Are injuries an excuse?

[NMWBloods]

Injuries to key players have been used an excuse for the Swans underperforming slightly this year.

However, looking at the injury table in the Herald Sun today it doesn't seem like a very good excuse.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,%255E20123,00.html

The table (which doesn't seem to be online) is the list of games lost to injury and suspension by each team's 12 best players and their position on the ladder.



Port Adelaide 54 3rd
Adelaide 49 12th
Hawthorn 43 16th
Collingwood 39 13th
Carlton 34 11th
Geelong 32 5th
West Coast 29 10th
Brisbane 28 2nd
Melbourne 25 4th
Richmond 25 15th
Essendon 22 6th
St Kilda 16 1st
Sydney 12 7th
Kangaroos 10 8th
Fremantle 7 9th
W Bulldogs 5 14th

Just as a check, who are our 12 best players and what have their games lost been:


Hall 0
Goodes 1*
Williams 0
Kirk 0
Ball 1
Barry 1
Schauble 14
J Bolton 0
O'Loughlin 6
Davis 8
Maxfield 0
C Bolton 0


Shows how stupid journos can be - Schauble has missed himself more than the total figure they have put in for the Swans.

The Swans should probably have an injury games figure of 31.

It's also arguable that Schneider should perhaps be in there, maybe at the expense of C Bolton, which would add an extra 8 games to the total. This would place us equal 4th in terms of games lost.

[swansrock4eva]

Quite interesting, but did the journos make the actual distinction of who they classified in the top 12 - how easy would it be to exclude player #12 and replace him with #13 just to make a point?

The other thing I'd like to see is the effects of injuries on the "generation next" types who would have been pushing to make the 22 during the season but who were injured at inopportune times e.g. sundqvist. Imagine if a team had players 30-38 injured vs a team that had players 23-30 injured - the differences would be huge once the top 22 needed to be changed, and would definitely have an impact over a few games imo.

[midaro]

Absolutely. Injuries have been the main factor in our poor performance this year.

Yes, Schauble and Schneider would certainly be in our top 12 IMO, but I think basing this sort of list on the best starting 22--rather than 12--would make more sense, anyway.

It is also more than just the actual games missed, that hurt. Goodes hasn't missed any but he's hampered by injury--Williams too--and earlier on in the season I'd suggest Maxfield and Kennelly weren't 100%.

..and what about the constant IN-and-OUT of Davis, Micky & Schnides, they've never had long enough in the team to get form.

IMO minimising injuries ranks No. 2 (after personnel) as the requirment for a successful season.

[Bart]

This analysis is completly flawed. You are all correct in that they obviuolsy have very different views as to who our top 12 are, but another issue is that it doesn't allow for how many of those players were missing at the same time. One top player IMO can be covered, however, when several are out as per our match against Port, you simply can't cover for that. God we were really on a hiding to nothing heading into that match.

[Benevolent Ert]

My Top 12

Hall - 0
Goodes - 0*
Williams - 0*
Kirk - 0
Barry - 1
Ball - 1
O'Loughlin - 6
J. Bolton - 0
Schauble - 14
Davis - 8*
Maxfield - 0
Crouch - 0

Makes my tally 30
Also - while Goodes technically hasn't missed a game - he effectively didn't play against the Eagles
Plus Williams and Davis shouldn't have played against Port Adelaide

[NMWBloods]

Yep - I agree with all of this.

The article didn't say who was in the top 12 or on what basis they made their choices.

Whatever way it is done, the Swans would have to be in the top half dozen in terms of injury problems this year.

[Wil]

Originally posted by swansrock4eva

The other thing I'd like to see is the effects of injuries on the "generation next" types who would have been pushing to make the 22 during the season but who were injured at inopportune times e.g. sundqvist.
I think this point is crucial. It is one thing to have some key injuries but worse when their potential replacements are injured as well i.e. Schneider and Monty, Saddo and LRT. Thats bad not just for this season but for future seasons.

Of course, the Swans are not developed enough yet to have enough depth at all positions - we really need to minimize injuries (and giving away free kicks) to be really competitive week in, week out.

[Charlie]

12 is an arbitrary, useless number.

Realistically, it is a club's top 30 players who decide whether they will win the premiership. That 30 includes all injured players, and it is injuries to those 30 players that should have been counted.

Do that, and I suspect that you'd see us float to the upper section of the table.

[Snowy]

No disagree Charlie, you can't replace the top blokes but you can rotate bottom depth. Brisbane is the only team who can win without a few topliners.

[ScottH]

Call me Stupid, but I didn't understand the point of the article or the stats presented and the relevance of the stats to compare of the last x years. If it was done per season it would make more sense.

[swansrule100]

we have a lot play with injuries though....

[j0lly]

i feel sorry for fixter!!!!!!

hope his leg fixes itself up soon!!

[sharp9]

We have had the worst run of ANYONE this year. I made my calculations based on top 25 players.

Now, it seems, it may be turning around. As long as no one says out loud that our injury crisis is behind us.....:p

[Thunder Shaker]

Originally posted by Charlie
12 is an arbitrary, useless number.
I completely agree. Teams have 22 players, not 12.