Should Alderweireld have continued playing vs Arsenal?

I decide to make this poll after Andy Carroll continued

please log in to view this image

playing

please log in to view this image

tonight.

Carroll could barely move in the last 20 minutes. But it meant we had to leave some players back to cover him. He helped West Ham just by staying on the pitch. Carroll got injured earlier in the game than Alderweireld vs Arsenal. Alderweireld played 90 minutes against Burnley 10 days after the Arsenal game. Should he have continued

please log in to view this image

in that game vs Arsenal, even if he just stood at striker like Carroll tonight?


Anonymous poll.

 

If the medical team advised otherwise, absolutely unequivocally no.

 

Anyone who voted "yes" is pretty much an idiot.

 

NO! Carroll played on and risked making the injury worse. Only morons do that.

 

As Ron has said on more than one occasion, the health of the player is more important than the result.

 

No, he could have, like Carroll did, made his injury much worse.

 

No. It was a muscular injury. Shortest recovery time will come from earliest rest before rehab. Very easy to turn a strain into a tear or a light tear into a major tear that requires surgery.

 

Health of player always the most important...it was hardly the end of the Champions' League final, was it? Ask me again after that next season

 

With Carroll it was difficult to see what difference the injury made...LOL

 

I voted no because I don't want to be seen as an idiot!

 

The point is he could have just stood still and he would have contributed. That wouldn't have risked an injury at all. Like on the corner late in the game last night. We kept two players back because Carroll was stood completely still on half way.

 

And what if someone had wiped him out? That wouldn't have done him any good at all.

 

Even Messi did what I am saying in a game once when he was injured just to be an extra man. The difference is he stood on the touchline on half way, rather than central. Opposition players aren't going to randomly attack a player that is clearly injured.

Ronaldo stayed on with an eye injury and just didn't challenge 50-50s properly. The two most valuable players in the world can do it, but Alderweireld can't?

 

In the first game of our Championship play-off against Derby (in whatever year that was), Bale was injured yet they kept him playing. As such he wasn't able to play in the second leg and we eventually lost because of it.

Thank goodness.........but thats not the point. You should never play anyone who is not 100% fit thats why I was surprised even to see Carroll on the bench. If he was 100% surely he would have started over Cole. If he wasn't, why was he even on the bench?

 

Spider failed a very late fitness test, hence only six subs, had he played, the risk would have been the same, was it worth that? He should be able to recover ready for the Liverpool game, the question is now, would you play him or have other players deserved to keep their place on merit? Glad I am not the one making the choices.

 

It's different. Alderweireld could have just stood still as an emergency. A starting player can't do that. I'd play Reed and Wanyama again and give him time to recover if he's not 100%.

 

I did this once, played half a game with torn ankle ligaments and a lot of strapping. I didn't play again for 1.5 years. Its NEVER worth the risk. OK maybe in the Euro final!

 

Sounds like you kept playing then, rather than just standing still to be an extra man........

 

Beyond the obvious medical implications, I think if you're ever asking yourself 'Should we do what Andy Carroll does?'... The answer is no.

 

You don't carry on playing as such with torn ligaments I can assure you.

However, most of the team thought it was my best game for them