i agree... klopp is basically saying he's got to work up to it so you'd wonder what the **** LFc did (rodgers) sending him to USA for 3/4 months and what he did there. Klopp is basically running him and every time he ays he's a twinge klopp is saying fine you don't play this weekend then. until he goes through the full weeks training he doesn't get a game.
What he really needs is to be sent to a ridiculously expensive quacks in LA......one of those that charges a fortune to make their patients health much, much worse #basketcase
Paying him to do nothing is annoying, but it's hardly going to break the club. We'd get next to nothing for him at the moment, and then if he comes good in a year or so we'd be complete mugs. I can't see that we have any alternative but to keep him and get whatever we can out of him when he is available. I suppose unlike many, I don't tend to hate someone for being injured, and I won't read into it more than I actually know.
I'm not sure it's hatred but I can understand peoples frustrations with Studge. If the lad had to play to feed his kids would he overcome these "niggles"? If I had a day off every time my ankle ached a bit or my knee was a bit swollen my kids would starve Saint I work all day then play footy twice a week and it near ****ing kills me. I get up the following day aching like a Cheese barstool after a night under RHC....and still go to bloody work. All these regular " minor injuries" are a total farce. We don't need to see the doctors reports to know the lad doesn't play enough. If they ARE all genuine injuries then the lad needs a new career (except why bother when you're getting rich anyway). If he doesn't play much between now and May then that's the point at which we have to say we won't pay someone who we can't play. For me it's not a question of whether we can afford it in monetary terms it's that we CAN'T afford it in football terms. Rather than us trying to put all this work (and hope) into getting him fit and keeping him fit we need to redouble our efforts to find someone as good or better who actually turns up regularly. Then (and only then) selling him won't be a problem.
Since it was before my time and I can't recall the exact details but roughly... In the 70's, Liverpool won the league using just thirteen players, two of which had made a combined ten or twelve appearances. I had a LFC history video as a kid and it was on there.
It's obvious we need a striker in his mould to replace him, because we can't rely on him. If we could get one then the "footballing terms" problem is solved, and he's an expensive luxury. I just don't see that we'd get any worthwhile return on him by selling atm, even if someone was mad enough to buy. And, if he does get over his problems, then we could get a big chunk taken out of our collective arse. I'm as frustrated as anyone that he's not available, but I feel some of the reaction to him as a person on here is a little bit vindictive because of the frustration. We don't know for certain whether he's just a wimpy get or whether he has a serious recurring issue.
yes I agree. It is very hard to find one. I agree we'll get no big return off him. I think someone will be mad enough...... there's always some nut.. it would require us to bin him and never play him for someone to think they were coming in to steal him. Someone like newcastle I dunno about the personal reaction though... I've always felt the same. I think at the time (which would require a huge search) would find i said if he could stay fit he'd be a good signing. he'd the same type of injuries at cheslea, not as bad as these.. but there was a question. I still never felt he quite fit in like others. I think in his first 6 months he got two hamstrings but did quite ok then got ankle injury for england but returned fro mthat without missing too much for us... however... all through i never really felt there was big love fro him compared to others. I just wish we'd not given him a 150k per week contract while recovering form an injury.......
I think personally we don't need to look back that far. Sure we could talk 70s, 80s etc but all we need do is go look in the championship or league one and two and say... 46 league games plus cups etc... two games a week, no complaining. these guys must laugh when they hear prem players are tired.
We don't need to but it certainly shows what how pathetic modern day players can be. In the 70s and 80s, they played most of the season, they had less subs, they had far worse pitches plus the fitness and sports science was somewhat lacking compared to nowadays too. Yet we hardly ever saw players missing so much football. Of course, we did used to see a player get a injury such as a fracture and their career was over.
yes... though i'd love to know based on opta or whatever how far a 70s or 80s era player ran. I don't really think it'd be all that much less than a prem player. 10-12-14 kms depending on extremes. The thing i've always thought is hey... ok its contact sport but... distance athletes would run 10km every single day. I'd just like to know the difference in intensity. I must google it.
It's always pissed me off to hear tiredness used as an excuse- sometimes after a dozen games. However, like ghosts or alien abductions, if enough people talk about it often enough, it becomes an accepted truth amongst some.
Another point there that I'd missed. Contact! Back in the 70s and 80s, players were allowed to tackle and I don't mean "win the ball"
Not defending them because quite simply, they don't know what tired is! However, they do train as well as play, plus attend tactics sessions etc as well so its not just the dozen games you alluded to either.
Never?! By that I meant about a quarter of the way into a season. Training shouldn't be tiring them out, it should be preparing them.
maybe tiredness is relative. maybe its merely comparing one set of players to another. one might has slightly less energy having played more recently and so look flat. but i cannot call it tiredness compared to others. i found this btw http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/how-much-football-has-changed.1687646/ and I refuse to beleive a 3.5km average distance at all that was mentioned i nthe second one.
i also found this The typical distance covered by a top-level outfield male player during a match is 10–13 km (Bangsbo et al., 1991; Mohr et al., 2003; Krustrup et al., 2005; Bangsbo et al., 2006; Mascio & Bradley, 2013). However, the majority of the distance is covered by walking and low-intensity running and it is mainly the high-intensity exercise periods which are important. The amount of high-speed running is what distinguishes top-class players from those at a lower level. Computerised time-motion analysis has demonstrated that international top-class players perform 28% more high-intensity running (2.43 vs. 1.90 km) and 58% more sprinting (650 vs. 410 m) than professional players at a lower level (Mohr et al., 2003). Furthermore, Ingebrigtsen et al. (2012) found that top teams in the Danish League covered 30–40% more high-speed running distance compared to the middle and bottom teams. On the other hand, Di Salvo et al. (2013) observed that Championship players did more high-speed running and sprinting than players in the Premier League, even though the differences were small. Along the same lines, a study comparing the match performance of players in the top three competitive standards of English football found that players in the second (Championship) and third (League 1) categories performed more high-speed running (>19 km/h) than those in the Premier League (803, 881 and 681 m, respectively), which was also the case for sprinting (308, 360 and 248 m, respectively) (Bradley et al., 2013a). This accounted for all positions. In addition, a group of players (n=20) changing teams and moving down from the Premier League to the Championship League covered more distance with high-intensity running (1103 vs. 995 m), whereas no difference was observed for players moving up from Championship to Premier (945 vs. 1021 m). The differences may be related to playing style, with Premier League teams utilising possession tactics rather than the long ball tactic typically used at lower standards, demonstrating the major influence of tactics on physical performance. It is interesting that the high-speed distance covered was markedly greater for the lower level team when the ball was out of play. No difference in the Yo-Yo Intermittent Endurance Test Level 2 was observed between the various groups, suggesting that the differences were not due to differences in physical capacity. It should be noted that the performance on the Yo-Yo Test of Premier League players was about 2,300 m, which is less than observed for lower standards in Scandinavia (Heisterberg et al., 2013). Thus, the lower performance of Premier League players may also be due to the insufficient fitness level of these players. The data may not be representative for other national leagues. http://www.gssiweb.org/Article/sse-125-physiological-demands-of-football A lot of sources quoted in it and the summary for greez is the distance might be 10km but what kind of 10 k is it, whats the intensity.... i'm not really sure about this stuff.
You are feeling sleepy....... The thing is, it can be used as an excuse for a poor performance, and so it's difficult to know whether there's any truth in a particular claim. Although a lot is asked of modern players at the highest level, they should be managed so that they have sufficient recovery time between high level exertions. They may work more than players in the past, but they are supposed to be that much fitter as well. It's hard not to see it as little more than a whinge when things don't go well. We all know that when we're enjoying something we get a lift and feel like we could go on forever, but if it's not working out, we feel "tired". I think the psychology behind it is a more significant factor than is commonly recognised. I shudder to think how some of the poor lambs would get on if they had to do basic training for the forces.
