Player Watch #18: Alex Rance

Remove this Banner Ad

Themanbun said:
That it was a big risk to take and is an exception to the general rule. As I said, if it won you a premiership you'd take it. As the other poster above said, most athletes will feel 'ready' after 4 months or so. But the graft is generally not ready at the point and rather vulnerable. It's not always going to ping and it's not always going to remain secure, but the reinjury rate for early returns is much much higher and not something I'd risk for a player of Rance's quality, he'll be a big part of a flag tilt in 2020.
Click to expand...
My thoughts are that we should do everything we can to win a flag while we’re in our window as they’re not open for long. If we get to the end of the season and we’re in a position to contend then I would be all for bringing Rance back.

There is also no guarantee that we contend next season. Look at Melbourne this year. Things can change very quickly in this sport. Our top end players are nearing the end of their careers. This year could well and truly be our last roll of the dice.
 
Vassp said:
That’s realy uncalled for, the guy said nothing.....
Rance is a super star of the comp and will attract lots of attention, in this case if was friendly.
Are there any players who do not play for us that you admire? There has to be someone?
Click to expand...
I admire gazza actually wish he played for us
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Themanbun said:
Sorry to intrude guys, but this I believe is a risky move. I won't name names, but physios in the footy world are calling it a bit of a 'blast from the past' with this apparently impending return.

It's not Rance's muscle conditioning or stability they're concerned about, but the graft. You never know how weak they are at any given point (we have a general guide, and at Alex's stage its far from full strength), until if and when they go pop.

When they first started reconstructing ACLs, surgeons were getting people back within 14 weeks. Which seemed incredible, until the reinjury rate went through the roof. They then moved their thinking from muscle based "scheduling" to the integrity of the tendon you've just screwed into a blokes leg.

This is super risky, and unless you think this move will nab you a premiership this year, perhaps not something to be applauded.

Here's hoping if he returns early that he remains safe.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your insights - could be a short term win for a long term loss to play him this season
 
Themanbun said:
Sorry to intrude guys, but this I believe is a risky move. I won't name names, but physios in the footy world are calling it a bit of a 'blast from the past' with this apparently impending return.

It's not Rance's muscle conditioning or stability they're concerned about, but the graft. You never know how weak they are at any given point (we have a general guide, and at Alex's stage its far from full strength), until if and when they go pop.

When they first started reconstructing ACLs, surgeons were getting people back within 14 weeks. Which seemed incredible, until the reinjury rate went through the roof. They then moved their thinking from muscle based "scheduling" to the integrity of the tendon you've just screwed into a blokes leg.

This is super risky, and unless you think this move will nab you a premiership this year, perhaps not something to be applauded.

Here's hoping if he returns early that he remains safe.
Click to expand...


Fully get where you are coming from but if there is 1 thing I have learnt about our club over the last few years is our medical guys take zero risks with player returns from injury.

E.g cotch, Edward's and astbury all could have played before the bye I think but we opted to hold them back and get some extra rest into them.

Same thing will apply to rance. The doctors wont let him set foot on the field unless they are comfortable.


But his progression are good signs. How he pulls up after each session is a good indication as to how its all going.


The goldsack one is identical in terms of graft and surgeon which makes it interesting.


No doubt there is huge risk attached to it.

But if we are looking like making finals in s reasonable position and he is deemed ready I think we have to look at taking the risk.
 
ARES said:
Hey Rance...Easy Tiger, don't rush

After having 2 knee recos, it isn't about the muscles surrounding the knee, it's the internal graft getting physically strong enough and able to cope

It's easy to feel ready as the knee is strong due to all the work one the quads and hammy, but the unknown factor is where the internal grafts strength is at.
I was playing outdoor cricket at 3 1/2 months...
Knee felt strong as, but it was a risky move. I wore a $120 knee brace for that extra stability and feel it helped heaps, wore it for 10 months as I felt at ease knowing I have that little bit of extra support. Wore it very tight and felt my movement was good in it, didn't play footy for a year but casual outdoor soccer.
After the year, felt 100%
Click to expand...

Yeah very similar story wore a knee support every soccer match
 
Roksman said:
View attachment 701773

He comes back early, he can injure himself.
He can take extra long and still reinjure himself.
This is just how it works, no one will ever know but one thing is for certain... The doctors/surgeons will not be using guesswork as some poster is suggesting.
Click to expand...

There is also a person physiology which makes them prone to reinjuring

I’m sure the docs have it in hand
 
Rance has served our club to elite levels and he’d be in our best top 10 of all time.
I’d be happy for him to come back in all fairness but under the right conditions, if he passed all the fitness tests and he was at minimal risk of a repeat serious injury*. A champ like him comes along in a lifetime and ld hate to see him go down again.
 
Michaels said:
Fully get where you are coming from but if there is 1 thing I have learnt about our club over the last few years is our medical guys take zero risks with player returns from injury.

E.g cotch, Edward's and astbury all could have played before the bye I think but we opted to hold them back and get some extra rest into them.

Same thing will apply to rance. The doctors wont let him set foot on the field unless they are comfortable.


But his progression are good signs. How he pulls up after each session is a good indication as to how its all going.


The goldsack one is identical in terms of graft and surgeon which makes it interesting.


No doubt there is huge risk attached to it.

But if we are looking like making finals in s reasonable position and he is deemed ready I think we have to look at taking the risk.
Click to expand...

I didn’t think goldsack had surgery so not the same
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Rance has probably two seasons left in him, maybe three, same as Cotch and Jack most likely.
You probably couldn’t pick more important players to have injuries than we’ve had this year and we’re still in the hunt so I think we’re a better than average chance of being up there again next year.
But having said that, if they did all agree and decide to play Rance, Rance would be part of that, if he did play and helped us get to the Grand Final and he did do it again...

I don’t know that’s the wrong decision
 
Michaels said:
Let me make myself very clear.

Anyone who wants to attack oppo posters for no reason at all is copping days.

No need for that ********, we are better than that.
Click to expand...

North Melbourne supporters probably deserve a hostile reception here after this disgraceful affair in the 28th renewal of the Victorian Football Association:


The 1904 Victorian Football Association season was the 28th season of the Australian rules football competition. The premiership was won by the North Melbourne Football Club in controversial circumstances, after minor premiers Richmond forfeited the challenge final in protest at the appointment of umpire. It was North Melbourne's second premiership in a row.
1904 premiership season
Teams10
PremiersNorth Melbourne
(2nd premiership)
Minor premiersRichmond
(2nd minor premiership)
← 1903
1905 →

The home-and-away season was played over eighteen rounds, with each club playing the others twice; then, the top four clubs contested a finals series under the amended Argus system to determine the premiers for the season.

TEAMPWLDPFPAPTS
1904 VFA Ladder
1Richmond181521100858362
2Footscray18143186454758
3North Melbourne (P)18135092754552
4Port Melbourne18135088159352
5West Melbourne18108083561640
6Williamstown18108076365540
7Brunswick187110691103128
8Prahran18414077898516
9Essendon Town18315061392512
10Preston18018044713270
Key: P = Played, W = Won, L = Lost, D = Drawn, PF = Points For, PA = Points Against, (P) = Premiers, PTS = Premiership pointsSource[1]

Semi Finals
Saturday, 10 SeptemberRichmond 4.15 (39)def. byNorth Melbourne 5.11 (41)East Melbourne Cricket Ground(crowd: 8,000)[2]
Saturday, 17 SeptemberFootscray 7.12 (54)def.Port Melbourne 5.7 (37)East Melbourne Cricket Ground(crowd: 8,000)[3]
Preliminary Final
Saturday, 24 SeptemberFootscray 5.2 (32)def. byNorth Melbourne 6.13 (49)East Melbourne Cricket Ground(crowd: 12,000)[4]

The challenge final for the major premiership was scheduled for Saturday, 1 October at the East Melbourne Cricket Ground. However, on Wednesday 27 September, Richmond informed the Association that it would not play the final if Mr Allen was appointed as the umpire.[5] The Association refused to appoint an alternative umpire, so Richmond refused to play; accordingly, the match was scratched and North Melbourne was awarded the premiership.[6]
Background to Richmond's decision
Allen was regarded by all of the clubs in the Association, including Richmond, as one of its most competent and unbiased decision-makers, and he was accordingly appointed to umpire in all four finals in 1904;[7] but he had drawn criticism for his poor control over rough play in two of the semi-finals, which ultimately led to Richmond's protest.
Before the third quarter in the semi-final between Richmond and North Melbourne on 10 September, Richmond accused several of the North Melbourne players of wearing iron spikes in their boots, and raised its complaint with Allen. North Melbourne captain Noonan refused to allow Allen to inspect his players' boots, and after a delay of about fifteen minutes, play resumed without North Melbourne's boots having been inspected. Richmond went on to lodge a complaint to the Association against Allen for failing to insist upon the inspection.[2] According to Association secretary Mr T. J. Evans, Allen had inspected the North Melbourne players' boots prior to the team leaving the pavilion, and that Noonan had refused to submit to a second inspection on the grounds that it was only minutes later. Noonan was reprimanded by the Association for the refusal.[7]
Allen was formally appointed as umpire for the challenge final on Wednesday, 14 September, with no objections from the Richmond delegate present at the appointment. During the week, Allen personally received a sarcastic letter from Richmond secretary, Mr Peckham-Beachcroft, in which was enclosed a book of rules; this letter was submitted by Allen to an Association general meeting on Saturday 17 September. On Tuesday, 20 September, the Association first received correspondence from Richmond regarding its complaint against Allen's handling of the boot inspection in the semi-final; the letter was dated Tuesday 13 September.[7] On Saturday 26 September, Allen umpired the semi-final between Footscray and North Melbourne, and attracted heavy criticism for keeping poor control over the game, allowing too much rough play, and permitting North Melbourne to engage in persistent time-wasting tactics.[5]
According to Peckham-Beachcroft, the Richmond captain and several of its players had become concerned about Allen's lack of control over the game, so they did not wish to take the field against North Melbourne under those circumstances.[8] As a result, the committee informed the Association on Wednesday 27 September that it would not play the match unless Allen's appointment as umpire were overturned and he be replaced by another candidate.[5] Richmond lobbied the Association to make a new appointment to as late as the evening of Friday 30 September,[8] but the Association refused to do so. This was in large part because there had been no procedural irregularity with Allen's appointment; Richmond had objected to Allen's performances by letter, but the Richmond delegate present at Allen's appointment had raised no objections.[7] Some delegates, most vocally Mr Harris from West Melbourne, were also motivated by ensuring that one club should not be allowed to dictate to the entire Association.[6]
As gate takings from finals were divided amongst the clubs, Richmond's refusal to play had a financial impact felt across all ten clubs. Williamstown, for example, recorded in its 1905 annual general meeting that its bank balance was almost £20 poorer as a direct result of the cancelled final.[9]
This incident remains the only time that an Association team has forfeited a premiership-deciding final. Port Melbourne nearly staged a walk-off during the second quarter of the 1967 Division 1 Grand Final which would have resulted in a forfeit, but in that case the club committee intervened to ensure the team continued to play.

1904 VFA Grand Final
Saturday, 1 October (cancelled)Richmonddef. byNorth MelbourneEast Melbourne Cricket Ground



Q1
Q2
Q3
Final

Umpires: Allen




Nevertheless, our North Melbourne friend posted in a very respectful and insightful manner on this thread, so well umpired Michaels. It does make me wonder whether Themanbun is really a North supporter though.
 
Meteoric Rise said:
North Melbourne supporters probably deserve a hostile reception here after this disgraceful affair in the 28th renewal of the Victorian Football Association:


The 1904 Victorian Football Association season was the 28th season of the Australian rules football competition. The premiership was won by the North Melbourne Football Club in controversial circumstances, after minor premiers Richmond forfeited the challenge final in protest at the appointment of umpire. It was North Melbourne's second premiership in a row.
1904 premiership season
Teams10
PremiersNorth Melbourne
(2nd premiership)
Minor premiersRichmond
(2nd minor premiership)
← 1903
1905 →

The home-and-away season was played over eighteen rounds, with each club playing the others twice; then, the top four clubs contested a finals series under the amended Argus system to determine the premiers for the season.

TEAMPWLDPFPAPTS
1904 VFA Ladder
1Richmond181521100858362
2Footscray18143186454758
3North Melbourne (P)18135092754552
4Port Melbourne18135088159352
5West Melbourne18108083561640
6Williamstown18108076365540
7Brunswick187110691103128
8Prahran18414077898516
9Essendon Town18315061392512
10Preston18018044713270
Key: P = Played, W = Won, L = Lost, D = Drawn, PF = Points For, PA = Points Against, (P) = Premiers, PTS = Premiership pointsSource[1]

Semi Finals
Saturday, 10 SeptemberRichmond 4.15 (39)def. byNorth Melbourne 5.11 (41)East Melbourne Cricket Ground(crowd: 8,000)[2]
Saturday, 17 SeptemberFootscray 7.12 (54)def.Port Melbourne 5.7 (37)East Melbourne Cricket Ground(crowd: 8,000)[3]
Preliminary Final
Saturday, 24 SeptemberFootscray 5.2 (32)def. byNorth Melbourne 6.13 (49)East Melbourne Cricket Ground(crowd: 12,000)[4]

The challenge final for the major premiership was scheduled for Saturday, 1 October at the East Melbourne Cricket Ground. However, on Wednesday 27 September, Richmond informed the Association that it would not play the final if Mr Allen was appointed as the umpire.[5] The Association refused to appoint an alternative umpire, so Richmond refused to play; accordingly, the match was scratched and North Melbourne was awarded the premiership.[6]
Background to Richmond's decision
Allen was regarded by all of the clubs in the Association, including Richmond, as one of its most competent and unbiased decision-makers, and he was accordingly appointed to umpire in all four finals in 1904;[7] but he had drawn criticism for his poor control over rough play in two of the semi-finals, which ultimately led to Richmond's protest.
Before the third quarter in the semi-final between Richmond and North Melbourne on 10 September, Richmond accused several of the North Melbourne players of wearing iron spikes in their boots, and raised its complaint with Allen. North Melbourne captain Noonan refused to allow Allen to inspect his players' boots, and after a delay of about fifteen minutes, play resumed without North Melbourne's boots having been inspected. Richmond went on to lodge a complaint to the Association against Allen for failing to insist upon the inspection.[2] According to Association secretary Mr T. J. Evans, Allen had inspected the North Melbourne players' boots prior to the team leaving the pavilion, and that Noonan had refused to submit to a second inspection on the grounds that it was only minutes later. Noonan was reprimanded by the Association for the refusal.[7]
Allen was formally appointed as umpire for the challenge final on Wednesday, 14 September, with no objections from the Richmond delegate present at the appointment. During the week, Allen personally received a sarcastic letter from Richmond secretary, Mr Peckham-Beachcroft, in which was enclosed a book of rules; this letter was submitted by Allen to an Association general meeting on Saturday 17 September. On Tuesday, 20 September, the Association first received correspondence from Richmond regarding its complaint against Allen's handling of the boot inspection in the semi-final; the letter was dated Tuesday 13 September.[7] On Saturday 26 September, Allen umpired the semi-final between Footscray and North Melbourne, and attracted heavy criticism for keeping poor control over the game, allowing too much rough play, and permitting North Melbourne to engage in persistent time-wasting tactics.[5]
According to Peckham-Beachcroft, the Richmond captain and several of its players had become concerned about Allen's lack of control over the game, so they did not wish to take the field against North Melbourne under those circumstances.[8] As a result, the committee informed the Association on Wednesday 27 September that it would not play the match unless Allen's appointment as umpire were overturned and he be replaced by another candidate.[5] Richmond lobbied the Association to make a new appointment to as late as the evening of Friday 30 September,[8] but the Association refused to do so. This was in large part because there had been no procedural irregularity with Allen's appointment; Richmond had objected to Allen's performances by letter, but the Richmond delegate present at Allen's appointment had raised no objections.[7] Some delegates, most vocally Mr Harris from West Melbourne, were also motivated by ensuring that one club should not be allowed to dictate to the entire Association.[6]
As gate takings from finals were divided amongst the clubs, Richmond's refusal to play had a financial impact felt across all ten clubs. Williamstown, for example, recorded in its 1905 annual general meeting that its bank balance was almost £20 poorer as a direct result of the cancelled final.[9]
This incident remains the only time that an Association team has forfeited a premiership-deciding final. Port Melbourne nearly staged a walk-off during the second quarter of the 1967 Division 1 Grand Final which would have resulted in a forfeit, but in that case the club committee intervened to ensure the team continued to play.

1904 VFA Grand Final
Saturday, 1 October (cancelled)Richmonddef. byNorth MelbourneEast Melbourne Cricket Ground



Q1
Q2
Q3
Final

Umpires: Allen




Nevertheless, our North Melbourne friend posted in a very respectful and insightful manner on this thread, so well umpired Michaels. It does make me wonder whether Themanbun is really a North supporter though.
Click to expand...
and 120 years later the umps still hate us and ream us every week. some things never change
 
ARES said:
Hey Rance...Easy Tiger, don't rush

After having 2 knee recos, it isn't about the muscles surrounding the knee, it's the internal graft getting physically strong enough and able to cope

It's easy to feel ready as the knee is strong due to all the work one the quads and hammy, but the unknown factor is where the internal grafts strength is at.
I was playing outdoor cricket at 3 1/2 months...
Knee felt strong as, but it was a risky move. I wore a $120 knee brace for that extra stability and feel it helped heaps, wore it for 10 months as I felt at ease knowing I have that little bit of extra support. Wore it very tight and felt my movement was good in it, didn't play footy for a year but casual outdoor soccer.
After the year, felt 100%
Click to expand...

Yeah, the only reason I came across this conversation between surgeons and physios was because I had mine reconstructed back in Feb. The bloke who did mine and the physio don't have an official Richmond affiliation, but a couple of other clubs here in Melbourne.

Their concerns were basically exactly as you said. Elite athletes are always going to have muscle conditioning up to scratch not long after the surgery, which makes them feel 'ready' to go (which is why they were showing concern at the discussion around being ahead of 'schedule', being that the graft itself is a great unknown and thus doesn't really have a schedule, so to speak). They theorise that when graft is harvested from the hamstring it is super strong at that point immediately after the surgery (but swelling and proprioception mean you still feel s**t). Then between 6-12 weeks it weakens incredibly, then from about 5-6 months onwards it gradually gets stronger as it lays down its own collagen before theoretically reaching a peak at 24 months (ready for return to sport after 9-12 months).

I piped up because I was interested in whether or not Alex would make it back, and since he was the topic of their conversation, they gave me a little bit of the 'history' of ACL reconstructive surgery and how they used to actually get blokes back on the park in 4-5 months quite regularly. I thought that maybe Richmond supporters would want that relayed so that they could make a better assessment for themselves on the realistic chances of Rance getting back in time for a finals tilt or if it does happen, the risk appetite for doing so.
 
Themanbun said:
Yeah, the only reason I came across this conversation between surgeons and physios was because I had mine reconstructed back in Feb. The bloke who did mine and the physio don't have an official Richmond affiliation, but a couple of other clubs here in Melbourne.

Their concerns were basically exactly as you said. Elite athletes are always going to have muscle conditioning up to scratch not long after the surgery, which makes them feel 'ready' to go (which is why they were showing concern at the discussion around being ahead of 'schedule', being that the graft itself is a great unknown and thus doesn't really have a schedule, so to speak). They theorise that when graft is harvested from the hamstring it is super strong at that point immediately after the surgery (but swelling and proprioception mean you still feel ****). Then between 6-12 weeks it weakens incredibly, then from about 5-6 months onwards it gradually gets stronger as it lays down its own collagen before theoretically reaching a peak at 24 months (ready for return to sport after 9-12 months).

I piped up because I was interested in whether or not Alex would make it back, and since he was the topic of their conversation, they gave me a little bit of the 'history' of ACL reconstructive surgery and how they used to actually get blokes back on the park in 4-5 months quite regularly. I thought that maybe Richmond supporters would want that relayed so that they could make a better assessment for themselves on the realistic chances of Rance getting back in time for a finals tilt or if it does happen, the risk appetite for doing so.
Click to expand...


The one noticable difference to what you just posted to Rance is the type of graft used, which plays a big part in this I suspect.

It appears (not 100% confirmed) that a quadricep graft was used, not the hamstring graft.

This was a huge part of the reason why Goldsack was able to get back earlier than expected IMO.

I have had both the hamstring and a LARS reconstruction and that weakness is definitely felt from the hamstring graft for a long long time.

The LARS graft however felt very strong straight away.

Obviously this isnt a LARS situation but just showing that the type of graft used can definitely play a part in the timeline I suspect.
 
Zoom said:
My thoughts are that we should do everything we can to win a flag while we’re in our window as they’re not open for long. If we get to the end of the season and we’re in a position to contend then I would be all for bringing Rance back.

There is also no guarantee that we contend next season. Look at Melbourne this year. Things can change very quickly in this sport. Our top end players are nearing the end of their careers. This year could well and truly be our last roll of the dice.
Click to expand...

I hear your sentiment, but not Melbourne, didn’t rate them last year and didn’t this year. Couldn’t believe how much they were talked up.

It’s about culture. Tigs have spent a long time working on a positive culture. A culture that will stand the test of time.

Richmond finally owned its shitness and started dealing with it when Wallace was appointed (allowed the board to get out of the spotlight).

Melbourne has never owned its tanking, neither has the dons its drugs or Carlton its brown paper bags. As a result I reckon they will be tainted for a long time.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Michaels said:
The one noticable difference to what you just posted to Rance is the type of graft used, which plays a big part in this I suspect.

It appears (not 100% confirmed) that a quadricep graft was used, not the hamstring graft.

This was a huge part of the reason why Goldsack was able to get back earlier than expected IMO.

I have had both the hamstring and a LARS reconstruction and that weakness is definitely felt from the hamstring graft for a long long time.

The LARS graft however felt very strong straight away.

Obviously this isnt a LARS situation but just showing that the type of graft used can definitely play a part in the timeline I suspect.
Click to expand...

Yep, they went through all the options with me and apparently use quad graft for athletes who need to retain sprint speed. I just went with what's most commonly used so fewer complications. But the graft itself still goes through the process of decay then laying collagen to strengthen which occurs independent of the muscle gain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top