The Bad Injuries Myth

[HirstWhoScoredIt]

The last few matches we have been unlucky with injuries.  Particularly away at Aston Villa.

 

However, it is a complete myth that we have had bad luck with injuries this season.

 

First choice Goalkeeper is Westwood - he has played 37 out of 39 matches.

 

His first choice right back is Hunt who has been fit for nearly every match - only missing out when he has rotated with Palmer who has also been constantly fit.

 

He has had Pudil and then Fox fit for most of the season.  There was a few matches when he was forced to play Reach at left back but the majority of times he did this was down to choice not necessity. Emanuelson appears to have not been injured for the majority of it.

 

Hutchinson has played 32 matches which i would argue is actually very lucky based on his history.

 

Lees has started 29 league matches out of 39.  Loovens has started 28.  Some of the matches he missed was due to selection not being injured and again we knew he would pick up a few injuries.  Sasso has been fit all season.

 

As well as the good luck with Hutch,  Bannan has been fit all season.  Lee is a miss but still played for 23 out of our 39 matches.  Jones has been fit all season.  Abdi has had a couple of spells out but played 16 out of 39 matches and missed out on many others through selection not injury.  McGugan has apparently not been injured this season.

 

Reach has been fit all season. Wallace has played in 37 of 39 matches.  McManaman has usually been fit.  Buckley missed 8 weeks with a dislocated shoulder.  Matias has been unfit for most of the season.

 

We have had seven strikers in our squad this season.  Fletcher, Joao, Nuhiu, Rhodes and Winnall have hardly missed anytime at all between them through injury.  Forestieri has been fit for 34 of our matches (1 of the 8 he missed was Norwich when he wasn't 'mentally fit' and 3 through suspension). Hooper has been fit enough to play in 17 of our 39 matches.

 

Every single team gets injuries, every single team gets long term injuries.

 

Where is this terrible luck we have had with injuries?

 

It seems more like to me we went in a centre half light and reliant on Hutch (who was supposed to be playing centre half this season) to be our midfield enforcer.  Who would've predicted it?

 

But where is this bad luck Carlos?

Edited April 3, 2017 by HirstWhoScoredIt

[gurujuan]

38 minutes ago, HirstWhoScoredIt said:

The last few matches we have been unlucky with injuries.  Particularly away at Aston Villa.

 

However, it is a complete myth that we have had bad luck with injuries this season.

 

First choice Goalkeeper is Westwood - he has played 37 out of 39 matches.

 

His first choice right back is Hunt who has been fit for nearly every match - only missing out when he has rotated with Palmer who has also been constantly fit.

 

He has had Pudil and then Fox fit for most of the season.  There was a few matches when he was forced to play Reach at left back but the majority of times he did this was down to choice not necessity. Emanuelson appears to have not been injured for the majority of it.

 

Hutchinson has played 32 matches which i would argue is actually very lucky based on his history.

 

Lees has started 29 league matches out of 39.  Loovens has started 28.  Some of the matches he missed was due to selection not being injured and again we knew he would pick up a few injuries.  Sasso has been fit all season.

 

As well as the good luck with Hutch,  Bannan has been fit all season.  Lee is a miss but still played for 23 out of our 39 matches.  Jones has been fit all season.  Abdi has had a couple of spells out but played 16 out of 39 matches and missed out on many others through selection not injury.  McGugan has apparently not been injured this season.

 

Reach has been fit all season. Wallace has played in 37 of 39 matches.  McManaman has usually been fit.  Buckley missed 8 weeks with a dislocated shoulder.  Matias has been unfit for most of the season.

 

We have had seven strikers in our squad this season.  Fletcher, Joao, Nuhiu, Rhodes and Winnall have hardly missed anytime at all between them through injury.  Forestieri has been fit for 31 of our matches (1 of the 8 he missed was Norwich when he wasn't 'mentally fit'). Hooper has been fit enough to play in 17 of our 39 matches.

 

Every single team gets injuries, every single team gets long term injuries.

 

Where is this terrible luck we have had with injuries?

 

It seems more like to me we went in a centre half light and reliant on Hutch (who was supposed to be playing centre half this season) to be our midfield enforcer.  Who would've predicted it?

 

But where is this bad luck Carlos?

 

Yes, good points, it is a myth

[WhiteOwl91]

Start of the season, we seemed stuck with a few who werent fit and hadnt had a proper pre-season (Pudil, Abdi) and it took them an age to get going (if they ever did)

Lee and Hooper been out since December, Lees for quite a while, Abdi has been fit for 5 games injured again all season. Bannan and Lee were playing injured for about a month+.

 

Now whilst we haven't had 7 of our 1st 11 out all season, even just take Costa and Kante out of a class side like Chelsea and theyre a much weaker side for it. 

 

We've got depth, but lets not kid ourselves, your best players make a massive difference regardless of who you are.

We were a distance away from 7th until 7 games ago, when injuries really started to build.

 

Not stating thats the reason we are where we are, but its a factor.

We were a CB light, they made a big error in this.

 

But 2 players for every position is what you want. Weve got 5 for CM, and 3 are injured. Thats unfortunate and in years gone by we'd have been able to loan one.  

[Lee A]

Lee and Hooper are a big miss it has to be said,

 

But are they a 1 win in 7 games, struggling for shots on target kind of miss? Especially when one of them has been compensated for by the signings of Rhodes and Winnall?

 

It hurts teams to lose players, but we haven't lost enough players to use it as an excuse for the current performances imo, not even close.

 

[oldishowl]

Don't believe the Hooper and Abdi stats for one minute.

There is a big difference between being fit to sit on the bench and being 100% fit to start a game if selected and last 90 mins.

How many 90 mins have Hooper and Abdi lasted

Hooper was selected on the bench early season simply to try and get him game time to get him fit. 

 

 

Add to that FF who was not at the races until mid December, his brain was injured 

Joao and Fletcher were also injured for periods of time.

Abdi was intended to be cover for Lee but both have been out bar an odd game since before xmas.

Buckley was not fit when he arrived and we got him fit and he immediately got injured 

 

Injuries have been a significant problem because we lost key players , like Lee and Lees and because we took a gamble at centre back and lost the gamble

[alanharper]

Missing Lee for half the season (if he doesn't come back before the end), Hooper for more than half of the season played so far and Lees for a quarter of the season is pretty unlucky if you ask me. 

 

Lee and Lees in particular,  it's not as if we've been able to replace them with similar players. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, alanharper said:

Missing Lee for half the season (if he doesn't come back before the end), Hooper for more than half of the season played so far and Lees for a quarter of the season is pretty unlucky if you ask me. 

 

Lee and Lees in particular,  it's not as if we've been able to replace them with similar players. 

 

Unlucky but not unheard of. Most fans thought we needed an extra centre-back in the summer. 

Villa have half a squad out injured, have lost the striker they opted for instead of Rhodes in January to injury and have been much better recently. Gayle has been out injured for spells this season at Newcastle, Brighton have lost 2 centre-backs. 

Most teams will have had major players out injured for significant spells, most teams haven't got a squad as big as ours.

 

 

[TheEnchanter]

I think for me it's the fact that all these injuries cause us to have a very unsettled and regularly rotated team. I made the point that at the start of the season up until christmas we could hardly get Fletcher and Hooper on the pitch at the same time. Then when we did Hooper got his bad injury. All the time we've not been able to pick from a full bunch. How often have Leeds, Brighton and Huddersfield been able to say the same? When you look at their team sheets they seem to have a lot less injuries and therefore subsequent rotation. It's not an excuse but it is a fact. 

[HirstWhoScoredIt]

Everybody keeps going on about Hooper being in the 'spine' of our team but let's be honest - he would hardly have started.

 

Carlos started the season with Fletcher and Forestieri as his strike force of choice and has since brought in Winnall and Rhodes.

 

The only bad luck we've had that should count as material is Kieran Lee but we were rubbish when he was fit too! 

 

He refused to play Abdi in his preferred position and Jones hasn't had the impact he intended. That is either poor judgment or poor utilisation not bad luck.

[HirstWhoScoredIt]

10 minutes ago, alanharper said:

Missing Lee for half the season (if he doesn't come back before the end), Hooper for more than half of the season played so far and Lees for a quarter of the season is pretty unlucky if you ask me. 

 

Lee and Lees in particular,  it's not as if we've been able to replace them with similar players. 

Maybe if we didn't have 7 first team strikers we could've got an extra centre half - everybody could see we needed it.

 

Especially when two of our options were Hutch and Loovens. That's not bad luck it is bad planning.

 

When Wednesday had Hinchcliffe, Scott, O'Donnell, Donnelly and Jonk all injured all season - that was bad luck (to a degree, O'Donnell and Hinchcliffe failed medical at other clubs).

 

This is just average luck. With a squad as big as ours we were bound to get some long term ones.

 

We'd have been worse off if the long term ones were Westwood, Forestieri, Lees, Loovens or Hutch. And everybody would've been claiming we were worse off if 'key signings' like Reach and Fletcher had been out all season.

 

I still reckon if you pushed Carlos to name his first XI he'd say:-

 

Westwood

 

Hunt

Lees

Loovens

Fox

 

Bannan/Wallace

Lee

Hutch

Reach

 

Forestieri

Rhodes.

 

On that basis I'd say we've been very lucky. Lee playing 23/39 and Lees 29/39 our only real misses.

[oldishowl]

Are you on the wind up

 

Do you mean Hooper, our top scorer last year. 

 

He tried to start with Fletcher and FF because Hooper was overweight and still injured from a pre season friendly. However he had to talk FF into playing first game, he decided not to bother second game and after that FF might as well have been sat with me on the kop apart from the odd game until Santa brought him a new contract .

Hooper was selected when he got fit until he did a triple jump into an advertising board at Fulham 

 

[HirstWhoScoredIt]

11 minutes ago, TheEnchanter said:

I think for me it's the fact that all these injuries cause us to have a very unsettled and regularly rotated team. I made the point that at the start of the season up until christmas we could hardly get Fletcher and Hooper on the pitch at the same time. Then when we did Hooper got his bad injury. All the time we've not been able to pick from a full bunch. How often have Leeds, Brighton and Huddersfield been able to say the same? When you look at their team sheets they seem to have a lot less injuries and therefore subsequent rotation. It's not an excuse but it is a fact. 

Agree to a point but much of this was due to his persistent rotating.

[HirstWhoScoredIt]

Just now, oldishowl said:

Are you on the wind up

 

Do you mean Hooper, our top scorer last year. 

 

He tried to start with Fletcher and FF because Hooper was overweight and still injured from a pre season friendly. However he had to talk FF into playing first game, he decided not to bother second game and after that FF might as well have been sat with me on the kop apart from the odd game until Santa brought him a new contract .

Hooper was selected when he got fit until he did a triple jump into an advertising board at Fulham 

 

Look at the team I suggest is his best XI above your post.

 

Do you think HE would put Hooper in it?

 

If so where?

[TheEnchanter]

1 minute ago, HirstWhoScoredIt said:

Agree to a point but much of this was due to his persistent rotating.

 

Exactly, I'm not saying we'd have been destroying the league with all our players fit but I think this is probably one of the things that's contributed to the way the season has panned out. 

[HirstWhoScoredIt]

Just now, TheEnchanter said:

 

Exactly, I'm not saying we'd have been destroying the league with all our players fit but I think this is probably one of the things that's contributed to the way the season has panned out. 

But having all of our players fit is a completely unrealistic expectation.

[oldishowl]

The season was 6 months old when we signed Rhodes. Hooper had been 100% fit for 2 months of it including a 2 week international break. He was out injured for 4 months of the season up to the signing of Rhodes and 2 months since.

 

Hooper's  fitness was the reason we signed Rhodes.

[BIG D]

1 hour ago, gurujuan said:

 

Yes, good points, it is a myth

It's a complete load of pony. 

By his own stats Lees and Loovens have missed a quarter of the season and Lee has missed almost half. Take Saturday for example when Sam went off then the midfield was missing FF, Wallace, Sam and Lee. Hooper has been out for 4 months. All 100% guaranteed starters when fit.

Find another reason to beat Carlos with. 

[Westfield Owl]

10 minutes ago, oldishowl said:

The season was 6 months old when we signed Rhodes. Hooper had been 100% fit for 2 months of it including a 2 week international break. He was out injured for 4 months of the season up to the signing of Rhodes and 2 months since.

 

Hooper's  fitness was the reason we signed Rhodes.

 

Hooper's fitness probably would have been a factor in signing Rhodes and Winnall.

 

Carvalhal's failure to utilise a pretty good strikeforce consisting of Fletcher, Forestieri, Joao, Hooper, Nuhiu and Hirst was probably a more significant factor.  

 

It's not like we had no one that we could play up front - it's just that our manager has failed for most of the season to find a system that gets the most out of our squad's capabilities.

[bigdan2003]

Losing Lee, Lees, Hutch, Hooper and Forestieri for varying lengths of time, and at the same time, has affected us. It's quite clear to see. 

 

We do have lots of players with quality who you'd expect to fill in....but for whatever reason it's just not happened. Lots of debates going on about that. 

 

But to try and say that our injury problem is all a myth, is a bit disingenuous. I mean look at Abdi - brought into the squad, starts to look something like the quality we expect, and then bang....out for the season. 

[HirstWhoScoredIt]

16 minutes ago, oldishowl said:

The season was 6 months old when we signed Rhodes. Hooper had been 100% fit for 2 months of it including a 2 week international break. He was out injured for 4 months of the season up to the signing of Rhodes and 2 months since.

 

Hooper's  fitness was the reason we signed Rhodes.

But every club gets injuries.

 

He still had Forestieri, Fletcher, Nuhiu and Joao.

 

Then signed Winnall and Rhodes. Every other manager barring Benitez and Bruce would be calling that extremely lucky - not unlucky.