Injury Gregson - 4th navicular surgery- Jul 18

[Bobby_]

Unless you know the details and circumstances, then each of those examples are unfortunate but irrelevant to the original points made by Seeds.
He claims that it is typical of Geelong to be somewhat tardy when surgery is necessary- none oy your example are relevant.
-We all know that Hawkins had a difficult spinal condition that had to be managed- was surgery ever performed? No. Was it needed? Clearly not. Would he have seen a surgeon? Surely yes.
-Varcoe has had significant foot injuries all his career, even before we drafted him. Finally rid of all these, and we swap him for Clark. But no issue about delays in surgery.
- Bartel's foot- don't know a lot about that one, but as you say, no surgery required, and he is still keen to play now. See no dramas here.
- Egan- as you say, and our club and other teams have have been chastened by his outcome. Again, no DELAYS in his surgery, rather the opposite!!

I am not acting as if our med department is squeaky clean- all humans are capable of unforeseen errors when dealing with humans. But the replies were to a completely different argument.

I actually blame our coaches more so than the medical staff. The medical staff only clear the player and give them the green light to start training and what not. It's the coaches who have made some of the most bizarre choices in recent memory.
And yes, I am going to bring it up again . . . Chris Scott must be held accountable for actually picking his side even if Smedts, Henderson, Cockatoo, Varcoe or Hawkins were not fully fit to run out the whole match.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I delayed surgery for two years and it was the dumbest decision I ever made.

My mother delayed surgery back in the late 70's. Now has arthritis.
Sometimes it just must be done.

 

[Spazz Cat]

I actually blame our coaches more so than the medical staff. The medical staff only clear the player and give them the green light to start training and what not. It's the coaches who have made some of the most bizarre choices in recent memory.
And yes, I am going to bring it up again . . . Chris Scott must be held accountable for actually picking his side even if Smedts, Henderson, Cockatoo, Varcoe or Hawkins were not fully fit to run out the whole match.

Smedts against Sydney a couple of years ago was bizarre to say at least.

 

[Partridge]

Smedts against Sydney a couple of years ago was bizarre to say at least.

Particularly as he himself said he needed 3-4 weeks VFL first.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Smedts against Sydney a couple of years ago was bizarre to say at least.

What game do you speak of, I certainly don't recall any such game....

P.S. That game is a repressed memory now. Be gone

 

[Spazz Cat]

What game do you speak of, I certainly don't recall any such game....

P.S. That game is a repressed memory now. Be gone

Now let's never speak of the Smedts game again.

 

[Vdubs]

It happens it all the time.
Other ankle is taking all the weight.
With no time to put a bit of strength back into the other leg,
also if the knees a bit sore other leg is still taking more weight injury happens on the other ankle.
I'm hardly stretching.

Spot on, but rehab teams in AFL clubs are onto that ASAP.
These guys work full time. The AFL player is truly pampered with treatments compared to the average paying civilian patient.

 

[Spazz Cat]

Spot on, but rehab teams in AFL clubs are onto that ASAP.
These guys work full time. The AFL player is truly pampered with treatments compared to the average paying civilian patient.

True.

 

[Vdubs]

I actually blame our coaches more so than the medical staff. The medical staff only clear the player and give them the green light to start training and what not. It's the coaches who have made some of the most bizarre choices in recent memory.
And yes, I am going to bring it up again . . . Chris Scott must be held accountable for actually picking his side even if Smedts, Henderson, Cockatoo, Varcoe or Hawkins were not fully fit to run out the whole match.

Sorry, but this is rubbish- player selection is totally collaborative- coaches very much respect and seek out top notch rehab gurus like Steve Saunders, and every team has them. They go into all selection meetings . CS would never select a player against the advice of the head rehab man. And, what credibility has the player? They must tick boxes, pass tests to get back in. If a player seems to be ok, but is holding back on the truth, somewhat, who cops the blame?

 

[Stan The Caddy]

Fair chance they could be related. Especially if it was on the opposite ankle to the knee.

A bit harsh I reckon but I'm half cut so I'll let you have this one...

 

[Spazz Cat]

A bit harsh I reckon but I'm half cut so I'll let you have this one...

Cool! I'm gonna see how far I can push it.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

Cool! I'm gonna see how far I can push it.

Meh, if I were you I'd do the same thing...

 

[hbk_aus]

I'm betting plenty on here think the club should never be questioned either.

When the results of these decisions - most notoriously Hawkins' back - cause players to miss games or even worse finals, those decisions should absolutely be questioned.

Are you saying only those medically qualified can speculate? Cool. Looks like VD is about to become only poster here.

Surely you know the difference between speculation and determining something to be the wrong decision, you are clever enough for that. Stating as a fact that the club made the wrong decision without knowing all of the inner and external information isn't speculating.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Sorry, but this is rubbish- player selection is totally collaborative- coaches very much respect and seek out top notch rehab gurus like Steve Saunders, and every team has them. They go into all selection meetings . CS would never select a player against the advice of the head rehab man. And, what credibility has the player? They must tick boxes, pass tests to get back in. If a player seems to be ok, but is holding back on the truth, somewhat, who cops the blame?

The only ones where I can see the coaching staff having any culpability is Cockatoo v WCE last season where they sent him back out, not that I'd know definitively if sending him back on caused any further damage. If not then no issues. If that is so then they ****ed up, he did help us win that game though.

The other is Smedts in the game than shall not be named, he said he wasn't ready and they picked him, did he say that to the coaches? Either way someone ****ed up.

 

[Vdubs]

The only ones where I can see the coaching staff having any culpability is Cockatoo v WCE last season where they sent him back out, not that I'd know definitively if sending him back on caused any further damage. If not then no issues. If that is so then they stuffed up, he did help us win that game though.

The other is Smedts in the game than shall not be named, he said he wasn't ready and they picked him, did he say that to the coaches? Either way someone stuffed up.

re Cocky-Why would you blame the coaches?
They would have seen him have treatment and the tests . They would have asked if he was right to go. Who knows what Cocky said.

 

[Spazz Cat]

re Cocky-Why would you blame the coaches?
They would have seen him have treatment and the tests . They would have asked if he was right to go. Who knows what Cocky said.

Nup. Maybe I'm cynical but I don't buy it. I'm sure you saw him go down in that game. Would've you put him back on?
They knew he injured it. Said low chance of causing extra damage.
Only my opinion but unless it was a final I don't think most coaches would've put back on.
He was even limping when he was back on the field.

 

[Vdubs]

Nup. Maybe I'm cynical but I don't buy it. I'm sure you saw him go down in that game. Would've you put him back on?
They knew he injured it. Said low chance of causing extra damage.
Only my opinion but unless it was a final I don't think most coaches would've put back on.
He was even limping when he was back on the field.

I saw it, was discussing it at the time. He was testing himself out right in front of us, then he came on strapped.
Was weird.
Again, all parties discuss the situation, but to me it looked like a stuff-up.


But I still don't buy that CS would override any medical/physio advice to not play him; they just don't do that. I think it was just their assessment that he would be ok to trial a return to play.

 

[Ricketz]

Depends on which player. Some were called as mistakes before they happened.

By the specialists, or just your average speculator on these boards?

 

[Partridge]

By the specialists, or just your average speculator on these boards?

Plenty on these boards.

 

[Ricketz]

You're right. They're excellent but not squeaky clean. Obviously I'm not a doctor but everyone could see that Hawkins was handled terribly. Playing him all season then missing the first final was mind boggling. Massive blunder that was obvious to everyone except to those at the club.
Cockatoo last year was also stupid. I find it very hard to believe that it could be positive that he couldn't do any more damage to that knee. The amount of footy he missed I'd say would prove that.
Rushing Henderson back also seemed really dubious to us non experts and he broke down. (In a final)
All those blunders are absolutely ridiculous. You can still have common sense without being a medical professional.

You are guessing. You actually just feel that they were the wrong decisions because of a perceived negative outcome compared to an imagined best case result.

 

[Partridge]

You are guessing. You actually just feel that they were the wrong decisions because of a perceived negative outcome compared to an imagined best case result.

Sorry, are you saying when Hawkins missed the Qualifying Final it was a 'perceived negative outcome'? How could it be positive?

 

[Ricketz]

Plenty on these boards.

Righto then, I can relax. I thought they may have been from people who actually have the expertise and information to form those judgements.

 

[Ricketz]

Sorry, are you saying when Hawkins missed the Qualifying Final it was a 'perceived negative outcome'? How could it be positive?

You are suggesting that he wouldn't have missed the final if they had just fixed him, you know, better somehow. Maybe playing him allowed the team to reach the finals? Maybe a layoff would have seen him fit to play but underdone? I don't know, and neither do you.

 

[Partridge]

Righto then, I can relax. I thought they may have been from people who actually have the expertise and information to form those judgements.

Couldn't care less who it comes from. It doesn't matter and shouldn't matter. It's an Internet forum.

Like I said, if you want to limit posting to those with medical expertise VD will be the only one posting. Not the worst outcome, as he's one of the best posters here, but he'll have a lot of work ahead.

 

[Partridge]

You are suggesting that he wouldn't have missed the final if they had just fixed him, you know, better somehow. Maybe playing him allowed the team to reach the finals? Maybe a layoff would have seen him fit to play but underdone? I don't know, and neither do you.

I'm suggest he would have had a much better chance of playing if he'd been rested sooner. Not completely convinced reaching the finals was always a struggle, considering we were 10-1 going into the bye.

Clubs should be judged on results. When it's stated all year that your key forward will be fine when it matters and he misses the first final, they've stuffed up.

I just know losing very winnable finals is a bad outcome. At least before not criticising the club became more important than results.