.png)
Why Availability Matters More Than Injury Count: What Four Years in a Second-Division Club Revealed
- Greg Dea
- 4 days ago
- 5 min read
The Paradox
A second-division VFL club implemented a screening-led player wellness system over four years. At the end, the data revealed something counterintuitive: the number of new injuries barely moved—but the club got significantly healthier.
Fewer players missed games. Injuries cost less time. The available squad on match day was stronger and more consistent. And when the data was overlaid against winning and losing weeks, the correlation was impossible to ignore.
The lesson isn't complicated, but it challenges how most clubs measure success: you cannot improve what you do not measure, and most clubs are measuring the wrong thing.
The Problem With Counting Injuries
Every medical department tracks injuries. It's intuitive, defensible, and shows up in board reports: "We had 41 injuries this season."
But raw injury count is a vanity metric—even when it's used as a proxy for injury prevention sports efforts. It doesn't tell you whether those injuries were career-ending ACL tears or three-day quad contusions. It doesn't tell you whether players are returning to play or returning to the bench. And crucially, it doesn't tell you whether your interventions are actually working.
The real measure of a healthy squad is how many players are available to play on match day, and for how many weeks any individual injury keeps someone sidelined.
What Actually Changed
Over the last two years, the club tracked three core metrics:
1. Games Missed Per Athlete
Year 3: 5.22 games per player per season
Year 4: 3.93 games per player per season
Change: −25%
This means the average player missed one fewer match per year. In a 22-match season, that's the difference between a key player sitting out five games and sitting out four.
2. Games Missed Per Injury
Year 1: 5.73 games per injury
Year 4: 4.28 games per injury
Change: −25%
Injuries were resolving faster. The system wasn't eliminating injury events—it was reducing their impact on squad availability.
Figure 3: Games missed per injury (2023-24). Each injury kept players sidelined for approximately one fewer match, a 25% improvement in injury resolution speed.
Figure 4: Club-level total matches missed (2023-24). The 68-match reduction brought Frankston FC closer to elite league benchmarks, despite playing a part-time squad with limited resources.
3. New Game-Costing Injuries
Year 1: 41 new injuries
Year 4: 39 new injuries
Change: −4.9%
A modest reduction, but a reduction nonetheless. This is where the real work happened: earlier identification and management of risk meant fewer injuries that actually knocked players out of matches.
Figure 2: New game-costing injuries (2023-24). Frankston FC moved closer to the elite league benchmark of 34.9 per season through earlier risk identification and targeted management.
Why This Matters: The Availability–Margin Connection
These shifts might seem modest until you look at where it matters most: on the scoreboard.
Analysis of the four-year dataset revealed a strong relationship between squad availability and performance. When measured week by week:
Availability in winning weeks: 85.8%Availability in losing weeks: 78.5%
The difference: a squad 7.3 percentage points more available. Translated into the correlation coefficient, the relationship was r=0.70—a strong association.
Figure 6: Player availability and match results (2024). The red line (FFC availability) tracks closely with wins (W) and losses (L) across the 23-round season. When more players were available, results improved.
The effect size: For every 1% increase in weekly squad availability, the club's winning margin improved by approximately 3.9 points.
For context, in a second-division competition, that's the difference between a close loss and a comfortable win.
Availability in Sports Teams: The Missing Metric
Most sports organizations track injury prevention and injury count. Fewer track the metric that actually predicts performance: availability in sports teams—the percentage of players available to compete on any given week.
This distinction is critical. A low injury count means nothing if those injuries sideline key players for extended periods. Availability in sports teams directly answers the question coaches care about: "Who can play this weekend?"
The four-year dataset showed that measuring availability shifts behavior.
Medical teams stop asking "Did we reduce injuries?" and start asking "Did we reduce games missed?"
Training loads, return-to-play decisions, and load management all follow. The second-division club's experience suggests this reframing is what drives the 3.9-point margin improvement per 1% availability gain.
The Screening Foundation: FMS and Objective Data
How did the club achieve this shift? Not through injury reduction alone, but through earlier intervention and data-driven decision-making.
The system began with the Functional Movement Screen (FMS)—a 10-minute standardized movement assessment that identifies movement competency before pain or injury occurs. Paired with the Selective Functional Movement Assessment (SFMA) for athletes reporting pain, the club could stratify risk and prioritize intervention in real time.
Rather than waiting for injuries to occur, clinicians could identify movement patterns associated with higher injury risk and modify training load, technique, or preparation accordingly. This was fed into a proprietary player wellness system that tracked availability, games missed, and injury patterns week by week.
The framework was objective, repeatable, and directly tied to coaching decisions about squad selection and training load.
Benchmarking Against the Elite
To understand whether these gains were meaningful, the club's availability was compared against published elite sport benchmarks.
Elite benchmark (average across professional teams): 81.5% availability.
This club's final-year availability: 83.0%
A second-division club operating above elite-sport benchmarks for squad availability. That's not noise—that's a signal that the screening-led approach was working.
The Takeaway for Coaches and Medical Teams
The data suggests three principles:
Measure availability, not just injury count. Your real metric is how many players can contribute on match day. Track games missed per athlete and per injury, not just injury events.
Earlier intervention beats late management. Screening tools like FMS screening athletes early in the season identifies risk before injury occurs. This shifts the intervention window from reactive to proactive, making movement screening sports a performance investment rather than a compliance burden.
Availability drives performance. The r=0.70 correlation between squad availability and winning margin is too strong to ignore. Investing in player wellness isn't a nice-to-have—it's a performance strategy.
Figure 10: 2024 correlation between squad availability and winning margin (r=0.70, r²=0.49). Squad availability explains roughly half the variation in round-to-round margin. Note: correlation is not causation—opposition quality, venue, and team form also influence results.
The Foundation: Objective Movement Assessment
None of this happens without objective data. Subjective observation, clinical intuition, and experience matter—but they cannot replace a standardized, repeatable screening system.
If you're interested in learning how to implement movement screening into your own program, the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) is the starting point. FMS provides the objective framework for identifying movement competency and stratifying risk in under 10 minutes per athlete.
The bottom line: Stop counting injuries. Start measuring availability. The data shows it's the metric that matters.
Comments