Eddie Howe

[The College Dropout]

38 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

 

Didnt Shola play for years with a hip (?) problem?

Think it was half a season. He never fully recovered physically.

 

57 minutes ago, STM said:

 

I don't think there's any doubt we've rushed players back. It would have to be one helluva coincidence that Isak and Wilson are miraculously back when the other gets crocked.

 

However....

 

For years players have played through pain barriers or have come back early because of injury crisis. Its a gamble and a gamble that has failed for us. I'm not sure it's a stick to beat Howe with mind. He's almost certainly taking advice from his medical team on this.

 

Also, alot of our injuries have been freak ones. Pope (shoulder), Burn (back), Anderson (back), Barnes (toe) and then Tonalis suspension (we won't go over old ground).

 

There's 5 missing before a medical decision has been made. That puts us on the back foot from the start.

 

I think we certainly could have dealt with Isak and Willock better. Wilson we only have ourselves to blame. He's a crock, always has been. We  need to learn our lesson.

This doesn't make sense. You take a risk because you think the upside is greater, it backfires - you accept responsibility and fault for taking that risk.

 

The injuries to key players Willock, Isak, Wilson, Joelinton could've been prevented if we were more cautious with their rehabilitation. Howe has to take some responsibility for that.

 

So when we talk about "bad luck" with injuries - an element of that isn't bad luck. We've knowingly taken risks and they've backfired. That's chickens coming home to roost. So Howe doesn't get a complete pass on the injury front.

 

I understand why Howe made the decisions he did. I just think a lot of his decisions have been short-sighted and not worked anyway.

 

I hope he learns and improves going forward.

[madras]

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

Think it was half a season. He never fully recovered physically.

 

This doesn't make sense. You take a risk because you think the upside is greater, it backfires - you accept responsibility and fault for taking that risk.

 

The injuries to key players Willock, Isak, Wilson, Joelinton could've been prevented if we were more cautious with their rehabilitation. Howe has to take some responsibility for that.

 

So when we talk about "bad luck" with injuries - an element of that isn't bad luck. We've knowingly taken risks and they've backfired. That's chickens coming home to roost. So Howe doesn't get a complete pass on the injury front.

 

I understand why Howe made the decisions he did. I just think a lot of his decisions have been short-sighted and not worked anyway.

 

I hope he learns and improves going forward.

So when do you risk players who have injuries or do you never do it ?

[The College Dropout]

4 minutes ago, madras said:

We don't like. Many a shit performance has been masked by ok results.

I think many have realised this. Take PSG or Chelsea away in, second half. We ended up being unlucky because of mistakes/referee calls. But lots of people acknowledged that we barely played any football for the last 20 minutes of those.

[The College Dropout]

Just now, madras said:

So when do you risk players who have injuries or do you never do it ?

.... make sure they are fully fit or close before bringing them back in???

 

Is that a novel concept or something?

[madras]

Just now, The College Dropout said:

.... make sure they are fully fit or close before bringing them back in???

 

Is that a novel concept or something?

So they have access to the info of if they can play or not, expert assessment etc. 

 

What was your opinion on your examination of them ?

[TheBrownBottle]

18 minutes ago, Shearergol said:

Agree. Needs to be the first player replaced in summer.

Hate to say it, but I think you’re right.  When fit, he’s the second best proper no.9 I’ve seen in B&W tbh.  But he’s just a nightmare for injuries. 

[The College Dropout]

Just now, madras said:

So they have access to the info of if they can play or not, expert assessment etc. 

 

What was your opinion on your examination of them ?

Like i've said repeatedly. Callum Wilson is on record saying he rushed himself back before he was fully fit and was overloaded with too many minutes in too short a time before he got reinjured.

 

Some people think football is more advanced and complicated than it is. There's only so much physios and scans can tell. A lot of it depends on how a player feels and what he says. Players often declare themselves fit and if they can battle through a fitness test - they will play. They may still feel discomfort because the injury isn't fully healed, and they may be over fatigued - but they are pushing through. When I listen to current and ex-footballers talk about injuries and coming back - a lot of it is just declaring themselves fit - no expert examination. It's down to the player and the manager in the main. The same was true of concussions before the protocol came in.

 

This is conjecture on my part. But I think we have a culture that encourages players to push themselves to return quickly from injury. Again, I remember a twitter ITK saying Schar wouldn't start one match. He did start... and came off within 15 minutes. I think the injury was known by medical staff and Howe before the game but they thought Schar could battle through and play the game. They took a risk on the injury. It didn't work and he couldn't play. Fortunately, it was a minor thing and he was back the next game. For me, that is evidence of our high-risk tolerance towards injuries. With that high-risk tolerance towards injuries - it's not pure bad luck when we get an injury crisis. How could it be? We've taken a bunch of risks.

[madras]

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

Like i've said repeatedly. Callum Wilson is on record saying he rushed himself back before he was fully fit and was overloaded with too many minutes in too short a time before he got reinjured.

 

Some people think football is more advanced and complicated than it is. There's only so much physios and scans can tell. A lot of it depends on how a player feels and what he says. Players often declare themselves fit and if they can battle through a fitness test - they will play. They may still feel discomfort because the injury isn't fully healed, and they may be over fatigued - but they are pushing through. When I listen to current and ex-footballers talk about injuries and coming back - a lot of it is just declaring themselves fit - no expert examination. It's down to the player and the manager in the main. The same was true of concussions before the protocol came in.

 

This is conjecture on my part. But I think we have a culture that encourages players to push themselves to return quickly from injury. Again, I remember a twitter ITK saying Schar wouldn't start one match. He did start... and came off within 15 minutes. I think the injury was known by medical staff and Howe before the game but they thought Schar could battle through and play the game. They took a risk on the injury. It didn't work and he couldn't play. Fortunately, it was a minor thing and he was back the next game. For me, that is evidence of our high-risk tolerance towards injuries. With that high-risk tolerance towards injuries - it's not pure bad luck when we get an injury crisis. How could it be? We've taken a bunch of risks.

So at the time Wilson must have said he was OK to go and only afterwards came to the realisation, after aggravating it, that he'd overdone it ?

 

At this point of the season many players will be carrying injuries, most we wont know about.

[The College Dropout]

I disagree on Wilson. I just think we need to manage his fitness player. Treat him like the injury-prone player he is. I remember in his last couple of seasons at Arsenal, RVP didn't play twice in a week. He stopped picking up injuries. Wilson wasn't injured towards the end of last season because his minutes were managed well.

 

With Barnes back, we can use Gordon as a striker option to ease the burden on the lads.

 

People are fed up with Wilson and lost patience. But Isak is in the same boat. He's been injured as often as Wilson since he joined. Because he's the star boy and the darling people aren't getting on to him but the same thing happens with Isak. He's another - his minutes need managing otherwise he will keep breaking down. I keep saying this but I think we are a winger option short IMO. We need to be able to use Gordon wherever he is needed or to give him a rest.

 

 

Edited February 9 by The College Dropout

[The College Dropout]

1 minute ago, madras said:

So at the time Wilson must have said he was OK to go and only afterwards came to the realisation, after aggravating it, that he'd overdone it ?

 

At this point of the season many players will be carrying injuries, most we wont know about.

No. He said, he knew he wasn't ready but Alex got injured, the team needed him, so he declared himself fit. If Alex hadn't gone down, Wilson wouldn't have declared himself fit.

 

Howe has managed Wilson for what? 6 or 7 years? He knows him well. He knows he's a good lad, a proper professional who will sacrifice his body for the betterment of the team. It's Howe's job to protect the player's longevity for the medium-term betterment of the team. He didn't. He played him 90 minutes, game after game until his injury-prone, only fit striker broke down again. That's poor management.

 

Every single outfield player with regular minutes has been injured this season. Every last one (except Bruno actually). It's not just bad luck. It's a lack of due care.

[madras]

10 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

No. He said, he knew he wasn't ready but Alex got injured, the team needed him, so he declared himself fit. If Alex hadn't gone down, Wilson wouldn't have declared himself fit.

 

Howe has managed Wilson for what? 6 or 7 years? He knows him well. He knows he's a good lad, a proper professional who will sacrifice his body for the betterment of the team. It's Howe's job to protect the player's longevity for the medium-term betterment of the team. He didn't. He played him 90 minutes, game after game until his injury-prone, only fit striker broke down again. That's poor management.

 

Every single outfield player with regular minutes has been injured this season. Every last one (except Bruno actually). It's not just bad luck. It's a lack of due care.

I would say it's circumstances. Unlucky injuries( turf toe, dislocations, spinal stuff which isnt too many minutes), suspension (looking at you here Tonali) mean things get stretched, it happens at most clubs that don't have Man City's type depth and thi is get risked. Wilson has played through that type of thing here before and got away with it.......and "he declared himself fit".

 

 

Edited February 9 by madras

[The College Dropout]

Is playing a 32-year-old injury player 3 times a week for 90 minutes several weeks in a row - sensible management? @madras

 

You seem hell-bent on defending Howe rather than just looking at things objectively.

 

 

Edited February 9 by The College Dropout

[Interpolic]

2 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Is playing a 32-year-old injury player 3 times a week for 90 minutes several weeks in a row - sensible management? @madras

 

You seem hell-bent on defending Howe rather than just looking at things objectively.

 

 

 

 

Who else was available?  Is this where your mythical kids who are in any way ready for PL football come in again?

[madras]

2 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Is playing a 32-year-old injury player 3 times a week for 90 minutes several weeks in a row - sensible management? @madras

 

You seem hell-bent on defending Howe rather than just looking at things objectively.

 

 

 

It depends on what the medical staff and the player himself say. If it turns out the staff said we shouldn't but he did then I'm right with you.

 

You seem hell bent on acting like you know what was going on instead of looking at things objectively. We have nowhere near enough info

[The College Dropout]

1 minute ago, Interpolic said:

 

Who else was available?  Is this where your mythical kids who are in any way ready for PL football come in again?

You're avoiding the question. 

 

The answer is obvious - that does not seem a sensible thing to do. Due to other circumstances, our manager decided to take risks that backfired. That's not bad luck.

[The College Dropout]

2 minutes ago, madras said:

It depends on what the medical staff and the player himself say. If it turns out the staff said we shouldn't but he did then I'm right with you.

 

You seem hell bent on acting like you know what was going on instead of looking at things objectively. We have nowhere near enough info

Do you not know that Wilson is injury-prone?

 

Football is a lot simpler than you think it is. Medical departments have far less sway or knowledge than you think when it comes to injuries. Again, the concussion protocol is a pressing example.

[The Prophet]

[BoSelecta]

If you ignore the context in which those risks were taken & the available options (or lack of) to taking them then yes; Howe is an idiot. 
 

Or if actually consider all of the contextual information we have and still arrive at the same conclusion; you are an idiot.

[Interpolic]

10 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

You're avoiding the question. 

 

The answer is obvious - that does not seem a sensible thing to do. Due to other circumstances, our manager decided to take risks that backfired. That's not bad luck.

 

No, you're avoiding the context.  Who else was he supposed to play?

[madras]

7 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Do you not know that Wilson is injury-prone?

 

Football is a lot simpler than you think it is. Medical departments have far less sway or knowledge than you think when it comes to injuries. Again, the concussion protocol is a pressing example.

Yes I know he is.

 

Football fitness is also quite simple, get the medical team to see if they can play, if the player agrees, then play. May be a full game, may be part of it.

 

It'll be interesting to see your team for tomorrow with no Isak or possibly Gordon and you won't want Wilson risked from the start.

 

 

Edited February 9 by madras

[The College Dropout]

Just now, BoSelecta said:

If you ignore the context in which those risks were taken & the available options (or lack of) to taking them then yes; Howe is an idiot. 
 

Or if actually consider all of the contextual information we have and still arrive at the same conclusion; you are an idiot.

I'm not saying he's an idiot. In this context, you understand the decision. But it's not bad luck. He has contributed to the problem. There were other options that he deemed inferior. The upside of those would be less injury risk.

 

So we are lying in the bed that he has helped to make.

[STM]

46 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Think it was half a season. He never fully recovered physically.

 

This doesn't make sense. You take a risk because you think the upside is greater, it backfires - you accept responsibility and fault for taking that risk.

 

The injuries to key players Willock, Isak, Wilson, Joelinton could've been prevented if we were more cautious with their rehabilitation. Howe has to take some responsibility for that.

 

So when we talk about "bad luck" with injuries - an element of that isn't bad luck. We've knowingly taken risks and they've backfired. That's chickens coming home to roost. So Howe doesn't get a complete pass on the injury front.

 

I understand why Howe made the decisions he did. I just think a lot of his decisions have been short-sighted and not worked anyway.

 

I hope he learns and improves going forward.

 

 

It does make sense though.

 

Don't take this the wrong way TCD, I agree with plenty of your posts and i like alot of them (I hope you notice) but you seem to have a real issue with the idea of risk and gambling in football.

 

You seem to be under the impression that everything is a black and white, clear cut decision or that everything should be obvious without hindsight.

 

On transfers, you think that it's possible to find transfers with zero risk attached to them and now with injuries you think no manager should ever risk a player coming back early? It's just not the real world man.

 

Here's a hypothetical scenario:

 

A striker is coming back from injury, he's a week away from the scheduled time out.

 

Bam, the teams other striker breaks his leg.

 

The manager goes to his medical team and asks if the other striker is ready to play yet.

 

The medical team would NEVER talk in absolutes, they say that x player is close and there's no signs that a reoccurrence is likely but there's a small chance he might hurt himself again.

 

Your the manager, what do you do? 

 

Option 1: You don't play the striker, you go into the game without your main goal threat, you have to move one of your creative players out of position to cover and you massively decrease the likelihood of winning the game. On the other hand, you might get a slightly fitter version of your currently injured striker next week.

 

Option 2: You take the risk, you try and get 60 minutes out of the striker, try and win the game and you hope that he doesn't pull up injured.

 

 

What I'm saying here is that neither option above are correct or incorrect ones, it's a question of risk, weighing up the pros and cons and making the best decision possible. You are absolutely correct to say that those risks haven't paid off but to say the manager (management team), should get some big criticism is overboard IMO. They zigged when they should have tagged. I'd certainly be questioning the advice of the medical department.

 

It's the same decisions every management team the world over, some times they get it right, sometimes they get it wrong.

[STM]

20 minutes ago, Interpolic said:

 

Who else was available?  Is this where your mythical kids who are in any way ready for PL football come in again?

 

This is it in a nutshell. Howe is being given a couple of shit options and getting hammered either way.

[The Prophet]

I'm not even sure what the point of this debate is.

 

Everyone acknowledges the injury crisis.

 

Everyone acknowledges Howe was between a rock and a hard place.

 

So is it just about whether we assign any blame to Howe? 

[STM]

1 minute ago, The Prophet said:

I'm not even sure what the point of this debate is.

 

Everyone acknowledges the injury crisis.

 

Everyone acknowledges Howe was between a rock and a hard place.

 

So is it just about whether we assign any blame to Howe? 

 

Basically. 

 

Howe has been put in a ridiculous situation with injuries. Has he rushed players back? Yes. Is it what alot of managers would have done? Yes. Are there lessons to be learned as a management and medical team? Yes. Will we ever likely have an injury crisis like this? Fuck, I hope not.