I reached the same conclusion re Buddy, when writing that post.Originally Posted by Ralph Dawg
I have a different view re Naismith. John mentioned at a presser the other day that Sam needs to play, for his psychology, after being out for so long. He could string a few together in a NEAFL finals run, unlike Buddy who would only play a single game.
Ha, thanks. I was going to start a 'Things to be optimistic about' thread with that post, but I didn't think it'd get too much traffic.
I feel likewise.
He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball)
Their farewell game and something about Bud’s 300th ...
But the odds of a decent crowd and the end of a disappointing season to see a not in-significant milestone match? Perhaps more might turn up if Macca & Kizza are playing and if Reg & Smith do a lap of honour together but if Macca & Kizza don’t play it might be a flat crowd for a champion’s 300th
The Swans commented on the difficulty of getting medical and allied health staff with AFL backgrounds in Sydney. They said while we have a good doctor, his background is more with rugby, and this seems to be a significant difference in their minds.
Ralph Dawg? How about a period of secondment to fill a gap at the club?
? Where did you read that? Grateful for a link if you can provide.
Interesting comment, Tom Cross has been with Swans since 1998 (assistant doctor before becoming the head doctor). Think he should know a bit about AFL by now .....
Nathan Gibbs (previous head doctor) was also from a rugby background. A comment he made has always stuck in my mind: he said that in rugby when trying to get to an injured player on the field he would wait for a gap in play near the player and run there. He soon found that in AFL a gap on the field was where the ball was likely to be kicked next, so instead he needed to run where the play was currently going on and the field crowded. By the time he got to the spot there was usually some space to get to the injured player.
Meg I think I read it in that article a few weeks back from Caroline Wilson about the 4 Northern clubs having trouble retaining and recruiting players. Pridham mentioned that it was also hard to entice off field personnel including medical staff. He said we had a good doctor but that he came from a rugby background.
I have wondered does it make a difference how a doctor treats and rehabs a player depending on whether they play AFL or rugby?
I don't remember now exactly where I read it, Meg, but what Mel_C has written sounds exactly as I recall it (except that I didn't remember it being Pridham who said it). It was fairly recent (i.e. a few weeks ago).
I also didn't realise Tom Cross had been with us so long. Here's his comments on the difference between AFL and NRL:
In AFL there’s approximately two hours of exposure time in the game and some players are on the field for most of that. In turn, they’re at risk of soft tissue and bony injuries, so there are more overuse injuries in AFL than NRL. In NRL, there are many more collision injuries given the nature of the front-on tackling and the number of collisions in the game. They come from this article: Coffee with Cynthia: Dr Tom Cross - sydneyswans.com.au.
Meg the link to the article is in the COLA thread.
Would love it but as an anaesthetist, my answer to most medical problems is to put the patient to sleep!
Thanks, found it. The relevant quote is actually from Tony Shepherd CEO of GWS, not from the Swans. Nor (in the article) does Shepherd explain why he thinks it is a disadvantage having a doctor coming from a rugby background.
However I think the point he was trying to underline was that the only way to get staff (coaching and medical ) with AFL experience was to get them to move from the ttaditional AFL states. And such people wanted more money to relocate to Sydney because of the high cost of living in Sydney.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks