Aluko, too big a risk?

I read on here that Aluko was the most fouled player in the EPL before his injury, but of course that's no excuse for getting injured is it?

 

I dont understand this.... is it a genuine statement from you or are you mocking what someone else said? Cos its a ****ing ridiculous statement whoever said it.

That Messi and Ronaldo are always injured arent they....

 

To me these 2 are linked, cos if he doest have an op then I can totall see a Fryatt situation history repeating ie we delay as long as poss as we try and 'manage the injury' and then have to do the op anyway wasting a good ****ing 2 months.

 

I reckon aluko will be out for the season, he'll need the surgery I reckon

 

It was ever so slightly sarcastic

 

It might be less confusing if you direct your sarcasm at the original post /poster rather than someone else. Just a thought.

 

Precisely. How the frig am I meant to know if it's genuine or not?

 

So is your point that the most fouled player in the EPL isn't more likely to get injured?
(Please respond directly and preferably more than a giggle)

 

I find it hard to believe that Aluko is the most fouled player, both in general and due to the little game time he has had, so I would be grateful for your source on that information.

More fouls obviously mean there is more risk of injury. That isn't to say he will get injured more, and still doesn't deter from what seems to be quite obvious to most - that knee is made of glass.

Barry's challenge was a shocker. So was Dossena's on Meyler.

If SB is to be believed though, the tear came from warming up, not being snapped in a game...

 

As I said on #41 I read on here that he was the most fouled player before his injury. I didn't note who said it.

You're right that more fouls obviously means there's more risk of injury and there's no doubting that Aluko gets fouled a lot.

 

Why do more fouls mean more injuries? Crunching fair tackles can be absolute killers whereas a foul could be a gentle tug on a shirt.

 

Why do more fouls mean more injuries? Crunching fair tackles can be absolute killers whereas a foul could be a gentle tug on a shirt.

 

That's my point. However, more fouls does mean the risk of more injuries.

 

If on average (say) 60% of fouls are deemed dangerous and in one game; player A. gets fouled 10 times and player B. gets fouled twice. Which player is more likely to get injured from a foul?

Like you say some fouls aren't dangerous and some fair tackles are but if a player is fouled a lot the probability of injury has to be greater than for a player who is rarely fouled.

 

Aluko is currently the joint 6th most fouled player in the league with Jon Walters, behind Delph & Hazard (joint 1st), Ross Barkley (3rd) and Kasami & Lallana (joint 4th).

 

That all works if 60% of fouls are dangerous. When was that declared?

 

But if he got injured warming up how is it relevent how many times he's been fouled ?

He is just injury prone

 

That's why I used the word "say" - the figure is hypothetical. It might be more or it might be less, but it's not rocket science that more fouls = a greater chance of injury.

 

As far as im aware, his achilles is ****ed and unlike fryatt who seems to have recovered well aluko injured it again in the warm up apparently

Now im no medical expert, but the achilles is s difficult one to heal and his may never heal properly and thus he will struggle with it for the rest of his career

I could be wrong ofcourse but its twice in less than a year

I'll be surprised if he doesn't end up getting surgery