Wolves away buildup

[vonk]

If we can't beat Wolves without Gerrard then lets all pack up and go home.
Have him start on the bench and bring him on if needs be rather than rush him back from yet another injury.
We deservedly beat Spurs at home without him, Aquilani had his best game for us so far (imo) christ even Dirk scored a couple so let them go again in the same positions.
I'd personally move Degan to RB and Carra to CB and start Maxi RM but that would be my only change

You made my point. We have only got 4th to play for. We should pick the best team that's available to us.

[Craig_H]

Media reporting that Gerrard will be fit for this one.

But is that FIT fit? Or LFC 'play them anyway because we need to' fit?

[dww]

My point is that to suggest we rest them is ludicrous in our position. There are those who are suggesting that because we won one match against Spurs that suddenly we can afford to "rest" them.

Of course when I say "fit" I mean fully fit. Gerrard has been training since Saturday so I see no reason to think he is not fit. And if he's fit enough to be in the squad he's fit enough to play.

I'm as happy as everyone that we beat Spurs. I was dancing around my living room, but it doesn't mean everything is rosy in the garden all of a sudden. We are still trailing Citeh and Spurs in the race for fourth remember.

But the thing is that the 'fully fit' you refer to could be the sort of fitness he has played at in earlier games this season. During those games he was not more effective than the players who played in his absence.

If he plays against Wolves and either a/ gets injured again or b/ simply doesn't recover to genuine match winning superstar fitness then we lose the possibility of having that for games we would expect to be tougher. It's not necessarily just about the one game but his impact over a run of several games that we should be trying to maximise.

I also tend to think that an attacking player coming on as sub can make more of an impact if less than fully fit as they come on against more tired opponents. That is always more of a gamble though I guess as sometimes a player requires time to get the pace of a match.

[Craig_H]

I dont get what you're saying dww. He said 'fully fit' and i would assume he means fully 100% fit.

From reading his post, i see no indication of any reference to a level of fitness where Gerrard is any more vulnerable to injury than any other player in any other game.

the 'fully fit' you refer to could be the sort of fitness he has played at in earlier games this season

I dont think it does refer to that though. Seems to me that vonk is referring to being completely fit and not carrying any injury side effects. In which case, most people would probably start Gerrard.

If he's lacking in fitness, then he'd obviously not be fully fit or 100%, in which case i wouldnt start him and i dont think vonk would either.

[Assassin]

If Gerrard is not fit then she should not start. I would be better for him to sit on the bench, so Wolves could worry about him coming on at some stage

[Craig_H]

If Gerrard is not fit then she should not start. I would be better for him to sit on the bench, so Wolves could worry about him coming on at some stage

I'd go along with that. Equally, if he's 100% fit, i see no need to keep him on the bench. Play for an hour, help win us the game and then get in the bath.

[Assassin]

I'd go along with that. Equally, if he's 100% fit, i see no need to keep him on the bench. Play for an hour, help win us the game and then get in the bath.

I agree totally 100 % fit he should play.

Fit but not 100% on the bench

Unfit and not able to play, we have 7 subs, we can get by with 6, I would still have him sitting on the bench to worry Wolves

[dww]

I dont get what you're saying dww. He said 'fully fit' and i would assume he means fully 100% fit.

From reading his post, i see no indication of any reference to a level of fitness where Gerrard is any more vulnerable to injury than any other player in any other game.



I dont think it does refer to that though. Seems to me that vonk is referring to being completely fit and not carrying any injury side effects. In which case, most people would probably start Gerrard.

If he's lacking in fitness, then he'd obviously not be fully fit or 100%, in which case i wouldnt start him and i dont think vonk would either.

Well I was working from the he has been "training since Saturday so I see no reason to think he is not fit" well he's trained to various degrees for most of this season and he has a/ been more prone to injury than usual and b/ played below his usual standards. My point is that fully fit to train is clearly a different thing to being ready to play matches at full tilt. There is nothing in his ability to complete training that infers the latter.

I normally take 100% fit to mean that physically he isn't carrying any existing knocks and is ready to play 90 minutes. I would suggest that at least part of the problem with recurring injuries is one of sharpness and while you can bee 100% physically fit there are a lot of occasions when a player is not fully in tune with their body as they have been out and this can lead indirectly to a greater chance of injury.

[Craig_H]

I buy all that dude. I just meant, myself and vonk were going on the assumption that he's totally 100% fit and 'match fit' or sharp enough to play.

I agree that you're often not sharp when you might be 'fit' and this often happens after an injury layoff. But you're only going to get that proper sharpness back by playing, anyway.

I expect him to start, personally and i hope he proves his sharpness

[JHP]

I think Gerrard's had a hamstring strain. The argument isn't whether the team is better or not with him less than fully fit, it's that with a hamstring injury he shouldn't even be on the bench unless it is 100% cleared. If he plays without it being fully recovered then a full burst run could see him out for months.

Obviously the physio's know this so if he's on the bench he's fit - though maybe lacking match fitness.

So if he's fit to be on the bench he has to be fully fit and should play.

But will probably be on the bench.

[Marky]

Hopefully Gerrard won't destroy the team spirit within the Reds camp which was so evident at Stoke and at home to Spurs.

[Craig_H]

Yeah, Gerrard's made a career out of destroying the fortunes of LFC, hasnt he?

[Leyton388]

Lets ****ing have them! Stevie back and lets get that 4th spot! Maxi to score as well.

[vonk]

I buy all that dude. I just meant, myself and vonk were going on the assumption that he's totally 100% fit and 'match fit' or sharp enough to play.

I agree that you're often not sharp when you might be 'fit' and this often happens after an injury layoff. But you're only going to get that proper sharpness back by playing, anyway.

I expect him to start, personally and i hope he proves his sharpness

Exactly.

100% fit is just that. He's either fit or he's not. I never buy the idea that he's more likely to get injured 90 minutes rather than coming off the bench for 10 minutes. I could be wrong about this, but if there is an injury it should show up in the period where the player is transitioning between sitting on the bench and going full throttle in a game whether that's the first or last 10 minutes. Either way, if it's a risk, don't have him on the bench.

[vonk]

Hopefully Gerrard won't destrory the team spirit within the Reds camp which was so evident at Stoke and at home to Spurs.

Maybe he should stay away from training too, in case his bad attitude spreads to the other players....