Another injury

[Prufrock]

in his post match interview - Coyle said we had 12 players unavailable through injury...

A fact quoted on a different thread. I think two of them played some sort of reasonable part last season?

Physioroom puts us at 7 fisrt teamers.

Sean Davies - played three games partnering Nat Lofthouse.
Tyrone Mears - played no games for us last season, was a Championship clogger and unless they repair his leg bionically still will be
Ricardo - played alongside Sean and Nat. Plenty of people think he still has something to offer. OC tried to flog him, and if you're being serious you wouldn't have him on your "rely on every week to be fit" list
Sam Ricketts - Not a regular in the first team, started just over 1/3 of our games last season
Alonso - hardly a first team regular
Riley - Not a first team regular, 2 starts.
Boyata - Wasn't here last season, but give what looks to be OC's point blank refusal to play Steinnson, maybe there's a point here
N'Gog - (Not sure if he's still injured) been on the bench most of the time, 5 starts, subbed off in 4 of them.

Then we have Holden and Lee, who we undoubtedly miss. Both of whom started 2/3rd or less of our games last season.

I guess to that he's adding people like Vela etc. who have been given about 5 mins between them.

If everyone was fit, you'd say that Holden/Lee would probably start - but then again to do that, you'd probably be benching Muamba and Mavis?

And I guess he'd play someone (Boyata/Ricketts) instead of "this week's right-back who isn't Steinsson"

To me, we have two KEY injuries, that we bought cover for anyhow (NRC for Holden, Eagles for Lee?). Making the number much bigger over and above that, is just ducking the problem that it's a squad game, and smacks of "oh woe is me"

Bit unfair the way you have done that. If how much players played last year is the point, then we can whinge about no longer having Elmander and Sturridge. Add in Taylor for that matter, coz he was fairly important in terms of starts. We're missing two of our best three players, our first choice right back (pick one of four, but it seems pretty obvious it isn't Steinsson), I also think Ricketts would be his first choice LB. Added to that the one big money signing to replace Sturridge/Elmander.

Which ever way you cut it we are missing at least three first choice players, I think five, and two for pretty much the whole season. Those two being two of our best three players. That would affect anyone. You take Vidic and Rooney out and United would be a lot worse. For that reason I think he is justified talking about missing players, and if we were set up well, he was making decisions you could see the logic in, and we appeared to have ANY sort of a plan, and were still losing games because we didn't have the players due to injuries, I'd be defending him. However, no matter how many injuries you have, we haven't made the most of the players at our disposal for the vast majority of this season, and that is why he is to blame, IMO.

[Worthy4England]

Bit unfair the way you have done that.

Bit unfair the way it comes across that we're 12 shoe-in first teamers missing too. But hey ho.

The point I was making specficially about the injured list, is that 2 of them would probably be automatic choices (not 12).

I suspect one of the RB injuries (Boyata/Ricketts) would get the nod over Steinsson, to make it 3 - but I don't think Steinsson is that bad so I wouldn't count that as not having decent cover.

Yes we are other people down from last season. But I don't think that is impacted by the injury list. I don't see a natural replacement for Sturridge injured, or a natural replacement for Elmander.

[seanworth]

If only one of the injured players was playing (Holden) one wonders if we would even be having this discussion. Anyway his job is to get the best out of the players at his disposal, and he does not seem to be doing it.

[Tombwfc]

It's not an act of God or cruel injury that has led to Elmander and Taylor not being here though, Owen/the club decided to ship them both out. We could've signed both to new deals with the money we then spent on N'Gog and Eagles (who in fairness to him, was our best player yesterday, as much of an accolade as that is).

[clapton is god]

BWFC on Twitter: "Sean Davis and Sam Ricketts are both pencilled in for an outing with the reserve side next week. Details here - http://bit.ly/w15yL9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; #bwfc"

Sean Davis? The names vaguely familiar.

[bobo the clown]

BWFC on Twitter: "Sean Davis and Sam Ricketts are both pencilled in for an outing with the reserve side next week. Details here - http://bit.ly/w15yL9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; #bwfc"

Sean Davis? The names vaguely familiar.

Quite honestly the only photo I could find ... & I have to take their word for it that it is him.



"It'll be like a new signing" says ..... oh, somebody or other.

[Wandering Willy]

Good luck to both of them, particularly S Davis who has been sidelined pretty much since he joined.

Yes, I know he still gets paid but for a professional not to be able to play trough injury for such a long time it must have been pretty miserable.

[thebish]

It's not an act of God or cruel injury that has led to Elmander and Taylor not being here though, Owen/the club decided to ship them both out. We could've signed both to new deals with the money we then spent on N'Gog and Eagles (who in fairness to him, was our best player yesterday, as much of an accolade as that is).

not sure we decided to ship Elmander out - we made him an offer - he rejected it and ran down his contract. how do you know what we offered Elmo or whether he would have signed a better one? how much did you have in mind that we should have offered him?? give us your thinking about the amounts that would have made a difference... (and how you know this)

[BWFC_Insane]

It's not an act of God or cruel injury that has led to Elmander and Taylor not being here though, Owen/the club decided to ship them both out. We could've signed both to new deals with the money we then spent on N'Gog and Eagles (who in fairness to him, was our best player yesterday, as much of an accolade as that is).

not sure we decided to ship Elmander out - we made him an offer - he rejected it and ran down his contract. how do you know what we offered Elmo or whether he would have signed a better one? how much did you have in mind that we should have offered him?? give us your thinking about the amounts that would have made a difference... (and how you know this)

Nobody knows, but I do think when you shift you're top scorer out to the wing and into midfield to accommodate a loan signing and a slowing, ageing, tubby battering ram up front, I think it sends a message to them that perhaps you're not that serious about keeping them!

Even worse when despite playing in midfield for half a season they are still your top scorer and you ask them to take a pay cut for an extra year....

Now perhaps we couldn't afford to offer anymore. I'm willing to bet we could have saved the 4M and wages we are paying NGog and managed to do a deal satisfactory to keep Elmander. Probably would have gone anyways given the treatment Coyle gave him!

All my opinion and nowt more.......

[thebish]

I'm willing to bet we could have saved the 4M and wages we are paying NGog and managed to do a deal satisfactory to keep Elmander. Probably would have gone anyways given the treatment Coyle gave him!

I am trying to read that in a way that doesn't directly contradict itself... but failing...

[plymouth wanderer]

It's not an act of God or cruel injury that has led to Elmander and Taylor not being here though, Owen/the club decided to ship them both out. We could've signed both to new deals with the money we then spent on N'Gog and Eagles (who in fairness to him, was our best player yesterday, as much of an accolade as that is).

not sure we decided to ship Elmander out - we made him an offer - he rejected it and ran down his contract. how do you know what we offered Elmo or whether he would have signed a better one? how much did you have in mind that we should have offered him?? give us your thinking about the amounts that would have made a difference... (and how you know this)

Nobody knows, but I do think when you shift you're top scorer out to the wing and into midfield to accommodate a loan signing and a slowing, ageing, tubby battering ram up front, I think it sends a message to them that perhaps you're not that serious about keeping them!

Even worse when despite playing in midfield for half a season they are still your top scorer and you ask them to take a pay cut for an extra year....

Now perhaps we couldn't afford to offer anymore. I'm willing to bet we could have saved the 4M and wages we are paying NGog and managed to do a deal satisfactory to keep Elmander. Probably would have gone anyways given the treatment Coyle gave him!

All my opinion and nowt more.......

all in heinsight my friend all in heinsight

[Wandering Willy]

Is that a German thing?

[Tombwfc]

It's not an act of God or cruel injury that has led to Elmander and Taylor not being here though, Owen/the club decided to ship them both out. We could've signed both to new deals with the money we then spent on N'Gog and Eagles (who in fairness to him, was our best player yesterday, as much of an accolade as that is).

not sure we decided to ship Elmander out - we made him an offer - he rejected it and ran down his contract. how do you know what we offered Elmo or whether he would have signed a better one? how much did you have in mind that we should have offered him?? give us your thinking about the amounts that would have made a difference... (and how you know this)

According to Elmander himself we made him one offer in November. According to Nixon, it was a one-year deal on reduced wages.

We then replaced him by spending £4mil (and good wages) on his replacement, I think it's reasonable to suggest that we could've offered him a better deal than what we did.

Would he have signed a better one? I don't know. Given he credits Coyle with helping him 'find his love for football again', and was suitably annoyed about us not offering him a decent deal to moan about it weeks after he'd already signed for Galatasaray, I think he'd have at least considered it.

[officer_dibble]

BWFC on Twitter: "Sean Davis and Sam Ricketts are both pencilled in for an outing with the reserve side next week. Details here - http://bit.ly/w15yL9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; #bwfc"

Sean Davis? The names vaguely familiar.

Well he's at the worst club to have injury problems isn't he!

Along with the manager and his coaching staff there's summat off about our medical team as well since the heady days of Allardyce and the fittest squad in the league

[BWFC_Insane]

I'm willing to bet we could have saved the 4M and wages we are paying NGog and managed to do a deal satisfactory to keep Elmander. Probably would have gone anyways given the treatment Coyle gave him!

I am trying to read that in a way that doesn't directly contradict itself... but failing...

How is saying that if wed used the money we signed NGog for that we probably could have matched Elmanders expectations but because Coyle thought sticking you top scorer on the right wing for half the season was a good idea matching his financial expectations may not have been enough anyways, contradicting?

As for hindsight, I think you will find in my case it's absolutely not hindsight.

[Prufrock]

"a deal satisfactory to keep Elmander" + "Probably would have gone anyways" I guess is what Bish is referring to.

[BWFC_Insane]

"a deal satisfactory to keep Elmander" + "Probably would have gone anyways" I guess is what Bish is referring to.

Aye well, financially satisfactory and football wise satisfactory are two different things.

[thebish]

I'm willing to bet we could have saved the 4M and wages we are paying NGog and managed to do a deal satisfactory to keep Elmander. Probably would have gone anyways given the treatment Coyle gave him!

I am trying to read that in a way that doesn't directly contradict itself... but failing...

How is saying that if wed used the money we signed NGog for that we probably could have matched Elmanders expectations but because Coyle thought sticking you top scorer on the right wing for half the season was a good idea matching his financial expectations may not have been enough anyways, contradicting?

As for hindsight, I think you will find in my case it's absolutely not hindsight.

got the wrong man re. hindsight... I never mentioned that.

I was referring simply to the sentences I quoted - I'll split them in two with a hash for you - the two halves are directly contradictory.

I'm willing to bet we could have saved the 4M and wages we are paying NGog and managed to do a deal satisfactory to keep Elmander. / Probably would have gone anyways given the treatment Coyle gave him!

you are basically saying:

we could have found a way to keep him - but he'd have gone anyway.

[BWFC_Insane]

I'm willing to bet we could have saved the 4M and wages we are paying NGog and managed to do a deal satisfactory to keep Elmander. Probably would have gone anyways given the treatment Coyle gave him!

I am trying to read that in a way that doesn't directly contradict itself... but failing...

How is saying that if wed used the money we signed NGog for that we probably could have matched Elmanders expectations but because Coyle thought sticking you top scorer on the right wing for half the season was a good idea matching his financial expectations may not have been enough anyways, contradicting?

As for hindsight, I think you will find in my case it's absolutely not hindsight.

got the wrong man re. hindsight... I never mentioned that.

I was referring simply to the sentences I quoted - I'll split them in two with a hash for you - the two halves are directly contradictory.

I'm willing to bet we could have saved the 4M and wages we are paying NGog and managed to do a deal satisfactory to keep Elmander. / Probably would have gone anyways given the treatment Coyle gave him!

you are basically saying:

we could have found a way to keep him - but he'd have gone anyway.

I've explained what I meant....but carry on anyways...

[thebish]

I've explained what I meant....but carry on anyways...

really???

if he would have gone anyway - then how could any deal have been described as "financially satisfactory" to keep him??

what you are saying is that whatever we offered, he would have gone - but that we could have offered a deal financially satisfactory to keep him - except we wouldn't have kept him because the money was not sufficient to outweigh other factors - so therefore the money would not have been financially satisfactory to keep him...

even with your finessing - that is still totally contradictory!

anyway - I think we'll win on Saturday - but we'll lose.