Surely the AFL wouldnt allow them to miss a game because they are not in the country, especially if they havent missed games previously to going over for "rehabilitation". Oh hang on of course they will cos its Collingwood and they get special treatment....
think i might pay more attention to dt from now on - managed to avoid swan and sandilands there - as well as higgins . prob in better position than im in sc
The AFL wants you to play your best 22 at all times, thats why clubs use "general soreness" as excuse instead of just dropping them and resting them like they actually are. Remember the Saints "flu", every player had some kind of "injury". All im saying is if they go over in their bye week and he has played upto that round then they cant say he is all sudden that injured to fly to america and get "rehabilition" and cos he is over there he cant play round 14.
then they will be listed with XX injury - if they are travelling that far, i think it is safe to assume they are legitimately injured...
How can you be legitimately injured in round 13/14 if you still play the 3 remaining matches leading into that? Thats all im saying, if he is that injured that he has to fly to America and miss a extra week then surely he shouldnt be playing now.... (basing this that he plays up til then of course)
Couple of things - StkThunda - I can see absolutely where you are coming from - Collingwood are almost pre-empting a future injury for him to take a break in Round 13-14 the way the story reads. And that's not right at all. That said - it is obvious Swan is currently hampered. It is also not clear as yet whether he will actually play this week (or next, for example). If he does miss this week with injury then I reckon Collingwood has full right to say, for example: "Swan's going to miss this week, and he might play next week - it depends on how the injury comes up. We may use him as a sub. But we will be nursing him through to the bye and then seeking proper treatment during the week off so he is fit and ready to play in the lead up to the finals." I don't have so much of a problem with that. Now, if Swan wasn't currently injured and the Pies decided arbitrarily to send him off to Arizona, then yes, that'd be a bit odd. It is noteworthy that Jolly is also earmarked for an Arizona trip. Existing injury he is struggling to recover from - same story in some ways as Swan. It also might suggest that Swan might miss a couple of weeks in the lead up to the bye as well. If that's the case, holders of him might be looking at 4 weeks without any output from their investment.
<blockquote>Quote from stkildathunda on May 26, 2011, 08:40 Surely the AFL wouldnt allow them to miss a game because they are not in the country, especially if they havent missed games previously to going over for "rehabilitation". Oh hang on of course they will cos its Collingwood and they get special treatment....</blockquote> Settle SKT. The AFL took no action against Freo last year when they rested about 12 players. Whatever happens, you seem to be setting yourself up for a C'wood/AFL bagging if certain players don't play and you think they should. I'll support an argument for the evening out of football dept spend (in the interest of football as a sport rather than business) but that's just my opinion and a totally different argument.
It's clear - Swan's not right and will miss a game getting himself right - whether that's in Arizona or not I couldn't care less. The other two - Jolly and Brown - have had serious knee injuries. Nothing different here to the Max Rooke sagas involving German pigs. Now if Collingwood decided to play its VFL team against Gold Coast in R18, or Geelong in R24, I can see some issues there. But everything this year has been nicely stage managed by Collingwood, and I can see this being similarly done. It's a marathon, not a sprint, and I'd be backing David Buttifant in the fitness area over any person at any other club. As to which game Swan would miss, that's an interesting one. I tend to think he'd miss Melbourne QB, so play the next two under duress, pumping out about 100 points give or take (scaling etc). Miss Melbourne, have a bye and that means 21 days between the St Kilda and Sydney matches. What that means is in your SC teams, think about upgrading another '7th' mid, but ensure that at least one can squeak into defence/forward with MPP. The next 3 weeks I reckon I will upgrade mids to counter the very loss of Swan.
<blockquote>Quote from chris88 on May 26, 2011, 09:06 Couple of things - StkThunda - I can see absolutely where you are coming from - Collingwood are almost pre-empting a future injury for him to take a break in Round 13-14 the way the story reads. And that's not right at all. That said - it is obvious Swan is currently hampered. It is also not clear as yet whether he will actually play this week (or next, for example). If he does miss this week with injury then I reckon Collingwood has full right to say, for example: "Swan's going to miss this week, and he might play next week - it depends on how the injury comes up. We may use him as a sub. But we will be nursing him through to the bye and then seeking proper treatment during the week off so he is fit and ready to play in the lead up to the finals." I don't have so much of a problem with that. Now, if Swan wasn't currently injured and the Pies decided arbitrarily to send him off to Arizona, then yes, that'd be a bit odd. It is noteworthy that Jolly is also earmarked for an Arizona trip. Existing injury he is struggling to recover from - same story in some ways as Swan. It also might suggest that Swan might miss a couple of weeks in the lead up to the bye as well. If that's the case, holders of him might be looking at 4 weeks without any output from their investment.</blockquote> Yea spot on. Got no issues with him going and missing Round 14 if he indeed does miss a game before then. Got no issues with Jolly or Brown who are actually currently injured and trying to get back from that. The issue for me is the are pre-empting a round 15 injury 5 weeks out. How is that a good look at all? Completely different to clubs deciding during the week that their entire team is "injured" and correct me if im wrong but the AFL hasnt been impressed with that in the past.
<blockquote>Quote from whips on May 26, 2011, 09:14 <blockquote>Quote from stkildathunda on May 26, 2011, 08:40 Surely the AFL wouldnt allow them to miss a game because they are not in the country, especially if they havent missed games previously to going over for "rehabilitation". Oh hang on of course they will cos its Collingwood and they get special treatment....</blockquote> Settle SKT. The AFL took no action against Freo last year when they rested about 12 players. Whatever happens, you seem to be setting yourself up for a C'wood/AFL bagging if certain players don't play and you think they should. I'll support an argument for the evening out of football dept spend (in the interest of football as a sport rather than business) but that's just my opinion and a totally different argument.</blockquote> Was a throw away line about Collingwood... But the difference between Freo/Saints and this is they are pre-empting a injury 5 weeks out. Now i have no issue if they do it if he does indeed miss any weeks up until then.
One consideration in this is that once the AFL decided to jump deep, deep, deep into bed with betting agencies, they opened the door for perception of match-rigging when the quite reasonable resting of players occurs. They are jumping up and down about the first-goal betting, but they are taking a % of every one of those bets, and now they're going to get stuck into any player who goes home and says "Hey Mum, I'm playing Full Forward instead of Full Back this week". If the AFL wants to take the cream of sportsbetting, then they may need to start cracking down on resting players. I don't agree with this, although as a Supercoach I'd prefer if players are never rested during the season...for god's sake surely Collingwood is going so well they can send Swan, Pendles, Thomas, Jolly to Arizona in September this year , but perhaps that's where it will end. Watch this space.
AFL (demetriou) is not impressed with anythin or anyone these days.honestly im sick of him. clubs shouldnt try to please him or anyone else just their own supporters. even when players are not 100% clubs tend to hide that . i think every club/coach would luv to field their best team every week but if playing someone now means they might miss 2-3 games later on they shouldnt get involved.. i would rather c every club at full strenght in september than now.
Heard from trainer down at collingwood is swan has OP like the forum topic posted yesterday. So he may do a C Judd like 2007 and play alot of time forward
Corks - another angle on the betting and gambling side of things. We know there were murmurings last year when the Freo 12 didn't play - and at that time the betting ramifications were mentioned. One wonders whether Collingwood (or perhaps any team) may feel under a bit more pressure (if that's the right word) to actually come out and pre-empt these things heavily in order to be seen to be on the level and not be in danger of being accused of strange dealings regards betting and the like. If so, it is a pretty sad state of affairs (personal note - I despise the prevalence of footy betting, as well as most other betting to be honest as through my work I've seen what it can do to destroy people) that the AFL have left themselves open to by getting into bed so heavily with the betting firms. It is only now, with the massive public outcry about the AFL and the links to the betting firms, that the AFL are coming out and trying to distance themselves from them, make big statements, etc. They are the biggest bunch of reactionary flogs known to humankind. Instead of doing the right and proper thing off their own bat, they have to wait to take the public's pulse and respond to it.
Great debate this on the whole Swan saga. For once it doesn't affect my team (in the aspect of possibly having him out), but it does look good for a nice pick-up. Furthermore though - it's all alleged that the whole Arizona thing is happening. I heard a grab on SEN this morning from Malthouse saying that the media is beating this all up, and that's it's only been discussed as an option around the bye, and the overall cost may be too much (yar right, as if cost is an issue for the pies). Also it's a 10 day camp, so if they fly out straight from the QB game do the camp and return he may only miss a game - if he's not rested prior.