Injury Updates

If Ridley plays next week v Dogs, that’s six weeks after the injury.

1 Like

Ridley’s injury is just about the only blemish on the fitness/rehab team since the end of last season.

Reid has had a precarious injury history which appears more related to his inherent physique and growth than any management miss-steps.

Draper, Cox, Stringer, Jones, Tsatas all very well mananged and integrated back to full fitness after having a rough time of it last year.

Perhaps one for the unpopular opinion thread, but trending positively for mine.


Exactly the same with Guelfi. Initially said 1-2 weeks but it’ll be at least 4.
We always do this in injury reporting.

For any Essendon injury, multiply the initial length the club gives you by 1.6

You’ll then know exactly how long the player will be out.

1 Like

Hasn’t it only been 4 weeks?
Initial reporting has him missing until after the Saints game.
Aren’t they only reporting another week which is not that unusual?

1 Like

We are like a vintage car: the speedo is in miles instead of kilometres.


Probably why the club tried not to list the number of weeks on the injury list.

1 Like

This is week 5. He did it at the start of march. He said himself, he’d miss 3-4. By the time he plays, he will have missed 6 weeks. Thats assuming he plays next week

1 Like

So we get Ridley and Durhum back next week? Gold.



I don”t understand the club’s thinking in continually underplaying the extent of injuries. What possible benefit is there? Or are they continually surprised by how long players take to respond to treatment, which would point to incompetence? I don’t think it’s that, so I would love to know what the club hopes to gain by under-reporting injury timeframes.

1 Like


  • Durham & Ridley available next week for Bulldogs game (round 5)

  • 2MP, Shiel, Guelfi & possibly Reid all likely available for Pies on Anzac day (round 7)

I went s looked at the media report and it said he would miss the Saints game so it appears he wasn’t due back at that point. They have added a week to be cautious. Not seeing anything majorly bad about that?


Do you have any stats that show that what we do is different to what the other clubs do? Are we worse or the same?

Reason I ask is maybe it is a case that injuries are not linear in nature and that there are variables that impact on the “perceived normal length” that is initially provided. Also maybe it is an industry wide issue?

And before one of the trolls has a go, I am asking because this seems to be a common statement in here and I am wondering if it is backed up by evidence. If it is then we can ask questions of the club, if it is industry wide then we need to question AFL standard processes instead.


Don’t know if it’s OCD kicking in but I find the way the club do the injury list (by return date) vastly better than how the AFL website do it (by surname alphabetical order).


I don’t think it’s always done on purpose.
I see Parker from the Swans to be assessed next week and before that it was always ‘to be assessed’.

You can go to your doctor and physio and ask when you’ll recover from whatever and it all depends on a lot of factors.
It’s the same with athletes.

And as per normal, as soon as someone has confidence that their body can take a bit more, they usually extend themselves that little bit further and reinsure again.
Ditto the other way. When someone is not confident in their body, they are that little bit careful which means their recover will delay a bit.

Injuries are injuries. I’m not concerned about it. We added some experience during the pre-season which means we aren’t replacing injured players with youngsters who aren’t capable to handle the load for extended periods of time.
It was sorely needed to allow players to recover properly before coming back into the team.

I don’t think our list is perfect, but it allows for more flexibility than previous years.

Ridley played extremely well after returning from injury late last year, I remember because I dropped him out of my SC team and he returned a week early and had a blinder.

1 Like

Its almost like Essendon’s list is ranked in importance to best 22, but no only likely return date.

Yeah, nah.
Ridley, Parish, Guelfi, Ried all historical reoccurring injuries. That’s a huge cross against the medical department.
Sheil going into surgery in November was a complete joke too.
Let’s judge our list at the end of the season, as this is when our list availability always falls to pieces, while the best clubs have pressure on spots.
Refer to GWS game last season where they 2 players on the injury list vs our 14.


I think if we came out of round one saying that we picked up two new soft tissue injuries that are a month+ to players who had soft tissue injuries in 2023 questions would be asked. The always try to downplay the extent of injuries and it’s been that way for the previous five years.
We should expect more as fans/members.

You seriously reckon that very small list of injured players, some with common soft tissue injuries is a ‘huge cross’? And you have given no credit to the apparent revival of several of our long term/chronically injured players. We can conclude your expression of dissatisfaction is based on an entrenched opinion and unlikely to shift with new evidence that might run counter to your internal belief system.

And sure, it might get worse and go downhill this year, but that actually hasn’t happened?

1 Like