My curiosity goes to two things.

What exactly is the condition that ailed him requiring a procedure ( inclusive of a general )....and is he fully clear of this now ?

Why didn't this receive attention sometime earlier than the week before round1 ?

Edit...have these been answered here or elsewhere prior ?

Something nqr about all of this.

Edited March 26, 20196 yr by beelzebub

Just the usual mushroom factory stuff bb.

On ‎3‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 4:55 PM, david_neitz_is_my_dad said:

It was a skin condition on a small area, shouldnt have effected him one bit.

It was a bit more than that. The procedure did involve a GA, drainage, sutures, antibiotics etc that would have made him feel pretty disgusting. It was actually a significant area that was affected.

Before I get accused, I am not breaking any medical confidentiality. I actually know someone close to Max who told me and many others this last week well before the game. On going by what I was told, I was extremely surprised to see him out there at all.

 

41 minutes ago, jane02 said:

It was a bit more than that. The procedure did involve a GA, drainage, sutures, antibiotics etc that would have made him feel pretty disgusting. It was actually a significant area that was affected.

Before I get accused, I am not breaking any medical confidentiality. I actually know someone close to Max who told me and many others this last week well before the game. On going by what I was told, I was extremely surprised to see him out there at all. 

 

Okay thanks. i take it back, seems it would have effected him.

why don't we turn the table, play Preuss with Gawn still not 100 % and rough up Stanley who is hardly in Max's level. same with Ratugolea. They both love a nice clean run at the ball like Port so give them something to think about.

The amount of time Max was bumped or pushed outside the fall of the ball was a joke. if its goes unpunished then why not give it back in spades ?

5 hours ago, beelzebub said:

My curiosity goes to two things.

What exactly is the condition that ailed him requiring a procedure ( inclusive of a general )....and is he fully clear of this now ?

Why didn't this receive attention sometime earlier than the week before round1 ?

Edit...have these been answered here or elsewhere prior ?

Something nqr about all of this.

Most likely an infected cyst that they probably hoped would clear up with antibiotics but needed surgery at the last minute. 

Mid season with Preuss in good form in the 2's you'd either play both or rest Max entirely. Just bad timing that it happened in round 1.

Max didn't play well but we still did very well at centre bounces and we should be good enough to move the ball around the ground without the safety net of the long bomb to Max.

The off ball umpires should cop an absolute hiding in their reviews for missing copious blocks and holds miles from play from the first bounce and throughout the game. I actually like when a team targets a player but they should be copping free kicks for some of the stuff they did. You can't tackle a guy 100m from the play.

3 hours ago, jane02 said:

It was a bit more than that. The procedure did involve a GA, drainage, sutures, antibiotics etc that would have made him feel pretty disgusting. It was actually a significant area that was affected.

Before I get accused, I am not breaking any medical confidentiality. I actually know someone close to Max who told me and many others this last week well before the game. On going by what I was told, I was extremely surprised to see him out there at all.

 

Jesus, most people wouldn't go to their desk job after that, let alone play AFL in 32 degree heat while getting constantly smashed behind play.

No wonder he could barely move. And no wonder we lost. His lack of influence in the ruck and around the ground had a massive impact on our midfield's ability to win clean ball. No Gawn no Melbourne.

The fact that we chose to play him, and play him solo, says a lot more about Pruess than it does Gawn. 

Edited March 27, 20196 yr by Jaded

What we should have done is not played a bonafide ruckman. Just tried to shark 2 of the best ruckmen going around rather than play an unfit replacement or a recently-hospitalised Gawn. Throw Frost to the wolves for all I care in a situation like that.

I thought we were in trouble when I noticed him run on to the ground before the game with his beard having been obviously trimmed to half its usual length. Haven't we learned anything from the story of Samson?

1 hour ago, Jaded said:

 

The fact that we chose to play him, and play him solo, says a lot more about Pruess than it does Gawn. 

To me it speaks more about our FD and very odd selection criteria.

For mine it's reprehensible that Gawn played.

7 hours ago, beelzebub said:

My curiosity goes to two things.

What exactly is the condition that ailed him requiring a procedure ( inclusive of a general )....and is he fully clear of this now ?

Why didn't this receive attention sometime earlier than the week before round1 ?

Edit...have these been answered here or elsewhere prior ?

Something nqr about all of this.

The skin ailment  "boil"  or other, was infected enough to warrant a surgery under general anesthetic...  it could only be that the infection was spreading into his blood.

So he should not have played that same week,  or he should have had support via a 2nd ruck partner,  or Max should have played forward... or taken the match off,  and we go in with Preuss and Keilty.?

57 minutes ago, Chook said:

What we should have done is not played a bonafide ruckman. Just tried to shark 2 of the best ruckmen going around rather than play an unfit replacement or a recently-hospitalised Gawn. Throw Frost to the wolves for all I care in a situation like that.

Yeah... I like that, we could have sprung a surprise on them RE Maxy being out,  and the others in, would have thrown Ports planning astray.