***Midweek Football***(Spoilers within)

Gilly said:
And yet the 'bad' foot wasn't affected at all.

How you can possibly continue to believe you are right is beyond my ken.
Click to expand...

The ignore function is a wonderful thing :D

Just don't bother reading his crap, I'm pretty sure he has anger issues and needs to vent his hatred for Arsenal after every game and how Wenger is the anti-christ :p
 
Gilly said:
And yet the 'bad' foot wasn't affected at all.

How you can possibly continue to believe you are right is beyond my ken.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure whats difficult to understand, if Fabregas had broken his leg in that game I would have been angry because he's barely had a rest in 3 years, except when injured, playing LONG cup's in summer two years in a row.

IF Gibbs was completely uninjured before the game, I would not have risked him in the game, call it a 4% chance of getting injured in any average game, obviously a random number but just assume its right. If the game were important, vital, the risk is acceptable, obviously. But it was a game we could safely lose with no consequences, at all. Ok the risk just transfers to another player if you rest them, but its still less risk to that specific player who we'd want available to start the next game.

Now he has a bad foot, which he almost broke less than 2 weeks before, so call that another 5% chance of hurting that foot. IT doesn't matter if he breaks that foot, breaks a leg, his arm falls off or someone runs on the pitch and shoots him. He had a higher chance of injury than normal and I WOULDN'T HAVE PLAYED HIM WITHOUT THE FOOT ISSUE.

Not sure how hard that is to understand, the very obvious fact that had he been rested..... he wouldn't of sustained any injury in that game somehow seems to slip your mind.

He was an increased injury risk, in a completely unimportant game, with possibly a game defining season coming up after. It was nuts to play him, and Gallas and Cesc.

But anyhow, according to you all, you'd never rest a game for a unimportant game, a pre-existing not fully fixed problem wouldn't worry you and I assume you all believe he would have broken his foot had he not been in that game.

This is the part you guys keep missing, for WEEKS, and BEFORE this game I was saying players need rests. You're looking at the game with hindsight and saying his bad foot wasn't injured, I'm saying my stance BEFORE the game was I wouldn't have played him if he had no issues at all, the fact he had a higher injury risk only increased my certainty to not risk him for a pointless game. My decision TAKEN BEFORE THE GAME, meant he wouldn't be on the field and wouldn't be injured.

I've not said, at all, I wouldn't have played him to avoid that specific tackle, I simply said I would never have started him, it was the easiest game out of all of ours in a month or two and an ideal time to rest players. The fact he got injured when he shouldn't have been in the game at all was just something that frequently happens because Wenger flat out refuses to properly rest players.

Utd didn't play Rooney, didn't put him on the bench and they had a FAR easier game coming up than away at Chelsea, yet we blindly went in and played our key players.

Even without injury, Cesc hasn't had a rest in ages, he's had no breaks, no games off, has played I believe more than anyone in the squad while playing more than anyone else over summer where he also got signifcantly less rest than anyone else, he might not have been injured, but he'll be more tired than he could be for the important game with Chelsea, and games after it, and players are less likely to get injured if they aren't overplayed over the long term, even if its not apparent in one match.

Almost every other manager around would have rested key players in that game, we don't and it costs us year after year after year.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom