Made of Glass

Get Carter · 19th July 2010, 07:33 PM

Lots of comments on lots of different players about how injury prone they are. Did players of other eras just play through the pain barrier do you think? Or does the modern day player not Know the difference between a twinge and an injury. Or do they overtrain. Seems to be a lot of hamstrings/cruciates/backs about!

Daydream Believer · 19th July 2010, 07:52 PM

Fergie once said of Saha that he didn't understand the difference between being hurt & being injured. I think this is the main problem with players who are repeatedly out with relatively minor niggles.

martin_s_buckley · 19th July 2010, 07:52 PM

In days gone by, the wages were pretty basic, backed up by appearance money and win bonuses. In essence, no play, no pay.

Nowadays, the pampered so and so's get a huge wage whether they play or not. The desire to get out on the pitch and bust a gut for a victory has died.

SAFCOldie · 19th July 2010, 08:02 PM

Good point. Not that long ago teams got through a season on 13 or 14 players, frequently playing on bomb sites of football fields in the winter months and against 'legal' hatchet men.

Seems crazy when you think a pro getting a career ending injury back then would be well & truly financialy screwed, whilst today they could retire on a few months wages if needs be.

Rammses · 19th July 2010, 08:07 PM

Less to do with pain barriers and primadonnas, more to do with squads of 30, making an injured player a liability on the field when he could easily be replaced by a slightly worse but fit player. And even if you could perform with the minor injury, you're more likely to get another injury while playing injured, so even then it's better to go with the slightly worse fit player.

viccarlton · 19th July 2010, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martin_s_buckley

Nowadays, the pampered so and so's get a huge wage whether they play or not. The desire to get out on the pitch and bust a gut for a victory has died.

Correct.

jcrossan · 19th July 2010, 08:11 PM

[QUOTE=SAFCOldie;8137163]Good point. Not that long ago teams got through a season on 13 or 14 players, frequently playing on bomb sites of football fields in the winter months and against 'legal' hatchet men.

So true.

The first season I watched Sunderland, 1963-64, the team was essentially the same throughout the season. I could rattle off their names easily. Can't do that for the team which played last season, no one could because it changed so much each week.

In addition to the biggest squads, lack of "from behind" tackles, better playing surfaces, improved physio and training, the players in today's game quite often only play 70 minutes, especially midfielders. Back in the 60s and 70s there was only one sub and he would often not be used other than injury. Plus many players are rested for the early cup games: not like in the earlier days when those games meant a lot more.

stubber · 19th July 2010, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcrossan

Good point. Not that long ago teams got through a season on 13 or 14 players, frequently playing on bomb sites of football fields in the winter months and against 'legal' hatchet men.

So true.

The first season I watched Sunderland, 1963-64, the team was essentially the same throughout the season. I could rattle off their names easily. Can't do that for the team which played last season, no one could because it changed so much each week.

In addition to the biggest squads, lack of "from behind" tackles, better playing surfaces, improved physio and training, the players in today's game quite often only play 70 minutes, especially midfielders. Back in the 60s and 70s there was only one sub and he would often not be used other than injury. Plus many players are rested for the early cup games: not like in the earlier days when those games meant a lot more.

I seem to recall it was a rarity to have a player out injured. Bobby Kerr's twice broken leg was unusual & rather shocking. The others that come to mind are Cloughie's career-ender and Gary Rowell's bad injury.

Get Carter · 19th July 2010, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stubber

I seem to recall it was a rarity to have a player out injured. Bobby Kerr's twice broken leg was unusual & rather shocking. The others that come to mind are Cloughie's career-ender and Gary Rowell's bad injury.

Maybe if you are getting paid 20K a week and more, players are more worried about extending their careers for a few more months..more than the 60's players earned in their careers

jcrossan · 19th July 2010, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stubber

I seem to recall it was a rarity to have a player out injured. Bobby Kerr's twice broken leg was unusual & rather shocking. The others that come to mind are Cloughie's career-ender and Gary Rowell's bad injury.

Ritchie Pitt was another one.

And the best player I ever played against, kid named Stronach, signed for Sunderland and could have been a top player but had a series of awful injuries and never made it. Sad.

I played against him for Chester le Street boys when he (and Wilf Rostrom (spl) ) played for Sunderland boys. We'd all have been 15/16. Strange..I would have sworn Stronach would be a huge success yet never rated a player on my own team that much..Bryan Robson. Of course the one I didn't rate went on to captain England. Shows you what I know.