Most of them are knee, foot, and ankle injuries

Must be time for us to play leg-free football. B)

We are looking for excuses by conducting an 'investigation' or whatever you want to call it into our injuries which common sense would tell you were not really avoidable in any way shape or form. That is going to take time and cost money and in the end not find anything. Couldnt that money and time be better spent??

A few years ago one of the clubs, perhaps someone else remembers which one, held an independent inquiry into their injuries to see whether and where there might be things they could do better.

With our injuries over the past few years, especially this year, I really think the club owes it to itself and the members to have an expert examine and provide a report to the club on the injuries we have sustained. I would suggest they should be looking at the cause of each of the injuries, and whether they were avoidable.

It seems to me from speaking to some people in the know that a large number of our injuries may be related to load/yield management, and therefore potentially there are factors that are avoidable that are contributing to some injuries. I don't believe in coincidences, and really, there have been too many stress and hamstring type injuries.

I would also like to know whether the drive to and from Casey, surface at our training venues or any other controllable factors may be contributing.

Just my 2c.

Agree with your OP Choko. It should be looked into.

One player who does concern me training-wise is Tom Scully. You hear stories from everywhere about how fanatical and obsessed he is with training and preparation. Is there a point at where it can all become a bit too much for an 18/19 year old body? Is there a correlation to him breaking down so often and absolutely punishing his body on the track? Will this affect his longevity as a footballer?

These questions will get dismissed out of hand by the usual know-alls but I think they have merit.

Any which way you look at this heh IS of the situation pertains to what really is an unacceptable level of injury. Its crippled us.

I would like to think that teh club out of sheer curiosity , if not professional diligence would try to gain further understanding of this occurence.

I dont think our list is particulalry longer than any other club, its just affecting players we'd rather have on the paddock.

By all means look into it though.

So basically you are disputing that we have had a bad run with injury? You are going to sit there and debate me on that? You KNOW that we have, that is what this thread is about – seriously what is wrong with some people on here?

I have no more informed background than you but I look at the facts and say it can’t possibly be bad luck only because to believe that would be imbecilic, simple as that

When you also factor in the concept that our footy department expenditure is half some other clubs then maybe you can see the forest for the trees

Where was I disputing that we have a long injury list at the moment? Dont manufacture things that aren't there just to support your rubbish theories. The onus is on you to provide a burden of proof to support your theory that our lack of resources at our football department are somehow contributing to our long injury list which is the jist of your argument am I wrong???

You have failed to point out which injuries on our current list could have been avoided by having greater investment in sports science. Do you forget we are playing a contact sport??? how do you prevent Bail from landing heavily on his knee and digging into the turf at Etihad??? How do you prevent Jamar hgetting a PCL strain despite the injury being known as the "ruckmans curse" and has lead to a rule change in the AFL.

You think where there is smoke there is fire, well prove to me there is a raging inferno or stop sprouting rubbish.

We are looking for excuses by conducting an 'investigation' or whatever you want to call it into our injuries which common sense would tell you were not really avoidable in any way shape or form. That is going to take time and cost money and in the end not find anything. Couldnt that money and time be better spent??

There we go, the people saying we need an investigation are yet to provide me with any current injury which could have been avoided had we invested more heavily in sports science or moved the AIS into AAMI stadium.

Who's an angry little man?!

I know about last year's because I have spoken to a number of people at the club who admit it. There were some problems last year with trainign surfaces, the recovery time lost in transit between Casey and our other facilities prolonged injuries, and a number of other things.

The rumour about Scully, which I absolutely do not know to be fact, which is why I called it a rumour, is that he believes (on his own med advice) that we didn't appropriately manage his pre-existing injury.

Again, that's why I think an external review would be very useful.

Well given that we are training out of AAMI now and our facilities are said to be first class, including recovery pools etc, why have we got so many injuries now??? Going by the theories posted we should have seen an improvement???

OCCAMS RAZOR

There we go, the people saying we need an investigation are yet to provide me with any current injury which could have been avoided had we invested more heavily in sports science or moved the AIS into AAMI stadium.

Whether you consider we need it or not, doesn't matter. We are having a mid-season review as a matter of course, and injury/player welfare management will be part of that review. It makes eminent sense to do so, regardless of cause and affect of injuries.

Well given that we are training out of AAMI now and our facilities are said to be first class, including recovery pools etc, why have we got so many injuries now??? Going by the theories posted we should have seen an improvement???

OCCAMS RAZOR

That's a very good question. Which is why a review would be really good.

To suggest that more money spent on recovery, sports science, etc... is not going to result in an increased likelihood of better injury outcomes is to invalidate the work being done by successful clubs, and in fact to invalidate science itself. You're getting very close to that.

I certainly can't point to the club's management being responsible for the injuries, but I can't exclude it and I think our disproportionate bad run of injuries this year and in previous years warrants investigation.

There we go, the people saying we need an investigation are yet to provide me with any current injury which could have been avoided had we invested more heavily in sports science or moved the AIS into AAMI stadium.

Isn't that exactly what they want a review to find out?

Isn't that exactly what they want a review to find out?

exactly! 36DD why are you asking US for an explanation, WE do not have the knowledge of what is going on in the medical department, nobody here is going to be able to explain what Scully's preparation/recovery has been like, or the scientific theory behind it, WE are the ones who are asking THE CLUB for an explanation! You have it backwards!

I do remember being shocked that Scully was ready to go at the start of the season in 2010, so soon after missing a lot of time due to his knee.

Not that I really know anything about that type of injury or how fit he was.

Pure speculation.

I was actually waiting for this post to reappear....

.footballers bodies are built to the highest levels,

and during a game they are stretched to breaking point, which they do often, we are just having a bad run, the first couple of weeks of the season we were fine,

if you have played at any level and you were reasonably fit, you knew that if you went over on an ankle at speed you could do a lot of damage, or crash knees or turn awkwardly or land incorrectly....

Hawthorn have 8 best 22 out at the moment and Freo have been similarly decimated.......move on, nothing to see here

We are just bloody unlucky.....saw two young debutants start their careers because of it, and may see another two this week....bring it on.....

Not knowing any information about the competence of the medical staff (or their remuneration) I thought it would be interesting to see how our injury list compares to others in the competition.

The average number of players on an injury list is 8 (both mean and median) for each club. Most clubs have between 7 and 9. Melbourne is equal second on the list with 11 (St Kilda are also on 11 and Freo is on 15). At the other end of the spectrum, WCE have the lowest injuries with 4 and Port and Richmond each have 5.

So this seems (albeit weakly) to debunk a couple of things. Firstly, we are not enormously over the odds with our injury list. We have three more than the average, but is this enough to call the credibility of the medical team into account? This and the types of injuries don't seem to suggest so, although who would know?

Secondly, the funding of the medical departments seems to bear no correlation to the injury lists of the various clubs. WCE and Freo respectively would surely have two of the best funded medical departments in the AFL. They sit first and last respectively. Likewise Port and the Demons would surely have two of the worst funded. They sit second and second last respectively. Collingwood is bang on the average with 8.

I know that this is only at a point in time and so doesn't paint the whole picture, however to me it is an interesting insight. I think our angst is more particularly due to the nature of players being injured (and compounded by suspensions etc.) with the vast majority being "best 22". This isn't necessarily the case with other clubs.

One thing that does appear to be important is the impact of injuries on performance. ST Kilda, Melbourne and Freo have largely been seen as disappointing this year and Richmond and WCE have outperformed (and Port are just rubbish). For those of you that keep saying injuries are irrelevant, it's hard to defend when you look at these stats.

The usual inaccuracy of injury lists makes it a hard thing to measure.

Players are often missing from both the field and the list.

Not knowing any information about the competence of the medical staff (or their remuneration) I thought it would be interesting to see how our injury list compares to others in the competition.

The average number of players on an injury list is 8 (both mean and median) for each club. Most clubs have between 7 and 9. Melbourne is equal second on the list with 11 (St Kilda are also on 11 and Freo is on 15). At the other end of the spectrum, WCE have the lowest injuries with 4 and Port and Richmond each have 5.

So this seems (albeit weakly) to debunk a couple of things. Firstly, we are not enormously over the odds with our injury list. We have three more than the average, but is this enough to call the credibility of the medical team into account? This and the types of injuries don't seem to suggest so, although who would know?

Secondly, the funding of the medical departments seems to bear no correlation to the injury lists of the various clubs. WCE and Freo respectively would surely have two of the best funded medical departments in the AFL. They sit first and last respectively. Likewise Port and the Demons would surely have two of the worst funded. They sit second and second last respectively. Collingwood is bang on the average with 8.

I know that this is only at a point in time and so doesn't paint the whole picture, however to me it is an interesting insight. I think our angst is more particularly due to the nature of players being injured (and compounded by suspensions etc.) with the vast majority being "best 22". This isn't necessarily the case with other clubs.

One thing that does appear to be important is the impact of injuries on performance. ST Kilda, Melbourne and Freo have largely been seen as disappointing this year and Richmond and WCE have outperformed (and Port are just rubbish). For those of you that keep saying injuries are irrelevant, it's hard to defend when you look at these stats.

What needs to be factored into any assessment is type of injury and length of lay-off. The last two or three seasons need to be added in there as well.

I just don't hink ill-luck is accountable for 100% of it.

Not knowing any information about the competence of the medical staff (or their remuneration) I thought it would be interesting to see how our injury list compares to others in the competition.

The average number of players on an injury list is 8 (both mean and median) for each club. Most clubs have between 7 and 9. Melbourne is equal second on the list with 11 (St Kilda are also on 11 and Freo is on 15). At the other end of the spectrum, WCE have the lowest injuries with 4 and Port and Richmond each have 5.

So this seems (albeit weakly) to debunk a couple of things. Firstly, we are not enormously over the odds with our injury list. We have three more than the average, but is this enough to call the credibility of the medical team into account? This and the types of injuries don't seem to suggest so, although who would know?

Secondly, the funding of the medical departments seems to bear no correlation to the injury lists of the various clubs. WCE and Freo respectively would surely have two of the best funded medical departments in the AFL. They sit first and last respectively. Likewise Port and the Demons would surely have two of the worst funded. They sit second and second last respectively. Collingwood is bang on the average with 8.

I know that this is only at a point in time and so doesn't paint the whole picture, however to me it is an interesting insight. I think our angst is more particularly due to the nature of players being injured (and compounded by suspensions etc.) with the vast majority being "best 22". This isn't necessarily the case with other clubs.

One thing that does appear to be important is the impact of injuries on performance. ST Kilda, Melbourne and Freo have largely been seen as disappointing this year and Richmond and WCE have outperformed (and Port are just rubbish). For those of you that keep saying injuries are irrelevant, it's hard to defend when you look at these stats.

Rather than taking a snapshot of one week, it would be more interesting and accurate to look at total games unavailable per year. This would give an indication at to how good the medical staff and the recovery and rehab are. Anyone know if these stats are available?

exactly! 36DD why are you asking US for an explanation, WE do not have the knowledge of what is going on in the medical department, nobody here is going to be able to explain what Scully's preparation/recovery has been like, or the scientific theory behind it, WE are the ones who are asking THE CLUB for an explanation! You have it backwards!

Well if you think the club will listen then more power to you.

Plain and simple, the majority if not all injuries we currently have are a caused by playing a contact sport at ferocious speed.

You think there is an elephant in the room when there is actually a mouse.

Better to investigate more pressing and pertinent matters.

One thing that does appear to be important is the impact of injuries on performance. ST Kilda, Melbourne and Freo have largely been seen as disappointing this year and Richmond and WCE have outperformed (and Port are just rubbish). For those of you that keep saying injuries are irrelevant, it's hard to defend when you look at these stats.

Injuries play a massive part in team success.

Successful teams normally have pretty limited injury woes in their premiership seasons.

Rather than taking a snapshot of one week, it would be more interesting and accurate to look at total games unavailable per year. This would give an indication at to how good the medical staff and the recovery and rehab are. Anyone know if these stats are available?

I agree. As I said, it doesn't paint the whole picture - for example if this analysis was done in round three, we'd have been looking much better.

I saw someone (maybe Jay Clark?) write that the average for all clubs over the last few years is 8 out with injury per week. I'd suggest that over the season thus far we'd be pretty close to that. Not sure how we go in recent seasons past. Quite frankly, it does feel to me like a bit of bad luck given the nature of the injuries and we are just feeling it more because of the quality of players missing. That said, I agree prima facie with C&B's assessment that if you pay peanuts you get monkeys.

Anyone with access to more info able to shed anything further?

Agree with your OP Choko. It should be looked into.

One player who does concern me training-wise is Tom Scully. You hear stories from everywhere about how fanatical and obsessed he is with training and preparation. Is there a point at where it can all become a bit too much for an 18/19 year old body? Is there a correlation to him breaking down so often and absolutely punishing his body on the track? Will this affect his longevity as a footballer?

These questions will get dismissed out of hand by the usual know-alls but I think they have merit.

The problem is everyone comments on an injury from a few lines in the paper rather than know what occurred.

Tom's injury has nothing to do with a pre existing injury (as in it was already injured) or workload he took a knock in the intra club games which caused the actually injury (thus it was a collision injury). Problem was it wasn't an incident that he can remember occurring just that he was training fine prior to that game played and couldn't walk the next day, he knew that he took a knock as it was sore but doesn't remember when. The injury is unusual and its in the same area as his old injury so the knocked has effected it and the area was probably weak and would of occurred whenever his leg was knocked in this manner, it couldn't be foreseen by our medical department. The nature of the injury is that surgery can't fix it and its not a standard football injury thus rest is the only thing to assist it hence his time out of the game.

I seem to recall during preseason many players not training at odd intervals, and it causing panic amongst some of the supporters.

This was a result of the fitness staff managing the loads of players, to prevent injuries as a result of high training loads.

I honestly think a lot of our injuries are the results of collisions, or are immeasurable, such as Grimes navicular stress fracture or hot spot or whatever it is.

It is simply wrong to try to blame these on the club, as they cannot be foreseen or prevented.

I think, or perhaps hope, that our injuries are probably largely bad luck. That said, just because the fitness staff manage the players trainig loads, there is no guarantees that they are doing this correctly. It is entirely feasible to any right thinking person that there could be someting wrong with how they go about this. For instance Scully. As some have said here, his issue was known about before we drafted him, but due to his extremely high training drive, he has broken down. I know this is endemic of that sort of injury, but because everyone knows that, it also shows that it hasn't been managed correctly.

Correct me if I'm worng someone, but wouldn't the FD review at the end of last season have delved into this as part of their investigations??

Better to investigate more pressing and pertinent matters.

please advise me as to what matter is more important than this. There simply isn't one. The difference between a side that has a couple of blokes out and a side that has 11/12 out is about 8 spots on the ladder

we have so many injuries this year because we are SOFT - we train soft, we talk soft, we look soft, we play soft - we are the soft culture club.

We will TALK about fixing it but that is all we will do because we are SOFT

and then the next week we come out and talk about making a stand!

We play stupid footy and we play stupid footy in the softest way possible becuase we are SOFT.

That is all.

we have so many injuries this year because we are SOFT - we train soft, we talk soft, we look soft, we play soft - we are the soft culture club.

We will TALK about fixing it but that is all we will do because we are SOFT

and then the next week we come out and talk about making a stand!

We play stupid footy and we play stupid footy in the softest way possible becuase we are SOFT.

That is all.

Haha.

That is all.