#6 Joe Daniher - cooked for this decade


#926

I agree. Some people unfortunately aren’t built for sport. Footy especially now with how much running, twisting etc is involved. Most of the time, it’s not down to anything more than bad luck imo. The players themselves also bare some responsibility by sometimes willingly playing while injured. Not suggesting that’s the case with Joe, but it’s something that should be considered.


#927

What on Earth makes you arrive at that conclusion??

Did you not at least read the abstract fron the study I just posted?

That’s a laughable conclusion if so.


#928

Out of interest, have you ever had surgery?


#929

I did read it and as you say that may be the common approach but doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the only approach.

If as suggested Crouch opted for the surgery then that is an example of an aggressive approach and apparently successful.


#930

A few yes.


#931

99 was a pretty bad year injury wise. Hird, Lucas. Yet we managed ok.

You’d hope whoever’s coming in for Joey/Smith steps up.


#932

What may be a common approach?

It say there are, and have been many over time, and it is still currently a guessing game, but there is a “Current best practice”, . Are you saying they should not use CBP, but instead conduct Maverick experiments?


#933

One definitely overrides the other. If a person says they don’t want surgery, then they are not getting surgery.


#934

Why isn’t he working for an AFL club then?


#935

Most doctors will recommend avoiding surgery if it’s there is a chance the problem can be managed and treated


#936

I’m not suggesting anything. I’m not upset with the fact that they delayed the surgery option but I agree with others that his management of the injury last year was poor.

Playing 3 matches over an 11 day period does seem like a common practice to me and now Joe is paying the price.

To suggest that they have followed the book on this considering his brothers previous issues is a bit naive. The club has got to wear some of the blame on this.


#937

But how the hell can you or anyone else know that? It’s all amateur or zero knowledge speculation that has no basis in fact or any merit at all.


#938

I don’t know.

I know the clubs not perfect though so it’s possible.


#939

The onus is on the player to give the medical team the information that they need in order to manage them.

It has been made obvious that Joe didn’t give the medical team the information they needed to manage him - we’ve heard the rumors of others in the team being unhappy with his professionalism in that regard.

If Joe wasn’t reporting the groin soreness and tried to play through it then what’s the medical team to do?

I can imagine the team sheet:

Outs: Daniher (playing like he might be injured but not giving us the full story)


#940

Because his results are negative, if they had managed it well it would have been positive.

It’s a perfectly valid assumption with a likelihood of being true that he was managed poorly.


#941

Yet you are claiming because you’re mates with Crow the fitness team hasn’t done anything wrong. There are two sides to this argument - both which may be right. But the facts are an injury that cost Joe almost an entire season has occurred two years running. For that reason alone the fitness staff need to be having a long hard look at how they did things.

If they believe they did everything right - that’s fair enough. But to say they are not open for criticism or to other suggestions is plain scary. If their only approach is their way then of course we are going to have ongoing injury concerns. You need to look outside occasionally to understand what’s happening. If you don’t then you’re failing in your role.


#942

Wasn’t it reported prior to the start of last season that he was managing op? At the very least it was clear to everyone on Blitz that he was injured because everyone was commenting on it each week.

That was prior to him playing the 3 games in 11 days.

Joe no doubt would put his hand up to play as most players do but I would hope that our very expensive medical department would know better than to just take his word for it.


#943

If you read the literature, you would understand that management is the first course of action, and that sometimes that doesn’t work, and the only option then is surgery.

What part of that is hard to grasp, or means he was managed “poorly”.

He was managed in just the way anyone would be, and didn’t respond positively to the first option, as he has a “Recalcitrant” case.

It is what it is.


#944

Half of blitz was complaining that Joe didn’t play against Sydney because they made the smart decision to rest him

It sounds like they followed the normal treatment path (non intervention) for O/P. He hasn’t responded so now they are going to go the surgical intervention path. I’d be very surprised if they weren’t following the most up to date injury management guidelines.

As someone that is performance managing the team who is doing injury management the questions are:

  • did you follow best practice?
  • was there anything about this case that indicated it needed surgical intervention earlier?
  • did you make a sound and informed decision?
    Etc

Crow was amazing last year, we’ve had a run of bad luck this year. Injuries are part of footy


#945

NO, they don’t. They tried the preferred option in management, as anyone would, and it proved to not work for JD, as is the case in the “recalcitrant” forms. So the next, unpreferred & only option left is surgery, which they have found out and accepted before the MSD.

Some might say it is ideal they have diagnosed it as such at this point, rather than in a few weeks.