Why Knee?

[Voice of Reason]

This topic may have been done to death previusly so apologies if so, but I'd appreciate people's thoughts on why so many of our players in recent years have broken down with serious knee injuries.

Phil's second in two years is just the latest and many seem to go without significant contact at the time i.e. they just seem to "go", presumably because of wear and tear or the straw that breaks the camel's back.

One theory is that some players have become too muscly higher up their body (eg thighs) and the knee "goes" because it is the weakest link in the chain.

The "Subiaco surface makes it more likely" argument was dismissed by the AFL in a study last year, but still has its adherents.

"The game is too fast nowadays" is another possibility.

What do you think?

 

[Goldenblue]

One theory is that some players have become too muscly higher up their body (eg thighs) and the knee "goes" because it is the weakest link in the chain.


I concur on that arguement alone.....before the days of musceling up as we have nowadays, there were not a high percentage of knee problems. It is the weakest link in the chain as you have stated, but I wont believe its the ground at Subi. In the Victorian mudholes, you can do your knees there too.

I think Ready needs to read the Jack Dyer book "Captain Blood"
The grand old man of aussie rules did both his knees and played on in an era where they had no ideas of re-construction. He changed his game so he need not to turn on a coin, but run straight ahead and anyone who got in his way copped it.

Personally, I think Phil can do the same coming out of the backline....
What a tremendous sight that would be during a derby and watching Phil run down the ground with a massive pile of Dorker bodies piling up behind him......

 

[Thrawn666]

Im sorry but I just dont buy into the "too muscly thighs" theory myself, it has nothing to do with it, the knee is the weakest link regardless as the stress to do with tearing the ACL occurs at the knee joint and nowhere else. The key factor here is lateral movement, or more specifically, the sudden change in direction of lateral movement. The factors involving the large amount of knee injuries occuring in modern football compared to the past game can be attributed mainly to the increase in pace. The game and players are a lot faster now than they used to be, and hence when players manouvre to twist, turn or change directions (eg: phil read) at such speeds it puts enormous stress on the ACL as it is what gives the knee joint it's lateral stability, causing it to rupture or break completely. I did my knee in a manner as where I simply changed directions while going at top pace, my foot slipped and ankle rolled, and my leg went under me as i tried to change directions, the result (unpleasant as it may sound) was my leg tried to bend sideways at the knee joint, and subsequently tore my ACL. I should add at this point that I have nowhere near the physique of an AFL player, and I cant make up for that body mass in terms of fat either as im not overweight. What it basically comes down to is speed and a rapid change of direction. Of course you have other examples such as Sierakowski last year doing his ACL, he was knocked out but you could observe the way his knee buckled in a sideways manner. In short I think that the faster pace is definitely the main factor in why we see more ACL injuries in the modern game.

 

[Khat]

i dont really think it has anything to do with muscles or weight. i totally f*cked up my right knee and i was a ballerina at the time and weighed 46 kilos.

 

[hourn]

The knees goes because it is very vunerable. And its very vulnerable because it has a limited rang of movement, and you have all you body weight (except for your calves) on top of your knees.

And often you have oponents crashing into your knees, so you have a severe amount of force making them go in irregular ways. Also, they are often an easy target, as they are low to the ground are are hard to defend if they are in a position where they could get injured.

Also, like tennis (although not to the extent in tennis), there is a lot of twisting and turning around packs and players etc,. Out of the four major footballing codes, this sport would have the most amount of stress on your knees.

 

[jod23]

Originally posted by Thrawn666
Im sorry but I just dont buy into the "too muscly thighs" theory myself, it has nothing to do with it, the knee is the weakest link regardless as the stress to do with tearing the ACL occurs at the knee joint and nowhere else. The key factor here is lateral movement, or more specifically, the sudden change in direction of lateral movement. The factors involving the large amount of knee injuries occuring in modern football compared to the past game can be attributed mainly to the increase in pace. The game and players are a lot faster now than they used to be, and hence when players manouvre to twist, turn or change directions (eg: phil read) at such speeds it puts enormous stress on the ACL as it is what gives the knee joint it's lateral stability, causing it to rupture or break completely. I did my knee in a manner as where I simply changed directions while going at top pace, my foot slipped and ankle rolled, and my leg went under me as i tried to change directions, the result (unpleasant as it may sound) was my leg tried to bend sideways at the knee joint, and subsequently tore my ACL. I should add at this point that I have nowhere near the physique of an AFL player, and I cant make up for that body mass in terms of fat either as im not overweight. What it basically comes down to is speed and a rapid change of direction. Of course you have other examples such as Sierakowski last year doing his ACL, he was knocked out but you could observe the way his knee buckled in a sideways manner. In short I think that the faster pace is definitely the main factor in why we see more ACL injuries in the modern game.

Nicely summed up, couldnt agree more.

 

[RacerX]

Excellent post Mr Thrawn, it is interesting hearing from people with actual experience.

Personally, I reckon it mainly an inherent weakness in the knee. I read some stuff that referred to the evolution of humans from quadrupeds to bipeds that had some relevant info. I'll try and do it justice below, but I am definitely no expert...

A running quadruped mammal (eg a dog) uses its rear legs for thrust and its forelegs for shock absorbtion and directing the rear legs where to apply that thrust. For that reason the rear legs have very little cartilidge for shock absorbtion and all the muscles/bones are directly connected to the spine for maximum power. The forelimbs, on the other hand, are not directly connected to the spine but have a shoulder and elbow joint configuration designed to absorb shock and deal with lateral stress.

Now bear with me here, when human ancestors evolved into bipeds they started using the rear legs for both shock absorbtion/lateral movement and thrust. The knee joint was not really designed to meet both needs and so remains an inherently weak point in our design.

That IMO is the problem, approx 5 million years of evolution as a biped has not yet countered the 200 million yeards as a quadruped.

 

[Voice of Reason]

Originally posted by RacerX
Excellent post Mr Thrawn, it is interesting hearing from people with actual experience.

Personally, I reckon it mainly an inherent weakness in the knee. I read some stuff that referred to the evolution of humans from quadrupeds to bipeds that had some relevant info. I'll try and do it justice below, but I am definitely no expert...

A running quadruped mammal (eg a dog) uses its rear legs for thrust and its forelegs for shock absorbtion and directing the rear legs where to apply that thrust. For that reason the rear legs have very little cartilidge for shock absorbtion and all the muscles/bones are directly connected to the spine for maximum power. The forelimbs, on the other hand, are not directly connected to the spine but have a shoulder and elbow joint configuration designed to absorb shock and deal with lateral stress.

Now bear with me here, when human ancestors evolved into bipeds they started using the rear legs for both shock absorbtion/lateral movement and thrust. The knee joint was not really designed to meet both needs and so remains an inherently weak point in our design.

That IMO is the problem, approx 5 million years of evolution as a biped has not yet countered the 200 million yeards as a quadruped.

Thanks Racer X and the others who've responded to this thread - I've certainly learnt a bit, not least about my biped limitations!

 

[TheRealBuzz]

At least it explains why Tony Lockett has never done a knee.

Let's face it, the fat prick hasn't evolved much from his quadruped ancestors.

 

[Captain Random]

Interesting theory. Unfortunately, dogs do ACL's as well - had to spend $1K on a knee reco for my cattledog in January. She's more of an Eagle than I am now

Apparently it's really common for blueys to do a cruiate ligament, as they're really active and prone to arthritis in their knees. The vet was telling me that they apparently get inflammation in the knee as a result of the arthritis, and the fluid produced is corrosive to the ligament, which may be frayed anyway. Wrong move and bang, there it goes

Don't know if that's relevant (or even correct), but it's another perspective. You'd have to expect footballers' knees to be pretty prone to arthritis

 

[Khat]

Originally posted by TheRealBuzz
At least it explains why Tony Lockett has never done a knee.

Let's face it, the fat prick hasn't evolved much from his quadruped ancestors.

*LOL*