Ghandis Flip-Flop Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 Just now, Froggy said: I am not trolling. We had the worst injury crisis. Newcastle fans seem to think it was them, despite never being down to even third choice in any position. We were on our 7th choice centre back. Most time-loss injuries = Man United (Chelsea were second, Newcastle third) Most individual injuries = Spurs (Man United joint second, Newcastle joint third with Chelsea) Most players out injured in a single week = Man United/Newcastle/Chelsea/Luton all joint first Now to the only metric that Newcastle were clear at the top of, which was days lost to injury. It's there on BBC to see, but if you don't look at it through black and white tinted sunglasses, it clearly states that it doesn't include players who were injured before the season began, so it doesn't include Mainoo, Malacia etc. for us, and it doesn't include Fofana for Chelsea. So, most days lost to injury, if you include players injured from before the season started = Man United (Chelsea second, Newcastle third) Yes, we all know about Tonali. It wasn't an injury. Yes we all know Man United and Chelsea have squads that cost hundreds of quintillions. I mean, didn't you hear Man United paid £89m for Pogba? It doesn't matter and it's not the debate at hand. Man United had, by some way, the worst injury crisis last season and Chelsea were next, not Newcastle. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm only going on facts, but if you want to use something else to justify it that's cool too. It is a forum for sharing opinions. Never even down to third choice? So I guess 17 year old Lewis Miley playing almost every game for half a season, was due to Eddie's choice. FFS man you’re getting to how do you know Froggy is talking shite, because his lips are moving territory here like 🤦🏻 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingArthur Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Froggy said: I am not trolling. We had the worst injury crisis. Newcastle fans seem to think it was them, despite never being down to even third choice in any position. We were on our 7th choice centre back. Most time-loss injuries = Man United (Chelsea were second, Newcastle third) Most individual injuries = Spurs (Man United joint second, Newcastle joint third with Chelsea) Most players out injured in a single week = Man United/Newcastle/Chelsea/Luton all joint first Now to the only metric that Newcastle were clear at the top of, which was days lost to injury. It's there on BBC to see, but if you don't look at it through black and white tinted sunglasses, it clearly states that it doesn't include players who were injured before the season began, so it doesn't include Mainoo, Malacia etc. for us, and it doesn't include Fofana for Chelsea. So, most days lost to injury, if you include players injured from before the season started = Man United (Chelsea second, Newcastle third) Yes, we all know about Tonali. It wasn't an injury. Yes we all know Man United and Chelsea have squads that cost hundreds of quintillions. I mean, didn't you hear Man United paid £89m for Pogba? It doesn't matter and it's not the debate at hand. Man United had, by some way, the worst injury crisis last season and Chelsea were next, not Newcastle. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm only going on facts, but if you want to use something else to justify it that's cool too. It is a forum for sharing opinions. "Most individual injuries" is really ridiculous stat. Which is worse, getting your back broken like Andersson and being out for months (1 injury) or having a flu or slight niggle every week (x number of injuries) If you are out for months, it also takes longer to get back in shape. Newcastle had until January clearly the most days lost, and you can argue our season was done there already. Players were dead playing 3 times a week whole November-December and we were out of Europe. Source for stat above https://onefootball.com/es/noticias/every-premier-league-team-ranked-by-how-much-they-have-suffered-from-injuries-in-2324-38857417 edit. Chelsea didn't play in Europe last season? Huge difference also. Edited August 1 by KingArthur Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 You guys are biting Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Froggy Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 1 minute ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said: Never even down to third choice? So I guess 17 year old Lewis Miley playing almost every game for half a season, was due to Eddie's choice. FFS man you’re getting to how do you know Froggy is talking shite, because his lips are moving territory here like 🤦🏻 Miley played the 1200 minutes across the entire Premier League season. It's barely a third of games. Remember please, facts, not opinions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghandis Flip-Flop Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 Not to mention the fact that the most expensively assembled squad in history, might be expected to have a bit more depth to it than a squad which still saw Paul Dummett and Matt Ritchie get minutes last season. And please try to tell me they’re not lower than third choice with a straight face FFS Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Froggy Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 3 minutes ago, KingArthur said: "Most individual injuries" is really ridiculous stat. Which is worse, getting your back broken like Andersson and being out for months (1 injury) or having a flu or slight niggle every week (x number of injuries) If you are out for months, it also takes longer to get back in shape. Newcastle had until January clearly the most days lost, and you can argue our season was done there already. Players were dead playing 3 times a week whole November-December and we were out of Europe. Source for stat above https://onefootball.com/es/noticias/every-premier-league-team-ranked-by-how-much-they-have-suffered-from-injuries-in-2324-38857417 Not my stats to be fair. Also your link, it doesn't include players injured before the season started. Same as the BBC one, so you're not top even at that point, Man United and Chelsea are. And I wouldn't say your season was over. You were 3 points behind us in January and 4 off the European spots. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghandis Flip-Flop Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 1 minute ago, Froggy said: Not my stats to be fair. Also your link, it doesn't include players injured before the season started. Same as the BBC one, so you're not top even at that point, Man United and Chelsea are. And I wouldn't say your season was over. You were 3 points behind us in January and 4 off the European spots. It doesn’t matter if they were injured before the season starts, they’re still not available to play in games during that season. Honestly at this point you’re twisting more than a Mackem over their official attendances being clearly bollocks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Froggy Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 4 minutes ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said: Not to mention the fact that the most expensively assembled squad in history, might be expected to have a bit more depth to it than a squad which still saw Paul Dummett and Matt Ritchie get minutes last season. And please try to tell me they’re not lower than third choice with a straight face FFS You brought on Paul Dummet 5 times, 4 of those were for 1 minute each when you were winning the game. Paul Dummett was never forced to start a game for you. Likewise, Ritchie made 13 sub appearances, many of those were 1 or 2 minutes. Never forced to start him even once. Rememeber, facts facts facts. Not what you think is true. 2 minutes ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said: It doesn’t matter if they were injured before the season starts, they’re still not available to play in games during that season. Honestly at this point you’re twisting more than a Mackem over their official attendances being clearly bollocks This was my point mate. You're reinforcing it. Man United and Chelsea had significant, season long injuries before the season started and they weren't included in those lists. So exactly aye, it doesn't matter if they're injured before the season starts, they're still not available to play. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingArthur Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 4 minutes ago, Froggy said: Not my stats to be fair. Also your link, it doesn't include players injured before the season started. Same as the BBC one, so you're not top even at that point, Man United and Chelsea are. And I wouldn't say your season was over. You were 3 points behind us in January and 4 off the European spots. Might be, but surely we had players injured before season started also? Krafth and Willock come to mind. Willock was out until end of October and Krafth also was out until Wolves game 28th of October. Our season was over because same 11 players were playing every game for 2 months. That really doesn't last, like everyone could see. You can argue that same happened to you too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 @Froggydragging people in his lair lmfao. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingArthur Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 1 minute ago, Froggy said: You brought on Paul Dummet 5 times, 4 of those were for 1 minute each when you were winning the game. Paul Dummett was never forced to start a game for you. Likewise, Ritchie made 13 sub appearances, many of those were 1 or 2 minutes. Never forced to start him even once. Rememeber, facts facts facts. Not what you think is true. This was my point mate. You're reinforcing it. Man United and Chelsea had significant, season long injuries before the season started and they weren't included in those lists. So exactly aye, it doesn't matter if they're injured before the season starts, they're still not available to play. To be honest, now you are twisting facts a bit. Fact is Ritchie or Dummett only played few minutes from the end, but they came on because others on the bench were keepers or kids that Howe couldn't trust. So option was to bring Ritchie/Dummett or no one. Dummett played the whole game in LC against City and against you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 2 minutes ago, Froggy said: You brought on Paul Dummet 5 times, 4 of those were for 1 minute each when you were winning the game. Paul Dummett was never forced to start a game for you. Likewise, Ritchie made 13 sub appearances, many of those were 1 or 2 minutes. Never forced to start him even once. Rememeber, facts facts facts. Not what you think is true. This was my point mate. You're reinforcing it. Man United and Chelsea had significant, season long injuries before the season started and they weren't included in those lists. So exactly aye, it doesn't matter if they're injured before the season starts, they're still not available to play. The Dummett and Ritchie thing (and Gillespie) sort of exasperates our issue, though. These are Championship/League 1 level remnants of Ashley & FFP. We effectively had 22 serviceable senior players to play 50 games with. A few injuries makes it tough, 8-9 which we had at one stage is unmanageable. You get to throw £100m at the drop of a hat to put things right your end, we're having to move on potentially talented players to stand still. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Froggy Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 Just now, KingArthur said: Might be, but surely we had players injured before season started also? Krafth and Willock come to mind. Willock was out until end of October and Krafth also was out until Wolves game 28th of October. Our season was over because same 11 players were playing every game for 2 months. That really doesn't last, like everyone could see. You can argue that same happened to you too. I'd like to be very clear here, I'm not saying you weren't completely shafted by injuries. Your injuries were brutal, ours were just that little bit worse. We are of course better equipped to deal with them than you, but that isn't the debate. Malacia is essentially cheating in a way, as he was out an entire year but is a second choice player. It's why those lists should be taken with a pinch of salt. The reason we had the worst injury crisis was because of the centre back situation. 1 minute ago, KingArthur said: To be honest, now you are twisting facts a bit. Fact is Ritchie or Dummett only played few minutes from the end, but they came on because others on the bench were keepers or kids that Howe couldn't trust. So option was to bring Ritchie/Dummett or no one. Dummett played the whole game in LC against City and against you. I'm not twisting facts. That's just true. You were never in a position were Ritchie or Dummett had to start. And the league cup, Howe deliberately played fringe players and kids. That was a choice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbydazzla Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 6 minutes ago, Froggy said: Not my stats to be fair. Also your link, it doesn't include players injured before the season started. Same as the BBC one, so you're not top even at that point, Man United and Chelsea are. And I wouldn't say your season was over. You were 3 points behind us in January and 4 off the European spots. Compare the strength in depth of the Man Utd, Chelsea and Newcastle squads, then compare how much each squad cost to assemble Then shut your cakehole Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Froggy Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 1 minute ago, Optimistic Nut said: The Dummett and Ritchie thing (and Gillespie) sort of exasperates our issue, though. These are Championship/League 1 level remnants of Ashley & FFP. We effectively had 22 serviceable senior players to play 50 games with. A few injuries makes it tough, 8-9 which we had at one stage is unmanageable. You get to throw £100m at the drop of a hat to put things right your end, we're having to move on potentially talented players to stand still. First of, no we don't. We're in a big PSR pickle ourselves and have been selling young players, just not the value of Minteh or Anderson. But again, as stated above, this isn't about who has the bigger squad or who was better equipped. It's about the facts surrounding injuries. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geogaddi Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Froggy said: I am not trolling. We had the worst injury crisis. Newcastle fans seem to think it was them, despite never being down to even third choice in any position. We were on our 7th choice centre back. Most time-loss injuries = Man United (Chelsea were second, Newcastle third) Most individual injuries = Spurs (Man United joint second, Newcastle joint third with Chelsea) Most players out injured in a single week = Man United/Newcastle/Chelsea/Luton all joint first Now to the only metric that Newcastle were clear at the top of, which was days lost to injury. It's there on BBC to see, but if you don't look at it through black and white tinted sunglasses, it clearly states that it doesn't include players who were injured before the season began, so it doesn't include Mainoo, Malacia etc. for us, and it doesn't include Fofana for Chelsea. So, most days lost to injury, if you include players injured from before the season started = Man United (Chelsea second, Newcastle third) Yes, we all know about Tonali. It wasn't an injury. Yes we all know Man United and Chelsea have squads that cost hundreds of quintillions. I mean, didn't you hear Man United paid £89m for Pogba? It doesn't matter and it's not the debate at hand. Man United had, by some way, the worst injury crisis last season and Chelsea were next, not Newcastle. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm only going on facts, but if you want to use something else to justify it that's cool too. It is a forum for sharing opinions. It's irrelevant who had the worst injury crisis of the two clubs , both clubs had a ridiculous injury crisis . The main difference is our squad cost about half as much as your squad and our wage bill is probably about a quarter of what you pay , therefore we were always going to find it much much harder to cope with a ridiculous injury crisis and our season suffered far far more as a consequence. it would be like saying Man City had more injuries than Fulham but without adding the context of the money spent on wages and transfers . Edited August 1 by Geogaddi Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Froggy Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 1 minute ago, bobbydazzla said: Compare the strength in depth of the Man Utd, Chelsea and Newcastle squads, then compare how much each squad cost to assemble Then shut your cakehole Again, stated above. Multiple times. Yes we have a better squad than you, but we still had a bigger injury crisis. Facts all around. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Froggy Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 Thank the Lord Sir Jim that this debate is in this thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingArthur Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Froggy said: I'd like to be very clear here, I'm not saying you weren't completely shafted by injuries. Your injuries were brutal, ours were just that little bit worse. We are of course better equipped to deal with them than you, but that isn't the debate. Malacia is essentially cheating in a way, as he was out an entire year but is a second choice player. It's why those lists should be taken with a pinch of salt. The reason we had the worst injury crisis was because of the centre back situation. I'm not twisting facts. That's just true. You were never in a position were Ritchie or Dummett had to start. And the league cup, Howe deliberately played fringe players and kids. That was a choice. And I like to be very clear: You said the stats don't include Mainoo and Malacia, or Fofana. But they don't include Krafth or Willock either. We had many pretty much season ending injuries. This is also a fact. That is why I would argue they were a lot worse. And yes, your CB situation was awful, so was our GK or midfield situation. Or striker in some parts when I think Almiron ended the game as front man.. Edited August 1 by KingArthur Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54 Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 I feel like this debate is like comparing who had it worse, a guy without a left leg, or a guy without a right. Newcastle fans are going to say they had it worse as they lived it but didn't Man United's injury crisis, and vice versa for Man United fans Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbo2 Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 3 hours ago, Paully said: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbydazzla Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Froggy said: Again, stated above. Multiple times. Yes we have a better squad than you, but we still had a bigger injury crisis. Facts all around. The gap between the depth, strength and cost of Man Utd & Chelsea squads vs Newcastle’s squad is huge The gap between the injury crisis at the 3 clubs was not huge This isn’t the hill you want to die on Froggy Edited August 1 by bobbydazzla Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Froggy Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 Just now, bobbydazzla said: The gap between the depth, strength and cost of Man Utd & Chelsea squads vs Newcastle’s squad is huge Correct. Just now, bobbydazzla said: The gap between our injury crisis was not Correct, but ours was still worse. That's all I'm saying. I don't want to die on any hill, apart from the one where Isak is the Swedish Martial. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54 Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 Man United had more individual injuries: Newcastle had more time and games lost due to injuries: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Froggy Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 We've been over this 54. It's all up above. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now