonsense dictates that he should not have played, regardless of whether he deemed himself 100%, 200% or 300% fit.

 

[MinerBoy]

He is our best player. Arguably the best player in the league.

We were playing GWS.
He had come off sore the week prior.
He did not train.

Commonsense dictates that he should not have played, regardless of whether he deemed himself 100%, 200% or 300% fit.

He and the medical team.

It was obviously wrong to play him in hindsight. However, the point is that the match committee were perfectly entitled to select him based on the medical assessment. It's his assessment that needs to be queried (how did they get it so wrong) not his selection by the match committee.