Misleading info on injuries

[NMWBloods]

Does the club think it's being clever misleading everyone over injuries or do they just have no clues on the impact of said injuries?

For example, they said Hall would be right to play this week, it was just a simple knock on the hip and he was taken from the ground last week for precautionary reasons. Yet, he was left out of the team as he wasn't right for this week.

Something is wrong there!

[Steve]

Why is something wrong?

The
actual quote from last week was:

"It was just a knock and we took him off mainly as a precaution," a club spokesman said.

"He and Rowan Warfe (corked thigh) should both be right to play."

A week ago they suggest he should be right, but then closer to the (relatively meaningless) pre season practice match, decide to rest it and give him another week.

Generally the club has been misleading in the past regarding injuries, but in this case it is so meaningless that it's almost irrelevant.

These days all clubs give their supporters zero information about this sort of stuff - obviously if we are told, opposition get hold of the info as well.

[robbieando]

They said during the week if there was any risk they wouldn't play him. A good idea not to because it gives the team a chance to have a match without in case he misses a game during the year.

[NMWBloods]

Given that it is a meaningless pre-season match, why don't they simply say they should most likely rest him as a precaution, rather than saying he should play.

That they have been misleading the past means that I don't have a lot of faith in them changing their ways until they demonstrate it.

[Jimmy C]

Originally posted by robbieando
They said during the week if there was any risk they wouldn't play him.

And a sensible move that is too. No sense putting him in if there's a chance he'll exacebate something. You're right about seeing how other forwards will cope without him being there also. From todays result, it looks manageable. Personally, I'm not getting too heated up about the practise games. Bring on the proper stuff.

[Jimmy C]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Given that it is a meaningless pre-season match, why don't they simply say they should most likely rest him as a precaution, rather than saying he should play.

That they have been misleading the past means that I don't have a lot of faith in them changing their ways until they demonstrate it.

True. They could word things a little better in their press releases. I agree with you that they have tended to underrate injuries in the past. Ball/Kelly being great examples from recent times. I wonder if there's a problem with the medical staff, or press agencies misquote statements from the club.

[Mike_B]

IMHO when they put out info on the players, that is the expectation of when the club believes the players will be back. Unfortunately in recent times, we have been absolutely TERRIBLE compared to other clubs in the league with regards to getting guys with what are initially said to be 2-3 week injuries back in that time. It seems they take 5-6 weeks to recover if they are Swans players, but players from other clubs with similar injuries are usually back in that 2-3 week timeframe. It is a serious issue that needs to be adressed.

[Nico]

It looks like Paul Roos is doing it correctly on the injury management.

The reason Jason Ball was out all last season was because of poor injury management by the encumbent coach, Rodney Eade.

He made his comeback against Hawthorn in the Wizard Cup, played the first half and did well. We thought, well he got through the half that should be enough for this week.

But no, out he comes for the second half after cooling down and lasts 5 minutes. Alas, we are now seeing for the first time since.

So as Roos says, next week we should be back to something like our starting squad. Why should we doubt his knowledge of these things. How many games did he play and how many seasons? Also he did keep a dairy note of every game he played.

Lets keep things in perspective until the real stuff starts.

[NMWBloods]

Did I really make myself unclear on this? I was not questioning whether it was sensible not to play Hall in this particular example. Rather, the game of pretending he should play, when it is more likely they had no intention of playing him. Or the case where week after week players are said to be nearly ready when they are not.

[Cheer Cheer]

does all this really matter, mountain over a molehill

[Jimmy C]

Originally posted by Cheer Cheer
does all this really matter, mountain over a molehill

Agreed. I empathise with NMW though. Our injuries do seem to be often underrated (I speculate that this begins with the medicos, and winds up in the laps of coach/selection panel who have to put some sort of spin on it), and expected returns seem overrated. Nonetheless, it leaves us guessing and sometimes frustrated. Is there a psyche out game being played with opposition teams when they say a player is fit, only to reveal that this isn't the case (he says as he downs his 3rd Wid Turkey & Cola). Still, I'd prefer them to rest an unfit BBBBH for a practice game rather than risk him for the long term. I expect to see you post on this topic again (with more fire and vigour)when its RD 7 and Baz STILL hasn't played, NMW. Respect.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Cheer Cheer
does all this really matter, mountain over a molehill

So you mean it's like 99% of all off-field football discussion...

[Steve]

What I don't find palatable is where in the past a number of clubs, including Sydney, have named a player who was injured during the previous week's game, made them a late withdrawal from the following match, and then left them out of the next game due to the same injury.

In that example it is reasonable to suggest they never expected the player to play the week after they were injured.

But realistically in this case with Hall, the fact that it was a "club spokesman" who was quoted suggests it was more likely someone like Nathan Gibbs giving his medical opinion on whether Hall would be available for selection. That diagnosis being made just after the game, with another 160+ hours to pass before the next match.

Would you prefer that clubs regularly overstated the likelihood of players missing future games, only for the player to play before it was anticipated (eg. "he'll probably miss 3-4 weeks", then the player responds to treatment and plays the next week)?

In many cases I don't think the deception is as calculated as you might think - straight after the match at a press conference a coach is asked whether a player will play the following week - without any real evidence (eg. response to ensuing treatment, how they train etc) to consider, a response is required.

In that situation "he should be right to play" isn't all that unacceptable a response.

[NMWBloods]

Well Hall wasn't the best example, however it was more a trigger. The first example you give is exactly the sort of thing that annoys me, and the Swans, like many clubs, are terrible with it.

I would prefer for them not to comment if they don't know.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by Steve
Would you prefer that clubs regularly overstated the likelihood of players missing future games, only for the player to play before it was anticipated (eg. "he'll probably miss 3-4 weeks", then the player responds to treatment and plays the next week)?

Well, I absolutely would. An early return is a pleasant surprise. A late return is an unpleasant one (except it's getting less surprising). Why would this be any worse a thing for them to do?