Injury 2015 general injury updates - for specific injuries, refer to specific injury thread

[Teriyakicat]

Completely agreed.

But you can't just say that. You get shot for being enthusiastic about players. Age means nothing. They have to be ready to get to get selected. And any form in the lower grades, however great, must be tempered by the fact that it is, a lower grade. If you don't qualify what you say, the snipers come out.

As talent goes, he could be very very good for us and I've been backing him from a long, long, long run up. So im biased too. I'd luv to see him make it.
This year he's dropped weight, done the work and the rehab, and is on course. Just keep going.

Go Catters

keep the faith, brutha!!!

On his injuries - haven't they been mostly soft tissue? I must go back and check that out. I don't recall him having ongoing issues with one particular injury.

 

[Teriyakicat]

Hamstring early, resumed playing. Hip injury (7weeks), then Knee surgery Oct 2013


Sprained foot 2014 preseason training late Jan 2014
Knee surgery March 2014
Hamstring 2014 mid year

 

[dazbroncos]

Hamstring early, resumed playing. Hip injury (7weeks), then Knee surgery Oct 2013


Sprained foot 2014 preseason training late Jan 2014
Knee surgery March 2014
Hamstring 2014 mid year

wanna say arthroscopic clean out in knee Sept last year too…

and while March surgery is correct, I believe it was arthroscopic then too - not any structural work per se.

GO Catters

 

[Teriyakicat]

That's true- thanks! I just found a more recent article which mentions that (earlier articles I read just said "surgery. how misleading!):

Kersten is slowly building towards Round 1 after having arthroscopic surgery on his knee last September for the third time of his emerging career.

He had the same procedure performed in March last year after he broke down late in the pre-season, causing him to miss the first two months of the 2014 season.

“It’s been a bit of a slow build up for me this year,” Kersten said.

“Last pre-season they ramped me up a bit quick and come March I came a little unstuck and missed a fair bit of footy.

“This year it’s been a bit of a slow build up and I’ve only just recently joined in with the main group.

“It’s been good to get back out there, I can’t wait for the games to roll around and I’m looking forward to it.

“Everything’s on track at the moment and fingers crossed it stays that way until Round 1 and we can get stuck into it from there.”

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au...-on-forward-line/story-fnjuhrxq-1227217667413

Edit- just realised Daniel McL posted this article in the preseason thread. Sorry DML!!

 

[DanA]

Thurlow had a broken jaw from memory when he got crunched in a tackle playing in Tassie yes?

Did he have anyhing else?

GO Catters

Don't think so. I just know he was a bit of an unknown quantity because he missed so much football.

 

[The rabbi]

One leg is 2cm shorter then the other? Wow that can't be good

No it is not good, but lots of people would have a discrepancy of around 2cm. So it is also not at all unusual. That can be treated with inserting an orthotic (heal lift) into the shoe.
If substantial enough, leg length discrepancy (LLD) left untreated can contribute to other serious orthopaedic problems, such as degenerative arthritis, scoliosis, or lower back pain.

When I was a kid my left leg was 4.5 cms longer than the right due to contracting osteomyelitis in the right tibia at 18 months of age. I used to have to wear orthopedic shoes with the right heal built up to compensate for the difference.
At about 14 years old I had corrective surgery to stop the left leg from growing so that by the time I was full grown they would be roughly the same. There is still about a 6mm difference and my podiatrist suggested that I wear an orthotic, but I don't bother with it.

 

[you pick one]

One leg is 2cm shorter then the other? Wow that can't be good

I can think of another Sandgroper that went alright with one leg shorter than the other.

 

[Teriyakicat]

I can think of another Sandgroper that went alright with one leg shorter than the other.

Hmmm... Heather Mills? Nah, she's not from WA.
What's the first letter?

 

[The rabbi]

Hmmm... Heather Mills? Nah, she's not from WA.
What's the first letter?

I think that it may have been G (or P if you like).
But I could be wrong.

 

[Teriyakicat]

I think that it may have been G (or P if you like).
But I could be wrong.

Oh yeah! I remember now!
Yeah- he went alright, didn't he???
Thanks for jolting my memory- I hadn't actually known that about him until I read about it here on BF last year, I think.

 

[dazbroncos]

No it is not good, but lots of people would have a discrepancy of around 2cm. So it is also not at all unusual. That can be treated with inserting an orthotic (heal lift) into the shoe.
If substantial enough, leg length discrepancy (LLD) left untreated can contribute to other serious orthopaedic problems, such as degenerative arthritis, scoliosis, or lower back pain.

When I was a kid my left leg was 4.5 cms longer than the right due to contracting osteomyelitis in the right tibia at 18 months of age. I used to have to wear orthopedic shoes with the right heal built up to compensate for the difference.
At about 14 years old I had corrective surgery to stop the left leg from growing so that by the time I was full grown they would be roughly the same. There is still about a 6mm difference and my podiatrist suggested that I wear an orthotic, but I don't bother with it.

Damn they had good medicine in the 1800's there Rabbs…

GO Catters..







and after that i guessing im doing a lot buying at the VFL this year...

 

[catempire]

Some updates on Johnson, Stanley and Vardy here:

Johnson - NAB 3
Stanley - maybe VFL this weekend, if not Round 1 (VFL?)
Vardy - "on track", no issues with knee, just "putting a lot of work into him"

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-03-17/stevie-j-on-track

 

[Jon Douglas]

It will be an interesting year for the LTIs and general list management IMO.

We have Menzel, McCarthy and Bates as LTIs I believe. On top of that Simpson, Cowan and Vardy would not want to get an LTI or I think they may be gone at years end.

Delaney is also another player we have picked up who has LTIs. So that is a lot of players out or suspect IMO. 7 out of a list 42 is 1/6 of your list !

Then we have likely retirements in Enright and Hmac - maybe Kelly as well. Rivers I think is good to go for another season after this one.

So we will have ample room to get a FA and still pick up 3-4 players at seasons end.

As much as I admire these LTIs as their main job is lost and could carry the injury for life - the way the system works is brutal - you just cannot carry too many injury prone players. There should be a special list for them IMO so they have a few years to make it back without compromising your senior list. But without that 2 maybe all you should carry at any given time.

 

[FredLeDeux]

It will be an interesting year for the LTIs and general list management IMO.

We have Menzel, McCarthy and Bates as LTIs I believe. On top of that Simpson, Cowan and Vardy would not want to get an LTI or I think they may be gone at years end.

Delaney is also another player we have picked up who has LTIs. So that is a lot of players out or suspect IMO. 7 out of a list 42 is 1/6 of your list !

Then we have likely retirements in Enright and Hmac - maybe Kelly as well. Rivers I think is good to go for another season after this one.

So we will have ample room to get a FA and still pick up 3-4 players at seasons end.

As much as I admire these LTIs as their main job is lost and could carry the injury for life - the way the system works is brutal - you just cannot carry too many injury prone players. There should be a special list for them IMO so they have a few years to make it back without compromising your senior list. But without that 2 maybe all you should carry at any given time.

1. 75% of our listed players end up with fewer than 50 games.
2. 35-40% of them end up with zero games.
3. If you have an injured player, and
- your expert medical advice, and
- the MC's opinion of his playing ability/potential,
both suggest he's going to beat those odds, then you keep him, simple as that.
It's no brainer simple economics in a brutal business.

 

[you pick one]

1. 75% of our listed players end up with fewer than 50 games.
2. 35-40% of them end up with zero games.
3. If you have an injured player, and
- your expert medical advice, and
- the MC's opinion of his playing ability/potential,
both suggest he's going to beat those odds, then you keep him, simple as that.
It's no brainer simple economics in a brutal business.

Do you count cards at black jack.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Do you count cards at black jack.

It's Fred, not Jack.
And no, that's only what I tell people when they see me being bounced from the Casino.

 

[Lana]

1. 75% of our listed players end up with fewer than 50 games.
2. 35-40% of them end up with zero games.
3. If you have an injured player, and
- your expert medical advice, and
- the MC's opinion of his playing ability/potential,
both suggest he's going to beat those odds, then you keep him, simple as that.
It's no brainer simple economics in a brutal business.

It's simple maths 46 doesn't fit into 22.

 

[Partridge]

1. 75% of our listed players end up with fewer than 50 games.
2. 35-40% of them end up with zero games.
3. If you have an injured player, and
- your expert medical advice, and
- the MC's opinion of his playing ability/potential,
both suggest he's going to beat those odds, then you keep him, simple as that.
It's no brainer simple economics in a brutal business.

I get where you're coming from Fred, but I disagree with the last point. Anyone who hasn't played senior football in 3 years - and we've got two of them - keeping them is at best very risky, and at worst very poor economics.

 

[catempire]

I get where you're coming from Fred, but I disagree with the last point. Anyone who hasn't played senior football in 3 years - and we've got two of them - keeping them is at best very risky, and at worst very poor economics.

This is another example of opportunity cost at play in a football context.

The cost of keeping Cowan on the list is the benefit you would have derived from his theoretical replacement. FredLeDeux's point is that, history shows, there's a decent chance that player might not even play a game or will play less than 50. If the expert advice the club receives is that Cowan will outperform those expectations of Cowan's theoretical replacement, then you go with Cowan.

That's the decision framework football clubs are working within. The "risk" you speak of is part of the decision.

I don't know whether Cowan will make it or not. But I don't doubt that the club factored into its thinking the risk that Cowan poses by virtue of his history and they weighed that against his theoretical replacement.

 

[FredLeDeux]

I get where you're coming from Fred, but I disagree with the last point. Anyone who hasn't played senior football in 3 years - and we've got two of them - keeping them is at best very risky, and at worst very poor economics.

This is another example of opportunity cost at play in a football context.

The cost of keeping Cowan on the list is the benefit you would have derived from his theoretical replacement. FredLeDeux's point is that, history shows, there's a decent chance that player might not even play a game or will play less than 50. If the expert advice the club receives is that Cowan will outperform those expectations of Cowan's theoretical replacement, then you go with Cowan.

That's the decision framework football clubs are working within. The "risk" you speak of is part of the decision.

I don't know whether Cowan will make it or not. But I don't doubt that the club factored into its thinking the risk that Cowan poses by virtue of his history and they weighed that against his theoretical replacement.

I don't usually frame things in terms of opportunity cost, but ce has nailed my view on it.
The guts of my thinking is that, as long as the medical and playing potential assessments of the club suggest the player is going to make it, then we're better off keeping him than we are ditching him for the low statistical probability of success from a low-order draft pick.
And it's not costing us.
As 10lana said, we've got 46 spots and only 22 to fill; in addition of course, we have virtually limitless resources with which to fill our 2nds.

 

[Lana]

Competition wide between the years of 1994 and 2006
18% of players drafted in the national draft didn't play a game
54% of players played less than 50 games
*some double counting due to players players being drafted multiple times.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

I don't usually frame things in terms of opportunity cost, but ce has nailed my view on it.
The guts of my thinking is that, as long as the medical and playing potential assessments of the club suggest the player is going to make it, then we're better off keeping him than we are ditching him for the low statistical probability of success from a low-order draft pick.
And it's not costing us.
As 10lana said, we've got 46 spots and only 22 to fill; in addition of course, we have virtually limitless resources with which to fill our 2nds.

But if we can't complain about players being injured all the time then what else are we supposed to complain about?

 

[FredLeDeux]

Competition wide between the years of 1994 and 2006
18% of players drafted in the national draft didn't play a game
54% of players played less than 50 games
*some double counting due to players players being drafted multiple times.

My figures were for all players on our list who started and finished their careers with us between 2000 and now.
They may be a slight under-estimate, in fact, because the Wikipedia list says its list of zero-gamers may be incomplete.

 

[Lana]

My figures were for all players on our list who started and finished their careers with us between 2000 and now.
They may be a slight under-estimate, in fact, because the Wikipedia list says its list of zero-gamers may be incomplete.

Did you include the rookie listed players? If so that would help explain the difference. Missing players would make the strike rate better not worse.

Competition wide between the years of 1997 and 2006
56% of players drafted in the rookie draft played zero games
79% of players drafted in the rookie draft played less than 50 games
*some double counting due to players players being drafted multiple times.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Did you include the rookie listed players? If so that would help explain the difference.

Competition wide between the years of 1997 and 2006
56% of players drafted in the rookie draft played zero games
79% of players drafted in the rookie draft played less than 50 games
*some double counting due to players players being drafted multiple times.

The differences, I think, relate more to the years used, and the fact that I only counted those on Geelong's list, from here (and not only drafted players, also imports):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Geelong_Football_Club_players