@jürgenmeisterI won't bore you all with my long list of injuries...
Talking of injuries, where's DR nowadays? Not seen him in years!
night DR x
Edit: Tagging him doesn't work.
@jürgenmeisterI won't bore you all with my long list of injuries...
Talking of injuries, where's DR nowadays? Not seen him in years!
@jürgenmeister
night DR x
Edit: Tagging him doesn't work.
And yet 10k over 90 minutes is still not very much. Even amateur runners who aren't part of a club, the kind who wake up every morning and go for a jog before work, will break 10k in 40 minutes.The top distances covered in football is akin to doing speed 9 on a treadmill for 90mins, which is piss-easy for the averge under-30, never mind peak-condition atheletes. Lets not even mention the amount of walking within a game too. It's more the intermittent sprints which might be a problem. Going 90% flat out and then walking a bit, 80% sprint then walking, 100% then walking...could be why there are more muscle pulls. Maybe they're getting injured from not moving enough! Lazy gits and wimps.I recently read an article about the distance players cover during a match. The top distance is about 13.5 kilometres and the average about 10k. It compared it to distance covered in the 80's (for which there are minimal records but nevertheless enough to make a rough comparison) which had a top distance of 8.1 kilometres and average of 7k. Just from this aspect alone, it's possible to make a correlation between increased physical activity and muscle strain, stress and injury.
Mate, it doesn't really matter how easy it is to run 13k in 90 minutes, our players can probably all smash distance/time runs on treadmills. We've got one of the fittest teams around. The point is that today's players are covering nearly twice as much ground as players in the 80's, goodness knows what it was in the 60's and 70's. It's just one aspect I thought where a correlation could be made.And yet 10k over 90 minutes is still not very much. Even amateur runners who aren't part of a club, the kind who wake up every morning and go for a jog before work, will break 10k in 40 minutes.The top distances covered in football is akin to doing speed 9 on a treadmill for 90mins, which is piss-easy for the averge under-30, never mind peak-condition atheletes. Lets not even mention the amount of walking within a game too. It's more the intermittent sprints which might be a problem. Going 90% flat out and then walking a bit, 80% sprint then walking, 100% then walking...could be why there are more muscle pulls. Maybe they're getting injured from not moving enough! Lazy gits and wimps.
I tend to agree. I remember Gerry Byrne played almost the whole of the 1965 cup final with a broken collarbone - can't imagine that happening today.I'm going with overpaid wimps .
Mate, it doesn't really matter how easy it is to run 13k in 90 minutes, our players can probably all smash distance/time runs on treadmills. We've got one of the fittest teams around. The point is that today's players are covering nearly twice as much ground as players in the 80's, goodness knows what it was in the 60's and 70's. It's just one aspect I thought where a correlation could be made.
hard grounds account for a lot of the problems as many of todays pitches are like concrete where as in the "good old days" many were more like swamps.I think also whilst the distance covered during 90 mins has increased, the number of sprints has increased. Sprints, which involves explosive acceleration from a stand still position, combined with moving in different directions so quickly could be a contributing factor.
Yeh I just read his comment again, tbf I was in the middle of something so I wasn't concentrating properly. That'll learn meThink that's what he was saying mate

Seem to remember in the 70's we did a whole season using just 13 players and it may even have been a title winning season where as now we use more than that most gamesI tend to agree. I remember Gerry Byrne played almost the whole of the 1965 cup final with a broken collarbone - can't imagine that happening today.
The culture has changed drastically since those days - apart from the disgraceful habit of feigning injury to get other players censured players seem to overreact to the slightest pain. I must stress though that not all players are prone to either of these things.
I accept the points that the tempo of the game might contribute, and that clubs are probably concerned about protecting their precious assets, but the amount of falling over and writhing in apparent agony, only to spring up and sprint away if nothing's given is embarrassing.
I often think of the buffeting a player will get during a goal celebration, and if an opponent did that to them they'd be out for six weeks.

In the old, old days subs weren't allowed unless it was for a bad injury so not many were used at all which goes back to saint's original point, why were there so few injuries?Seem to remember in the 70's we did a whole season using just 13 players and it may even have been a title winning season where as now we use more than that most games![]()
Don't encourage him.I've been waiting for mito's analytical brain to get going on researching the types of injuries showing % of contact injuries vs trauma vs pull-up injuries and such like.
He's been away a while, I'm guessing he's on it alreadyDon't encourage him.

I've been waiting for mito's analytical brain to get going on researching the types of injuries showing % of contact injuries vs trauma vs pull-up injuries and such like.
Nah. I leave googling crap stats to Jimmy.
Jimmy might well be the statistician but you are the analyst. There is a difference. Jimmy can provide the bones but you put the meat on them.Nah. I leave googling crap stats to Jimmy.
Jimmy might well be the statistician but you are the analyst. There is a difference. Jimmy can provide the bones but you put the meat on them.
Speaking of stats, has anyone heard from astro?