Resource Collingwood's 2015 injury situation

[76woodenspooners]

Collingwood's run of injuries continue.

Are these just a natural part of being a footy club? If we want to get serious about eliminating our injuries, should we become a chess club instead?

Or are these problems so endemic that we must burn at the stake everybody from the President to the bootstudder?

A step-by-step account of how we got here. Please let me know if any other events should be added - include a link to the relevant discussion thread.

17th July 2014: A canary in the coal mine - a BigFooty poster on the H&F board posts a rather prophetic analysis of Collingwood's fitness profile mid-season. Many of his predictions become true (read this post and those that follow) ...here

18th Aug 2014: The club brings in experts to investigate the cause of their soft tissue injury woes...here

1st Sept 2014: The club briefs the members on season 2014, including a presentation about our injury woes ...here

28th Sept 2014: We let our strength coach go (Marty Girvan) ...here

18th Oct 2014: We let our club doctor go (peter Baquie), and bring in the club doctor from Geelong (Chris Bradshaw) ...here

10th Nov 2014: Rodney Eade moves on, Neil Balme returns ...here

13th Nov 2014: We recruit a biomechanics expert ...here

16th Dec 2014: Ben Reid injures his 'good' calf ...here

4th Jan 2015: Ben Reid flies off to Germany ...here

9th Jan 2015: First injury report for 2015 ...here

Let me know as new events happen and I'll keep this updated.

 

[Bay Pie]

Taylor Adams cut his scrotum shaving while on holidays.

Don't ask for a source but it's 100% legit. He's going for some more speed.

 

[Reykjavik]

Taylor Adams cut his scrotum shaving while on holidays.

Don't ask for a source but it's 100% legit. He's going for some more speed.

Now that's a real one percenter.

 

[Hagla]

I'm sure there'll be a few regulars who revel in this thread and blow every single niggle out of proportion. We really aren't in a bad situation injury wise at this stage in the pre season though. One major concern in Reid (which could quite possibly be fixed on his trip to Germany), a couple of niggles with Toovey and Moore and a few on the mend from last year in Scharenberg and Macaffer...

 

[Trickster]

Fascinating read 76ws. It sounds a bit like amateur hour if we've been on the wrong path for a few years and have not even identified this to now to be able to remedy the situation earlier.

Given we're one of the wealthier clubs, it staggers me that we just don't have the best personnel across the board from assistant coaches to medicos to fitness staff etc. we may be rectifying this now with recent changes but to be so far off in some areas is disappointing. I'd be willing for us to pay a sizeable amount of the so-called luxury tax on footy dept spend if it meant we had the very best across the board enabling us to keep our players on the park and subsequently having the best resources available to get them to play their best footy.

Hopefully this is being addressed.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Fascinating read 76ws. It sounds a bit like amateur hour if we've been on the wrong path for a few years and have not even identified this to now to be able to remedy the situation earlier.

Given we're one of the wealthier clubs, it staggers me that we just don't have the best personnel across the board from assistant coaches to medicos to fitness staff etc. we may be rectifying this now with recent changes but to be so far off in some areas is disappointing. I'd be willing for us to pay a sizeable amount of the so-called luxury tax on footy dept spend if it meant we had the very best across the board enabling us to keep our players on the park and subsequently having the best resources available to get them to play their best footy.

Hopefully this is being addressed.

The definition of "best personnel across the board" is a difficult one.

Paying top dollar doesn't necessarily get the best staff either - often there's little correlation.

An example ...

Do we recruit a young candidate? (Who is cheaper, enthusiastic, puts in long hours, ambitious, has little or no experience, is adaptable, is innovative, whose knowledge is up-to-date, is more of a risk taker)

Or do we recruit an older candidate (Who is more expensive, who wants more work-life balance, who is experienced, who is more set in their ways and reticent to change, who is wiser, is less of a risk taker)

Another example ...

Do we recruit a candidate who is solid and reliable (who is a known quantity, who isn't going to bring any creativity or competitive advantage to the role)

Or do we recruit somebody who is innovative and creative (who is an unknown quanitity, who could develop intellectual property and bring competitive advantage to the role)

... There's a real science (and a lot of luck) behind building the right team.

Consider the situation with senior coaches. How often does a club use a blank cheque to get "the best proven coach" and win a Premiership out of it? We did it with Malthouse back in 2000. Brisbane did it with Matthews back in 1999. Carlton did it with Parkin back in 1981. Hawthorn did it with Jeans back in 1981. We got close with Hafey. North did it with Barassi back in 1973. Carlton did it with Percey Bentley back in 1941. Essendon did it with Jack Worrell back in 1911. Any others? Only 7 times in the history of the AFL / VFL.

 

[rustyg70]

Now that's a real one percenter.

Good to see he is still going hard at the ball.

 

[35Daicos]

Consider the situation with senior coaches. How often does a club use a blank cheque to get "the best proven coach" and win a Premiership out of it? We did it with Malthouse back in 2000. Brisbane did it with Matthews back in 1999. Carlton did it with Parkin back in 1981. Hawthorn did it with Jeans back in 1981. We got close with Hafey. North did it with Barassi back in 1973. Carlton did it with Percey Bentley back in 1941. Essendon did it with Jack Worrell back in 1911. Any others? Only 7 times in the history of the AFL / VFL.

Frank 'Checker' Hughes - Premiership coach at Richmond then Melbourne.

 

[Trickster]

The definition of "best personnel across the board" is a difficult one.

Paying top dollar doesn't necessarily get the best staff either - often there's little correlation.

An example ...

Do we recruit a young candidate? (Who is cheaper, enthusiastic, puts in long hours, ambitious, has little or no experience, is adaptable, is innovative, whose knowledge is up-to-date, is more of a risk taker)

Or do we recruit an older candidate (Who is more expensive, who wants more work-life balance, who is experienced, who is more set in their ways and reticent to change, who is wiser, is less of a risk taker)

Another example ...

Do we recruit a candidate who is solid and reliable (who is a known quantity, who isn't going to bring any creativity or competitive advantage to the role)

Or do we recruit somebody who is innovative and creative (who is an unknown quanitity, who could develop intellectual property and bring competitive advantage to the role)

... There's a real science (and a lot of luck) behind building the right team.

Consider the situation with senior coaches. How often does a club use a blank cheque to get "the best proven coach" and win a Premiership out of it? We did it with Malthouse back in 2000. Brisbane did it with Matthews back in 1999. Carlton did it with Parkin back in 1981. Hawthorn did it with Jeans back in 1981. We got close with Hafey. North did it with Barassi back in 1973. Carlton did it with Percey Bentley back in 1941. Essendon did it with Jack Worrell back in 1911. Any others? Only 7 times in the history of the AFL / VFL.

I question whether there's little correlation with paying top dollar and getting the best personnel. Quite often the key is identifying who the best personnel is and if you have elite people in key positions across the organisation, generally it's a lot easier to make the right assessments.

You have a valid question on recruiting a young candidate versus an experienced one (whether coach, fitness head etc), but quite often those clubs who take a punt on the inexperienced option do so because they cannot attract or afford the 'more experienced' option. For example Clarkson would be up there or is clearly the best current day coach, but if Hawthorn had the option of Matthews back in 2005 or Clarkson, undoubtedly they would have chosen Matthews. So it worked (or they made it work) in Hawthorns favour now but on the flip side how many times has an untried option gone bust?

You mention at least 7 occasions has the proven option resulted in the coach being a premiership coach, but those coaches have won at least 15 flags as most won multiple flags when recruited.

So recruiting the current best staff (or top echelon at least) will result in a better chance to win a flag. Using Melbourne as an example, they've gone for Roos now because the unproven coaches previously hadn't made an impact, but will Roos be there long enough to turn the club around? Probably not, so you'd question whether that was the best appointment in that instance.

Same with Malthouse at Carlton, they've perceived (or in their mind identified) that he's a top coach with the credentials to get them a flag but their existing staff (again not elite) made errors assessing their current list which means Malthouse may need 5 years to mould a list to contend rather than challenge immediately.

So my overall thoughts and concerns are that in an era where we couldn't use the chequebook to buy players and win flags like Carlton in the 70s-80s, I believe we missed a chance to use our financial might to have snared more flags by having elite staff across the board rather than the 1 flag we won since 2002 when we've been in contention for top 4 most years. Luck may have played some part, but management may have played some also.

 

[Art Corvelay]

Who's doing the injury reports this year? I'm hoping for someone like Dan Brown. Might as well make the fiction that is our injury updates obvious.

 

[Reykjavik]

Good to see he is still going hard at the ball.

It does call his ball handling skills into question though.

 

[76woodenspooners]

So recruiting the current best staff (or top echelon at least) will result in a better chance to win a flag. Using Melbourne as an example, they've gone for Roos now because the unproven coaches previously hadn't made an impact, but will Roos be there long enough to turn the club around? Probably not, so you'd question whether that was the best appointment in that instance.

Generally speaking, a more experienced person will know how to build a team around them and what systems, reporting structures, etc, etc need to be set up.

Melbourne seemed to be starting from practically zero, so it made good sense to get somebody with Roos experience in as an agent of change. Once the operation is set up, he can move on and let somebody else put in the hard work and heartache and sleepless lights running it.

Same with Malthouse at Carlton, they've perceived (or in their mind identified) that he's a top coach with the credentials to get them a flag but their existing staff (again not elite) made errors assessing their current list which means Malthouse may need 5 years to mould a list to contend rather than challenge immediately.

Malthouse to Carlton makes less sense to me. Perhaps they expected by getting in an experienced coach they could get some extra 10% or something that would win them a flag? Their player recruiting strategy certainly doesn't indicate that they've been building for the future. Wouldn't surprise me if Mick's contract (due to expire end of 2015) is not renewed.

 

[Hagla]

That's a story for another time

There's definitely more to our injury woes than meets the eye though...

Hmmm... it sounds like a story for right now. You're implying we are such a basket case that if it's true it deserves to be in the open. I honestly believe most of these rumors are bs, I just don't buy into the part where regular people are the experts and the highly paid staff are bumbling fools... I could be convinced with a plausible story though I guess.

Also that Essendon supporter in the fitness thread didn't really make any bold predictions. I'd be more impressed if he said any of that stuff before we went through 2-3 years of injury woes. Sounds like he's probably just a personal trainer who thinks he knows everything and doesn't actually have any real qualifications. He has been watching from afar and putting two and two together. This makes him seem like he's ahead of the game even though he only really made one or two statements (mainly after the fact) and then reported on what happened as the thread progressed. That made the one statement he made look like he got 5 predictions right.

 

[Trickster]

Generally speaking, a more experienced person will know how to build a team around them and what systems, reporting structures, etc, etc need to be set up.

Melbourne seemed to be starting from practically zero, so it made good sense to get somebody with Roos experience in as an agent of change. Once the operation is set up, he can move on and let somebody else put in the hard work and heartache and sleepless lights running it.

Totally agree an experienced person knows what to do (and this applies across all areas of a footy club). Melbourne had 2 failed attempts with inexperienced senior coaches so they had to go down this approach from a membership / sponsorship perspective also, particularly with the afl tipping money in. It's definitely the right approach and more so if they could have got a Roos in for longer. If things fail with Dew, they might not get many more chances to get things right, but ideally they would have had Roos for 6 years not 2-3.

Malthouse to Carlton makes less sense to me. Perhaps they expected by getting in an experienced coach they could get some extra 10% or something that would win them a flag? Their player recruiting strategy certainly doesn't indicate that they've been building for the future. Wouldn't surprise me if Mick's contract (due to expire end of 2015) is not renewed.

This sums up why I think we need to be prepared to pay to get elite personnel across the board. Carlton blindly thought they were top 4 material, over-rated the list and thought Malthouse would get them contending straight-away. While they thought they'd bring in an elite coach, their list manager / footy dept were obviously sub-standard to believe they were that close. So going for Malthouse - who they believe is elite (and daisy also!!!) - if they were close to a flag would have been the right call, but given his age and possibly how long he may be coaching for it might be a poor decision from the board / footy dept if as you mention he doesn't get his contract renewed.

So in this scenario, the board sack Ratten and hire and then sack Malthouse, but really it's their own inadequacies for over-rating the list and then not giving Malthouse the appropriate time to re-build completely that have them in this situation. Having said that if he coaches for 5-6 years and they don't move forward, then obviously he's gone.

So it goes back to my initial comment of having the best people in place to not make those mistakes that Carlton did of over-rating their list and then expecting Malthouse to conjure a miracle. If they understood they were at least 5 years away, they could have made a more fully-informed decision.

Using our situation as an example, I would like to see the best people in place across the broad to have the right program's in place to minimise our injury list and ensure our players are as fit as possible to play the game the way it's heading. From afar, I'm reasonably happy with recruiting, am prepared to give time to Bucks to coach but our most pressing issue at the moment is fitness and injuries which hopefully we're now critically evaluating and soon remedying (particularly in light of the previous thread you linked). You can say I might be expecting a lot, but 2 flags in 56 years for us shouldn't be acceptable.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Hmmm... it sounds like a story for right now. You're implying we are such a basket case that if it's true it deserves to be in the open. I honestly believe most of these rumors are bs, I just don't buy into the part where regular people are the experts and the highly paid staff are bumbling fools... I could be convinced with a plausible story though I guess.

Nah, it's difficult to make any real assessment of our current situation when we've got a new footy Director, a new club doctor, a new biomech person who are only a month or two into their new jobs.

Also that Essendon supporter in the fitness thread didn't really make any bold predictions. I'd be more impressed if he said any of that stuff before we went through 2-3 years of injury woes. Sounds like he's probably just a personal trainer who thinks he knows everything and doesn't actually have any real qualifications.

He's posted his qualifications.

He has been watching from afar and putting two and two together. This makes him seem like he's ahead of the game even though he only really made one or two statements (mainly after the fact) and then reported on what happened as the thread progressed. That made the one statement he made look like he got 5 predictions right.

He opinioned back in July that our weights regime was faulty.

The club orders a review in August.

The club sacks its weights coach as a result of the review.

He's been more specific about our problems than any other posters I've read. If you've read something more substantial then let me know and I'll add it to the OP.

Gotta admit, it's a tad more substantial than the usual shrill SACK DAVORAN!!! rhetoric?

 

[76woodenspooners]

Totally agree an experienced person knows what to do (and this applies across all areas of a footy club). Melbourne had 2 failed attempts with inexperienced senior coaches so they had to go down this approach from a membership / sponsorship perspective also, particularly with the afl tipping money in. It's definitely the right approach and more so if they could have got a Roos in for longer. If things fail with Dew, they might not get many more chances to get things right, but ideally they would have had Roos for 6 years not 2-3.


This sums up why I think we need to be prepared to pay to get elite personnel across the board. Carlton blindly thought they were top 4 material, over-rated the list and thought Malthouse would get them contending straight-away. While they thought they'd bring in an elite coach, their list manager / footy dept were obviously sub-standard to believe they were that close. So going for Malthouse - who they believe is elite (and daisy also!!!) - if they were close to a flag would have been the right call, but given his age and possibly how long he may be coaching for it might be a poor decision from the board / footy dept if as you mention he doesn't get his contract renewed.

So in this scenario, the board sack Ratten and hire and then sack Malthouse, but really it's their own inadequacies for over-rating the list and then not giving Malthouse the appropriate time to re-build completely that have them in this situation. Having said that if he coaches for 5-6 years and they don't move forward, then obviously he's gone.

So it goes back to my initial comment of having the best people in place to not make those mistakes that Carlton did of over-rating their list and then expecting Malthouse to conjure a miracle. If they understood they were at least 5 years away, they could have made a more fully-informed decision.

Using our situation as an example, I would like to see the best people in place across the broad to have the right program's in place to minimise our injury list and ensure our players are as fit as possible to play the game the way it's heading. From afar, I'm reasonably happy with recruiting, am prepared to give time to Bucks to coach but our most pressing issue at the moment is fitness and injuries which hopefully we're now critically evaluating and soon remedying (particularly in light of the previous thread you linked). You can say I might be expecting a lot, but 2 flags in 56 years for us shouldn't be acceptable.

I completely agree with everything you've said here.

I just go back to my original point that putting "... the best people in place ..." is sometimes not so straightforward.

 

[Hagla]

Nah, it's difficult to make any real assessment of our current situation when we've got a new footy Director, a new club doctor, a new biomech person who are only a month or two into their new jobs.

I read his Scodog10 post as being in regard to the handling of an individual during this pre season and therefore encompassing our current medical staff?

He's posted his qualifications.

I re-read the thread and couldn't find any quals so I looked at his profile to find it and he has posted them in another thread. Here is the quote from him.

I have an Ex Science degree, but I only really get fed bits and pieces of what goes on at the clubs. I've posted a bit about Collingwood in the health & fitness sub-forum here, I called it a few months ago Girvan would go

He didn't call this though, he just said we are doing things wrong and once the news came out that we'd ordered a review he said a few heads will roll. This is what I was talking about when I said he gave one opinion and then took credit for getting another 5 predictions right.

He opinioned back in July that our weights regime was faulty.

Yep and he seemingly got that right.

The club orders a review in August.

Yep and he reported on this when it was ordered.

The club sacks its weights coach as a result of the review.

Yep, and then he claimed (as seen in his quote further above) that he called this specifically which he didn't.

He's been more specific about our problems than any other posters I've read. If you've read something more substantial then let me know and I'll add it to the OP.

Gotta admit, it's a tad more substantial than the usual shrill SACK DAVORAN!!! rhetoric?

Yep he didn't do a bad job at analyzing the problems with our training program and he probably deserves more credit than I'm willing to give him. It's just that he really only gave one opinion "Collingwoods training regime is flawed" and then got credit for (and gave himself credit for) the following events. I realise the follow on effects were linked to his original assessment but he isn't nostradamus and I'm not going to accredit him with specific predictions that he never mentioned in his original assessment

 

[Scodog10]

Hmmm... it sounds like a story for right now. You're implying we are such a basket case that if it's true it deserves to be in the open. I honestly believe most of these rumors are bs, I just don't buy into the part where regular people are the experts and the highly paid staff are bumbling fools... I could be convinced with a plausible story though I guess.

Also that Essendon supporter in the fitness thread didn't really make any bold predictions. I'd be more impressed if he said any of that stuff before we went through 2-3 years of injury woes. Sounds like he's probably just a personal trainer who thinks he knows everything and doesn't actually have any real qualifications. He has been watching from afar and putting two and two together. This makes him seem like he's ahead of the game even though he only really made one or two statements (mainly after the fact) and then reported on what happened as the thread progressed. That made the one statement he made look like he got 5 predictions right.

It really isn't. It's a forum I'm not obliged to pass anything on.

The only thing I'm implying is that it most definitely isn't a case of "nothing to see here" and that the standard of professionalism need to lift internally. I then proceeded to site that I know of a particular case that is alarming (on the back of two abnormal occurrences in 2014) when considering trends that have been apparent across the past 3 years.

I think your approach is a good one. I can assure you this is 100% fact from there we all need to make our own assessments. I myself am not an expert hence my reliance on the opinion of others and those opinions don't align with your initial post (as much as I would like them to).

 

[Anzacday]

Based on the above comments I did some searching and found the following posted 8/14 which maybe ties in with what Scodog was on about...

Full review at Collingwood within their high performance team, few heads will roll! serves them right for trying to have their players lift like power athletes. There was a shift in thinking a few years ago that football was predominately an Anaerobic sport, running loads dropped > players got heavier > players got stronger > range of motion decreased > muscular in-balances increased = Players got injured! A few clicked on, some clearly haven't

Football is not dissimilar to road cycling, there's track cyclists pushing pushing 2,000watts (NFL players) but the guys winning all the sprint stages at the tour de france and making millions are only pushing 1,400-1,600watts. The only reason the track cyclists aren't cleaning up on the road and making money is because they don't have the aerobic base, so their anaerobic power is irrelevant, they can't get to the end, same as a footballer!!

Aerobic power in aus rules footballers is a bigger dictator of Anaerobic power during a game than actual peak anaerobic power.

And there can be no argument made against the fact that the best form of injury prevention is game specific loading, take Ben Reid for example it's like history repeating.. soft tissue injury > rehab (squating/deadlifting/glute ham) > onto the track (3-4weeks) > into the VFL (1-2) > afl the bam, another injury. I feel for him, give him 6 months of progressive running/ fatigued running/ match simulation running not 6 weeks! Look at Swan, you can tell by his body shape he clearly doesn't have much load in the legs. I could rant on forever! as much as I dislike Collingwood seeing players careers ruined by incompetence is not cool!

 

[Trickster]

I completely agree with everything you've said here.

I just go back to my original point that putting "... the best people in place ..." is sometimes not so straightforward.

I agree it's not that easy. As much as I'm potting Carlton, credit to them, they identified Graham Wright as an elite recruiter and went gung-ho to get him which they nearly did knowing this is an area they've been deficient in.

I'd like to see a similar approach in getting Burgess from Port. Offer double his current salary and if we have to pay the luxury tax, so be it. It's more important that we get our players fit and injury free rather than squirrelling away the money given making profits should be secondary. Same as Saunders from North given they're injury list. If it means with these 2 we get 18 games from Reid this year and a fit squad, it pays for itself.

Of course they may have attempted this and we don't know, but we'd most likely have heard something. Or they are happy with our current set-up and believe it will be sorted in time. I just hope at the end of the year we're not talking about a decimated injury list and not running out games again.

 

[Unknown Identity]

Taylor Adams cut his scrotum shaving while on holidays.

Don't ask for a source but it's 100% legit. He's going for some more speed.

We've all been there..
Damn thing never stops bleeding!

 

[jmac70]

So basically this is a thread to keep all the injury news in.

 

[Heir_Apparent]

Wait for someone to do their hammy, which is inevitable, and the media will jump all over it, even if it's a fringe 22 player, like a Dwyer.

"Dwyer does hammy, Collingwood's injury curse continues."


Soft tissue injuries main 2 causes are players not warming up properly (thorough stretches) combined with players being slightly dehydrated.

A player like Harry O'brien would never get a soft tissue injury, why? The guy is a yoga freak and understands how the human body works.

Muscles don't have liquid/lubrication they gonna snap or tear if they're stressed.


My guess with Reid is that he is lazy with his warm-ups and even outside of warming up at the club for sessions, the guys should be doing yoga every spare minute. He is a lanky guy like me, I'm actually a little taller, so I understand how painful/annoying it is to stretch my legs, they are very long legs, it's seriously painful to stretch them beyond what they want.

Myself having lots of knowledge of how the body works and some knowledge of yoga and how stretching affects the body, I have thought this for a very long time about Reid.

First time I've shared my thoughts, surely the experts at Collingwood would have covered the most basic of reasons as to why soft tissue injuries occur, surely!

 

[IQ3]

Wait for someone to do their hammy, which is inevitable, and the media will jump all over it, even if it's a fringe 22 player, like a Dwyer.

"Dwyer does hammy, Collingwood's injury curse continues."


Soft tissue injuries main 2 causes are players not warming up properly (thorough stretches) combined with players being slightly dehydrated.

A player like Harry O'brien would never get a soft tissue injury, why? The guy is a yoga freak and understands how the human body works.

Muscles don't have liquid/lubrication they gonna snap or tear if they're stressed.


My guess with Reid is that he is lazy with his warm-ups and even outside of warming up at the club for sessions, the guys should be doing yoga every spare minute. He is a lanky guy like me, I'm actually a little taller, so I understand how painful/annoying it is to stretch my legs, they are very long legs, it's seriously painful to stretch them beyond what they want.

Myself having lots of knowledge of how the body works and some knowledge of yoga and how stretching affects the body, I have thought this for a very long time about Reid.

First time I've shared my thoughts, surely the experts at Collingwood would have covered the most basic of reasons as to why soft tissue injuries occur, surely!

Assuming a player is lazy because they've had injuries is pretty stupid pal

 

[noideaatall]

The definition of "best personnel across the board" is a difficult one.

Paying top dollar doesn't necessarily get the best staff either - often there's little correlation.
.

Fantastic thread, thanks for all the work you have put in.

Agreed on the above. The either/or examples you gave though: why don't we employ them all? Why choose between the young risk taker and the experienced conservative rather than employ them all and someone to manage them. I would have thought we have the money in the bank and that injuries are that important.