Why are injuries no excuse?

[Persevering Saint]

Okay, please forgive my ignorance, but people always say, "Yes we don't have 15 of our best 22, and we lost 2 key players in a freak point-post accident in the first minute of the game, but well, injuries are no excuse..."

WHY are injuries no excuse? If we're dealing with a competition between limited lists of thoroughbred athletes (and quite often a few ol' grey mares...), then wouldn't injuries be a fair excuse?

Like I said, forgive my ignorance... especially if there was a big thread on this already. If so, I totally understand if you cull this, StKildonian. It's just it seems to me to be an "Emporer's new clothes" question - when somebody says this inexplicable statement, none of us want to look stupid by asking why.

 

[sauce_head]

Because you do not get premiership points or win finals for the amount of players on your injured list. You have to win regardless. We have had a bad run, but does that mean we sit and wait? It shouldn't.

Just noticed your footer. StKilda is named after StKilda, in Scotland, which is a tiny island settlement in the north sea somewhere. Not sure why it was called that though.

 

[Persevering Saint]

Just noticed your footer. StKilda is named after StKilda, in Scotland, which is a tiny island settlement in the north sea somewhere. Not sure why it was called that though.

It comes from a Norse word, "Skilda." See, before they abbreviated saint as "St" they just did "S." So when some travellers came to Skilda Island, they thought it was "S Kilda," thus "Saint Kilda". By the way, "Skilda" in Norse means "Shield."

 

[Kildonan]

Injuries are a valid excuse. It is just so repetitious now for us that other clubs supporters and even our own supporters are getting sick of it.

The answer is to accept that there will always be injuries. We simply have to decide where an acceptable level lies, before we start going on about it.
Some clubs have few or no injuries. This is good management, but it is also good luck.

I think when people go on about injuries, they are really decrying the luck component.

It comes from a Norse word, "Skilda." See, before they abbreviated saint as "St" they just did "S." So when some travellers came to Skilda Island, they thought it was "S Kilda," thus "Saint Kilda". By the way, "Skilda" in Norse means "Shield."

So it is mightily appropriate that we have a shield as our emblem then isn't it ?

 

[Fehring]

Okay, please forgive my ignorance, but people always say, "Yes we don't have 15 of our best 22, and we lost 2 key players in a freak point-post accident in the first minute of the game, but well, injuries are no excuse..."

Beautifully put. I am not going to bore everyone by again cataloguing why injuries are a legitimate excuse, but I will say this - when we beat the Swans four weeks ago, everyone was saying what a great effort it was "despite our injuries". So, in fact it seems reasonable to invoke injuries when you win but not when you lose. Does anyone else think that's a bit weird?

 

[bluejay]

It comes from a Norse word, "Skilda." See, before they abbreviated saint as "St" they just did "S." So when some travellers came to Skilda Island, they thought it was "S Kilda," thus "Saint Kilda". By the way, "Skilda" in Norse means "Shield."

Actually, both sauce_head and you are kinda right. At least, according to the Wikipedia article about the origin of the scottish StKilda island's name:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Kilda,_Scotland#Origin_of_names

 

[sauce_head]

Beautifully put. I am not going to bore everyone by again cataloguing why injuries are a legitimate excuse, but I will say this - when we beat the Swans four weeks ago, everyone was saying what a great effort it was "despite our injuries". So, in fact it seems reasonable to invoke injuries when you win but not when you lose. Does anyone else think that's a bit weird?

I would prefer to take a longer term look on injuries to demonstrate why they can not be a long term excuse.

No doubt this is one of our most talent rich periods in our history. We have, in fact, had such depth across the board that we have come exceedingly close to two grand finals in the past three seasons despite injuries.

Unfortunately, in 50 years time, history will not say, "St Kilda were a great side that could have won the flag given less injuries". History rarely even acknowledges second place! If injuries were rare and we failed, perhaps we would take definate steps to bring about the changes needed to take the next step.

Could injuries be as important as a players skill level, of football brain?

I do not pretend to know the answer, whether it is to trade injury prone players, leave them out for six months to properly recover or just hope the problem goes away. But I do know one thing, we have had a great chance the last four years and have not taken the final step. There is no injury in that statement, just a lack of success.

And before anybody jumps down my throat, I do not consider our window closed, as long as the players keep playing for each other and resist the huge contracts other clubs will throw at them. That is why it is so important we have a good second half to the season, so the players still share the vision and sacrifice for it.

 

[mightymagpie1999]

Okay, please forgive my ignorance, but people always say, "Yes we don't have 15 of our best 22, and we lost 2 key players in a freak point-post accident in the first minute of the game, but well, injuries are no excuse..."

WHY are injuries no excuse? If we're dealing with a competition between limited lists of thoroughbred athletes (and quite often a few ol' grey mares...), then wouldn't injuries be a fair excuse?

Like I said, forgive my ignorance... especially if there was a big thread on this already. If so, I totally understand if you cull this, StKildonian. It's just it seems to me to be an "Emporer's new clothes" question - when somebody says this inexplicable statement, none of us want to look stupid by asking why.

It is not a exuse because the club should have anough depth to cover these injured players. But they don't. If West Coast lost3 big name players then they would have the depth to cover them. Thats just somthing st.kilda dont have

 

[saintsownthedome]

It is not a exuse because the club should have anough depth to cover these injured players. But they don't. If West Coast lost3 big name players then they would have the depth to cover them. Thats just somthing st.kilda dont have

St Kilda have the depth to cover three, but like any club, we dont have the depth to cover eight.

You just have to look at Collingwood's and Essendon's results over the past two years, and how much they have 'improved' from having key players fit.

In my opinion, the club who are the standout at achieving results depsite injured players are Adelaide. Shows their depth is the best in the AFL.

 

[Fehring]

It is not a exuse because the club should have anough depth to cover these injured players. But they don't. If West Coast lost3 big name players then they would have the depth to cover them. Thats just somthing st.kilda dont have

Three players? What rock have you been lying under?

 

[mightymagpie1999]

Three players? What rock have you been lying under?

BIG NAME PLAYERS

 

[Punter!]

If we listened to paul55 we'd have no coach, no president and no players left!