Dem Bones, Dem Bones, Dem Bare Bones....

[GhostoftheBok]

Dan's here for 3 years. We've basically lost a a full year of him (including the loan) to this hamstring issue.

Every focus has to be on his long term health. There's no point rushing him back and losing him again. Get him fully fit for preseason.

[Worthy4England]

Might make the FA Cup final...

[GhostoftheBok]

Might make the FA Cup final...

That's the spirit!

[malcd1]

I wasn't quite sure where to post this so as Gethin Jones has left us short of defenders, I thought I would put it here. Anyway, Gethin played 78 minutes of a warm up match for the AFC Asia Cup for Australia v Bahrain. The Aussies won 2-0.

What did catch my eye was a certain J Iredale being on the subs bench - https://www.skysports.com/football/bahr ... ams/499482

Apparently, there is a John Iredale who plays in the Bundesliga for SV Wehen Wiesbaden.

[officer_dibble]

When is Forrester back?

[brommers95]

When is Forrester back?

End of Feb apparently

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/2 ... fer-course/

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

When is Forrester back?

End of Feb apparently

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/2 ... fer-course/

Could be longer. When Williams snapped again it was described as "same length of time as Forrester" and "6/7 weeks".

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

So. In the Charlton post-match presser, Evatt says “At the moment Nathan [Baxter] is in a pot, so we are allowing that ligament to heal. We will know more in two or three weeks.” In the same report Iles says "Wanderers hope to have Ricardo Santos back in action for the trip to Blackpool next Saturday and top scorer Dion Charles fit again for the following game at Wigan Athletic."

Even in those timescales there's a lot of "hope" and "know more". For instance, they won't really be able to test the movement of Baxter's injury until the cast is off. It's not like olden-day injury crises where we were calling up kids, changing formation or square-pegging. But it's still concerning.

BAXTER - "Two weeks" after Charlton would be the March 2nd home game with Cambridge. Three weeks would be the March 9th Exeter trip. If we take the latter as Baxter's return - and remember, we'll only "know more" around then - he'd have missed 8 games including Blackpool, Wigan and Barnsley away.

SANTOS – I was hoping he'd be back at Cambridge but we're "hoping" for next Saturday at Blackpool. That'd be 5.5 games since he limped off at the same place, having (arguably ill-advisedly) played the Sherpa game with a calf problem.

CHARLES - knee injuries are always a worry, but we "hope" he might only miss three games.

For the Cambridge game we're still also missing THOMASON, who's at home on the naughty step as that felt frog was halfway down the stairs.

And WILLIAMS, whom Evatt described after the Northampton game as being "back on the grass again, stepping up his rehabilitation. He is probably a couple of weeks away as well.” A couple of weeks after Northampton would be either Blackpool or, more likely, Wigan.

So in short, best guesses:
CAMBRIDGE (A) - no Baxter, Santos, Thomason, Williams, Charles.
BLACKPOOL – no Baxter, Williams, Charles.
WIGAN – no Baxter.
CAMBRIDGE (H) – no Baxter.
BARNSLEY – no Baxter.

[BWFC_Insane]

Let’s go back to…playing a strong team in the cups because we can’t throw away a chance to win them….

Yeah was the wrong call. And you don’t need hindsight. The cup games really have hurt us with extra games and injuries we don’t need.

We need to learn from this. All that matters the only metric this season that defines success or failure is whether we are promoted at the end of it. That’s always been the case and still is. The risks we’ve taken are poor ones for meaningless games. Santos stands out as the most stupid but there are others.

[TANGODANCER]

We need to learn from this. All that matters the only metric this season that defines success or failure is whether we are promoted at the end of it. That’s always been the case and still is. The risks we’ve taken are poor ones for meaningless games. Santos stands out as the most stupid but there are others.

Is it okay if I disagree with this? Failure isn't losing, it's not giving your best effort. Do your best and if you don't make it, try again. Failure is a word I've never liked.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

We need to learn from this. All that matters the only metric this season that defines success or failure is whether we are promoted at the end of it. That’s always been the case and still is. The risks we’ve taken are poor ones for meaningless games. Santos stands out as the most stupid but there are others.

Is it okay if I disagree with this? Failure isn't losing, it's not giving your best effort. Do your best and if you don't make it, try again. Failure is a word I've never liked.

You can disagree with it, but he'll never stop banging the drum. It's why he refused to go to Wembley last yea... oh.

For the record, I agree that it was daft to play Rico at Blackpool with an injury. But not that we tried to win a game. And some people call the players quitters...

[dave the minion]

We need to learn from this. All that matters the only metric this season that defines success or failure is whether we are promoted at the end of it. That’s always been the case and still is. The risks we’ve taken are poor ones for meaningless games. Santos stands out as the most stupid but there are others.

Is it okay if I disagree with this? Failure isn't losing, it's not giving your best effort. Do your best and if you don't make it, try again. Failure is a word I've never liked.

You can disagree with it, but he'll never stop banging the drum. It's why he refused to go to Wembley last yea... oh.

For the record, I agree that it was daft to play Rico at Blackpool with an injury. But not that we tried to win a game. And some people call the players quitters...

Was just about to type almost the exact same thing!!
Sport is about trying to beat your opponent, whoever it is and whatever the circumstances. You play the team you think it right at the time and you always do your best.
Insane is the one who keeps bleating on about players not caring, showing passion, etc etc etc etc, yet essentially what he wanted against Blackpool was exactly that! It beggars belief!
I genuinely think he would have watched the Blackpool cup game cheering on the fact that we lost, just so he could bask in the afterglow of being proved right (in his mind any case).
And interesting to see that he also sees Santos as being the biggest mistake - it wasn't long ago he was a pub league clogger (but that was before he turned his vitriol to Vic as being the biggest problem in the team I guess...)

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Nah, I genuinely don't believe that BWFCi wants us to lose. He loves the club.

But when things go wrong, I don sometimes wonder if he'd rather be right than happy...

[Worthy4England]

Let’s go back to…playing a strong team in the cups because we can’t throw away a chance to win them….

Yeah was the wrong call. And you don’t need hindsight. The cup games really have hurt us with extra games and injuries we don’t need.

We need to learn from this. All that matters the only metric this season that defines success or failure is whether we are promoted at the end of it. That’s always been the case and still is. The risks we’ve taken are poor ones for meaningless games. Santos stands out as the most stupid but there are others.

You do need hindsight, because until you have it, nothing happened for you to moan at! I think we should stand outside the Club, and berate the management politely at this juncture. Preferably with banners and maybe even bedsheets, but we're probably not ready for full pitchforks yet, we need to save that for when you're having a proper melt-down.

The suggestion is that if only we hadn't played those games, the injuries wouldn't have happened. Whilst I can see that in the case of maybe an impact injury, I'm less convinced when it comes to something like Toals', where the story was he'd been managing a long term injury.

Santos injury wasn't anything to do with the game, because he managed to get the injury before it started - which suggests it was the sort of thing that could've happened in training at any time - whether him playing 45 added up to additional down time - I dunno, for sure, but obviously you will want to say it has, without any direct knowledge of the injury.

Baxter tore his ligs in a League game against Barnsley - I suspect had we hauled him off directly and been gubbed (because I think I recall him making some good saves after injury) - that would've been the wrong call too.

If I add to that, some of the general commentary we've seen about Pub League Ric and his lack of urgency, he generally doesn't sweat much in games anyhow, so one a couple of extras probably isn't adding much.

[nicholaldo]

Baxter tore his ligs in a League game against Barnsley - I suspect had we hauled him off directly and been gubbed (because I think I recall him making some good saves after injury) - that would've been the wrong call too.

Not naming a substitute goalkeeper biting us on the backside.

[Worthy4England]

Baxter tore his ligs in a League game against Barnsley - I suspect had we hauled him off directly and been gubbed (because I think I recall him making some good saves after injury) - that would've been the wrong call too.

Not naming a substitute goalkeeper biting us on the backside.

Yeah that too. I mean it's not happened often (think this is the only occasion I can recall), but I often don't "get" the logic when you can name more subs than you can use - seems an unnecessary level of risk, but I'm not Evatt....

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Baxter tore his ligs in a League game against Barnsley - I suspect had we hauled him off directly and been gubbed (because I think I recall him making some good saves after injury) - that would've been the wrong call too.

Not naming a substitute goalkeeper biting us on the backside.

Yeah that too. I mean it's not happened often (think this is the only occasion I can recall), but I often don't "get" the logic when you can name more subs than you can use - seems an unnecessary level of risk, but I'm not Evatt....

I get the logic. You want outfielders that can cover different situations - eg we're winning easily / we're defending a hard-fought lead / we're chasing the game. You also need some as 'cover' - eg a centre-back. And if you have a hard-pressing game like us, there's probably three or four you 'need' to change mid-game... or you lose impetus (or injure them).

So say we have our "first choice" XI - arguable but let's call it Bax; Geth-Rico-Iredale; JDC-Demps-Sheehan-Thomason-Williams; Collins-Charles - then you've got to pick seven from a goalkeeper plus 12 outfielders: 3 attackers (Vic, Bod, Jerome), 3 midfielders (CMG, Maghoma, Morley), 3 wingbacks (Ashworth, Ogbeta, Ramsay) and 3 centre-backs (Toal, Taylor, Forrester).

If you go 1 GK + 1 centre-back + 1 centre-mid + 2 wingbacks then that leaves you 2 strikers, meaning you have to decide before the game whether you're going to need a game-chaser or a lead-protector.

So I can see the logic, that choosing a sub goalkeeper – usually only used once a season – means that for the one time you need him, you sacrifice 45 games of extra options.

Whether I agree with the logic is another question. Clearly even Evatt doesn't for the really big games because he's usually picked a sub keeper whenever possible – who wants to lose a cup final because you chose a third sub striker?

But by that rationale - a question for those who'd like a sub keeper... with Bax out, would you have a young keeper on the bench right now?

[BWFC_Insane]

Let’s go back to…playing a strong team in the cups because we can’t throw away a chance to win them….

Yeah was the wrong call. And you don’t need hindsight. The cup games really have hurt us with extra games and injuries we don’t need.

We need to learn from this. All that matters the only metric this season that defines success or failure is whether we are promoted at the end of it. That’s always been the case and still is. The risks we’ve taken are poor ones for meaningless games. Santos stands out as the most stupid but there are others.

You do need hindsight, because until you have it, nothing happened for you to moan at! I think we should stand outside the Club, and berate the management politely at this juncture. Preferably with banners and maybe even bedsheets, but we're probably not ready for full pitchforks yet, we need to save that for when you're having a proper melt-down.

The suggestion is that if only we hadn't played those games, the injuries wouldn't have happened. Whilst I can see that in the case of maybe an impact injury, I'm less convinced when it comes to something like Toals', where the story was he'd been managing a long term injury.

Santos injury wasn't anything to do with the game, because he managed to get the injury before it started - which suggests it was the sort of thing that could've happened in training at any time - whether him playing 45 added up to additional down time - I dunno, for sure, but obviously you will want to say it has, without any direct knowledge of the injury.

Baxter tore his ligs in a League game against Barnsley - I suspect had we hauled him off directly and been gubbed (because I think I recall him making some good saves after injury) - that would've been the wrong call too.

If I add to that, some of the general commentary we've seen about Pub League Ric and his lack of urgency, he generally doesn't sweat much in games anyhow, so one a couple of extras probably isn't adding much.

The extra games pushed players into the red zone as the sports scientists say. It’s clear we know this as Evatt has talked about having to take a risk with Cogley in playing him and putting him at risk.

Santos should never ever have started that game after getting injured in the warm up.


I would have rested many more than we did for the cup games because ultimately we were struggling for numbers as it is and probably overplaying some.

[Worthy4England]

Baxter tore his ligs in a League game against Barnsley - I suspect had we hauled him off directly and been gubbed (because I think I recall him making some good saves after injury) - that would've been the wrong call too.

Not naming a substitute goalkeeper biting us on the backside.

Yeah that too. I mean it's not happened often (think this is the only occasion I can recall), but I often don't "get" the logic when you can name more subs than you can use - seems an unnecessary level of risk, but I'm not Evatt....

I get the logic. You want outfielders that can cover different situations - eg we're winning easily / we're defending a hard-fought lead / we're chasing the game. You also need some as 'cover' - eg a centre-back. And if you have a hard-pressing game like us, there's probably three or four you 'need' to change mid-game... or you lose impetus (or injure them).

So say we have our "first choice" XI - arguable but let's call it Bax; Geth-Rico-Iredale; JDC-Demps-Sheehan-Thomason-Williams; Collins-Charles - then you've got to pick seven from a goalkeeper plus 12 outfielders: 3 attackers (Vic, Bod, Jerome), 3 midfielders (CMG, Maghoma, Morley), 3 wingbacks (Ashworth, Ogbeta, Ramsay) and 3 centre-backs (Toal, Taylor, Forrester).

If you go 1 GK + 1 centre-back + 1 centre-mid + 2 wingbacks then that leaves you 2 strikers, meaning you have to decide before the game whether you're going to need a game-chaser or a lead-protector.

So I can see the logic, that choosing a sub goalkeeper – usually only used once a season – means that for the one time you need him, you sacrifice 45 games of extra options.

Whether I agree with the logic is another question. Clearly even Evatt doesn't for the really big games because he's usually picked a sub keeper whenever possible – who wants to lose a cup final because you chose a third sub striker?

But by that rationale - a question for those who'd like a sub keeper... with Bax out, would you have a young keeper on the bench right now?

Sorry mate, I "get" the logic that there are more flexible options. I don't "get" the logic around the risk, other than maybe you tell yourself "if armageddon happens, it's a max of three points you lose." I'm not sure what stats point to the additional points you might gain vs the possibility that you tank 3 on a run in"

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Sorry mate, I "get" the logic that there are more flexible options. I don't "get" the logic around the risk, other than maybe you tell yourself "if armageddon happens, it's a max of three points you lose." I'm not sure what stats point to the additional points you might gain vs the possibility that you tank 3 on a run in"

It's good old-fashioned risk/reward.

Seems to me Evatt is taking a calculated gamble that we might only lose 3pts a season by not having a begloved substitute. Instead, he picks say Cameron Jerome as (sometimes) the third sub striker. Well, the old fella has come on to help us ride out the single-goal wins home to Derby, away to Vale, home to Stevenage, home to Orient, home to Cheltenham... and that's 10pts protected in total...

Clearly that's reductive but there were certainly other options to bring on (eg Bod) in some of those and Evatt thought we needed differently. We've no idea what happens in those alternative universes but that's football, Kev, as the big furry lad said.

By the way - I'm not entirely sure I agree with the logic. And I do agree with you that there's no way to provide statistical proof. But I do understand why managers do it.... albeit, as I say, not as often in the games where the risk is much greater (eg six-pointers, cup finals).