• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Injuries

camspur said:
So you would've started Ajayi, Olusesi and Yang at the weekend just to "rotate"?
Click to expand...
Not all of them, no. But starting a player that you say is not fit to start - Sarr - is irresponsible both for the game and also for the player. Plus it risks that player not being available for the game four days later and the game three days after that and the game four days later and the game three days after that.

And I said in my post, this problem began with poor rotation at the start of the season. For now, easing some minutes for players, especially those NOT FIT TO START is vital.
 
90291Spur said:
Not all of them, no. But starting a player that you say is not fit to start - Sarr - is irresponsible both for the game and also for the player. Plus it risks that player not being available for the game four days later and the game three days after that and the game four days later and the game three days after that.

And I said in my post, this problem began with poor rotation at the start of the season. For now, easing some minutes for players, especially those NOT FIT TO START is vital.
Click to expand...
In the case of Sarr yes it was irresponsible.
However, hindsight is a wonderful thing and we cannot say for certain that rotation would have meant less injuries or not. Vicario's broken ankle, for example, would not have not happened through rotation and hamstrings can go whether you play 1 or 100 games and it's easy to sit here now and say rotation would've changed things but there is absolutely no proof for it.
 
camspur said:
Of course not and I've not said hd shouldn't be.
But saying we should put out 16 year old to give players a rest makes zero sense because all we would hear then would be he shouldn't put kids out when we have fit players so he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
Click to expand...

So back in about week 4 or 5 of the season I made an observation that Ange uses 5 subs when he wins games and either 3 or 4 when we lose. It was also based on what I observed last season. Someone put the stats up proving that Ange from losing positions makes less subs that winning positions.

For me, that is where this started. It's common sense to know that a human body is in more distress in the 70-100th minute of a football match than the 15-45th minute after it's warmed up. So not making late subs in games, especially with a fit squad makes no sense for either the reason of winning the game or protecting the welfare of your players.

So it was clear to me that Ange wouldn't use these younger guys unless he had to. He wasn't even using his senior guys to try and win games so why would he use the younger guys. The consequence as the injuries piled up he was doing more with less, but he had more than he was actually using. Hence why he can be a factor in the subsequent injuries that happened.

Then there is training. We don't really know the true story, but we have read about the Ange way of training a team. I still felt the "we will run you off the park thing" heavily during the injury period even though they couldn't do it. It had a charge of the light phalanx feel about it. It was there again for some of the Leicester game and clearly comes from the training regime.

You might be right that Ange is damned either way, but all these little judgment calls can add up to a lot. He is paid the big bucks to get them right, and this Spurs supporter isn't convinced he is unfortunately. We can always find the grey space and come out in his favour in any single item but not for the collective in my opinion.
 
camspur said:
In the case of Sarr yes it was irresponsible.
However, hindsight is a wonderful thing and we cannot say for certain that rotation would have meant less injuries or not. Vicario's broken ankle, for example, would not have not happened through rotation and hamstrings can go whether you play 1 or 100 games and it's easy to sit here now and say rotation would've changed things but there is absolutely no proof for it.
Click to expand...
I'm not the only one who has questioned Ange's lack of rotation from earlier in the season, so it's not hindsight. You're 100% on Vic's ankle, but look how other sides rotate and minimize minutes on their players. And Ange's system (high line meaning longer sprints and high press meaning more sprints) puts more strain on his players, as evidenced by the number of soft tissues/hamstring injuries at all his clubs. Give a player ten or more minutes less in a game and reduce their wear and tear.
 
Muttley said:
So back in about week 4 or 5 of the season I made an observation that Ange uses 5 subs when he wins games and either 3 or 4 when we lose. It was also based on what I observed last season. Someone put the stats up proving that Ange from losing positions makes less subs that winning positions.

For me, that is where this started. It's common sense to know that a human body is in more distress in the 70-100th minute of a football match than the 15-45th minute after it's warmed up. So not making late subs in games, especially with a fit squad makes no sense for either the reason of winning the game or protecting the welfare of your players.

So it was clear to me that Ange wouldn't use these younger guys unless he had to. He wasn't even using his senior guys to try and win games so why would he use the younger guys. The consequence as the injuries piled up he was doing more with less, but he had more than he was actually using. Hence why he can be a factor in the subsequent injuries that happened.

Then there is training. We don't really know the true story, but we have read about the Ange way of training a team. I still felt the "we will run you off the park thing" heavily during the injury period even though they couldn't do it. It had a charge of the light phalanx feel about it. It was there again for some of the Leicester game and clearly comes from the training regime.

You might be right that Ange is damned either way, but all these little judgment calls can add up to a lot. He is paid the big bucks to get them right, and this Spurs supporter isn't convinced he is unfortunately. We can always find the grey space and come out in his favour in any single item but not for the collective in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Well we wouldn’t want to be “falsely rewarded” by making substitutions to change the flow of games now would we 😆

The old adage says that you learn more from losing than winning, in which case our treatment room will soon be full of professors!
 
90291Spur said:
I'm not the only one who has questioned Ange's lack of rotation from earlier in the season, so it's not hindsight. You're 100% on Vic's ankle, but look how other sides rotate and minimize minutes on their players. And Ange's system (high line meaning longer sprints and high press meaning more sprints) puts more strain on his players, as evidenced by the number of soft tissues/hamstring injuries at all his clubs. Give a player ten or more minutes less in a game and reduce their wear and tear.
Click to expand...
Rotation and less playing time, interesting theory except:
Van de Ven - 14 games in to season gets injured, played 10 and subbed off in 2. So 66% playing time
Romero - 15 games in to season gets injured, played 12, subbed off in 2 80% playing time

In that time and since Porro has played pretty much 100% and is still going, albeit shattered.

Did VdV play too much and that's what caused the injury or was it an occupational hazard that may or may not happen regardless.
 
Muttley said:
Then he's ignoring the spirit of the agreement he entered into. I thought he was one manager that would sign up for the journey and fully leverage the squad he is given between transfer windows? Making your own squad smaller is just dumb.

Turns out he's no different from Jose and Conte.
Click to expand...

...other than the 'not throwing everyone under the bus' bit...
 
90291Spur said:
Not all of them, no. But starting a player that you say is not fit to start - Sarr - is irresponsible both for the game and also for the player. Plus it risks that player not being available for the game four days later and the game three days after that and the game four days later and the game three days after that.

And I said in my post, this problem began with poor rotation at the start of the season. For now, easing some minutes for players, especially those NOT FIT TO START is vital.
Click to expand...

I agree in principle.
I think there's a lot players not at 100% in the league right now, albeit that does not excuse this. I also think the pressure on the manager is immense; again that does not excuse this. But it probably tells us why? One thing we can be almost sure of is that we will continue to field at least two players below 90% until we get some back.
 
thfcsteff said:
I think what made that such a surprise was that he hadn't done it prior. At the time I thought it was 'inbounds' but can now admit that it really wasn't, and that he got that wrong.
Click to expand...

And he never made it up to him publicly. I still get the feeling that Werner doesn't give a rat's arse about getting fit and getting back into the side. He'll sit this season out and then worry about his career away from Spurs. A tough lesson for Ange.

I do wonder how Ange is being managed by Munn. When the Werner situation happened or Ange's rudeness the other day, as a leader I'd want to sit down with my staff and ask them how they're feeling. You always do when you see uncharacteristic behaviour. As a boss, that's when you need to listen. You do gently need to get them back on track though. At least with Ange you probably can have a healthy 2 way conversation about these moments. Poch as well. No chance with pricks like Jose and Conte. Unmanageable.
 
t349u9gkfrfe1.jpeg
 
Apparently there's another midfielder that is also now out for a long period? News will come out soon enough if true I suppose
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back