| QPR and injuries 15:48 - Sep 9 with 30377 views | themodfather |
why do we get so many? is it basic unfitness? poor training? last season the pitch didn't help but seems ok this time.
why do we sign so many will dodgy fitness records? and are our medicals doing their job?
chair was out for near all of last season and out already . if we get a fit squad we could have a real go at a top 8. |  | | |  |
| QPR and injuries on 10:05 - Sep 14 with 2855 views | Padulas_Shampoo |
Also to add, though Swansea are remarkably high from 12-16, there's a huge drop off for them from 17-20.
Here's a table showing the % of total minutes played by players not in the top XI per club:
 |  | | |
| QPR and injuries on 10:59 - Sep 14 with 2605 views | Hunterhoop |
| QPR and injuries on 10:05 - Sep 14 by Padulas_Shampoo |
Also to add, though Swansea are remarkably high from 12-16, there's a huge drop off for them from 17-20.
Here's a table showing the % of total minutes played by players not in the top XI per club:
|
Very interesting Padula.
As you say “why” we’re giving more minutes to squad players and rotating the team more than anyone else is the question. I’d also point out that when you look at your “first 7” or “first 11” players, it’s not actually those who would be chosen in our genuine first team if everyone was fit (e.g. Smyth, Vale). Same could be said for other teams, and so hard to compare, but worth pointing out.
It could be injuries (necessity) or it could be deliberate rotation (choice) in order to either reduce injury risk OR because many in the squad aren’t fit enough to play 90 mins regularly yet (necessity).
None of these 3 possibilities reflect particularly well on the Performance function. If it’s injuries, that’s their remit. If it’s to prevent injuries, it’s not working. And, if it’s because the squad aren’t fit enough to be able to play without this level of rotation, then that’s also isn’t a great look for the Performance or Recruitment departments.
Here’s hoping it improves. As others have said, it may be our injuries are not bad, long term ones, so it will improve/settle down. And we know the club took a decision to have a punt on the likes of Lamptey. Equally though, repeat injuries has been a theme the last couple of years, so that might indicate it won’t settle down and there is an underlying problem.
Whatever way you cook it, we’re not doing well on this front. And that should be the aim. Not persuading us it’s not a problem specific to us. |  | | |
| QPR and injuries on 11:00 - Sep 14 with 2595 views | KensalT |
| QPR and injuries on 09:42 - Sep 14 by Padulas_Shampoo |
A number of posts on this thread saying 'all Championship teams are struggling with injuries, we're no worse than others'...
Nerd alert warning... But...
Here's a chart that shows squad distribution of minutes across the Championship. Each line is a club. QPR is highlighted. I was interested to see where we sit relative to other teams objectively. If you have a settled and fit first XI, you'll be high on the left of the red line and low on the right of the red line.
Headlines here for me are:
- We're just about average for the league from 1-7.
- We then dip badly in the 7-8 range in fact our 8th most played player has played the least number of minutes in the league vs other clubs.
- Our 13th to 18th are playing a lot more minutes than average, only Swansea's are playing more as a huge outlier.
Obviously these numbers don't categorically prove that we have more injuries than other teams. What it does prove though is we're using more players more often than most other teams in the league. That might be due to a rotational choice / strategy or because we have more injuries than other teams... But either way we're relying on the squad depth more than almost anyone else.
If it feels to you like we're chopping and changing team selections a lot - irrespective of why that it is - I think this chart proves that relative to the rest of the league, we are. |
That's interesting, but part of the reason we don't have a settled starting XI is because we have been rotating players who missed preseason or who are coming back from injuries and need to have their minutes managed.
For all we know there are other clubs in the same position.
So this chart might just be reflecting sensible squad rotation rather than reacting to injuries. Or more likely, a combination of the two.
And how are we defining 'settled starting XI'? Millwall picked up a lot of injuries in preseason, so they're snookered when it comes to a settled starting XI.
Not having a go at you, it it is an interesting find, but I think the data can be interpreted in more than one way. |  | | |
| QPR and injuries on 11:15 - Sep 14 with 2534 views | KensalT |
| QPR and injuries on 10:59 - Sep 14 by Hunterhoop |
Very interesting Padula.
As you say “why” we’re giving more minutes to squad players and rotating the team more than anyone else is the question. I’d also point out that when you look at your “first 7” or “first 11” players, it’s not actually those who would be chosen in our genuine first team if everyone was fit (e.g. Smyth, Vale). Same could be said for other teams, and so hard to compare, but worth pointing out.
It could be injuries (necessity) or it could be deliberate rotation (choice) in order to either reduce injury risk OR because many in the squad aren’t fit enough to play 90 mins regularly yet (necessity).
None of these 3 possibilities reflect particularly well on the Performance function. If it’s injuries, that’s their remit. If it’s to prevent injuries, it’s not working. And, if it’s because the squad aren’t fit enough to be able to play without this level of rotation, then that’s also isn’t a great look for the Performance or Recruitment departments.
Here’s hoping it improves. As others have said, it may be our injuries are not bad, long term ones, so it will improve/settle down. And we know the club took a decision to have a punt on the likes of Lamptey. Equally though, repeat injuries has been a theme the last couple of years, so that might indicate it won’t settle down and there is an underlying problem.
Whatever way you cook it, we’re not doing well on this front. And that should be the aim. Not persuading us it’s not a problem specific to us. |
I agree.
Last season we flogged several players too hard, and the season before we probably pushed Paul Smyth too hard.
On the one hand that can look good from the perspective of first XI availability, but at the same time it's not great from the squad management perspective.
Presumably clubs with good squad depth and the ability to rotate will not look good for first XI availability, while clubs with weak squad depth will rely on their first XI more than they should. | | | |
| QPR and injuries on 12:02 - Sep 14 with 2388 views | Padulas_Shampoo |
| QPR and injuries on 11:00 - Sep 14 by KensalT |
That's interesting, but part of the reason we don't have a settled starting XI is because we have been rotating players who missed preseason or who are coming back from injuries and need to have their minutes managed.
For all we know there are other clubs in the same position.
So this chart might just be reflecting sensible squad rotation rather than reacting to injuries. Or more likely, a combination of the two.
And how are we defining 'settled starting XI'? Millwall picked up a lot of injuries in preseason, so they're snookered when it comes to a settled starting XI.
Not having a go at you, it it is an interesting find, but I think the data can be interpreted in more than one way. |
Well that's pretty much why I wanted to compare it to the rest of the league. It's only relevant when compared to our peers and for me, the point is, both those visuals show that we're doing it more than most of the league. The second one shows we're doing it the MOST in the league.
As I said in the first post - I'm sure there are a multitude of reasons for why... but the objective fact is so far, we're using more players more often than any other team in the league.
Maybe this is a deliberate tactic to ensure this shape is better for QPR come Christmas and the end of the season. Maybe they've proactively spotted something in data and they think they have an advantage on the rest of the league by doing this differently. The proof will be in the pudding if so.
We are getting a heck of a lot of non contact, soft tissue injuries and giving a lot of minutes to 17 year olds though if that is the case.
As Hunter says, whatever the root cause you want to chalk it up to, I can't think of a reason that's particularly (or remotely) positive. Ultimately I think this proves we're either dealing with more in-season injuries and / or our players aren't fit enough to play as much as other clubs' players. I won't hazard a guess as to whether that's merely circumstantial, the performance team's fault or the recruitment team's fault. Any one of us or the club can spin and excuse that as much as they like, it doesn't change the objective fact that we've used more of our squad than any team in the division so far. [Post edited 14 Sep 12:04]
| | | |
| QPR and injuries on 12:10 - Sep 14 with 2362 views | terryb |
| QPR and injuries on 11:00 - Sep 14 by KensalT |
That's interesting, but part of the reason we don't have a settled starting XI is because we have been rotating players who missed preseason or who are coming back from injuries and need to have their minutes managed.
For all we know there are other clubs in the same position.
So this chart might just be reflecting sensible squad rotation rather than reacting to injuries. Or more likely, a combination of the two.
And how are we defining 'settled starting XI'? Millwall picked up a lot of injuries in preseason, so they're snookered when it comes to a settled starting XI.
Not having a go at you, it it is an interesting find, but I think the data can be interpreted in more than one way. |
I'm reading it as the minutes played by the starting eleven in matches & 12-20 as the minutes played by subs in matches, as opposed to what the teams "best eleven" is.
Having had 5 players leave the pitch in the first half would always increase the amount of minutes played by subs, as would half time replacements. I'm not the slightest bit surprised that our subs have played more minutes than any other clubs in the Championship. | | | |
| QPR and injuries on 12:17 - Sep 14 with 2341 views | DavieQPR |
If you don't have the players available because they are injured then you can't rotate and are showing a settled side. Pompey good example. |  | | |
| QPR and injuries on 12:18 - Sep 14 with 2333 views | Padulas_Shampoo |
| QPR and injuries on 12:10 - Sep 14 by terryb |
I'm reading it as the minutes played by the starting eleven in matches & 12-20 as the minutes played by subs in matches, as opposed to what the teams "best eleven" is.
Having had 5 players leave the pitch in the first half would always increase the amount of minutes played by subs, as would half time replacements. I'm not the slightest bit surprised that our subs have played more minutes than any other clubs in the Championship. |
Absolutely right - First XI is the eleven players to have played the most minutes per club. At no point have I mentioned or claimed that's the 'best XI'. You'd never get that from minute data.
This is pointing out how much of the squad has been used relative to the rest of the league. It doesn't matter whether it's injuries, fitness, tactical decisions, rotation... whatever - they all have equal weight. We've changed players more often than any other team in the league so far. I can't think why that would be a good thing. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| QPR and injuries on 12:20 - Sep 14 with 2323 views | JamesB1979 |
| QPR and injuries on 10:05 - Sep 14 by Padulas_Shampoo |
Also to add, though Swansea are remarkably high from 12-16, there's a huge drop off for them from 17-20.
Here's a table showing the % of total minutes played by players not in the top XI per club:
|
Thanks. Interesting stuff.
I guess it partly depends who they view as “backups” and is Kone a backup for Burrell? Or is he a starter if it’s 442?
But for me it comes down to 3 players, Cirkin, Lamptey and Kamara. I would think all would agree that they are starters but obviously they have had their minutes managed a lot due to lack of pre season and injury history. | | | |
| QPR and injuries on 12:27 - Sep 14 with 2311 views | KensalT |
| QPR and injuries on 12:02 - Sep 14 by Padulas_Shampoo |
Well that's pretty much why I wanted to compare it to the rest of the league. It's only relevant when compared to our peers and for me, the point is, both those visuals show that we're doing it more than most of the league. The second one shows we're doing it the MOST in the league.
As I said in the first post - I'm sure there are a multitude of reasons for why... but the objective fact is so far, we're using more players more often than any other team in the league.
Maybe this is a deliberate tactic to ensure this shape is better for QPR come Christmas and the end of the season. Maybe they've proactively spotted something in data and they think they have an advantage on the rest of the league by doing this differently. The proof will be in the pudding if so.
We are getting a heck of a lot of non contact, soft tissue injuries and giving a lot of minutes to 17 year olds though if that is the case.
As Hunter says, whatever the root cause you want to chalk it up to, I can't think of a reason that's particularly (or remotely) positive. Ultimately I think this proves we're either dealing with more in-season injuries and / or our players aren't fit enough to play as much as other clubs' players. I won't hazard a guess as to whether that's merely circumstantial, the performance team's fault or the recruitment team's fault. Any one of us or the club can spin and excuse that as much as they like, it doesn't change the objective fact that we've used more of our squad than any team in the division so far. [Post edited 14 Sep 12:04]
|
As I said, I'm not having a pop at you.
You have found and shared some interesting data, and you've picked out some really good questions from it - some that I would like raised at the fans forum, even though the club will wriggle and squirm and definitely not give straight answers.
My beef is with whoever put this data together in the first place.
Something that really grinds my gears is when people throw together data presentations without a clear idea about what point they are trying to make and whether their data has proven it.
The data you found could be used to argue that we are being forced to rely on our bench more than anyone else and that's a bad thing. Or the same data could be used to argue that unlike last season we have a strong bench this season (and we have had in some games) and that rotating our squad is a good thing!
So you pays your money and takes your choice.
I have no doubt which line the club will be pushing if this does come up at the fan forum!!
Like I say, fair play to you for finding and sharing it. | | | |
| QPR and injuries on 12:28 - Sep 14 with 2301 views | Padulas_Shampoo |
| QPR and injuries on 12:20 - Sep 14 by JamesB1979 |
Thanks. Interesting stuff.
I guess it partly depends who they view as “backups” and is Kone a backup for Burrell? Or is he a starter if it’s 442?
But for me it comes down to 3 players, Cirkin, Lamptey and Kamara. I would think all would agree that they are starters but obviously they have had their minutes managed a lot due to lack of pre season and injury history. |
I don't think that's relevant James. I'm not showing we've deviated from the best players, I'm just showing deviation. Birmingham have used their most-used eleven players 88% of the time. We've used our most-used eleven players 73% of the time. They've deviated the least. We've deviated the most. That's all. | | | |
| QPR and injuries on 12:37 - Sep 14 with 2255 views | JamesB1979 |
| QPR and injuries on 12:28 - Sep 14 by Padulas_Shampoo |
I don't think that's relevant James. I'm not showing we've deviated from the best players, I'm just showing deviation. Birmingham have used their most-used eleven players 88% of the time. We've used our most-used eleven players 73% of the time. They've deviated the least. We've deviated the most. That's all. |
But won’t we be deviating the most because of those 3 players? We’ve gone into the first 7-8 games knowing that 3 first team players cannot do back to back matches and can only do 60 minutes. | | | |
| QPR and injuries on 12:52 - Sep 14 with 2185 views | KensalT |
| QPR and injuries on 12:40 - Sep 14 by Padulas_Shampoo |
Well I did put it together so you are haha 
Like I said from the off I'm not telling you this data answers the question as to why we've deviated, merely that we've deviated.
I think it gives a clearer steer than people literally guessing that other teams have had as many injuries as us and that our fitness and availability is no worse than other teams'. Which is why I started looking at it in the first place.
I did have a clear idea - How much have we deviated from our most used players compared to the rest of the league. And I think I've proven that we've done it more than everyone else. If anyone wants to believe that deviation is due to us having such a wonderfully deep squad of quality (whilst giving minutes to Alfie Lloyd and Leon Scarlett) that it's an advantage over the rest of the division and therefore we're electing to do so proactively, that's they're prerogative. I have some snake oil for sale too. [Post edited 14 Sep 12:47]
|
Well, nothing personal.
OK, you have established a particular fact. We're using our bench more than other Championship clubs so far this season.
But the more important and interesting reason is why.
And as I have been trying to get across, the data you have presented could be used to say our squad rotation is a good thing, or that our squad rotation is a bad thing.
So the data doesn't give us any meaningful insights in itself.
Other factors might be brought in to give some depth to the presentation:
- At what stage of the game are these substitutions being made
- Are they forced for injuries or were they planned to manage minutes (and we have had both this season)
- What is the age, experience, and value of the players we are bringing on, etc
Anyway, it's a great effort by you. Don't let a grumpy old git like me put you off. And I'm sure you won't
 | | | |
| QPR and injuries on 12:53 - Sep 14 with 2176 views | Padulas_Shampoo |
| QPR and injuries on 12:37 - Sep 14 by JamesB1979 |
But won’t we be deviating the most because of those 3 players? We’ve gone into the first 7-8 games knowing that 3 first team players cannot do back to back matches and can only do 60 minutes. |
Oh I see what you mean. Sorry mate, I thought you meant I was picking and choosing as to who should be construed as best XI.
Yeah of course they'll impact it but you're assuming no other teams signed players late in the window with minimal pre-seasons. I'm also not claiming this is entirely due to injuries. Recruiting oft-injured and / or unfit players will impact the numbers, especially this early in the season. The net result doesn't change though; we're not as fit as other teams at this stage of the season. [Post edited 14 Sep 12:59]
| | | |
| QPR and injuries on 12:57 - Sep 14 with 2153 views | Padulas_Shampoo |
| QPR and injuries on 12:52 - Sep 14 by KensalT |
Well, nothing personal.
OK, you have established a particular fact. We're using our bench more than other Championship clubs so far this season.
But the more important and interesting reason is why.
And as I have been trying to get across, the data you have presented could be used to say our squad rotation is a good thing, or that our squad rotation is a bad thing.
So the data doesn't give us any meaningful insights in itself.
Other factors might be brought in to give some depth to the presentation:
- At what stage of the game are these substitutions being made
- Are they forced for injuries or were they planned to manage minutes (and we have had both this season)
- What is the age, experience, and value of the players we are bringing on, etc
Anyway, it's a great effort by you. Don't let a grumpy old git like me put you off. And I'm sure you won't
|
Well I can't be arsed to look into all that so this is all you're getting I'm afraid!  | | | |
| QPR and injuries on 13:42 - Sep 14 with 1993 views | Hunterhoop |
| QPR and injuries on 12:17 - Sep 14 by DavieQPR |
If you don't have the players available because they are injured then you can't rotate and are showing a settled side. Pompey good example. |
Ah! So this will be the club line. Cunning.
The obvious flaw being that a settled side means you are not getting injuries on an ongoing basis necessitating a change in personal and more minutes for the rest of your squad.
Injuries will mean you can’t rotate through choice as much due to lack of options to a point. It might be valid at the start of the season or at a given point in time after incurring a load of injuries. But, fundamentally, a settled side with a greater % of minutes for your most played players MUST mean those players aren’t getting injured in the games you play from that point onwards.
Injuries necessitate a change in personal, and greater spread of minutes across your squad. That is a fact. No team plays with less than 11 players (outside red cards in game). A settled side does not equal more injuries just that a settled side is the opposite to rotation. Not all rotation, as we know very well, is through choice. | | | |
| QPR and injuries on 14:54 - Sep 14 with 1821 views | Stainrod |
| QPR and injuries on 12:18 - Sep 14 by Padulas_Shampoo |
Absolutely right - First XI is the eleven players to have played the most minutes per club. At no point have I mentioned or claimed that's the 'best XI'. You'd never get that from minute data.
This is pointing out how much of the squad has been used relative to the rest of the league. It doesn't matter whether it's injuries, fitness, tactical decisions, rotation... whatever - they all have equal weight. We've changed players more often than any other team in the league so far. I can't think why that would be a good thing. |
You say it can’t be a good thing we have changed our team the most.
Thats probably true - and I have been among those very sceptical of Ben Williams - but I don’t think it’s as absolutely clear cut as you suggest.
We are comfortably higher in the League table - the only table that ultimately matters - than the two teams who lead your table: ie if a settled starting 11 were such a key metric, why aren’t Brum and Cardiff doing better?
For the most part I think Stefan has been sensible to rotate in an effort to avoid the really serious injuries that blighted our two previous seasons.
Playing Burrell, JCS, Lamptey, Kamara, Cirkin etc every game might have pushed us higher up your table short term, but would it push us higher up the league table long term?
Surely it’s WAY too early to pass too many negative judgements, interesting tho’ your table is?
Now you might retort that we have recruited badly (ie too many injury-prone or out of condition players). Possibly so. But the signings of Lamptey, Kamara and Cirkin have been almost universally welcomed by the fanbase. A poster (not you) made the ridiculous comparison recently between the fitness of Declan Rice and some of our players. Well one of the factors that makes him a £100m player is his incredible fitness/ stamina/ availability. On our budget we have to take risks/ make compromises.
Fully acknowledge there are a lot of doubts still about the Williams fitness regime. But I have actually been encouraged that there finally seems some co-ordination between the head coach and the fitness bods this season (eg Burrell isn’t always being flogged to death this time).
And fans can’t have it both ways: complain we are rotating too much and complain we are having too many injuries. Without rotation it is pretty likely our injuries would be worse and with it our league position too. | | | |
| QPR and injuries on 15:14 - Sep 14 with 1779 views | Padulas_Shampoo |
| QPR and injuries on 14:54 - Sep 14 by Stainrod |
You say it can’t be a good thing we have changed our team the most.
Thats probably true - and I have been among those very sceptical of Ben Williams - but I don’t think it’s as absolutely clear cut as you suggest.
We are comfortably higher in the League table - the only table that ultimately matters - than the two teams who lead your table: ie if a settled starting 11 were such a key metric, why aren’t Brum and Cardiff doing better?
For the most part I think Stefan has been sensible to rotate in an effort to avoid the really serious injuries that blighted our two previous seasons.
Playing Burrell, JCS, Lamptey, Kamara, Cirkin etc every game might have pushed us higher up your table short term, but would it push us higher up the league table long term?
Surely it’s WAY too early to pass too many negative judgements, interesting tho’ your table is?
Now you might retort that we have recruited badly (ie too many injury-prone or out of condition players). Possibly so. But the signings of Lamptey, Kamara and Cirkin have been almost universally welcomed by the fanbase. A poster (not you) made the ridiculous comparison recently between the fitness of Declan Rice and some of our players. Well one of the factors that makes him a £100m player is his incredible fitness/ stamina/ availability. On our budget we have to take risks/ make compromises.
Fully acknowledge there are a lot of doubts still about the Williams fitness regime. But I have actually been encouraged that there finally seems some co-ordination between the head coach and the fitness bods this season (eg Burrell isn’t always being flogged to death this time).
And fans can’t have it both ways: complain we are rotating too much and complain we are having too many injuries. Without rotation it is pretty likely our injuries would be worse and with it our league position too. |
I'm not complaining or passing negative judgment. I'm just trying to add some objectivity to a thread largely full of gut feel.
I'm not claiming a settled starting XI is a key metric either - just pointing out how settled ours is relative to the rest of the league. In response to your question about Brum and Cardiff though I'd ask if rotating the squad to an extreme is conducive to results, why are 5 of the bottom 6 in the league table making up 5 of the bottom 7 in the squad rotation table?
My opinion - for whatever that's worth - Is that we have a FAR more talented squad this season than we've had for a long time. Credit where it's due for that. I'm also of the opinion that there have been a couple of worrying signs (so far) that we're incredibly physically fragile... which is the entire point of posting.
Hopefully the likes of the guys that James rightly mentioned are gaining fitness day by day and they can be on the pitch as much as possible without risking injury. If they do and a few others avoid niggling injuries we were plagued by last year, this season could be pretty special. I'd be elated to use these numbers as proof our availability is better than average over a larger sample size as soon as we have it. | | | |
| QPR and injuries on 15:54 - Sep 14 with 1682 views | dm97 |
Great nerding, and a good example of using data to tell the story you want to tell (as you’ve pointed the ‘average for players 1-7’ line could easily be used to say “look we’re average”).
I think the fact it shows just how much more we are rotating is both positive and negative (JS is aware of it and wants to mitigate it as much as he can, but clearly we’re ending up in undesirable scenarios where we can all see our best team isn’t on the pitch (see Boro @ home)).
If anything this whole sorry fiasco just accentuates the haves from the have nots. 5 games in 15 for West Ham, playing average at best, hit 2ppg and sit atop the league. See also Southampton and Wolves starting to climb.
Remember when they used to say “the most unpredictable league in the world” in the promos? Funny how little that’s said nowadays. Go figure. |  | | |
| QPR and injuries on 15:57 - Sep 14 with 1663 views | LazyFan |
We signed players who were not ready in Cirkin and Lampty; they needed time to get fit.
The injury to Kemper brought Lampty in way too early, as they originally said after the break.
So, to be fair it was forced upon them.
Keeping JCS fit has been a miracle, but of course, every week is another miracle as it's early days.
However, on the other hand, they totally rested Chair and Kone (not even brought on as subs), only for them to get injured in the next game. So, that was pointless resting them.
So, really, overall, it's no big change from last year, from what I can see.
The only upside is that we have a better balanced squad, as we it seems we need it! |  |
| |
| QPR and injuries on 15:19 - Sep 15 with 1170 views | Spaghetti_Hoops |
| QPR and injuries on 12:18 - Sep 14 by Padulas_Shampoo |
Absolutely right - First XI is the eleven players to have played the most minutes per club. At no point have I mentioned or claimed that's the 'best XI'. You'd never get that from minute data.
This is pointing out how much of the squad has been used relative to the rest of the league. It doesn't matter whether it's injuries, fitness, tactical decisions, rotation... whatever - they all have equal weight. We've changed players more often than any other team in the league so far. I can't think why that would be a good thing. |
Thanks for the graph and table Padula. It makes a refreshing change to see some evidence rather than just anecdotes and opinions. The source would be helpful.
You say "We've changed players more often than any other team in the league so far. I can't think why that would be a good thing."
Managers including ours are frequently saying it's a squad game.
I have always thought that managing the morale and motivation of a large squad must be headache. Why wouldn't you want to give as many players, that are up to it, a chance and have as many as possible contributing and in competition?
Also sports science seems to be leading to much more use of substitutes, possibly earlier in matches too. Of course when a player is substituted early in a match due to injury that's a different kettle of fish.
The other point I would make is that the powers that be clearly seem have favoured ability over injury history in deploying our meagre budget. A risk worth taking? But such a strategy would come with an expectation of using more players. Maybe we are just seeing what the club anticipated and in a sense planned for. | | | |
| QPR and injuries on 16:25 - Sep 15 with 1006 views | Stainrod |
| QPR and injuries on 15:14 - Sep 14 by Padulas_Shampoo |
I'm not complaining or passing negative judgment. I'm just trying to add some objectivity to a thread largely full of gut feel.
I'm not claiming a settled starting XI is a key metric either - just pointing out how settled ours is relative to the rest of the league. In response to your question about Brum and Cardiff though I'd ask if rotating the squad to an extreme is conducive to results, why are 5 of the bottom 6 in the league table making up 5 of the bottom 7 in the squad rotation table?
My opinion - for whatever that's worth - Is that we have a FAR more talented squad this season than we've had for a long time. Credit where it's due for that. I'm also of the opinion that there have been a couple of worrying signs (so far) that we're incredibly physically fragile... which is the entire point of posting.
Hopefully the likes of the guys that James rightly mentioned are gaining fitness day by day and they can be on the pitch as much as possible without risking injury. If they do and a few others avoid niggling injuries we were plagued by last year, this season could be pretty special. I'd be elated to use these numbers as proof our availability is better than average over a larger sample size as soon as we have it. |
Well, you did say it “can’t be a good thing” we have rotated so much - that sounds a bit like a judgement to me.
But no worries, thank you for your table and the interesting analysis. | | | |
| QPR and injuries on 23:18 - Sep 19 with 530 views | JamesB1979 |
| QPR and injuries on 22:17 - Sep 9 by Hunterhoop |
And Lampety.
Known to be injured:
Dembele
Kemper
Chair
Kone
Saito
Lampety
Dunne
Kolli (if you believe the club…)
Unknown but not in the squad:
Poku
Hopefully some of these 9 are available to play on Sat. [Post edited 9 Sep 23:32]
|
So I think latest:
Cirkin - 3 match suspension?
Lampety - unknown
Chair - unknown
Dembele - full training but imagined few weeks away
Kemper - apparently back after international break
Kone - apparently back after international break
Vale - unknown
7 out. Hopefully 2-4 back for West Ham | | | |
| QPR and injuries on 23:49 - Sep 19 with 466 views | Hunterhoop |
| QPR and injuries on 23:18 - Sep 19 by JamesB1979 |
So I think latest:
Cirkin - 3 match suspension?
Lampety - unknown
Chair - unknown
Dembele - full training but imagined few weeks away
Kemper - apparently back after international break
Kone - apparently back after international break
Vale - unknown
7 out. Hopefully 2-4 back for West Ham |
Is Dembele full training?! I’ve missed that. I thought he was out until much later this year.
Also, there’s a nuance with a number of our players as to whether they are fit to start and do 90. We need that improving so Stephan doesn’t have his hands tied. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.