Roast Our fitness department - highly offensive/offended

Remove this Banner Ad

This is the biggest reason why we won’t play finals this year.

The hamstring debacle of 2018 made the fitness group s**t themselves and go easy on them this year IMO

They need to absolutely flog them in the preseason, get l the players super fit and ready for round 1. If we have a few casualties along the way then so be it, at least the player covering will be fit enpugh to come in
 
This is the biggest reason why we won’t play finals this year.

The hamstring debacle of 2018 made the fitness group s**t themselves and go easy on them this year IMO

They need to absolutely flog them in the preseason, get l the players super fit and ready for round 1. If we have a few casualties along the way then so be it, at least the player covering will be fit enpugh to come in
I think last year the injury toll was bad enough, but what magnified it was that we were highly reluctant to pick untried players from the SANFL. This lead to a lot of players being stuffed, if not injured, on the last day of the AFL calendar.
 
I think last year the injury toll was bad enough, but what magnified it was that we were highly reluctant to pick untried players from the SANFL. This lead to a lot of players being stuffed, if not injured, on the last day of the AFL calendar.
Should have train them harder so they are fitter and the oldies get more soft tissue injuries and youngster gets more game, win-win situation?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Think of all the ACL's each year. Do all players return exactly in 8 months, 9, 10, 11 or 12 months? (the answer is "somewhere between 6-12 months)
And re ACLs, I can't think of too many players who have returned after 6 months? 12 full months is the commonly accepted period - again, there might be a small variation, but it sure as s**t isn't half.
If you're going to try and prove me wrong, at least quote me accurately.
I'm not the one trying to prove you're wrong, but you were the one who was trying to argue my initial point that ACLs are commonly 6-12 months.
The initial point still stands, injury estimates are never precise. Particularly if it's an injury that lasts a few weeks or more.
 
Should have train them harder so they are fitter and the oldies get more soft tissue injuries and youngster gets more game, win-win situation?
selection by "survival of the fittest"? We might then get a bunch of youngsters fitting the criteria, but lack the strength and experience.
Best thing is to pick those in form, and for coaches to be less gutless in trying some youngsters, whilst resting the older bodies where applicable.
 
All I'm saying is HASS seems to be eluding all criticism. As head of Footy you'd think Burton would be too busy with other stuff to dabble in the nitty gritty of a fitness program. Pretty sure David Noble never had anything to do with it.
Burton strikes me as a micro manager .. hence why he's always in the coaches box and out on the field during breaks on game day .. maybe I'm wrong
 
And getting likes from a bunch of clowns doesn't make you less of a clown. (particularly in this thread)

Au contraire. Who the people are laughing at is a remarkably reliable indicator of who is a clown.
 
lol just noticed Dixie liked both John Who & King Elvis posts.

giphy.gif
 
The funniest part of that is that ACLs are the perfect example of a definitive timeframe for an injury, ie a complete 180 of a wild fluctuation of prognosis.

It's a 12 month injury pretty much every single time. In rare cases such as Alyssa Camplin, Tyson Goldsack, Dale Morris and Alex Rance it can be closer to 6-8 months but they are all massive outliers.

Statistically speaking returning to sport before 9 months increases the likelihood of a recurrent ACL injury due to the new ligament not being completely vascularised until that point, meaning it lacks the ability to repair itself at its usual rate, so yes these are outliers but these players are also taking significant risks. In regard to LARS, the surgery has the highest fail rate of any graft and is no longer used.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Statistically speaking returning to sport before 9 months increases the likelihood of a recurrent ACL injury due to the new ligament not being completely vascularised until that point, meaning it lacks the ability to repair itself at its usual rate, so yes these are outliers but these players are also taking significant risks. In regard to LARS, the surgery has the highest fail rate of any graft and is no longer used.

Yeah. Goldsack and Camplin being outliers by not re-injuring. Morris unfortunately took the gamble and lost. Rance is ready but Richmond won’t risk him.

Our resident medical expert would have been far better using hamstrings as an example of an injury with an unspecified timeframe for return. ACLs are almost as black and white as they come for footballers. You will miss the best part of a year of your football career.
 
Statistically speaking returning to sport before 9 months increases the likelihood of a recurrent ACL injury due to the new ligament not being completely vascularised until that point, meaning it lacks the ability to repair itself at its usual rate, so yes these are outliers but these players are also taking significant risks. In regard to LARS, the surgery has the highest fail rate of any graft and is no longer used.
Yeah but this is a tangent to the original point: injury prognosis is a rough estimate, and not a precise number.
All I said originally was that for example, in ACLs it can take 6-12 months to return to playing AFL again.
Then a bunch of clowns start to argue that point in a round about way, completely missing the context of the initial discussion.
 
Yeah but this is a tangent to the original point: injury prognosis is a rough estimate, and not a precise number.
All I said originally was that for example, in ACLs it can take 6-12 months to return to playing AFL again.
Then a bunch of clowns start to argue that point in a round about way, completely missing the context of the initial discussion.

Yet it’s absolutely nowhere near six months which is what everyone is telling you

Here, I’ll do your argument for you:

“Hamstring injuries are a good example of an uncertain timeframe can be anywhere from a one week injury to half a year out of football”

Well done, good point John, you make a decent point on this rare occasion.
 
Yet it’s absolutely nowhere near six months which is what everyone is telling you

Here, I’ll do your argument for you:

“Hamstring injuries are a good example of an uncertain timeframe can be anywhere from a one week injury to half a year out of football”

Well done, good point John, you make a decent point on this rare occasion.
Why do you keep insisting I said 6 months, when I clearly said "6-12 months"? And this was my general observations of most players returning from ACLs.

But just to ramp up the point about injury prognosis being a varied period, here's an example from:
Here's part of what they said regarding recovery times for ACL:
Minimum Time for ACL Tear Rehabilitation

Exactly how long the ACL graft takes to heal sufficiently is open to debate. Furthermore, some sports and activities will place a higher demand on the ACL and more healing may be necessary prior to participation. Most orthopedic physicians agree that a minimum of 6 months is needed before returning to competitive sports. Because of potential risks of reinjury, however, most recommend waiting 7 to 9 months.
----------------------

Note how the paragraph basically summarises a period of 6-9 months.
 
Yeah but this is a tangent to the original point: injury prognosis is a rough estimate, and not a precise number.
Injury prognosis is not a rough estimate. A rough estimate implies guessing without previous knowledge or experience by the person giving the prognosis. There are consistent , proven timelines for various injuries to heal

Yes there are outliers . To use your ACL example. Yes you are right 6 months has occurred in ACL rehabilitation, but its a rare occurrence. Rare enough that medicos will continue to use 12 months as a guide for a return to playing.

Anyway the original point was that the information given by the club has not changed nor has any fresh information been supplied apart from ''1-2 weeks''
 
Injury prognosis is not a rough estimate. A rough estimate implies guessing without previous knowledge or experience by the person giving the prognosis. There are consistent , proven timelines for various injuries to heal

Yes there are outliers . To use your ACL example. Yes you are right 6 months has occurred in ACL rehabilitation, but its a rare occurrence. Rare enough that medicos will continue to use 12 months as a guide for a return to playing.

Anyway the original point was that the information given by the club has not changed nor has any fresh information been supplied apart from ''1-2 weeks''
That was your initial point (last paragraph) which I actually responded and agreed.

I’ll say it one last time. And this is a fact, not an opinion...”injury prognosis is a rough estimate”. It’s an average of what you typically expect from a range of past similar injuries/operations.

Google search:
“a forecast of the likely outcome of a situation.”

(Notice the word “likely”. As opposed to “a sure thing”.)
 
That was your initial point (last paragraph) which I actually responded and agreed.

I’ll say it one last time. And this is a fact, not an opinion...”injury prognosis is a rough estimate”. It’s an average of what you typically expect from a range of past similar injuries/operations.

Google search:
“a forecast of the likely outcome of a situation.”

(Notice the word “likely”. As opposed to “a sure thing”.)

Congratulations, you've officially transcended Marty.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top