Injury -prone ....?

[david in sweden]

I'm disappointed to see repeated comments from contributors saying ..

" don't play him - he's injury prone ". Most recently aimed at Lee Holmes and David Connolly. True ...some injuries take longer than other, especially those to knee and ankle, but both players mentioned have shown real talent when they were played, and no manager would put someone on the bench if he wasn't match fit. ANYONE can get injured ..anytime and no-one knows the extent of the injury lay-off. An injury can be cleared up in a week, or become a career breaker.

 

Towards the end of their time with us..both MLT and Marian Pahars had serious injuries, but I heard few voices suggesting they shouldn't be selected because of that. Gordon Strachan refused to select £3 million signing Agustin Delgado) ..I suspect because it wasn't his player, but even after a knee op. and prologed lay-off.... " Tinman " still went to the 2002 World Cup and scored for Equador.

 

Longer ago, Ron Davies had repeated injuries from brutal defenders' tackles, (when players weren't " protected " so much by referees as they are now), but still turned up to play and continued to score regularly.

 

Matt Oakley was out over a year before coming back, and released by a manager (who ?) didn't trust " his recovery". Argueably, Oakley has had a better career after he left Saints !

 

Lee Holmes seems to have got an "honourable mention " for those games he has played, and had a good time on the Swiss tour apparantly. David Connolly has (according to an NA quote in April ) been fit, and on the bench since March..but unable to get in because of Lee Barnard's good form.

It was a good thing he was after LB got injured a month later, as DCs goals were invaluable in the run in to end of season.

 

NOW it's Barnards who still isn't 100% fit, but no-one is saying we shouldn't choose him, because of that and who can deny that David Connolly is a class act and deserves his place on merit?

 

So let's quit this "injury-prone " hoodoo comment. If a player is selected and plays well enough .. he's worth his place...as long as he is fit enough to play!

Edited 9 August, 2011 by david in sweden

[Danbert]

So what you're saying is, if players are fit then it's okay to pick them.

[Big_Bald_Si]

So what you're saying is, if players are fit then it's okay to pick them.

 

lol

[david in sweden]

So what you're saying is, if players are fit then it's okay to pick them.

 

Of course. FIT means they're not injured anymore.

It's stupid (and unfair) to brand a player " injury-prone " because he's been unlucky in the past, and deny him the chance to play.

 

I'd like to see ANYONE say we shouldn't play David Connolly because he has a past history of injuries. The guy is pure class .

[Danbert]

Of course. FIT means they're not injured anymore.

It's stupid (and unfair) to brand a player " injury-prone " because he's been unlucky in the past, and deny him the chance to play.

 

I'd like to see ANYONE say we shouldn't play David Connolly because he has a past history of injuries. The guy is pure class .

 

Quite - beat that straw man beat him.

[CWD]

I'd like to see ANYONE say we shouldn't play David Connolly because he has a past history of injuries. The guy is pure class .

 

We shouldn't play David Connolly because he has a past history of injuries.

[Danbert]

We shouldn't play David Connolly because he has a past history of injuries.

 

Oohhh you controversial person you

[CWD]

Oohhh you controversial person you

 

I know. My opinions are totally 'out there'. Like it or lump it sister

[Crazy Diamond]

We shouldn't play David Connolly because he has a past history of injuries.

 

I agree, we should not play him for that reason.

 

We should play him because he can score goals.