So round 10 would be generous?

I may have missed it but when Dawes first suffered the calf injury at the intraclub match in February (about 5 weeks ago) it was described as a "strain". Does anyone know when it became a tear?

Rhino suggests that I twist history.

Here's how the Age reported on what he described as Beamer stuffing up - note he can't bring himself to mention the player broke club rules, was out until the early morning getting [censored] and then he turns Moloney into the innocent angel who was "publicly humiliated by Schwab".

Demotion for drunk Demon

Two years earlier, Collingwood disciplined two of its players by banning them for the remainder of the season a few weeks before the finals. It came at a tremendous cost to that club in terms of its 2009 campaign but laid the foundation for their 2010 premiership. Eddie McGuire and his board were congratulated by those who mattered in football for taking a courageous stand. Nobody in their right mind would have accused him of humiliating the players involved when they apologised to their fans for their public displays of drunkenness.

On the other hand the supposedly humiliated Moloney, did not miss a game.

Correct you do.

Shaw was suspended in 2009 for drink driving and being out with Didak. He crashed the car and was lucky no one was killed

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/alan-didak-in-shaw-car/story-e6frf7jo-1111117103140

It was another chapter in the litany of Shaw stupidity. He was not a first offender.

The extent of his frack up and to add his behaviour post incident by lying about it with Didak did him no favours. The club had to act especially with Didak involved.

His crimes were worse that Beamers and not a first offence. He also sought to give coverage to the perennial ratbag in Didak.

I am surprised you cant work out the different issues involved.

I consider the actions of both players equally repugnant. They were both behaviours that merited strong disciplinary action and what Beamer did, as a member of the leadership should not be dismissed or taken lightly.

To his credit, he openly admitted to having a problem which is usually the first step to rehabilitation. I was informed at the time that bringing the matter of his alcohol problem out in the open was supposed to be a way of helping him to help himself and not for the purpose of humiliation as some posters here have interpreted the situation.

So Pederson, Gillies, Byrnes, Rodan make us better than Rivers would? You seriously have no idea, I doubt you even understand what point you're arguing.

I wasn't too fussed when Rivers left but in hindsight it was a mistake, it's not a big deal it's just the way it is. I'm not slitting my wrists over it and to be frank I don't really care because here or not he wouldn't make much of a difference but he would offer more than the [censored] on our list who would struggle to get a game in the VFL.

Hahaha the irony!

You do realise they play different positions and roles?

Rivers has no valuable place in the side.

With Garland, Frawley, Dunn and McDonald, he is surplus to needs - no point paying over the odds for a depth player in that position.

None of the 4 you mention would have cost us anything near Rivers, save for maybe Byrnes and we are lacking in small forward options.

You don't seem to understand the concept of a balanced list.

Rivers would not have stayed for what he is worth.

We'd have to have paid well over the odds... For a bloke that wouldn't play half the season, and when he did, would be lucky to get into the best 22 due to injuries.

I consider the actions of both players equally repugnant. They were both behaviours that merited strong disciplinary action and what Beamer did, as a member of the leadership should not be dismissed or taken lightly.

To his credit, he openly admitted to having a problem which is usually the first step to rehabilitation. I was informed at the time that bringing the matter of his alcohol problem out in the open was supposed to be a way of helping him to help himself and not for the purpose of humiliation as some posters here have interpreted the situation.

Agree. Neither player deserves a gold star.

But as you say Beamer admitted a problem. It just did not need to be done in the full glare of the cameras. It could have been done in front of the team mates he let down.

But Shaws and Didaks issue was more than being drunk. Firstly it was on the eve of the finals. Secondly they were repeat offenders. Thirdly as they did on their earlier misdemeanours, they lied profusely when challenged about the incident. Finally for Shaw he took it an extra step further by actually getting in a car and driving. Add Given the number of past alcohol offences at the club, the Pies had to act hard on both.

Moloney was no great footballer. He seems a pretty WYSIWYG sort of bloke who has/ is dealing with a publicly admitted issues.

I am not sure why he is vilified by those who seek to revise history.

Hahaha the irony!

You do realise they play different positions and roles?

Rivers has no valuable place in the side.

With Garland, Frawley, Dunn and McDonald, he is surplus to needs - no point paying over the odds for a depth player in that position.

None of the 4 you mention would have cost us anything near Rivers, save for maybe Byrnes and we are lacking in small forward options.

You don't seem to understand the concept of a balanced list.

Rivers would not have stayed for what he is worth.

We'd have to have paid well over the odds... For a bloke that wouldn't play half the season, and when he did, would be lucky to get into the best 22 due to injuries.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I think it comes down to the fact I would rather see players on our list who are actually capable of performing at AFL level whereas you don't care we play as long as they do not cost us too much.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I think it comes down to the fact I would rather see players on our list who are actually capable of performing at AFL level whereas you don't care we play as long as they do not cost us too much.

No. I just don't believe in forking out ridiculous amounts for players that

1. are over the hill and due to retire soon

2. will cost a lot more than they are worth

3. if all our defenders are fit, will be playing at Casey

4. wouldn't make a difference to the result yesterday because they don't give us what we really need - run and quality disposal

Funny how that's so hard for you to understand.

No. I just don't believe in forking out ridiculous amounts for players that

1. are over the hill and due to retire soon

2. will cost a lot more than they are worth

3. if all our defenders are fit, will be playing at Casey

4. wouldn't make a difference to the result yesterday because they don't give us what we really need - run and quality disposal

Funny how that's so hard for you to understand.

You'd rather see ridiculous contracts given to guys who were never good enough rather than guys who are nearing the end of their careers. I get it.

Agree. Neither player deserves a gold star.

But as you say Beamer admitted a problem. It just did not need to be done in the full glare of the cameras. It could have been done in front of the team mates he let down.

But Shaws and Didaks issue was more than being drunk. Firstly it was on the eve of the finals. Secondly they were repeat offenders. Thirdly as they did on their earlier misdemeanours, they lied profusely when challenged about the incident. Finally for Shaw he took it an extra step further by actually getting in a car and driving. Add Given the number of past alcohol offences at the club, the Pies had to act hard on both.

Moloney was no great footballer. He seems a pretty WYSIWYG sort of bloke who has/ is dealing with a publicly admitted issues.

I am not sure why he is vilified by those who seek to revise history.

Agree wholeheartedly. I have no time whatsoever for people who seek to revise history such as describing what this player did as stuffing up and then trying to hide what actually happened.

The Moloney incident occurred at a night club partly owned by the son of a very good friend and I've been told that it was captured on CCTV cameras.

I have no illusions about the behaviours of both sets of players, neither of them need justification or explanation and it is an act of gross revision of history to suggest otherwise.

Agree. Neither player deserves a gold star.

But as you say Beamer admitted a problem. It just did not need to be done in the full glare of the cameras. It could have been done in front of the team mates he let down.

But Shaws and Didaks issue was more than being drunk. Firstly it was on the eve of the finals. Secondly they were repeat offenders. Thirdly as they did on their earlier misdemeanours, they lied profusely when challenged about the incident. Finally for Shaw he took it an extra step further by actually getting in a car and driving. Add Given the number of past alcohol offences at the club, the Pies had to act hard on both.

Moloney was no great footballer. He seems a pretty WYSIWYG sort of bloke who has/ is dealing with a publicly admitted issues.

I am not sure why he is vilified by those who seek to revise history.

Without wanting to get too enmeshed in a fight between you two, is it fair to say that Moloney was a first time offender? I'm not saying he wasn't, just have heard that it wasn't exactly the first time he'd got himself in situations like that... I could very well be wrong so open to being corrected!

You'd rather see ridiculous contracts given to guys who were never good enough rather than guys who are nearing the end of their careers. I get it.

No, you're incessantly building straw men in an effort to not look like a fool.

I'd rather get players we NEED at a reasonable price, rather than pay overs for players we don't, but that some supporters have an irrational emotional attachment to.

Let it go.

Rivers cannot help us.

I agree.

Neither Moloney nor Rivers can help us and aren't relevant to this discussion.

Let's return to the topic unless someone from the club states we have no injured players at all at which time, I'll close the thread

The first of the injury lists is taken from The Barometer

Mitch Clark (personal leave) indefinite

Chris Dawes (calf) 2-3 weeks

Jesse Hogan (back) TBA

Mark Jamar (foot) 1 week

Jordie McKenzie (foot) test

Aidan Riley (leg) test

Colin Garland (ankle) test

Good to see that Max Gawn and Jack Viney don't appear on this list (FWIW).

I may have missed it but when Dawes first suffered the calf injury at the intraclub match in February (about 5 weeks ago) it was described as a "strain". Does anyone know when it became a tear?

It was said at the time that it was just iced as a "precaution". The inference being he'd be right quite quickly.

The first of the injury lists is taken from The Barometer

Mitch Clark (personal leave) indefinite

Chris Dawes (calf) 2-3 weeks

Jesse Hogan (back) TBA

Mark Jamar (foot) 1 week

Jordie McKenzie (foot) test

Aidan Riley (leg) test

Colin Garland (ankle) test

Good to see that Max Gawn and Jack Viney don't appear on this list (FWIW).

Or they've been sent to the AIS to be further evaluated thus being 426

The first of the injury lists is taken from The Barometer

Mitch Clark (personal leave) indefinite

Chris Dawes (calf) 2-3 weeks

Jesse Hogan (back) TBA

Mark Jamar (foot) 1 week

Jordie McKenzie (foot) test

Aidan Riley (leg) test

Colin Garland (ankle) test

Good to see that Max Gawn and Jack Viney don't appear on this list (FWIW).

Pretty sure Dawes has been 2-3 weeks for over a month now haha.

The first of the injury lists is taken from The Barometer

Mitch Clark (personal leave) indefinite

Chris Dawes (calf) 2-3 weeks

Jesse Hogan (back) TBA

Mark Jamar (foot) 1 week

Jordie McKenzie (foot) test

Aidan Riley (leg) test

Colin Garland (ankle) test

Good to see that Max Gawn and Jack Viney don't appear on this list (FWIW).

FWIW heard Viney talking to someone outside the ground yesterday before the game and he said he'd be back in a couple of weeks.

Pretty sure Dawes has been 2-3 weeks for over a month now haha.

Id say for about a year now

Exhibit B:

"GOLD Coast midfielder Harley Bennell will miss at least another two matches after aggravating his calf injury.

Bennell re-injured himself while trying to prove his fitness for last weekend's round two match against Fremantle in Perth.

"Unfortunately I pulled up sore again last week," Bennell told the Suns' website.

"It has been a pretty frustrating start to the season, but all I can do is concentrate on getting it right.

"There is still plenty of football to be played this year and that's why it's important to get it right."

Bennell has struggled to overcome the injury since first succumbing to it during the pre-season and Suns' football manager Marcus Ashcroft believes giving Bennell a rest is the best option.

"We believe by stepping back and giving him a couple of weeks to get it right, will give him the best chance at ensuring he plays plenty of football in 2014," Ashcroft said."

Problem is, some supporters want an update like this every week on every player.

Maybe the club could provide that, but I personally don't think it's necessary and the club's resources could be used better elsewhere.

It is clear that calf injuries aRe far worse than most think, with several players struggling to overcome them. Then again back injuries and foot injuries aren't too good either.

Problem is, some supporters want an update like this every week on every player.

Maybe the club could provide that, but I personally don't think it's necessary and the club's resources could be used better elsewhere.

But Machsy, the club does provide that on its website every week. The problem is that it's never easy to predict the length of time any one player will be out injured but when the predictions all turn out to be routinely wrong a level of frustration results - especially when we appear to be among the worst affected clubs year after year.

Problem is, some supporters want an update like this every week on every player.

Maybe the club could provide that, but I personally don't think it's necessary and the club's resources could be used better elsewhere.

I think (hoped!) my point re the Bennell report was to illustrate the constantly shifting sands of injuries and rehab.

It's not just Melbourne.

But Machsy, the club does provide that on its website every week. The problem is that it's never easy to predict the length of time any one player will be out injured but when the predictions all turn out to be routinely wrong a level of frustration results - especially when we appear to be among the worst affected clubs year after year.

And the real frustration is at the injury itself, misdirected at the club.

I think (hoped!) my point re the Bennell report was to illustrate the constantly shifting sands of injuries and rehab.

It's not just Melbourne.

And I completely agree!

But it was a slightly more detailed explanation.

I still believe the club could take this approach but would be accused of spin and earlier lies.