Shearer9

I remember at the end of last season, physioroom.com put up some long term stats about the number of injuries, and the link may still be around, someone used it for an article on the main site I think. Anyway, the numbers were amazing. We had one of the lowest rates of freak, collision based injuries last season, yet we had the highest number of injuries overall. The number of muscle injuries, especially hamstrings, was higher than most clubs had in overall injuries. There is something wrong here, and I think it's a combonation of things that have been brought up in this thread. Weather, pitches, training, fitness, warm ups/cool down, fitness coaches. Granted, this year there have been a lot of freak injuries. But the setup still isn't right. After the reign of Souness, it seems to me like Roeder's going over the head of the physios and being very, very cautious with injured players, which is a really good thing, imo. But this also suggests that fitness is probably not where it should be to aid in the recovery process.

I think the whole game would have to break down for us to win, and just be really nasty and scrappy, causing us inevitable further injuries. Wouldn't it be great though for Troisi or Carroll or Huntington to get their first goal - a winner vs. Chelsea.

Playing 10 years at a club is an exceptional circumstance these days...

Anytime you pay £30m for a 30 year old player, it's not likely to go well.

Don't people just use the walls at Fratton Park?

If we have any chance against Chelsea, it's all about the play of Nicky Butt.

I still think it's strange that Martins actually went and picked it up.

I don't know why Shola ever got to take penalties, he was lucky not to miss the ones he took.

Sky's very good at what they do, and you can't really blame them for doing business. It's the fault of the league for letting so many games get moved and put on TV. What does SKY care how many people come to games, as long as they're still being watched on TV.

He just puts the opposition on their heels when he has the ball, and that has to count for something. We're just in a more attacking mode when he's playing. Even if he never scored, we'd be a better team with him in it.

I think the difference will be that he won't be able to use his pace so effectively on the counter-attack. I still think when the offense "sets up" with the eventual goal of getting a cross through the box, or when the defense is split open by a shrewd pass, Owen will be essentially the same. It'll be that ability to get onto really long balls or run freely on the break that will be lost. I honestly don't think it will make that much of a difference if he's half a yard slower. The Owen who would go on incredible long pacy runs with the ball went by the wayside a long time ago.

Here's another one from premierleague.com. I wonder why his return is in the media again. Something up, or just the normal news cycle? http://www.premierleague.com/fapl.rac?command=setSelectedId&nextPage=enNewsLatest&id=1544946&type=com.fapl.website.news.NewsItem&categoryCode=NewsLatestFAPremierLeagueNews

I think in order for this to be true, Chelsea would have to move moving strongly towards another striker, and unless I've missed something, they haven't been doing so. They can't really move in the transfer market anymore without it being major news.

I still think Beattie would cost too much, considering his past, and he's a very streaky player when it comes to scoring goals. At the right price, perhaps, but he'd still be a gamble. £6.5 for him was way too much for Everton to break their club record for.

I think people will run at a fullback a lot more, trying to get by them down the wing, and this is where Ramage is terrible. Watching him attempting to jockey and keep himself in a good defensive position while an average winger is running at him is pathetic. I don't think centrebacks have to have the same kind of pace to stop speedy wingers, and almost certainly don't get run at as much. Yes, it's true that when everything goes to shite in the box, Ramage pops up with some good defensive skills, but as a fullback, he really is woeful. He can't really stop crosses coming in, and he can't get forward on either his left or right foot. Those are probably the 2 most important things a fullback has to do, and he can't really do either. Time will tell whether or not he'll be a decent centre back.

Still in Chelsea's interest to keep him, especially if he's willing to stay.

At least he's a defender....

I thought he was a striker? He always scores so many for the reserves. Not another 4-3-3 wing-striker is he?

Is he doing anything else in the US?

They said on the telly that they got a bigger crowd than expected, by about 2000. Any idea yet how much money they've lost?

I think is more of a product of the fact that we're playing so many games. We've already played so many games this year, and we're having a game every weekend and midweek now it seems like, and not moving games to help with fatigue. MLS have maybe 5 or 6 times in an entire season that they play midweek games, and the season is shorter as well. I dunno what it is about MLS, but it just bothers me, the style of play. It's probably partly the Eurosnob in me saying this, but it just seems like a very strange way of playing football. The atmosphere of astroturf and American Football lines and 1/8 filled stadia also doesn't help, but I just don't find the league really very appealing at all.

Has anyone actually seen him play outside the world cup? I know he missed virtually no games here at Furman, and was a pretty good finisher, but I'm just not so sure. The modern day American attacking players don't seem really suited to British football, with the exception of Brian McBride, but he's not really modern day.

Are you ITK? Not at all. I'm on about a logical reason why an overhyped touchline spat would cause the manager of the third best team in the country to resign. I've not heard one. IF there was any truth behind the rumour, there would be more to it than just the touchline spat....

I think a takeover even with relegation to the Championship would be better than with the current regime in there for the long term. It's quite possible they'll manager a relegation in 15 years as much as it is now. Obviously the most preferred option would be a new board and chairman whilst we keep our premiership status.

I can see that being a possibility, although it could mean a short stay in the Championship, or a longer one, maybe more than 5 years. If the club were to survive such a time, it would surely bring about a new chairman and board, as I doubt Shepard and his associates would be willing to stay at the club without the status, exposure, and money that being in the Premiership brings. The thing I think it could have the most positive impact on is the fans. It seems to me that a good number of the fans are living in the glory days of Keegan and Robson, showing up each week expecting the same kind of results, which isn't going to happen. I doubt most people will ever realize the kind of damage this club suffered during the final years of Bobby's time here, during the time of Souness, and the amount of damage this club is suffering currently. People say we have a top 6 squad, but all I can really see is a lot of players either boosted up by unfullfilled potential or praise for form that has long since gone, never to return. That's just the squad. Anyway, these fans are showing up expecting top 6 performances, and don't really know how to react when they aren't seen. I just get the impression that if the club were relegated, it would really provide the opportunity for the club to be able to get away from the relentless pressure of the fans. Obviously, during a time like this, the pressure from the fans is good, but if the manager was sacked and a new one appointed, it would be best for the club to be able to breathe a bit, with the manager focusing on a long term plan. I think if the club was relegated, it would be able to do this, and a long term plan for success in the Premiership could be concocted, which would include promotion from the second division. Obviously all of this could spectacularly backfire, and could mean disaster for the club, going into administration, or Shepard could stay on, but if I had to choose between this club staying in the hands of Shepard and his family for the next 20 or 30 years at least, with the yo-yo form yet neverending rot underneath, or relegation with the prospect of a new board and a fresh look, I think I'd choose the latter. Of course I really wouldn't want the club to be relegated, but I can certainly see many positives out of it. Lord knows what will happen though is that the club will pass through the current storm, minus one Glenn Roeder, and a new manager will get us to the "dizzying heights of midtable", and then we can start the cycle again. Do people think we'll be going through this again next fall? Or perhaps 2 years from now. Surely this club can't go more than 3 years without major upheaval..... :roll: