Preview 2023 Pre-Season discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Why does every club have to act the same?
They absolutely don't. But it is noticeable that we're the only club in the AFL that carries on this way.
Your example doesn't prove anything. Maybe a 4 point prelim in one of those flags would've been swung the other way if one club prepared for a player playing (or vice versa), selected their lineup and tactics based on it, and then they didn't play (or vice versa).
Given all the other clubs act much more soberly around this matter, the only meaningful comparison is between them and us (not between all the other clubs, who compete from the same standpoint on this issue). On that count, this supposed advantage still had us missing the flag in almost every recently completed season. And I see no evidence that our obtuse behaviour in 'reporting' injuries did anything for us in last year's triumph, either.
I'm not entirely convinced it presents a massive tactical edge but I'm not entirely convinced it's befitting of the emotional rhetoric appended to the end of your rant either.
I'm of the opinion that it presents practically no edge whatsoever. If it did, at least a few other clubs would be into it as well. And I'm also convinced that my contention that it's all a bit silly is far from what could be sensibly considered a rant. I entirely acknowledge that the club will continue to operate what it sees to be 'best practice' in this area. And I will continue to believe that it's nothing more than an unnecessary and unhelpful approach to injury reporting.

And as for any emotion I attach to any of this, I have to say it always makes me want to laugh rather than cry. So the emotional investment for myself is both minimal and marked by mirth.
 
Have you considered that having slightly more medical privacy might be something that is attractive to free agents when deciding which club to choose.
Player privacy is exactly why Geelong don't spew out every bit of injury news ASAP.

Players don't need the scrutiny, extra pressure, fan expectations, or exposure; that comes from making every detail about their health public.
 
They absolutely don't. But it is noticeable that we're the only club in the AFL that carries on this way.

Given all the other clubs act much more soberly around this matter, the only meaningful comparison is between them and us (not between all the other clubs, who compete from the same standpoint on this issue). On that count, this supposed advantage still had us missing the flag in almost every recently completed season. And I see no evidence that our obtuse behaviour in 'reporting' injuries did anything for us in last year's triumph, either.

I'm of the opinion that it presents practically no edge whatsoever. If it did, at least a few other clubs would be into it as well. And I'm also convinced that my contention that it's all a bit silly is far from what could be sensibly considered a rant. I entirely acknowledge that the club will continue to operate what it sees to be 'best practice' in this area. And I will continue to believe that it's nothing more than an unnecessary and unhelpful approach to injury reporting.

And as for any emotion I attach to any of this, I have to say it always makes me want to laugh rather than cry. So the emotional investment for myself is both minimal and marked by mirth.
Fair enough, I wasn't getting the vibe that you were having a pleasant chuckle about it all but tone can be difficult to read online. If I'm throwing out "tiresome, misguided and dismissive of the supporters" at the end of a few paragraphs then it's safe to say I'm fairly ricked off about something.

I can understand it's irksome perhaps for people laying bets or, on a week to week basis, adjusting supercoach teams. Otherwise there's not too much that's actionable for me if the club were to say "Player x should miss y-ish weeks" (that turns out to be wrong 50% of the time) vs "Player x has such and such vague short/medium/long term injury issue".

There was a time where it got excessive simply because of very last minute changes on game day that became a parody of themselves. The famous adjustments on the days of a final based on weather. Hasn't seemed to be too much of that lately.

Last year for instance Duncan resting one week turned into two. We didn't get all the details on why that was but he was cherry ripe for finals and made a superb contribution. I'm happy with that being the outcome and knowing a bit less than the medical staff do on a day to day basis.
 
Fair enough, I wasn't getting the vibe that you were having a pleasant chuckle about it all but tone can be difficult to read online. If I'm throwing out "tiresome, misguided and dismissive of the supporters" at the end of a few paragraphs then it's safe to say I'm fairly ricked off about something.

I can understand it's irksome perhaps for people laying bets or, on a week to week basis, adjusting supercoach teams. Otherwise there's not too much that's actionable for me if the club were to say "Player x should miss y-ish weeks" (that turns out to be wrong 50% of the time) vs "Player x has such and such vague short/medium/long term injury issue".

There was a time where it got excessive simply because of very last minute changes on game day that became a parody of themselves. The famous adjustments on the days of a final based on weather. Hasn't seemed to be too much of that lately.

Last year for instance Duncan resting one week turned into two. We didn't get all the details on why that was but he was cherry ripe for finals and made a superb contribution. I'm happy with that being the outcome and knowing a bit less than the medical staff do on a day to day basis.
I've never been interested in betting on football. Or anything else, for that matter. And I'm not an avid Supercoach devotee, either. So reasons like those mean nothing to me in terms of my interest in this issue.

In the end, though, a situation like the one you describe with Duncan is not my focus here. A week here or there as a player recovers should rightly be considered small beer. It's the way the club carries on with (a) not even reporting of the onset of injury for certain players for weeks/months at a time (Josh Cowan, anyone?); and (b) being painfully slow to update a player's status when they've suffered a setback (James Willis as one of the most recent examples) that just has me rolling my eyes at the ineptitude (yet apparent genius) of it all.

I don't have any problem with the club posting timely info about injuries and then having to correct/amend it along the way. It's the clear intention to obfuscate the details and ignore the clear opportunities to provide simple and concise updates on a player's recovery schedule (like every other club in the comp does) that still seems 'tiresome, misguided and dismissive of the supporters' to me.

Anyway, at least we can both agree the best strategy to deal with this strategy of the GFC is simply to smile and move on. Because the coach's recent expert trolling effort with respect to the issue only reinforces the fact that they are clearly not for changing in this regard.
 
Player privacy is exactly why Geelong don't spew out every bit of injury news ASAP.

Players don't need the scrutiny, extra pressure, fan expectations, or exposure; that comes from making every detail about their health public.
Yes. And I don't get why people think those outside the club should be kept informed of every detail anyway. They are football players. Not my children. I double all injuries run to precise timelines. They come back when they are fit/well enough.
 
Geelong oodies anyone?

 
Geelong oodies anyone?

They look super dumb but... they also look super warm and comfortable....
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Yes. And I don't get why people think those outside the club should be kept informed of every detail anyway. They are football players. Not my children. I double all injuries run to precise timelines. They come back when they are fit/well enough.
The supporters do not need specifics however the club could grade the player as short, mid and long-term. Should a grading have to be adjusted so be it.
 
Good to see Selwood at the club even in an off field role, it’ll be interesting if he starts popping up at training.
An area we have really looked at maximising is giving coaches other roles that allowed them to still influence the players while not being included in the soft cap.
The reduction in the soft cap and extra pressure it was putting on the coaches was something Scott spoke about a lot in previous years. Those extra coaches and improved medical department played a big role last year.
 
Yes. And I don't get why people think those outside the club should be kept informed of every detail anyway. They are football players. Not my children. I double all injuries run to precise timelines. They come back when they are fit/well enough.

Look - Chris Scott is fantastic - dual premiership coach and all the rest of it

However one thing i do find a tad dissappointing re injuries - and i know players can have setbacks - but maybe Scott should look before he leaps a bit

Dangerfield yeah he is definitely playing this week - hes good to go - so as a supporter your excited - you think with Dangerfield in the side Geelong can win - yet hes not in the side

Same thing happened with SAV- early in his career - when he looked promising - yeah - he is a certainty this week - yet also he didnt play
 
I've never been interested in betting on football. Or anything else, for that matter. And I'm not an avid Supercoach devotee, either. So reasons like those mean nothing to me in terms of my interest in this issue.

In the end, though, a situation like the one you describe with Duncan is not my focus here. A week here or there as a player recovers should rightly be considered small beer. It's the way the club carries on with (a) not even reporting of the onset of injury for certain players for weeks/months at a time (Josh Cowan, anyone?); and (b) being painfully slow to update a player's status when they've suffered a setback (James Willis as one of the most recent examples) that just has me rolling my eyes at the ineptitude (yet apparent genius) of it all.

I don't have any problem with the club posting timely info about injuries and then having to correct/amend it along the way. It's the clear intention to obfuscate the details and ignore the clear opportunities to provide simple and concise updates on a player's recovery schedule (like every other club in the comp does) that still seems 'tiresome, misguided and dismissive of the supporters' to me.

Anyway, at least we can both agree the best strategy to deal with this strategy of the GFC is simply to smile and move on. Because the coach's recent expert trolling effort with respect to the issue only reinforces the fact that they are clearly not for changing in this regard.
Perhaps club has been listening to this convo. Simon Lloyd giving an update on how injured players are tracking:

 
Wonder which captain thinks we'll miss finals....

334757719_672630874613788_8630368823110109018_n.png
Probably the same numb nut that left us out put St Kilda in.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top