RM, I would love for this conversation to be based on data, but it isn't. As I've said before, the issue isn't we have injuries, or recurrent injuries, it's whether we have more injuries than other teams. Pointing to Logue's set-back and saying 'typical' is a bit like saying it's warm today so climate change is real. It might be evidence, but as one piece of data it's basically irrelevant. You'd need to point to a bigger data set.
It's also relevant to consider what type of injuries we have, and who is suffering them. There does seem to be a trend towards us getting soft tissue injuries, but we also seem to have fewer ankle and knee issues than other clubs.
If I said 'Gee, look at Hogan. He came in with a very difficult to manage foot injury, and he's on the park much sooner than expected and in reasonable shape - well done to our training staff' you'd be right to say that's just one example. But it cuts both ways.
You know that road safety ad where that bloke comes out and the guy says there were 200 deaths last year, what would be a more acceptable number? He says 70, then his family comes out. He's asked again what an acceptable number is, and he says 'zero'. It's a bit like that with injury lists. When it's your own club, there is no acceptable number of injuries. But there is AFL injury data available, so the club can actually benchmark this. We just don't have access to it.
I think our current number of injuries is a little higher than 'the acceptable number', but probably only Blakely and S Hill would be certain starters not up for selection for Freo at the moment. Missing 2 out of 22 is a pretty good result. My point is, I don't really count Bennell and Sandi as having a normal injury risk profile. If either played this year I'd be a bit surprised.
I tend to agree that S Hill might not play again. You could probably blame the fitness staff, but there are reasons very few players get over 200 games. Some is talent, and some is durability. S Hill's body might not be up to it anymore.
