What I am pointing out, FCS, is that someone with closer and better knowledge of Jesse's back that you (I presume) felt that it was NOT a serious injury, which turned out to be wrong in retrospect. But I again ask, what player goes out and plays without niggles and pains somewhere?

And yes I do share your frustrations especially over the Hogan injury, and the Clark situation.

I am not saying much different - they made an understandable mistake.

I am just frustrated with the understandable mistake being made for a practice match with the 19 year old future of the club.

Does anyone have a report from a training run this week?

It's a week and a bit since Hogan started running again, right?

If he has suddenly stopped his running, LET'S ALL PANIC!!!!, or at least have an informed reason to think things are regressing.

but this would be far better informed if someone can let us know if he has or hasn't been out on the grass at Gosch's

facts on the ground...anyone?

This is even less informed than the average thread...if a tree doesn't fall in a forest, and no one is there to hear it not fall, it could have fallen.

Not saying I have any information on his injury, but given Misson gives an injury UPDATE, perhaps there was nothing to update.

Edited April 23, 201411 yr by pitchfork

I am not saying much different - they made an understandable mistake.

I am just frustrated with the understandable mistake being made for a practice match with the 19 year old future of the club.

I tend to agree with you rpfc.

I think I have had it with all the "understandable mistakes" the MFC has made over the last ten years.

This one area where the MFC is leading the field.

Can we stop please

It is one of those injuries that you can never be sure of.

Last year post Australian Open, Thanisai Kokkinakis had the exact same injury and it sidelined him till late May, which is about 4 months...

Im not pencilling him to even be a chance till post round 12/BYE (not sure when ours is off the top of my head)..

Most people are not complaining that our players get injured, only that the club sets false expectations on when they will return.

The club sets realistic expectations on when they will return on the basis of available and known information. On the other hand injury/health management is subject to any number of variables.

Not sure why that should be contentious, or difficult to deal with.

A poster on here saw him having treatment on his back before the Geelong game ...

There you have it. Information doesn't get much more in-depth or accurate than that.

FFS.

Bodan Bobicech (spelling?!) must be sacked!

It is one of those injuries that you can never be sure of.

Last year post Australian Open, Thanisai Kokkinakis had the exact same injury and it sidelined him till late May, which is about 4 months...

Im not pencilling him to even be a chance till post round 12/BYE (not sure when ours is off the top of my head)..

Except that, as far as I know, nobody actually knows what Jesse's injury is. Can it, the unknown, be "exactly the same as" anything?

Except that, as far as I know, nobody actually knows what Jesse's injury is. Can it, the unknown, be "exactly the same as" anything?

Scully had one of those mystery can't be proven injuries but associated with strong rumours. No strong rumours here but something does not add up.

Edited April 23, 201411 yr by america de cali

Scully had one of those mystery can't be proven injuries but associated with strong rumours. No strong rumours here but something does not add up.

Come on - you surely aren't implying that Jesse is a scheming slimy little piece of something one may step in on a nature strip, are you?

And I don't think there's a phat Phil Hogan lurking with his hand out for a cheap pay out.

That would be an outright joke.

If there is an issue so bad that it can't be diagnosed, you don't say "4-5" weeks, you say "indefinite". That is, lasting for an unknown time. That would be inline with the injury's actual definition.

If he ends up going from "round 1 chance" to "round 4-5" to "round 10-11" to "out for the season", it will be a true insult to the fans. At this stage had they said "indefinite" from the start and at this stage he'd reached 4-5 weeks, we'd all be a little more optimistic. But now we just see a predicted return date that doesn't actually change week-to-week: it's been 4-6 weeks since round 1.

Oh God...426...*head, desk*

I truly hope the club has progressed since the rubbish handling of our 2012/2013 injuries.

Can we bring back Andrew Daff? Or has that relationship gone down the drain even with the change in management at the club?

That ship has sailed, mate.

The club sets realistic expectations on when they will return on the basis of available and known information. On the other hand injury/health management is subject to any number of variables.

Not sure why that should be contentious, or difficult to deal with.

Because it's [censored]. The club uses the prospect of players returning from injury as "good PR" because they think/know if they come out before the season and say Hogan and Clark are likely to miss a chunk/all of the year it will have an adverse impact on memberships/crowds.

Where is the hindsight?

A poster on here saw him having treatment on his back before the Geelong game, that game exacerbated the injury, Hogan won't play for a further 2 months and counting.

That was a poor decision to play a 19 year old key position player in a practice match with a sore back.

We all make innocent mistakes - this was one.

And I understand that all players don't go into games 100% - he's a 19 year old blue-chipper in a practice match.

I am sure they are happy to wear the criticism.

Along with the management of Trengove - both of them were injuries that were not caused but exacerbated by the poor management of the club.

I reckon that'd be "WPO" mate...

And it's probably best to set your expectations there, as then you can only be correct, or pleasantly surprised.

In the end it's an injury list with estimated return dates.

A concept many are having trouble grasping.

Why bother having the list then, M? Further, I don't think anyone could deny that these 'estimates' (and I agree, they are estimates, obviously) appear to be more often off the mark than on these days. Has that always been the way? I dunno. I feel like they used to set more realistic estimated return dates. For me, that's the fault of whoever's estimating.

There you have it. Information doesn't get much more in-depth or accurate than that.

FFS.

Who would you prefer? Mark Stevens?

TGR explicitly wrote that Hogan was being treated for a back issue days before he 'hurt' his back against Geelong.

TGR explicitly wrote that Hogan was being treated for a back issue days before he 'hurt' his back against Geelong.

Because TGR knows more about the specifics of Hogan's physical condition(s) than the Medicos or staff at the club.

Because TGR knows more about the specifics of Hogan's physical condition(s) than the Medicos or staff at the club.

Unquestioning faith in "experts" doesn't always end well. You give credence to their opinions but they are not the fount of all knowledge.

Along with the management of Trengove - both of them were injuries that were not caused but exacerbated by the poor management of the club

Not a defensible argument, not sure why you and others here even bother continuing with it.

Situation at Melbourne is identical to situation across every club and across every sport. Injuries do/don't show up in scans etc., injuries do/don't respond to standard treatments etc. etc.

Not a defensible argument, not sure why you and others here even bother continuing with it.

Situation at Melbourne is identical to situation across every club and across every sport. Injuries do/don't show up in scans etc., injuries do/don't respond to standard treatments etc. etc.

Of course it's a defensible argument you just choose to ignore it. Player has history of foot injuries. Player has pain in foot. Scan fails to identify injury. Player continues playing despite pain. Subsequent scan finds significant injury to player which was likely exacerbated through the poor management by the club.

It's a fairly logical sequence of events that most reasonable people would accept but we're just supposed to dismiss the possibility because it's not a defensible argument on the say so of who? You? Please, some of us still have the capacity for critical thought.

Because TGR knows more about the specifics of Hogan's physical condition(s) than the Medicos or staff at the club.

For non-'ology' alumni - TGR is a physiotherapist, and a pretty good one at that. Ergo, the info was inside and he'd know plenty about the prognosis of the injury.

Back injuries are highly unpredictable. It's notoriously hard to judge how quickly they will respond to treatment, and they're very prone to re-lapse and causing other issues elsewhere in the dorsal chain (calves and hammies, in particular).

Months really isn't out of the question for Hogan. In the past, this would be the classic 'indefinite' injury - make up your own mind about PR, conspiracy theories or best-case scenarios. The next update would probably be a 2-3 weeks, when the doctors are confident that the player was over the injury and into the conditioning phase of their recovery.

Moving past the credibility of any one of us and our observations at training - all I am referencing is the fact that Hogan had a back complaint before playing a practice match and then he is out for at least 8 weeks.

I am not claiming any inside knowledge, only the opinion that we got the decision to play him in that game wrong.

How you can argue the opposite I don't know.

Except that, as far as I know, nobody actually knows what Jesse's injury is. Can it, the unknown, be "exactly the same as" anything?

wasnt it originally minor back fractures, or am i delusional?

if it is, all it needs is rest.

Infact, i am absolutely correct.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-03-06/hogan-a-likely-non-starter

it's absolutely the same

Edited April 23, 201411 yr by JackVineyForPresident

Moving past the credibility of any one of us and our observations at training - all I am referencing is the fact that Hogan had a back complaint before playing a practice match and then he is out for at least 8 weeks.

I am not claiming any inside knowledge, only the opinion that we got the decision to play him in that game wrong.

How you can argue the opposite I don't know.

Easily:

"Hogan damaged his back in a recent NAB Challenge match when a knee from an opponent forced him from the field. "

The ox is slow after 3 knee reco's

Which is why you shouldn't muzzle him when he treadeth out the corn.