Wilson and Solomon Injuries

[FFC1987]

It's a bit weird all this anger at what is standard practice (letting a guy who hadn't played much football for weeks to play football games to generate match fitness and sharpness).

The only reason people are annoyed is because he got injured, obviously. But marginal rsk of injury is not a reason to get players  up to match fitness in order for them to make a bigger impact more quickly, or indeed reduce chances of injury when physical intensity is raised in actual games

It's crap but injuries happen, and new signings are no less liable to this. Just look at the new cbs at villa and w ham.

'It's a bit weird all this anger at what is standard practice (letting a guy who hadn't played much football for weeks to play football games to generate match fitness and sharpness).'

The point here, isn't anger, it's understanding. And that sentence is incorrect. It's not standard practice to be in two match day squads in 2 days. It's the opposite at pretty much every club that players aren't in two match day squads, hence the understanding part is where the frustration is at.

That is incorrect I am afraid. For example: villareals back to back friendlies against ourselves and Southampton. Another example might be Chilwell who was on the bench on Sunday and playing vs our reserves on Monday.

They're anomalies not rules. They are actual rules from at least 6 academies I've spoken to. Which again, is why I think it's weird. As I mentioned, maybe that's just not the rule at Fulham anymore but it certainly used to be.

[alfie]

It's a bit weird all this anger at what is standard practice (letting a guy who hadn't played much football for weeks to play football games to generate match fitness and sharpness).

The only reason people are annoyed is because he got injured, obviously. But marginal rsk of injury is not a reason to get players  up to match fitness in order for them to make a bigger impact more quickly, or indeed reduce chances of injury when physical intensity is raised in actual games

It's crap but injuries happen, and new signings are no less liable to this. Just look at the new cbs at villa and w ham.

'It's a bit weird all this anger at what is standard practice (letting a guy who hadn't played much football for weeks to play football games to generate match fitness and sharpness).'

The point here, isn't anger, it's understanding. And that sentence is incorrect. It's not standard practice to be in two match day squads in 2 days. It's the opposite at pretty much every club that players aren't in two match day squads, hence the understanding part is where the frustration is at.

That is incorrect I am afraid. For example: villareals back to back friendlies against ourselves and Southampton. Another example might be Chilwell who was on the bench on Sunday and playing vs our reserves on Monday.

They're anomalies not rules. They are actual rules from at least 6 academies I've spoken to. Which again, is why I think it's weird. As I mentioned, maybe that's just not the rule at Fulham anymore but it certainly used to be.

You may be right, but who makes that rule, surely it's down to the team manager to decide who plays where and when.

[LRCN]

It's a bit weird all this anger at what is standard practice (letting a guy who hadn't played much football for weeks to play football games to generate match fitness and sharpness).

The only reason people are annoyed is because he got injured, obviously. But marginal rsk of injury is not a reason to get players  up to match fitness in order for them to make a bigger impact more quickly, or indeed reduce chances of injury when physical intensity is raised in actual games

It's crap but injuries happen, and new signings are no less liable to this. Just look at the new cbs at villa and w ham.

'It's a bit weird all this anger at what is standard practice (letting a guy who hadn't played much football for weeks to play football games to generate match fitness and sharpness).'

The point here, isn't anger, it's understanding. And that sentence is incorrect. It's not standard practice to be in two match day squads in 2 days. It's the opposite at pretty much every club that players aren't in two match day squads, hence the understanding part is where the frustration is at.

That is incorrect I am afraid. For example: villareals back to back friendlies against ourselves and Southampton. Another example might be Chilwell who was on the bench on Sunday and playing vs our reserves on Monday.

They're anomalies not rules. They are actual rules from at least 6 academies I've spoken to. Which again, is why I think it's weird. As I mentioned, maybe that's just not the rule at Fulham anymore but it certainly used to be.

I did not say they are rules. They are indeed examples that show it is not a rule followed by every other club. It will flex based on player needs and profile.

[FFC1987]

It's a bit weird all this anger at what is standard practice (letting a guy who hadn't played much football for weeks to play football games to generate match fitness and sharpness).

The only reason people are annoyed is because he got injured, obviously. But marginal rsk of injury is not a reason to get players  up to match fitness in order for them to make a bigger impact more quickly, or indeed reduce chances of injury when physical intensity is raised in actual games

It's crap but injuries happen, and new signings are no less liable to this. Just look at the new cbs at villa and w ham.

'It's a bit weird all this anger at what is standard practice (letting a guy who hadn't played much football for weeks to play football games to generate match fitness and sharpness).'

The point here, isn't anger, it's understanding. And that sentence is incorrect. It's not standard practice to be in two match day squads in 2 days. It's the opposite at pretty much every club that players aren't in two match day squads, hence the understanding part is where the frustration is at.

That is incorrect I am afraid. For example: villareals back to back friendlies against ourselves and Southampton. Another example might be Chilwell who was on the bench on Sunday and playing vs our reserves on Monday.

They're anomalies not rules. They are actual rules from at least 6 academies I've spoken to. Which again, is why I think it's weird. As I mentioned, maybe that's just not the rule at Fulham anymore but it certainly used to be.

I did not say they are rules. They are indeed examples that show it is not a rule followed by every other club. It will flex based on player needs and profile.

Sure. That's been mentioned previously. As I originally said I'm surprised as I reached out to a number of coaches still in setups including Norwich, Ipswich and Southampton and they seemed surprised it's not universal. Clearly as you pointed out it's not and it's happened. Ah well.

[toshes mate]

As I stated very clearly human beings cannot cope with randomness because we like, to differeing degrees, to be (or seem to be) in control.  All the clubs in the world of football have human beings struggling with the concept of randomness and thinking how can I limit risk and honour my duty of care to others (and we all have this duty of care)? 

The same degree of risk exists in not doing something as there is in doing it, but, for the oddest of reasons, we seem to believe that by assessing risk and appearing to be safety conscious gets us off the hook.  That is nonsense unless the individual has somehow mastered randomness and can foretell the future.  The reason why we are by and large so useless at prediction is because our brains and our technology cannot do randomness in any realistic shape or form and prediction has to embrace randomness to have any chance of happening.  The best we can do is make weather forecasts up to minutes because we can track rain etc. on radar and present it on a mobile phone.  Of course by then it'll be raining where you are already ... but it's nice to be in control.

[Cobh Fulham Fan]

Did you know you were going to write that Tosh, or did it just come out randomly?  064.gif 049:gif

[FFC1987]

As I stated very clearly human beings cannot cope with randomness because we like, to differeing degrees, to be (or seem to be) in control.  All the clubs in the world of football have human beings struggling with the concept of randomness and thinking how can I limit risk and honour my duty of care to others (and we all have this duty of care)? 

The same degree of risk exists in not doing something as there is in doing it, but, for the oddest of reasons, we seem to believe that by assessing risk and appearing to be safety conscious gets us off the hook.  That is nonsense unless the individual has somehow mastered randomness and can foretell the future.  The reason why we are by and large so useless at prediction is because our brains and our technology cannot do randomness in any realistic shape or form and prediction has to embrace randomness to have any chance of happening.  The best we can do is make weather forecasts up to minutes because we can track rain etc. on radar and present it on a mobile phone.  Of course by then it'll be raining where you are already ... but it's nice to be in control.

I've messaged you. Think it would be better to do that than carry this on here and bore everyone else!

[toshes mate]

Did you know you were going to write that Tosh, or did it just come out randomly?  064.gif 049:gif

Well I was going to respond to FFC1987 yesterday but events which I should have predicted (but frankly speaking I am lousy at it) overtook me and I couldn't get near the computer until this am when I had spare time.  I checked this topic very briefly but then got a few chores to do. It wasn't until I typed the response above that I knew what I would type.  The words and ideas are always there somewhere in the rabble but they get shaped as I type and so I would lie to say I knew what I would type.  I had an idea but that is all it was. 

As my nearests and dearests tell me frequently I am very predictably unpredictable.  Our brains are random in ways that have mystified psychologists for decades but they will soon sell you the secrets of getting grey matter back under control provided you pay up ...  our brains are something else entirely and incredibly well engineered for any number of weird and wonderful things like making us fall in love, dream, bring kids up, have silly conversations, pass exams, play musical instruments. write books, paint pictures, make stuff and it is all very much accessing what we somehow randomly store from the past whether or not we intended to do it.  Is this process logical and/or predictable?   Who knows because I don't?

[filham]

Toshes Mate, just keep taking the pills.

[FFC1987]

 

Toshes Mate, just keep taking the pills.

:005:

[LittleErn]

Toshes Mate, just keep taking the pills.

:005:

Is there a pill for verbal diarrhea ?

[toshes mate]

Toshes Mate, just keep taking the pills.

With doctors in my family I constantly hear that phrase although I never realised it was aimed at me.  Oh, how randomness doth work.

The question now is which pills? The blue ones or the red ones?  Hang on there is only one of each ... which shall I choose?

[perry geyton]

As I stated very clearly human beings cannot cope with randomness because we like, to differeing degrees, to be (or seem to be) in control.  All the clubs in the world of football have human beings struggling with the concept of randomness and thinking how can I limit risk and honour my duty of care to others (and we all have this duty of care)? 

The same degree of risk exists in not doing something as there is in doing it, but, for the oddest of reasons, we seem to believe that by assessing risk and appearing to be safety conscious gets us off the hook.  That is nonsense unless the individual has somehow mastered randomness and can foretell the future.  The reason why we are by and large so useless at prediction is because our brains and our technology cannot do randomness in any realistic shape or form and prediction has to embrace randomness to have any chance of happening.  The best we can do is make weather forecasts up to minutes because we can track rain etc. on radar and present it on a mobile phone.  Of course by then it'll be raining where you are already ... but it's nice to be in control.

I've messaged you. Think it would be better to do that than carry this on here and bore everyone else!

That's a bit strange

[FFC1987]

As I stated very clearly human beings cannot cope with randomness because we like, to differeing degrees, to be (or seem to be) in control.  All the clubs in the world of football have human beings struggling with the concept of randomness and thinking how can I limit risk and honour my duty of care to others (and we all have this duty of care)? 

The same degree of risk exists in not doing something as there is in doing it, but, for the oddest of reasons, we seem to believe that by assessing risk and appearing to be safety conscious gets us off the hook.  That is nonsense unless the individual has somehow mastered randomness and can foretell the future.  The reason why we are by and large so useless at prediction is because our brains and our technology cannot do randomness in any realistic shape or form and prediction has to embrace randomness to have any chance of happening.  The best we can do is make weather forecasts up to minutes because we can track rain etc. on radar and present it on a mobile phone.  Of course by then it'll be raining where you are already ... but it's nice to be in control.

I've messaged you. Think it would be better to do that than carry this on here and bore everyone else!

That's a bit strange

Not as strange as half of your posts. Shouldn't be crying somewhere about Ream or TC?

[toshes mate]

I've messaged you. Think it would be better to do that than carry this on here and bore everyone else!

That's a bit strange

Not as strange as half of your posts. Shouldn't be crying somewhere about Ream or TC?

On the last point I would count the PM as "strange" since there was a discussion going on on this thread - people can freely comment, ignore it or read it. 

My comments about randomness being difficult to comprehend apply to human beings en masse including me.  Like everyone else on the planet if you asked me to fake randomness I would fail although I do have ideas about what kind of things may help a programmer wanting to write an algorithm to produce randomness rather better than computers currently do.  For starters better key drivers of the random number routines but finding them is ridiculously difficult. 

Correlation needs randomnised 'somethings'. To test a hypothesis you need randomness to be present somewhere. 

The choices are generally in randomnised trials of the hypothesis if they cannot be present in the data itself - i.e. looking at a bunch of athletes in 'academies' and their injury records may prove something but it would tough to know just what it is without testing people who are not in academies. 

Most people are generically likely to 'injure' themselves in their living rooms, sometimes via what they eat and drink apart from trips, falls, etc.  That applies to academy attendees too since training routines are set up to avoid injury rather than cause it.   But what causes injury and is it chance or design? 

You need randomness to find that out for you.  You may or may not find the hypothesis falls at the first hurdle because when we have done something successfully 100 times in training but the first time we do it in competition we suffer injury just what causes that injury if it isn't randomness? 

Can you say it was bad training protocoil without testing that theory out?   I don't think so.