Injury Management

[Steve]

Is it time to look at this as an issue? We seem to be good at preventing/minimising injuries and keeping players going who have ongoing niggles etc - but to me we seem to have a serious issue with our rehab process bringing guys back (particularly from soft tissue injuries). Perhaps we just ban them from training the week before they are due back - guys seem to go down like clockwork.

Even just this year:

• Bradshaw has missed 13 weeks (originally a 3-4 week knee, then another 4 week hamstring)
• McGlynn missed 7 weeks (originally a 3-4 week quad)
• Bird has missed 7 weeks (originally told a few weeks - fair enough some caution being his second foot injury this season, but they have been trying to get him back nevertheless which has failed)
• LRT has missed 6 weeks and we're now told that will be 10 (originally a 1 week with hamstring tightness)

Nick Smith seems to have been lucky in that he only missed 4 weeks, but that is really the maximum time out you'd expect with a standard hamstring.

Moore's ankle is a different case but there but the events surrounding that were curious - ruled out for a few weeks, after a few weeks there hadn't been much improvement and it was described as a chronic injury he needed to deal with, he struggles through a couple of reserves games, then comes back in and plays well (without obvious sign of injury, which presumably means there is some 'medical intervention' assisting that).

I'm not including Seaby or C.Bolton, but the reality with those two is that they've had them in active rehab aiming to get back this year and that's failed. Bolton's was always going to be that way being an achilles (we'll just have to wait and see whether pushing to return this year sets him back for next year though).

But with Seaby, a ruckman breaking his ankle was always going to be a serious injury, and it was somewhat puzzling that after getting him back running etc they eventually found a separate issue that required further surgery. Yes Pyke's form might have helped convince them to go the conservative route by that stage, but the underlying issue is whether the best treatment from a injury management perspective was provided.

Maybe I don't pay as close attention to other clubs and it happens there also, but I don't recall anyone else having so many like this (and this isn't just isolated to 2010 at the Swans). I think it would get a lot more attention and more questions asked if it happened at a Vic based club.

[Chilcott]

Not having much of a clue about things medical, to me Steve theory is reasonable. We've had our fair share of bad luck, but we pump alot of money and resources into rehab and the results are questionable.

I'm sure things will turnaround in 2011 (fingers crossed).

[caj23]

Bolton and Bird are the ones that are of real concern IMO

Bolton was clearly playing injured early in the season but they persisted with him and this is the result. It seems Bird was also brought back too early and reinjured himself again

This is in addition to the example of players selected this year when they have been clearly hampered by injury (O'Keefe and McVeigh come to mind).

[Doctor J.]

Steve, thats a fairly good analysis, but I tend to have the view that Sydney, for reasons unknown, always understate the severity of the injury and hence the length of time a player is going to be out.

Its been like that for years, and from memory goes back to Paul Kelly's hamstring in 01 where he was listed as 2 weeks for the entire time he was out injured, eventually playing his first game for the year in round 11.

[Lucky Knickers]

....but I tend to have the view that Sydney, for reasons unknown, always understate the severity of the injury and hence the length of time a player is going to be out.

I was thinking that is the Crouch Legacy.

Unnamed injury...unknown length of time.
See all the other clubs adopt the "general soreness" or whatever they come with.