Tyson Edwards battled cancer last season

[Crow-mo]

I seem to recall the players confronted craigy and demanded he change his mind on selection.

 

[Vader]

Dropping Edwards was the right decision at the time - as was Edwards' decision to retire (given what we now know). The story on Craig's decision not to give him a farewell game - only to backflip 24hrs later - is what needs to be explained by the club, given that Edwards' side of the story has now come out.

 

[Crow-mo]

why was it the right decision? based on what?

the players obviously felt it was NOT the right decision

 

[Vader]

why was it the right decision? based on what?

the players obviously felt it was NOT the right decision

Which decision did they think was wrong?

• Dropping Tyson in the first place - no evidence of this.
• Tyson retiring - maybe, but they'd probably re-consider their positions if they knew the full story (which has only now emerged).
• Failing to give him a farewell game - absolutely, which is why Craig needs to explain his actions (given Tyson's revelations).

 

[jenny61_99]

I seem to recall the players confronted craigy and demanded he change his mind on selection.

It wasn't on selection was it? It was on the matter of a farewell game.

 

[Dirty Bird]

Maybe Triggy will forget Craigy's on staff and will appoint a coach in 2012.

Not the time

Yeah that nuts fine.

Not the place

why was it the right decision? based on what?

the players obviously felt it was NOT the right decision

and what the ****.

 

[Crow-mo]

It wasn't on selection was it? It was on the matter of a farewell game.

what's the difference, or have you got Vader's disease where you forget key details like Craig's refusal to budge?

he retired on the spot, so there is no distinction between selection and a farewell game.

what we know as facts, real ones.

1. Craig dropped him, and even under heat refused to play sentimental games and gift him a game making a number of public comments to that affect.

2. the players intervened, told him he was wrong, and demanded he change his mind. which he did.

3. Edwards has now come out, and said they had a private understanding and that Craig reneged on it without talking to him.

its all a bit hypocritical to say NC was acting on principle as if he were truly that virtuous there shouldn't have been any 'understandings' in the first place.

 

[Godallblighty]

His information is exactly as Tyson gave it mate. Except for the fact he missed the stone removal. At that point it was instead of a biopsly - tyson's choice - they only found out later it was a very small cancer so good call.

Okay. Apologies to crowman86. But there is a critical disconnect here and it all revolves around the seriousness of Tyson's condition. According to Tyson, he started training a week after an operation. The club allowed him to do so, not on medical advice, but on Tyson's say so, presumably because footballers are such great judges of when they're fit to play. Tyson plays the first half of the season a shadow of his former self, but no-one draws a relation between this and his recovery except Tyson who only mentions it when he gets dropped. The head coach at this point has 'forgotten' about the whole condition in the first place and, in any case, doesn't think it merits any special consideration.

Moreover, last year privacy was all-important but this year it's photo-spreads in the paper and tell-all interviews on the radio.

Not the whole story, I reckon.

 

[Allefgib]

Can't argue with that. Definitely a disconnect somewhere

 

[jenny61_99]

what's the difference, or have you got Vader's disease where you forget key details like Craig's refusal to budge?

he retired on the spot, so there is no distinction between selection and a farewell game.

what we know as facts, real ones.

1. Craig dropped him, and even under heat refused to play sentimental games and gift him a game making a number of public comments to that affect.

2. the players intervened, told him he was wrong, and demanded he change his mind. which he did.

3. Edwards has now come out, and said they had a private understanding and that Craig reneged on it without talking to him.

its all a bit hypocritical to say NC was acting on principle as if he were truly that virtuous there shouldn't have been any 'understandings' in the first place.

CM - if you had the faintest idea of all the facts, I'd give your argument some credence. But as usual, you've added 1+1 and discovered 3. Why don't YOU wait to hear both sides before you go off half cocked.

 

[Vader]

what's the difference, or have you got Vader's disease where you forget key details like Craig's refusal to budge?

he retired on the spot, so there is no distinction between selection and a farewell game.

Utter garbage. Of course there is a distinction.

Craig always had the option of dropping Edwards, while giving him a promise of a farewell game - either the next home game (as eventually happened) or in our last home game. Edwards was always going to retire after being dropped, but there would have been no controversy if Craig had agreed immediately to a farewell game. Unfortunately, he did not.

1. Craig dropped him, and even under heat refused to play sentimental games and gift him a game making a number of public comments to that affect.

This needs to be split into 2 parts:
1A - Craig dropped him.
1B - Craig refused to gift him a farewell game.

There is not now, nor was there ever, any controversy over decision 1A. You're making stuff up if you suggest that there is/was. 1B on the other hand was incredibly divisive.

2. the players intervened, told him he was wrong, and demanded he change his mind. which he did.

1B being what they objected to.. and what was eventually changed. The manner in which this change took place does not show Craig in a good light at all.

 

[jenny61_99]

Okay. Apologies to crowman86. But there is a critical disconnect here and it all revolves around the seriousness of Tyson's condition. According to Tyson, he started training a week after an operation. The club allowed him to do so, not on medical advice, but on Tyson's say so, presumably because footballers are such great judges of when they're fit to play. Tyson plays the first half of the season a shadow of his former self, but no-one draws a relation between this and his recovery except Tyson who only mentions it when he gets dropped. The head coach at this point has 'forgotten' about the whole condition in the first place and, in any case, doesn't think it merits any special consideration.

Moreover, last year privacy was all-important but this year it's photo-spreads in the paper and tell-all interviews on the radio.

Not the whole story, I reckon.

Agreed. Having an orchiectomy is not unlike a hysterectomy and normally the medical advice given is for 6 weeks rest with no heavy lifting. You would have to assume that since he resumed training so quickly, the surgery 'got it all' and no further treatment (radiation/chemo) was required. It's all so very bizarre.

 

[Crow-mo]

CM - if you had the faintest idea of all the facts, I'd give your argument some credence. But as usual, you've added 1+1 and discovered 3. Why don't YOU wait to hear both sides before you go off half cocked.

what a cheap cop out.

and you know how highly i rate your approval

 

[icrow32]

He was on 5AA and basically reiterated what BACCS said. Craig doesnt come off well after this. they discussed the week before how he was traveling and if we was in line to be dropped to let him know before his last game so he could have a send off, the week later he was dropped with no game. When he questioned Craig about the last game Craig told him he had already picked the side. Craig wanted him to go back to Westies and fight his way back, Edwards after what he went through and the reduced energy wasn't keen on this.

I wonder now this is out in the public what it will do to the playing groups opinion of him. Pretty cold.

Also what's needs to be questioned is our medical staff. He was training one week after the op which in hindsight didn't give him enough time to recover and get his energy level back.

I couldn't beleive what I heard last night. Tyson said that as the team was an 2-6/2-7 he though a bit of compassion for a farewell game could be accomodated (I don't think this is unreasonable for a 300 game player who has had cancer) but he said all NC cared about was results. I am glad Nth Melb didn't have the same attutude to Jason Mcartney. Appauling treatment by NC.

 

[Slippery Pete]

This needs to be split into 2 parts:
1A - Craig dropped him.
1B - Craig refused to gift him a farewell game.

There is not now, nor was there ever, any controversy over decision 1A. .

Hang on a second Vader. If the discussion between Craig and Edwards was held leading up to the St Kilda game - where Edwards said he'd be make way for a younger guy if he had to - assuming we know the farewell game has to be a home game (Fremantle), why would Craig go to the trouble of dropping Tyson for the St Kilda game? Why not reach an agreement and Tyson plays the last two games?

My point, selecting him against St Kilda could have averted the whole drama. There was no need to drop him and make it public - he would be retiring in a week anyway. What difference was one extra outing against St Kilda going to make? This required foresight by the coach. Which clearly was too much to ask.

If this story is as it's told by Tyson, Neil has much to answer for.

Funnily enough, it doesn't surprise me one bit.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Maybe he is a stubborn old mule after all. I say this as an ardent Neil Craig supporter.

Look at you all jumping off now.

 

[icrow32]

Its all very very strange. Tyson was offered time off after his op and time to recover and take it all in and come back fresh and instead decided to train and do the full pre season. It would have knocked him around mentally more than physically surely? I mean it was a small day op to remove a lump which was later discovered to be a cancer. He decided to not undergo any other treatment so really the only physical thing he had done was a small day op. The fact that they got it so so early on means that there would have been little to no impact on his body?? Players have bigger surgeries physical wise all the time at the end of a season. Must have really knocked him around mentally. I am not convinced that his form suffered due to the cancer. I really don't want to judge because I cannot imagine the pain and suffering he would have mentally been fighting but its all very odd. The fact that they said Mandy wants the real story out, he was worried Mandy might say something to Craig, Mandy was upset with the way it was handled it just doesn't seem to sit well with me. Really interested to see if we will hear the other side of the story. She does have history being involved in trouble and scandals before. The whole thing is a hazy shade of grey right now.

In his 5aa interview Edwards also said that as he had a testy removed his testostreone levels were down which impacted on his energy levels etc, he said he first raised this with NC in rd 3 or 4.

 

[icrow32]

I'm shocked.

That is incredibly poor form from Craig.

Seems to me that Craig had decided on a course of action (set an example blah blah) and didn't have the mental flexibility to change his mind. I'm sure Craig was under a huge amount of pressure at the time, but still, that's the job.

Maybe he is a stubborn old mule after all. I say this as an ardent Neil Craig supporter.

Maybe he just can't make rational decisons under pressure.

 

[icrow32]

CM - if you had the faintest idea of all the facts, I'd give your argument some credence. But as usual, you've added 1+1 and discovered 3. Why don't YOU wait to hear both sides before you go off half cocked.

I am sure we ill hear both sides , we are "inclusive" afterall.

 

[Allefgib]

There is not now, nor was there ever, any controversy over decision 1A. You're making stuff up if you suggest that there is/was.

Wrong. Many people were saying he should have been dropped early. That he was a shadow of his former self.

Turns out they were right.

 

[Allefgib]

I couldn't beleive what I heard last night. Tyson said that as the team was an 2-6/2-7 he though a bit of compassion for a farewell game could be accomodated (I don't think this is unreasonable for a 300 game player who has had cancer) but he said all NC cared about was results. I am glad Nth Melb didn't have the same attutude to Jason Mcartney. Appauling treatment by NC.

The Mcartney analogy is not inappropriate. That game sent shivers down my spine and just gave so much to their club and the footy community at large.

I think Edwards game definitely did the same for Adelaide supporters - and Craigy did the right thing in changing his mind.

Geez this whole thing just irritates as it paints people in a bad light, which should never have happened, and you kinda get the feeling it won't go away til we hear all sides of the story. Which I suspect we never will. And possibly rightly so. He was a champion of our club, had his send off game and should be admired and supported for what he is trying to do now in raising awareness of mens health issues.

 

[Allefgib]

CM - if you had the faintest idea of all the facts, I'd give your argument some credence. But as usual, you've added 1+1 and discovered 3. Why don't YOU wait to hear both sides before you go off half cocked.

Which bit was wrong Jen?

 

[Allefgib]

Agreed. Having an orchiectomy is not unlike a hysterectomy and normally the medical advice given is for 6 weeks rest with no heavy lifting. You would have to assume that since he resumed training so quickly, the surgery 'got it all' and no further treatment (radiation/chemo) was required. It's all so very bizarre.

Come on Jen.. you've just slammed CM for not knowing all the facts and now you're showing you don't either. Look i don't blame you it obviosuly isn't as big news in Queensland but please try not to be hypocritical.

Tyson had a 'spot' on his 'smaller' nut after noticing a size difference and wanting to get it checked out.
They thought it was likely to be a 'trauma' injury but to be sure Tyson wanted it checked out.
Could have had a biopsy or the removal (orchiectomy if that's the word) option. He went removal as it was such a small spot and they weren't sure they would 'hit' the spot with a needle to do a biopsy.
After removal they found out it was cancerous - but stage 1 and not likely to have spread. He's now in remission for that but won't get all clear for 5 years.
At that time it was recommended he do a month of radiation/chemo as a safety precautioin. He opted NOT to have this and to jump straight back into training.

 

[WALL-e]

Very interested in how you forget someone has cancer.

Would very much like to hear both sides on this one.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Very interested in how you forget someone has cancer.

Would very much like to hear both sides on this one.

I don't think we should take that too literally. I'm more concerned with why Craig didn't have the foresight to play him against St Kilda, then give him the farewell game after that. Craig got it wrong twice IMHO. Tyson had offered to go out - the decision to drop him was wrong in my book. He should have played those last two games.

This would have also saved Craig the embarassment of having to renege on his decision of not gifting games. Craig couldn't get it through his head that gifting two games privately would have averted the need to gift one publically, thus creating all the drama and heartache that ensued.