Soft Tissue Injuries - how do we address it?

[Eastdog]

Can this be reduced or is it that it is just commonplace in the game now as players today run a lot more compared to a long time ago.

Discuss?

[DOG GOD]

Our conditioning staff need to be looked at..full investigation...if it was a commonplace problem due to more run in the game, every team would be in our situation, and they aren’t...I’d be looking closely at what we are doing, and obviously doing wrong.

[bornadog]

Our conditioning staff need to be looked at..full investigation...if it was a commonplace problem due to more run in the game, every team would be in our situation, and they aren’t...I’d be looking closely at what we are doing, and obviously doing wrong.

Adelaide are worse than us and had 7 hammies at one stage

[Eastdog]

Adelaide are worse than us and had 7 hammies at one stage

Really I think it's across the board something that just happens more often than before but still would be good to review the match conditioning.

[Flamethrower]

This is all about the limitation of interchanges - the lawmakers at the AFL wanted the game to be a war of attrition by removing unlimited interchanges and that is what they now have in the form of an injury crisis across almost every club.

On top of that, the players are trying to conserve energy by staying close to the ball wherever possible, and that has led to growing congestion.

[bornadog]

This is all about the limitation of interchanges - the lawmakers at the AFL wanted the game to be a war of attrition by removing unlimited interchanges and that is what they now have in the form of an injury crisis across almost every club.

On top of that, the players are trying to conserve energy by staying close to the ball wherever possible, and that has led to growing congestion.

Totally agree with you. I can't see what was wrong with unlimited interchange. The thoughts were if you limit the capacity of players to run then they can't run and create congestion, plus they would have to rest in the forward pocket, so there wouldn't be many around the ball. That is just rubbish as the consequences are injured players, recruitment of elite running athletic players and not footballers, plus don't we want to see the best players on the ground after they have had a rest. No chance of players resting in the forward pocket, because of the forward press, so players push themselves and soft tissue injuries like hammies happen.

Another rule change based on kneejerk reaction. That is why I am so against changing rules, I don't trust the AFL.

[GVGjr]

Totally agree with you. I can't see what was wrong with unlimited interchange. The thoughts were if you limit the capacity of players to run then they can't run and create congestion, plus they would have to rest in the forward pocket, so there wouldn't be many around the ball. That is just rubbish as the consequences are injured players, recruitment of elite running athletic players and not footballers, plus don't we want to see the best players on the ground after they have had a rest. No chance of players resting in the forward pocket, because of the forward press, so players push themselves and soft tissue injuries like hammies happen.

Another rule change based on kneejerk reaction. That is why I am so against changing rules, I don't trust the AFL.

The problem is when an injury occurs early in the game. The stats showed that the team that lost a player early was at a distinct disadvantage as the other team just out rotated them on the IC bench. If you lose one now it's still the same number of rotations just spread around 21 players for one side and 22 for the other.

The game has changed, we went from having a 19th and 20th man to having 22 players, we tried a sub rule and now we have reduced the number of changes. I'm all for it and I'd actually like to see it lowered again. Too often good players are waiting to come back on and cant because the ball is over on the other side of the ground.

[bornadog]

The problem is when an injury occurs early in the game. The stats showed that the team that lost a player early was at a distinct disadvantage as the other team just out rotated them on the IC bench. If you lose one now it's still the same number of rotations just spread around 21 players for one side and 22 for the other.

The game has changed, we went from having a 19th and 20th man to having 22 players, we tried a sub rule and now we have reduced the number of changes. I'm all for it and I'd actually like to see it lowered again. Too often good players are waiting to come back on and cant because the ball is over on the other side of the ground.

I would like to see the stats on injuries v interchange rotations, ie have the injuries increased since the rotations have decreased.

[SonofScray]

The problem is when an injury occurs early in the game. The stats showed that the team that lost a player early was at a distinct disadvantage as the other team just out rotated them on the IC bench. If you lose one now it's still the same number of rotations just spread around 21 players for one side and 22 for the other.

The game has changed, we went from having a 19th and 20th man to having 22 players, we tried a sub rule and now we have reduced the number of changes. I'm all for it and I'd actually like to see it lowered again. Too often good players are waiting to come back on and cant because the ball is over on the other side of the ground.

Tend to agree, I like the idea of restricting interchange. Though I suspect going a man down early in games is still a huge disadvantage. I've been asking around for stats but I suspect the W-L ratio for teams with greater amount of minutes per player due to injury is highly skewed.

[Greystache]

I don't think it's something we need to worry about. Much like goal kicking it'll just naturally resolve itself as the players get older. Being amongst the worst in the league year after year is just bad luck. Nothing to see here.

[bornadog]

I have gone through the whole list of injuries from the start of the year. We have 45 players on the list (I think I haven't counted) and we have had one calf injury, and hammies to Wood and Macrae. The rest of the injuries have been knees, foot, ankle, shoulder , hip, broken thumb, compound fracture of finger. Not the fault of medicos, these are football injuries.

Hardly a crisis.

[Greystache]

Dickson was out this week with his second hamstring this season and Suckling has an Achilles just for a start. No idea where your list came from.

4 in 2 games. Hardly not hardly not a crisis

[Twodogs]

Just as long as it's not a post flag plummet then I'm happy.

[bornadog]

Dickson was out this week with his second hamstring this season and Suckling has an Achilles just for a start. No idea where your list came from.

4 in 2 games. Hardly not hardly not a crisis

ok, I missed Suckling because I didn't take this weeks list (available tonight) and forgot him. The list for your information is the list produced by the Club every week.

So 45 players and we have Schache, Wood, Dickson, Macrae and Suckling.

I work on facts not on perception.

[SlimPickens]

This is all about the limitation of interchanges - the lawmakers at the AFL wanted the game to be a war of attrition by removing unlimited interchanges and that is what they now have in the form of an injury crisis across almost every club.

On top of that, the players are trying to conserve energy by staying close to the ball wherever possible, and that has led to growing congestion.

The one thing that goes against your argument is that the majority of hamstring and soft tissue injuries are occurring in the earlier stages of the game. This is particularly true for our players this year. When fatigue kicks in, there is a reduction in the rate of hamstring injuries simply because the explosive nature of the game decreases. It’s something that the afl medicos really struggle with and appear not to be getting much better at managing despite the level of sports science and rehab being the highest it has ever been.