View Full Version : Thomson & Symes out for the season !
malcolm
21 Aug 2006, 19:27
Season over for two young guns (http://portadelaidefc.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=291182)
Port Adelaide Football Club Mon 21 August, 2006
Two of the Power’s success stories of 2006 will not play again this year after being ruled out of the last two games of the year with injury.
Adam Thomson and Brad Symes are finished for 2006 having played 13 and 12 games respectively.
The club said the duo would play if the upcoming games were finals but at this stage of the season, the safest option was to not risk further damage and to make sure they were right for the 2007 pre-season.
Thomson has been troubled by a groin strain since Round 18 while Symes injured his adductor in the same round.
They could be joined by another NAB Rising Star nominee, Jacob Surjan.
Surjan injured his shoulder in Friday night’s loss to Collingwood and was due to have scans on his shoulder on Monday to determine whether surgery would be required.
The club it would know more by Tuesday but it was likely Surjan’s season was also over.
Half-back Peter Walsh is the only player needing to prove his fitness this week. He’s on the way back from a hamstring strain.
Damon White will be over the flu that kept him out of the Collingwood game, while Dean Brogan is fine after copping a cut to his head in the game.
The Power’s injury list for the week beginning Monday 21 August (with when the injury was sustained in brackets) is as follows…
Peter Burgoyne, hamstring (Round 14) – season
James Ezard, osteitis pubis (SANFL Round 15) – season
Josh Francou, knee (ongoing) – ongoing assessment
Nathan Lonie, shoulder (9.8.06) – season
Daniel Motlop, shoulder (Round 16) – season
Michael Pettigrew, shoulder / shins (Round 19) – season
Jacob Surjan, shoulder (Round 20) – ongoing assessment
Brad Symes, adductor (Round 18) – season
Peter Walsh, hamstring (SANFL Round 18) – test
Adam Thomson, groin (Round 18) – season
Warren Tredrea, knee (ongoing) – season
Damon White, flu (Round 19) – available
Michael Wilson, hamstring (Round 19) – season
Macca19
21 Aug 2006, 19:30
Both have shown potential to become good AFL players in the future, theyve done enough this year.
Power21
21 Aug 2006, 19:30
Around 8 or 9 of those are first 22 players, i think that shows we can be very excited about next season.
Lade to Burgoyne to Tredrea. Can't wait.:thumbsu:
I cannot believe the lack of criticism of our club from the wider community on this "resting for next year" policy.
It is getting close to crossing the line of "sound preparation" and "tanking".
If they aren’t injuried enough to stop them from playing in finals and if they are in the best 22. Play them.
Power21
21 Aug 2006, 19:41
I cannot believe the lack of criticism of our club from the wider community on this "resting for next year" policy.
It is getting close to crossing the line of "sound preparation" and "tanking".
If they aren’t injuried enough to stop them from playing in finals and if they are in the best 22. Play them.
We are 11th, it's hardly tanking, saying they would play if it was a final probably means they would miss a H & A game anyway so what's your problem.?
Now that's a bit sensationalist. 2 weeks sounds better :D
Porthos
21 Aug 2006, 19:43
Then I guess the great buddy duel is complete for the year.
Symes > Thomson.
Suck it, Toots! :D
Wishinman
21 Aug 2006, 19:43
There must still be hope for Francou.
We are 11th, it's hardly tanking, saying they would play if it was a final probably means they would miss a H & A game anyway so what's your problem.?
My problem is that we have players that are good enough to play, were fit enough to play, yet aren’t playing. These two arent the only ones.
Daniel Motlop, shoulder (Round 16) – season
Michael Pettigrew, shoulder / shins (Round 19) – season
Brad Symes, adductor (Round 18) – season
Adam Thomson, groin (Round 18) – season
Warren Tredrea, knee (ongoing) – season
I want to beat the ****ing crows ffs. Where has our pride gone?
Well, Motlop, Pettigrew and Tredrea are not fit to play... at the least. They've had season ending surgery, and I guess that is to be taken literally.
Porthos
21 Aug 2006, 19:49
I cannot believe the lack of criticism of our club from the wider community on this "resting for next year" policy.
It is getting close to crossing the line of "sound preparation" and "tanking".
If they aren’t injuried enough to stop them from playing in finals and if they are in the best 22. Play them.We exist to win premierships, not to put players on the field in the last three rounds of a dead season and aggravate an injury that will harm our next opportunity to win a premiership.
Remember Wilbur's two bung shoulders? He played through them to help us win a premiership. Would you ask him to do it for a Regional Challenge game? Because thats about the importance of these last couple of games in real terms. Yes, we want to win them because we want to win everything, but they cannot get us a premiership. Perspective.
Well, Motlop, Pettigrew and Tredrea are not fit to play... at the least. They've had season ending surgery, and I guess that is to be taken literally.
sorry bresh, i edited my post as soon as i re-read it
Don't apologise to me, apologise to the kids that read your post during the 30 seconds it was in its unedited state.
pafc4life
21 Aug 2006, 19:53
Shats for a recall perhaps?
We exist to win premierships, not to put players on the field in the last three rounds of a dead season and aggravate an injury that will harm our next opportunity to win a premiership.
Remember Wilbur's two bung shoulders? He played through them to help us win a premiership. Would you ask him to do it for a Regional Challenge game? Because thats about the importance of these last couple of games in real terms. Yes, we want to win them because we want to win everything, but they cannot get us a premiership. Perspective.
All that’s fair enough, but it’s interesting considering the "preparation for next year - play them where we want to play them next year" line you have taken in other points, wouldn’t it be good preparation to give Thomson a close up look at Simon Goodwin and Josh Carr over the next two weeks? Symes a look at Johncock? etc
I would argue that the benefits of playing these players against two of the best sides in the comp would be greater than an extra two weeks break. Plus it would give us a better chance of winning, something that I thought Port was all about
Then I guess the great buddy duel is complete for the year.
Symes > Thomson.
Suck it, Toots! :DCarlile > Both of them.
Suck it down, both of ya! And with their absence, leaves a bit more space for Fiji Bob to show his stuff.
Santos L Helper
21 Aug 2006, 20:04
I guess Motlop and I were a perfect match up. :)
wouldn’t it be good preparation to give Thomson a close up look at Simon Goodwin and Josh Carr over the next two weeks? Symes a look at Johncock? etc
Put em in the stands with a video camera each next week.
The lads are not 100%, the season is over (finals-wise) so why risk aggrevating the injury any more than is needed???? No sense risking them any more than is required.
Put em in the stands with a video camera each next week.
I guess that means I’ve played about hmmm, 1000 games for Port Adelaide? I understand your point but I maintain that playing these kids over the next two weeks would provide for more improvement than resting them for two weeks.
The lads are not 100%, the season is over (finals-wise) so why risk aggrevating the injury any more than is needed???? No sense risking them any more than is required.
Who is 100% at this time of year? And that’s part of my point, when does it stop? Do we rest Lade for Giles or Minson? Do we rest Burgoyne for Ware? I have never played a game of football at 100% I doubt many have. Every player is a chance to get injured, it’s football, but if they are fit enough to play, and are good enough, there is no valid reason to not play them.
When does stop being adequate preparation and turn into tanking?
almqvist
21 Aug 2006, 20:26
carlile,eckermann and hopefully walsh to come in.
for walsh, a good performance will keep him in the side for another year,and eckermann has got to stamp his foot and say he is good enough to play for at least one more year. i really dont want him to go, he's one of my favourite young players.
Porthos
21 Aug 2006, 20:27
All that’s fair enough, but it’s interesting considering the "preparation for next year - play them where we want to play them next year" line you have taken in other points, wouldn’t it be good preparation to give Thomson a close up look at Simon Goodwin and Josh Carr over the next two weeks? Symes a look at Johncock? etcWell for Symes to play on/watch Johncock would require him to play somewhere that he won't play next year, so thats an immediate contradiction.
The `play them where we want to play them next year' refers to on-field position. I do not endorse playing injured players in meaningless games.
I would argue that the benefits of playing these players against two of the best sides in the comp would be greater than an extra two weeks break.You are aware that Thomson has a groin injury, right?
Plus it would give us a better chance of winning, something that I thought Port was all aboutWinning premierships. Premierships. Premierships. Premierships. Premierships.
Well for Symes to play on/watch Johncock would require him to play somewhere that he won't play next year, so thats an immediate contradiction..
Quit being pedantic. I'm assuming he’s got good enough eyesight to see down the ground 50m to have a look and learn from the best HBF in the country, but okay I will adjust, wouldn’t it be good preparation to say play on Ricciuto/Hentschel/Bock/Edwards whoever.
You are aware that Thomson has a groin injury, right?
Fine. If he’s injured and can’t play, he can’t play. You and I both know this isn’t what the argument is about. IF Motlop, Tredrea, Grew didn’t have surgery, they would have been fit enough and good enough to play, therefore they should be playing. Same goes for Symes and Thomson.
Winning premierships. Premierships. Premierships. Premierships. Premierships.
Ok. Lets forfeit every game after the Richmond one, as we obviously couldn’t win the flag, this would then ensure we finish as low as possible and get the best pick which would then provide us with the best kid in the country, elevating our chances of winning a premiership.
As I said, where does it stop? Stop? Stop? Stop? Stop? Stop?
Porthos
21 Aug 2006, 20:43
Feel free to think for yourself any time now.
Feel free to think for yourself any time now.
No Ill keep copying you. If only to highlight your hypocrisy.
You see I prefer to attack the point, rather than the poster.:eek: ;)
Porthos
21 Aug 2006, 20:49
OK, I'll cut it short and point out that its not my job to go giving adults a kindergarten education. If you want anything more than jibes from here on, don't come in with such ridiculous proposals and strawman arguments.
Second of all, if you want to highlight hypocrisy, you're going to have to do a lot better than take something I've previously said so clearly out of context.
At what point does it stop? When it goes from being sensible to being dumb. There's your answer.
OK, I'll cut it short and point out that its not my job to go giving adults a kindergarten education. If you want anything more than jibes from here on, don't come in with such ridiculous proposals and strawman arguments.
aww c’mon Porthos, where’s the spirit gone? You can use all the internet forum cliché’s you want, but I stand by my point that I think Ports recent policy of resting players with niggles who could otherwise play is bordering on tanking, you still have not come up with a decent argument against this assertion as I suggest perhaps, you can’t.
Second of all, if you want to highlight hypocrisy, you're going to have to do a lot better than take something I've previously said so clearly out of context.
Out of context? I was discussing a football topic and then you "played the man" oops there I go again.....:o
At what point does it stop? When it goes from being sensible to being dumb. There's your answer.
Now you’re just being sulky. Maybe we should call you Toby.
Humour me if you wish, when is it sensible and when is it dumb? Who decides these standards? To me dumb = resting players who are fit and good enough to play.
aww c’mon Porthos, where’s the spirit gone? You can use all the internet forum cliché’s you want, but I stand by my point that I think Ports recent policy of resting players with niggles who could otherwise play is bordering on tanking, you still have not come up with a decent argument against this assertion as I suggest perhaps, you can’t.
Out of context? I was discussing a football topic and then you "played the man" oops there I go again.....:o
Now you’re just being sulky. Maybe we should call you Toby.
Humour me if you wish, when is it sensible and when is it dumb? Who decides these standards? To me dumb = resting players who are fit and good enough to play.
At the risk of hindering the next pre-season or at worst, their longevity in the game (Tredrea and Motlop).
Lightning_Rod
21 Aug 2006, 21:13
i think i have told you all this twice now since the weekend, he has O.P, and i was telling you all we wouldnt see him again this year :P, that being saaid its pretty shi*ty i just hope they are both fully fit and firing for next season, the season in which we regain our form and make the fnals once again
At the risk of hindering the next pre-season or at worst, their longevity in the game (Tredrea and Motlop).
OK, this is a fair point, my argument against this is that any player can get injured at any time and every single player would have a niggle of some description that could get aggravated and affect their pre-season or longevity in the game. For franchise players I could probably understand but not condone it, but for young developing kids I just cannot see the benefit compared to the benefits of playing them.
Toots Hibbert
21 Aug 2006, 21:39
Then I guess the great buddy duel is complete for the year.
Symes > Thomson.
Suck it, Toots! :D
The trendlines pointed to Thomson overtaking Symes so it's a moral victory to the World Federation of Thommo Fan Clubs. :thumbsu:
Toots Hibbert
21 Aug 2006, 21:44
Carlile > Both of them.
Suck it down, both of ya! And with their absence, leaves a bit more space for Fiji Bob to show his stuff.
Porthos what say you and I take this punk out the back and turn him into a screaming heap of blood?
Pity to hear that their injuries mean that they wont be lining up for the last two games of the season. Lets just hope we have a better run with injuries next year.
With the way we are going, we wont have a team to send to London.
There is a story regarding it the advertiser today. I thought I had seen it on the Power website so have deleted the original post here regarding where I saw it. Better give the correct facts.:D
We may have to pull out of the trip due to injuries and the fact that we have some guys due to be fathers and need to be home for the upcoming births.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,20196381-21545,00.html
Toots Hibbert
21 Aug 2006, 21:48
OK, this is a fair point, my argument against this is that any player can get injured at any time and every single player would have a niggle of some description that could get aggravated and affect their pre-season or longevity in the game. For franchise players I could probably understand but not condone it, but for young developing kids I just cannot see the benefit compared to the benefits of playing them.
Do you really think that Choco lacks the competitive instincts to want to upset the cross town rivals and opposition coach. You can bet your bottom dollar that if he could responsibly put his best team on the park he would in the showdown.
Troy Wingate
21 Aug 2006, 22:04
Do you really think that Choco lacks the competitive instincts to want to upset the cross town rivals and opposition coach. You can bet your bottom dollar that if he could responsibly put his best team on the park he would in the showdown.
That best team better not include Matthew Bishop. It prolly will though, we've got no one else available :(
Do you really think that Choco lacks the competitive instincts to want to upset the cross town rivals and opposition coach. You can bet your bottom dollar that if he could responsibly put his best team on the park he would in the showdown.
No. I think he legitimately feels the resting policy would be better for the club and the players, that’s fine, its obviously his and many others opinions. I happen to not agree with it.
From my POV
+'s of resting
Remove any danger of injury or decreased longevity
Increased rest time
Possibly higher draft pick
-'s of resting
Decreases chances of winning the game
Miss the chance of a valuable 4 hours game experience against quality opponents
Purveys the acceptance of the communist AFL manifesto
Chance to see more of the future of the club in perhaps different positions or roles and/or more game time practice at the roles they will be playing next year
IMO, the negatives outweigh the positives.
Toots Hibbert
21 Aug 2006, 22:28
morell have you got any inside knowledge into the extent of the injuries? You seem to be making a lot of suppositions. The club is saying that some of these guys could play if the rewards (ie finals victories) made the risk of playing them worthwhile. Based on that you seem to be discounting the extent of their injuries but I don't think you know. You're wanting the club to treat a late season game for bragging rights the same as a game with the ultimate prize in view. The sorts of things that happen in finals games are Michael Wilson playing with shoulders so stuffed he couln't tackle or even pick up his young child. Or Brendan Lade getting an injection to block pain in his spine. Why risk long term injury by aggravating an existing injury in what is ultimately a game with only egos on the line.
Porthos
21 Aug 2006, 22:29
aww c’mon Porthos, where’s the spirit gone? You can use all the internet forum cliché’s you want, but I stand by my point that I think Ports recent policy of resting players with niggles who could otherwise play is bordering on tanking, you still have not come up with a decent argument against this assertion as I suggest perhaps, you can’t.I think its pretty clear that you've departed from `this is what I think' to `try cheap shots on Porthos'.
I have already indicated that these games are basically meaningless, so the only sensible thing to do is to rest these guys. Groin injuries aren't like a stubbed toe, they get worse the more you stress them.
Out of context? I was discussing a football topic and then you "played the man" oops there I go again.....:oOh right, so you didn't try to call me a hypocrite for my "preparation for next year - play them where we want to play them next year" line? Deadset, you are proving less worthwhile to respond to than Frank Spencer Clone.
Humour me if you wish, when is it sensible and when is it dumb? Who decides these standards? To me dumb = resting players who are fit and good enough to play.Dumb is playing injured players in meaningless games. I've said that a couple of times now.
Porthos
21 Aug 2006, 22:31
morell have you got any inside knowledge into the extent of the injuries? You seem to be making a lot of suppositions. The club is saying that some of these guys could play if the rewards (ie finals victories) made the risk of playing them worthwhile. Based on that you seem to be discounting the extent of their injuries but I don't think you know. You're wanting the club to treat a late season game for bragging rights the same as a game with the ultimate prize in view. The sorts of things that happen in finals games are Michael Wilson playing with shoulders so stuffed he couln't tackle or even pick up his young child. Or Brendan Lade getting an injection to block pain in his spine. Why risk long term injury by aggravating an existing injury in what is ultimately a game with only egos on the line.You...you bring facts into the story.
morell have you got any inside knowledge into the extent of the injuries?
No. Other than what the club has indicated.
You seem to be making a lot of suppositions.
I am basing most of my arguments on the fact the club stated "If it was finals, they would be playing" and the fact that the club booked in grew for surgery but couldn’t fit him in, therefore he played. If he could play in that game, he could play now, and have surgery at the end of the year.
The club is saying that some of these guys could play if the rewards (ie finals victories) made the risk of playing them worthwhile.
Good point, this is the key difference I feel. I’m along the line that it is worth the risk, the club and obviously a lot of other people, aren’t along those lines. Fine, I’m big enough to cop that. I still think I’m right though. especially in the Grew case. It was worth the risk against the bulldogs?
You're wanting the club to treat a late season game for bragging rights the same as a game with the ultimate prize in view.
Do you and others really think Michael Pettigrew getting injured in the next two weeks is going to stop us wining our next flag? Whilst I may be under valuing injuries, I think you and other are over valuing them.
The sorts of things that happen in finals games are Michael Wilson playing with shoulders so stuffed he couln't tackle or even pick up his young child. Or Brendan Lade getting an injection to block pain in his spine. Why risk long term injury by aggravating an existing injury in what is ultimately a game with only egos on the line.
I’m not sure any of the players are at that stage. Grew was obviously fine to play two weeks ago, why not now?
I think its pretty clear that you've departed from `this is what I think' to `try cheap shots on Porthos'.
I think it’s pretty clear I am the respondent to the cheap shots, “Feel free to think for yourself”. That was unnecessary.
I have already indicated that these games are basically meaningless, so the only sensible thing to do is to rest these guys. Groin injuries aren't like a stubbed toe, they get worse the more you stress them.
No game, where the Port Adelaide guernsey is being represented is meaningless, especially against the crows.
I have already made the point, if Adam is actually unable to play, fine, he can’t play, but there are other examples where a player has been fit to play only for the club to pull the pin early in the season simply because we won’t make the finals.
Oh right, so you didn't try to call me a hypocrite for my "preparation for next year - play them where we want to play them next year" line? Deadset, you are proving less worthwhile to respond to than Frank Spencer Clone.
I was challenging your view points as I felt them to be hypocritical. You seem to take things very seriously and personal. No where was I insulting or belligerent. I called you no names, I attacked your viewpoints and you didn’t like it, so you attacked me.
Dumb is playing injured players in meaningless games. I've said that a couple of times now.
You have, and I have said dumb is not playing fit players when a full season game is on the line.
You...you bring facts into the story.
Funny how "what Porthos thinks is right" = "facts"
This is all opinion, i have a different one to you. I dont understand why you get so upset over some one with a different opinion?
Porthos
21 Aug 2006, 23:20
I think it’s pretty clear I am the respondent to the cheap shots, “Feel free to think for yourself”. That was unnecessary.And Stop? Stop? Stop? Stop? after your truly ridiculous strawman argument, wherein you propose that we forfeit games, was?
No game, where the Port Adelaide guernsey is being represented is meaningless, especially against the crows.Yeah, I could've used a better word than meaningless, but I like to vary the vocabulary a bit, and I'm running out of ways to say the same thing. The next two weeks can not win us a premiership.
I have already made the point, if Adam is actually unable to play, fine, he can’t play, but there are other examples where a player has been fit to play only for the club to pull the pin early in the season simply because we won’t make the finals.And all of these involved surgery, no? Surgery is not something you have just for ****s and giggles.
Porthos
21 Aug 2006, 23:21
Funny how "what Porthos thinks is right" = "facts"Funny how you're an insufferable twerp.
Oh quick, better add a smiley :p :confused: :o
No. Other than what the club has indicated.
I am basing most of my arguments on the fact the club stated "If it was finals, they would be playing" and the fact that the club booked in grew for surgery but couldn’t fit him in, therefore he played. If he could play in that game, he could play now, and have surgery at the end of the year.
Good point, this is the key difference I feel. I’m along the line that it is worth the risk, the club and obviously a lot of other people, aren’t along those lines. Fine, I’m big enough to cop that. I still think I’m right though. especially in the Grew case. It was worth the risk against the bulldogs?
Do you and others really think Michael Pettigrew getting injured in the next two weeks is going to stop us wining our next flag? Whilst I may be under valuing injuries, I think you and other are over valuing them.
I’m not sure any of the players are at that stage. Grew was obviously fine to play two weeks ago, why not now?
Grew's injury is similar to Tarrant's apparently - shin splints which the McGuires have now realised requires rest prior to the finals. I guess the club has assessed that risk of further wear and tear for that type of injury could also have long term problems.
For mine, as soon as it became mathematically impossible to make the finals, it's whatever is best for the team for next year. Stuff tanking, that is when you are INTENTIONALLY losing games to get better draft picks.
I see our situation as (sh*t, I can only remember the Japanese word, not the English one :P), kind of a thin line, sure but we are on the correct side of the line. We are going to do everything we can to make sure as many of our players as possible are tip-top cherry-ripe to go by round 1 2007, and if that happens to make us finish lower in the bottom 8 than we would have otherwise, well that ain't hurting us either, is it. Of course we expect whichever 22 take the field at the end of the day to represent the PAFC with all the power and aggression they can muster. What a sweet circumstance that the 22 has included so many young guns for a month or two now. It's all good.
Btw you two - get a room :P
And Stop? Stop? Stop? Stop? after your truly ridiculous strawman argument, wherein you propose that we forfeit games, was?
Only after your equally condescending Premierships premierships premierships,. Porthos, every single one of our arguments you have started. You are the only person who I have even the slightest tension with, I do not understand why and I think only you can.
Yeah, I could've used a better word than meaningless, but I like to vary the vocabulary a bit, and I'm running out of ways to say the same thing. The next two weeks can not win us a premiership.
Agreed. Pettigrew getting injured will not lose us a premiership. But grew playing might win us a game against the crows. this is what I meant about I think the -'s outweighing he +'s. Just different opinions.
And all of these involved surgery, no? Surgery is not something you have just for ****s and giggles.
Elective surgery. Elective surgery they could have had at the end of the year. But I accept this point that I don’t know the full depth of the injuries and do not have enough medical knowledge to make an accurate decision.
Funny how you're an insufferable twerp.
Oh quick, better add a smiley :p :confused: :o
Oh Porthos. I know you love me.
Is this considered a cheap shot?
For mine, as soon as it became mathematically impossible to make the finals, it's whatever is best for the team for next year. Stuff tanking, that is when you are INTENTIONALLY losing games to get better draft picks.
I see our situation as (sh*t, I can only remember the Japanese word, not the English one :P), kind of a thin line, sure but we are on the correct side of the line. We are going to do everything we can to make sure as many of our players as possible are tip-top cherry-ripe to go by round 1 2007, and if that happens to make us finish lower in the bottom 8 than we would have otherwise, well that ain't hurting us either, is it. Of course we expect whichever 22 take the field at the end of the day to represent the PAFC with all the power and aggression they can muster. What a sweet circumstance that the 22 has included so many young guns for a month or two now. It's all good.
Btw you two - get a room :P
I agree with all of this. I never said we are tanking, merely what we are doing is bordering on tanking. I don’t think a team ever goes out to lose, but I also don’t think we are picking our absolute best team to win the game.
I would love to share a room with Porthos. We could have big girly pillow fights in our nighties.
Grew's injury is similar to Tarrant's apparently - shin splints which the McGuires have now realised requires rest prior to the finals. I guess the club has assessed that risk of further wear and tear for that type of injury could also have long term problems.
Ive had shin splints, bad ones too. Whilst rest would help, you can definetely play with them. There isnt any valid reason, IMO, not to have played Pettigrew for the rest of the year.
And i thought it was his shoulder?
Porthos
21 Aug 2006, 23:43
I agree with all of this. I never said we are tanking, merely what we are doing is bordering on tanking.
My problem is that we have players that are good enough to play, were fit enough to play, yet aren’t playing.This is pretty much the definition of tanking, and its what you've said we're doing.
I don’t think a team ever goes out to lose, but I also don’t think we are picking our absolute best team to win the game.No-one has tried to deny this - no doubt we could well be forcing Tredrea to play on and aggravate his injury. Everyone but you realises that these games are not more important than player welfare/next season. Everyone but you that has posted, has posted to that effect.
This is pretty much the definition of tanking, and its what you've said we're doing.
This is another key point that i was going to raise earlier. What exactly is tanking?
I think tanking is the same as how Pred defined it, deliberately losing. We are obviously not doing that. But what about not picking your best team, even if they are available? ala us and the kangas? I think this is cutting it too fine.
No-one has tried to deny this - no doubt we could well be forcing Tredrea to play on and aggravate his injury. Everyone but you realises that these games are not more important than player welfare/next season. Everyone but you that has posted, has posted to that effect.
The majority is not always correct. I mean, we have Howard as PM. And i absolutely accept my opinion is in the minority. That doesnt mean it shouldnt be respected.
For what it’s worth Treddas and maybe Motlop are the only ones I can understand resting, as there isn’t any benefit, other than their skills, in them playing. However the other points, which no-one has yet to really quote and negate are still true for the other youngsters, namely;
Miss the chance of a valuable 4 hours game experience against quality opponents
And
Chance to see more of the future of the club in perhaps different positions or roles and/or more game time practice at the roles they will be playing next year - this is the point i was challenging you on Porthos as you seemed to agree with this previously, however you qualified it so meh.
Who is 100% at this time of year?
You cant argue that Burgoynes/Lades/Cornses "not 100%" is not as much of a risk of further injury than Symes/Thomas's "not 100%".
Sure the net worth of the first three are much higher than Symes/Thomas, but Burgoyne for example would be physically healthier stan Symes or Thomas who have current obvious conditions.
The risk isn't worth the possible result, much like the previous Wilson example posted above. At the end of the day, it's primarily a business decision.
Ive had shin splints, bad ones too. Whilst rest would help, you can definetely play with them. There isnt any valid reason, IMO, not to have played Pettigrew for the rest of the year.
And i thought it was his shoulder?
Shin splints further develop into stress fractures.
Let's put it this way:
If we were finals contenders, Grew would not have had surgery. Perhaps a week or two off somewhere in the middle to give some extra rest. Same goes for Motlop i'd guess.
Tredders, Surj, Burgoyne would all have still missed.
Now, seeing that we are not finals contenders, there's no point asking these players to play through the pain barrier.
The sooner they have the operation, the more time they have to recover before the pre-season. If any complications happen, hopefully they can sort it out before the pre season.
It's all about getting the players all fit and ready for the pre season, and then for round 1.
If surgery occured later, it would set their pre seasons back 2 or 3 weeks, with no real result.
As much as we want to win all our games, next season is more important now. It is not tanking, the 22 that do play will work their asses off to try and win, and so they should.
Might see Shattock back in the mix i think.
Ive had shin splints, bad ones too. Whilst rest would help, you can definetely play with them. There isnt any valid reason, IMO, not to have played Pettigrew for the rest of the year.
And i thought it was his shoulder?
He has been plagued with both problems. The shoulder was the most noted injury.
You cant argue that Burgoynes/Lades/Cornses "not 100%" is not as much of a risk of further injury than Symes/Thomas's "not 100%".
Sure the net worth of the first three are much higher than Symes/Thomas, but Burgoyne for example would be physically healthier stan Symes or Thomas who have current obvious conditions.
The risk isn't worth the possible result, much like the previous Wilson example posted above. At the end of the day, it's primarily a business decision.
Fair points, but i could argue the same point that has been put to me, unless you have inside knowlege or a medical degree you just dont know. For all we know they could have said the same thing to Sal with his shoulder, or dew and his op ....
And what about Grew and Motlop. They had the niggles and old injuries that a lot of players have, but were fixed mid-season when they could have been done at the end of the year... why? do the +'s of this outweigh the -'s .. IMO no. thats all im saying now Im going to bed
I cannot believe the lack of criticism of our club from the wider community on this "resting for next year" policy.
It is getting close to crossing the line of "sound preparation" and "tanking".
If they aren’t injuried enough to stop them from playing in finals and if they are in the best 22. Play them.
"Resting" them gives the likes of Bentley, Logan, Thomas & Willits another run, that's fine with me. Don't risk them unless they are 100% or it's a crucial game, sound logic to me.
Might see Shattock back in the mix i think.
With Bishop in the also in the side, that would amount to tanking!
Ford Fairlane
22 Aug 2006, 09:22
This argument is really about the bizarre traditions of football. When a club knows it cannot reach the finals it shows what is an appropriate duty of care to its players. They have injuries, they get treated in a reasonable amount of time. When finals are on the agenda is when you see DOC thrown out the window and players continue on through the pain barrier increasing the damage to reach the ultimate reward. It's a completely distorted reasoning we've come to accept as normal. I've no doubt if we were 11-9 coming into this weekend, most of those guys would be playing.
Toots Hibbert
22 Aug 2006, 10:08
Duty of care is one side of it but I'll bet that if you gave a player the choice to play finals while carrying an injury they would. For example I've heard that Brendan Lade's wife was in Choco's office in the lead up to the 2004 grand final pleading for him to be selected. These guys are not dummies. Footballers are far more sophisticated about sports medicine than in the old days. I think we have to give them credit for in the main making informed choices.
Ive had shin splints, bad ones too. Whilst rest would help, you can definetely play with them. There isnt any valid reason, IMO, not to have played Pettigrew for the rest of the year.
And i thought it was his shoulder?
My other half had shin splints and kept going, turned into stress fractures and eventually had to have surgery on both legs.
I don't think its a consistent injury.
Ford Fairlane
22 Aug 2006, 11:12
Duty of care is one side of it but I'll bet that if you gave a player the choice to play finals while carrying an injury they would. For example I've heard that Brendan Lade's wife was in Choco's office in the lead up to the 2004 grand final pleading for him to be selected. These guys are not dummies. Footballers are far more sophisticated about sports medicine than in the old days. I think we have to give them credit for in the main making informed choices.
Players are even more bloody minded than coaches when it comes to making those sorts of decisions. Don't let your mates down, be tough, live for the moment, play in finals. That's when someone should be making informed, independent choices. Leave it to them, they'll play every time. They're an even bigger example of the distorted reality of life in football. Mind you, that informed independent decision didn't help Aaron Keating much.
Toots Hibbert
22 Aug 2006, 11:33
It's sport Ford. The young of our species throw caution to the wind in the fight for pride and achievement. There's a song by I forget who called "Sex and Fame". It goes "Hey what's the name of this game? Sex,sex, sex and fame!"
It's no different to motor sport. Should someone have stopped Mick Doohan and countless other bike riders from regularly smashing up their bodies. Should we stop base jumping. In the Tour de France they go hurtling down steep windy roads at express speeds with only a helmet for protection.
If we stop this sort of stuff we'll be the poorer for it.
My other half had shin splints and kept going, turned into stress fractures and eventually had to have surgery on both legs.
I don't think its a consistent injury.
They are odd, I remember my Physio said, well technically, they aren’t even an injury in themselves, but more a symptom of some other injury.
For instance I strained my calf muscle which made me run funny for a while, this caused me to perforate the "fascia" I think it’s called, this, I was told, was what the majority of shin splints sufferers have. He told me to warm up better, restrict heavy impact running. I did so and they slowly went away. Of course there are more severe cases, but obviously Grew was not that severe as he played, and played well, against the Bulldogs.
"Resting" them gives the likes of Bentley, Logan, Thomas & Willits another run, that's fine with me. Don't risk them unless they are 100% or it's a crucial game, sound logic to me.
Good point but I would rather see Bishop, Dew and Kinsley out and whoever is fit out of Grew, Symes, Thomson and Motlop in, as well as the players you have mentioned.
Ford Fairlane
22 Aug 2006, 11:48
It's sport Ford. The young of our species throw caution to the wind in the fight for pride and achievement. There's a song by I forget who called "Sex and Fame". It goes "Hey what's the name of this game? Sex,sex, sex and fame!"
It's no different to motor sport. Should someone have stopped Mick Doohan and countless other bike riders from regularly smashing up their bodies. Should we stop base jumping. In the Tour de France they go hurtling down steep windy roads at express speeds with only a helmet for protection.
If we stop this sort of stuff we'll be the poorer for it.
I'm not offering an argument to stop what happens. I was merely offering an observation that a football club that is acting with an appropriate duty of care draws criticism from its fans, and this is the distorted reality of football or indeed competitive sport. While they appeared to be at opposite ends of the spectrum, Porthos and morell to me were both right. I agree that these guys should have been sent in for surgery when they were. There was nothing to be gained by playing them. But I appreciate morell's view that had finals been on the line, many of them would have been playing, so it's not unfair to ask the question of the club's commitment to this season. Layered on top of that is the further distortion of the AFL system, where at some point in the season, it's just as important to lose as it is to win.
As to the examples about the Tour or motorbike racing, I wasn't aware I was calling for football or other high risk sports to be outlawed. Of course there's risk involved in any sport. The question is, when do you say to a participant you've done enough damage to your body in the pursuit of that sport, it's time for a rest?
Toots Hibbert
22 Aug 2006, 12:26
I think you make a lot of good points.