Just when we thought the new medical set up at West Ham had cured all our ills, along comes the injury jinx again to lay low half our squad. It was Curbishley's out dated training regime and a bunch of quacks who were responsible for all the injuries we were told. Well, it seems that may have been so much tosh.
Still no Gabbidon or Beano, but that's hardly a surprise. Add to that list Dyer's recurring woes, Collins, Behrami, Luis Boa-Morte (every cloud has a silver lining), Upson, Collison and now Carlton Goals. Suddenly we are competing at the top of the Sick Note League again!
Personally I still blame Turds. He should have bought that sprig of heather off that gypsy the day he arrived to take the job. I mean, he spent all that money on Ljungberg, surely he could have found a pound to avoid a curse?
The Tevez affair, all those injuries, the Icelandic Banking Crisis, the Global Economic Melt Down - it's all Curbishley's fault! I tell you what, the G12 should pass a resolution to find that gypsy quick and buy her a new caravan. In fact, they could give her Alan's and the brown Volvo into the bargain. Until she is appeased, nothing will be good!
12 comments:
Certainly the arrival of Antonio Pintus seemed to herald an end to our injury woes. With Pintus in charge of fitness and Halfpintus in charge of first team affairs the future looked bright, we were gallonteed success. But we seem to have been quart out by the smallness of our squad. It was all looking so good, is it going to turn sour in true claret and blue fashion?
In '85 when we finished third, we fielded the same team week in, week out, and that has been key to any smaller team that has had a year of tilting at the big boys. If I was a manager, the first thing I would look at in a potential purchase is "how many games does he manage a season". With that in mind, I would take a controversial view and say that I would consider selling both Parker and Upson if the offer was anything like that that we got for Bellamy. Good players certainly, good attitudes; right now their values are as high as they will ever be. In three months time they could be out with a season long injury, just look at their records.
With all due respect El Martillo, the game in 1985 is a completely different game to the current one. Injuries are a fact. Having higher levels of fitness, playing games at a higher tempo, and eating specialised diets for the entirety of peoples playing careers means that it is inevitable that people will get injured. We have a small squad, that is our problem. We got lucky initially in the respect that Collison was better than we all imagined, otherwise Boa Morte would have been starting every game! The board got rid of the past regieme's bad moves in terms of players and some other fringe players and got caught out. I dont blame them because most if not all of the players weren't good enough for what we are aspiring to do. Plus a set of law suits against us, the current financial state, and our owners being broke didnt set us up for an extravagent Christmas. However, if we are to be anything other than a mid table team, dramatic reinvestment is needed, not getting rid of our better players like Upson and Parker. I don't want to be one of those supporters who bangs on about money, but simply put, we still dont have a big enough/strong enough squad for where we are at the moment. Get rid of Ashton, yes. He needs a fresh lease of life somewhere. Great player, not for West Ham. Dyer the same. Players that have consistantly performed throughout the season, keep and treasure. For this read, Parker, Upson, Behrami, Collsion, Illunga, Green, Noble, and God, yes, Carlton Cole.
I'm afraid injuries were just as prevalent in '85 as they are now, it was our lack of them that facilitated our best season; as for eating specialised diets, I'm not sure how that makes injuries inevitable.
Other than that I think you agree with me, we have too small a squad. I'm not suggesting that we "get rid" of Parker and Upson. I'm saying that if we were offered in the region of £15M for each, we could possibly use that money to help build a stronger squad whereas their injury records suggest we may soon be seeing them back in the treatment room for an extended period.
We saw that last week; It's not as good as the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.
Apparently the Home Secretary's hubby watched the porn version on House of Commons expenses!
"injuries were just as prevalent in '85 as they are now", that has got to be the biggest load of tripe i have ever heard on any football website, blog etc etc. its like saying the game was just as quick as it was in 85. my word, get a brain mate.
Steady on mate. Do you have the statistics to hand by any chance? Why should there be any more injuries now than then? The game was much more physical in those days so I would expect there to be less injuries now but I have no idea if that is the case without checking the statistics.
I'm just back from the brain shop Anon. I tried to get one like yours but apparently they've been "recalled" due to a fault; so I upgraded to the standard model. Fortunately they had a special offer and they were giving away free capital letters, so I got you a few.
Hammersfan. Why would i need stats to prove it. You have stated the game was a lot more physical back then. Correct. How many injuries nowadays are through physical contact or due to the speed or play, ie Jack Collison or Carlton Cole or other like it. Most injuries now are tissue injuries not bones injuries. I cant be bothered to look up the injury stats, but doesnt it look obvious, back then you had squad of 14 playing the whole season, nowadays, let me think... El Martillo, thanks for the really good counter argument with stats and figures, you're intelligence is amazing. Great blog !!!
As I made the initial statement regarding injuries I rather think it is up to you to come back with the "counter argument with stats and figures" rather than the actual drivel that you produced.
El martillo. When you make a statement about what you think or an opinion you should normaly back it up with something conclusive, therefore the onus is on you to prove your point first before spouting "drivel" as you say. Can you imagine what world we would live in if all officials were like you. I have pointed out, not that i need to, that squad are larger nowadays, and therefore the suggestion is there are more injuries. You have just stated that there were as many injuries as there were back then. It doesnt take an iota of inteligence to see that my statement, whetehr right or wrong, albeit right and correct, is more factual than your grab from the sky comment. What makes me sick from new blobs like this is the author and site owner always seems to stick up with their writers. Maybe you should vet the knowledge of your authors, as this guy although not an author on this topic seems to know near on nothing about football.
Anon, first off this is not a new blog, it has been live for approximately two years. Secondly, although I have a lot of time for EMO because I know him to be a highly intelligent guy, I will rip him apart like a lion does a zebra if I think he is in the wrong. Thirdly, I think footballers were less precious in those days because they had to be. There was only one sub so you played through the pain. There were no fat contracts so you got off your sick bed and played if your ankle was hurting. Do you think these "injuries" are new? Of course they aren't; what's new is agents saying, "If you play my lad when he is injured, we will demand a move." Dyer? Ashton? They would have been playing in the 70's and biting the bullet. What did Clough say to Eddie Grey when he took over at Leeds, "If you were a race horse you would have been shot years back". Ashton would be in Clough's dog food by now. Dyer would have been manure three years ago!
Post a Comment