There have been quite a few posts over several threads following the Grand Final concerning McDonald’s selection, particularly following the 2022 Sam Reid debacle, and selecting injured players in general. So I thought I’d start a thread to discuss.
First, can I suggest that we stop with the sweeping statement that we simply shouldn’t select injured players for a GF, ever. Clearly many of us are still raw from the GF and clearly neither the Reid or McDonald selections worked out for us but let’s not jump to extremes here. The question isn’t ‘should we select injured players’, the question is ‘in what circumstances should we select injured players’, in other words, what is an acceptable risk when selecting injured players?
Those ‘circumstances’ revolve around the assessed risk factor for an injured player. I’ve talked to an AFL physio and a couple of ex assistant coaches and, while it varies from club to club, in broad terms a selection committee will be presented with an injury risk assessment that will include some of the following:
1. How likely is it that the player will last the whole game, or re-injure or worsen the injury?
2. Further to 1, will a re-injury likely mean the player can’t play any further part in a game (e.g. re-injuring a hamstring typically means the player cannot play any further part in the game, whereas re-injuring, say, an elbow while uncomfortable may still allow a player to continue playing)?
3. At what level will the player likely be capable of performing at compared to them being injury free (e.g. 80% of full capability)
4. Further to 3, will the player performing at 80% capability be a ‘better’ option than their likely replacement playing at 100% capability?
Questions 1 and 2 are typically answered by medical staff. Question 3 is also largely a medical question but does include a more subjective game analysis. Question 4 is more of a coaching rather than medical question.
So, do you agree, do you think it does depend, based on factors such as those I’ve listed above? Or do you think it is as simple as saying, if a player is injured they don’t play and that’s that?
As far as McDonald and Reid are concerned, criticisms of Horse includes that he ignored medical advice when it was provided, overstated the likely capability of those players and didn’t give appropriate consideration of likely player replacements. Other general criticisms include that the medical advice was just plain wrong and, particularly in Reid’s case, that that medical opinion was wrong partly because at best the player himself was mistaken about the extent of their injury or, at worst, they deliberately lied about the extent of the injury.
Comments?
First, can I suggest that we stop with the sweeping statement that we simply shouldn’t select injured players for a GF, ever. Clearly many of us are still raw from the GF and clearly neither the Reid or McDonald selections worked out for us but let’s not jump to extremes here. The question isn’t ‘should we select injured players’, the question is ‘in what circumstances should we select injured players’, in other words, what is an acceptable risk when selecting injured players?
Those ‘circumstances’ revolve around the assessed risk factor for an injured player. I’ve talked to an AFL physio and a couple of ex assistant coaches and, while it varies from club to club, in broad terms a selection committee will be presented with an injury risk assessment that will include some of the following:
1. How likely is it that the player will last the whole game, or re-injure or worsen the injury?
2. Further to 1, will a re-injury likely mean the player can’t play any further part in a game (e.g. re-injuring a hamstring typically means the player cannot play any further part in the game, whereas re-injuring, say, an elbow while uncomfortable may still allow a player to continue playing)?
3. At what level will the player likely be capable of performing at compared to them being injury free (e.g. 80% of full capability)
4. Further to 3, will the player performing at 80% capability be a ‘better’ option than their likely replacement playing at 100% capability?
Questions 1 and 2 are typically answered by medical staff. Question 3 is also largely a medical question but does include a more subjective game analysis. Question 4 is more of a coaching rather than medical question.
So, do you agree, do you think it does depend, based on factors such as those I’ve listed above? Or do you think it is as simple as saying, if a player is injured they don’t play and that’s that?
As far as McDonald and Reid are concerned, criticisms of Horse includes that he ignored medical advice when it was provided, overstated the likely capability of those players and didn’t give appropriate consideration of likely player replacements. Other general criticisms include that the medical advice was just plain wrong and, particularly in Reid’s case, that that medical opinion was wrong partly because at best the player himself was mistaken about the extent of their injury or, at worst, they deliberately lied about the extent of the injury.
Comments?
