At the elite level particularly, pain is not always the presenting symptom when things aren't what they were (speed, kicking distance). There are biomechanical factors which, when in dysfunction, will cause diminished function, but not pain.

Thanks Webber, that give me hope.

From your knowledge does the injury Trenners has present in the way you are describing? Do you think it's highly likely/likely/unlikely that when his foot has healed he'll regain his pace and acceleration?

Appreciate your thoughts.

Webber, I have just come up with a brilliant business plan for yourself. What about whenever your next patient presents with any ailment that you are doubtful of, you post on here and we all get to diagnose and offer our incredible medical knowledge?

Again Master, what makes you think they weren't looking at the 'overall picture'?!! Sometimes, the answers and reasons elude EVERYBODY, because of the limitations of science, which you rightly acknowledge. The alternative management is that JT presents with 'niggling discomfort' (a constant for AFL footballers), and some drop in physical performance, which the Med staff ( all of them, in consultation with each other) can't find an answer for (because the answers aren't always there), so decide just to rest him completely from football. Would you be happy with that? Or might you be complaining that JT isn't playing, but nobody knows what's wrong with him?

Webber, I think you're getting a bit too defensive about posters asking what would seem to be reasonable and intelligent questions about this. Some posters who are health professionals, others who have experience of this or similar injuries.

Note that "asking questions" does not equate to "witch-hunt", and nobody is suggesting the latter. Yes, it is an inexact science, and you don't always get the definitive evidence you need. But their index of suspicion must have been high enough to get "scans" (doesn't say which) earlier in the year, and you'd expect Trengove and his injury were discussed among the medicos & physios over that period.

Yes, it had to be a judgement call, in the absence of solid evidence; yes, it all makes much more sense now in hindsight than it would have at the time. But, although the decision to keep Trengove playing was a reasonable one, on the evidence they had at the time, it was the wrong call. It happens.

I'm sure the medical staff would be doing a thorough review here. If there is any relationship to Trengove's injury from 2012, it's not insignificant that there's been an overhaul of our medical staff over that time, and the question must be asked about whether this loss of continuity was a factor. And it does seem to contrast with a much more cautious approach that they're taking with the likes of Hogan, Gawn and others. They will be picking through these issues and more.

And I stress - that's not to say that the staff aren't up to it. Again, I don't think anybody's suggesting that.

Webber, I think you're getting a bit too defensive about posters asking what would seem to be reasonable and intelligent questions about this. Some posters who are health professionals, others who have experience of this or similar injuries.

Note that "asking questions" does not equate to "witch-hunt", and nobody is suggesting the latter. Yes, it is an inexact science, and you don't always get the definitive evidence you need. But their index of suspicion must have been high enough to get "scans" (doesn't say which) earlier in the year, and you'd expect Trengove and his injury were discussed among the medicos & physios over that period.

Yes, it had to be a judgement call, in the absence of solid evidence; yes, it all makes much more sense now in hindsight than it would have at the time. But, although the decision to keep Trengove playing was a reasonable one, on the evidence they had at the time, it was the wrong call. It happens.

I'm sure the medical staff would be doing a thorough review here. If there is any relationship to Trengove's injury from 2012, it's not insignificant that there's been an overhaul of our medical staff over that time, and the question must be asked about whether this loss of continuity was a factor. And it does seem to contrast with a much more cautious approach that they're taking with the likes of Hogan, Gawn and others. They will be picking through these issues and more.

And I stress - that's not to say that the staff aren't up to it. Again, I don't think anybody's suggesting that.

Well reasoned and the thrust of your argument is that the medico's discussed and in absence of anything concrete and on evidence at the time made judgement calls.

The only part I dont agree is there are people who don't think the staff are up to it.

Classy response by Trengove to his injury on the website. I'm sure he will reinvent himself. Has great character that kid.

Webber, I think you're getting a bit too defensive about posters asking what would seem to be reasonable and intelligent questions about this. Some posters who are health professionals, others who have experience of this or similar injuries.

Note that "asking questions" does not equate to "witch-hunt", and nobody is suggesting the latter. Yes, it is an inexact science, and you don't always get the definitive evidence you need. But their index of suspicion must have been high enough to get "scans" (doesn't say which) earlier in the year, and you'd expect Trengove and his injury were discussed among the medicos & physios over that period.

Yes, it had to be a judgement call, in the absence of solid evidence; yes, it all makes much more sense now in hindsight than it would have at the time. But, although the decision to keep Trengove playing was a reasonable one, on the evidence they had at the time, it was the wrong call. It happens.

I'm sure the medical staff would be doing a thorough review here. If there is any relationship to Trengove's injury from 2012, it's not insignificant that there's been an overhaul of our medical staff over that time, and the question must be asked about whether this loss of continuity was a factor. And it does seem to contrast with a much more cautious approach that they're taking with the likes of Hogan, Gawn and others. They will be picking through these issues and more.

And I stress - that's not to say that the staff aren't up to it. Again, I don't think anybody's suggesting that.

"On the evidence they had at the time, it was the wrong one". Did you mean to write that? If they HAD evidence 'at the time' of a navicular fracture, they would have acted as they have now. They didn't, isn't that obvious? I'm defending the application of reason to this situation. Some want to hear it, some don't. ;-)

Webber, I have just come up with a brilliant business plan for yourself. What about whenever your next patient presents with any ailment that you are doubtful of, you post on here and we all get to diagnose and offer our incredible medical knowledge?

Foremost in my thoughts, Oneday.

Thanks Webber, that give me hope.

From your knowledge does the injury Trenners has present in the way you are describing? Do you think it's highly likely/likely/unlikely that when his foot has healed he'll regain his pace and acceleration?

Appreciate your thoughts.

Without getting too detailed BB, the midfoot is critical to the 'rigid lever' that the foot must become to allow power in push off, thus for running and jumping. It also must have the flexibility to allow deformation of the foot during weightbearing prior to push off. The navicular is the keystone of the arch which forms the rigid lever. If it's suspect, the whole transfer of power is inhibited. If JT's nav heals without issues of blood supply being affected, there's no reason he can't make a full recovery, and that would include complete power capabilities. If the midfoot was unstable either biomechanically or as a conscious lack of trust in it, he would certainly present with those symptoms, but there are a bunch of other pathologies that could give the same symptoms.

Yeah, based on my own very limited knowledge and experience with one foot injury, I'd say a weakness in the foot would have drastically impacted Trengove's ability to explode off the mark.

Not being quick already doesn't help, but clearly in his first 2 seasons Tregove possessed acceptable levels of agility and acceleration, that since have deserted him.

While I am sorry for Jack I'm happy he is getting the rest of the year off to heal .However if he doesn't heal and comes back the same then I think his creer will be ended unfortunately .

If he has had the problem for some time then it has seriously affected his contribution to the team.I for one am happy we will not carry him now and hope he comes back fit and well

Yeah, based on my own very limited knowledge and experience with one foot injury, I'd say a weakness in the foot would have drastically impacted Trengove's ability to explode off the mark.

Not being quick already doesn't help, but clearly in his first 2 seasons Tregove possessed acceptable levels of agility and acceleration, that since have deserted him.

he has seemingly lost the ability to leap and take an overhead mark and his kicking penetration, both were huge weapons of his in his SA days, even in his first years he showed signs

I'm going to throw the acid back on Misson's shoulders. He is responsible for all the players fitness levels. And relies on feedback from his staff and the players. If he has a player on the list that has or is clearly dropped away, regardless of the player saying he is right. In this case pick No2 Trenners, I would be hammering the door down, wanting answers to why my player on the list that clearly has dropped away. The arguement shouldnt hold water, if the answer was he has scans and all is ok. Then Misson should have dug his heels in and demanded more scans or an answer to why his player isnt running anywhere near what he used to be able to do.

If you were getting chest pains and had your heart checked out and was given the all clear, but the pains persisted but not as bad, you would back demanding a specialist do more checks,as something isnt right. Bit late when you keel over from something related indirectly. The same applies to Misson, I got a player here, that is struggling, we need to dig deeper. He has a care of duty for all players on the list. It doesnt stop with Trenners, there are a number of players with injury concerns, some come off the injury list, then back on it again a month later. (my faith in Misson is wavering) Gawn, Tapscott, Blease, Strauss and a number of others come to mind to be on and off the 426.

As a Medico I know the diagnostic process is very inexact and that it takes time for many conditions to declare themselves. If a stress fracture was forming the outcome may well have been the same. A delay in diagnosis may make very little difference. Sometimes you just have to see what develops and only act when the picture is clear.

Sad news but a year off with the potential of him getting back to 100% health is mighty enticing.

Good to see Trenners has recovered quickly from this injury and has been named as an emergency on League Teams.

Medical science has come a long way.

You're right in that sense.

But.. even the amateurs on this site ( and I definitely include myself) having been banging on about Trengoves lack of running power.

It is so obvious he has lost all acceleration over the last two years.

I posted a video of him in the U18s on another thread somewhere.

The difference is stark.

Yet the professionals can't see that there must be something not right.

The big worry for me is, if they did earlier scans on his foot ( I assume that by omission in the Josh Mahoney statement), they must have suspected a foot problem.

Everyone knows from their own experience that scans can be inconclusive.

So why would you not look further when the bloke is obviously struggling?

Especially when he has history.

So, just how would you plan to "look further"? He did end up with further scans which is presumably how he was eventually diagnosed. The question is how often?

An alternative would be just to rest him for an extended period...then the punters here would be complaining that he was soft, couldn't cope with a little bit of pain etc etc, as some here said of Mitch Clark and even Chris Dawes FCS. A no win situation.

TBH I don't get it.

Has his foot been an issue since 2012? Has it stopped him pushing off (acceleration) and his pace (speed) the whole time?

If it has then the mind boggles as to why he was played and if it hasn't then he's just slow. I really hope I'm wrong but I can't see how this changes much in terms of his physical abilities.

So, you would presumably just rest him - all diagnostic measures being negative - then see my statements ^^ for the reaction.

So what you are saying is that we draft a player who has reasonable foot speed for his first two seasons - for the next two seasons he can hardly raise a gallop and the medical staff either didn't notice or chose to ignore. If this is the case I am with you - sack the lot of them - fancy trained medical professionals knowing less than us on Demonland.

I am suggesting that absolutely it would have been topic of discussion and some form of ongoing investigation/monitoring was happening. The same as they would do with Dawes knee.

Since neither of us know we'll just have to both live with our opinions.

(as an aside - look at every club and the operations players go through in the off season to repair problems that we the supporters had no idea about. Players continually play carrying all sorts of ailments that only come to light in the off season when they go under the knife)

Hindsight is so easy -- you don't know what was done and what was said inside the club.

Let me try and put my question more simply.

If it wasn't hurting why would it effect his kicking and pace. If it was hurting why was he playing?

If it wasn't hurting it could still limit his "spring"for want of a better term. And you ask if it was hurting why was he playing? Many have said, and I agree, that if every player who was hurting was rested there would be no teams left on the field.

Sad news but a year off with the potential of him getting back to 100% health is mighty enticing.

well he's not having a year off

the report said he should be ready (hopefully) for pre-season training

so that is more like 6 months

Roos said in the presser that they could bring him back for the last 2 games. " but what's the point"

Edited April 16, 201411 yr by Mgdee

Roos said in the presser that they could bring him back for the last 2 games. " but what's the point"

It might be the Grand Final!

I am just worried we are in for yet another Worst Case Scenario because that is all we have had over the past 7 years. Think the worst that could happen and yes that is what happens!

Let us hope this one is different and maybe we have turned the corner and Trenners comes back better and faster than ever.

I hope he has a good recovery and when he comes back he will be playing in a vastly different and superior team to what he has been used to. Frankly I am happy he has been diagnosed with an injury that is affecting his performance and is treatable. Blind Freddy could see there was something very wrong 12 months ago but it was a WTF mystery to all concerned.

Edited April 16, 201411 yr by america de cali

I'm a big fan of Tim Boyle's articles.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/ballad-of-the-fellow-traveller-20140412-zqtxw.html

"To me, it is more apparent each year that if things are not going very well for you in the AFL, then they are going very poorly."

I hope you're going OK Jack.

So we can safely say that this was not a failed draft selection, poor culture, early captaincy, etc, just an injury. who'da thunk it?

I am just worried we are in for yet another Worst Case Scenario because that is all we have had over the past 7 years. Think the worst that could happen and yes that is what happens!

Let us hope this one is different and maybe we have turned the corner and Trenners comes back better and faster than ever.

FFS HTFU Injuries are part of football happens to every list

I'm going to throw the acid back on Misson's shoulders. He is responsible for all the players fitness levels. And relies on feedback from his staff and the players. If he has a player on the list that has or is clearly dropped away, regardless of the player saying he is right. In this case pick No2 Trenners, I would be hammering the door down, wanting answers to why my player on the list that clearly has dropped away. The arguement shouldnt hold water, if the answer was he has scans and all is ok. Then Misson should have dug his heels in and demanded more scans or an answer to why his player isnt running anywhere near what he used to be able to do.

If you were getting chest pains and had your heart checked out and was given the all clear, but the pains persisted but not as bad, you would back demanding a specialist do more checks,as something isnt right. Bit late when you keel over from something related indirectly. The same applies to Misson, I got a player here, that is struggling, we need to dig deeper. He has a care of duty for all players on the list. It doesnt stop with Trenners, there are a number of players with injury concerns, some come off the injury list, then back on it again a month later. (my faith in Misson is wavering) Gawn, Tapscott, Blease, Strauss and a number of others come to mind to be on and off the 426.

You want exactness,certainty and definite answers when it comes to human body - good luck with that. Injuries sometimes follow timelines and then sometimes they don't. Some players have a plan to follow and recover , some have relapses.

Look at the other clubs injury lists - some a little better than our - lots of clubs a lot worse. I don't give a rats about other clubs but there is a common theme running through all clubs - its called injuries.