Lord Nev

@Lucifer's Hero Round 14 Injury Report Finally.

Just rumour at this stage, so hold fire.

Apparently Lever, Hibberd and Garlett all out injured, and Spargo ommited. Not confirmed though.

Rumour is all of Lever, Hibberd and Garlett will be out injured. Just emphasizing, rumour.

"Two pizzas for the price of one at Doughy's!" "Doughy's has terrible pizza." "Yeah, but there's TWO!"

How about the Hill brothers? Stephen Hill is uncontracted beyond this year and Bradley was rumoured to have very nearly returned to Victoria last trade period. Stephen will be a free agent, but Bradley is signed up until 2021. Getting both of them in one hit would turn our midfield around instantly IMO.

I think because the new guy is an actual doctor he has to respect patient confidentiality...

Reckon you're on the money here DD36. Petty for Lever (inj) and Lewis for Hibberd (inj) seem likely changes pending accuracy of rumours going around.

No probs, won't pry, just seems such a strange situation to have two development coaches that seemingly refuse to work together.

Haha yep, absolutely could be that (pending accuracy of information), almost thought of not passing it on as I was expecting a possible wack from you! However, also could have been caused due to the lack of preparation given it seems likely it was the incident where he was very slow to react and was tackled awkwardly with contact to his knee. One of those 'open to interpretation' things that come up so often in footy I guess. So you could say his rehab was all fine but his preparation was not (if that kind of makes sense).

Take this as you will because it's been passed on by literally a mate who knows someone who knows someone (I know, I know), but what I've heard is it's a bone on bone issue in the same knee he injured previously, caused by a knock in the first quarter of the QB game. Could potentially miss more than a week, but similar to Edmund's report it's not a structural issue and it's not major or season ending by any stretch. Rumour at this stage of course, but the mate who passed it on only passes on good info generally.

Going a bit by memory here, but fairly sure he played 70% game time in his first VFL game, less than 10 minutes in his second before the ankle injury and then didn't play at all in the 3rd week.

“Melbourne say no massive cause for alarm there. Just needs a little bit of a spell, potentially, and he’ll be right to go. “Nothing structurally there at work.” Sam Edmund via SEN

If he misses this week with soreness in the same knee that was rehabilitated after playing only 3/4s of a VFL game over 3 weeks that would be evidence in my opinion. Obviously the year out and the training period seemed patient enough, but then to be recalled to the much greater speed and impact of AFL level footy on such limited match play makes it seem like they rushed the final stage. Playing 90% game time would have had an impact also. Played less than that in total for the previous 3 weeks. The Frost concussion would have been part of that equation of course, but that seems a pretty clear picture to me.

Didn't hear the segment myself, was just told what was said. Don't know which knee, but you'd assume hey? To clarify, it sounds like he does have some foot soreness, but it's the knee soreness that is the problem and the thing that could see him miss this week. Guessing here, but it could be that he had foot soreness before the QB game, but now he has knee soreness that's bad enough to keep him from playing. Absolute guess though. I've not been one of the 'Misson bashers', but given what seems to have been a growing problem the last few years in injury mismanagement, particularly returns from injury, it certainly puts more context around his seeming demotion this week.

Sam Edmund reporting on SEN that Jake Lever is actually suffering from knee soreness not foot soreness.

Apparently he was already sore before the Collingwood game. Who would have thought 3 quarters of a VFL game over the course of 3 weeks wasn't enough preparation after a year out of the game....?

Steven May said on Fox Footy that Lever has a foot issue and could miss this week apparently.

Would have thought managing injuries and in-season training was just as important as the off-season, especially when that's when everyone is on holidays for part of it? He has also been giving weekly reports during the season so I would assume then that he's got important things happening. As for the article you've quoted, Misson is not an ED or CEO, and, as mentioned in my last post, there is no successor currently announced, so he has been moved to a different appointment without someone filling his role. Pretty clear what that means. In terms of relevant precedence, Peter Jackson didn't step away from his role half way through his last year. Misson himself obviously didn't see this coming, and certainly wasn't planning on being out by August: "I'll do the whole season, I'm not going over until mid-December this year, so it will be business as usual really for me in terms of my role at Melbourne," Misson said. Source here

'Fairly standard practice' to change someone's role halfway through the last year of their contract when no replacement is employed as yet? Wouldn't have thought so, unless Burgess has already agreed to terms and will start soon. If not, it's a movement of Misson's role and restructure of the department that was not planned until things were reviewed recently.

Yeah look I'm not saying Garlett is in great form or he has no faults in his game, all I'm saying is given his strengths and our wekanesses as a team currently I would not be dropping him at this stage. I've loved Hunt up forward, it's been a bit inconsistent but it seems to have helped him find a bit of form and a bit of happiness in his footy which will benefit the team in the end. Not sure how Hannan's stats from last year are relevant? I rate him, and he's important to our mid/forward mix, but to my eyes he was brought back in way too early (and without VFL time) and has struggled so far in his games back. Lockhart I like a lot, I see him as the most likely direct replacement for Jeff as we move forward. Where we differ I guess is that I just think as of right now we can't afford to drop him. That may change, but right now I wouldn't be dropping the one player who leads our tackles inside 50, marks inside 50 and goals. The Viney comparison was just to highlight that we need both skill and hardness, and that I find it strange we're picking out one player when every single other player on our list has weaknesses in their game. Anyways, maybe the mods could merge all the Garlett posts in a new or existing thread? I didn't mean to get so far off the topic.

Replies to your comments above. You can have 22 'courageous' Vineys every week if you want. We'd end up with 0 marks inside 50, but at least we'd be 'tough' hey? Personally I think a mix of skill and hardness is needed.

Can you cite those '5 or 6 such (non) contests this year'? I don't recall that many to be honest, and I certainly don't recall Garlett being responsible for the 'soul destroying' of the team. No player is perfect, I've outlined Garlett's strengths and how they directly oppose our weaknesses and that's why I don't think he should be dropped. If any 1 player is responsible for 'soul destroying' moments I would cite Viney's inside 50 delivery as far more impactful in that way. Gawn is dominating hitouts, we are generally winning centre clearances, but Viney is leading the league for being the worst at delivery inside 50. Watching him deliver the ball time after time straight to Hurn in the West Coast game is the definition of 'soul destroying' for mine. So I wouldn't place 'commitment to the ball' on such a high pedestal, comparatively speaking, when as a team that is not where improvement is needed.

Interesting to note that apparently McCartney is now a development coach for the coaches, not the players, did others miss that too, or just me? "The experienced Brendan McCartney, previously the defensive coach, will now mentor the club's AFL and VFL assistant coaches" Source

Absolutely, I would have thought it's an indictment on our key forwards that Garlett leads us for marks inside 50, not the other way around. Anyways, don't want to sidetrack the thread too much.