Buchanan Injury

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • SimonH
    Salt future's rising
    • Aug 2004
    • 1647

    #31
    Originally posted by royboy42
    Are you guys serious?? Take one of our best players off to give a young guy a break?? Do you think this is some sort of amateur park competition?
    Can see both points of view. BBBH is structurally so important that there's a valid argument for playing him at 90% fitness. But as the numbers of players who aren't-quite-fit-but-near-enough taking the park mount, the team starts getting vulnerable and the fully-fit few can't carry the partly-fit many.

    If he's 100% clear, no questions, no probs, then of course he should play. But if it's really 'well, there's no structural damage, I'm basically okay, still a bit of a niggle but I'm sure I can run it out', then I'd rather see him rest it until it's truly 100%, and give Moore or another bloke a run.

    Comment

    • ScottH
      It's Goodes to cheer!!
      • Sep 2003
      • 23665

      #32
      Originally posted by SimonH
      Can see both points of view. BBBH is structurally so important that there's a valid argument for playing him at 90% fitness. But as the numbers of players who aren't-quite-fit-but-near-enough taking the park mount, the team starts getting vulnerable and the fully-fit few can't carry the partly-fit many.

      If he's 100% clear, no questions, no probs, then of course he should play. But if it's really 'well, there's no structural damage, I'm basically okay, still a bit of a niggle but I'm sure I can run it out', then I'd rather see him rest it until it's truly 100%, and give Moore or another bloke a run.
      Precisely, I'd prefer if there is any doubt, leave him out. We don't want to risk any further injury and loosing him for a longer period of time.

      Comment

      • ROK Lobster
        RWO Life Member
        • Aug 2004
        • 8658

        #33
        Originally posted by SimonH
        If he's 100% clear, no questions, no probs, then of course he should play. But if it's really 'well, there's no structural damage, I'm basically okay, still a bit of a niggle but I'm sure I can run it out', then I'd rather see him rest it until it's truly 100%, and give Moore or another bloke a run.
        I think that the examples of Crouch and LRT are pertinent to your point Simon.

        Comment

        • NMWBloods
          Taking Refuge!!
          • Jan 2003
          • 15819

          #34
          There are very few players in our side so essential that they should play injured (a major advantage for us), so if someone is injured I'd prefer to see them recover with a week or so off rather than aggravate the injury significantly (such as Crouch or LRT as ROKL has pointed out).
          Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.

          "[T]here are things that matter more and he's reading and thinking about them: heaven, reincarnation. Life and death are the only things that are truly a matter of life and death. Not football."

          Comment

          • Jeffers1984
            Veterans List
            • Jan 2003
            • 4564

            #35
            Give Bucky a rest i say. We don't want Roos to fall in the Rodney Eade trap of playing under done players.
            Official Driver Of The "Who Gives A @@@@ As The Player Will Get Delisted Anyway" Bandwagon.

            Comment

            • RogueSwan
              McVeigh for Brownlow
              • Apr 2003
              • 4602

              #36
              Originally posted by Jeffers1984
              Give Bucky a rest i say. We don't want Roos to fall in the Rodney Eade trap of playing under done players.
              a trap Grant Thomas fell into a couple of years back, just before a preliminary final IIRC.
              "Fortunately, this is the internet, so knowing nothing is no obstacle to having an opinion!." Beerman 18-07-2017

              Comment

              Working...