Injury Rhys Stanley - news post-foot surgery

[Vdubs]

Really? I didn't know that. I thought it meant repeat injury of the same issue- I think I've been using it wrong. Does it apply to, say, lots of short-lived but different injuries? ie if they add up to over 3 months. (Or does it have to be a continuous length of time?)

Chronos = Greek iirc, based on time, in medical usage, it refers to long term, persistence, more than 3m for a particular problem. Many people use the word chronic to suggest severity, but chronic does not have to be severe. There can be acute flareups of a chronic problem, maybe like Motlop's patellar tendon, so I'm hoping Stanley gets over this without sequelae and without flareups. Only TIME will tell.
The 3 month bit is a guideline, but most chronic problems are easily > 3months.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

He missed the end of 2013 due to injury and battled all off season.
We got him at end of 2014.
That's 1 year.
18 and 19 is completely misleading. Struggled in 18/19 games in 2014 aswell. Maybe not just from being played in the wrong spot but because of an injury interrupted pre season.

Spin it and justify it however you want. Doesn't make you right. Two years of playing football

 

[Whiskers]

Spin it and justify it however you want. Doesn't make you right. Two years of playing football

I don't need to justify a fact, he had a bad injury 1 year ago before we drafted him.
How is that spin?
Speak to the saints fans about his history.
Search their old Stanley threads. Every 2nd post is "poor bloke can't catch a break, every time he looks to be coming good he gets injured again"

 

[JUBJUB]

He missed the end of 2013 due to injury and battled all off season.
We got him at end of 2014.
That's 1 year.
18 and 19 is completely misleading. Struggled in 18/19 games in 2014 aswell. Maybe not just from being played in the wrong spot but because of an injury interrupted pre season.

He missed 4 games at the end of 2013 and was back in Rd 1 2014.
NOT INJURY PRONE

 

[Whiskers]

He missed 4 games at the end of 2013 and was back in Rd 1 2014.
NOT INJURY PRONE

Yeah let's just totally forget the whole off season and his 6 years in football and numerous injuries shall we?
Let's also ignore all the St Kilda supporters calling him injury prone.
They know nothing and we can bury our head in the sand.
Man how stubborn are you JUBJUB?

 

[Partridge]

Sorry, I neglected to mention the other criterion: are you taller than Matty Stokes?

Yep!

 

[thejester]

The problem with that is we could very well be in the same situation again next year. Vardy still has a massive cloud over him so if he's still on the list next year and there's only the new ruckman to carry us the whole season it will just take him to be injured and we will be back to Walker and Blicavs.

We're going to lose two rucks (at least) so I think we'll add two as well. My only criteria are (a) no known injury history and (b) see (a).

Right now we've got six guys on the senior list who we see as capable of rucking and five are injured. And yes, some players are more durable than others but as both West and Blake have shown, even guys who are considered 'durable' can suffer injuries that rule them out for a significant period of time. I just think at some point we have to accept that in the current system of capped lists, injuries have the ability to gut your depth, particularly in terms of positional players. My preferred scenario would be to have Stanley, Blicavs, Clark, (maybe) Vardy, unidentified 200cm man and a player like Gore or Gregson on the senior list next year, and if the first five are injured/bad use Read or Lucey and hope for improvement elsewhere.

 

[catempire]

Right now we've got six guys on the senior list who we see as capable of rucking and five are injured. And yes, some players are more durable than others but as both West and Blake have shown, even guys who are considered 'durable' can suffer injuries that rule them out for a significant period of time. I just think at some point we have to accept that in the current system of capped lists, injuries have the ability to gut your depth, particularly in terms of positional players. My preferred scenario would be to have Stanley, Blicavs, Clark, (maybe) Vardy, unidentified 200cm man and a player like Gore or Gregson on the senior list next year, and if the first five are injured/bad use Read or Lucey and hope for improvement elsewhere.

Looks terribly thin to me but I guess it's personal preference.

 

[thejester]

Looks terribly thin to me but I guess it's personal preference.

How many more players would you have to add before it looked thick?

 

[catempire]

How many more players would you have to add before it looked thick?

Good question. I think there are two ways:

- have a monster, durable, superstar that carries your whole ruck hopes (Goldstein, Sandilands)
- hedge your bets and ensure that you have a few viable options and a few backups.

Geelong is clearly in the latter category for now. Part of the issue is we have injuries and part of it is that we have a lot of ruck-forward types rather than genuine ruckmen.

If we could assume that Vardy, Stanley and Clark would each play 22 games next year I wouldn't be too concerned and would be happy with your approach of just getting in another 200cm bloke.

But I think we are in a position where we can't assume anything with those guys and therefore we have to manage our risks by replacing McIntosh and Simpson with two of their kind.

 

[SJ]

Hahahahaha... Being a cats supporter... Its like the footy gods are squaring up the good luck we had in the past decade with a truck load of injuries. Top stuff. Just need Selwood to do an ACL, Hawkins to lose a hand in some kind of tragic accident and everyone else to get leprosy and we should be all square again.

I don't think we had good luck in the previous decade at all. We made many more 'smarter' list management decisions for year after year and as a result the harvest was good.

We lost our All-Australian centre half-back forever on the even of a finals series and on the brink of entering the peak years of his career.

We lost our premiership centre half-forward forever after he came from nowhere to kick 34 goals in a season after only 11 previous games.

Going back to 1999, our #15 and #17 draft selections both showed elite promise which was sidetracked due to unfortunate incidents and circumstances.

But do you know what was the one constant for the bulk of the decade? We made so many low-risk, high-return list management decisions. We took the best we could at the draft - time and time and time again. Which meant we got full careers out of players and didn't give up too much in return. Sure, that didn't work out every time (nothing does) - but if you look as the list as a whole, overall it paid off in spades. That approach has been diluted in recent years and is now clearly the secondary goal behind poaching from other clubs, where you get half a player's career and generally pay over the odds for the privilege (and that's even before getting into durability concerns).

 

[Partridge]

But do you know what was the one constant for the bulk of the decade? We made so many low-risk, high-return list management decisions. We took the best we could at the draft - time and time and time again. Which meant we got full careers out of players and didn't give up too much in return. Sure, that didn't work out every time (nothing does) - but if you look as the list as a whole, overall it paid off in spades. That approach has been diluted in recent years and is now clearly the secondary goal behind poaching from other clubs, where you get half a player's career and generally pay over the odds for the privilege (and that's even before getting into durability concerns).

It's a jarring statement when you consider that in recent years so many of the list management decisions seem to have reversed that philosophy. We really seem to favour high-risk, low-return now. I can think of 4 specific and current examples without blinking.

 

[CharacterFirst]

If you're lucky JUBJUB will give you a gold star.

That's what I'm after.

 

[CharacterFirst]

There you go catempire ,I've given him his prize

Now I can relax.

 

[Mahlepi]

I don't think we had good luck in the previous decade at all. We made many more 'smarter' list management decisions for year after year and as a result the harvest was good.

We lost our All-Australian centre half-back forever on the even of a finals series and on the brink of entering the peak years of his career.

We lost our premiership centre half-forward forever after he came from nowhere to kick 34 goals in a season after only 11 previous games.

Going back to 1999, our #15 and #17 draft selections both showed elite promise which was sidetracked due to unfortunate incidents and circumstances.

But do you know what was the one constant for the bulk of the decade? We made so many low-risk, high-return list management decisions. We took the best we could at the draft - time and time and time again. Which meant we got full careers out of players and didn't give up too much in return. Sure, that didn't work out every time (nothing does) - but if you look as the list as a whole, overall it paid off in spades. That approach has been diluted in recent years and is now clearly the secondary goal behind poaching from other clubs, where you get half a player's career and generally pay over the odds for the privilege (and that's even before getting into durability concerns).

but the landscape has changed lately so we needed to adjust
there was the expansion team drafting, which meant the draft pool was shallower
there was rfa etc

I think geelong have done the right thing, and no-one would have foreseen the injuries we have had
and we have the menzel who was injury free as a junior, and had the poo not been near him in that final who knows where he would be today

 

[Partridge]

but the landscape has changed lately so we needed to adjust
there was the expansion team drafting, which meant the draft pool was shallower
there was rfa etc

To an extent. But there was and is always still talent available. Just 12 months ago we were able to grab Cory Gregson at pick 47. That means every other club had two free hits at him before we took him. I'd say he looks to be tracking ok at the moment. Look at the 2011 draft. We took Joel Hamling at pick 32 (our first pick). The very next pick? Brad Hill. 61 games and counting for Hawthorn, and Hamling played 0 with Geelong. I certainly don't want to claim every pick is going to be perfect - that's wildly unrealistic - but it's equally fatuous to pretend the draft pool is so thin that getting good players is impossible. It's not.

I think geelong have done the right thing, and no-one would have foreseen the injuries we have had
and we have the menzel who was injury free as a junior, and had the poo not been near him in that final who knows where he would be today

Agree that you can't foresee a player getting injured. But you can foresee the wisdom of keeping them after repeated injuries. Especially to the same body part. As the years roll by the risk starts becoming untenable.

 

[Teriyakicat]

Chronos = Greek iirc, based on time, in medical usage, it refers to long term, persistence, more than 3m for a particular problem. Many people use the word chronic to suggest severity, but chronic does not have to be severe. There can be acute flareups of a chronic problem, maybe like Motlop's patellar tendon, so I'm hoping Stanley gets over this without sequelae and without flareups. Only TIME will tell.
The 3 month bit is a guideline, but most chronic problems are easily > 3months.

Thanks Vdubs. I probably use the word more for a persistent injury so I'm not as dumb as I thought

Yep- fingers crossed for Stanley!

 

[Teriyakicat]

Yep!

Well, we only need another 5 players now. Anyone else?

 

[Vdubs]

Thanks Vdubs. I probably use the word more for a persistent injury so I'm not as dumb as I thought

Yep- fingers crossed for Stanley!

Not dumb at all.

 

[Teriyakicat]

It's a jarring statement when you consider that in recent years so many of the list management decisions seem to have reversed that philosophy. We really seem to favour high-risk, low-return now. I can think of 4 specific and current examples without blinking.

High risk, high reward is the probably the philosophy of a team that's looking to plug a few holes and go hard at a premiership. We'd have been extremely happy if it had come off- as many have said, we weren't too far off in 2013. There were probably not a lot of other choices for a short term fix and I daresay there would've had to have been a buy in of the coaches, players and board. Slow and steady was never going to get us anywhere in the short term- how long would it take to develop a ruckman? And there'd be no guarantee that an 18 year old kid would turn out OK anyway. That's been our biggest problem for years- the midfield looked like it'd chug along OK in 2012-13.. and the slingshot tactic rebounding from the HB line was developed to overcome any issues in the middle of the ground.

 

[Vdubs]

It's a jarring statement when you consider that in recent years so many of the list management decisions seem to have reversed that philosophy. We really seem to favour high-risk, low-return now. I can think of 4 specific and current examples without blinking.

Agree; easy to see why though. Up until this year, and I would suggest this is def the last, CS & MC may have thought we were still in a position to contend.
Now, clearly we are not. Having that blend of some remaining champions and promising young ones, maybe some high risk top ups could have worked.

 

[Pavlovs Cat]

I don't think we had good luck in the previous decade at all. We made many more 'smarter' list management decisions for year after year and as a result the harvest was good.

We lost our All-Australian centre half-back forever on the even of a finals series and on the brink of entering the peak years of his career.

We lost our premiership centre half-forward forever after he came from nowhere to kick 34 goals in a season after only 11 previous games.

Going back to 1999, our #15 and #17 draft selections both showed elite promise which was sidetracked due to unfortunate incidents and circumstances.

But do you know what was the one constant for the bulk of the decade? We made so many low-risk, high-return list management decisions. We took the best we could at the draft - time and time and time again. Which meant we got full careers out of players and didn't give up too much in return. Sure, that didn't work out every time (nothing does) - but if you look as the list as a whole, overall it paid off in spades. That approach has been diluted in recent years and is now clearly the secondary goal behind poaching from other clubs, where you get half a player's career and generally pay over the odds for the privilege (and that's even before getting into durability concerns).

Exellent post. Chasing what other clubs are doing is the stuff premiership droughts are made of. If we do drop down the list a bit it's time to back to the draft. Can we beat the souped up Giants even with Paddy, Henderson and Selwood?

Instead we shold be buildng the next lot of kittens. A healthy bloody ruckman wouldn't hurt either.

 

[SJ]

High risk, high reward is the probably the philosophy of a team that's looking to plug a few holes and go hard at a premiership. We'd have been extremely happy if it had come off- as many have said, we weren't too far off in 2013. There were probably not a lot of other choices for a short term fix and I daresay there would've had to have been a buy in of the coaches, players and board. Slow and steady was never going to get us anywhere in the short term- how long would it take to develop a ruckman? And there'd be no guarantee that an 18 year old kid would turn out OK anyway. That's been our biggest problem for years- the midfield looked like it'd chug along OK in 2012-13.. and the slingshot tactic rebounding from the HB line was developed to overcome any issues in the middle of the ground.

The midfield chugged along okay from 2012-2014 but it was very clear to all what trajectory it was on. In 2011 it was very good. In 2007-2009 it was one of the greatest of all time.

I still swear by the fact that every premiership team needs 3-4 A grade midfielders and another 3-4 B grade. An excellent midfield is mandatory to win a flag.

So where has the replenishment of this midfield been? Sure we picked up all these ruck/forwards but at what cost? Honestly now having one of the (if not the absolute) worst midfields in the league has been very foreseeable.

 

[Vdubs]

Exellent post. Chasing what other clubs are doing is the stuff premiership droughts are made of. If we do drop down the list a bit it's time to back to the draft. Can we beat the souped up Giants even with Paddy, Henderson and Selwood?

Instead we shold be buildng the next lot of kittens. A healthy bloody ruckman wouldn't hurt either.

Totally agree with that. Could mean a few REALLY lean years, but we have "done it before" knowledge

 

[Whit3y]

That approach has been diluted in recent years and is now clearly the secondary goal behind poaching from other clubs,

i thought we had the best recruiter in the afl?

has even his form slipped?