I have had some reservations since Viney stupidly played with his foot injury at the end of 2017 for what was essentially dead rubbers.  He rushed back and suffered the consequences in 2018.  With decision-making like that, you virtually deserve the consequences.

Last week Viney played at Casey in the reserves, with knee taped and hobbling off.    Was even shown in news footage after the senior game.  That vision surely put him in doubt.  On Saturday he was not running; he was ‘jobbling’, which is a cross between jogging and hobbling.

These are obvious examples that someone on the outer can see.  The fear is the extrapolation in relation to various cases that we don’t have the luxury of seeing.

My question is does our medical staff have the brains and brawn.  In other words, they might (questionable) make the right call, but does that carry weight to trump the overall hunch of the player and match committee?

I doubt it.  The tail is wagging the dog here, and I hope the dog is as smart as Lassie, and not Scooby Doo.

I'm going to share a story and it doesn't bother me whether or not posters believe me. 

I'll start firstly by asking if anyone else noticed Jack's clear limp during the last half on Saturday. There is absolutely no way that he was moving in that manner due to fitness. Watching him shuffle from contest to contest was almost unbearable and from second level MCC it was clear as day that Jack is either playing through pain or not being entirely honest about his pain. And neither is the club. 

Goodwin said we came away 'unscathed' in his presser but I don't think we're being told the truth about Jack and I'm fearful that he's in a similar position to Vanders in that this will always be an issue for him. 

Here's my story:

Two years ago I was suffering from plantar fasciitis which started over the pre-season (Same as Jack's injury). As soon as it became a constant ache and pain that wasn't going away, I got in touch with a physio from a previous club I'd been at who had just finished up working as North's physio. 

He suggested a relatively new non-invasive procedure that involved a needle which he said some AFL players had trialled with success as there's barely any recovery time. The more traditional surgery (the one that Jack had), is where an incision is made to cut the fascia and relieve the pain. But the recovery time is greater. However, this particular physio said that Jack's foot was in a shocking state after the surgery. Basically that it would never be the same and that he (like Vader's), will have to manage it from now on. He knew the guy who did the surgery. 

I realise this is probably suspected by many already but at the time I didn't want to believe it and thought I'd wait it out and see how he'd recover. But after seeing him in the flesh on Saturday, he is clearly favouring one side and had a notable limp and it can't just be a lack of fitness. 

I'm interested to know if anyone has heard similar. 

 

Edited March 25, 20196 yr by stevethemanjordan

He was looking proppy even just warming up pre game. Someone had mentioned he was 'Trengove pace' all game. Fair to say that comment is pretty much spot on. Looked slow and didn't crash in like he did around finals time last year.

Is it Jack's decision to play or the coaching staff? Who knows.. but right now he either needs a month off or just continual match fitness.

14 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

He was looking proppy even just warming up pre game.

I noticed the slight limp pre-game too.

He should not have been picked and the amount of game time actually played confirms that.

From my post earlier today in the Changes vs Geelong thread: 

"Hate to say it but I think Viney needs to be rested:  he played only about 2 1/2 quarters, when he tried to run it was barely trotting pace and when on field he didn't really impact the game.  He not only looked underdone, he looked injured...We effectively played one short vs Port and it took its toll on the rest of the team". 

Other players had to player longer minutes to compensate for Viney being on the bench.  Co-captain or not, Viney cannot be allowed to call the shots.

Edited March 25, 20196 yr by Lucifer's Hero

21 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

I'm going to share a story and it doesn't bother me whether or not posters believe me. 

I'll start firstly by asking if anyone else noticed Jack's clear limp during the last half on Saturday. There is absolutely no way that he was moving in that manner due to fitness. Watching him shuffle from contest to contest was almost unbearable and from second level MCC it was clear as day that Jack is either playing through pain or not being entirely honest about his pain. And neither is the club. 

Goodwin said we came away 'unscathed' in his presser but I don't think we're being told the truth about Jack and I'm fearful that he's in a similar position to Vanders in that this will always be an issue for him. 

Here's my story:

Two years ago I was suffering from plantar fasciitis which started over the pre-season (Same as Jack's injury). As soon as it became a constant ache and pain that wasn't going away, I got in touch with a physio from a previous club I'd been at who had just finished up working as North's physio. 

He suggested a relatively new non-invasive procedure that involved a needle which he said some AFL players had trialled with success as there's barely any recovery time. The more traditional surgery (the one that Jack had), is where an incision is made to cut the fascia and relieve the pain. But the recovery time is greater. However, this particular physio said that Jack's foot was in a shocking state after the surgery. Basically that it would never be the same and that he (like Vader's), will have to manage it from now on. He knew the guy who did the surgery. 

I realise this is probably suspected by many already but at the time I didn't want to believe it and thought I'd wait it out and see how he'd recover. But after seeing him in the flesh on Saturday, he is clearly favouring one side and had a notable limp and it can't just be a lack of fitness. 

I'm interested to know if anyone has heard similar. 

 

Thanks steve for this. I noticed the limp but the tail wags the dog here and has done for 2 years. Thats not supposition.

I have just recovered from PF after 5 years.  Soon as i heard the diagnosis i felt sick for jack.

I trust goodu takes this in hand. If jack plays this week then we know the answer.

15 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

From my post earlier today in the Changes vs Geelong thread: 

"Hate to say it but I think Viney needs to be rested:  he played only about 2 1/2 quarters, when he tried to run it was barely trotting pace and when on field he didn't really impact the game.  He not only looked underdone, he looked injured...We effectively played one short vs Port and it took its toll on the rest of the team". 

Other players had to player longer minutes to compensate for Viney being on the bench.  Co-captain or not, Viney cannot be allowed to call the shots.

Viney played 79 minutes according to AFL.com. He looked like he was focussed on just getting through the game but also looked like this when he come back the last couple of seasons before being unleashed to devestating effect. I'll back him to be one of our best in the next 2-3 games. 

I worry about both Viney's and T. McDonald's foot injuries in the long-term.

 

Just now, chookrat said:

Viney played 79 minutes according to AFL.com. He looked like he was focussed on just getting through the game but also looked like this when he come back the last couple of seasons before being unleashed to devestating effect. I'll back him to be one of our best in the next 2-3 games. 

That is about 2 1/2 quarters. 

Not sure I agree that he looked the same on Saturday as when he came back in past seasons.  Last year he came back for the first final and he was mighty: ran, tackled, harassed, rag-dolled one of the Holy Trinity ? (can't remember which one) and was the Jack we know and love.  The Jack at the MCG on Saturday was nothing like that.  TV made have painted a different picture than seeing him live.

44 minutes ago, TGR said:

I have had some reservations since Viney stupidly played with his foot injury at the end of 2017 for what was essentially dead rubbers.  He rushed back and suffered the consequences in 2018.  With decision-making like that, you virtually deserve the consequences.

Last week Viney played at Casey in the reserves, with knee taped and hobbling off.    Was even shown in news footage after the senior game.  That vision surely put him in doubt.  On Saturday he was not running; he was ‘jobbling’, which is a cross between jogging and hobbling.

These are obvious examples that someone on the outer can see.  The fear is the extrapolation in relation to various cases that we don’t have the luxury of seeing.

My question is does our medical staff have the brains and brawn.  In other words, they might (questionable) make the right call, but does that carry weight to trump the overall hunch of the player and match committee?

 

i doubt it.  The tail is wagging the dog here, and I hope the dog is as smart as Lassie, and not Scooby Doo.

 

 

 

 

Exactly my point in posts on the team for Round 2.

i had no doubt in 2017 that Jack then said I am playing and no one had the b...s to say NO.

Result he got another foot injury which has impacted him until last season and only a super effort saw him fit for the Finals.

But now it's other leg injuries and to play on in a prac match for fitness and nominate seriously fir Sat as fit does  not look even remotely sensible.

Medicos and Coaches don't ruin Jack he is tough but he can and will end his AFL career if we go soft and sentimental.

He is our Capt to lose but I would like to see him later in the year and from 2020 And take  our chances of a Flag or Finals in the meantime.

Someonr will step up and assist it usually happens.

16 minutes ago, Demonland said:

I noticed the slight limp pre-game too.

He should not have been picked and the amount of game time actually played confirms that.

Its strange, as blind freddy could see that he was limping and not fit.

There has always been a footy club culture that allows a player to play injured.

However, why risk a player that is so important to the club in the first match of a very long season ?

There are 3 possible scenarios:

-Viney and/or the coaches are prepared to override medical advice or

-The medical advice is equivocal, leaving the player and coach to make the call or

-The medical advice is that Viney has a chronic injury that will not repair without long term rest of a year or more a la Clark and Trengove. An even worse scenario is a diagnosis that says that the injury will never fully repair, and that Viney will need to retire, or try and play on for as long as possible with the pain.  

However, on the evidence of Saturday, it would appear that Viney is going to have an interrupted season of football.  And as we also saw on Saturday, he will have limited effectiveness due to lack of game time, poor fitness and inability to compete. 

We all saw Viney on saturday, Nothing more need be said. Thursday evening will have some interest.

Thanks for the insight Steve.

Will be a devastating blow if this has a similar career impact to Trenners’ injury. I hope in the name of all that’s holy that they manage him correctly. On the surface it looks a terrible decision to let him play on the weekend. Everyone involved in that decision is accountable. 

If he continues to put in similar performances then it’s delaying the inevitable. 

14 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

That is about 2 1/2 quarters. 

Not sure I agree that he looked the same on Saturday as when he came back in past seasons.  Last year he came back for the first final and he was mighty: ran, tackled, harassed, rag-dolled one of the Holy Trinity ? (can't remember which one) and was the Jack we know and love.  The Jack at the MCG on Saturday was nothing like that.  TV made have painted a different picture than seeing him live.

67% game time is reasonable for a first game. If he played 50% I'd be concerned but i think he'll build to 80+% over the next 2 - 3 rounds. He might simply be holding himself back while he builds match fitness, in which case if he had won would have been smart play but because we lost he's seen as the problem. I reckon we give it a few games to see a bigger sample and then we will have a better idea where Jack and the team are tracking. 

26 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

I worry about both Viney's and T. McDonald's foot injuries in the long-term.

 

My reliable information on tmac is that he is meticulous in foot management.

He has been known to take a bucket with him socially so he can ice his foot if needs be. Last year this occurred. Does nothing without medocos sign off.

1 hour ago, stevethemanjordan said:

I'm going to share a story and it doesn't bother me whether or not posters believe me. 

I'll start firstly by asking if anyone else noticed Jack's clear limp during the last half on Saturday. There is absolutely no way that he was moving in that manner due to fitness. Watching him shuffle from contest to contest was almost unbearable and from second level MCC it was clear as day that Jack is either playing through pain or not being entirely honest about his pain. And neither is the club. 

Goodwin said we came away 'unscathed' in his presser but I don't think we're being told the truth about Jack and I'm fearful that he's in a similar position to Vanders in that this will always be an issue for him. 

Here's my story:

Two years ago I was suffering from plantar fasciitis which started over the pre-season (Same as Jack's injury). As soon as it became a constant ache and pain that wasn't going away, I got in touch with a physio from a previous club I'd been at who had just finished up working as North's physio. 

He suggested a relatively new non-invasive procedure that involved a needle which he said some AFL players had trialled with success as there's barely any recovery time. The more traditional surgery (the one that Jack had), is where an incision is made to cut the fascia and relieve the pain. But the recovery time is greater. However, this particular physio said that Jack's foot was in a shocking state after the surgery. Basically that it would never be the same and that he (like Vader's), will have to manage it from now on. He knew the guy who did the surgery. 

I realise this is probably suspected by many already but at the time I didn't want to believe it and thought I'd wait it out and see how he'd recover. But after seeing him in the flesh on Saturday, he is clearly favouring one side and had a notable limp and it can't just be a lack of fitness. 

I'm interested to know if anyone has heard similar. 

 

Great example of how the father-son rule doesn't always work.

41 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

I worry about both Viney's and T. McDonald's foot injuries in the long-term.

 

Yep. A lot we aren't being told here. Not that I'd imagine we would anyway.

Both way below par....both have a ....? ..a niggle !

These are both key pivotal players.

Something ain't kosher 

21 minutes ago, chookrat said:

67% game time is reasonable for a first game. If he played 50% I'd be concerned but i think he'll build to 80+% over the next 2 - 3 rounds. He might simply be holding himself back while he builds match fitness, in which case if he had won would have been smart play but because we lost he's seen as the problem. I reckon we give it a few games to see a bigger sample and then we will have a better idea where Jack and the team are tracking. 

Jack Viney holding himself back? Possible in a parallel universe. 

4 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Great example of how the father-son rule doesn't always work.

So posters are going to make comments on something they know nothing about on the hearsay of another poster who is only guessing that there could be a problem.Typical.

I noticed prior to the start of the season that Nathan Jones said Jack was in the best nick he had been compared to the last few pre-seasons.

Smoke and mirrors, maybe?  Who knows.  But he clearly wasn't fit on Saturday.

I want the old Jack back.

10 minutes ago, drysdale demon said:

So posters are going to make comments on something they know nothing about on the hearsay of another poster who is only guessing that there could be a problem.Typical.

Must you put the boot ? in with every post you make?

you, like all of us are never perfect...

35 minutes ago, chookrat said:

67% game time is reasonable for a first game. 

67% game time is not enough for a midfielder, or any player for that matter. If a player is selected then they are deemed fit. You can’t conpromise a whole team to carry someone not able to pull their weight. Either Jack is fit and he’s not performing (unlikely) or Jack is unfit and should not be selected.

I fear it’s going to be the case for the remainder of his career. He’s now spent close to half his career with injury, and there’s no end in sight as his body does not seem to be capable of holding up to play at the highest level.

11 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

I noticed prior to the start of the season that Nathan Jones said Jack was in the best nick he had been compared to the last few pre-seasons.

Smoke and mirrors, maybe?  Who knows.  But he clearly wasn't fit on Saturday.

I want the old Jack back.

Maybe it’s not smoke and mirrors. Maybe leading up to the practice matches Jack was in really good nick until he got that cork on his knee. 

Lets not jump the gun here and think that it’s the end of the world. Let’s wait and see how he goes this weekend.

Limping, carrying injury or not.

The real Jack Viney would not have put up with Max being pushed around without giving some back.

He was very placid on Saturday & had absolutely no impact on the game.

5 minutes ago, rjay said:

Limping, carrying injury or not.

The real Jack Viney would not have put up with Max being pushed around without giving some back.

He was very placid on Saturday & had absolutely no impact on the game.

That’s a very good point. Jack might have been on the bench at the time but no else jumped in for Max. That’s when I knew we were in trouble.

I mean where was the agro, where was the ‘c u next Tuesday’ in us. Very unlike Melbourne of 2018