Sven Botman

[The Prophet]

Is anyone suggesting all of our injuries are all bad luck though?

[Erikse]

3 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

Is anyone suggesting all of our injuries are all bad luck though?

 

Look at what he was replying to, and what he replied. My own reply was based on that. Depends what you mean by "based on nothing" I suppose..

 

 

Edited March 22, 2024 by Erikse

[Bellis80]

10 minutes ago, Shadow Puppets said:

Er, no... that's not what he's saying at all. Unless of course your agenda only allows you to hear what you want to hear.

 

These things align... 

• The injury in the Brentford game was considered very minor... a little bit of swelling and then absolutely fine. Sven felt perfectly fine, so there was no suspicion that anything was in any way seriously wrong.
• That changed in the Sheff Utd game.
• He saw 3 specialists.
• There was some level of disagreement over the severity, but ALL AGREED that rest was a perfectly acceptable course of action.
• When Sven started playing again in January, his scans were considered perfectly fine and he was cleared to play (by ALL parties).

The only difference between what Downie is saying and what I've been told is that his ongoing scans have been perfectly fine with no need for concern. I'm literally 100% sure of that, and I know with 100% conviction that Downie is incorrect on that one.

 

 

1. Yes, that's true... Sven and the club made the decision based on every specialist's recommendations and multiple ongoing scans.
2. Depends on how you define "fully recovered". It takes months of playing to feel, in your own body, "fully recovered" from any relatively complex injury, even once you're cleared to play.
3. With every complex injury, and this one is no different, you have regular ongoing scans to make sure that everything is holding up as it should. His latest scan, as of just before the Wolves game, was perfectly fine (the word I was told was "clear") and the specialists cleared him to continue playing. I know this to be 100% true... I literally have ZERO doubts.

I heard the intial scans all showed something wrong to varying degrees, the club were happy for him to have surgery, he thought he could rest it, the other injury situations at the club played into that decision and now he’s out for another 6-9 months after playing like shit and looking nothing like he did before the injury for a couple of months.

[The College Dropout]

1 minute ago, Erikse said:

 

It's based common sense from having a historicly bad injury record throughout the entire season. It would be incredibly naive to suggest that it's all just bad luck. Why was this injury not surprising at all?

And also.. kind of expected.

 

This one might actually be "bad luck". It seems like there was some underlying issue that wasn't shown on scans for months.

[Conjo]

Of course all our injuries aren't down to bad luck. In general I think the club as a whole should adopt a better safe than sorry approach, and maybe listen less to players when they say they are ok to play.

 

The discussion is naturally arisen out of Botmans long term injury, but it feels very wrong to have that discussion in this thread when in this instance it seems everyone has shown caution and tried to solve the injury in the best possible manner.

[The College Dropout]

4 minutes ago, Conjo said:

Of course all our injuries aren't down to bad luck. In general I think the club as a whole should adopt a better safe than sorry approach, and maybe listen less to players when they say they are ok to play.

 

The discussion is naturally arisen out of Botmans long term injury, but it feels very wrong to have that discussion in this thread when in this instance it seems everyone has shown caution and tried to solve the injury in the best possible manner.

I mean.. you're saying "of course" now. But for months many have been using that exact line.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

4 minutes ago, Conjo said:

Of course all our injuries aren't down to bad luck. In general I think the club as a whole should adopt a better safe than sorry approach, and maybe listen less to players when they say they are ok to play.

 

The discussion is naturally arisen out of Botmans long term injury, but it feels very wrong to have that discussion in this thread when in this instance it seems everyone has shown caution and tried to solve the injury in the best possible manner.

 

This is fine except for the fact that everyone is under extreme pressure to win every game. 

[nufcjmc]

Having better quality back ups/squad players down the line will lessen the blow when players get injured and in turn make us more careful with injuries. Not suggesting the club have not been acting in the best interest of the player but in general they want to play/help the team/do well for themselves etc a better squad overall will stop a situation where as Howe has admitted himself they are asking players who arent quite right to just go again. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

3 minutes ago, nufcjmc said:

Having better quality back ups/squad players down the line will lessen the blow when players get injured and in turn make us more careful with injuries. Not suggesting the club have not been acting in the best interest of the player but in general they want to play/help the team/do well for themselves etc a better squad overall will stop a situation where as Howe has admitted himself they are asking players who arent quite right to just go again. 

 

Exactly. It's a compounding effect as well - the more injuries we got, the worse the options were, the more people might play when they would otherwise rest. 

 

 

[nufcjmc]

15 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

 

Exactly. It's a compounding effect as well - the more injuries we got, the worse the options were, the more people might play when they would otherwise rest. 

 

 

 

on the face of it the longstaff one is more weird/worse than the botman one if indeed this is a new injury so just bad luck. 

 

I think Howe said something along the lines he's been feeling it since Everton last season (why it wasnt addressed in the summer who knows) and then that he thinks he needs to keep playing to find his best form. No medical expert or physio but to me if your not right and haven't been for a long time its rest you need not more of the same. With longstaff I fear we could be stuck with him as knowing our luck even if someone is interested in him playing him now and potentially needing a surgery at season end could kill any transfer. 

 

I think we all agree that while you hope the list of players out and the number of long term injuries in particular (that then need weeks to get back up to speed when signed off as fit) doesnt happen again there has to be lessons learned. Burn hurting his back jumping, pope dislocated shoulder, murphy dislocated shoulder, Barnes toe are all "freak injuries". The longstaff, joelinton, botman, trippier, willock and barnes injury 2 and 3 ones I am not sure thats just down to having to go again and again. 

 

As Keith Downie has already said he classes the previous summer window as a failure which I agree.  Improving the first team and previous first team starters becoming your bench and the happy clapper cheerleaders in the squad going would have also helped. Howe said at the end of the summer window ask in 12 months how the window went rather than immediately and I dont think you need to as the injuries have highlighted or enhanced the poor window. 

 

 

Edited March 22, 2024 by nufcjmc

[Shadow Puppets]

33 minutes ago, Bellis80 said:

I heard the intial scans all showed something wrong to varying degrees, the club were happy for him to have surgery, he thought he could rest it, the other injury situations at the club played into that decision and now he’s out for another 6-9 months after playing like shit and looking nothing like he did before the injury for a couple of months.

1) yes the scans DID show something wrong to varying degrees. Correct.

 

2) the club were happy for him to have surgery… no idea… probably I guess they would have been… but I know for a fact that Sven, the club and the specialists decided on the course of action together, based on all the available info.

 

3) they ALL thought he could rest it (not just him).

 

4) as far as I’m aware the club’s injury situation didn’t play a factor in him being “rushed back” or anything. As far as I’ve been told his scans at the point he started playing again we’re perfectly fine.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

11 minutes ago, nufcjmc said:

 

on the face of it the longstaff one is more weird/worse than the botman one if indeed this is a new injury so just bad luck. 

 

I think Howe said something along the lines he's been feeling it since Everton last season (why it wasnt addressed in the summer who knows) and then that he thinks he needs to keep playing to find his best form. No medical expert or physio but to me if your not right and haven't been for a long time its rest you need not more of the same. With longstaff I fear we could be stuck with him as knowing our luck even if someone is interested in him playing him now and potentially needing a surgery at season end could kill any transfer. 

 

I think we all agree that while you hope the list of players out and the number of long term injuries in particular (that then need weeks to get back up to speed when signed off as fit) doesnt happen again there has to be lessons learned. Burn hurting his back jumping, pope dislocated shoulder, murphy dislocated shoulder, Barnes toe are all "freak injuries". The longstaff, joelinton, botman, trippier, willock and barnes injury 2 and 3 ones I am not sure thats just down to having to go again and again. 

 

As Keith Downie has already said he classes the previous summer window as a failure which I agree.  Improving the first team and previous first team starters becoming your bench and the happy clapper cheerleaders in the squad going would have also helped. Howe said at the end of the summer window ask in 12 months how the window went rather than immediately and I dont think you need to as the injuries have highlighted or enhanced the poor window. 

 

 

 

Think it’s very harsh to say the window was a failure. We can only sign so many players and we should be starting with Joelinton, Bruno and Tonali in midfield with Willock and Longstaff as options (amongst others). 
 

No realistic window could have insured us against events of this season. 

[Displayname]

Not sure why Botmans opinion gets so much focus, it shouldnt have influenced the decision at all(not claiming it did). Ofcourse he would want to help his mates.

[Sibierski]

44 minutes ago, Conjo said:

 

 

The discussion is naturally arisen out of Botmans long term injury, but it feels very wrong to have that discussion in this thread when in this instance it seems everyone has shown caution and tried to solve the injury in the best possible manner.

Didn’t the same approach happen with Barnes? Rest, try and avoid surgery. 
 

Part of me feels that by end of season, he’ll have surgery on that foot and miss pre season as a result.

[nufcjmc]

1 minute ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Think it’s very harsh to say the window was a failure. We can only sign so many players and we should be starting with Joelinton, Bruno and Tonali in midfield with Willock and Longstaff as options (amongst others). 
 

No realistic window could have insured us against events of this season. 

 

Obviously gone off topic here and I am sure a thread will come at the end of the season but I think in my opinion it seemed like the action was add to a great set of lads in the hope they maintain the levels they have shown for 12 months+ and add/ tweak. That left a group of players that were hardly ever called upon as we had next to no injuries and playing once a week as our backup kraft/lascelles/dummet/richie/manquillo etc knowing full well we would need to rotate more with being involved in more games at the start of the season.

Then while we have no idea who was offered up for sale or who we would be willing to trade back in the summer hoping almiron purple patch continued, a recognised left back target was unable to replace dan burn in the side the previous season but we kept him around anyway, willock had been injured for so long we had no idea if we were able to call upon him and when. Our last deal was a loan to buy and committed 28m of the summer spend the following year to a player who has had just a few cameos (especially considering if we kept Targett around as a genuine LB option), IF and its a big IF there were a deal out there that enhanced the middle/striker/CB or right wing instead it would have been better spent short and medium term. 

 

[Conjo]

56 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

I mean.. you're saying "of course" now. But for months many have been using that exact line.

 

There's been people pointing at the Tonali ban and "freak" injuries like Burn, Pope & Barnes as bad luck, but have there really been many saying the other injuries are only down to bad luck, and not a crisis that has been amplified due to the freak injuries requiring others to come back earlier which has again resulted in set backs thus prolonging the injury crisis?

[The College Dropout]

I think there was an assumption that Burn was Sven's back-up. So having 3 left-backs made some level of sense. Then Burn stunk at Brighton and Lascelles was pretty solid throughout. SO Burn is now only a LB and the other two are only seen as LB's too. And Burn is way ahead of both in Howe's eyes.

[Conjo]

1 hour ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

 

This is fine except for the fact that everyone is under extreme pressure to win every game. 

 

Yeah, I can sympathise with that pressure. That's partly why I'd like the club as a whole to adopt more caution with injured players to alleviate the pressure on the manager. It doesn't work if we are more careful with injured players, but still have the same requirements for results during an injury crisis.

[nufcjmc]

Just to add I think Keith's point was in the summer we ended up spending/committing to spend around 100m (taking out tanali) on players who were short term at best rotation  players and worst ones for the long term. When money is tight you do have to make it all work both ways but at this stage in the rebuild more starting 11 players were needed. 

[The College Dropout]

24 minutes ago, nufcjmc said:

Just to add I think Keith's point was in the summer we ended up spending/committing to spend around 100m (taking out tanali) on players who were short term at best rotation  players and worst ones for the long term. When money is tight you do have to make it all work both ways but at this stage in the rebuild more starting 11 players were needed. 

The Barnes one in particular doesn't make sense.

 

Livra and Hall were opportunistic signings. It's questionable but understandable. Tonali was for the first team.

 

Barnes? Didn't make sense. We needed a RW and a good £45m RW would've been brilliant.

[gbandit]

Agreed on the Barnes transfer being an odd one. Their approach of “we’ll go for a quality player if they’re available and we think they’re good value” would have been a great approach if we didn’t have Gordon already. Even though I think Gordon is already a significantly better and more versatile player. However, if we hadn’t had Gordon, fair enough, it’s not the most adventurous signing but it’s a very solid one. Unless we are looking at playing Gordon in other positions then Barnes is second to Gordon at LW by a distance. We’re not in a position really to be having a £25m player as a backup with little versatility. 
 

I like Barnes and I think his striking from distance is a big advantage but he’s reliant on Gordon either being injured or playing elsewhere for game time. I don’t think Barnes will ever be able to play anywhere other than LW. 

We have Willock, Anderson, Joelinton, Gordon and Barnes who can all play on the left wing in different fashions. On the right we have Miggy and Murphy, with Gordon being a back up option there. It’s a ridiculously imbalanced depth for the two positions

[LiquidAK]

19 hours ago, Miggys First Goal said:

Lad at work is convinced this is all Eddie’s fault, that Eddie should fall on his sword, and that Jose should be brought in to replace him. 
 

Mentalist. 

 

What's his username?

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

2 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

The Barnes one in particular doesn't make sense.

 

Barnes? Didn't make sense. We needed a RW and a good £45m RW would've been brilliant.

I'm pretty sure most of last year and most of the summer there was constant gripes (Including from yourself) about how we needed better numbers from out wide players as Miggy purple patch aside, non of our wide players consitently scored or assisted enough. Particularly true of those who played on the left last season. 2 goals all comps from ASM and only 1 from Gordon.

 

In that context Barnes made perfect sense. Yes we needed more goals from the right too, but that didn't also mean that the left didn't also need strengthening. We now know it was a flash in the plan but Miggy and Murphy had 15 goals between them last season from the right in contrast to the 3 from those previosuly mentioned. Even if you add in Willock and Joelinton it only rises to 12. Also given where the majority of our chance creation occurs (Trippier) it made sense to have a finisher on the opposite flank.

 

Theres some amazing captain hindsight revisionism occuring all over the place at times

[LiquidAK]

1 minute ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:

I'm pretty sure most of last year and most of the summer there was constant gripes (Including from yourself) about how we needed better numbers from out wide players as Miggy purple patch aside, non of our wide players consitently scored or assisted enough. Particularly true of those who played on the left last season. 2 goals all comps from ASM and only 1 from Gordon.

 

In that context Barnes made perfect sense. Yes we needed more goals from the right too, but that didn't also mean that the left didn't also need strengthening. We now know it was a flash in the plan but Miggy and Murphy had 15 goals between them last season from the right in contrast to the 3 from those previosuly mentioned. Even if you add in Willock and Joelinton it only rises to 12. Also given where the majority of our chance creation occurs (Trippier) it made sense to have a finisher on the opposite flank.

 

Theres some amazing captain hindsight revisionism occuring all over the place at times

Yup, not to mention that at the time we signed Barnes, Gordon was still an extremely rough diamond. The way he's come on this season has been phenomenal, but I can imagine the thinking might have been Barnes getting regular starts at LW and Gordon getting minutes across both wings

[The College Dropout]

8 minutes ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:

I'm pretty sure most of last year and most of the summer there was constant gripes (Including from yourself) about how we needed better numbers from out wide players as Miggy purple patch aside, non of our wide players consitently scored or assisted enough. Particularly true of those who played on the left last season. 2 goals all comps from ASM and only 1 from Gordon.

 

In that context Barnes made perfect sense. Yes we needed more goals from the right too, but that didn't also mean that the left didn't also need strengthening. We now know it was a flash in the plan but Miggy and Murphy had 15 goals between them last season from the right in contrast to the 3 from those previosuly mentioned. Even if you add in Willock and Joelinton it only rises to 12. Also given where the majority of our chance creation occurs (Trippier) it made sense to have a finisher on the opposite flank.

 

Theres some amazing captain hindsight revisionism occuring all over the place at times

No captain hindsight over here. If you offered me a LW or a RW after we sold ASM, I would take the RW 100 times.

 

I didn't rate Gordon but we spent £45m on him. He needed a chance to prove himself. Joelinton, Willock & Isak are good replacements if he still wasn't performing. But everyone at the club believed in him, it's not like the Antony situation now.

 

Miggy and Murphy aren't top 8 PL players. They don't have the ability. We needed a RW.

 

I like Barnes if he was in addition to 1 or 2 others in more pertinent positions. But as it is... it didn't make sense.