28 minutes ago, Curry & Beer said:

probably about 40 years until we can talk about whether Christian Snr was better than Christian Jnr, so yeah, maybe just a touch :D

doubt you ever will be able to, as they are just completely different players (apart from the fact they played in different eras)

16 hours ago, rjay said:

'Ox', not one known for the overstatement said Trac was the 2nd coming of Ablett....Snr

Wasn't that Cam Mooney and wasn't he talking about Jake Stringer?

3 hours ago, hemingway said:

To me it's not mistruths coming from the club but highlights the difficulty of making fully accurate assessments about injury/rehab time. Injury recovery is not an exact science particularly when it involves foot injuries. Diagnostic assessments are as much about intuition as science. Recovery rates will also vary according to the physiological differences between individuals. These injuries are hard to manage particularly in professional sport with the intense pressure to get an athlete/footballer back on the track/field as quickly as possible. 

Spot on  - that supporters read the "number of weeks out" next to an injured player and expect it to be 100% accurate, come what may, amuses me. Frost's toe was listed as 4 or 6 week injury but turned out season ending. Bottom line is that it just didn't heal in the time frame normally expected for that type of injury. I would suggest it wasn't mismanagement by the medico's, 4-6 weeks wasn't an optimistic timeframe given to appease supporters  - it just didn't heal. 

1 minute ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Wasn't that Cam Mooney and wasn't he talking about Jake Stringer?

Cam did say he could be like Gary Ablett Snr in terms of freakish ability, but not as good.

Ox actually said Trac will be the next GA snrSnr

6 minutes ago, nutbean said:

Spot on  - that supporters read the "number of weeks out" next to an injured player and expect it to be 100% accurate, come what may, amuses me. Frost's toe was listed as 4 or 6 week injury but turned out season ending. Bottom line is that it just didn't heal in the time frame normally expected for that type of injury. I would suggest it wasn't mismanagement by the medico's, 4-6 weeks wasn't an optimistic timeframe given to appease supporters  - it just didn't heal. 

What I'm curious about is why do players very rarely recover faster than the club's initial prognosis? I understand the difficulty of pinpointing exactly how long it will take for an injury to heal, but I don't understand why the club's prognosis always seems to be the minimum amount of time that the player will be out. Maybe they should start saying as such? 

I.e. injury list:

Petracca- at least 3 weeks

Trengove- at least 2 weeks

etc.

16 minutes ago, Gorgoroth said:

Cam did say he could be like Gary Ablett Snr in terms of freakish ability, but not as good.

Ox actually said Trac will be the next GA snrSnr

The Ox is very rarely wrong on Football matters

his sources are rock solid

may it continue....

2 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

The Ox is very rarely wrong on Football matters

his sources are rock solid

may it continue....

"The earth is slow but the ox is patient" ?? 

26 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

The Ox is very rarely wrong on Football matters

his sources are rock solid

may it continue....

Not sure that his opinion on Petracca's ability has anything to do with his sources, though I sure hope that he's right!

33 minutes ago, Good Times Grimes said:

What I'm curious about is why do players very rarely recover faster than the club's initial prognosis? I understand the difficulty of pinpointing exactly how long it will take for an injury to heal, but I don't understand why the club's prognosis always seems to be the minimum amount of time that the player will be out. Maybe they should start saying as such? 

I.e. injury list:

Petracca- at least 3 weeks

Trengove- at least 2 weeks

etc.

Maybe its that the club is only putting a time on recovery from the injury and not including

• the time required to build their training load back up to the level required
• the time to get match conditioning...
• etc

38 minutes ago, Good Times Grimes said:

What I'm curious about is why do players very rarely recover faster than the club's initial prognosis? I understand the difficulty of pinpointing exactly how long it will take for an injury to heal, but I don't understand why the club's prognosis always seems to be the minimum amount of time that the player will be out. Maybe they should start saying as such? 

I.e. injury list:

Petracca- at least 3 weeks

Trengove- at least 2 weeks

etc.

I was going to write something along the lines of  suggesting minimums - Petracca  - minimum 3 weeks but imagine the outcries ! - "that doesn't tell us how long he will be out for !!!" 

Maybe they should go with a broader range  - 3-8 weeks - still don't think people would be happy.

7 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

Maybe its that the club is only putting a time on recovery from the injury and not including

• the time required to build their training load back up to the level required
• the time to get match conditioning...
• etc

While that seems to be the case, it also seems to differ a fair bit from injury to injury. Sometimes the timeframe is accurate to when the player returns to matches, other times it's accurate to when the player returns to full training, while most times it seems that it's completely inaccurate. 

5 minutes ago, nutbean said:

I was going to write something along the lines of  suggesting minimums - Petracca  - minimum 3 weeks but imagine the outcries ! - "that doesn't tell us how long he will be out for !!!" 

Maybe they should go with a broader range  - 3-8 weeks - still don't think people would be happy.

You raise good points. Personally, I'd rather know what the club expects the maximum time a player might miss to be, or alternatively the degree of confidence that they have in the timeframe that they provide. It frustrates me seeing players listed as 4-6 for 10 weeks in a row despite not having any setbacks, and I'd much rather see the initial report read 4-10.

2 minutes ago, Good Times Grimes said:

You raise good points. Personally, I'd rather know what the club expects the maximum time a player might miss to be, or alternatively the degree of confidence that they have in the timeframe that they provide. It frustrates me seeing players listed as 4-6 for 10 weeks in a row despite not having any setbacks, and I'd much rather see the initial report read 4-10.

Or a maximum of 10 but we expect less  say 6 given the circumstances 

53 minutes ago, Good Times Grimes said:

What I'm curious about is why do players very rarely recover faster than the club's initial prognosis? I understand the difficulty of pinpointing exactly how long it will take for an injury to heal, but I don't understand why the club's prognosis always seems to be the minimum amount of time that the player will be out. Maybe they should start saying as such? 

I.e. injury list:

Petracca- at least 3 weeks

Trengove- at least 2 weeks

etc.

exactly. If it is an 'estimate' then 50% of the time it should be sooner and 50% of the time later. It is NEVER sooner, and almost never on time. That proves that they knowingly understate it every time because they don't want supporters getting P'd off. They don't understand that we get twice as p'd off by the fact that we are being fed BS and wait an extra month for every player to come back into the side. I'm going to keep track of it this year. First exhibit - Brayshaw, 4 weeks. Let's see what the real timeframe ends up being.

2 minutes ago, Curry & Beer said:

exactly. If it is an 'estimate' then 50% of the time it should be sooner and 50% of the time later. It is NEVER sooner, and almost never on time. That proves that they knowingly understate it every time because they don't want supporters getting P'd off. They don't understand that we get twice as p'd off by the fact that we are being fed BS and wait an extra month for every player to come back into the side. I'm going to keep track of it this year. First exhibit - Brayshaw, 4 weeks. Let's see what the real timeframe ends up being.

That 50% argument is not correct.  We're not talking about tossing a coin, but the minimum time for recovery.  If they say 4 to 6 weeks, it doesn't mean that there may be a miracle recovery in 2 weeks. 

I doubt if giving false hope to supporters is a major factor - after all they get it wrong for players who haven't even raised expectations in supporters (other than those who salivate over a #46 pick).  Keeping opposition teams guessing is probably a factor, though probably not a major ones.

11 minutes ago, sue said:

That 50% argument is not correct.  We're not talking about tossing a coin, but the minimum time for recovery.  If they say 4 to 6 weeks, it doesn't mean that there may be a miracle recovery in 2 weeks. 

I doubt if giving false hope to supporters is a major factor - after all they get it wrong for players who haven't even raised expectations in supporters (other than those who salivate over a #46 pick).  Keeping opposition teams guessing is probably a factor, though probably not a major ones.

But in saying 4-6 weeks, it implies that 4 weeks will be the minimum amount of time the player will miss, while 6 weeks is the maximum amount of time they expect them to miss. In actual fact, it seems that that the timeframe given is the minimum amount of time the player is expected to miss, despite being advertised as being the total amount of time the player is expected to miss barring setbacks. 

14 minutes ago, sue said:

That 50% argument is not correct.  We're not talking about tossing a coin, but the minimum time for recovery.  If they say 4 to 6 weeks, it doesn't mean that there may be a miracle recovery in 2 weeks. 

I doubt if giving false hope to supporters is a major factor - after all they get it wrong for players who haven't even raised expectations in supporters (other than those who salivate over a #46 pick).  Keeping opposition teams guessing is probably a factor, though probably not a major ones.

it is correct if you read what GTG wrote - they don't SAY it is a 'minimum' or 'at least' they just say '4 weeks'. That makes it an ESTIMATE, which by logical definition means it should be the 'average' amount of time, ie half the time it is less, and half the time is more. It would be different if they said 'at least' but they don't, do they?

22 minutes ago, Curry & Beer said:

it is correct if you read what GTG wrote - they don't SAY it is a 'minimum' or 'at least' they just say '4 weeks'. That makes it an ESTIMATE, which by logical definition means it should be the 'average' amount of time, ie half the time it is less, and half the time is more. It would be different if they said 'at least' but they don't, do they?

Disagree - estimate does not mean average. And anyway does anyone not read 'at least' into such estimates (without being a MFC supporter). It's implicit.

It is an "estimate" but there is no reason to assume the player will recover faster than the minimum in the estimate. And plenty of things that could go wrong to make it impossible to recover by the upper estimate. If at 2pm I say I estimate I will be at your place between 4 and 5pm because I am 2.5 hours away, you'd be more than surprised to see me at 3pm. And if my car breaks down I may not get there till 7pm.

19 minutes ago, sue said:

Disagree - estimate does not mean average. And anyway does anyone not read 'at least' into such estimates (without being a MFC supporter). It's implicit.

It is an "estimate" but there is no reason to assume the player will recover faster than the minimum in the estimate. And plenty of things that could go wrong to make it impossible to recover by the upper estimate. If at 2pm I say I estimate I will be at your place between 4 and 5pm because I am 2.5 hours away, you'd be more than surprised to see me at 3pm. And if my car breaks down I may not get there till 7pm.

Yes, but if traffic is lighter than you expected and you catch only green lights, could you not arrive earlier than 4pm? Why do injuries regularly seem to fall under the broken down car scenario as opposed to the light traffic scenario? 

When I read 4-6, I expect the player to be back playing between four and six weeks from the time of injury, barring any setbacks, much like I'd expect you to arrive at my place between 4 and 5pm if you were 2.5 hours away at 2pm. Having two times in an injury timeframe (4 and 6) implies that one is the lower limit while the other is the upper limit. It would make more sense to just have one (the lower limit) and for it to be read as just that: the minimum amount of time the club expects the player to miss.

Edited March 3, 20169 yr by Good Times Grimes

1 hour ago, Good Times Grimes said:

Not sure that his opinion on Petracca's ability has anything to do with his sources, though I sure hope that he's right!

Maybe his source is accessible only by the "golden telephone"

39 minutes ago, sue said:

Disagree - estimate does not mean average. And anyway does anyone not read 'at least' into such estimates (without being a MFC supporter). It's implicit.

It is an "estimate" but there is no reason to assume the player will recover faster than the minimum in the estimate. And plenty of things that could go wrong to make it impossible to recover by the upper estimate. If at 2pm I say I estimate I will be at your place between 4 and 5pm because I am 2.5 hours away, you'd be more than surprised to see me at 3pm. And if my car breaks down I may not get there till 7pm.

You contradict yourself.

Your argument is that '4 weeks' actually inherently means 'minimum 4 weeks'.

When you say you are going to be at my house at 4.30 pm I don't take that to mean '4.30 pm at the earliest' it means '4.30 pm give or take 15-20 minutes'

50% of the time you will be earlier than 4.30 and 50% of the time you will be later

if you STATED that it will be 4.30 at the EARLIEST, that would be different, but that's not the case in our analogy is it?

2 hours ago, nutbean said:

Maybe they should go with a broader range  - 3-8 weeks - still don't think people would be happy.

They could play it really safe and default to the fan favourite...."Indefinite".

Guaranteed to be correct in every case.

Interesting The Ox compared Trtacca to Ablett Snr.

Just yesterday I mad a post saying how he reminded me of Allen Jakovich..   Ox usually has the good mail from the MFC so Im now confident hes going to be groomed as a forward. Very exciting, him and Hogan islolated in side forward 50 will be orgasmic for us and a nightmare matchup for the opposition.  

1 hour ago, Curry & Beer said:

You contradict yourself.

Your argument is that '4 weeks' actually inherently means 'minimum 4 weeks'.

When you say you are going to be at my house at 4.30 pm I don't take that to mean '4.30 pm at the earliest' it means '4.30 pm give or take 15-20 minutes'

50% of the time you will be earlier than 4.30 and 50% of the time you will be later

if you STATED that it will be 4.30 at the EARLIEST, that would be different, but that's not the case in our analogy is it?

 

That's where we differ. If I say I'll be that at 4pm or between 4 and 6pm I won't be there before 4pm because I think it is rude to show up early. The person I'm visiting may not be ready - I don't want to embarrass my host if he hasn't had time to roll out the red carpet.  When a club says 4 to 6 weeks, I assume 4 is the minimum, not some sort of average for that sort of injury.  Assuming anything else is just wishful thinking - no wonder so many on here get so depressed about injury recovery times.

Just now, sue said:

 

That's where we differ. If I say I'll be that at 4pm or between 4 and 6pm I won't be there before 4pm because I think it is rude to show up early. The person I'm visiting may not be ready - I don't want to embarrass my host if he hasn't had time to roll out the red carpet.  When a club says 4 to 6 weeks, I assume 4 is the minimum, not some sort of average for that sort of injury.  Assuming anything else is just wishful thinking - no wonder so many on here get so depressed about injury recovery times.

Pretty sure if we put it to a poll, 90% would see it my way, which is that the word 'minimum' is NOT inherently implied