Webber

Foremost in my thoughts, Oneday.

"On the evidence they had at the time, it was the wrong one". Did you mean to write that? If they HAD evidence 'at the time' of a navicular fracture, they would have acted as they have now. They didn't, isn't that obvious? I'm defending the application of reason to this situation. Some want to hear it, some don't. ;-)

50% is way underestimated Nutbean. As an example of player complicity in the process, when HFC's Andy Collins was at his and the club's 90's glory years, I had seen him on a Thursday with follow up on some injury I don't remember. He mentioned in passing that he'd got a knock to his chest in his last game, but by the time I saw him, soreness had gone. So, move on, no issue, doesn't need treatment. AC was notoriously a hardnut. I bullied him into getting an X-ray. The results hadn't arrived by selection time. I checked with Andy, he said he had the X-ray, and the radiologist said no probs, but didn't know what had happened to the report. Anyway, no symptoms (according to Andy). He played, came back next week with more soreness, another X-ray, showed a rib crack. He never had the X-ray, as was desperate to play that week particularly. I

Given that missed opportunities are always possible in our business, why fuel the fire that in this situation it may be the case, based on no knowledge of JT's management?

Again Master, what makes you think they weren't looking at the 'overall picture'?!! Sometimes, the answers and reasons elude EVERYBODY, because of the limitations of science, which you rightly acknowledge. The alternative management is that JT presents with 'niggling discomfort' (a constant for AFL footballers), and some drop in physical performance, which the Med staff ( all of them, in consultation with each other) can't find an answer for (because the answers aren't always there), so decide just to rest him completely from football. Would you be happy with that? Or might you be complaining that JT isn't playing, but nobody knows what's wrong with him?

At the elite level particularly, pain is not always the presenting symptom when things aren't what they were (speed, kicking distance). There are biomechanical factors which, when in dysfunction, will cause diminished function, but not pain.

Then you can explain firstly what you mean by 'pure Physio principles', as I've not heard of them, and why you imagine the physios at MFC don't have advanced post grad knowledge of and experience with the sporting foot? Your comments imply that there is an essential absence of understanding of foot pathology, diagnosis and management at the MFC. Or maybe you're suggesting that orthopaedics is an imperfect science.

Absolutely deanox. Lots he can work on. Unfortunately running is the core of footy, and that's a slow road back.

You're onto it Nutbean. There's a misunderstanding on here that the 'absolute' exists for diagnosis, and treatment. It's not a perfect science, by some enormous margin. The imperfections of diagnostic testing are frustrating, be it MR, bone scan, X-ray, ultrasound, etc. Without evidence provided by the above, you're dealing with 'subjective' symptoms, and some objective evidence, e.g. Loss of power/speed, of which there can be a multitude of causes. Many bone pathologies need to reach a threshold of significance to become detectable to any of the battery of tests we can throw at them. Prior to that, you're dealing with possibilities only, for which there is no management plan. I'm relieved for JT, and clearly so is he, that he has a definitive pathology now, for which there is a DEFINITIVE management plan, and for which the outcomes are mostly completely successful. There ARE exceptions, such as Egan and Croad. Egan's I don't know about, but Croad's became well known in the industry as being remarkable for the extent of midfoot damage he suffered. His career was over the moment he came to grief. Navicular fractures are not uncommon, and NOT isolated to the MFC, nor more prevalent at the MFC.

As one of them myself Nasher, I'm finding that very hard to believe.

TGR, what exactly is your knowledge of physiotherapy, be it undergraduate, and postgraduate study and treatment of foot pathologies? What are you imagining when you say we think we can apply 'pure Physio principles' to the foot? Your statements are vague and clearly uninformed. And don't reply with anecdotal, singular first hand experience or second hand waffle. Give me some reason to think you're not just spinning nonsense.

Agree. He's got rare qualities, being aggression and speed. Once his confidence and comfort with the game has fully developed, he's going to be very valuable I reckon. If Max Gawn becomes everything he has promised also, that's a mighty fine ruck duo.

So you're suggesting the medical and fitness staff are negligent and ignorant? It's this kind of mindless uninformed drivel that makes Demonland bounce from entertaining and interesting to frustrating and stupid. If you knew ANYTHING about the aetiology, diagnosis and management of midfoot injuries your opinion MIGHT be valid. In the absence of knowledge, it is simply rubbish.

Wednesday.

Much better than Lisfranc. The only potential complication is avascular necrosis (damage to the blood supply to the navicular, resulting in death of the bone, and end of career) of the navicular. Very unlikely. Ideally, this solves any midfoot power transfer problems JT has been having, which he has been quoting according to Josh Mahoney. I don't like the sound of midfoot weakness without pain, but we'll know if it's uncomplicated after the surgeon goes in on Friday.

This is bad luck for Jack. For all/most of you who see it as an explanation for his form/speed, it isn't. He wouldn't have been playing with this. It presented on Sunday. He does clearly have midfoot issues however. Just a phase hopefully, and he comes back better than ever.

Like for like, it just must be Clisby. He was good last year, and is in Casey's best 2 weeks running. Otherwise, there won't be any changes, as the only other who must come in is Garland, and he'll play a full game at Casey this week. And for those who think Georgiou will go out for Garland, unless he has a stinker against GCS, he's gonna stay, and should. Pederson will go.

What makes you think they aren't? It's a hard won thing, self belief. New role, new expectations, new instructors. We can all see it, but his awareness of his own ability is not fully realised yet, of which the same could be said of the team. More good games, more encouragement, and he'll trust himself more, and I reckon we've got the right coaching staff to make it happen.

I'm not sure James Frawley WILL go back. Reserve judgement until he plays better opposition (team and direct opponent), but yesterday was his second game as a forward, and frankly he killed it. He is too often predictable and mentally slow in the backline, and gets stung on account. At this stage I think the forward 50 plays more to his strengths....speed, marking, straight line power and contesting. I thin Dunn will go back for Hogan in, but otherwise, with Garland to come, I'm reasonably comfortable we can cover for Chip.

Confidence. Simple

Nice. I see what you did there.

Dare I say Dean Kent may have arrived. He's a big bod, loves the physicality, a stonking kick, and a much better mark than I've previously thought. Very very handy....

Agree. I don't know why it's even being thought of.

Actually it was a rhetorical question, and I was live at the G.

Don't apologise, you're just wrong. Bail was one of our best in the first half, and continued. I'm no fan of his, but he was good ALL day. Grimes first couple of touches were unsteady, but from then on he was secure and prolific. Any chance your default opinion of them means you lack objectivity?