binman

I still will

Totally agree on that. One hopes he will be back in tbe middle doing what ge does best. One thing we really missed last year was his ability to extract the ball from a contest and get metres gained.

We're at completely cross purposes her LN. Agree he was not in form. And having a bad back would go a long way to explain that. But surely you agree the FD would have had a considered, logical rationale for deciding to play him. Just as they would have when they dropped him the previous year. I hear that you would have not played him but at the risk of flogging a dead horse i simply can't understand how you can suggest the club might erred without knowing all the facts. Bit like the impeachment vote I don't think we will reach a consensus on this one, so happy to move on.

I thought the same thing. But was worried about his consulting fees.

I understand perfectly what you are trying to say. I cant see how you can be definitive that playing him all season didn't work when your metrics are likely different to that of both gus himself and the club. And you don't know what the clubs metrics were. I don't either. So I can't say, for example, it was good player management. And haven't. But as I have said there are a number of logical possible benefits of playing gus, even if down on form and/or injured. For example the mental benefits of playing through adversity OR providing an example to his team mates (who would know what is going on) OR simply getting as many AFL games under his belt as each game provides unique learning opportunities OR learning a new position so he becomes more versatile OR playing at Casey would not help his development OR they thought playing would be the best thing for his aerobic fitness and were worried not playing would impact on his fitness base and likelihood of being in optimal shape day one of preseason etc etc. But again i don't know the club's rationale for their decision to play him. I just know they did. And i presume tbey had a considered rationale. Just as they did when they gave omac some time out to get stronger and dropped weed. And personally I trust the club to make the right call. I'll also bet london to a brick that gus wanted to play. Most players are desperate to play seniors and hate sitting out. You use the fact our season was so horrid and we were out of contention for finals as reason why they might have been better not play him. Well the opposite is possible. They might well have thought we are not making finals and gus is desperate to play seniors, his injury is not going to get worse so hell why not play him. Where's the harm?

On the first point my understanding is op is a chronic injury and that smith playing out that game would not have exacerbated it. But happy to be corrected by someone with medical expertise. If I am correct then no the assumptions of some posters have not been proved correct. But probably a poor analogy as it distracts from my point about the management of Brayshaw.

On bennels kicking one of those yweets from McGowan with the videos had 50 odd seconds of him kicking 49 metre kicks. Beautiful of both sides. Such a smooth, natural action. The coach barely had to move. Watching that clip reminded me of how few trult elite kicks we have had at the club in the last decade.

LN, my point is you and I do not have any real information about what was happening for his. Other than the fact he was out of form and played out of position.And to my eye he looked hampered and unfit. But why I don't know. The club, on the other hand had ALL the information, including what gus wanted. And they decided, with gus no doubt, having all tbe facts at their disposal, the best option was in fact to keep playing. Let's say he was only 70-80% fit and playing with an injury (and again I'm very confident he was). Without knowing all the information that provides the full context for the decision to play him I maintain it is completely unreasonable to suggest the club, if the above scenario occurred (ie gus was carrying an injury) of 'incredibly poor management'. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn't. But personally I trust goody, the fd and misso to make the right call and certainly do nothing to negatively impact a player. An analogous situation is the decision to bring Smith back on the ground in the preseason game against the lions when he was clearly injured. The optics looked really bad and they stuffed up nor having more players on the bench. But plenty of posters were adamant doing so exacerbated his injury, without knowing the real situation. Turns out he had OP.

And even if not at his best (which was evident) he is going to learn a lot more about playing AFL football by actually playing it. As opposed to being put on ice. Fitness wise playing is probably a better option for him then sitting out. And potentially better for his mental health. And if he was injured (which I have little doubt about) and playing was not going to exacerbate that injury gus at 70 - 80% fitness is a much better option than any alternative we could have mustered up.

Maybe not, but perhaps good for morale

Wanted to like this post but you have exactly 666 likes. And i like the synergy with your posting name.

Webber do you have an opinion on the likelihood of an elite athlete recovering from that procedure (assuming they do the necessary rehab and work of course)?

Snap. I was just going to post exactly the same thing (jokes)

Yep, I thought so. I didn't misunderstand your post.

Im pretty sure i read your post correctly. Correct me if I'm wrong but in response to Mel Bourne suggestion that it is not of unheard for a player plays out a season only at 70-80% fitness you replied (summarising): - it should be in a season such as the one we played - and IF that was the scenario with Gus that would be 'incredibly poor management'

I don't follow.

Ill informed statements such as this drive me insane. You have zero idea about Brayshaw's injury situation. Yet you can accuse the club of 'incredibly poor management' of a rumoured injury. I mean c'mon. Let's say he was carrying an injury, how could you possibly know if playing him or not was the right course of action from an injury management perspective. Or from a development perspective. It is entirely feasible, indeed likely that if if he was carrying an injury their assessmwnt was playing would not cause any further harm. And that playing in an unfamiliar role would help him improve as a player. And in any case players carry injuries all the time. At the end of 2017 it came out Jones had played for much of the year wirh a neck injury. Robbie flower played his last few years with broken thumbs, requiring injections at half time. There are any number of other examples.

Seems like a ripping fella. Really open and honest too.

Totally agree. Not making the 8 will even be a fail if we have the same run with injury now that it looks very promising 70 - 80% of the lisy will achieve the critical kpi of completing 80% of preseason sessions.

I heard that today. He is a peanut. I get his role is to have an opinion and stir the pot. But he doesn't back his palaver up. Cornes suggested (or at least questioned if) the bombers had mismanaged their players. But provided zero evidence for this. I have no idea of course about the situation at the ess with injury, but the most likely scenario is just bad luck. It happens. And happens to all clubs as some point.

That article is 3 and a bit weeks old. It says Tomlinson would be running in a week. He is still walking laps is he not?

Um, yes. I know. I was making a joke.

There's a ban on hip flasks?

And Jackson

I love nev. Top bloke and super solid citizen. I hope that once his playing career is over the club will lock him in a player welfare role.