Sven Botman

[Interpolic]

1 minute ago, Cf said:

 

Not everything needs blame apportioned. 

 

[Kanj]

1 minute ago, TRon said:

 

There were specialists who advised an op immediately and some who didn't. It was diagnosed as a slight tear, which is not like it was just feeling a bit sore. Maybe we should lean more towards the more cautious specialists in future.

Again, we all know that. He rested the tear and rehabbed it and the tear healed. Hence why he rejoined the team and played football. 

[et tu brute]

6 minutes ago, Kanji said:

Again, the medical team cleared him to play AFTER rest, rehab and regular scans and doctors and the club deemed he had healed. However, his knee failed again. rotten luck, and yeah surgery probably would have been the better bet in hindsight. 
 

^all stuff Shadow Puppets has confirmed before. 

No the medical team said he needed surgery according to Howe and if it's Botman who insisted he didn't need the surgery, then he should have been told straight that he wasn't playing then.

[Cf]

1 minute ago, Abacus said:

 

If that's what happened, I think that's what Howe has to say rather than keep this in-house. It would only take one specialist or Botman himself to come out and deny this version of events for the whole thing to come tumbling down.

 

I guess the thing here is that, if, with hindsight, it was the wrong call that they do learn from this. Maybe it was a coin toss decision that could have gone the right way and everyone would have been congratulating themselves, but from the outside it does seem a gamble in retrospect.

 

Incidentally, if the advice was to rest to avoid surgery, maybe he should have just actually rested instead of playing professional football repeatedly.

 

The key point for me was yes it was a gamble. But surgery isn't without risks - it also would have been a gamble. 

 

Essentially he didn't get injured enough. Had it been more serious it would have required surgery. 

 

Had it been less serious he'd have just needed some rest and rehab. 

 

As it happens the damage was somewhere in the middle where there wasn't really a correct choice. 

 

If there's lessons to learn then yeah learn them. But the lesson isn't "if in doubt get the surgery". It's far too simplistic and is going to be on a case by case basis. 

 

 

[TRon]

1 minute ago, Kanji said:

Again, we all know that. He rested the tear and rehabbed it and the tear healed. Hence why he rejoined the team and played football. 

 

Well it obviously didn't heal properly.

[Cf]

1 minute ago, et tu brute said:

No the medical team said he needed surgery according to Howe and if it's Botman who insisted he didn't need the surgery, then he should have been told straight that he wasn't playing then.

 

This is where Howe's comments aren't helpful. In reality they'll have all discussed it as a group and as a result of Botman's input of not wanting the surgery will have agreed a plan for how to proceed without. 

 

I don't know what this he's not playing is about. He didn't play whilst he had to rest. Once he's rested and it's seemingly healed why wouldn't Howe play him?

[et tu brute]

Just now, Cf said:

 

This is where Howe's comments aren't helpful. In reality they'll have all discussed it as a group and as a result of Botman's input of not wanting the surgery will have agreed a plan for how to proceed without. 

 

I don't know what this he's not playing is about. He didn't play whilst he had to rest. Once he's rested and it's seemingly healed why wouldn't Howe play him?

He was playing straight after the injury occurred for a start before it became obvious he needed time out. He then returned and it was blatantly obvious that he was still not right. 

[Zero]

I don’t know why, but you sounds like no one has to be blamed for this, and, most importantly, if such event occurs again, another 50/50 situation (which I don’t agree), everyone involved should act the same and take the gamble again.

 

So what’s the lesson learnt?

 

 

[Mike]

Fucking HELL.

[Abacus]

14 minutes ago, Kanji said:

Did you magically forget he was out for some time, resting and rehabbing? People are going on here like he played every single match this season on a torn ACL. 
 

for the millionth time the doctors at club and outside the club cleared him to play. Scans revealed he had healed. 

 

As far as I know, the first injury was pure bad luck, but then it wasn't picked up properly for a couple of games which wasn't great, that's all agreed.

 

There was a period of rest and rehab after what's been described as a marginal call to go that way. And then it was 'healed', but with continuing scans which all said he was OK to carry on playing.

 

So it was presumably just another piece of pure bad luck that he got another completely unrelated injury in the exact same place. If that's what the position is, why has Howe now come out saying the decision for him to play was wrong with hindsight?

 

NB if you think I'm coming at this from a position of complete medical ignorance, you should be aware that in my teens I watched multiple episodes of Dougie Howser MD, and followed this up in later life with a refresher course by watching House, until it got silly.

[Yorkie]

If that's all there is to it (re Howe's quotes) then I'm struggling to see past it being a bit of a shit-show in terms of managing the situation. Doesn't reflect well on wor Eddie imo but hopefully there's more to it than simply letting the player utterly knacker himself.

[High Five o]

1 hour ago, arnonel said:

Love the idea a doctor can tell me what to do and I just have to accept and do it

We kind of pay him shitloads for his body to play football. If a doctor tell him to do surgery he should follow that advice. If not the club should walk away from the contract.
 

Not saying it was a clear case here, but fucking hell the thought of footballers themselves deciding how an injury is treated is wild?

[Cf]

5 minutes ago, Zero said:

I don’t know why, but you sounds like no one has to be blamed for this, and, most importantly, if such event occurs again, another 50/50 situation (which I don’t agree), everyone involved should act the same and take the gamble again.

 

So what’s the lesson learnt?

 

 

 

Because sometimes you have no good options. 

 

In hindsight we should have probably gone the surgery route. But the key point is this would also have been a gamble. The surgery could have complications, it might be a success but he comes back not the same, he'd obviously be out longer, etc. 

 

As I said there's no blanket rule in this scenario and it's a case by case basis. Presented with the various pieces of advice the player went down the no surgery route. Had every piece of advice been "you need surgery" he'd have had it. 

[madras]

2 minutes ago, High Five o said:

We kind of pay him shitloads for his body to play football. If a doctor tell him to do surgery he should follow that advice. If not the club should walk away from the contract.
 

Not saying it was a clear case here, but fucking hell the thought of footballers themselves deciding how an injury is treated is wild?

What if the doctors jury was split between surgery or rest ?

[nufcjmc]

When pressed on the issue eddie has said clearly you can't make a player have surgery while hindsight is a wonderful thing it doesn't sound like a failing of the club  if they cannot force someone contractually or not to do it.

 

The annoyance for me is he was still out for a very long time resting/rehab etc so it isn't like the no surgery was a short term solution either he could have been back before the end the season or for preseason if he had of just got it done. 

[joeyt]

Wonder if the Euros would have played a part in Botman's thinking?

 

If he got the surgery in September he would have close to no chance of making the Euros

[Abacus]

At least we've probably used up all our bad luck for a decade this season already.

 

And, re the surgery, I think in a lot of ways I'd be less worried about him coming back from it a different player, so hopefully he can keep his morale up during the lay off. Not only have ACL treatments come on in leaps and bounds but he's never been one to rely on explosive pace in the first place, but more on his intelligence and positioning.

 

(Anxiously awaits news of a freak brain injury on his way to the hospital.)

[Dr Jinx]

I’d be fairly pissed off if I was Botman reading those quotes today. Regardless of what happens, the manager must always shield blame from a player unless it’s something absolutely mental.

[Keegans Export]

41 minutes ago, High Five o said:

We kind of pay him shitloads for his body to play football. If a doctor tell him to do surgery he should follow that advice. If not the club should walk away from the contract.
 

Not saying it was a clear case here, but fucking hell the thought of footballers themselves deciding how an injury is treated is wild?

Sorry, this is an absolutely mental take. Every patient has the right to decide what treatments they do or don't have.

 

A footballer is a human being. The medical staff are registered professionals and any surgeons are required to act the same whether they are treating a footballer, a builder or a homeless guy on the street. The patient is given the pros and cons of each option and must make that decision themselves. A medical professional isn't there to convince them or make the decision for them. 

[et tu brute]

27 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

Sorry, this is an absolutely mental take. Every patient has the right to decide what treatments they do or don't have.

 

A footballer is a human being. The medical staff are registered professionals and any surgeons are required to act the same whether they are treating a footballer, a builder or a homeless guy on the street. The patient is given the pros and cons of each option and must make that decision themselves. A medical professional isn't there to convince them or make the decision for them. 

That's all fair enough, but then tell him that due to the injury and a duty of care based on medical advice, that he won't be available for selection.

[gjohnson]

3 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

That's all fair enough, but then tell him that due to the injury and a duty of care based on medical advice, that he won't be available for selection.

Unlikely situation, but maybe he's one of those that sees playing football as a job and little else. I doubt it, but if I was told I could take 6-9 months off on full pay I wouldn't be arguing. 

[Arknor]

just need Eddie to get injured and my bingo card is complete 

[gjohnson]

1 hour ago, Abacus said:

At least we've probably used up all our bad luck for a decade this season already.

 

And, re the surgery, I think in a lot of ways I'd be less worried about him coming back from it a different player, so hopefully he can keep his morale up during the lay off. Not only have ACL treatments come on in leaps and bounds but he's never been one to rely on explosive pace in the first place, but more on his intelligence and positioning.

 

(Anxiously awaits news of a freak brain injury on his way to the hospital.)

Bad luck used in for a decade in a season?....Clearly haven't been around NUFC for long. We are the MASTERS of "bad luck". A chance for glory comes our way and thers always a monumental f**k up that comes our way. 

[High Five o]

50 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

Sorry, this is an absolutely mental take. Every patient has the right to decide what treatments they do or don't have.

 

A footballer is a human being. The medical staff are registered professionals and any surgeons are required to act the same whether they are treating a footballer, a builder or a homeless guy on the street. The patient is given the pros and cons of each option and must make that decision themselves. A medical professional isn't there to convince them or make the decision for them. 

Well of course.

But then being a professional footballer might not be for you.

 

“I just broke my leg, I do not want an operation, but please continue paying me 100k a week for the next 5 years.”

 

Its not happening man?

 

 

[High Five o]

1 hour ago, madras said:

What if the doctors jury was split between surgery or rest ?

As I said, this case is not clear cut and I do not criticize Botman or the club here.

 

Just the idea some her say that it’s 100% up to the player what treatment they receive is absolutely mental.

 

I know at the end of the day it’s they who decide, but then they probably would be released from the club not following the medical advice.