Swans 2007

[natlovestheswans]

Yes you can be. 30 year olds hamstrings dont improve over the years. Expect Barry, Kennelly, Kirk and O Loughlin to struggle all year with injury

No one has said anything about them improving. Also, Kennelly isn't anywhere even near 30.

You'd like to see them struggle with injury, wouldn't it? Ever heard of a little thing called karma?

 

[SWANNIES RULE]

You're totally on the money Nat. You are never "due" to be injured, it's a misconception.

 

[natlovestheswans]

You're totally on the money Nat. You are never "due" to be injured, it's a misconception.

Exactly.

 

[Benevolent Ert]

Yes you can be. 30 year olds hamstrings dont improve over the years. Expect Barry, Kennelly, Kirk and O Loughlin to struggle all year with injury

O'Loughlin has for years anyway, Kennelly's still in his prime. Barry and Kirk I will concede that, simply the style of game they play means that as they get older the likelyhood that their bodies may not be able to sustain the punishment they've copped in previous seasons - it wouldn't surprise to see at least one of those two drop off a little in 2007 - more likely Barry than Kirk I'd think

 

[CharlieG]

Yes you can be. 30 year olds hamstrings dont improve over the years. Expect Barry, Kennelly, Kirk and O Loughlin to struggle all year with injury

I love how West Coast fans seem to think that if they say it enough, it might happen.

Remember guys, it's best of three.

 

[Wollongong Represent]

Best of three, my eyes glaze as extra saliva oozes out from beneath my tounge, my draw drops and head rolls back as contemplate everything that has and will be...... A third epic would be a zen moment for me. Akin to climbing Everist for the victor (we have Everitt, it's an omen).

 

[GoBackToVFL]

regarding 'due for injuries' .... every team has on average x weeks of injuries per year. Swans have been very fortunate in that they have basically had 0 injuries the last 2 years.

I would excpect that the good fortune would not continue and swans would get x injuries in 2007 like the rest of us. So the number of weeks off due to injury can only increase. You will not get 3x to make up for the past years, but all things being equal, you will get x. Some people will summarise this rule of probability by saying you are 'due for injuries'.

On another topic.... How do you think the new hands in the back rule will effect your players?

 

[natlovestheswans]

regarding 'due for injuries' .... every team has on average x weeks of injuries per year. Swans have been very fortunate in that they have basically had 0 injuries the last 2 years.

0 injuries in the last two years?

Lol.

This year; Tadhg Kennelly, Jared Crouch, Paul Williams, Nick Malceski, Luke Ablett, Lewis Roberts-Thomson all missed time due to injuries. I would hardly call that 0 injuries.

I would excpect that the good fortune would not continue and swans would get x injuries in 2007 like the rest of us. So the number of weeks off due to injury can only increase. You will not get 3x to make up for the past years, but all things being equal, you will get x. Some people will summarise this rule of probability by saying you are 'due for injuries'.

.. no such thing as being 'due' for injuries, therefore the argument is crap.

On another topic.... How do you think the new hands in the back rule will effect your players?

We will cope. How about you?

 

[Wollongong Represent]

I'm pleased that I have an allie in GoBacktoVFL. He summarised my argument about luck and probability much more eliquently than I managed. However, in respect to 0 injuries I think he is referring to KEY players or players we would struggle to do without. I would put Goodes, Hall, Kirk, both Boltons and O'Keefe in that category. These blokes are essential to our game style and all have a leadership function around the park. It was the end of the world when goodes went down in 2004. You can't substitute class and all of these players (yes C.Bolton) contstitute class in one form or another.

Push in the back rule? I haven't read what it entails. If it's tougher I reckon we're done for. Leo Barry is forever pushing in the lower back to make up for his height disadvantage. We should be able to adapt however. Everyone cried last year when they brought in the new kick in rules, but it was forgotten after round 1.

 

[natlovestheswans]

I'm pleased that I have an allie in GoBacktoVFL. He summarised my argument about luck and probability much more eliquently than I managed. However, in respect to 0 injuries I think he is referring to KEY players or players we would struggle to do without. I would put Goodes, Hall, Kirk, both Boltons and O'Keefe in that category. These blokes are essential to our game style and all have a leadership function around the park. It was the end of the world when goodes went down in 2004. You can't substitute class and all of these players (yes C.Bolton) contstitute class in one form or another.

I'm sorry, but no matter what way you put it there the term 'due for injuries' is not correct. Luck may come into it, but so does good management. You can use all the one liners like "The luck will run out" and "You can't go 3 seasons without having injuries to key players" but the fact is, that's bull.

 

[Wollongong Represent]

I wan't to know why you think it's bull. I've taken a lot of time explaining my argument but all you do is write me off without giving reason. I'm not going to stop until you give me a rational explanation why probability and footy are unrelated. And I agree that the Swans have done an exceptional job at preventing injuries. But there's not a lot you can do to prevent a ruptured ACL or a broken leg. They happen all the time to all sorts of players. So write away Nat, why is argument false???????????

 

[SWANNIES RULE]

Putting all probability and chance aside, the term "due for injuries" is simply not correct. It's illogical.

 

[natlovestheswans]

Putting all probability and chance aside, the term "due for injuries" is simply not correct. It's illogical.

Exactly.

WR, i don't understand how you can think there is such thing as being 'due for injuries'. Yes, we very well may get injuries next year but that has nothing to do with being 'due'. When you are 'due' for something, it means it is going to happen. Eg, a baby is due to be born. IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. However, we have no idea if our players are going to get injured next year.. therefore, we can't be 'due' for injuries.

 

[Wollongong Represent]

OK, thank you. So our disagreement is over the definition of 'due'. I think it means LIKELY to occur where as you think it means DEFINITE to occur. We actually agree if you look at it. I've never said 'we will get injuries because we're due for them'. I've always maintained that my assessment is based on history. Whether we define or conform to that precedent is in the lap of the gods. Thanks for entertaining me though, I'm bored as *** ****.

 

[Swans_Premiers]

Being due for injuries is the worst thing i've ever heard.

It's like saying you're due to win the premiership every 16 years going by probability. Yet there are teams like Stkilda and Bulldogs who have won it once in 100 odd years.

 

[GoBackToVFL]

let me elaborate

regarding 'due for injuries' .... every team has on average x weeks of injuries per year. Swans have been very fortunate in that they have basically had 0 injuries the last 2 years.

I would excpect that the good fortune would not continue and swans would get x injuries in 2007 like the rest of us. So the number of weeks off due to injury can only increase. You will not get 3x to make up for the past years, but all things being equal, you will get x. Some people will summarise this rule of probability by saying you are 'due for injuries'.

...but it does not mean you are any more 'due' than any other team. The word 'due' is often incorrectly used when people expect something to happen based on probabilities, like they are 'due for a loss' after winning 5 in a row. People will even say we are due for rain after a 3 month drought. A great man actually wrote an article about this...(damn cant find a link)

Symantics aside, I would expect that the impact of injuries on the swans will be greater next year than the past 2 years.

 

[liz]

let me elaborate

...but it does not mean you are any more 'due' than any other team. The word 'due' is often incorrectly used when people expect something to happen based on probabilities, like they are 'due for a loss' after winning 5 in a row. People will even say we are due for rain after a 3 month drought. A great man actually wrote an article about this...(damn cant find a link)

Symantics aside, I would expect that the impact of injuries on the swans will be greater next year than the past 2 years.

If, that is, injuries are randomly occuring and independent events. Two years of low injuries probably isn't statistically significant enough to be able to conclude anything, but it is entirely possible that the Swans' training, recovery, development programme has been a large contributor to the lower than average incident rate. It has even been suggested that the game style is a contributing factor.

In which case - assuming they do the same things this year as for the last two - one might expect them to continue to have a lower than average incident rate.

Who knows? A third year of low injuries might just point to it not being random at all.

 

[chammond]

If, that is, injuries are randomly occuring and independent events. Two years of low injuries probably isn't statistically significant enough to be able to conclude anything, but it is entirely possible that the Swans' training, recovery, development programme has been a large contributor to the lower than average incident rate. It has even been suggested that the game style is a contributing factor.

In which case - assuming they do the same things this year as for the last two - one might expect them to continue to have a lower than average incident rate.

Who knows? A third year of low injuries might just point to it not being random at all.

Oh, Liz, you've spoilt this thread now! It looked like developing into the daftest thread of the off-season. I just know that someone was poised to introduce the 'law of averages'.

Oh well . . . what time's the Rookie draft?

 

[Wollongong Represent]

I'm willing to admit that I was fuelling debate due to boredom. Doesn't mean the discussion wasn't a valid one. And yes, I was about to reach for the law of averages, but only to kick start the flames again. And I'm happy to congradulate Liz on a well thought post that added constructively to the argument. We're not mugs on here chammond, we're cerebral.

My personal view is that the Swans have two things in their favour in avoiding injuries. One is their coaching/medical staff who love nothing more than recommending prevention rather than treatment.

The second is the body shape of many of our most enduring players. I have nothing to support this claim, but most of our squad is solidly built. Enduring players such as Crouch, Ablett, C. Bolton, Goodes, Hall, O'keefe are built for the punishment they cop. Our running players are built to play their positions as well and generally keep themselves out of trouble. They're isn't too many guys with bodies who look out of place on the field. No J.Thurgoods or Richardsons or Frasers or Hirds (yes Hird, the guy carries way to much muscle in my opinion, should be much lighter to give his body a break).

It is no secret that the Swans have the best injury prevention/management policy in the comp, but I believe it comes down to their recruitment as well.

 

[g'day mate]

Simpkins and Phillips signing autographs ​

 

[natlovestheswans]

Simpkins and Phillips signing autographs ​

AUSKICK!

<3333

 

[plugger47]

Why? That will mean that we do have injuries and that isn't what we want. The purpose of the next 2 years isn't to 'blood' new players, it's to win a premiership. I hope we see no new faces next year.

I hope to see at least one - Spida

 

[natlovestheswans]

I hope to see at least one - Spida

Haha yes, i hope we see alot of him.

 

[Wollongong Represent]

The Swans best not delist him at any point. Nat might bomb the SCG and take the kid captive.

 

[natlovestheswans]

Nat might bomb the SCG and take the kid captive.

Not just him, all the roomies!