Lucas Injury Progress?

[Rich]

Hopefully Lucas isn't out for long and it is lesson learned, for Lucas and the medical team. No doubt Lucas' enthusiasm clouded his judgement.

[Neil Young]

Outcome bias. It had one outcome but other outcomes were possible at the time the decision were made.

Or, if you prefer, the benefit of hindsight.

[Muddled]

Outcome bias. It had one outcome but other outcomes were possible at the time the decision were made.

Or, if you prefer, the benefit of hindsight.

I'm all clued up on outcome bias. Now.

Ithankyoukindly Neil.

[Neil Young]

Are you going all FakePablo on me?

[Muddled]

Are you going all FakePablo on me?

Nah, I didn't type that whilst frothing from the mouth.

I did genuinely read up on outcome bias following our chat about Man City's first goal.

[Neil Young]

[The Birdman]

Outcome bias. It had one outcome but other outcomes were possible at the time the decision were made.

Or, if you prefer, the benefit of hindsight.

Er no it isn't and no there wasn't.
If a sportman pulls/feels something 'go' in one of his muscles in a warm when they are operating at maybe 60-80% full capacity then it will never improve by going at 100%.

My first reaction was how unlucky but that happens when coming back from a long term injury, other weaknesses are exposed until the body gets used to playing again.
Then we announced that Lucas felt it in the warm up and we decided to play him, it's not an impact injury that you can run off.

A professional footballer feels something go in his thigh and we send him out to play against the champions anyway just for ****s and giggles.

Completely unprofessional, change the team don't take any chances with one of our most important/influencial players and he may have been fit for Arsenal.


Hindsight has nothing to do with it once we confirmed we knew he had a problem but sent him out anyway

[Neil Young]

Read it up. You're wrong.

It's a calculated gamble. Not one I think they were right to take, but that's another issue.

[Resu]

What the rules about changing line-ups after the teamsheet has been handed in?
Are you allowed to make changes as long freely, can you make changes but are not allowed to have the player you take out on the bench? Can you name a new player for the bench?

[Mostar]

About 3 years.

I was an unfit lazy student, which probably contributed to me getting injured in the first place.

Terrible.

[dom9]

Terrible.

Not really. If I was inclined to do anything other than drink and smoke, I would have been up and running again within a couple of months.

[danperkins]

Lucas is not match fit, been out for very long time and is going to pick up niggles. Once it's nothing too serious that's very good news.

[Mostar]

Not really. If I was inclined to do anything other than drink and smoke, I would have been up and running again within a couple of months.

[The Birdman]

Read it up. You're wrong.

It's a calculated gamble. Not one I think they were right to take, but that's another issue.

I don't need to read up on anything you loveable wet nosed beaut.

We could have beat Man C 3-0 with Lucas struggling through for 80 minutes and playing him would still have been the wrong decision because he will miss more games through making the injury worse.

No muscle injury ever gets better by playing on it once damaged.

The only outcome is that Lucas made his injury much worse by playing, the result is largely irrelivent because the ends (a potential 3 points) doesn't justify the means/risk (making an injury to a key player worse so he misses more games)

[Neil Young]

I don't disagree with the idea that it was an unnecessary risk and it would have been better to have withdrawn him after the warm-up. But I don't think it was amateurish or anything else.

You can't judge it by the outcome. Although unlikely, it's possible he could have played most of the game without doing any more damage.

I have no doubt he'd have been withdrawn if it was deemed more important not to take the risk. Pretty much by definition.

In short, the people making the decision at the time didn't share your view of the balance of risk.

Anyway, isn't the latest rumour that he's likely to miss only one game?