Originally posted by Gibbo
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Lucas Injury Progress?
Collapse
X
-
Maybe but that is a 1 in 1000 chance, there is no way Lucas could disguise it, at some point in the warm up he would have felt it. He would then have pulled up and stretched it, maybe sat out of that bit or if he carried on it would have been obvious he was carrying an injury of some sorts because it was as plain as could be when the game started that he couldn't move and was running around like Don Brennan.The King was back for a short while. Long live The King.
-
Originally posted by Lee View PostI think we've enough depth in midfield with Allen, Sahin, Shelvey, Gerrard and Henderson.
Adam and Spearing can still go.
Originally posted by dom9 View PostGet rid of both.
We have Sahin, Allen, Gerrard, Shelvey, Henderson. 5 players to rotate the 3 positions.Originally posted by Assassin View PostPlus a few youngsters to give some first team experience too
TBF though, it looks like Adam ain't gonna be moving unless something out of the blue happens, so we can add him to the list."I will make the boys feel your support"
Jurgen Klopp June 2020
Comment
-
It's singular though.Originally posted by dom9 View PostThe thread title is not injury specific..
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.
Comment
-
Yup any niggle that a player that has been out for so long has.... should be seen to straight away. Obviously we aren't sure exactly what went on but FFS if it's a case where Lucas said i have a twinge, IMO medical staff/Rodgers should whip him straight off. Maybe Lucas said give it a minute..i dunno but our medical team should know better.
Gutted & ****ing typical, we have had some crappy luck in our last 2 games, hopefully that changes quick smart. Big responsibility on Allen now to protect the backline, i wonder will we see Gerrard having to drop deep again? It really stifles his game IMO & he doesn't seem to be able to dictate the game like he used to. Much better off when played behind the forward.
Comment
-
Do we actually have any indication that it got worse? Maybe the instruction was to see if it gets better. It didn't so he came off.
Still, I expect there's every chance the club medical staff know less about muscle injuries than many of us on here.
.
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.
Comment
-
Well clearly they got it wrong in this case & i have never heard of a twinge or a pulled muscle getting better by playing on itOriginally posted by Neil Young View PostDo we actually have any indication that it got worse? Maybe the instruction was to see if it gets better. It didn't so he came off.
Still, I expect there's every chance the club medical staff know less about muscle injuries than many of us on here.

IMO it was a bad shout.
Comment
-
Aaaargh!Originally posted by danperkins View PostWell clearly they got it wrong in this case & i have never heard of a twinge or a pulled muscle getting better by playing on it
IMO it was a bad shout.

OK, this is my take on it:
I agree in the sense I'm surprised they didn't play safe. But I do wonder how many of us really have a full understanding of what it's like to be at the athletic level required of a Premiership footballer, how often they play with pain, what niggles they customarily play through, and so on.
The most rational explanation to me is that it was thought possible he'd be ok and be able to play most or all of the game but there was a chance he wouldn't. And influencing the decision is a view on how important he might be in a game like this. So when they balanced the probabilities and factored in the importance, they ended up deciding it was a risk worth taking.
We now know it was a gamble they lost. But that was unknowable at the time.
Also we don't know whether he'd have been out two or three months anyway, so it might have lost us nothing to give it a try. Instead the widespread assumption seems to be that he made it a million times worse and instead of missing two or three months, he might have been back for next weekend, or whatever.
I don't mind people guessing about that, as long as it's recognised as such. It just baffles me that a lack of respect for the judgement of the club's medical staff is exceeded only by the faith in one's own, even without (or maybe because of) no formal medical training whatsoever..
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.
Comment
-
That's fair enough, it just seems an extremely baffling decision on their part. You don't have to be a doctor to know that if a player clearly feels a twinge before the match, it's best not to risk it - especially if that player is as important to us (not to mention his recent injury record) as Lucas is. Yes, it's an opinion formed with hindsight, but it seems we've been extremely gung-ho with his fitness on this occasion and we pay the price.Originally posted by Neil Young View PostAaaargh!

OK, this is my take on it:
I agree in the sense I'm surprised they didn't play safe. But I do wonder how many of us really have a full understanding of what it's like to be at the athletic level required of a Premiership footballer, how often they play with pain, what niggles they customarily play through, and so on.
The most rational explanation to me is that it was thought possible he'd be ok and be able to play most or all of the game but there was a chance he wouldn't. And influencing the decision is a view on how important he might be in a game like this. So when they balanced the probabilities and factored in the importance, they ended up deciding it was a risk worth taking.
We now know it was a gamble they lost. But that was unknowable at the time.
Also we don't know whether he'd have been out two or three months anyway, so it might have lost us nothing to give it a try. Instead the widespread assumption seems to be that he made it a million times worse and instead of missing two or three months, he might have been back for next weekend, or whatever.
I don't mind people guessing about that, as long as it's recognised as such. It just baffles me that a lack of respect for the judgement of the club's medical staff is exceeded only by the faith in one's own, even without (or maybe because of) no formal medical training whatsoever.
The other thing I'd say about your argument is that if you go down that route, where do you draw the line? I mean, Roy Hodgson actually knows a million times more about football than any of us - yet he made **** up after **** up which pretty much all of us complained about. I think it's entirely fair for us to pass comment. I think the majority of us appreciate and bear in mind that we make these comments with the benefit of hindsight, and do so from ivory towers (especially now Craig's no longer with us
fwiw I miss that guy). It's the easiest thing in the world to be a critic. But this is the nature of a football forum isn't it
K ris90210
Comment
Comment